Defining the representativeness heuristic in trauma triage: A retrospective observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND:Under-triage of severely injured patients presenting to non-trauma centers (failure to transfer to a trauma center) remains problematic despite quality improvement efforts. Insights from the behavioral science literature suggest that physician heuristics (intuitive judgments), and in particular the representativeness heuristic (pattern recognition), may contribute to under-triage. However, little is known about how the representativeness heuristic is instantiated in practice. METHODS:A multi-disciplinary group of experts identified candidate characteristics of "representative" severe trauma cases (e.g., hypotension). We then reviewed the charts of patients with moderate-to-severe injuries who presented to nine non-trauma centers in western Pennsylvania from 2010-2014 to assess the association between the presence of those characteristics and triage decisions. We tested bivariate associations using χ2 and Fisher's Exact method and multivariate associations using random effects logistic regression. RESULTS:We identified 235,605 injured patients with 3,199 patients (1%) having moderate-to-severe injuries. Patients had a median age of 78 years (SD 20.1) and mean Injury Severity Score of 10.9 (SD 3.3). Only 759 of these patients (24%) were transferred to a trauma center as recommended by the American College of Surgeons clinical practice guidelines. Representative characteristics occurred in 704 patients (22%). The adjusted odds of transfer were higher in the presence of representative characteristics compared to when they were absent (aOR 1.7, 95% CI: 1.4-2.0, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Most moderate-to-severely injured patients present without the characteristics representative of severe trauma. Presence of these characteristics is associated with appropriate transfer, suggesting that modifying physicians' heuristics in trauma may improve triage patterns

Does routine postoperative contrast radiography improve outcomes for patients with perforated peptic ulcer? A multicenter retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Perforated peptic ulcer is a morbid emergency general surgery condition. Best practices for postoperative care remain undefined. Surgical dogma preaches practices such as peritoneal drain placement, prolonged nil per os, and routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging despite a lack of evidence. We aimed to evaluate the role of postoperative enteral contrast imaging in postoperative perforated peptic ulcer care. Our primary objective was to assess effects of routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging on early detection of clinically significant leaks. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent repair of perforated peptic ulcer between July 2016 and June 2018. We compared outcomes between those who underwent routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging and those who did not. RESULTS: Our analysis included 95 patients who underwent primary/omental patch repair. The mean age was 60 years, and 54% were male. Thirteen (14%) had a leak. Eighty percent of patients had a drain placed. Nine patients had leaks diagnosed based on bilious drain output without routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging. Use of routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging varied significantly between institutions (30%-87%). Two late leaks after initial normal postoperative enteral contrast imaging were confirmed by imaging after a clinical change triggered the second study. Two patients had contained leaks identified by routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging but remained clinically well. Duration of hospital stay was longer in those who received routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging (12 vs 6 days, median; P = .000). CONCLUSION: Routine postoperative enteral contrast imaging after perforated peptic ulcer repair likely does not improve the detection of clinically significant leaks and is associated with increased duration of hospital stay