The Use of Parenteral Nutrition and Disparities in Its Allocation Following Traumatic Injury.

INTRODUCTION: Severe traumatic injury requires rapid and extensive deployment of resources to save the lives of the critically injured. The sequelae of traumatic injuries frequently require extensive intervention obligating patients to a complicated recovery process devoid of meaningful nutrition. In this setting, parenteral nutrition (PN) is key in enabling appropriate wound healing, recovery, and rehabilitation. We sought to examine the use of PN in adult trauma management and to highlight any disparities in the utilization of PN in adult trauma patients. METHODS: We queried the 2017-2019 Trauma Quality Improvement Program (TQIP) for adult patients (aged > 18 y) who sustained blunt or penetrating traumatic injuries and received PN as part of their hospitalization. We compared time to PN administration based on demographics. We then used a multivariable logistic regression model to identify factors associated with the use of PN. We hypothesized that PN would be less commonly employed in the uninsured and minority groups. RESULTS: We identified 2,449,498 patients with sufficient data for analysis. Of these, 1831 patients were treated with PN. On univariate analysis, PN patients were more commonly male (74.7% PN versus 60.2% non-PN; P < 0.001). PN use was more frequent in the Black population (24.3% PN versus 15.5% non-PN; P < 0.001) and less frequent in the White population (72.7% PN versus 81.2% non-PN; P < 0.001). PN use was also much more common among patients covered by Medicaid. Penetrating trauma was over twice as common among PN recipients relative to non-PN patients (% PN versus % non-PN). PN patients had higher injury severity scores (ISSs), more intensive care unit days, longer hospitalizations, and increased mortality compared to non-PN patients. PN patients were half as likely to discharge home and twice as likely to discharge to a long-term care facility. Multivariable analysis including age, race, trauma mechanism, primary payer, and ISS, demonstrated an association of PN use with increasing age (OR 1.01, P < 0.001), cases of penetrating trauma (odds ratio [OR], 2.47; P < 0.001), and patients with high ISS (OR, 0.1.06; P < 0.001). There was decreased use in Uninsured patient (OR, 0.54; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PN use following traumatic injury is rarely required. Patients treated with PN typically have a resource-intense hospital course. More severe injuries, penetrating trauma, and increased age are more likely to result in PN use. Variations in PN use are apparent based on insurance payer, further examination into allocation of hospital and intensive care resources, as it pertains to patient socioeconomic status, is warranted in light of these findings.

Factors Associated with Discharge to Skilled Nursing Facility Following Gunshot Wounds.

INTRODUCTION: Firearm injury is a public health crisis. Most victims are minorities in underserved neighborhoods. Measuring firearm injury by mortality underestimates its impact, as most victims survive to discharge. This study was done to determine if race and insurance status are associated with discharge disposition for gunshot wound (GSW)-related trauma. METHODS: Using the 2019 Trauma Quality Improvement Program database, we identified GSW patients with Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) = 1-3. Exclusion criteria included patients who died in hospital and routine home discharge. We compared discharge patterns of patients based on demographics (age, gender, race, ethnicity, payor, AIS, hospital designation, and length of stay [LOS]) and injury severity. Multivariable logistic regression models identified factors associated with discharge disposition. RESULTS: Our sample included 2437 patients with GSWs. On univariable analysis, Black patients were more likely to discharge to home with home health (64.1% Black versus 34.7% White; P < 0.001). White patients were more likely to discharge to skilled nursing facility (SNF) (51.4% White versus 44.6% Black; P < 0.001). Controlling for age, race, Latin ethnicity, primary payor, LOS, AIS severity, and injury severity score factors independently associated with discharge to SNF included age (0.0462, P < 0.001), Medicaid (1.136, P < 0.0003), Medicare (1.452, P < 0.001), and LOS (0.03745, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Postacute care following traumatic injuries is essential to recovery. Black GSW victims are more likely to be discharged to home health than White patients, who are more likely to be discharged to SNF. Targeted programs to reduce barriers to appropriate aftercare are necessary to eliminate this bias and improve the care of underserved populations.

Who Benefits? An Assessment of Resident Benefits at Top 50 Academic Institutions.

OBJECTIVE: Residency serves as a crucial time in the professional and personal development of young physicians. Extensive effort is devoted to the clinical training of residents across the country. However, many residents report concerns with compensation, quality of life, and benefits during their clinical training. We sought to evaluate the benefits packages of resident physicians in comparison with other full-time employees at their institutions. SETTING: "Top 50" Residency programs in Medicine, Surgery, and Pediatrics in the United States. DESIGN: To accomplish this task we selected the, "Top-50," institutions for medicine, pediatrics, and surgery using Doximity's Residency Navigator and compared the benefits of residents at these institutions with full-time employees by accessing benefits offerings listed on institutional websites. RESULTS: We found that residents were more likely to receive parking benefits and gym memberships, while full-time employees were more likely to be offered flexible spending accounts, retirement benefits, and tuition support. CONCLUSIONS: Residents receive different benefits packages than their colleagues employed in full time positions at the same institutions. Further discussion regarding the benefits offered to physicians, and the role that benefits play in resident wellbeing is warranted in light of these findings.

