Discussion
A recent study has shown that only 7% of adult Level-1 trauma centers20 and 36.17% of pediatric trauma centers had a protocol for assessing PTSD; 12.5% of Level I adult centers and 27.66% of pediatric trauma centers had an assessment protocol for ASD.21 In this study, we found 4 x as many subjects (16.9%) qualified for a diagnosis of PTSD compared with the 1 year prevalence for PTSD (3.5%) in the general population, and almost 1.5 x higher than what has previously been reported among trauma patients.1 2 Individuals who were hospitalized after a trauma are at a significantly elevated risk for developing PTSD compared with the general population. As such, it is important to screen this population for developing PTSD. Of note, we found that ISS was not a predictor for PTSD for patients who are hospitalized after a level II trauma. This is consistent with previous literature that has shown that ISS is not a predictor for PTSD or PTSD severity.22 23 It should be noted that ISS is primarily a marker of injury severity in blunt trauma (as that suffered by our study sample). This finding may not be replicated when working with ISS in patients who have penetrating trauma.
Our findings indicate that although using a simple screening question assessing the experience of fear, helplessness, or horror predicted PTSD severity, it was not effective for predicting PTSD diagnosis. Administering a multifaceted screening tool such as the NSESSS at either 3 days to 5 days or 2 weeks to 4 weeks after the trauma was an effective predictor for both the diagnosis of PTSD and PTSD severity. This suggested that there is utility in administering the NSESSS for trauma patients who were admitted to the hospital as early as 3 days to 5 days after their trauma. To our knowledge, this is the first study that demonstrates a relationship between NSESSS scores and PTSD severity. Using a simple linear regression, we saw that for every average point increase in the average NSESSS score at 3 days to 5 days, we see an increase in PTSD symptom scale score by 8 points. Similarly, every average point increase in the average NSESSS score after 2–4 weeks showed an increase by 10 points in the PTSD symptom scale score.
The current study evaluated the relationship between NSESSS and PTSD severity. We demonstrated that if a subject scores below 14 on the NSESSS at either 3 days to 5 days or 2 weeks to 4 weeks after the trauma, then there would be a low chance to experience greater PTSD severity after 2 months. However, if they scored above 14 on the NSESSS at either 3 days to 5 days after trauma or 2 weeks to 4 weeks after trauma, then the chance of experiencing greater PTSD severity would increase substantially and linearly. As such, it may be beneficial to pre-emptively establish outpatient psychiatric follow-up for individuals who score more than 14 on the NSESSS for acute stress symptoms.
This study not only highlighted the fact that level II trauma patients were at an increased risk of PTSD but also established that the diagnosis and severity of PTSD can be predicted with the use of a simple screener in this population at an early stage of the hospital course. We successfully identified an early time frame for administering the NSESSS, established the utility of using the NSESSS for ASD to predict PTSD diagnosis and severity, and found a threshold for establishing outpatient care to help improve the quality of life of these patients.
Prior studies have demonstrated that PTSD diagnosis can be predicted after injury using different screeners such as the Injured Trauma Survivor Screen (9-item), Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (20-item), and Posttraumatic Adjustment Scale (10-item).24–26 We chose to use the NSESSS as not only did it have a shorter screener with only seven items but also it validated to assess severity of symptoms. Our study is unique in comparison to previous studies as none of the prior studies assessed for predicting symptom severity.
As screening for substance abuse has become standard practice among trauma centers, this study suggests screening for PTSD should also become routine practice for all systems of trauma-related patient care. Given both the ease and predictive power of PTSD screening as demonstrated in our study, we suggest the development of both institutional and societal guidelines where all trauma patients should undergo screening as part of the multidisciplinary care that trauma patients are expected to receive. Incorporating PTSD screening as standard trauma care will allow for earlier diagnosis with minimal additional requirements for healthcare resources. In turn, this will lead to earlier opportunities for interventions that may significantly improve quality of life and reduce morbidity. There remain multiple systemic barriers in obtaining quality long-term outpatient mental healthcare, particularly for individuals without insurance. Earlier and more effective identification of PTSD in the civilian population may alert policymakers and healthcare systems to the unrealized demand for mental health resources.
Limitations
As with most longitudinal studies, this analysis was hampered by difficulty with follow-up as less than half of the enrolled subjects completed all three screeners. Another limitation was that factors that have been found to be associated with PTSD such as prior psychiatric diagnoses (including prior history of PTSD), socioeconomic status, childhood abuse, anxiety, or substance use were not ascertained through a psychiatric history at the time of administering the screener.27–29 The effect of injury mechanism, particularly penetrating trauma and traumatic brain injuries has been correlated with the development of PTSD.30 Both of these groups were under-represented in our sample population.⇓ Although assessing the effect of injury mechanism and functional status of the patient is outside the scope of this study, these are important factors that have been correlated with the development of PTSD.31 This study is limited in its scope in that it focuses on level II trauma patients who were hospitalized. It would be instrumental to see whether these results could be replicated in Level I trauma patients who are more likely to suffer from greater injury severity, a traumatic brain injury, gun-shot wounds, and penetrating trauma, and are more likely to suffer medical trauma. We did not conduct psychiatric evaluations after discharge and did not assess the development of affective disorders, but this may be appropriate for future investigations. It would be equally important to assess trauma patients who were discharged directly from the emergency department and, to broaden the study, to include all trauma patients regardless of activation level using a similar protocol.