Recent Publications by CFE Educators

OBJECTIVES

In 2020, firearm injuries surpassed automobile collisions as the leading cause of death in US children. Annual automobile fatalities have decreased during 40 years through a multipronged approach. To develop similarly targeted public health interventions to reduce firearm fatalities, there is a critical need to first characterize firearm injuries and their outcomes at a granular level. We sought to compare firearm injuries, outcomes, and types of shooters at trauma centers in four pediatric health systems across the USA.

METHODS

We retrospectively extracted data from each institution's trauma registry, paper and electronic health records. Study included all patients less than 19 years of age with a firearm injury between 2003 and 2018. Variables collected included demographics, intent, resources used, and emergency department and hospital disposition. Descriptive statistics were reported using medians and IQRs for continuous data and counts with percentages for categorical data. χ test or Fisher's exact test was conducted for categorical comparisons.

RESULTS

Our cohort (n=1008, median age 14 years) was predominantly black and male. During the study period, there was an overall increase in firearm injuries, driven primarily by increases in the South (S) site (β=0.11 (SE 0.02), p=0.001) in the setting of stable rates in the West and decreasing rates in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic sites (β=-0.15 (SE 0.04), p=0.002; β=-0.19 (SE0.04), p=0.001). Child age, race, insurance type, resource use, injury type, and shooter type all varied by regional site.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of firearm-related injuries seen at four sites during 15 years varied by site and region. The overall increase in firearm injuries was predominantly driven by the S site, where injuries were more often unintentional. This highlights the need for region-specific data to allow for the development of targeted interventions to impact the burden of injury.Level of Evidence: II, retrospective study.

Since the Final Rule regarding transplantation was published in 1999, organ distribution policies have been implemented to reduce geographic disparity. While a recent change in liver allocation, termed acuity circles, eliminated the donor service area as a unit of distribution to decrease the geographic disparity of waitlisted patients to liver transplantation, recently published results highlight the complexity of addressing geographic disparity. From geographic variation in donor supply, as well as liver disease burden and differing model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores of candidates and MELD scores necessary to receive liver transplantation, to the urban-rural disparity in specialty care access, and to neighborhood deprivation (community measure of socioeconomic status) in liver transplant access, addressing disparities of access will require a multipronged approach at the patient, transplant center, and national level. Herein, we review the current knowledge of these disparities-from variation in larger (regional) to smaller (census tract or zip code) levels to the common etiologies of liver disease, which are particularly affected by these geographic boundaries. The geographic disparity in liver transplant access must balance the limited organ supply with the growing demand. We must identify patient-level factors that contribute to their geographic disparity and incorporate these findings at the transplant center level to develop targeted interventions. We must simultaneously work at the national level to standardize and share patient data (including socioeconomic status and geographic social deprivation indices) to better understand the factors that contribute to the geographic disparity. The complex interplay between organ distribution policy, referral patterns, and variable waitlisting practices with the proportion of high MELD patients and differences in potential donor supply must all be considered to create a national policy strategy to address the inequities in the system.