Trauma 24-hour observation critical path

Trends in utilization of whole-body computed tomography in blunt trauma after MVC: Analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database

BACKGROUND

The use of whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) in awake, clinically stable injured patients is controversial. It is associated with unnecessary radiation exposure and increased cost. We evaluate use of computed tomography (CT) imaging during the initial evaluation of injured patients at American College of Surgeons Levels I and II trauma centers (TCs) after blunt trauma.

METHODS

We identified adult blunt trauma patients after motor vehicle crash (MVC) from the American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) database between 2007 and 2016 at Level I or II TCs. We defined awake clinically stable patients as those with systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg or higher with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15. Computed tomography imaging had to have been performed within 2 hours of arrival. Whole-body computed tomography was defined as simultaneous CT of the head, chest and abdomen, and selective CT if only one to two aforementioned regions were imaged. Patients were stratified by Injury Severity Score (ISS).

RESULTS

There were 217,870 records for analysis; 131,434 (60.3%) had selective CT, and 86,436 (39.7%) had WBCT. Overall, there was an increasing trend in WBCT utilization over the study period (p < 0.001). In patients with ISS less than 10, WBCT was utilized more commonly at Level II versus Level I TCs in patients discharged from the emergency department (26.9% vs. 18.3%, p < 0.001), which had no surgical procedure(s) (81.4% vs. 80.3%, p < 0.001) and no injury of the head (53.7% vs. 52.4%, p = 0.008) or abdomen (83.8% vs. 82.1%, p = 0.001). The risk-adjusted odds of WBCT was two times higher at Level II TC vs. Level I (odds ratio, 1.88; 95% confidence interval 1.82-1.94; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Whole-body computed tomography utilization is increasing relative to selective CT. This increasing utilization is highest at Level II TCs in patients with low ISSs, and in patients without associated head or abdominal injury. The findings have implications for quality improvement and cost reduction.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Care management, Level IV.

Evidence of Prolonged Monitoring of Trauma Patients Admitted via Trauma Resuscitation Unit without Primary Proof of Severe Injuries

Introductio: Although management of severely injured patients in the Trauma Resuscitation Unit (TRU) follows evidence-based guidelines, algorithms for treatment of the slightly injured are limited. Methods: All trauma patients in a period of eight months in a Level I trauma center were followed. Retrospective analysis was performed only in patients ≥18 years with primary TRU admission, Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) ≤ 1, Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) ≤ 1 and Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≤3 after treatment completion and ≥24 h monitoring in the units. Cochran’s Q-test was used for the statistical evaluation of AIS and ISS changes in units. Results: One hundred and twelve patients were enrolled in the study. Twenty-one patients (18.75%) reported new complaints after treatment completion in the TRU. AIS rose from the Intermediate Care Unit (IMC) to Normal Care Unit (NCU) 6.2% and ISS 6.9%. MAIS did not increase >2, and no intervention was necessary for any patient. No correlation was found between computed tomography (CT) diagnostics in TRU and AIS change. Conclusions: The data suggest that AIS, MAIS and ISS did not increase significantly in patients without a severe injury during inpatient treatment, regardless of the type of CT diagnostics performed in the TRU, suggesting that monitoring of these patients may be unnecessary.

Is it safe to discharge blunt abdominal trauma patients with normal initial findings?

BACKGROUND

Trauma is the leading health concern among young adults. Blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) is the most common type of blunt traumas. BAT patients may prove normal in the initial clinical assessments, but since the time required for an intra-abdominal injury to be clinically apparent is not predictable, deciding when to safely discharge these patients could be a dilemma. The purpose of this study is to determine whether follow-up of the early discharged or further diagnostic assessment of the later discharged BAT patients with normal initial findings reveals any abnormal findings.

METHODS

Totally, 389 hemodynamically-stable patients suspected of BAT who arrived at the emergency department (ED) of two university hospitals in Tehran from September 2013 to September 2014 were included in this study. Upon arrival at the ED, all subjects underwent abdominal examination and FAST, and were assessed for hematocrit and base deficit levels and presence of hematuria. These assessments were repeated in the patients who were discharged after 6 h, at 6 or 12 h post-arrival. All patients were followed-up after 24 h and one week by phone call.

