Scheduled Emergency Trauma Operation: The Green Line Orthopedic Trauma Surgery Process Of Care

Prioritising patients for semi-urgent surgery: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Semi-urgent surgery where surgical intervention is required within 48 h of admission and the patient is medically stable is vulnerable to scheduling delays. Given the challenges in accessing health care, there is a need for a detailed understanding of the factors that impact decisions on scheduling semi-urgent surgeries.

AIM

To identify and describe the organisational, departmental and contextual factors that determine healthcare professionals' prioritising patients for semi-urgent surgeries.

METHODS

We used the Joanna Briggs Institute guidance for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. Four online databases were used: EBSCO Academic Search Complete, EBSCO Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, OVID Embase and EBSCO Medline. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they published in English and focussed on the scheduling of patients for surgery were included. Data were extracted by one author and checked by another and analysed descriptively. Findings were synthesises using the Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations framework.

RESULTS

Twelve articles published between 1999 and 2022 were included. The Patterns, Advances, Gaps, Evidence for practice and Research recommendations framework highlighted themes of emergency surgery scheduling and its impact on operating room utilisation. Gaps in the management of operating room utilisation and the incorporation of semi-urgent surgeries into operating schedules were also identified. Finally, the lack of consensus on the definition of semi-urgent surgery and the parameters used to assign surgical acuity to patients was evident.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review identified patterns in the scheduling methods, and involvement of key decision makers. Yet there is limited evidence about how key decision makers reach consensus on prioritising patients for semi-urgent surgery and its impact on patient experience.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No Patient or Public Contribution.

Adverse events are not increased by controlled delay in surgery of acute upper extremity fractures

Management of the operative treatment of fractures is challenged by daily variation in patient flow. For upper limb fractures there has recently been an increasing tendency to temporarily discharge the patient to wait for a daytime operation to be performed during the next few days. The objective of this study was to study the safety of controlled delay in surgery. Upper limb fractures (N = 1 944) treated in a level 2 trauma center from 2010 to 2016 were identified and included in this retrospective cohort study with 5-year follow-up. Delay in surgery, inpatient time, readmissions, ED revisits and mortality were analyzed. Depending on the nature of the injury, controlled delay to surgery was implemented. Urgency of surgery was coded as green (2 days to 2 weeks) yellow (8-48 h) or red (less than 8 h). Harms and benefits to the groups were compared. Controlled delay of surgery (median delay of 5 days 7 h) was applied in 1 074 out of 1 944 fractures. The number of revisits to the emergency department (11.1% vs. 17.9-24.1%, p < 0.001) or hospital readmissions for any reason (0.99 per 100 person years in the delayed group vs. 3.74 and 4.35 in the non-delayed groups, p < 0.001) was no higher in patients with delayed (green) compared to those with non-delayed (yellow and red) operations. Inpatient time was significantly lower in the delayed group than other groups (IRR 2.31-3.36, (p < 0.001)). The standardized mortality ratio was 0.83 (CI 0.57-1.22) in the delayed group vs. 1.49 (CI 1.17-1.90) and 1.61 (CI 1.16-2.23) in the non-delayed groups. Controlled delay in upper limb trauma surgery did not lead to increased readmissions or mortality and was associated with reduced inpatient time.