A leap in faith: the impact of removing the surgeon from the level II trauma response

Extending surgeon response times in tier 2 traumas does not adversely affect patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

The presence of a trauma surgeon during patient resuscitations is required at most American College of Surgeons-verified trauma centers despite little evidence showing improved patient outcomes in the less-than-critically injured (Tier 2) trauma patients. This study was designed to identify the impact of extending required surgeon response times on outcomes in tier 2 trauma patients.

METHODS

An American College of Surgeons-verified level 2 trauma center extended the maximum allowed surgeon response time for tier 2 activations from 60 min to 120 min on November 1, 2011. Surgeon response time and patient outcomes of the retrospective control group (January 1, 2008-October 31, 2011) were then compared with the prospective test group (November 1, 2011-December 31, 2014). Primary outcomes included mortality and hospital length of stay (HLOS). Secondary outcomes were emergency department length of stay, and time from ED arrival to CT scan. A subset analysis of all patients evaluated by a surgeon within 60 min of arrival versus those evaluated by a surgeon after 60 min was also performed.

RESULTS

The control and test groups were composed of 757 and 792 patients, and their mean injury severity score was 9.0 and 6.0, respectively. Emergency department length of stay showed a statistically significant increase of 12 min, whereas HLOS was unchanged throughout the study. Mortality was not significantly different between the groups. Subset analysis revealed a median surgeon arrival time of 15 min in the <60-min group and 85 min in the >60-min group, whereas the injury severity score, HLOS, and mortality were not significantly different between these subsets. No correlation existed between these outcomes and surgeon arrival time.

CONCLUSIONS

Doubling required surgeon response time in tier 2 trauma patients does not produce negative outcomes in this patient group. Mandatory surgeon response times in similar patient groups can be re-evaluated to allow for greater flexibility of a limited surgeon workforce while still providing safe care.

Variability in CT imaging of blunt trauma among ED physicians, surgical residents, and trauma surgeons

BACKGROUND

Trauma triage decisions can be influenced by both knowledge and experience. Consequently, there may be substantial variability in computed tomography (CT) scans desired by emergency medicine physicians, surgical chief residents, and attending trauma surgeons. We quantified this difference and studied the effects of each group's decisions on missed injuries, cost, and radiation exposure.

METHODS

All blunt trauma activations at an urban level 1 trauma center were studied over a 6-mo period. Three months into the study, a pan-scan protocol was introduced. Prior to CT imaging, providers separately completed a survey that asked which CT scans were desired for each patient. Based on the completed surveys, hypothetical missed injuries, radiation exposure, and cost were determined.

RESULTS

The variability in the number of CT scans desired by each of the three providers and the resulting cost and radiation exposure were not statistically significant. Substantial variability was predominantly seen in the indications for the desired scans, with the difference between proportions ranging from 3.1%-68.7%. Agreement among the three providers was highest for head and c-spine scans (80%-100%) and lowest for maxillary face (57%-80%) and chest scans (52%-74%). Overall, the missed injury rate was similar for all the providers; chief residents missed significantly more major injuries than trauma attendings during the pan-scan period (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma training and level of training did not have a substantial effect on radiological decisions during the initial trauma assessment. This study sheds light on the growing uniformity among providers with regard to medical decision-making in the initial work-up of trauma.

Who should lead a trauma team: Surgeon or non-surgeon? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background:

Presence of a trauma team leader (TTL) in the trauma team is associated with positive patient outcomes in major trauma. The TTL is traditionally a surgeon who coordinates the resuscitation and ensures adherence to Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) guidelines. The necessity of routine surgical leadership in the resuscitative component of trauma care has been questioned by some authors. Therefore, it remains controversial who should lead the trauma team. We aimed to evaluate outcomes associated with surgeon versus non-surgeon TTLs in management of trauma patients.

Methods:

In accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement standards, we performed a systematic review. Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched to identify randomized and non-randomized studies investigating outcomes associated with surgeon versus non-surgeon TTL in management of trauma patients. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the methodological quality and risk of bias of the selected studies. Fixed-effect model was applied to calculate pooled outcome data.

Results:

Three retrospective cohort studies, enrolling 2,519 adult major trauma patients, were included. Our analysis showed that there was no difference in survival [odds ratio (OR): 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61-1.10, P=0.19] and length of stay when trauma team was led by surgeon or non-surgeon TTLs; however, fewer injuries were missed when the trauma team was led by a surgeon (OR: 0.48, 95% CI 0.25-0.92, P=0.03).

Conclusions:

Despite constant debate, the comparative evidence about outcomes associated with surgeon and non-surgeon trauma team leader is insufficient. The best available evidence suggests that there is no significant difference in outcomes of surgeon or non-surgeon trauma team leaders. High quality randomized controlled trials are required to compare the effectiveness of surgeon and non-surgeon trauma team leaders in order to resolve the controversy about who should lead the trauma team. Clinically significant missed injuries should be considered as important outcome in future studies.

