Impact of a pharmacist-led intervention on post-splenectomy vaccination adherence among trauma patients

Background

Patients who undergo splenectomy are at increased risk of infection caused by encapsulated bacteria. The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommends a series of vaccinations for asplenic patients, the first of which are generally completed prior to hospital discharge in the setting of trauma. However, studies suggest that trauma patients receive booster vaccinations at a suboptimal rate. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of an inpatient, pharmacist-led post-splenectomy counseling service on patient understanding and patient-reported revaccination follow-up rate.

Methods

Patients who underwent splenectomy due to trauma between October 2017 and February 2019 were surveyed via telephone questionnaire at least eight weeks after initial vaccination. Responses were compared to historical data which was collected prior to the service implementation. The primary outcome was patient reported follow-up vaccination rate. Secondary outcomes included patient awareness of vaccine requirements and need for rehospitalization.

Results

A total of 67 patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 31 (46%) were successfully contacted by phone. After implementation of the post-splenectomy counseling service, 14 patients (45.2%) reported receiving second doses of pneumococcal and meningococcal vaccines, compared to 6 patients (6.3%) in the pre-implementation cohort ( p = 0.000001). Twenty-eight patients (90%) of the patients in the post-implementation cohort acknowledged awareness of the need for additional vaccines, whereas 44 (46%) of patients in the pre-implementation cohort acknowledged awareness ( p = 0.000043).

Conclusion

A post-splenectomy counseling service led to improved rates of patient reported adherence to booster vaccines, as well as increased awareness for need to revaccinate.

Postsplenectomy vaccination guideline adherence: Opportunities for improvement

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Patients undergoing splenectomy for trauma are at life-long risk for rapidly progressive septicemia. The purpose of this study was to investigate long-term patient understanding and follow-up with recommendations regarding their asplenia.

METHODS

Patients undergoing splenectomy for trauma January 2010-December 2014 were analyzed. Medical records were reviewed and telephone follow-up interviews were conducted in October-December 2015. Patients were asked a standard set of questions that included hospitalizations, awareness of infectious risks associated with asplenia, need for revaccination, and vaccines they had received since their index hospitalization.

FINDINGS

Two hundred forty-four patients underwent splenectomy during the study period. A total of 95 patients (39%) were included in the study. Thirty (32%) had been hospitalized since their trauma admission. Only 46% were aware of the risks for sepsis and the need to revaccinate. Only 7% reported having rapid access to antibiotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite uniform education prior to discharge, most patients undergoing splenectomy for trauma were unaware of the risks for sepsis and did not follow recommended guidelines for risk reduction.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Improvements that have direct implications for advanced practice included the need to refer for vaccination, educate regarding infection risks, and facilitate rapid access to antibiotic treatment.

Danger on the Farm: A Comparison of Agricultural and Animal-Related Injuries

Animal-related injuries are common in rural areas. Agricultural workers can suffer severe injuries involving farm machinery or falls. The spectrum of injuries related to rural activities is poorly defined and characterizing these injuries will improve injury prevention efforts. Records for injured patients admitted between 2010 and 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a mechanism of injury involving a large animal or with the injury site listed as “farm” were included. Patients with agricultural injuries (n = 85) were older with more multisystem injuries than patients injured by animals (n = 132) but the Injury Severity Score was equivalent. There was no difference in intensive care unit length of stay, ventilator days, or mortality. There was no difference in frequency of solid organ injury, pelvic fractures, rib fractures, or hemo- or pneumothorax between groups. Animal injuries had more frequent traumatic brain injuries (22.4% vs 10.5%, P = 0.03), whereas agricultural injuries had more vertebral fractures (20.5% vs 9.2%). Of toxicology screens performed, 25 per cent (22/88) were positive. No significant differences were found between occupational versus recreational animal injuries. Agricultural and animal-related injuries have different characteristics but Injury Severity Score and mortality were similar. Severe injuries from both mechanisms are common in rural communities and injury prevention activities are needed in both settings.

Danger on the Farm: A Comparison of Agricultural and Animal-Related Injuries

Animal-related injuries are common in rural areas. Agricultural workers can suffer severe injuries involving farm machinery or falls. The spectrum of injuries related to rural activities is poorly defined and characterizing these injuries will improve injury prevention efforts. Records for injured patients admitted between 2010 and 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. Patients with a mechanism of injury involving a large animal or with the injury site listed as "farm" were included. Patients with agricultural injuries (n = 85) were older with more multisystem injuries than patients injured by animals (n = 132) but the Injury Severity Score was equivalent. There was no difference in intensive care unit length of stay, ventilator days, or mortality. There was no difference in frequency of solid organ injury, pelvic fractures, rib fractures, or hemo- or pneumothorax between groups. Animal injuries had more frequent traumatic brain injuries (22.4% vs 10.5%, P = 0.03), whereas agricultural injuries had more vertebral fractures (20.5% vs 9.2%). Of toxicology screens performed, 25 per cent (22/88) were positive. No significant differences were found between occupational versus recreational animal injuries. Agricultural and animal-related injuries have different characteristics but Injury Severity Score and mortality were similar. Severe injuries from both mechanisms are common in rural communities and injury prevention activities are needed in both settings.