Importance

Little is known about nonfatal firearm injuries in the United States, and national estimates based on emergency department samples may not be accurate.

Objective

To describe the incidence and distribution of nonfatal firearm injuries and estimate case fatality ratios (CFRs) for firearm injuries by external cause of injury code within California overall and by race/ethnicity, including an assessment of trends over time and geographic variation within the state.

Design, setting, and participants

This serial cross-sectional study used complete statewide data for firearm-related mortality, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations among California residents from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2015, to analyze incidence, distribution, and CFRs of firearm injury. Data were analyzed from 2018 to 2019.

Exposures

All individuals in California with a firearm injury based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision codes were included.

Main outcomes and measures

Counts and rates of nonfatal firearm injuries overall and stratified by external cause, sex, and race/ethnicity; total and clinical CFRs. Clinical CFR was calculated based on individuals treated in emergency departments or hospitals.

Results

Over the study period, there were 81 085 firearm-related emergency department visits and hospitalizations among individuals with a mean (SD) age of 27.5 (11.9) years, 72 567 (89.6%) of whom were men. Nonfatal firearm injuries in California decreased by 38.1% between 2005 and 2015, driven by a 46.4% decrease in assaultive injuries. Self-inflicted injuries and unintentional injuries remained relatively stable. The overall CFR for firearm injuries increased from 27.6% in 2005 to 32.2% in 2015 for a relative increase of 20.7%, while the clinical CFR remained stable between 7.0% and 9.0%.

Conclusions and relevance

These findings suggest that although the number of firearm injuries has decreased in California, the lethality of these injuries has not. Similar studies from other states could provide more information about these trends nationwide.

Background

Firearm injury and death are significant public health problems in the U.S. and physicians are uniquely situated to help prevent them. However, there is little formal training in medical education on identifying risk for firearm injury and discussing safe firearm practices with patients. This study assesses prior education, barriers to counseling, and needs for improved training on firearm safety counseling in medical education to inform the development of future education on clinical strategies for firearm injury prevention.

Method

A 2018 survey administered to 218 residents and fellows at a large, academic medical center asked about medical training on firearm injury prevention, frequency of asking patients about firearm access, and perceived barriers.

Results

The most common barriers cited were not knowing what to do with patients' answers about access to firearms (72.1%), not having enough time (66.2%), not feeling comfortable identifying patients at-risk for firearm injury (49.2%), and not knowing how to ask patients about firearm access (48.6%). Prior education on firearm injury prevention was more strongly associated with asking than was personal exposure to firearms: 51.5% of respondents who had prior medical education reported asking compared with who had not received such education (31.8%, p=0.004). More than 90% of respondents were interested in further education about interventions, what questions to ask, and legal mechanisms to separate dangerous people from their firearms.

Conclusions

Education on assessing risk for firearm-related harm and, when indicated, counseling on safe firearm practices may increase the likelihood clinicians practice this behavior, though additional barriers exist.

Background

Despite the widespread institution of modern massive transfusion protocols with balanced blood product ratios, survival for patients with traumatic hemorrhage receiving ultramassive transfusion (UMT) (defined as ≥20 U of packed red blood cells [RBCs]) in 24 hours) remains low and resource consumption remains high. Therefore, we aimed to identify factors associated with mortality in trauma patients receiving UMT in the modern resuscitation era.

Methods

An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter retrospective study of 461 trauma patients from 17 trauma centers who received ≥20 U of RBCs in 24 hours was performed (2014-2019). Multivariable logistic regression and Classification and Regression Tree analysis were used to identify clinical characteristics associated with mortality.

Results

The 461 patients were young (median age, 35 years), male (82%), severely injured (median Injury Severity Score, 33), in shock (median shock index, 1.2; base excess, -9), and transfused a median of 29 U of RBCs, 22 U of fresh frozen plasma (FFP), and 24 U of platelets (PLT). Mortality was 46% at 24 hours and 65% at discharge. Transfusion of RBC/FFP ≥1.5:1 or RBC/PLT ≥1.5:1 was significantly associated with mortality, most pronounced for the 18% of patients who received both RBC/PLT and RBC/FFP ≥1.5:1 (odds ratios, 3.11 and 2.81 for mortality at 24 hours and discharge; both p < 0.01). Classification and Regression Tree identified that age older than 50 years, low initial Glasgow Coma Scale, thrombocytopenia, and resuscitative thoracotomy were associated with low likelihood of survival (14-26%), while absence of these factors was associated with the highest survival (71%).

Conclusion

Despite modern massive transfusion protocols, one half of trauma patients receiving UMT are transfused with either RBC/FFP or RBC/PLT in unbalanced ratios ≥1.5:1, with increased associated mortality. Maintaining focus on balanced ratios during UMT is critical, and consideration of advanced age, poor initial mental status, thrombocytopenia, and resuscitative thoracotomy can aid in prognostication.

Level of evidence

Prognostic, level III.