The long game: Evolution of clinical decision making throughout residency and fellowship

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to explore the trajectory of autonomy in clinical decision making.MethodsWe conducted a qualitative secondary analysis of interviews with 45 residents and fellows from the General Surgery and Obstetrics & Gynecology departments across all clinical postgraduate years (PGY) using convenience sampling. Each interview was recorded, transcribed and iteratively analyzed using a framework method.ResultsA total of 16 junior residents, 22 senior residents and 7 fellows participated in 12 original interviews. Early in training residents take their abstract ideas about disease processes and make them concrete in their applications to patient care. A transitional stage follows in which residents apply concepts to concrete patient care. Chief residents re-abstract their concrete technical and clinical knowledge to prepare for future surgical practice.ConclusionsUnderstanding where each learner is on this pathway will assist development of curriculum that fosters resident readiness for practice at each PGY level

The Effects of Storage Age of Blood in Massively Transfused Burn Patients: A Secondary Analysis of the Randomized Transfusion Requirement in Burn Care Evaluation Study.

ObjectivesMajor trials examining storage age of blood transfused to critically ill patients administered relatively few blood transfusions. We sought to determine if the storage age of blood affects outcomes when very large amounts of blood are transfused.DesignA secondary analysis of the multicenter randomized Transfusion Requirement in Burn Care Evaluation study which compared restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies.SettingEighteen tertiary-care burn centers.PatientsTransfusion Requirement in Burn Care Evaluation evaluated 345 adults with burns greater than or equal to 20% of the body surface area. We included only the 303 patients that received blood transfusions.InterventionsThe storage ages of all transfused red cell units were collected during Transfusion Requirement in Burn Care Evaluation. A priori measures of storage age were the the mean storage age of all transfused blood and the proportion of all transfused blood considered very old (stored ≥ 35 d).Measurements and main resultsThe primary outcome was the severity of multiple organ dysfunction. Secondary outcomes included time to wound healing, the duration of mechanical ventilation, and in-hospital mortality. There were 6,786 red cell transfusions with a mean (± SD) storage age of 25.6 ± 10.2 days. Participants received a mean of 23.4 ± 31.2 blood transfusions (range, 1-219) and a mean of 5.3 ± 10.7 units of very old blood. Neither mean storage age nor proportion of very old blood had any influence on multiple organ dysfunction severity, time to wound healing, or mortality. Duration of ventilation was significantly predicted by both mean blood storage age and the proportion of very old blood, but this was of questionable clinical relevance given extreme variability in duration of ventilation (adjusted r ≤ 0.01).ConclusionsDespite massive blood transfusion, including very old blood, the duration of red cell storage did not influence outcome in burn patients. Provision of the oldest blood first by Blood Banks is rational, even for massive transfusion

Restrictive Transfusion Strategy Is More Effective in Massive Burns: Results of the TRIBE Multicenter Prospective Randomized Trial.

ObjectivesStudies suggest that a restrictive transfusion strategy is safe in burns, yet the efficacy of a restrictive transfusion policy in massive burn injury is uncertain. Our objective: compare outcomes between massive burn (≥60% total body surface area (TBSA) burn) and major (20-59% TBSA) burn using a restrictive or a liberal blood transfusion strategy.MethodsPatients with burns ≥20% were block randomized by age and TBSA to a restrictive (transfuse hemoglobin <7 g/dL) or liberal (transfuse hemoglobin <10 g/dL) strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes.ResultsThree hundred and forty-five patients received 7,054 units blood, 2,886 in massive and 4,168 in restrictive. Patients were similar in age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. The restrictive group received less blood (45.57 ± 47.63 vs. 77.16 ± 55.0, p < 0.03 massive; 11.0 ± 16.70 vs. 16.78 ± 17.39, p < 0.001) major). In massive burn, the restrictive group had fewer ventilator days (p < 0.05). Median ICU days and LOS were lower in the restrictive group; wound healing, mortality, and infection did not differ. No significant outcome differences occurred in the major (20-59%) group (p > 0.05).ConclusionsA restrictive transfusion strategy may be beneficial in massive burns in reducing ventilator days, ICU days and blood utilization, but does not decrease infection, mortality, hospital LOS or wound healing

Restrictive Transfusion Strategy Is More Effective in Massive Burns: Results of the TRIBE Multicenter Prospective Randomized Trial.

