Is it time to rethink how we page physicians? Understanding paging patterns in a tertiary care hospital.

BACKGROUND: Frequent pages can disrupt workflow, interrupt patient care, and may contribute to physician burnout. We hypothesized that paging volumes followed consistent temporal trends, regardless of the medical or surgical service, reflecting systems based issues present in our hospitals. METHODS: A retrospective review of the hospital paging systems for 4 services at The Ottawa Hospital was performed. Resident paging data from April 1 to July 31, 2018 were collected for services with a single primary pager number including orthopaedic surgery, general surgery, neurology, and neurosurgery. Trends in paging volume during the 4-month period were examined. Variables examined included the location of origin of the page (emergency room vs. inpatient unit), and day/time of the page. RESULTS: During the study period, 25,797 pages were received by the 4 services, averaging 211 (± Standard Deviation (SD) 12) pages per day. 19,371 (75%) pages were from in-patient hospital units, while 6426 (24%) were pages from the emergency room. The median interval between pages across all specialties was 22:30 min. Emergency room pages peaked between 16:30 and 20:00, while in-patient units peaked between 17:30 and 18:30. CONCLUSIONS: Each service experienced frequent paging with similar patterns of marked increases at specific times. This study identifies areas for future study about what the factors are that contribute to the paging patterns observed.

Returning to the emergency room: An analysis of emergency encounters following urological outpatient surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Previous reports indicate urological surgeries are associated with high rates of hospital re-admission. This study aims to identify factors associated with emergency room (ER) encounters following urological outpatient surgery. METHODS: All outpatient surgeries performed at The Ottawa Hospital between April 1, 2008, and March 31, 2018 by urology, general surgery, gynecology, and thoracic surgery were identified. All ER encounters within 90 days of surgery were captured. Rates of ER encounters by surgical service and procedure type were determined. Patient and surgical factors associated with ER encounters were identified. Factors included age, sex, marital status, presence of primary care provider, procedure, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. RESULTS: A total of 38 377 outpatient surgeries by the included surgical services were performed during the study period, of which urology performed 16 552 (43.1%). Overall, 5641 (14.7%) ER encounters were identified within 90 days of surgery, including 2681 (47.5%) after urological surgery. On multivariable analysis, higher ASA score IV vs. I was associated with higher risk of ER encounter (relative risk [RR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-2.5) and being married was associated with a lower risk of ER encounter (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.77-0.93). Urological surgeries with the highest risk of ER encounters, compared to the lowest risk procedure (circumcision), were greenlight laser photo vaporization of the prostate (PVP) (RR 3.2, 95% CI 1.8-5.61), ureteroscopy (RR 3.2, 95% CI 1.9-5.4), and ureteric stent insertion (RR 3.1, 95% CI 1.8-5.5). CONCLUSIONS: ER encounters following outpatient surgery are common. This study identifies risk factors to recognize patients that may benefit from additional support to reduce ER care needs.

Should surgeons control fluoroscopy during urology procedures?

INTRODUCTION: Our study explored the impact of switching from surgeon- to radiation technologist (RT)-controlled fluoroscopy on fluoroscopy and operative times. We also identified factors impacting fluoroscopy and operative times for ureteroscopy (URS) with laser lithotripsy. METHODS: Patients undergoing urological procedures requiring fluoroscopy six months before and after the change from surgeon- to RT-controlled fluoroscopy were identified. Median fluoroscopy and operative times were compared between cohorts. Subgroup analyses were performed based on procedure performed. A multivariate analysis identified factors associated with increased fluoroscopy and operative times for URS with laser lithotripsy. RESULTS: Overall, no difference was found between surgeon and RT cohorts for fluoroscopy (58.0 vs. 56.7 seconds; p=0.34) or operative times (39 vs. 36 minutes; p=0.14). For URS with laser lithotripsy, fluoroscopy and operative times were longer in the surgeon-controlled cohort (76.0 vs. 54.0 seconds; p<0.01 and 48 vs. 40 minutes; p<0.01, respectively). For URS only, fluoroscopy time was decreased in the surgeon-controlled cohort (47.0 vs. 73.0 seconds; p=0.01). For URS with laser lithotripsy, factors independently associated with increased fluoroscopy time were male sex, flexible URS, glidewire use, and difficult ureteric stent insertion (p<0.05). Flexible ureteroscopy, glidewire use, previous ureteric stent placement, and difficult ureteric stent insertion were independently associated with increased operative time (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopy and operative times are not significantly influenced by who controls fluoroscopy during urologic procedures. Patients undergoing URS with laser lithotripsy have decreased fluoroscopy and operative times with RT-controlled fluoroscopy. Patients undergoing URS only have decreased fluoroscopy times with surgeon-controlled fluoroscopy.