"Mission-Aligned Funds Flow": Effect on Clinical Departments.

PROBLEM: Academic medical centers struggle with the high cost of care, reduced reimbursement, intense competition, and low profit margins. Many factors, including a high proportion of publicly insured patients, a model rewarding procedural specialties, and research and educational support burden, led to faculty salary inequities, physician disengagement, and difficulty recruiting. APPROACH: UC Davis Health implemented an aligned funds flow model in July 2021 to create a mission-aligned model in which all departments had financial margins to optimize recruitment, retention, research, and teaching. OUTCOMES: The 3-year experience (academic years 2021-2024) with this model at UC Davis Health was characterized by physician compensation, physician recruitment, and profit increases. Total collections for departments increased by 4% in the first year, 0.2% in the second year, and 11.3% in the third year of funds flow. Total productivity increased by 4.9% during the first year, 3.6% during the second year, and 8.4% during the third year. Salaries increased in all departmental categories in year 3. Productivity and collections per faculty member increased during the first year and were stable during the second and third years. Parity among procedural, primary care, and hospital-based service lines was improved because departmental revenue was agnostic to payer mix and hospital agreements were more formulaic. The hospital contribution to funds flow increased from $67 million in 2022 to $101 million in 2024. NEXT STEPS: Regular communication and transparency are critical to ongoing trust and success with implementation of sustaining funds flow. The new model resulted in improved physician compensation and increased hiring. However, the implementation of funds flow had a negative fiscal effect on the academic medical center, and sustainability may require fine-tuning to balance affordability. The authors plan to convert outpatient primary care to productivity-based models and decrease time-limited support for new faculty from 2 years to 1 year.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF): the WSES and CWIS position paper.

BACKGROUND: Rib fractures are one of the most common traumatic injuries and may result in significant morbidity and mortality. Despite growing evidence, technological advances and increasing acceptance, surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) remains not uniformly considered in trauma centers. Indications, contraindications, appropriate timing, surgical approaches and utilized implants are part of an ongoing debate. The present position paper, which is endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), and supported by the Chest Wall Injury Society, aims to provide a review of the literature investigating the use of SSRF in rib fracture management to develop graded position statements, providing an updated guide and reference for SSRF. METHODS: This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on the position statements. RESULTS: A total of 287 studies (systematic reviews, randomized clinical trial, prospective and retrospective comparative studies, case series, original articles) have been selected from an initial pool of 9928 studies. Thirty-nine graded position statements were put forward to address eight crucial aspects of SSRF: surgical indications, contraindications, optimal timing of surgery, preoperative imaging evaluation, rib fracture sites for surgical fixation, management of concurrent thoracic injuries, surgical approach, stabilization methods and material selection. CONCLUSION: This consensus document addresses the key focus questions on surgical treatment of rib fractures. The expert recommendations clarify current evidences on SSRF indications, timing, operative planning, approaches and techniques, with the aim to guide clinicians in optimizing the management of rib fractures, to improve patient outcomes and direct future research.

Cesena guidelines: WSES consensus statement on laparoscopic-first approach to general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopy is widely adopted across nearly all surgical subspecialties in the elective setting. Initially finding indication in minor abdominal emergencies, it has gradually become the standard approach in the majority of elective general surgery procedures. Despite many technological advances and increasing acceptance, the laparoscopic approach remains underutilized in emergency general surgery and in abdominal trauma. Emergency laparotomy continues to carry a high morbidity and mortality. In recent years, there has been a growing interest from emergency and trauma surgeons in adopting minimally invasive surgery approaches in the acute surgical setting. The present position paper, supported by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), aims to provide a review of the literature to reach a consensus on the indications and benefits of a laparoscopic-first approach in patients requiring emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies or abdominal trauma. METHODS: This position paper was developed according to the WSES methodology. A steering committee performed the literature review and drafted the position paper. An international panel of 54 experts then critically revised the manuscript and discussed it in detail, to develop a consensus on a position statement. RESULTS: A total of 323 studies (systematic review and meta-analysis, randomized clinical trial, retrospective comparative cohort studies, case series) have been selected from an initial pool of 7409 studies. Evidence demonstrates several benefits of the laparoscopic approach in stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgical emergencies or abdominal trauma. The selection of a stable patient seems to be of paramount importance for a safe adoption of a laparoscopic approach. In hemodynamically stable patients, the laparoscopic approach was found to be safe, feasible and effective as a therapeutic tool or helpful to identify further management steps and needs, resulting in improved outcomes, regardless of conversion. Appropriate patient selection, surgeon experience and rigorous minimally invasive surgical training, remain crucial factors to increase the adoption of laparoscopy in emergency general surgery and abdominal trauma. CONCLUSIONS: The WSES expert panel suggests laparoscopy as the first approach for stable patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery for general surgery emergencies and abdominal trauma.

