16 research outputs found

    In-house trauma attendings: a new financial benefit for hospitals

    No full text
    There is an intuitive belief that in-house trauma attendings benefit patient outcome, although multiple studies have failed to prove this. However, no studies investigate the financial advantage for hospitals by having the attendings also perform urgent general surgery cases (GSC) during nights and weekends. The purpose of this study is to identify how an in-house attending program was used for urgent GSC and to see if it provided a financial benefit to the hospital. The in-house program began in October 2007. A retrospective study reviewed all cholecystectomies performed from October 2006 to September 2007 and October 2007 to September 2008. Total length of stay (LOS) was calculated. Total LOS for each group was multiplied by the daily cost for a medical-surgical bed (2,530.00).Thecostdifferencewascalculatedforthepreandpostinhousegroups.Twohundredsixtyfourcholecystectomieswereperformedbeforeinstitutinganinhouseattendingprogramcomparedwith291casesintheperiodaftera92,530.00). The cost difference was calculated for the pre- and post-in-house groups. Two hundred sixty-four cholecystectomies were performed before instituting an in-house attending program compared with 291 cases in the period after a 9% increase. Total LOS for cholecystectomies performed before the program was 6.4 days translating to 16,192.00 in room costs versus 5.24 days after and 13,257.20inroomcosts.Thistranslatedtoasavingsof13,257.20 in room costs. This translated to a savings of 2,934.80 per patient and 854,026.80savingsintotalbecauseofreducedLOS,whichsubsidizedthecostoftheprogram,whichwas854,026.80 savings in total because of reduced LOS, which subsidized the cost of the program, which was 750,000.00. In-house attendings are beneficial in decreasing overall LOS for urgent GSC. This study demonstrates that in-house attendings can perform urgent GSCs and realize a savings for a hospital that can be used to fully subsidize the cost of the program

    Validating the Brain Injury Guidelines: Results of an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma prospective multi-institutional trial

    No full text
    INTRODUCTION: Brain Injury Guidelines (BIG) was developed to effectively use health care resources including repeat head computed tomography (RHCT) scan and neurosurgical consultation in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. The aim of this study was to prospectively validate BIG at a multi-institutional level. METHODS: This is a prospective, observational, multi-institutional trial across nine Levels I and II trauma centers. Adult (16 years or older) blunt TBI patients with a positive initial head computed tomography (CT) scan were identified and categorized into BIG 1, 2, and 3 based on their neurologic examination, alcohol intoxication, antiplatelet/anticoagulant use, and head CT scan findings. The primary outcome was neurosurgical intervention. The secondary outcomes were neurologic worsening, RHCT progression, postdischarge emergency department visit, and 30-day readmission. RESULTS: A total of 2,432 patients met the inclusion criteria, of which 2,033 had no missing information and were categorized into BIG 1 (301 [14.8%]), BIG 2 (295 [14.5%]), and BIG 3 (1,437 [70.7%]). In BIG 1, no patient worsened clinically, 4 of 301 patients (1.3%) had progression on RHCT with no change in management, and none required neurosurgical intervention. In BIG 2, 2 of 295 patients (0.7%) worsened clinically, and 21 of 295 patients (7.1%) had progression on RHCT. Overall, 7 of 295 patients (2.4%) would have required upgrade from BIG 2 to 3 because of neurologic examination worsening or progression on RHCT, but no patient required neurosurgical intervention. There were no TBI-related postdischarge emergency department visits or 30-day readmissions in BIG 1 and 2 patients. All patients who required neurosurgical intervention were BIG 3 (280 of 1,437 patients [19.5%]). Agreement between assigned and final BIG categories was excellent ( κ = 99%). In this cohort, implementing BIG would have decreased CT scan utilization and neurosurgical consultation by 29% overall, with a 100% reduction in BIG 1 patients and a 98% reduction in BIG 2 patients. CONCLUSION: Brain Injury Guidelines is safe and defines the management of TBI patients by trauma and acute care surgeons without the routine need for RHCT and neurosurgical consultation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III

