Telemedicine coverage for post-operative ICU patients.

Introduction There is an increased demand for intensive care unit (ICU) beds. We sought to determine if we could create a safe surge capacity model to increase ICU capacity by treating ICU patients in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) utilizing a collaborative model between an ICU service and a telemedicine service during peak ICU bed demand. Methods We evaluated patients managed by the surgical critical care service in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) compared to patients managed in the virtual intensive care unit (VICU) located within the PACU. A retrospective review of all patients seen by the surgical critical care service from January 1st 2008 to July 31st 2011 was conducted at an urban, academic, tertiary centre and level 1 trauma centre. Results Compared to the SICU group ( n = 6652), patients in the VICU group ( n = 1037) were slightly older (median age 60 (IQR 47-69) versus 58 (IQR 44-70) years, p = 0.002) and had lower acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II scores (median 10 (IQR 7-14) versus 15 (IQR 11-21), p \u3c 0.001). The average amount of time patients spent in the VICU was 13.7 + /-9.6 hours. In the VICU group, 750 (72%) of patients were able to be transferred directly to the floor; 287 (28%) required subsequent admission to the surgical intensive care unit. All patients in the VICU group were alive upon transfer out of the PACU while mortality in the surgical intensive unit cohort was 5.5%. Discussion A collaborative care model between a surgical critical care service and a telemedicine ICU service may safely provide surge capacity during peak periods of ICU bed demand. The specific patient populations for which this approach is most appropriate merits further investigation

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations: Part 1—Preoperative: Diagnosis, Rapid Assessment and Optimization

BackgroundEnhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs fora large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high-risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach.MethodsExperts in aspects of management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non-emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1—Preoperative Care and Part 2—Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1.ResultsTwelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds.ConclusionsThese guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients

American Association for the Surgery of Trauma emergency general surgery guideline summaries 2018: acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, acute diverticulitis, acute pancreatitis, and small bowel obstruction

In April 2017, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) asked the AAST Patient Assessment Committee to undertake a gap analysis for published clinical practice guidelines in emergency general surgery (EGS). Committee members performed literature searches to catalogue published guidelines for common EGS diseases and also to identify gaps in the literature where guidelines could be created. For five of the most common EGS conditions, acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, acute diverticulitis, acute pancreatitis, and small bowel obstruction, we found multiple well-referenced guidelines published by leading professional organizations. We have summarized guideline recommendations for each of these disease states stratified by the AAST EGS anatomic severity score based on these published consensus guidelines. These summaries could be used to help inform evidence-based clinical decision-making, but are intended to be flexible and updatable in real time as further research emerges. Comprehensive guidelines were available for all of the diseases queried and identified gaps most commonly represented areas lacking a solid evidence base. These are therefore areas where further research is needed

Early initiation of prophylactic heparin in severe traumatic brain injury is associated with accelerated improvement on brain imaging

Background: Venous thromboembolic prophylaxis (VTEp) is often delayed following traumatic brain injury (TBI), yet animal data suggest that it may reduce cerebral inflammation and improve cognitive recovery. We hypothesized that earlier VTEp initiation in severe TBI patients would result in more rapid neurologic recovery and reduced progression of brain injury on radiologic imaging. Study Design: Medical charts of severe TBI patients admitted to a level 1 trauma center in 2009-2010 were queried for admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), head Abbreviated Injury Scale, Injury Severity Score (ISS), osmotherapy use, emergency neurosurgery, and delay to VTEp initiation. Progression (+1 = better, 0 = no change, −1 = worse) of brain injury on head CTs and neurologic exam (by bedside MD, nurse) was collected from patient charts. Head CT scan Marshall scores were calculated from the initial head CT results. Results: A total of 22, 34, and 19 patients received VTEp at early (5 days) time intervals, respectively. Clinical and radiologic brain injury characteristics on admission were similar among the three groups (P > 0.05), but ISS was greatest in the early group (P < 0.05). Initial head CT Marshall scores were similar in early and late groups. The slowest progression of brain injury on repeated head CT scans was in the early VTEp group up to 10 days after admission. Conclusion: Early initiation of prophylactic heparin in severe TBI is not associated with deterioration neurologic exam and may result in less progression of injury on brain imaging. Possible neuroprotective effects of heparin in humans need further investigation

Analgesia for Older Adults with Abdominal or Back Pain in the Emergency Department

Objective: To determine the association between age and analgesia for emergency department (ED) patients with abdominal or back pain.Methods: Using a fully electronic medical record, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adults presenting with abdominal or back pain to two urban EDs. To assess differences in analgesia administration and time to analgesia between age groups, we used chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test respectively. To adjust for potential confounders, we used a generalized linear model with log link and Gaussian error.Results: Of 24,752 subjects (mean age 42 years, 65% female, 69% black, mean triage pain score 7.5), the majority (76%) had abdominal pain and 61% received analgesia. The ≥80 years group (n=722; 3%), compared to the 65-79 years group (n=2,080; 8%) and to the (n=21,950; 89%), was more often female (71 vs. 61 vs. 65%), black (72 vs. 65 vs. 69%), and had a lower mean pain score (6.6 vs. 7.1 vs. 7.6). Both older groups were less likely to receive any analgesia (48 vs. 59 vs. 62%, p<0.0001) and the oldest group less likely to receive opiates (35 vs. 47 vs. 44%, p<0.0001). Of those who received analgesia, both older groups waited longer for their medication (123 vs. 113 vs. 94 minutes; p<0.0001). After controlling for potential confounders, patients ≥80 years were 17% less likely than the <65 years group to receive analgesia (95% CI 14-20%).Conclusion: Older adults who present to the ED for abdominal or back pain are less likely to receive analgesia and wait significantly longer for pain medication compared to younger adults. [West J Emerg Med. 2011;12(1);43-50.

Analgesia for Older Adults with Abdominal or Back Pain in the Emergency Department

Objective: To determine the association between age and analgesia for emergency department (ED) patients with abdominal or back pain.Methods: Using a fully electronic medical record, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adults presenting with abdominal or back pain to two urban EDs. To assess differences in analgesia administration and time to analgesia between age groups, we used chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test respectively. To adjust for potential confounders, we used a generalized linear model with log link and Gaussian error.Results: Of 24,752 subjects (mean age 42 years, 65% female, 69% black, mean triage pain score 7.5), the majority (76%) had abdominal pain and 61% received analgesia. The ≥80 years group (n=722; 3%), compared to the 65-79 years group (n=2,080; 8%) and to the (n=21,950; 89%), was more often female (71 vs. 61 vs. 65%), black (72 vs. 65 vs. 69%), and had a lower mean pain score (6.6 vs. 7.1 vs. 7.6). Both older groups were less likely to receive any analgesia (48 vs. 59 vs. 62%, p&lt;0.0001) and the oldest group less likely to receive opiates (35 vs. 47 vs. 44%, p&lt;0.0001). Of those who received analgesia, both older groups waited longer for their medication (123 vs. 113 vs. 94 minutes; p&lt;0.0001). After controlling for potential confounders, patients ≥80 years were 17% less likely than the &lt;65 years group to receive analgesia (95% CI 14-20%).Conclusion: Older adults who present to the ED for abdominal or back pain are less likely to receive analgesia and wait significantly longer for pain medication compared to younger adults. [West J Emerg Med. 2011;12(1);43-50.