Enhanced perioperative care in emergency general surgery: the WSES position paper.

Enhanced perioperative care protocols become the standard of care in elective surgery with a significant improvement in patients' outcome. The key element of the enhanced perioperative care protocol is the multimodal and interdisciplinary approach targeted to the patient, focused on a holistic approach to reduce surgical stress and improve perioperative recovery. Enhanced perioperative care in emergency general surgery is still a debated topic with little evidence available. The present position paper illustrates the existing evidence about perioperative care in emergency surgery patients with a focus on each perioperative intervention in the preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative phase. For each item was proposed and approved a statement by the WSES collaborative group.

Management of complicated diaphragmatic hernia in the acute setting: a WSES position paper.

BACKGROUND: Diaphragmatic hernia (DH) presenting acutely can be a potentially life-threatening condition. Its management continues to be debatable. METHODS: A bibliographic search using major databases was performed using the terms "emergency surgery" "diaphragmatic hernia," "traumatic diaphragmatic rupture" and "congenital diaphragmatic hernia." GRADE methodology was used to evaluate the evidence and give recommendations. RESULTS: CT scan of the chest and abdomen is the diagnostic gold standard to evaluate complicated DH. Appropriate preoperative assessment and prompt surgical intervention are important for a clinical success. Complicated DH repair is best performed via the use of biological and bioabsorbable meshes which have proven to reduce recurrence. The laparoscopic approach is the preferred technique in hemodynamically stable patients without significant comorbidities because it facilitates early diagnosis of small diaphragmatic injuries from traumatic wounds in the thoraco-abdominal area and reduces postoperative complications. Open surgery should be reserved for situations when skills and equipment for laparoscopy are not available, where exploratory laparotomy is needed, or if the patient is hemodynamically unstable. Damage Control Surgery is an option in the management of critical and unstable patients. CONCLUSIONS: Complicated diaphragmatic hernia is a rare life-threatening condition. CT scan of the chest and abdomen is the gold standard for diagnosing the diaphragmatic hernia. Laparoscopic repair is the best treatment option for stable patients with complicated diaphragmatic hernias. Open repair is considered necessary in majority of unstable patients in whom Damage Control Surgery can be life-saving.

ECLAPTE: Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency-2023 World Society of Emergency Surgery guidelines for the closure of laparotomy in emergency settings.

Laparotomy incisions provide easy and rapid access to the peritoneal cavity in case of emergency surgery. Incisional hernia (IH) is a late manifestation of the failure of abdominal wall closure and represents frequent complication of any abdominal incision: IHs can cause pain and discomfort to the patients but also clinical serious sequelae like bowel obstruction, incarceration, strangulation, and necessity of reoperation. Previous guidelines and indications in the literature consider elective settings and evidence about laparotomy closure in emergency settings is lacking. This paper aims to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) project called ECLAPTE (Effective Closure of LAParoTomy in Emergency): the final manuscript includes guidelines on the closure of emergency laparotomy.

Assessing and managing frailty in emergency laparotomy: a WSES position paper.

