• Journal of Trauma and Injury
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.60-66
• /
• 2024

Purpose: This study investigated changes in interpersonal violence and utilization of trauma recovery services during the COVID-19 pandemic. At an urban level I trauma center, trauma recovery services (TRS) provide education, counseling, peer support, and coordination of rehabilitation and recovery to address social and mental health needs. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted considerable changes in hospital services and increases in interpersonal victimization. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted between September 6, 2018 and December 20, 2020 for 1,908 victim-of-crime patients, including 574 victims of interpersonal violence. Outcomes included length of stay associated with initial TRS presentation, number of subsequent emergency department visits, number of outpatient appointments, and utilization of specific specialties within the year following the initial traumatic event. Results: Patients were primarily female (59.4%), single (80.1%), non-Hispanic (86.7%), and Black (59.2%). The mean age was 33.0 years, and 247 patients (49.2%) presented due to physical assault, 132 (26.3%) due to gunshot wounds, and 76 (15.1%) due to sexual assault. The perpetrators were primarily partners (27.9%) or strangers (23.3%). During the study period, 266 patients (mean, 14.9 patients per month) presented before the declaration of COVID-19 as a national emergency on March 13, 2020, while 236 patients (mean, 25.9 patients per month) presented afterward, representing a 74.6% increase in victim-of-crime patients treated. Interactions with TRS decreased during the COVID-19 period, with an average of 3.0 interactions per patient before COVID-19 versus 1.9 after emergency declaration (P<0.01). Similarly, reductions in length of stay were noted; the pre-COVID-19 average was 3.6 days, compared to 2.1 days post-COVID-19 (P=0.01). Conclusions: While interpersonal violence increased, TRS interactions decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting interruption of services, COVID-19 precautions, and postponement/cancellation of elective visits. Future direction of hospital policy to enable resource and service delivery to this population, despite internal and external challenges, appears warranted.

• Journal of the Korean Orthopaedic Association
• /
• v.56 no.3
• /
• pp.234-244
• /
• 2021

Purpose: To date, studies of firearm and explosive injuries in the Korean military have been limited compared to its importance. To overcome this, this study examined the characteristics of musculoskeletal damages in soldiers who have suffered firearm and explosive injuries over the past four years. Materials and Methods: From January 2015 to July 2019, military forces who had suffered musculoskeletal injuries from firearms or explosive substances were included. The medical records and radiographs were reviewed retrospectively, and telephone surveys about Short Musculoskeletal Functional Assessment (SMFA) for this group were conducted. To compare the functional outcomes, statistical analysis was performed using a t-test for the types of weapons, and ANOVA for others. Results: Of the 61 patients treated for firearms and explosives injuries, 30 patients (49.2%) were included after undergoing orthopedic treatment due to musculoskeletal injury. The average age at injury was 26.4 years old (21-52 years old). The number of officers and soldiers was similar. Eleven were injured by gunshot and 19 by an explosive device. Sixteen were treated in the Armed Forces Capital Hospital and 10 at private hospitals. More than half of the 16 patients (53.3%) with a fracture had multiple fractures. The most common injury site was the hand (33.3%), followed by the lower leg (30.0%). There were 14 patients (46.7%) with Gustilo-Anderson classification 3B or higher who required a soft tissue reconstruction. Fifteen patients agreed to join the SMFA survey for the functional outcomes. Between officers and soldiers, officers had better scores in the Bother Index compared to soldiers (p=0.0045). Patients treated in the Armed Forces Capital Hospital had better scores in both the Dysfunction and Bother Index compared to private hospitals (p=0.0008, p=0.0149). Conclusion: This is the first study to analyze of weapons injuries in the Korean military. As a result of the study, the orthopedic burden was high in the treating patients with military weapon injuries. In addition, it is necessary to build a military trauma registry, including firearm and explosive injuries, for trauma treatment evaluation and development of military trauma system.