Isolated injury, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and transfer from another facility are associated with delay in antibiotic administration: a retrospective study of 963 patients with open fractures.

Purpose: To identify factors associated with delays in administration and pharmacy and nursing preparation of antibiotics for patients with open fractures. Design: Retrospective review. Setting: Level I trauma center. Patients: Nine hundred sixty-three adults with open fractures administered antibiotics. Main Outcome Measurements: Delay in antibiotic administration greater than 66 minutes from arrival and significant pharmacy-related and nursing-related delay. Results: Isolated injury, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and transfer from another facility were associated with delay in antibiotic administration greater than 66 minutes. Injury Severity Score, transfer, and trauma team activation were associated with pharmacy-related or nursing-related delay. Conclusion: Interventions to reduce antibiotic administration time for open fractures should focus on early identification of open fractures and standardization of antibiotic protocols to ensure timely administration even in complex or resource-scarce care situations. Level of Evidence: Prognostic level III.

Radiation Exposure Among Orthopaedic Trauma Surgeons: Deconstructing Commonly Held Myths and Misperceptions.

OBJECTIVES: To review and evaluate the validity of common perceptions and practices regarding radiation safety in orthopaedic trauma. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Level 1 trauma center. SUBJECTS: N/A. INTERVENTION: The intervention involved personal protective equipment. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: The main outcome measurements included radiation dose estimates. RESULTS: Surgeon radiation exposure estimates performed at the level of the thyroid, chest, and pelvis demonstrate an estimated total annual exposure of 1521 mR, 2452 mR, and 1129 mR, respectively. In all cases, wearing lead provides a significant reduction (90% or better) in the amount of radiation exposure (in both radiation risk and levels of radiation reaching the body) received by the surgeon. Surgeons are inadequately protected from radiation exposure with noncircumferential lead. The commonly accepted notion that there is negligible exposure when standing greater than 6 feet from the radiation source is misleading, particularly when cumulative exposure is considered. Finally, we demonstrated that trauma surgeons specializing in pelvis and acetabular fracture care are at an increased risk of exposure to potentially dangerous levels of radiation, given the amount of radiation required for their caseload. CONCLUSION: Common myths and misperceptions regarding radiation in orthopaedic trauma are unfounded. Proper use of circumferential personal protective equipment is critical in preventing excess radiation exposure.

Most orthopaedic trauma patients are using the internet, but do you know where they're going?

PURPOSE: The Internet is a resource that patients can use to learn about their injuries, treatment options, and surgeon. Previously, it was demonstrated that orthopaedic trauma patients are unlikely to use a reliable, provided source. It is unknown however, if patients are seeking information from elsewhere. The purpose of this study was to determine if orthopaedic trauma patients utilize the Internet and what websites are utilized. Our hypothesis was that the majority of patients use the Internet and when they do, are unlikely to use a reliable source. METHODS: Orthopaedic trauma patients were surveyed in clinic at a Level I trauma center in the United States. The survey queried demographics, injury information, Internet access, and eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS). Data were analyzed using t-tests, Chi-squared tests, and a multivariate logistic regression, as appropriate. RESULTS: 138 patients with a mean age of 47.1 years (95% confidence interval: 44.0-50.3; 51.1% female) were included in the analysis. Despite 94.1% reporting access, only 55.8% of trauma patients used the Internet for information about their injury. Of those, 64.5% used at least one unreliable source. WebMD (54.8%) was the highest utilized website. Age, sex, employment, and greater eHEALS score were associated with increased Internet use (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The Internet has potential to be a useful, low cost, and readily available informational source for orthopaedic trauma patients. This study illustrates that a majority of patients seek information from the Internet after their injury, including unreliable websites like Wikipedia and Facebook. Our study emphasizes the need for active referral to trusted websites and initiation of organizational partnerships (e.g. OTA/AAOS) with common content providers (e.g. WebMD) to provide patients with accurate information about their injury and treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, Level II.

Letting the Numbers Speak for Themselves: A Simple Approach to Cost Reduction for Laparoscopic Appendectomy.

Instrument choices are influenced primarily by a surgeon's training and individual preference. Cost is often of secondary interest, particularly in the absence of any contracted fiscal obligation to the hospital. The purpose of this study was to evaluate how a simple intervention involving dissemination of cost data among a surgeon peer group influenced behavior with respect to surgical instrument choice. Cost data for laparoscopic appendectomies between July-December 2016 were disseminated to surgeons belonging to the same department of a teaching hospital. Each surgeon was provided his or her own cost data along with blinded data for his or her peers for comparison. Cost for each disposable instrument used among the group was provided for reference. Costs of laparoscopic appendectomy performed after the intervention (June-December 2017) were compared with costs before the intervention, for both individual surgeons and the group as a whole. A random effects linear regression model clustered on surgeon was then used to assess the average cost saving of the intervention while accounting for the intracorrelation of surgeon costs. One outlier was removed from the analysis, resulting in a cohort of 89 cases before the intervention and 74 postintervention. After outlier removal, data were normally distributed. The mean cost per case decreased for 10 of the 11 surgeons analyzed (minimum decrease of $7 to maximum decrease of $725). The remaining surgeon increased from an average of $985 ± 235 pre-intervention to $1003 ± 227 postintervention. The average cost saving for the group was $238 ± 226 and was associated with an average reduction in cost of 21 per cent. A linear regression analysis clustered on surgeon suggested the intervention was associated with an average saving of $260 (ß = -260, SE = 39, P < 0.001). After dissemination of cost data among surgeon peers, a reduction in costs was observed. Most notably, significant savings occurred in the absence of any mandate or incentive to reduce costs. Providing cost data to surgeons to facilitate natural competition among peers is a simple and effective tool for reducing operating room costs.