Comparison of procedural complications between resident physicians and advanced clinical providers.

BACKGROUND: In the era of resident work hour restrictions, many trauma centers across the country have incorporated advanced clinical providers (ACPs) as integral partners in the care of critically ill patients. In addition to providing daily care, ACPs have also begun performing invasive procedures. Few studies have addressed ACPs procedural complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the complication rates from surgical procedures performed by resident physicians (RPs) and ACPs in the critical care setting. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all procedures performed from January to December of 2011 in our trauma and surgical intensive care units. Under attending supervision, ACPs performed procedures for surgical critical care patients and RPs for trauma patients. Procedures consisted of arterial lines, central venous lines, bronchoalveolar lavage, thoracostomy tubes, percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy, and tracheostomies. Data included demographics, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III scores, complications, and outcomes and were divided into RP versus ACP groups. Complications were assessed by postprocedure radiography, operative notes, and postprocedure notes. Dichotomous data were compared using χ and continuous variables by Student's t tests. RESULTS: There were a total of 1,404 patients; the mean ± SE Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score for patients in the RP group was 40.8 ± 0.9 compared with ACP group at 47.7 ± 0.7 (p < 0.05). Our RPs performed 1,020 procedures, and 21 complications were noted (complication rate, 2%). The ACPs completed 555 procedures; 11 complications were incurred (complication rate, 2%). There were no difference in the mean ± SE intensive care unit (RP, 3.9 ± 0.2 days vs. ACP, 3.7± 0.1 days) and hospital (RP, 12.2 ± 0.4 days vs. ACP, 13.3 ± 0.3 days) length of stay. Mortality rates were also comparable between the two groups (RP, 11% vs. ACP, 9.7%). CONCLUSION: In critically ill patients, ACPs can competently perform invasive procedures safely. Our ACPs' responsibilities can be expanded to include invasive procedures in the critical care setting with appropriate supervision. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.

Improving overtriage of aeromedical transport in trauma: a regional process improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: Aeromedical transport (AMT) is an effective but costly means of rescuing critically injured patients. Although studies have shown that it improves survival to hospital discharge compared with ground transportation, an efficient threshold or universal criteria for this mode of transport remains to be established. Herein, we examined the effect of implementing a Trauma Advisory Committee (TAC) initiative focused on reducing AMT overtriage (OT) rates. METHODS: TAC outreach coordinators implemented a process improvement (PI) initiative and collected data prospectively from January 2007 to December 2011. OT was defined as patients who were airlifted from scene and later discharged from the emergency department. Serving as liaisons to surrounding counties, TAC outreach coordinators conducted quarterly PI meetings with local emergency medical service agencies. Patients were grouped into those who were airlifted from TAC counties versus counties outside TAC's jurisdiction (non-TAC). Standard statistical methods were used. RESULTS: From 2007 to 2011, 3,349 patients were airlifted from 30 counties, 1,427 (43%) from TAC counties and 1,922 (57%) from non-TAC counties. The OT rates from TAC counties declined compared with non-TAC counties each year and reached statistical significance in 2008 (17% vs. 23%, p < 0.05), 2009 (11% vs. 17%m p < 0.05), and 2011 (6% vs. 12%, p < 0.05). The reduction in OT continued over the study duration, with improvement in TAC counties compared with previous years. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a regional TAC PI initiative focused on OT issues led to a more efficient use of AMT. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Full-scale regional exercises: closing the gaps in disaster preparedness.

BACKGROUND: Man-made (9/11) and natural (Hurricane Katrina) disasters have enlightened the medical community regarding the importance of disaster preparedness. In response to Joint Commission requirements, medical centers should have established protocols in place to respond to such events. We examined a full-scale regional exercise (FSRE) to identify gaps in logistics and operations during a simulated mass casualty incident. METHODS: A multiagency, multijurisdictional, multidisciplinary exercise (FSRE) included 16 area hospitals and one American College of Surgeons-verified Level I trauma center (TC). The scenario simulated a train derailment and chemical spill 20 miles from the TC using 281 moulaged volunteers. Third-party contracted evaluators assessed each hospital in five areas: communications, command structure, decontamination, staffing, and patient tracking. Further analysis examined logistic and operational deficiencies. RESULTS: None of the 16 hospitals were compliant in all five areas. Mean hospital compliance was 1.9 (± 0.9 SD) areas. One hospital, unable to participate because of an air conditioner outage, was deemed 0% compliant. The most common deficiency was communications (15 of 16 hospitals [94%]; State Medical Asset Resource Tracking Tool system deficiencies, lack of working knowledge of Voice Interoperability Plan for Emergency Responders radio system) followed by deficient decontamination in 12 (75%). Other deficiencies included inadequate staffing based on predetermined protocols in 10 hospitals (63%), suboptimal command structure in 9 (56%), and patient tracking deficiencies in 5 (31%). An additional 11 operational and 5 logistic failures were identified. The TC showed an appropriate command structure but was deficient in four of five categories, with understaffing and a decontamination leak into the emergency department, which required diversion of 70 patients. CONCLUSION: Communication remains a significant gap in the mass casualty scenario 10 years after 9/11. Our findings demonstrate that tabletop exercises are inadequate to expose operational and logistic gaps in disaster response. FSREs should be routinely performed to adequately prepare for catastrophic events.

Resident work hour restrictions impact chief resident operative experience.