Managing moderately injured pediatric patients without immediate surgeon presence: 10 years later

PURPOSE

Beginning in 2003, the pediatric emergency medicine (PEM) physician replaced the surgeon as the team leader for all level II trauma resuscitations at a busy pediatric trauma center. The purpose was to review the outcomes 10 years after implementing this practice change.

METHODS

Trauma registry data for all level II activations requiring admission were extracted for the 21 months (April 1, 2001-December 31, 2002) prior to policy change (period 1, **n=627) and compared to the admitted patients from the 10 subsequent years (2003-2013; period 2, n=2694). Data included demographics, length of stay (LOS), injury severity score (ISS), readmissions, complications, and mortality.

RESULTS

Mean ISS scores for admitted patients during period 1 (8.5) were higher than during period 2 (7.8). During period 1, 53.6% of patients underwent abdominal CT versus 41.8% in period 2 (p<.001), and the median ED LOS was 135 versus 191 minutes in period 2. From 2000 to 2003, 91% of patients seen as level II trauma alerts were admitted compared to 56.6% of patients in period 2 (p<0.001). There were no missed abdominal injuries identified, and readmission rate was low.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that level II trauma resuscitations can be safely evaluated and managed without immediate surgeon presence. Although ED LOS increased, admission rate and CT scan usage decreased significantly without an increase in missed injuries.

Trauma surgeon becomes consultant: evaluation of a protocol for management of intermediate-level trauma patients

PURPOSE

At our level 1 pediatric trauma center, 9-54 intermediate-level ("level 2") trauma activations are received per month. Previously, the surgery team was required to respond to and assume responsibility for all patients who had "level 2" trauma activations. In 8/2011, we implemented a protocol where the emergency room (ER) physician primarily manages these patients with trauma consultation for surgical evaluation or admission. The purpose of this study was to prospectively evaluate the effects of the new protocol to ensure that patient safety and quality of care were maintained.

METHODS

We compared outcomes of patients treated PRE-implementation (10/2010-7/2011) and POST-implementation (9/2011-5/2012), including surgeon consultation rate, utilization of imaging and laboratory testing, ER length of stay, admission rate, and missed injuries or readmissions. Statistical analysis included chi-square and Student's t-test.

RESULTS

We identified 472 patients: 179 in the PRE and 293 in the POST period. The populations had similar baseline clinical characteristics. The surgical consultation rate in the POST period was only 42%, with no missed injuries or readmissions. The ER length of stay did not change. However, in the POST period there were significant decreases in the admission rate (73% to 44%) and the mean number of CT scans (1.4 to 1), radiographs (2.4 to 1.7), and laboratory tests (5.1 to 3.3) ordered in the emergency room (all p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Intermediate-level pediatric trauma patients can be efficiently and safely managed by pediatric emergency room physicians, with surgical consultation only as needed. The protocol change improved resource utilization by decreasing testing and admissions and streamlining resident utilization in an era of reduced duty hours.

Physiologically focused triage criteria improve utilization of pediatric surgeon-directed trauma teams and reduce costs

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric surgeon-directed trauma teams (STTs) provide lifesaving treatment but at a high cost. We used physiologically based criteria to improve STT utilization.

METHODS

We reviewed 152 consecutive STT activations at one center, comparing standard and physiologically focused criteria and 24-hour hospital costs/charges for overtriaged patients vs level 2 (emergency department managed) blunt trauma patients matched for age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and necessity for operation.

RESULTS

Our cohort (73.0% male; 86.8% blunt; median age, 8.0 [interquartile range, 4.0-14.0] years) had 10 deaths (6.6%) and 18 (11.8%) emergent operations. Twenty-nine patients met neither standard nor physiologic criteria (group 1), 25 met standard but not physiologic criteria (overtriaged, group 2), and 98 met physiologic criteria (group 3). Group 3 had higher median ISS (19.0 [10.0-33.0] vs 10.0 [4.0-17.0] and 5.5 [5.0-16.75] for groups 1 and 2, P = .001), more intensive care unit admissions (67.2% vs 31.0% and 52.0%, P = .001), longer hospitalization (5.0 [3.0-9.25] days vs 3.0 [1.0-5.0] and 4.0 [2.0-5.0] days, P = .002), and all patients who died or required emergent operation (P < .001). Physiologic criteria maintained 100% sensitivity but improved specificity (49.2% vs 23.0%). Overtriaged patients (n = 18) had 78.2% higher charges ($4700; 95% confidence interval, 13.3%-180.1%; P = .013) and 53.4% higher costs ($800; 95% confidence interval, 1.8%-131.2%; P = .041) than level 2 patients (n = 259) after adjusting for age, ISS, and need for operation, largely because of computed tomography and emergency department charges (66% of overtriaged charges).