RESULTS

Out of all study participants, 158 patients (40.6%) had normal findings in all initial assessments. These patients were discharged from the ED after a median of 5 h. After one week of follow-up, none of them had any symptom or complication, or had sought medical attention after being discharged from the study hospitals. Out of these patients, 78 patients (49.4%) were discharged after 6 hours by their physician's decision, and underwent the same diagnostic assessments for the second or third time. None of these assessments revealed any abnormal findings.

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of normal abdominal exam, normal FAST, normal hematocrit, normal base deficit, and absence of hematuria rules out intra-abdominal injury in BAT patients. It is safe to discharge patients after they prove normal for these assessments. Longer observation and repeated diagnostic assessment of these patients does not yield any new findings, and seems to be unnecessary.

Can clinical prediction tools predict the need for computed tomography in blunt abdominal? A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Blunt abdominal trauma is a common reason for admission to the Emergency Department. Early detection of injuries is an important goal but is often not straightforward as physical examination alone is not a good predictor of serious injury. Computed tomography (CT) has become the primary method for assessing the stable trauma patient. It has high sensitivity and specificity but there remains concern regarding the long term consequences of high doses of radiation. Therefore an accurate and reliable method of assessing which patients are at higher risk of injury and hence require a CT would be clinically useful. We perform a systematic review to investigate the use of clinical prediction tools (CPTs) for the identification of abdominal injuries in patients suffering blunt trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library and NHS Evidence up to August 2014. English language, prospective and retrospective studies were included if they derived, validated or assessed a CPT, aimed at identifying intra-abdominal injuries or the need for intervention to treat an intra-abdominal after blunt trauma. Methodological quality was assessed using a 14 point scale. Performance was assessed predominantly by sensitivity.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies were identified. All studies were derivative studies and no CPT was validated in a separate study. There were large differences in the study design, composition of the CPTs, the outcomes analysed and the methodological quality of the included studies. Sensitivities ranged from 86 to 100%. The highest performing CPT had a lower limit of the 95% CI of 95.8% and was of high methodological quality (11 of 14). Had this rule been applied to the population then 25.1% of patients would have avoided a CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven CPTs were identified of varying designs and methodological quality. All demonstrate relatively high sensitivity with some achieving very high sensitivity whilst still managing to reduce the number of CTs performed by a significant amount. Further studies are required to validate the results obtained by the highest performing CPTs before any firm recommendation can be used regarding their use in routine clinical practice.

Intra-abdominal injury following blunt trauma becomes clinically apparent within 9 hours

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma can be challenging and resource intensive. Observation with serial clinical assessments plays a major role in the evaluation of these patients, but the time required for intra-abdominal injury to become clinically apparent is unknown. The purpose of this study was to determine the amount of time required for an intra-abdominal injury to become clinically apparent after blunt abdominal trauma via physical examination or commonly followed clinical values.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients who sustained blunt trauma resulting in intra-abdominal injury between June 2010 and June 2012 at a Level 1 academic trauma center was performed. Patient demographics, injuries, and the amount of time from emergency department admission to sign or symptom development and subsequent diagnosis were recorded. All diagnoses were made by computed tomography or at the time of surgery. Patient transfers from other hospitals were excluded.

RESULTS

Of 3,574 blunt trauma patients admitted to the hospital, 285 (8%) experienced intra-abdominal injuries. The mean (SD) age was 36 (17) years, the majority were male (194 patients, 68%) and the mean (SD) Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 21 (14). The mean (SD) time from admission to diagnosis via computed tomography or surgery was 74 (55) minutes. Eighty patients (28%) required either surgery (78 patients, 17%) or radiographic embolization (2 patients, 0.7%) for their injury. All patients who required intervention demonstrated a sign or symptom of their intra-abdominal injury within 60 minutes of arrival, although two patients were intervened upon in a delayed fashion. All patients with a blunt intra-abdominal injury manifested a clinical sign or symptom of their intra-abdominal injury, resulting in their diagnosis within 8 hours 25 minutes of arrival to the hospital.