Since the institution of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident work restrictions, much discussion has arisen regarding the potential effect on surgical resident training. We undertook this study to examine the effects on resident operative experience. We retrospectively analyzed chief residents' Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs before (PRE) and after (POST) the 80-hour work restriction. Overall, 22 resident logs were evaluated, six PRE and 16 POST. Four case categories were examined: total major cases, total trauma operative cases, total chief cases, and total teaching assistant cases. Significance was defined as P < 0.05. Comparing the PRE and POST groups demonstrated a trend toward fewer total major cases (1061 vs 964, P = 0.38) and fewer total trauma operative cases (55 vs 47, P = 0.37). Teaching assistant cases increased from 67 to 91 but also failed to reach significance (P = 0.37). However, further comparison between the PRE and POST groups yielded a statistically significant decrease in the number of total chief cases (494 vs 333, P = 0.0092). The significant decrease in the number of total chief cases demonstrates that the work hour restriction most affected the chief year operative experience. Further evaluation of resident participation in nonoperative facets may reveal additional deficiencies of surgical training under work hour restrictions.

Optimal management strategy for incidental findings in trauma patients: an initiative for midlevel providers.

BACKGROUND: Increasing patient volume and residents' work hour restrictions have increased the workload at trauma centers. Further, comprehensive tertiary surveys after initial stabilization and appropriate follow-up plans for incidental findings are time consuming. Midlevel providers (MLP) can help streamline this process. We initiated a care plan in which MLPs conducted all tertiary surveys and coordinated follow-ups for incidental findings. METHODS: From November 2005 through May 2006, we implemented a MLP-driven initiative aimed at performing tertiary surveys within 48 hours of admission on all trauma patients admitted to our Level-1 trauma center. Tertiary surveys consisted of a complete history and physical, radiographic evaluations and appropriate consultations. Incidental findings were recorded and communicated to the trauma attending. A follow-up plan was devised, and the course of action was documented. Patients or family members were informed, and their acknowledgments were filed. Data are presented as mean +/- SE. RESULTS: There were 1,027 patients admitted during the study period. Blunt mechanisms accounted for 81% of the injuries (primarily motor vehicle crashes and falls). Seventy-six patients had 87 incidental findings (7.4%); 53 were men. The mean age was 51.8 years +/- 2.1 years and mean injury severity score was 18.5 +/- 1.4. Incidental findings of clinical significance included 18 pulmonary nodules or neoplasms, 9 adrenal masses (>4 mm), 7 patients with lymphadenopathy, 5 benign cystic lesions, and 3 renal masses. Other neoplastic lesions included bladder (2), thyroid (2), ovary (1), breast (1), and rectum (1). CONCLUSIONS: With prevalent medicolegal pressure and restricted residents' work hours, a MLP-initiative to streamline the tertiary survey effectively addresses incidental findings. This MLP-driven care plan can help reduce residents' workload, provides appropriate follow-up, and minimizes legal risks inherent to incidental findings on the trauma service.

Improving outcomes in a regional trauma system: impact of a level III trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Trauma systems decrease morbidity and mortality of injured populations, and each component contributes to the final outcome. This study evaluated the association between a referring hospital's trauma designation and the survival and resource utilization of patients transferred to a level I trauma center. METHODS: Data from the Registry of the American College of Surgeons on patients transferred to a level I trauma center during a 7-year period were subdivided into 3 categories: group 1 = level III-designated trauma center; group 2 = potential level III trauma centers; and group 3 = other transferring hospitals. Trauma and Injury Severity Score methodology was used to provide a probability estimate of survival adjusted for the effect related to injury severity, physiologic host factors, and age. A W statistic was calculated for each type of referring hospital so that comparisons between observed survival and predicted survival could be measured. Differences in W, length of stay, intensive care unit days, and ventilator days were examined using general linear models. RESULTS: Patients transferred to a level I from a level III trauma center (group 1) were more seriously injured (P < .0001) and had improved survival (P < .0018) compared with those transferred from nondesignated hospitals (groups 2 and 3). Patients transferred from large nondesignated hospitals (group 2) had outcomes similar to patients transferred from all other hospitals (group 3). Level I hospital resource utilization did not show significant differences based on referring hospital type. COMMENTS: Outcomes of patients in a trauma system are associated with trauma-center designation of the referring hospitals.

Handsewn versus stapled anastomosis in penetrating colon injuries requiring resection: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Although the use of stapling devices in elective colon surgery has been shown to be as safe as handsewn techniques, there have been concerns about their safety in emergency trauma surgery. The purpose of this study was to compare stapled with handsewn colonic anastomosis following penetrating trauma. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter study and included patients who underwent colon resection and anastomosis following penetrating trauma. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors for abdominal complications and compare outcomes between stapled and handsewn repairs. RESULTS: Two hundred seven patients underwent colon resection and primary anastomosis. In 128 patients (61.8%) the anastomosis was performed with handsewing and in the remaining 79 (38.2%) with stapling devices. There were no colon-related deaths and the overall incidence of colon-related abdominal complications was 22.7% (26.6% in the stapled group and 20.3% in the handsewn group, p = 0.30). The incidence of anastomotic leak was 6.3% in the stapled group and 7.8% in the handsewn group (p = 0.69). Multivariate analysis adjusting for blood transfusions, fecal contamination, and type of antibiotic prophylaxis showed that the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of complications in the stapled group was 0.83 (95% CI, 0.38-1.74, p = 0.63). In a second multivariate analysis adjusting for blood transfusions, hypotension, fecal contamination, Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Index, and preoperative delays the adjusted OR in the stapled group was 0.99 (95% CI, 0.46-2.11, p = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the method of anastomosis following colon resection for penetrating trauma does not affect the incidence of abdominal complications and the choice should be surgeon's preference.