BACKGROUND Postdischarge convalescence after traumatic rib fractures remains unclear. We hypothesized that patients with rib fractures, even as an isolated injury, have associated poor quality of life (QoL) after discharge. METHODS We prospectively enrolled adult patients at our level I trauma center with rib fractures between July 2019 and January 2020. We assessed QoL at 1 and 3 months after discharge using the Trauma-specific Quality-of-Life (T-QoL; 43-question survey evaluating five QoL domains on a 4-point Likert scale, where 4 indicates optimal and 1, worst QoL) and supplementary questionnaires. We used generalized estimating equations to assess T-QoL score trends over time and effect of age, sex, injury pattern, self-perceived injury severity, and Injury Severity Score. RESULTS We enrolled 139 patients (108 completed the first and 93 completed both surveys). Three months after discharge, 33% of patients were not working at preinjury capacity, and 7% were still using opioid analgesia. Suffering rib fractures mostly impacted recovery and resilience (T-QoL score, mean [robust standard error] at 1 month, 2.7 [0.1]; 3 months, 3.0[0.1]) and physical well-being domains (1 month, 2.5 [0.1]; 3 months, 2.9[0.1]). Quality of life improved over time across all domains. Compared with patients who perceived their injuries as mild/moderate, patients who perceived their injuries as severe/very severe reported worse T-QoL scores across all domains. In contrast, Injury Severity Score did not affect QoL. Patients 65 years or older (−0.6 [0.1]) and women (−0.6 [0.2]) reported worse functional engagement compared with those 65 years or older and men, respectively. CONCLUSION We found that patients with traumatic rib fractures experience suboptimal QoL after discharge. Quality of life improved over time, but even 3 months after discharge, patients reported challenges performing activities of daily living, slower-than-expected recovery, and not returning to work at preinjury capacity. Perception of injury severity had a large effect on QoL. Patients with rib fractures may benefit from close short-term follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundVenomous snakebites can result in serious morbidity and mortality. In the USA, the “T’s of snakebites” (testosterone, teasing, touching, trucks, tattoos & toothless (poverTy), Texas, tequila, teenagers, and tanks) originate from anecdotes used to colloquially highlight venomous snakebite risk factors. We performed an epidemiologic assessment of venomous snakebites in the USA with the objective of evaluating the validity of the “T’s of snakebites” at a national level.MethodsWe performed a retrospective analysis of the National Emergency Department Sample. Data from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2016 were obtained. All emergency department (ED) encounters corresponding to a venomous snakebite injury were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes. Primary outcomes were mortality and inpatient admission. Demographic, injury, and hospital characteristics were assessed. Data were analyzed according to survey methodology. Weighted values are reported.ResultsIn 2016, 11 138 patients presented to an ED with a venomous snakebite. There were 4173 (37%) persons aged 18 to 44, and 7213 (65%) were male. Most snakebites were reported from the South (n=9079; 82%), although snakebites were reported from every region in the USA. Only 3792 (34%) snakebites occurred in rural counties. Persons in the lowest income quartile by zip code were the most heavily represented (n=4337; 39%). The most common site of injury was the distal upper extremity (n=4884; 44%). Multivariate analysis revealed that species of snake (OR=0.81; 95% CI 0.73 to 0.88) and older age (OR=1.42; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.87) were associated with hospital admission. There were <10 inpatient deaths identified, and no variables were predictive of death.DiscussionSome of the “T’s of snakebites” may be valid colloquial predictors of the risk for venomous snakebites. Based on national data, common demographics of venomous snakebite victims include lower income, Caucasian, and adult men in the South who are bit on the upper extremity. Understanding common demographics of venomous snakebite victims can effectuate targeted public health prevention messaging.Level of evidenceIV.

OBJECTIVES: Hedge language is a category of language that refers to words or phrases that make statements “fuzzier.” We sought to understand how physicians use hedge language during goals-of-care conferences in the ICU. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded goals-of-care conferences in the ICU. SETTING: Thirteen ICUs at six academic and community medical centers in the United States. PATIENTS: Conferences were between clinicians and surrogates of incapacitated, critically ill adults. INTERVENTIONS: Four investigators performed a qualitative content analysis of transcripts using deductive followed by inductive methods to identify types of hedge language used by physicians, then coded all instances of hedge language across 40 transcripts to characterize general patterns in usage. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 10 types of hedge language: numeric probabilistic statement (“there’s an 80% chance”), qualitative probabilistic statement (“there’s a good chance”), nonprobabilistic uncertainty statement (“hard to say for her”), plausibility shield (“we expect”), emotion-based statement (“we’re concerned”), attribution shield (“according to Dr. X”), adaptor (“sort of”), metaphor (“the chips are stacking up against her”), time reference (“too soon to tell”), and contingency statement (“if we are lucky”). For most types of hedge language, we identified distinct subtypes. Physicians used hedge language frequently in every transcript (median: 74 hedges per transcript) to address diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. We observed large variation in how frequently each type and subtype of hedge language was used. CONCLUSIONS: Hedge language is ubiquitous in physician-surrogate communication during goals-of-care conferences in the ICU and can be used to introduce vagueness to statements in ways beyond expressing uncertainty. It is not known how hedge language impacts decision-making or clinician-surrogate interactions. This study prioritizes specific types of hedge language for future research based on their frequency and novelty.