Many countries are facing an aging population. As people live longer, surgeons face the prospect of operating on increasingly older patients. Traditional teaching is that with older age, these patients face an increased risk of mortality and morbidity, even to a level deemed too prohibitive for surgery. However, this is not always true. An active 90-year-old patient can be much fitter than an overweight, sedentary 65-year-old patient with comorbidities. Recent literature shows that frailty-an age-related cumulative decline in multiple physiological systems, is therefore a better predictor of mortality and morbidity than chronological age alone. Despite recognition of frailty as an important tool in identifying vulnerable surgical patients, many surgeons still shun objective tools. The aim of this position paper was to perform a review of the existing literature and to provide recommendations on emergency laparotomy and in frail patients. This position paper was reviewed by an international expert panel composed of 37 experts who were asked to critically revise the manuscript and position statements. The position paper was conducted according to the WSES methodology. We shall present the derived statements upon which a consensus was reached, specifying the quality of the supporting evidence and suggesting future research directions.

WSES consensus guidelines on sigmoid volvulus management.

Sigmoid volvulus is a common surgical emergency, especially in elderly patients. Patients can present with a wide range of clinical states: from asymptomatic, to frank peritonitis secondary to colonic perforation. These patients generally need urgent treatment, be it endoscopic decompression of the colon or an upfront colectomy. The World Society of Emergency Surgery united a worldwide group of international experts to review the current evidence and propose a consensus guidelines on the management of sigmoid volvulus.

The new timing in acute care surgery (new TACS) classification: a WSES Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Timely access to the operating room for emergency general surgery (EGS) indications remains a challenge across the globe, largely driven by operating room availability and staffing constraints. The "timing in acute care surgery" (TACS) classification was previously published to introduce a new tool to triage the timely and appropriate access of EGS patients to the operating room. However, the clinical and operational effectiveness of the TACS classification has not been investigated in subsequent validation studies. This study aimed to improve the TACS classification and provide further consensus around the appropriate use of the new TACS classification through a standardized Delphi approach with international experts. METHODS: This is a validation study of the new TACS by a selected international panel of experts using the Delphi method. The TACS questionnaire was designed as a web-based survey. The consensus agreement level was established to be ≥ 75%. The collective consensus agreement was defined as the sum of the percentage of the highest Likert scale levels (4-5) out of all participants. Surgical emergency diseases and correlated clinical scenarios were defined for each of the proposed classes. Subsequent rounds were carried out until a definitive level of consensus was reached. Frequencies and percentages were calculated to determine the degree of agreement for each surgical disease. RESULTS: Four polling rounds were carried out. The new TACS classification provides 6 colour-code classes correlated to a precise timing to surgery, defined scenarios and surgical condition. The WHITE colour-code class was introduced to rapidly (within a week) reschedule cancelled or postponed surgical procedures. Haemodynamic stability is the main tool to stratify patients for immediate surgery or not in the presence of sepsis/septic shock. Fifty-one surgical diseases were included in the different colour-code classes of priority. CONCLUSION: The new TACS classification is a comprehensive, simple, clear and reproducible triage system which can be used to assess the severity of the patient and the surgical disease, to reduce the time to access to the operating room, and to manage the emergency surgical patients within a "safe" timeframe. By including well-defined surgical diseases in the different colour-code classes of priority, validated through a Delphi consensus, the new TACS improves communication among surgeons, between surgeons and anaesthesiologists and decreases conflicts and waste and waiting time in accessing the operating room for emergency surgical patients.

Measuring the impact of a "Virtual Pediatric Trauma Center" (VPTC) model of care using telemedicine for acutely injured children versus the standard of care: study protocol for a prospective stepped-wedge trial.

