FAST and Furious About Quality: Impact of Continuous Review and Feedback on Point-of-Care Ultrasound Examinations.

Background: Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) examination is a point-of-care ultrasound study used to evaluate for abdominal hemorrhage, pneumothorax, or pericardial blood in trauma patients as an adjunct to their initial assessment. The quality of the image can be limited, and its diagnostic value is heavily dependent on operator skill. Our objective was to determine whether a standardized review process improved image quality and reduced incidence of nondiagnostic or insufficient imaging by 10% over a 6-month period. Study Design: Between July 1, 2021, and March 31, 2022, we evaluated 1106 trauma activations at our level II trauma center. Two exams per practitioner per month were reviewed by an emergency medicine trained traumatologist with specialized training in point-of-care ultrasound and board certification in echocardiography. Priority was given to exams on patients with known injuries identified on other studies. If there were no exams that matched these criteria, random exams were selected. Images were reviewed for image quality, diagnostic accuracy, and labeling with counseling given to the provider if indicated. Categorical variables were compared using chi squared analysis, while continuous non-normally distributed variables were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results: A total of 305 FAST exams were reviewed (186 pre-intervention and 119 during intervention). Image quality improved from 46.3% (n = 31/65) to 79.0% (n = 94/119) (P < .01) with need for counseling falling from 63.1% (n = 41/65) pre-QI to 42.0% (n = 50/119) post-QI (P < .01). Incidence of detectable injury, BMI, ISS, and AIS body regions were consistent across the study period. This was seen in both the geriatric and non-geriatric cohorts despite a significant increase in ISS in the post-intervention geriatric patients.Discussion: A FAST review program is associated with improvement in image quality and decreased need for counseling of trauma providers.

International trauma teleconference: evaluating trauma care and facilitating quality improvement.

BACKGROUND: Evaluation, development, and implementation of trauma systems in Latin America are challenging undertakings as no model is currently in place that can be easily replicated throughout the region. The use of teleconferencing has been essential in overcoming other challenges in the medical field and improving medical care. This article describes the use of international videoconferencing in the field of trauma and critical care as a tool to evaluate differences in care based on local resources, as well as facilitating quality improvement and system development in Latin America. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In February 2009, the International Trauma and Critical Care Improvement Project was created and held monthly teleconferences between U.S. trauma surgeons and Latin American general surgeons, emergency physicians, and intensivists. In-depth discussions and prospective evaluations of each case presented were conducted by all participants based on resources available. Care rendered was divided in four stages: (1) pre-hospital setting, (2) emergency room or trauma room, (3) operating room, and (4) subsequent postoperative care. Furthermore, the participating institutions completed an electronic survey of trauma resources based on World Health Organization/International Association for Trauma and Surgical Intensive Care guidelines. RESULTS: During a 17-month period, 15 cases in total were presented from a Level I and a Level II U.S. hospital (n=3) and five Latin American hospitals (n=12). Presentations followed the Advanced Trauma Life Support sequence in all U.S. cases but in only 3 of the 12 Latin American cases. The following deficiencies were observed in cases presented from Latin America: pre-hospital communication was nonexistent in all cases; pre-hospital services were absent in 60% of cases presented; lack of trauma team structure was evident in the emergency departments; during the initial evaluation and resuscitation, the Advanced Trauma Life Support protocol was followed one time and the Clinical Randomization of an Antifibrinolytic in Significant Hemorrhage protocol on two occasions; it was determined that imaging resources were adequately used in half of the cases; the initial care was mostly provided by emergency room physicians; and a surgeon, operating room, and intensive care unit were not readily available 83% of the time. The ease of patient flow was cumbersome because of a lack of a structured system for trauma care except for one academic urban center. Adequate trauma resources are present in less than 50% of the time. Multidisciplinary resources, quality improvement programs, protocols, and guidelines were deficient. CONCLUSIONS: A well-structured international teleconference can be used as a dynamic window of observation to evaluate and identify deficiencies in trauma care in the Latin American region. These findings can be used to formulate specific recommendations based on local resources. Furthermore, by raising local awareness, leaders could be identified to become the executors of more efficient healthcare policies that can potentially affect trauma care.

Blunt aortic dissection and bilateral internal carotid dissection in the setting of polytrauma: A case report.

Severe polytrauma involving multiple organ systems presents a significant challenge to any trauma center. We present a case of a patient presenting simultaneously with a type B aortic dissection, bilateral internal carotid dissections, a brachiocephalic artery dissection, and a splenic laceration among other injuries. In this patient with both solid organ injury and vascular trauma, we discuss how multidisciplinary collaboration was required to prioritize treatment goals and determine the proper initiation of antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapies.

Prospective Analysis of Laparoscopic Cholecystectomies Based on Postgraduate Resident Level.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have attempted to ascertain the safety of laparoscopic cholecystectomies (LC) based on resident postgraduate year. We hypothesize that there is no difference in complications based on resident level in LC. METHODS: We prospectively gathered data from 200 LC. Residents were classified as surgeon chief (SC), surgeon junior (SJ), or teaching assistant (TA/SJ). Outcomes included surgical complications and operative time based on resident level or ambulatory status. RESULTS: Average operating time was 65.17, 69.38, and 63.91 minutes for SC, SJ, and TA/SJ, respectively. Average operative time in the elective group was 62 versus 70.67 minutes in the emergent group (P=0.037). Five, 2, and 6 major complications occurred in the TA/SJ, and SC groups, respectively, (P=0.937). Major complications occurred in 9 of 97 emergent and 4 of 70 elective cases (P=0.396). CONCLUSION: With respect to time and morbidity in LC, we found all level of residents to be safe.