Racial Disparities in Emergency General Surgery: Do Differences in Outcomes Persist Among Universally Insured Military Patients?

Research Objective: Described as one of the most serious health problems affecting the nation, racial disparities are estimated to account for \u3e83,000 deaths, \u3e$57 billion per year. They have been identified in multiple surgical settings, including differences in outcomes by race among emergency general surgery(EGS) patients. As many minority patients are uninsured, increasing access to care is thought to be a viable solution to mitigate inequities. The objectives of this study were to determine whether racial disparities in 30/90/180day outcomes exist within a universally-insured population of military/civilian-dependent EGS patients and whether differences in outcomes differentially persist in care received at military-vs-civilian hospitals and among sponsors who are enlisted-service members-vs-officers. It also considered longer-term outcomes of care. Study Design: Risk-adjusted survival analyses using Cox proportional-hazards models assessed race-based differences in mortality, major morbidity, and readmission from index-hospital admission (discharge for readmission) through 30/90/180days. Models accounted for hospital clustering and possible biases associated with missing race (reweighted-estimating equations). Sub-analyses considered effects restricted to operative interventions, stratified by 24 EGS-diagnostic categories defined by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma(AAST), and effect modification related to rank (SES-proxy: officers-vs-enlisted-sponsors) and military-vs-civilian-hospital care. Population Studied: Five years of national TRICARE Prime/Prime-plus data, which provides insurance to active/reserve/retired members of the US Armed Services and dependents, were queried for adults (≥18y) with primary EGS conditions, defined by the AAST. Patients who did not have an index admission between 01/01/2006-01/07/2010 (minimum 180days follow-up) or who were not continuously enrolled in TRICARE for 180days were excluded. Non-surviving patients were retained while they survived. Principal Findings: A total of 101,011 patients were included: 73.5% White, 14.5% Black, 4.4% Asian, 7.7% other. Risk-adjusted analyses reported equivalent-or-better mortality and readmission outcomes among minority patients at 30/90/180days—even when restricted to civilian hospitals where studies suggest that EGS disparities are found. Readmissions within military hospitals were lower among minority patients. Major morbidity was higher among Black versus White patients (HR[95%CI]): 30day-1.23[1.13-1.35], 90day-1.18[1.09-1.28], 180day-1.15[1.07-1.24]—a finding driven by appendiceal disorders (HR:1.69-1.70). No other diagnostic category-based HR was significant. When considered by rank, significant effects were isolated to enlisted-service members. However, given the relatively small number of patients who were (dependents of) officers, it is difficult to determine whether rank-based findings are a result of social determinants or influenced by the limited number of minority patients. Conclusions: The first of its kind to examine racial disparities in longer-term outcomes of EGS care, this longitudinal analysis of military patients demonstrated apparent mitigation of racial disparities within a universally-insured health system when compared to the overall US health system. Efforts to explain findings based on consideration of care provided in military-vs-civilian hospitals, among specific EGS-diagnostic categories, and based on sponsor rank revealed modification of the association between race and outcomes to some extent for all three. Implications for Policy or Practice: The contrast between results for universally-insured military/civilian-dependent patients and reported disparities among all US civilian patients merits consideration. The data speak to the importance of insurance-coverage in the development of disparities interventions nationwide and will help to inform policy within the DoD

Increased hospice enrollment and decreased neurosurgical interventions without changes in mortality for older medicare patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury

Background: Hospice improves quality and value of end of life care (EOLC), and enrollment has increased for older patients dying from chronic medical conditions. It remains unknown if the same is true for older patients who die after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI).Methods: Subjects included Medicare beneficiaries (≥65 years) who were hospitalized for msTBI from 2005 to 2011. Outcomes included intensity and quality of EOLC for decedents within 30 days of admission, and 30-day mortality for the entire cohort. Logistic regression was used to analyze the association between year of admission, mortality, and EOLC.Results: Among 50,342 older adults, 30-day mortality was 61.2%. Mortality was unchanged over the study period (aOR 0.93 [0.87-1.00], p = 0.06). Additionally, 30-day non-survivors had greater odds of hospice enrollment, lower odds of undergoing neurosurgery, but greater odds of gastrostomy.Conclusion: Between 2005 and 2011, hospice enrollment increased, but there was no change in 30-day mortality

The independent effect of emergency general surgery on outcomes varies depending on case type: A NSQIP outcomes study

