The Impact of the Fascia Iliaca Block Beyond Perioperative Pain Control in Hip Fractures: A Retrospective Review.

Background: Geriatric hip fractures are common injuries that are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Adequate pain control remains a challenge as the altered physiology in elderly patients makes use of traditional analgesics challenging. The use of regional anesthetics, specifically the fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB), in the perioperative period has been shown to decrease opioid use in this population. This study aimed to investigate the effect the FICB had on pain control, length of stay, readmissions, and complications in a 30-day postoperative period. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing patients who sustained hip fractures; one cohort (110 patients) received a preoperative fascia iliaca block with continuous infusion (FICB), whereas the other cohort (110 patients) did not receive a block (NO-FICB). Both cohorts were from level II trauma centers. Data were collected between 2016 and 2019. Descriptive statistics was performed to describe and summarize the data. Bivariate analysis was performed using chi-square test, with 2 tailed P-values ≤ .05 were considered statistically significant. Results: The FICB group had a lower length of stay (3.9 days vs 4.8 days; P < .001), and lower pain scores on post-operative days 2 and 3 (P = .019). There was no difference in time from admission to surgery (P = .112) or narcotic use between cohorts (P = .304). However, the FICB group was more likely to discharge to a skilled nursing facility (P=.002), and more likely to be readmitted within 30 days (P = .047). There were no differences in medical complications or mortality between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The primary study endpoint, length of stay, was found to be significantly shorter in the patients who underwent the FICB vs the group who did not undergo the FICB. Pain scores on POD2 and POD3 were lower in patients who received a FICB. This study adds to the body of evidence that the FICB is an effective addition to a multimodal pain pathway. Level of Evidence: Level III Evidence - Retrospective Cohort Study.

Speaking the same language: underestimating financial impact when using diagnosis-related group versus ICD-9-based definitions for trauma inclusion criteria.

BACKGROUND: Hospital accounting methods use diagnosis-related group (DRG) data to identify patients and derive financial analyses and reports. The National Trauma Data Bank and trauma programs identify patients with trauma by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition (ICD-9)-based definitions for inclusion criteria. These differing methods of identifying patients result in economic reports that vary significantly and fail to accurately identify the financial impact of trauma services. METHODS: Routine financial data were collected for patients admitted to our Trauma Service from July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006 using two methods of identifying the cases; by trauma DRGs and by trauma registry database inclusion criteria. The resulting data were compared and stratified to define the financial impact on hospital charges, reimbursement, costs, contribution to margin, downstream revenue, and estimated profit or loss. The results also defined the impact on supporting services, market share and total revenue from trauma admissions, return visits, discharged trauma alerts, and consultations. RESULTS: A total of 3,070 patients were identified by the trauma registry as meeting ICD-9 inclusion criteria. Trauma-associated DRGs accounted for 871 of the 3,070 admissions. The DRG-driven data set demonstrated an estimated profit of $800,000 dollars; the ICD-9 data set revealed an estimated 4.8 million dollar profit, increased our market share, and showed substantial revenue generated for other hospital service lines. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma DRGs fail to account for most trauma admissions. Financial data derived from DRG definitions significantly underestimate the trauma service line's financial contribution to hospital economics. Accurately identifying patients with trauma based on trauma database inclusion criteria better defines the business of trauma.

Clinical clearance of spinal immobilization in the air medical environment: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Various decision algorithms have been developed for use in the prehospital setting to analyze those trauma patients who do not require spinal immobilization. The feasibility of applying these algorithms in the air medical transport environment has not been studied. METHODS: All adult patients (>/=age 16) transported to three Level I trauma centers were eligible for the study. Medical crews completed a data collection sheet during transport which was later used to analyze whether the transported patient would be eligible for spinal clearance based on the absence of all of the following clinical findings: (1) abnormal level of consciousness; (2) evidence of intoxication; (3) distracting painful injury; (4) spinal tenderness or pain; or (5) abnormal neurologic examination. The outcomes were (1) the proportion of transported patients potentially eligible for spinal clearance and (2) the ability of the algorithm to predict spinal injury. RESULTS: Three hundred twenty-nine patients were enrolled in the study. Forty-nine (15%) had spinal injuries with 12 (24%) considered unstable. Only 40 patients met criteria for deferring spinal immobilization; 4 of these patients had spinal fractures. The algorithm had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 16%. CONCLUSION: Clearance of spinal immobilization using prehospital clinical algorithms during air medical transport did not appear to be useful. These criteria were not found to be sensitive, specific, or predictive of spinal injury in this population of blunt trauma patients. Prehospital spinal immobilization clearance algorithms using existing criteria should not be adopted for patients transported by helicopter.

Perceived value of trauma autopsy among trauma medical directors and coroners.

INTRODUCTION: Although autopsy is acknowledged as essential for improving quality of medical care of trauma patients and accuracy of injury surveillance systems, the autopsy rate has remained well below 100% for certain categories of trauma. We obtained recent documentation of the frequency of autopsy among trauma-related deaths in Ohio, and surveyed coroners and trauma program medical directors (TMDs) about the perceived benefits and challenges of performing autopsy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Copies of death certificates were obtained for the years 1996-2001. Death and autopsy rates were calculated and examined for trends over time. Surveys covering the topics of mechanisms of injury prompting autopsy, uses and users of autopsy data, and barriers to performing autopsy were sent to Ohio's coroners, coroners from nearby states, and Ohio TMDs. The chi(2)-test for trend analysed autopsy rates over time, while responses among groups were compared using the chi(2)-test. RESULTS: The autopsy rate for injury related deaths increased from 50% in 1996 to 66.5% in 2001 (p=.0018). During the study period the volume of autopsies rose by 18%, from 2990 to 3546. There was no review by the coroner in almost 10% of trauma deaths. TMDs more often indicated that autopsies advance medical knowledge than did Ohio and non-Ohio coroners (62.9% versus 33.4% and 47.6%, respectively, p=.016). TMDs more frequently reported themselves as users of autopsy information than did Ohio and non-Ohio coroners (91.4% versus 14.6% and 20%, respectively, p<.0001). All groups reported inadequate funds and personnel as the two most common barriers to performing autopsies, although TMDs were more likely to identify these as barriers than coroners (p<.0001). Almost 27% of Ohio coroners agreed with the statement, "I do not feel that trauma-related autopsies are necessary". CONCLUSION: Significant barriers exist to improving autopsy rates among trauma patients who die. These include not only more well-recognised impediments such as inadequate funds and personnel, but less commonly reported issues concerning differing points of view on the role of trauma-related autopsy among coroners and TMDs. To improve trauma-related autopsy rates, each of these issues requires attention and cooperation among all parties.