Beyond emergency surgery: redefining acute care surgery.

BACKGROUND: Considerable debate exists regarding the definition, skill set, and training requirements for the new specialty of acute care surgery (ACS). We hypothesized that a patient subset could be identified that requires a level of care beyond general surgical training and justifies creation of this new specialty. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Reviewed patient admissions over 1-y to the only general surgical service at a level I trauma center-staffed by trauma and/or critical care trained physicians. Patients classified as follows: trauma, ACS, emergency general (EGS), or elective surgery. ACS patients are nonelective, nontrauma patients with significantly altered physiology requiring intensive care unit admission and/or specific complex operative interventions. Differences in demographics, hospital course, and outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: In-patient service evaluated approximately 5500 patients, including 3300 trauma patients. A total of 2152 admissions include 37% trauma, 30% elective, 28% EGS, and 4% ACS. ACS and trauma patients were more likely to require multiple operations (ACS relative risk [RR] = 11.5; trauma RR = 5.7, P < 0.0001), have longer hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and higher mortality (P < 0.0001). They were less likely to be discharged home (ACS RR = 0.75; trauma RR = 0.67, P < 0.0001) compared with that of the EGS group. EGS and elective patients were most similar to each other in multiple areas. CONCLUSIONS: ACS and EGS patients represent distinct patient cohorts, as reflected by significant differences in critical care needs, likelihood of multiple operations, and need for postdischarge rehabilitation. The skills required to care for ACS patients, including ability to rescue from complications and provide critical care, differ from those required for EGS patients and supports development of ACS training and regionalization of care.

The "found down" patient: a diagnostic dilemma.

BACKGROUND: "Found down" patients present to the emergency department (ED) after being discovered unconscious and are selected for trauma or medical evaluation based on ED triage. Occult injury is an important part of the differential diagnosis in these patients. Rational use of trauma resources and optimal care of these patients requires clear triage criteria and timely evaluation. METHODS: After an institutional review board approval was obtained, we retrospectively identified 201 "found down" patients from ED triage logs at an urban Level I trauma center between 2007 and 2011. Physician researchers reviewed these records for demographics, injuries, medical diagnoses, and mortality. RESULTS: Of the 201 "found down" patients, 86 (42.7%) had injuries on evaluation in the ED and 9 (4.5%) required urgent surgical intervention. Previous ED visits, homelessness, psychiatric diagnoses, and alcohol and substance use were strikingly common. The 41 patients (20.4%) triaged to admission by the trauma service were younger, predominantly male, and more likely to be intoxicated. Overall, 28 patients (13.4%) required consultation by the service to which they were not initially triaged. Nineteen (11.9%) of the medically triaged patients required trauma service consultation. Eight (19.5%) of the patients triaged to the trauma service required medical consultation, and 4 patients (9.8%) were ultimately admitted to a medicine service after a complete trauma evaluation. Six (14.6%) of the trauma patients and 3 (1.9%) of the medical patients had a delay in diagnosis of occult injuries. CONCLUSION: Nearly half of "found down" patients had clinically significant injuries, and late identified injuries were present in both trauma and medical patients. Twenty-eight (13.4%) of patients required consultation by the medical or trauma surgery service to which they were not initially triaged, highlighting pervasive triage discordance in this population. Early trauma surgery consultation and triage flexibility are critical to avoid missed injuries in "found down" patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level IV.