BACKGROUND: The current standard of care in the treatment of children with physical trauma presenting to non-designated pediatric trauma centers is consultation with a pediatric trauma center by telephone. This includes contacting a pediatric trauma specialist and transferring any child with a potentially serious injury to a regionalized level I pediatric trauma center. This approach to care frequently results in medically unnecessary transfers and may place undue burdens on families. A newer model of care, the "Virtual Pediatric Trauma Center" (VPTC), uses telemedicine to make the expertise of a level I pediatric trauma center virtually available to any hospital. While the use of the VPTC model of care is increasing, there have been no studies comparing the VPTC to standard care of injured children at non-designated trauma centers with respect to patient- and family-centered outcomes. The goal of this study is to compare the current standard of care to the VPTC with respect to family-centered outcomes developed by parents and community advisory boards. METHODS: We will use a stepped-wedge trial design to enroll children with physical trauma presenting to ten hospitals, including level II, level III, and non-designated trauma centers. The primary outcome measures are parent/family experience of care and distress 3 days following injury. Secondary aims include 30-day healthcare utilization, parent/family out-of-pocket costs at 3 days and 30 days after injury, transfer rates, and parent/family distress 30 days following injury. We expect at least 380 parents/families of children will be eligible for the study following an emergency department physician's request for a level I pediatric trauma center consultation. We will evaluate parent/family experience of care and distress using previously validated instruments, healthcare utilization by family recollection and medical record abstraction, and out-of-pocket costs using standard economic analyses. DISCUSSION: We expect that the findings from this study will inform other level I pediatric trauma centers and non-pediatric trauma centers on how to improve their systems of care for injured children. The results will help to optimize communication, confidence, and shared decision-making between parents/families and clinical staff from both the transferring and receiving hospitals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04469036. Registered July 13, 2020 before start of inclusion.

Follow-up strategies for patients with splenic trauma managed non-operatively: the 2022 World Society of Emergency Surgery consensus document.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the World Society of Emergency Surgery published its guidelines for the management of adult and pediatric patients with splenic trauma. Several issues regarding the follow-up of patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM remained unsolved. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi method, we sought to explore ongoing areas of controversy in the NOM of splenic trauma and reach a consensus among a group of 48 international experts from five continents (Africa, Europe, Asia, Oceania, America) concerning optimal follow-up strategies in patients with splenic injuries treated with NOM. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on eleven clinical research questions and 28 recommendations with an agreement rate ≥ 80%. Mobilization after 24 h in low-grade splenic trauma patients (WSES Class I, AAST Grades I-II) was suggested, while in patients with high-grade splenic injuries (WSES Classes II-III, AAST Grades III-V), if no other contraindications to early mobilization exist, safe mobilization of the patient when three successive hemoglobins 8 h apart after the first are within 10% of each other was considered safe according to the panel. The panel suggests adult patients to be admitted to hospital for 1 day (for low-grade splenic injuries-WSES Class I, AAST Grades I-II) to 3 days (for high-grade splenic injuries-WSES Classes II-III, AAST Grades III-V), with those with high-grade injuries requiring admission to a monitored setting. In the absence of specific complications, the panel suggests DVT and VTE prophylaxis with LMWH to be started within 48-72 h from hospital admission. The panel suggests splenic artery embolization (SAE) as the first-line intervention in patients with hemodynamic stability and arterial blush on CT scan, irrespective of injury grade. Regarding patients with WSES Class II blunt splenic injuries (AAST Grade III) without contrast extravasation, a low threshold for SAE has been suggested in the presence of risk factors for NOM failure. The panel also suggested angiography and eventual SAE in all hemodynamically stable adult patients with WSES Class III injuries (AAST Grades IV-V), even in the absence of CT blush, especially when concomitant surgery that requires change of position is needed. Follow-up imaging with contrast-enhanced ultrasound/CT scan in 48-72 h post-admission of trauma in splenic injuries WSES Class II (AAST Grade III) or higher treated with NOM was considered the best strategy for timely detection of vascular complications. CONCLUSION: This consensus document could help guide future prospective studies aiming at validating the suggested strategies through the implementation of prospective trauma databases and the subsequent production of internationally endorsed guidelines on the issue.

Acute mesenteric ischemia: updated guidelines of the World Society of Emergency Surgery.

Acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) is a group of diseases characterized by an interruption of the blood supply to varying portions of the intestine, leading to ischemia and secondary inflammatory changes. If untreated, this process may progress to life-threatening intestinal necrosis. The incidence is low, estimated at 0.09-0.2% of all acute surgical admissions, but increases with age. Although the entity is an uncommon cause of abdominal pain, diligence is required because if untreated, mortality remains in the range of 50%. Early diagnosis and timely surgical intervention are the cornerstones of modern treatment to reduce the high mortality associated with this entity. The advent of endovascular approaches in parallel with modern imaging techniques is evolving and provides new treatment options. Lastly, a focused multidisciplinary approach based on early diagnosis and individualized treatment is essential. Thus, we believe that updated guidelines from World Society of Emergency Surgery are warranted, in order to provide the most recent and practical recommendations for diagnosis and treatment of AMI.

Postoperative pain management in non-traumatic emergency general surgery: WSES-GAIS-SIAARTI-AAST guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Non-traumatic emergency general surgery involves a heterogeneous population that may present with several underlying diseases. Timeous emergency surgical treatment should be supplemented with high-quality perioperative care, ideally performed by multidisciplinary teams trained to identify and handle complex postoperative courses. Uncontrolled or poorly controlled acute postoperative pain may result in significant complications. While pain management after elective surgery has been standardized in perioperative pathways, the traditional perioperative treatment of patients undergoing emergency surgery is often a haphazard practice. The present recommended pain management guidelines are for pain management after non-traumatic emergency surgical intervention. It is meant to provide clinicians a list of indications to prescribe the optimal analgesics even in the absence of a multidisciplinary pain team. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An international expert panel discussed the different issues in subsequent rounds. Four international recognized scientific societies: World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS), Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia Intensive Care (SIAARTI), and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), endorsed the project and approved the final manuscript. CONCLUSION: Dealing with acute postoperative pain in the emergency abdominal surgery setting is complex, requires special attention, and should be multidisciplinary. Several tools are available, and their combination is mandatory whenever is possible. Analgesic approach to the various situations and conditions should be patient based and tailored according to procedure, pathology, age, response, and available expertise. A better understanding of the patho-mechanisms of postoperative pain for short- and long-term outcomes is necessary to improve prophylactic and treatment strategies.

Operative management of acute abdomen after bariatric surgery in the emergency setting: the OBA guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with acute abdominal pain that occurs after months or years following bariatric surgery may present for assessment and management in the local emergency units. Due to the large variety of surgical bariatric techniques, emergency surgeons have to be aware of the main functional outcomes and long-term surgical complications following the most performed bariatric surgical procedures. The purpose of these evidence-based guidelines is to present a consensus position from members of the WSES in collaboration with IFSO bariatric experienced surgeons, on the management of acute abdomen after bariatric surgery focusing on long-term complications in patients who have undergone laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. METHOD: A working group of experienced general, acute care, and bariatric surgeons was created to carry out a systematic review of the literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and to answer the PICO questions formulated after the Operative management in bariatric acute abdomen survey. The literature search was limited to late/long-term complications following laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. CONCLUSIONS: The acute abdomen after bariatric surgery is a common cause of admission in emergency departments. Knowledge of the most common late/long-term complications (> 4 weeks after surgical procedure) following sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and their anatomy leads to a focused management in the emergency setting with good outcomes and decreased morbidity and mortality rates. A close collaboration between emergency surgeons, radiologists, endoscopists, and anesthesiologists is mandatory in the management of this group of patients in the emergency setting.

The LIFE TRIAD of emergency general surgery.

Emergency General Surgery (EGS) was identified as multidisciplinary surgery performed for traumatic and non-traumatic acute conditions during the same admission in the hospital by general emergency surgeons and other specialists. It is the most diffused surgical discipline in the world. To live and grow strong EGS necessitates three fundamental parts: emergency and elective continuous surgical practice, evidence generation through clinical registries and data accrual, and indications and guidelines production: the LIFE TRIAD.