Background: Emergency general surgery (EGS) is an independent risk factor for morbidity and mortality, and seven procedures account for 80% of the National burden of operative EGS. We aimed to characterize the excess morbidity and mortality attributable to these procedures based on the level of procedural risk. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Project (ACS-NSQIP) database. (2005-2014). Seven EGS procedures were stratified as high risk and low risk. Primary outcomes were overall mortality, overall morbidity, major morbidity. Multivariable logistic regression was performed. Results: There were 619,174 patients identified. Comparing EGS to non-EGS in high-risk cases the OR for overall mortality was 1.39(1.33,1.45), overall morbidity 1.07 (0.98, 1.16), and major morbidity 1.15(1.03,1,27). In low-risk cases the OR for overall mortality was 1.03 (0.89, 1.19) overall morbidity 1.35 (1.23, 1.48), and major morbidity 2.18(1.90, 2.50). Conclusions: Using a Nationally representative clinical database we identified significant heterogeneity in the outcomes of EGS depending on procedural risk. Risk stratification and benchmarking strategies need to account for the inherent heterogeneity of EG

Are appendectomy outcomes in level I trauma centers as good as we think?

Background: Designated trauma centers improve outcomes for severely injured patients. However, major trauma workload can disrupt other care pathways and some patient groups may compete ineffectively for resources with higher priority trauma cases. This study tested the hypothesis that treatment at a higher-level trauma center is an independent predictor for worse outcome after appendectomy.Methods: An observational study was undertaken using an all-payer longitudinal data set (California State Inpatient Database 2007-2011). All patients with an ICD-90-CM diagnosis of acute appendicitis (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 540) that subsequently underwent appendectomy were included. Patients transferred between hospitals were excluded to minimize selection bias. The outcome measures were days to the operating room, length of stay, unplanned 30-d readmission (to any hospital in California), and in-hospital mortality. Logistic and generalized linear regression models were used to adjust for patient- (age, sex, payer status, race, Charlson comorbidity index, weekend admission, and generalized peritonitis) and hospital-level (teaching status and bed size) factors.Results: There were 119,601 patients treated in 278 individual hospitals. Patients in level I trauma centers (L1TCs) reached the operating room later (predicted mean difference 0.25 d [95% confidence interval 0.14-0.36]), stayed in hospital longer (0.83 d [0.36-1.31]), and had higher adjusted odds of generalized peritonitis (odds ratio 1.63 [95% confidence interval 1.13-2.36]) than those in nontrauma centers. There were no differences in mortality or unplanned 30-d readmissions to hospital; or between level II trauma centers and nontrauma centers across any of the measured outcomes.Conclusions: Odds of generalized peritonitis are higher and hospital length of stay is longer in L1TCs, although we found no evidence that patients come to serious harm in such institutions. Further work is necessary to determine whether pressure for resources in L1TCs can explain these findings

Differences in rural and urban outcomes: A national inspection of emergency general surgery patients

Background: About 19% of the United States population lives in rural areas and is served by only 10% of the physician workforce. If this misdistribution represents a shortage of available surgeons, it is possible that outcomes for rural patients may suffer. The objective of this study was to explore differences in outcomes for emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions between rural and urban hospitals using a nationally representative sample. Methods: Data from the 2007-2011 National Inpatient Sample were queried for adult patients (≥18 years) with a primary diagnosis consistent with an EGS condition, as defined by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Urban and rural patients were matched on patient-level factors using coarsened exact matching. Differences in outcomes including mortality, morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and total cost of hospital care were assessed using multivariable regression models. Analogous counterfactual models were used to further examine hypothetical outcomes, assuming that all patients had been treated at urban centers. Results: A total of 3,749,265 patients were admitted with an EGS condition during the study period. Of 3259 hospitals analyzed, 40.2% (n = 1310) were rural; they treated 14.6% of patients. Relative to urban centers, EGS patients treated at rural centers had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.28) and lower odds of major complications (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-0.99). Rural patients had 0.51 d (95% CI: 0.50-0.53) shorter LOS and $744 (95$98, respectively. Conclusions: Despite the statistically significant difference in mortality and cost of care at rural versus urban hospitals, the magnitude of absolute differences is sufficiently small to indicate limited clinical importance. Large urban centers are designed to manage complex cases, but our results suggest that for cases appropriate to treat in rural hospitals, equivalent outcomes are found. These findings will inform future work on rural outcomes and provide impetus for regionalization of care for complex EGS presentation

Evaluation of the Perceived Association Between Resident Turnover and the Outcomes of Patients Who Undergo Emergency General Surgery