CONCLUSION

All diagnosed intra-abdominal injuries from blunt trauma manifested clinical signs or symptoms that could prompt imaging or intervention, leading to their diagnosis within 8 hours 25 minutes of arrival to the hospital. All patients who required an intervention for their injury manifested a sign or symptom of their injury within 60 minutes of arrival.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level IV. Epidemiologic study, level III.

Blunt abdominal trauma patients are at very low risk for intra-abdominal injury after emergency department observation

Introduction

Patients are commonly admitted to the hospital for observation following blunt abdominal trauma (BAT), despite initially negative emergency department (ED) evaluations. With the current use of screening technology, such as computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis, ultrasound, and laboratory evaluations, it is unclear which patients require observation. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of intra-abdominal injury (IAI) and death in hemodynamically normal and stable BAT patients with initially negative ED evaluations admitted to an ED observation unit and to define a low-risk subgroup of patients and assess whether they may be discharged without abdominal/pelvic CT or observation.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study performed at an urban level 1 trauma center and included all BAT patients admitted to an ED observation unit as part of a BAT key clinical pathway. All were observed for at least 8 hours as part of the key clinical pathway, and only minors and pregnant women were excluded. Outcomes included the presence of IAI or death during a 40-month follow-up period. Prior to data collection, low-risk criteria were defined as no intoxication, no hypotension or tachycardia, no abdominal pain or tenderness, no hematuria, and no distracting injury. To be considered low risk, patients needed to meet all low-risk criteria.

Results

Of the 1,169 patients included over the 2-year study period, 29% received a CT of the abdomen and pelvis, 6% were admitted to the hospital from the observation unit for further management, 0.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.1%–1%) were diagnosed with IAI, and 0% (95% CI, 0%–0.3%) died. Patients had a median combined ED and observation length of stay of 9.5 hours. Of the 237 (20%) patients who met low-risk criteria, 7% had a CT of the abdomen and pelvis and 0% (95% CI, 0%–1.5%) were diagnosed with IAI or died.

Conclusion

Most BAT patients who have initially negative ED evaluations are at low risk for IAI but still require some combination of observation and CT. A subgroup of BAT patients may be safely discharged without CT or observation after the initial evaluation.

Pediatric observation units in the United States: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

As more efficient and value-based care models are sought for the US healthcare system, geographically distinct observation units (OUs) may become an integral part of hospital-based care for children.

PURPOSE

To systematically review the literature and evaluate the structure and function of pediatric OUs in the United States.

DATA SOURCES

Searches were conducted in Medline, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Health Care Advisory Board (HCAB), Lexis-Nexis, National Guideline Clearinghouse, and Cochrane Reviews, through February 2009, with review of select bibliographies.

STUDY SELECTION

English language peer-reviewed publications on pediatric OU care in the United States.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently determined study eligibility. Studies were graded using a 5-level quality assessment tool. Data were extracted using a standardized form.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 21 studies met inclusion criteria: 2 randomized trials, 2 prospective observational, 12 retrospective cohort, 2 before and after, and 3 descriptive studies. Studies present data on more than 22,000 children cared for in OUs, most at large academic centers. This systematic review provides a descriptive overview of the structure and function of pediatric OUs in the United States. Despite seemingly straightforward outcomes for OU care, significant heterogeneity in the reporting of length of stay, admission rates, return visit rates, and costs precluded our ability to conduct meta-analyses. We propose standard outcome measures and future directions for pediatric OU research.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research using consistent outcome measures will be critical to determining whether OUs can improve the quality and cost of providing care to children requiring observation-length stays.

Is hospital admission and observation required after a normal abdominal computed tomography scan in children with blunt abdominal trauma?

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to determine if hospital admission of children with blunt abdominal trauma for observation of possible intraabdominal injury (IAI) is necessary after a normal abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

The authors conducted a prospective observational cohort study of children less than 18 years of age with blunt abdominal trauma who underwent an abdominal CT scan in the ED. Abdominal CT scans were obtained with intravenous contrast but no oral contrast. The decision to hospitalize the patient was made by the attending emergency physician (EP) with the trauma or pediatric surgery teams. An abnormal abdominal CT scan was defined by the presence of any visualized IAI or findings suggestive of possible IAI (e.g., intraperitoneal fluid without solid organ injury). Patients were followed to determine if IAI was later diagnosed and the need for acute therapeutic intervention if IAI was present.