CONCLUSIONS

Physiologic STT activation criteria would have saved 25 activations, $20,000 in costs, and $120,000 in charges annually without compromising patient safety.

The role of emergency medicine physicians in trauma care in North America: evolution of a specialty

The role of Emergency Medicine Physicians (EMP) in the care of trauma patients in North America has evolved since the advent of the specialty in the late 1980's. The evolution of this role in the context of the overall demands of the specialty and accreditation requirements of North American trauma centers will be discussed. Limited available data published in the literature examining the role of EMP's in trauma care will be reviewed with respect to its implications for an expanded role for EMPs in trauma care. Two training models currently in the early stages of development have been proposed to address needs for increased manpower in trauma and the critical care of trauma patients. The available information regarding these models will be reviewed along with the implications for improving the care of trauma patients in both Europe and North America.

Effects of a nonsurgical hospitalist service on trauma patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons criteria for Level I trauma centers calls for >90% of trauma patients to be admitted directly by a trauma surgeon or surgical subspecialist; however, the efficiency of the trauma system may be increased if patients presenting with comorbid conditions and minor injuries are treated by a hospitalist team (nonsurgical Trauma MEDical [TMED] service). We hypothesized outcomes would be equivalent for patients treated under TMED versus a surgical service.

METHODS

This retrospective review compared mortality, hospital length of stay (LOS), Emergency Department (ED) LOS, placement to rehabilitation facilities, and complication rates for patients who could have been treated by TMED as identified by an algorithm. The study population for 2003 (pre-TMED) was compared with the study population for 2006 (post-TMED). Univariate analyses and multivariate logistic and linear regression were used to identify outcomes that were different for patients treated in 2003 versus 2006. Sensitivity, specificity, and percent kappa agreement were calculated for patients who were treated by the TMED team in 2006 versus patients in 2006 who were identified using the algorithm.

RESULTS

The algorithm had reasonable sensitivity (78%) and specificity (90%); the kappa agreement was excellent (0.88). No differences were found in mortality (P = .31), rate of complications (P = .08), ED LOS (P = .77), or placement to rehabilitation facilities (P = .29) for patients identified in 2003 versus 2006. Hospital LOS was increased in 2006 (3.7 vs 4.1 days; P = .02).

CONCLUSION

These data support admission of trauma patients with nonsevere, single-system injuries to a nonsurgical hospitalist service. We hypothesize that overall system efficiency may be improved by applying this alternative model in other trauma centers.

[Organization of clinical emergency units. Mission and environmental factors determine the organizational concept]

AIM

Mission and organization of emergency units were analysed to understand the underlying principles and concepts.

METHODS

The recent literature (2000-2007) on organizational structures and functional concepts of clinical emergency units was reviewed. An organizational portfolio based on the criteria specialization (presence of medical specialists on the emergency unit) and integration (integration of the emergency unit into the hospital structure) was established. The resulting organizational archetypes were comparatively assessed based on established efficiency criteria (efficiency of resource utilization, process efficiency, market efficiency).

RESULTS

Clinical emergency units differ with regard to autonomy (within the hospital structure), range of services and service depth (horizontal and vertical integration). The "specialization"-"integration"-portfolio enabled the definition of typical organizational patterns (so-called archetypes): profit centres primarily driven by economic objectives, service centres operating on the basis of agreements with the hospital board, functional clinical units integrated into medical specialty units (e.g., surgery, gynaecology) and modular organizations characterized by small emergency teams that would call specialists immediately after triage and initial diagnostic.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no "one fits all" concept for the organization of clinical emergency units. Instead, a number of well characterized organizational concepts are available enabling a rational choice based on a hospital's mission and demand.

The impact of managing moderately injured pediatric trauma patients without immediate surgeon presence

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine the outcome of "minor resuscitation" trauma patients managed without the immediate presence of a surgeon.

METHODS

In 2003, our hospital replaced surgeons with pediatric emergency medicine physicians for level 2 (minor resuscitation) trauma alerts, whereas the level 1 (major resuscitation) alerts remained surgeon directed. We compared patients treated in the 3 years before (period 1) and after (period 2) this change. Patient records were analyzed for discharges, alert upgrades, Injury Severity Score (ISS), time to destination, and mortality.

RESULTS

There were 918 admissions and 93 discharges in period 1 compared with 815 admissions and 652 discharges in period 2. In period 1, 3% were upgraded to level 1 status compared with 9% in period 2 (P < .0001). The mean ISS of admitted patients and the percentage of critical (ISS >15) patients were greater in period 2 (P < .001). The time to inpatient floor was longer in period 2, but the elapsed times to operating room and to pediatric intensive care unit were not significantly different.

CONCLUSION

Pediatric emergency medicine physicians discharged more patients than the surgeons, but also upgraded more to level 1 status. Level 2 trauma patients can be safely managed without immediate surgeon presence.