IMPORTANCE: Inpatient palliative care improves symptom management and patient satisfaction with care and reduces hospital costs in seriously ill patients. However, the role of palliative care in the treatment of patients undergoing surgery (surgical patients) remains poorly defined. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the content, design, and results of interventions to improve access to palliative care or the quality of palliative care for surgical patients. EVIDENCE REVIEW: This systematic review was conducted according to PRIMSA guidelines. Articles were identified through searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL as well as manual review of references. Eligible articles included experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational studies published in English from January 1, 1994, through October 31, 2014, in which patient outcomes of palliative care interventions for adult surgical patients were reported. Data on the study setting, design, intervention, participants, and results were extracted from the final study set and analyzed from December 22, 2014, to February 7, 2015. FINDINGS: A total of 3838 abstracts were identified and screened by 2 reviewers, 77 articles were reviewed in full text, and 25 articles (22 unique interventions involving 8575 unique patients) met the study criteria. Interrater agreement was good (κ = 0.78). Nine single-institution retrospective cohort studies, 7 single-institution prospective cohort studies, 7 single-institution randomized clinical studies, and 2 multicenter randomized clinical studies were included. Nineteen of the 23 single-site studies were performed at academic hospitals. Given the heterogeneity of study methods and measures, meta-analysis was not possible. Preoperative decision-making interventions were associated with decreased mortality in 4 studies. Three studies reported improved quality of communication; 4, improved symptom management; and 7, decreased use of health care resources and decreased cost. However, many studies were small, performed in academic settings, and methodologically flawed and did not measure clinically meaningful outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The sparse evidence regarding interventions to introduce or improve palliative care for surgical patients is further limited by methodologic flaws. Rigorous evaluations of standardized palliative care interventions measuring meaningful patient outcomes are needed

Incidence and predictors of opioid prescription at discharge after traumatic injury

Importance: In the current health care environment with increased scrutiny and growing concern regarding opioid use and abuse, there has been a push toward greater regulation over prescriptions of opioids. Trauma patients represent a population that may be affected by this regulation, as the incidence of pain at hospital discharge is greater than 95%, and opioids are considered the first line of treatment for pain management. However, the use of opioid prescriptions in trauma patients at hospital discharge has not been explored. Objective: To study the incidence and predictors of opioid prescription in trauma patients at discharge in a large national cohort. Design, setting, and participants: Analysis of adult (18-64 years), opioid-naive trauma patients who were beneficiaries of Military Health Insurance (military personnel and their dependents) treated at both military health care facilities and civilian trauma centers and hospitals between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2013, was conducted. Patients with burns, foreign body injury, toxic effects, or late complications of trauma were excluded. Prior diagnosis of trauma within 1 year and in-hospital death were also grounds for exclusion. Injury mechanism and severity, comorbid conditions, mental health disorders, and demographic factors were considered covariates. The Drug Enforcement Administration\u27s list of scheduled narcotics was used to query opioid use. Unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression models were used to determine the predictors of opioid prescription. Data analysis was performed from June 7 to August 21, 2016. Exposures: Injury mechanism and severity, comorbid conditions, mental health disorders, and demographic factors. Main outcomes and measures: Prescription of opioid analgesics at discharge. Results: Among the 33 762 patients included in the study (26 997 [80.0%] men; mean [SD] age, 32.9 [13.3] years), 18 338 (54.3%) received an opioid prescription at discharge. In risk-adjusted models, older age (45-64 vs 18-24 years: odds ratio [OR], 1.28; 95% CI, 1.13-1.44), marriage (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.20-1.34), and higher Injury Severity Score (≥9 vs \u3c9: \u3eOR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.32-1.48) were associated with a higher likelihood of opioid prescription at discharge. Male sex (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.69-0.83) and anxiety (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93) were associated with a decreased likelihood of opioid prescription at discharge. Conclusions and relevance: The incidence of opioid prescription at discharge (54.3%) closely matches the incidence of moderate to severe pain in trauma patients, indicating appropriate prescribing practices. We advocate that injury severity and level of pain-not arbitrary regulations-should inform the decision to prescribe opioid

American Burn Association Guidelines on the Management of Acute Pain in the Adult Burn Patient: A Review of the Literature, a Compilation of Expert Opinion, and Next Steps

The ABA pain guidelines were developed 14 years ago and have not been revised despite evolution in the practice of burn care. A sub-committee of the American Burn Association's Committee on the Organization and Delivery of Burn Care was created to revise the adult pain guidelines. A MEDLINE search of English-language publications from 1968 to 2018 was conducted using the keywords "burn pain," "treatment," and "assessment." Selected references were also used from the greater pain literature. Studies were graded by two members of the committee using Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine-Levels of Evidence. We then met as a group to determine expert consensus on a variety of topics related to treating pain in burn patients. Finally, we assessed gaps in the current knowledge and determined research questions that would aid in providing better recommendations for optimal pain management of the burn patient. The literature search produced 189 papers, 95 were found to be relevant to the assessment and treatment of burn pain. From the greater pain literature 151 references were included, totaling 246 papers being analyzed. Following this literature review, a meeting to establish expert consensus was held and 20 guidelines established in the areas of pain assessment, opioid medications, nonopioid medications, regional anesthesia, and nonpharmacologic treatments. There is increasing research on pain management modalities, but available studies are inadequate to create a true standard of care. We call for more burn specific research into modalities for burn pain control as well as research on multimodal pain control