Risk Factors for Urgent or Emergent Cholecystectomy Mid-workup for Symptomatic Cholelithiasis.

BACKGROUND: Patients who undergo cholecystectomy often do so for diagnoses related to the sequelae of gallstones. Many patients present acutely, requiring urgent removal due to complications of cholelithiasis. This study aims to characterize the patient population likely to present acutely during ongoing workup for cholelithiasis to better identify those who may benefit from expedited care. METHODS: Medical records of all adult patients who underwent cholecystectomy for indications related to cholelithiasis between 2015 and 2016 were reviewed retrospectively. Qualitative data was analyzed using Chi square test and quantitative data was analyzed using independent t-tests. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-four cholecystectomies were performed. Overall, 74.2% of the procedures were done electively while 25.8% were done urgently. And 42.2% of patients who underwent acute surgical intervention had evidence of prior workup. Patients requiring urgent intervention during ongoing diagnostic evaluation were more likely to have initially presented to an emergency department (ED) than another provider (68.4% vs 31.3%, P < .001) and had an odds ratio of 4.7 for undergoing acute intervention if they initially presented to the ED. They also tended to be more temporally remote from their initial diagnosis (119 ± 142 vs 74.6 ± 68.2 days, P < .19) relative to those who underwent elective operations. DISCUSSION: Patients who require urgent intervention during ongoing workup for cholelithiasis have prolonged courses of care and present to the ED more often for initial evaluation when compared to those who undergo elective intervention. These findings suggest that an emphasis on expedited workup of cholelithiasis and early surgical referral may be warranted, especially for those who initially present in the ED.

Perceptions of care following initiation of do-not-resuscitate orders.

PURPOSE: Documenting do-not-resuscitate (DNR) status in the surgical intensive care unit (ICU) can be controversial; some providers believe that DNR orders change care. This survey evaluates current perceptions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRB approved survey consisting of 31 validated questions divided into 3 factors (1. palliation, 2. active treatment, and 3. trust/communication). Individual questions were compared using Fisher's exact-tests and factors were compared via t-tests. RESULTS: Both surgical and ICU staff believe care decreases after DNR order initiation (43%). More surgical staff report decreased care aggressiveness versus ICU staff (63% vs 25%, p < 0.005 and Factor 2, 25.8 versus 29.8, p < 0.001), and felt that electrical cardioversion outside of the setting of ACLS would not be performed (57% vs 24%, p < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Surgical staff expressed more concern about care after DNR status than their ICU counterparts. Determining whether care actually changes clinically warrants further investigation.

Perceptions of ICU Care Following Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: A Military Perspective.

Although do-not-resuscitate orders only prohibit cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the case of cardiac arrest, the common initiation of this code status in the context of end-of-life care may lead providers to draw premature conclusions about other goals of care. The aim of this study is to identify concerns regarding care quality in the setting of do-not-resuscitate orders within the Department of Defense and compare differences in perceptions between members of the critical care team. DESIGN: A cross sectional observational study was conducted. SETTING: This study took place in the setting of critical care within the Department of Defense. SUBJECTS: All members of the Uniformed Services Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine were invited to participate. INTERVENTIONS: A validated 31-question survey exploring the perceptions of care quality in the setting of do-not-resuscitate status was distributed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis was used to categorically group survey questions, and average factor scores were compared between respondent groups using t tests. Responses to individual questions were also analyzed between comparison groups using Fisher exact tests. Factor analysis revealed no significant differences between respondents of different training backgrounds; however, those with do-not-resuscitate training were more likely to agree that active treatment would be pursued (p = 0.024) and that trust and communication would be maintained (p = 0.005). Although 38% of all respondents worry that quality of care will decrease, 93% agree that life-prolonging treatments should be offered. About a third of providers wrongly believed that a do-not-resuscitate order must be reversed prior to an operation. CONCLUSIONS: Although providers across training backgrounds held similar concerns about decreased care quality in the ICU, there is wide belief that the routine and noninvasive interventions are offered as indicated. Those with do-not-resuscitate training were more likely to believe that standards of care continued to be met after code status change.