RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) requires significant health-care resources. The modified Brain Injury Guidelines (mBIG) stratifies TBI patients by severity to help guide disposition and management. We sought to analyze the outcomes of TBI patients managed in a non-intensive care unit (ICU) setting after stratifying them using the mBIG criteria. METHODS: A retrospective single-center study was performed on all adult patients who sustained blunt TBI from 2021 to 2022 and were managed in a non-ICU setting. Primary outcome was unplanned upgrade to the ICU. Secondary outcomes were need for neurosurgical intervention, unplanned intubation, mortality, and hospital length of stay. Patients were divided into cohorts of mBIG 1 & 2 versus mBIG 3. RESULTS: Of the 274 patients managed in a non-ICU setting, 119 (43.4%) met mBIG 3 criteria. The majority (76.5%) were managed in a step-down level of care. Nine patients required upgrade to the ICU, with only two upgraded for acute progression of their intracranial hemorrhage. Eight patients in mBIG 3 cohort required neurosurgical interventions, with only two related to progression of their intracranial hemorrhage and both over 24 h after admission. The remaining six patients had planned delayed neurosurgical intervention. Unplanned intubation occurred in three patients with only one related to a delayed progression of their TBI. Longer hospitalization and decreased survival were noted in mBIG 3 group. No differences in 30-d readmissions, stroke, venous thromboembolism events or seizures were found between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Select patients with severe TBI may be considered for admission to step-down units with frequent neurologic exams in lieu of ICU level of care.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Increasing emphasis on value-based healthcare has prompted both employers and healthcare organizations to develop innovative strategies to supply high quality care to patients. One such strategy is through the bundled care payment model (BCPM). Through this model, our institution partnered with employers from across the country to provide quality care for their members. Patients traveling greater than 2 h driving time from the bariatric center were considered "destination" patients. To properly care for our destination patients, our institution created a "destination bariatric program." We sought to investigate comparative outcomes for the first 100 patients who completed the program. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in patient outcomes or complications between destination and local patient groups undergoing sleeve gastrectomy (SG) or Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB). METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing bariatric surgery at a MBSAQIP-accredited bariatric surgery center between May 2019 and October 2021 was conducted. Patients were divided into destination or local patient groups based on participation in the established destination surgery program. Patient demographics, perioperative clinical outcomes, and complications were compared and statistically analyzed using two-sample t-tests, Chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests, and univariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: This study identified 296 patients, which consisted of destination (n = 110) and local (n = 186) patient cohorts. Patients in the destination group had higher rates of diabetes mellitus (29.1% vs 24.2%, p = 0.029), but otherwise cohorts had similar basic demographics and comorbidities. Outcomes revealed no statistically significant associations between patient cohort (destination versus local) and ED admission (p = 0.305), hospital readmission (p = 0.893), surgical reintervention (p = 0.974), endoscopic-reintervention (p = 0.714), and patient complications in the postoperative period (30 days). CONCLUSION: Participation in destination care programs for bariatric surgery was found to be both safe and feasible. These destination programs represent an opportunity to provide a broader patient population access to complex surgical care.