Developing a National Trauma Research Action Plan: Results from the acute resuscitation, initial patient evaluation, imaging, and management research gap Delphi survey.

BACKGROUND: Injury is the leading cause of death in patients aged 1 to 45 years and contributes to a significant public health burden for individuals of all ages. To achieve zero preventable deaths and disability after injury, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine called for the development of a National Trauma Research Action Plan to improve outcomes for military and civilian trauma patients. Because rapid resuscitation and prompt identification and treatment of injuries are critical in achieving optimal outcomes, a panel of experts was convened to generate high-priority research questions in the areas of acute resuscitation, initial evaluation, imaging, and definitive management on injury. METHODS: Forty-three subject matter experts in trauma care and injury research were recruited to perform a gap analysis of current literature and prioritize unanswered research questions using a consensus-driven Delphi survey approach. Four Delphi rounds were conducted to generate research questions and prioritize them using a 9-point Likert scale. Research questions were stratified as low, medium, or high priority, with consensus defined as ≥60% of panelists agreeing on the priority category. Research questions were coded using a taxonomy of 118 research concepts that were standard across all National Trauma Research Action Plan panels. RESULTS: There were 1,422 questions generated, of which 992 (69.8%) reached consensus. Of the questions reaching consensus, 327 (33.0%) were given high priority, 621 (62.6%) medium priority, and 44 (4.4%) low priority. Pharmaceutical intervention and fluid/blood product resuscitation were most frequently scored as high-priority intervention concepts. Research questions related to traumatic brain injury, vascular injury, pelvic fracture, and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis were highly prioritized. CONCLUSION: This research gap analysis identified more than 300 high-priority research questions within the broad category of Acute Resuscitation, Initial Evaluation, Imaging, and Definitive Management. Research funding should be prioritized to address these high-priority topics in the future.

The acute phase management of spinal cord injury affecting polytrauma patients: the ASAP study.

BACKGROUND: Few data on the management of acute phase of traumatic spinal cord injury (tSCI) in patients suffering polytrauma are available. As the therapeutic choices in the first hours may have a deep impact on outcome of tSCI patients, we conducted an international survey investigating this topic. METHODS: The survey was composed of 29 items. The main endpoints of the survey were to examine: (1) the hemodynamic and respiratory management, (2) the coagulation management, (3) the timing of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and spinal surgery, (4) the use of corticosteroid therapy, (5) the role of intraspinal pressure (ISP)/spinal cord perfusion pressure (SCPP) monitoring and (6) the utilization of therapeutic hypothermia. RESULTS: There were 171 respondents from 139 centers worldwide. A target mean arterial pressure (MAP) target of 80-90 mmHg was chosen in almost half of the cases [n = 84 (49.1%)]. A temporary reduction in the target MAP, for the time strictly necessary to achieve bleeding control in polytrauma, was accepted by most respondents [n = 100 (58.5%)]. Sixty-one respondents (35.7%) considered acceptable a hemoglobin (Hb) level of 7 g/dl in tSCI polytraumatized patients. An arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) of 80-100 mmHg [n = 94 (55%)] and an arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) of 35-40 mmHg [n = 130 (76%)] were chosen in most cases. A little more than half of respondents considered safe a platelet (PLT) count > 100.000/mm3 [n = 99 (57.9%)] and prothrombin time (PT)/activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) < 1.5 times the normal control [n = 85 (49.7%)] in patients needing spinal surgery. MRI [n = 160 (93.6%)] and spinal surgery [n = 158 (92.4%)] should be performed after intracranial, hemodynamic, and respiratory stabilization by most respondents. Corticosteroids [n = 103 (60.2%)], ISP/SCPP monitoring [n = 148 (86.5%)], and therapeutic hypothermia [n = 137 (80%)] were not utilized by most respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey has shown a great worldwide variability in clinical practices for acute phase management of tSCI patients with polytrauma. These findings can be helpful to define future research in order to optimize the care of patients suffering tSCI.