RESULTS

A total of 1,295 patients underwent abdominal CT, and 1,085 (84%) patients had normal abdominal CT scans in the ED and make up the study population. Seven-hundred thirty-seven (68%) were hospitalized, and 348 were discharged to home. None of the 348 patients discharged home and 2 of the 737 hospitalized patients were identified with an IAI after a normal initial abdominal CT. The IAIs in patients with normal initial CT scans included a 10-year-old with a mesenteric hematoma and serosal tear at laparotomy and a 10-year-old with a perinephric hematoma on repeat CT. Neither underwent specific therapy. The negative predictive value (NPV) of a normal abdominal CT scan for IAI was 99.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 99.3% to 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

Children with blunt abdominal trauma and a normal abdominal CT scan in the ED are at very low risk of having a subsequently diagnosed IAI and are very unlikely to require a therapeutic intervention. Hospitalization of children for evaluation of possible undiagnosed IAI after a normal abdominal CT scan has a low yield and is generally unnecessary.

An evaluation of emergency physician selection of observation unit patients

OBJECTIVE

Appropriate patient selection is critical for maximal observation unit (OU) effectiveness. We hypothesized emergency physicians underuse the OU for admitted patients and overuse the OU for patients who would otherwise be discharged.

METHODS

Treating emergency physicians were asked about patient suitability for admission to an OU at a busy, urban, academic emergency department (ED) as part of a prospective cohort study of ED patients who were admitted or had an ED length of stay exceeding 4 hours. The OU was closed for renovation during the 2-month study, so physician opinion could be compared with patient course in the absence of observation services. Two blinded emergency physicians reviewed charts using structured forms and explicit definitions to determine actual patient course. Hospitalized patients were considered potential OU candidates according to a priori criteria: (1) hospital length of stay less than 48 hours, (2) no procedure or diagnosis requiring hospitalization, and (3) no death.

RESULTS

Of 1747 enrolled patients, 131 were excluded with incomplete data. Median age was 45 years. Patients were 40% white and 48% men. Emergency physicians identified 363 (23%) patients as observation candidates. Of these, 182 (50%) were actually discharged directly. The remaining 181 (50%) were hospitalized; 101 (56%) were observation candidates based on chart review. Of 799 admitted patients not selected for observation, 232 (29%) were suitable for observation by chart review.

CONCLUSIONS

Selection of patients for observation was suboptimal; emergency physicians routinely identified patients as OU candidates who were not ultimately admitted, and they missed many admitted patients who might have been appropriate OU candidates. Both over- and underuse should be addressed to maximize the effectiveness of OUs.

Evaluation of the necessity of clinical observation of high-energy trauma patients without significant injury after standardized emergency room stabilization

BACKGROUND

Patients involved in a high-energy trauma (HET) are usually admitted for clinical observation, even when no significant injury is found after standard care in the emergency room (ER). The necessity of this observation period is not evidence based. The goal of this study was to identify patients who revealed an initially undiagnosed injury during the observation period.

METHODS

A retrospective study of consecutive HET patients was conducted in two Level I trauma centers. Patients after a HET with two minor injuries or less, diagnosed during the standard ER care, were included. Data were abstracted from patients' medical records.

RESULTS

Five hundred three patients were included. None of the patients developed any complications during the clinical observation period or were readmitted to their own hospital within a week after the trauma.

CONCLUSION

There is no evidence for the necessity of clinical observation of HET patients with minimal or no injuries diagnosed after standard ER stabilization and evaluation.

23-Hour observation solely for identification of missed injuries after trauma: is it justified?

BACKGROUND

The use of an observation period to identify missed injuries in trauma patients has gained favor in recent years. This study was undertaken in a population of patients with minimal or no identified injuries to determine the following: whether a period of in-patient observation identifies missed injuries; demographic factors associated with missed injuries; and morbidity of missed injuries.

METHODS

Over 4 years at a Level I trauma center, 4,738 patients were observed for 23 hours. Of these patients, 630 were converted to full admission and were reviewed. All medical records were reviewed for reason for observation, reason for conversion to full admission, and presence of missed injury.

