Acute care surgery practice model: Targeted growth for fiscal success.

PURPOSE: Acute care surgery (ACS) remains in its infancy as a defined surgical specialty within hospital systems. Little has been published regarding the financial impact of this method of care delivery to hospital systems and departments when combining trauma, surgical critical care, emergent, and elective general surgery into a single practice model. We sought to compare hospital net income and divisional clinical productivity measures of a newly formed, university division of ACS based on patient type-trauma, emergency general surgery, and elective surgery-to determine the best avenues by which to focus on programmatic growth. METHODS: Single calendar year, retrospective review of hospital system income and divisional fiscal productivity of specific patient visits by patient type (trauma, emergent, or elective) admitted to or discharged by the acute care surgeons. Demographic data, payor mix, patient volumes, and operative rates were determined for each patient type. Fiscal contribution by patient type to both hospital and clinical productivity were measured by hospital net income and divisional work relative value units (wRVU) production respectively. The Chi-square test for independence compared payor mix and analysis of variance was used for comparison of fiscal performance between patient types. RESULTS: We included 1,492 patients in the analysis of calendar year 2010; 1,056 trauma (67% male; mean age, 41.9; range, 0-102), 346 emergent (53% male; mean age, 44.6; range, 15-91), and 90 elective (51% male; mean age, 46; range, 16-87) patient encounters met criteria for analysis. There were no differences in payor mix between patient types. Significant differences were seen in average per patient encounter hospital net income, divisional wRVU production and duration of stay. The ACS team (n = 3) operated on 12% of trauma patients compared with 52% of emergent and 100% of elective surgery encounters. Hospital net income per patient was greatest for trauma encounters, whereas divisional clinical productivity per patient encounter was greatest for emergent patients. Elective encounters contributed negatively to hospital margins. CONCLUSION: Per-patient hospital system income and a majority of clinical wRVU productivity remains greatest for the care of injured patients in our ACS practice model; emergent general surgical encounters demonstrate the greatest per-patient rates of divisional clinical productivity.

Impact of standardized trauma documentation to the hospital's bottom line.

BACKGROUND: The dichotomy between clinical and hospital revenue generation for trauma care is well established. Many trauma programs require hospital support for fiscal survival. We evaluated the impact of standardized clinical documentation to the hospital's bottom line at our trauma center. METHODS: Standardized documentation templates for evaluation and management were created with a focus on accuracy and efficiency. Documentation was completed jointly by residents and faculty following standard guidelines of linkage. Trauma service characteristics, case mix index, reimbursement rate, payer distribution, hospital charges, cost, and payments were compared before and after standardization. Professional revenue was not evaluated. Analysis was performed using a commercially available spreadsheet computer application. RESULTS: A 24% increase in the hospital's net income for trauma care, constituting $1.45 million, was realized despite a 12% decrease in patient volume. Admission profitability increased by 42%. Collection rates and payer mix were unchanged. Increases in both injury severity score and case mix index were seen (P < .05) after implementation of the program. Length of stay was decreased significantly. CONCLUSION: An effective standardized documentation strategy for trauma care results in significant fiscal gains in hospital reimbursement.

Imaging may delay transfer of rural trauma victims: a survey of referring physicians.

BACKGROUND: Delayed transfer to a trauma center due to unnecessary imaging results in suboptimal patient outcome and increases healthcare costs. Unnecessary imaging may result from beliefs regarding trauma center requirements and legal concerns. We hypothesized that referring physicians consider factors other than clinical criteria when deciding to order imaging studies before transfer of trauma patients. METHODS: A mail survey of 218 referring physicians to a level I trauma center elicited factors affecting decision to obtain imaging studies before transfer. Graded answers to six questions were obtained and demographics of the physician respondent. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: One hundred forty-nine of 218 surveys were returned (68.3%). One-third (33.1%) of respondents obtain imaging because of perceived expectations of the receiving trauma center, independent of patient acuity. Twenty percent incorrectly think that the law prohibits transfer before patients are stabilized. Twenty-eight percent obtain imaging because of liability concerns, even if that imaging delays transfer. Overall, 45% obtain imaging for either perceived requirement or liability concern. Non-advanced trauma life support (ATLS)-certified physicians are more likely to use all available resources before transfer than ATLS-certified physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Factors other than patient care dictate imaging acquisition in almost half of those surveyed. Misperception of expectations, misunderstanding of legal imperatives, and liability concerns all delay transport of the injured. ATLS-certified individuals use imaging more appropriately, thus, promoting more timely transfer. State-wide protocols, education, and liability reform may reduce transport delays.