A National Comparison of Volume and Acuity for Adult and Pediatric Trauma: A Trauma Quality Improvement Program Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Most injured children receive trauma care outside of a pediatric trauma center. Differences in physiology, dosing, and injury pattern limit extrapolation of adult trauma principles to pediatrics. We compare US trauma center experience with pediatric and adult trauma resuscitation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We queried the 2019 Trauma Quality Improvement Program to describe the experience of US trauma centers with pediatric (<15 y) and adult trauma. We quantified blunt, penetrating, burn, and unspecified traumas and compared minor, moderate, severe, and critical traumas (ISS 1-8 Minor, ISS 9-14 Moderate, ISS 15-24 Severe, ISS 25+ Critical). We estimated center-level volumes for adults and children. Institutional identifiers were generated based on unique center specific factors including hospital teaching status, hospital type, verification level, pediatric verification level, state designation, state pediatric designation, and bed size. RESULTS: A total of 755,420 adult and 76,449 pediatric patients were treated for traumatic injuries. There were 21 times as many critical or major injuries in adults compared to children, 17 times more moderate injuries, and 6 times more minor injuries. Children and adults presented with similar rates of blunt trauma, but penetrating injuries were more common in adults and burn injuries were more common in children. Comparing center-level data, adult trauma exceeded pediatric for every severity and mechanism. CONCLUSIONS: There is relatively limited exposure to high-acuity pediatric trauma at US centers. Investigation into pediatric trauma resuscitation education and simulation may promote pediatric readiness and lead to improved outcomes.

Development of a prospective biliary dashboard to compare performance and surgical cost.

BACKGROUND: Transparency around surgeon level data may align healthcare delivery with quality care for patients. Biliary surgery includes numerous procedures performed by both general surgeons and subspecialists alike. Cholecystectomy is a common surgical procedure and an optimal cohort to measure quality outcomes within a healthcare system. METHODS: Data were collected for 5084 biliary operations performed by 68 surgeons in 11 surgical divisions in a health system including a tertiary academic hospital, two regional community hospitals, and two ambulatory surgery centers. A privacy protected dashboard was developed to compare surgeon performance and cost between July 2018 and June 2022. A sample cohort of patients ≥ 18 years who underwent cholecystectomy were compared by operative time, cost, and 30-day outcomes. RESULTS: Over 4 years, 4568 cholecystectomy procedures were performed by 57 surgeons. Operations were done by 57 surgeons in four divisions and included 3846 (84.2%) laparoscopic cholecystectomies, 601 (13.2%) laparoscopic cholecystectomies with cholangiogram, and 121 (2.6%) open cholecystectomies. Patients were admitted from the emergency room in 2179 (47.7%) cases while 2389 (52.3%) cases were performed in the ambulatory setting. Individual surgeons were compared to peers for volume, intraoperative data, cost, and outcomes. Cost was lowest at ambulatory surgery centers, yet only 4.2% of elective procedures were performed at these facilities. Prepackaged kits with indocyanine green were more expensive than cholangiograms that used iodinated contrast. The rate of emergency department visits was lowest when cases were performed at ambulatory surgery centers. CONCLUSION: Data generated from clinical dashboards can inform surgeons as to how they compare to peers regarding quality metrics such as cost, time, and complications. In turn, this may guide strategies to standardize care, optimize efficiency, provide cost savings, and improve outcomes for cholecystectomy procedures. Future application of clinical dashboards can assist surgeons and administrators to define value-based care.

Medical Student Involvement and Learning Objectives in Morbidity and Mortality Conferences: A National Survey of the Association for Surgical Education's Committee of Clerkship Directors.

BACKGROUND: Despite implementation of Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) Conference across surgical graduate medical education, sparse literature exists regarding the attendance and involvement of medical students. We sought to examine student involvement and learning objectives for M&M on a national level. METHODS: A survey was distributed through the Association for Surgical Education Committee of Clerkship Directors. Questions examined demographics, teaching practices regarding M&M, and student learning objectives. RESULTS: Forty-eight responses were collected reflecting practices of weekly M&M (96%) and required student attendance (93%). Students are observers in 61% of M&Ms, observer with questions in 37%, and presenter at 2%. Learning objectives for M&M highlighted exposing students to conference style (76%), reflective learning (63%), and highlighting medical error (78%). CONCLUSIONS: It is the national standard for medical students to attend weekly M&M. Student learning objectives reflect desires to improve exposure to this style of teaching conference and understanding the gravity of medical error.