Acute Care Surgery Models Worldwide: A Systematic Review

Background: The Acute Care Surgery (ACS) model was developed as a dedicated service for the provision of 24/7 nontrauma emergency surgical care. This systematic review investigated which components are essential in an ACS model and the state of implementation of ACS models worldwide. Methods: A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and Web of Science databases. All relevant data of ACS models were extracted from included articles. Results: The search identified 62 articles describing ACS models in 13 countries. The majority consist of a dedicated nontrauma emergency surgical service, with daytime on-site attending coverage (cleared from elective duties), and 24/7 in-house resident coverage. Emergency department coverage and operating room access varied widely. Critical care is fully embedded in the original US model as part of the acute care chain (ACC), but is still a separate unit in most other countries. While in most European countries, ACS is not a recognized specialty yet, there is a tendency toward more structured acute care. Conclusions: Large national and international heterogeneity exists in the structure and components of the ACS model. Critical care is still a separate component in most systems, although it is an essential part of the ACC to provide the best pre-, intra- and postoperative care of the physiologically deranged patient. Universal acceptance of one global ACS model seems challenging; however, a global consensus on essential components would benefit any healthcare system

Differences in Characteristics and Outcome of Patients with Penetrating Injuries in the USA and the Netherlands: A Multi-institutional Comparison

Introduction: The incidence and nature of penetrating injuries differ between countries. The aim of this study was to analyze characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients with penetrating injuries treated at urban Level-1 trauma centers in the USA (USTC) and the Netherlands (NLTC). Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, 1331 adult patients (470 from five NLTC and 861 from three USTC) with truncal penetrating injuries admitted between July 2011 and December 2014 were included. In-hospital mortality was the primary outcome. Outcome comparisons were adjusted for differences in population characteristics in multivariable analyses. Results: In USTC, gunshot wound injuries (36.1 vs. 17.4%, p < 0.001) and assaults were more frequent (91.2 vs. 77.7%, p < 0.001). ISS was higher in USTC, but the Revised Trauma Score (RTS) was comparable. In-hospital mortality was similar (5.0 vs. 3.6% in NLTC, p = 0.25). The adjusted odds ratio for mortality in USTC compared to NLTC was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.35–2.54). Hospital stay length of stay was shorter in USTC (difference 0.17 days, 95% CI −0.29 to −0.05, p = 0.005), ICU admission rate was comparable (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71–1.31, p = 0.80), and ICU length of stay was longer in USTC (difference of 0.39 days, 95% CI 0.18–0.60, p < 0.0001). More USTC patients were discharged to home (86.9 vs. 80.6%, p < 0.001). Readmission rates were similar (5.6 vs. 3.8%, p = 0.17). Conclusion: Despite the higher incidence of penetrating trauma, particularly firearm-related injuries, and higher hospital volumes in the USTC compared to the NLTC, the in-hospital mortality was similar. In this study, outcome of care was not significantly influenced by differences in incidence of firearm-related injuries