    Management of simple and retained hemothorax: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Traumatic hemothorax poses diagnostic and therapeutic challenges both acutely and chronically. A working group of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma convened to formulate a practice management guideline for traumatic hemothorax. METHODS: We formulated four questions: whether tube thoracostomy vs observation be performed, should pigtail catheter versus thoracostomy tube be placed to drain hemothorax, should thrombolytic therapy be attempted versus immediate thoracoscopic assisted drainage (VATS) in retained hemothorax (rHTX), and should early VATS (≤4 days) versus late VATS (\u3e4 days) be performed? A systematic review was undertaken from articles identified in multiple databases. RESULTS: A total of 6391 articles were identified, 14 were selected for guideline construction. Most articles were retrospective with very low-quality evidence. We performed meta-analysis for some of the outcomes for three of the questions. CONCLUSIONS: For traumatic hemothorax we conditionally recommend pigtail catheters, in hemodynamically stable patients. In patients with rHTX, we conditionally recommend VATS rather than attempting thrombolytic therapy and recommend that it should be performed early (≤4 days)

    Management of simple and retained hemothorax: A practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma: Hemothorax Management Guideline

    No full text
    Background: Traumatic hemothorax poses diagnostic and therapeutic challenges both acutely and chronically. A working group of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma convened to formulate a practice management guideline for traumatic hemothorax. Methods: We formulated four questions: whether tube thoracostomy vs observation be performed, should pigtail catheter versus thoracostomy tube be placed to drain hemothorax, should thrombolytic therapy be attempted versus immediate thoracoscopic assisted drainage (VATS) in retained hemothorax (rHTX), and should early VATS (≤4 days) versus late VATS (\u3e4 days) be performed? A systematic review was undertaken from articles identified in multiple databases. Results: A total of 6391 articles were identified, 14 were selected for guideline construction. Most articles were retrospective with very low-quality evidence. We performed meta-analysis for some of the outcomes for three of the questions. Conclusions: For traumatic hemothorax we conditionally recommend pigtail catheters, in hemodynamically stable patients. In patients with rHTX, we conditionally recommend VATS rather than attempting thrombolytic therapy and recommend that it should be performed early (≤4 days)

    Loop ileostomy versus total colectomy as surgical treatment for Clostridium difficile-associated disease: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial.

    No full text
    The mortality of patients with Clostridium difficile-associated disease (CDAD) requiring surgery continues to be very high. Loop ileostomy (LI) was introduced as an alternative procedure to total colectomy (TC) for CDAD by a single-center study. To date, no reproducible results have been published. The objective of this study was to compare these two procedures in a multicentric approach to help the surgeon decide what procedure is best suited for the patient in need. This was a retrospective multicenter study conducted under the sponsorship of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Demographics, medical history, clinical presentation, APACHE score, and outcomes were collected. We used the Research Electronic Data Capture tool to store the data. Mann-Whitney (continuous data) and Fisher exact (categorical data) were used to compare TC with LI. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of mortality. A propensity score analysis was done to control for potential confounders and determine adjusted mortality rates by procedure type. We collected data from 10 centers of patients who presented with CDAD requiring surgery between July 1, 2010 and July 30, 2014. Two patients died during the surgical procedure, leaving 98 individuals in the study. The overall mortality was 32%, and 75% had postoperative complications. Median age was 64.5 years; 59% were male. Concerning preoperative patient conditions, 54% were on pressors, 47% had renal failure, and 36% had respiratory failure. When comparing TC and LI, there was no statistical difference regarding these conditions. Univariate preprocedure predictors of mortality were age, lactate, timing of operation, vasopressor use, and acute renal failure. There was no statistical difference between the APACHE score of patients undergoing either procedure (TC, 22 vs LI, 16). Adjusted mortality (controlled for preprocedure confounders) was significantly lower in the LI group (17.2% vs 39.7%; p = 0.002). This is the first multicenter study comparing TC with LI for the treatment of CDAD. In this study, LI carried less mortality than TC. In patients without contraindications, LI should be considered for the surgical treatment of CDAD. Therapeutic study, level III
    corecore