RESULTS

In the 4,738 patients observed, 35 had a missed injury identified. No clinical factors studied were associated with identifying a missed injury. Of the 35 patients that had a missed injury, 21 did not have clinically relevant injuries, whereas the 14 remaining patients did. All of the 14 required prolonged hospital admissions and 9 underwent invasive procedures.

CONCLUSION

Of over 4,700 observed trauma patients, less than 0.5% remained hospitalized for significant missed injuries. No factors were identified that predicted missed injuries. Twenty-three-hour observation for the purpose of identifying missed injuries after thorough emergency department evaluation may not be justified.

The impact of trauma case management on patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Previous investigations demonstrate that nursing case management in the acute care setting improves patient outcomes. However, these findings provide limited information specific to trauma patients.

METHOD

The effect of trauma case management (TCM) was measured using practice-specific variables such as in-hospital complications, missed injury rates, and length of stay. Other measures included staff satisfaction and use of allied health services. Data from 148 patients with an Injury Severity Score < 16 in the 5 months after the introduction of TCM were compared with 327 patients from the previous 12 months.

RESULTS

Results demonstrated a trend toward reduced length of stay overall, more so in the older and more severely injured. TCM greatly improved missed injury detection rates (p < 0.0015) and coordinated allied health use more efficiently (p < 0.0001). Staff surveys exhibited a perceived dramatic improvement in the effectiveness of patient care (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of TCM improved the efficiency and effectiveness of trauma patient care in our institution.

Clinical pathways--can they be used in trauma care. An analysis of their ability to fit the patient

This study prospectively evaluated the appropriateness and ability of clinical pathways to fit trauma patients in five key conditions, severe head injury, fractured ribs, fractured pelvis, fractured femur and blunt abdominal trauma, who were admitted to a single Level 1 Trauma Centre, between February and July 1999. Each pathway consisted of 14 elements of care divided into observable outcomes. Failure to achieve an outcome resulted in a variance or deviation from the pathway, which was assessed by the number of non-applicable variances. Appropriateness of clinical pathways was assessed by the applicability index (the number of non-applicable variances divided by the potential variances). Critical mismatches occurred when non-applicable variances exceeded 50% of potential variances. 146 patients, with the mean age 41.9 years (S.D. 20.7), mean ISS 11.1 (S.D. 10.7) were enrolled; 18 with severe head injury, 59 with fractured ribs, 13 with fractured pelvis, 20 with fractured femur and 36 with blunt abdominal trauma. Critical mismatch occurred in seven patients. Applicability indexes were 87 for head, 93 for ribs, 92 for blunt abdominal trauma, 91 for femur and 92 for the pelvic pathway. Patient assessment, pain management, skin integrity and patient education were the most appropriate key elements of care, discharge planning, patient satisfaction, treatment and activity were least applicable. This study identified, for the first time, that clinical pathways are clinically appropriate for major trauma conditions.

Trauma case management and clinical pathways: prospective evaluation of their effect on selected patient outcomes in five key trauma conditions

BACKGROUND

This study evaluated the implementation of clinical pathways and case management between July 1998 and July 1999 in five key trauma conditions: severe head injury, fractured ribs, fractured pelvis, blunt abdominal trauma, and fractured femurs presenting to a single trauma service.

METHODS

Thirteen key elements of care with expected outcomes were defined for each key trauma condition. Deviations from expected outcome were defined as variances. Attainment of the expected outcomes was measured before (stage 1) and after introduction (stages 2 and 3) of clinical pathways and case management. Nonattained outcomes were quantified and categorized into time of occurrence, and relationship to staff, patient, or system.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-five patients were studied, with a mean age of 41.8 (SD, 20.6) years and mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 11.7 (SD, 11.0). The mean number of observed variances per patient for stage 1 was 51.7 (SD, 43.5); stage 2, 42.3 (SD, 32.9); and stage 3, 23.2 (SD, 21.7) (p = 0.0001 for both stage 1 and stage 2 compared with stage 3). There was a significant improvement in outcomes achieved from stage 1 (92.7%; 95% confidence interval, 92.5-92.9%), to stage 3 (96.7%; 95% confidence interval, 96.5-96.9%). Of the total number of variances seen, 0.2% related to system errors, 25% related to patient factors, and 75.8% related to staff. The proportion of staff-related variances was significantly reduced in stage 3.