ObjectivesStudies suggest that a restrictive transfusion strategy is safe in burns, yet the efficacy of a restrictive transfusion policy in massive burn injury is uncertain. Our objective: compare outcomes between massive burn (≥60% total body surface area (TBSA) burn) and major (20-59% TBSA) burn using a restrictive or a liberal blood transfusion strategy.MethodsPatients with burns ≥20% were block randomized by age and TBSA to a restrictive (transfuse hemoglobin <7 g/dL) or liberal (transfuse hemoglobin <10 g/dL) strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes.ResultsThree hundred and forty-five patients received 7,054 units blood, 2,886 in massive and 4,168 in restrictive. Patients were similar in age, TBSA, and inhalation injury. The restrictive group received less blood (45.57 ± 47.63 vs. 77.16 ± 55.0, p < 0.03 massive; 11.0 ± 16.70 vs. 16.78 ± 17.39, p < 0.001) major). In massive burn, the restrictive group had fewer ventilator days (p < 0.05). Median ICU days and LOS were lower in the restrictive group; wound healing, mortality, and infection did not differ. No significant outcome differences occurred in the major (20-59%) group (p > 0.05).ConclusionsA restrictive transfusion strategy may be beneficial in massive burns in reducing ventilator days, ICU days and blood utilization, but does not decrease infection, mortality, hospital LOS or wound healing

Wilderness Medical Society practice guidelines for the prevention and treatment of frostbite: 2014 update.

The Wilderness Medical Society convened an expert panel to develop a set of evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of frostbite. We present a review of pertinent pathophysiology. We then discuss primary and secondary prevention measures and therapeutic management. Recommendations are made regarding each treatment and its role in management. These recommendations are graded on the basis of the quality of supporting evidence and balance between the benefits and risks or burdens for each modality according to methodology stipulated by the American College of Chest Physicians. This is an updated version of the original guidelines published in Wilderness & Environmental Medicine 2011;22(2):156-166

Transfusion Requirement in Burn Care Evaluation (TRIBE): A Multicenter Randomized Prospective Trial of Blood Transfusion in Major Burn Injury.

ObjectiveOur objective was to compare outcomes of a restrictive to a liberal red cell transfusion strategy in 20% or more total body surface area (TBSA) burn patients. We hypothesized that the restrictive group would have less blood stream infection (BSI), organ dysfunction, and mortality.BackgroundPatients with major burns have major (>1 blood volume) transfusion requirements. Studies suggest that a restrictive blood transfusion strategy is equivalent to a liberal strategy. However, major burn injury is precluded from these studies. The optimal transfusion strategy in major burn injury is thus needed but remains unknown.MethodsThis prospective randomized multicenter trial block randomized patients to a restrictive (hemoglobin 7-8 g/dL) or liberal (hemoglobin 10-11 g/dL) transfusion strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes.ResultsEighteen burn centers enrolled 345 patients with 20% or more TBSA burn similar in age, TBSA burn, and inhalation injury. A total of 7054 units blood were transfused. The restrictive group received fewer blood transfusions: mean 20.3 ± 32.7 units, median = 8 (interquartile range: 3, 24) versus mean 31.8 ± 44.3 units, median = 16 (interquartile range: 7, 40) in the liberal group (P < 0.0001, Wilcoxon rank sum). BSI incidence, organ dysfunction, ventilator days, and time to wound healing (P > 0.05) were similar. In addition, there was no 30-day mortality difference: 9.5% restrictive versus 8.5% liberal (P = 0.892, χ test).ConclusionsA restrictive transfusion strategy halved blood product utilization. Although the restrictive strategy did not decrease BSI, mortality, or organ dysfunction in major burn injury, these outcomes were no worse than the liberal strategy (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01079247)

Transfusion Requirement in Burn Care Evaluation (TRIBE): A Multicenter Randomized Prospective Trial of Blood Transfusion in Major Burn Injury.

ObjectiveOur objective was to compare outcomes of a restrictive to a liberal red cell transfusion strategy in 20% or more total body surface area (TBSA) burn patients. We hypothesized that the restrictive group would have less blood stream infection (BSI), organ dysfunction, and mortality.BackgroundPatients with major burns have major (>1 blood volume) transfusion requirements. Studies suggest that a restrictive blood transfusion strategy is equivalent to a liberal strategy. However, major burn injury is precluded from these studies. The optimal transfusion strategy in major burn injury is thus needed but remains unknown.MethodsThis prospective randomized multicenter trial block randomized patients to a restrictive (hemoglobin 7-8 g/dL) or liberal (hemoglobin 10-11 g/dL) transfusion strategy throughout hospitalization. Data collected included demographics, infections, transfusions, and outcomes.ResultsEighteen burn centers enrolled 345 patients with 20% or more TBSA burn similar in age, TBSA burn, and inhalation injury. A total of 7054 units blood were transfused. The restrictive group received fewer blood transfusions: mean 20.3 ± 32.7 units, median = 8 (interquartile range: 3, 24) versus mean 31.8 ± 44.3 units, median = 16 (interquartile range: 7, 40) in the liberal group (P < 0.0001, Wilcoxon rank sum). BSI incidence, organ dysfunction, ventilator days, and time to wound healing (P > 0.05) were similar. In addition, there was no 30-day mortality difference: 9.5% restrictive versus 8.5% liberal (P = 0.892, χ test).ConclusionsA restrictive transfusion strategy halved blood product utilization. Although the restrictive strategy did not decrease BSI, mortality, or organ dysfunction in major burn injury, these outcomes were no worse than the liberal strategy (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01079247)