Surgical Rescue in Medical Patients: The Role of Acute Care Surgeons as the Surgical Rapid Response Team

Emergency Surgical Treatment and Triage: Targeting Optimal Outcomes for Emergency Surgical Patients From Index Encounter Through Definitive Care

BACKGROUND

Patients with emergency surgical conditions (ESCs) experience higher complication rates than those without emergency conditions. Our purpose was to improve time-based key performance indicators (KPIs) of care for ESC patients, including diagnostic workup, empiric stabilization, and referral to definitive care.

METHODS

A rapid response program (ESTAT) was developed to screen for and coordinate optimal, timely care for a spectrum of high-risk ESCs, from the patient's index clinical encounter up to definitive care. The Mann-Whitney test assessed whether any differences in KPIs were statistically significant (P < .05) before compared to after the implementation of ESTAT.

RESULTS

98 patients were identified: 44 in ESTAT group (70% age ≥55, 57% male); 54 in control group (57% age ≥55, 44% male). There were significant decreases from time of index clinical encounter to resuscitation (5 min. vs 34 min., P < .001), to diagnostic imaging (52 min. vs 1 hr. 19 min., P = .004), and to definitive care (2 hr. 17 min. vs 3 hr. 51 min., P = .007) in the ESTAT group compared to the control group, respectively.

DISCUSSION

Improving time-based KPIs for delivery of clinical services is a common goal of medical emergency response systems (MERS) in numerous specialties. Implementation of an ESTAT program provides a screening tool for at-risk patients and reduces time to stabilize, diagnose and triage to definitive surgical intervention. These time benefits may ultimately translate to reduced complication rates for ESC patients. ESTAT may also represent a patient onboarding mechanism for surgical specialty verification programs promoted by quality improvement committees of various professional societies.

Systemic causes are important risk factors for failure after unscheduled colorectal revision surgery

BACKGROUND

The rates of unscheduled revision surgery (URS) after colorectal surgery and failure to rescue-surgical (FTR-s) are 2.4% and 11-17% respectively. The aim of this study was to evaluate the causes of URS lethality to reduce this rate after colorectal surgery.

METHODS

From 2011 to 2021, 337 surgeons collected 547 URS. Type of procedure, time course, diagnostic and detection means, time to decision, time to complication(s), causes of URS, delay of URS, and death were recorded and allowed for multivariate systemic analysis of risk factors for death (FTR-s) after URS. Systemic causes of delay were analyzed as assessment of urgency, communication, skills, organization of the operative program, and transport.

RESULTS

The two main causes of URS were infectious (66% of which 50% by fistula or anastomotic release) and vascular (18%). The rate of FTRs was 10%. The systemic causes rate of FTR-s were 35%. The FTRs were related to the patient (ASA score 3-4: RR: 6 [1-40]; age: RR: 1.05 [1-1.1]), to the surgical procedure (laparotomy: RR: 4.5 [1.6-12]) and to the systemic causes responsible for the delay in the realization of URS (RR: 4.1 [1.4-12]).

CONCLUSION

By avoiding systemic causes, more than one third of the deaths from FTR-s after colorectal surgery could be avoided.

Acute Care Surgery and Surgical Rescue: Expanding the Definition

BACKGROUND

Surgical rescue (SR) is the recovery of patients with surgical complications. Patients transferred (TP) for surgical diagnoses to higher-level care or inpatients (IP) admitted to nonsurgical services may develop intra-abdominal infection (IAI) and require emergency surgery (ES). The aims were to characterize the SR population by the site of ES consultation, open abdomen (OA), and risk of mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

This was an international, multi-institutional prospective observational study of patients requiring ES for IAI. Laparotomy before the transfer was an exclusion criterion. Patients were divided into groups: clinic/ED (C/ED), IP, or TP. Data collected included demographics, the severity of illness (SOI), procedures, OA, and number of laparotomies. The primary outcome was mortality. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed.

RESULTS

There were 752 study patients (C/ED 63.8% vs TP 23.4% and IP 12.8%), with a mean age of 59 years and 43.6% women. IP had worse SOI scores (Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment). The most common procedures were small and large bowel (77.3%). IP and TP had similar rates of OA (IP 52.1% and TP 52.3 %) vs C/ED (37.7%, p < 0.001), and IP had more relaparotomies (3 or 4). The unadjusted mortality rate was highest in IP (n = 24, 25.0%) vs TP (n = 29, 16.5%) and C/ED (n = 68, 14.2%, p = 0.03). Adjusting for age and SOI, only SOI had an impact on the risk of mortality (area under the curve 86%).

CONCLUSIONS

IP had the highest unadjusted mortality after ES for IAI and was followed by the TP; SOI drove the risk of mortality. SR must be extended to IP for timely recognition of the IAI.

Clinical significance of acute care surgery system as a part of hospital medical emergency team for hospitalized patients

Purpose

Acute care surgery (ACS) has been practiced in several tertiary hospitals in South Korea since the late 2000s. The medical emergency team (MET) has improved the management of patients with clinical deterioration during hospitalization. This study aimed to identify the clinical effectiveness of collaboration between ACS and MET in hospitalized patients.

Methods

This was an observational before-and-after study. Emergency surgical cases of hospitalized patients were included in this study. Patients hospitalized in the Department of Emergency Medicine or Department of Surgery, directly comanaged by ACS were excluded. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality rate. The secondary outcome was the alarm-to-operation interval, as recorded by a Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) of >4.