CONCLUSION

Clinical pathways and case management identified areas in need of remedial action and improved the delivery of patient care to our trauma population. It has set a template for the future management of our trauma service.

Management of traumatically injured patients in the emergency department observation unit

An EDOU may be an ideal setting for the short-term monitoring and treatment of certain acutely injured patients. The patients choosen for observation, and the diagnostic studies used, will be specific to a particular institution's availability and expertise. Pathways should be developed in conjunction with all services caring for these patients.

A report card on quality improvement for children's health care

OBJECTIVE

Improving the quality of health care is a national priority. Nonetheless, no systematic effort has assessed the status of quality improvement (QI) initiatives for children or reviewed past research in child health care QI. This assessment is necessary to establish priorities for QI programs and research.

METHODS

To assess the status of QI initiatives and research, we reviewed the literature and interviewed experts experienced in QI for child health services. We defined QI as activities intended to close the gap between desired processes and outcomes of care and what is actually delivered. We classified reports published between 1985 and 1997 by publication characteristics, study design, clinical problem addressed, site of intervention, the QI method(s) used, and explicit association with a continuous quality improvement program.

RESULTS

We reviewed 68 reports meeting our definition of QI. More than half (48) were published after 1994. The reviewed reports included controlled evaluations in 36% of all identified interventions, and 3% of the reports were associated with continuous quality improvement. QI methods demonstrating some effectiveness included reminder systems for office-based preventive services and inpatient pathways for complex care. Reportedly successful QI initiatives more commonly described improvement in administrative measures such as rate of hospitalization or length of stay rather than functional status or quality of life. Interviews found that barriers to QI for children were similar to those for adults, but were compounded by difficulties in measuring child health outcomes, limited resources among public organizations and small provider groups, and relative lack of competition for pediatric tertiary care providers. Research and dissemination of QI for children were seen as less well developed than for adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Attempts to improve the quality of child health services have been increasing, and the evidence we reviewed suggests that it is possible to improve the quality of care for children. Nonetheless, numerous gaps remain in the understanding of QI for children, and widespread improvement in the quality of health services for children faces significant barriers.

Managing patients with acute, nonvariceal gastrointestinal hemorrhage: development and effectiveness of a clinical care pathway

OBJECTIVES

To develop a clinical care pathway for the management of patients with acute upper or lower nonvariceal GI hemorrhage (GIH) who do not require immediate surgical intervention. To test the effectiveness and safety of the pathway in improving the efficiency of care for patients with acute GIH.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team developed the evidence-based GIH clinical care pathway by consensus techniques. In a quasiexperimental design, pathway outcomes were measured prospectively during the first 8 months of pathway implementation, and compared to similar time periods in the 2 prior yr. Effectiveness measures were the number of patients <65 yr of age admitted for GIH and the hospital length of stay for all patients. Thirty-day safety outcomes were the rates of recurrent GIH, mortality, and readmission to hospital for any reason.

RESULTS

Of 368 patients studied after pathway implementation, 81 (22%) were managed as outpatients. The number of admissions for pathway patients <65 yr of age was significantly lower compared to 691 prepathway patients (p < 0.002). Mean length of stay (+/- 95% CI) for pathway inpatients was 3.5 (3.1, 3.9) days, compared to 5.3 (4.9, 5.7) and 4.6 (4.2, 5) days in the 2 prepathway yr, respectively (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression controlling for admission vital signs, comorbid conditions, age, and the etiology of GIH confirmed that admission after pathway implementation was an independent predictor of a reduced length of hospital stay. There were no significant between-year differences in the 30-day rates of recurrent GIH, mortality, or hospital readmission.

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary clinical care pathway may improve the efficiency of caring for patients with acute upper or lower nonvariceal GIH. Decreasing the number of admissions for GIH and reducing the hospital length of stay can be achieved without increasing the number of adverse outcomes.