Trauma Care, Volume 4, Issue 2 (June 2024) – 3 articles

This article is based on exploratory research on how the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals uses the language of trauma in gender-based asylum claims. Gender-based asylum claims include female genital mutilation (FGM), coercive population control (CPC) in the form of forced abortions and forced sterilizations, rape, forced marriage, and domestic violence. The Circuit Courts have reviewed appeals from petitioners with asylum claims since 1946, yet the language of trauma did not appear in the Court’s decisions until 1983. From 1983 to 2023, only 385, 3.85% or less, of the over 10,000 asylum cases before the Circuit Courts used the language of trauma in its legal interpretation of persecution. I have identified 101 gender-based asylum cases that were reviewed by one of the eleven U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that apply the language of trauma in its legal interpretation of persecution for this analysis. The research question guiding this study is: how does the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals use the language of trauma when reviewing gender-based asylum cases? This study found that U.S. Circuit Courts use the language of trauma in four ways: precedent cases, policies and reports, physical trauma, and psychological trauma when reviewing gender-based asylum claims. This study provides the first data set of gender-based asylum claims under review at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that use the language of trauma. Full article

(1) Background: Patients who experience acute traumatic injury requiring hospitalisation represent a vulnerable population. The trauma patient often experiences multi-system injuries and complex physiology. Additionally, there are complex socio-ecological issues that impact the care and outcomes of trauma patients. Of interest, culturally and linguistically diverse populations with language barriers experience worse outcomes in trauma settings. This scoping review evaluates the current evidence on language barriers in this population and the influences on outcomes for trauma patients. (2) Methods: A scoping review was performed following a computer-assisted search of the Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases. Papers that evaluated the impact of the language barrier in culturally and linguistically diverse populations and outcomes in acute trauma settings were included. (3) Results: A literature search identified eight articles that were eligible for inclusion. Overall, there was no robust evidence to suggest that such populations were disadvantaged in terms of length of hospital stay and overall mortality. However, studies did identify that these populations were at higher risk of disability and poor mental health outcomes, experienced communication barriers more often and had lower social functioning. (4) Conclusions: This scoping review demonstrates that individuals admitted due to trauma who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds experience more significant disadvantages concerning psychological and functional outcomes. It is posited this is due to their inability to communicate their complex needs in trauma, however more robust and rigorous research is required to better characterise this effect. Full article

Antibiotic prophylaxis for extremity gunshot wounds (GSWs) is highly variable. The objective of the present study is to quantify the adherence rate to a protocol for single-dose cephalosporin prophylaxis for extremity GSWs and the impacts on post-injury infection rates. We reviewed patients presenting to a level 1 trauma center with an extremity gunshot wound between 2019 and 2021. Infection rates were compared for patients following the protocol or not, and for patients presenting before or after the protocol’s implementation. Overall, 94% of patients received antibiotic treatment at presentation, but only 34% followed the single-dose antibiotic protocol. The rate of protocol adherence increased from 15% to 39% after the protocol was implemented in the hospital in January 2020 (p = 0.081). Infection rates were not different before and after the protocol implementation (25% vs. 18%, p = 0.45). Infection rates were also not different between patients who did and did not follow the protocol (15% vs. 20%, p = 0.52). The implementation of a single-dose cephalosporin protocol increased adherence to the protocol in a level 1 trauma center without increasing infection rates. These findings support conservative treatment along with a single dose of first-generation cephalosporin antibiotic for uncomplicated extremity GSWs in order to decrease healthcare costs without compromising infection risk. Full article