Results

In total, 240 patients were included in the analysis (131 in the pre-ACS group and 109 in the post-ACS group). The in-hospital mortality rates in the pre- and post-ACS groups were 17.6% and 22.9%, respectively (P = 0.300). MEWS of >4 within 72 hours was recorded in 62 cases (31 in each group), and the median alarm-to-operation intervals of each group were 11 hours 16 minutes and 6 hours 41 minutes, respectively (P = 0.040).

Conclusion

Implementation of the ACS system resulted in faster surgical intervention in hospitalized patients, the need for which was detected early by the MET. The in-hospital mortality rates before and after ACS implementation were not significantly different.

How to reduce failure to rescue after visceral surgery?

Mortality after visceral surgery has decreased owing to progress in surgical techniques, anesthesiology and intensive care. Mortality occurs in 5-10% of patients after major surgery and remains a topic of interest. However, the ratio of mortality after postoperative complications in relation to overall complications varies between hospitals because of failure to rescue at the time of the complication. There are multiple factors that lead to complication-related mortality: they are patient-related, disease-related, but are related, above all, to the timeliness of diagnosis of the complication, the organisational aspects of management in private or public hospitals, hospital volume that corresponds to the centralisation of initial management or to the concept of referral centre in case of complications, to the team spirit, to communication between the health care providers and to the management of the complication itself. Several organisational advances are to be considered, such as the development of shorter hospitalisations and notably ambulatory surgery, as well as enhanced recovery programs. Remote monitoring and the contribution of artificial intelligence must also be evaluated in this context. The reduction of mortality after visceral surgery rests on several tactics: prevention of potentially lethal complications, the all-important reduction of failure to rescue, and risk management before, during and after hospitalisations that are increasingly shorter.

Predisposed to failure? The challenge of rescue in the medical intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Medical intensive care unit (MICU) patients develop acute surgical processes that require operative intervention. There are limited data addressing outcomes of emergency general surgery (EGS) in this population. The aim of our study was to characterize the breadth of surgical consults from the MICU and assess mortality after abdominal EGS cases.

METHODS

All MICU patients with an EGS consult in an academic medical center between January 2010 and 2016 were identified from an electronic medical record-based registry. Charts were reviewed to determine reason for consult, procedures performed, and to obtain additional clinical data. A multivariate logistic regression was used to determine patient factors associated with patient mortality.

RESULTS

Of 911 MICU patients seen by our service, 411(45%) required operative intervention, with 186 patients undergoing an abdominal operation. The postoperative mortality rate after abdominal operations was 37% (69/186), significantly higher than the mortality of 16% (1833/11192) for all patients admitted to the MICU over the same period (p < 0.05). Damage-control procedures were performed in 64 (34%) patients, with 46% mortality in this group. The most common procedures were bowel resections, with mortality of 42% (28/66) and procedures for severe clostridium difficile, mortality of 38% (9/24). Twenty-seven patients met our definition of surgical rescue, requiring intervention for complications of prior procedures, with mortality of 48%. Need for surgical rescue was associated with increased admission mortality (odds ratio, 13.07; 95% confidence interval, 2.86-59.77). Twenty-six patients had pathology amenable to surgical intervention but did not undergo operation, with 100% mortality. In patients with abdominal pathology at the time of operation, in-hospital delay was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio, 5.13; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-23.77).

CONCLUSION

Twenty percent of EGS consults from the MICU had an abdominal process requiring an operative intervention. While the MICU population as a whole has a high baseline mortality, patients requiring abdominal surgical intervention are an even higher risk.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and epidemiological, level III.

Emergency response teams in and outside of medicine-structurally crafted to be worlds apart

Medical emergency response teams (MERTs) are widespread throughout inpatient hospital care facilities. Besides the rise of the ubiquitous rapid response team, current MERTs span trauma, stroke, myocardial infarction, and sepsis in many hospitals. Given the multiplicity of teams with widely varying membership, leadership, and functionality, the structure of MERTs is appropriate to review to determine opportunities for improvement. Since nonmedical ERTs predate MERT genesis and are similar across multiple disciplines, nonmedical ERTs provide a standard against which to compare and review MERT design and function.Nonmedical ERTs are crafted to leverage team members who are fully trained and dedicated to that domain, whose skills are regularly updated, with leadership tied to unique skill sets rather than based on hierarchical rank; activity is immediately reviewed at the conclusion of each deployment and teams continue to work together between team deployments. Medical emergency response teams, in sharp contradistinction, often incorporate trainees into teams that do not train together, are not focused on the discipline required to be leveraged, are led based on arrival time or hierarchy, and are usually reviewed at a time remote from team action; teams rapidly disperse after each activity and generally do not continue to work together in between team activations. These differences between ERTs and MERTs may impede MERT success with regard to morbidity and mortality mitigation. Readily deployable approaches to bridge identified gaps include dedicated Advanced Practice Provider (APP) team leadership, reductions in trainee MERT leadership while preserving participation, discipline-dedicated rescue teams, and interteam integration training.Emergency response teams in medical and nonmedical domains share parallels yet lack congruency in structure, function, membership, roles, and performance evaluation. Medical emergency response team structural redesign may be warranted to embrace the beneficial elements of nonmedical ERTs to improve patient outcome and reduce variation in rescue practices and team functionality.