Surgical stabilization of rib fractures is associated with better return on investment for a health care institution than nonoperative management.

BACKGROUND: Surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRFs) continues to gain popularity due to patient benefits. However, little has been produced regarding the economic benefits of SSRF and its impact on hospital metrics such as Vizient. The aim of this study was to explore these benefits hypothesizing SSRF will demonstrate positive return on investment (ROI) for a health care institution. METHODS: This is a retrospective review of all rib fracture patients over 5 years at our Level I trauma center. Patients were grouped into SSRF versus nonoperative management. Basic demographics were obtained including case mix index (CMI). Outcomes included narcotic requirements in morphine milliequivalents prior to discharge, mortality, and discharge disposition. Furthermore, actual hospital length of stay (ALOS) versus Vizient expected length of stay were compared between cohorts. Contribution margin (CM) was also calculated. Independent t-test, paired t-test, and linear regression analysis were performed, and significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 1,639 patients were included; 230 (14%) underwent SSRF. Age, gender, and Injury Severity Score were similar. Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients had more ribs fractured (7 vs. 4; p < 0.001) and more patients with flail chest (43.5% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.001). Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients also had a significantly higher CMI (4.33 vs. 2.78; p = 0.001). Narcotic requirements and mortality were less in the SSRF cohort; 155 versus 246 morphine milliequivalents ( p < 0.001) and 1.7% versus 7.1% ( p = 0.003), respectively. Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients were more likely to be discharged home (70.4% vs. 63.7%; p = 0.006). Surgical stabilization of rib fracture patients demonstrated shorter ALOS where nonoperative management patients demonstrated longer ALOS compared with Vizient expected length of stay. Contribution margins for SSRF patients were significantly higher and linear regression analysis showed a CM $1,128.14 higher per patient undergoing SSRF ( p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing SSRF demonstrate a significant ROI for a health care organization. Despite SSRF patients having a higher CMI, they were able to be discharged sooner than expected by Vizient calculations resulting in better a CM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

"Peas in a Pod": Clustering minorly injured trauma patients together during their hospitalization results in decreased hospital costs and fewer inpatient complications.

BACKGROUND: Trauma patient care is complex. Clustering these patients within the hospital seems intuitive. This study's purpose was to explore the benefits of trauma patient clustering, hypothesizing these patients will have decreased costs and better outcomes. METHODS: This was an analysis of all adult (18-99 years) trauma patients admitted from 1/2017-1/2019 without an intensive care unit stay. Patients were grouped into those admitted to the trauma unit (TU) versus non-trauma units (NTU). Outcomes evaluated between groups were baseline demographics, direct costs, complication rates (using our TQIP registry), and discharge location. T-test, median test, and chi squared test were used. Linear regression was performed. Significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: 1481 patients (684 TU and 797 NTU) were analyzed. TU patients were younger. Injury Severity Score, mortality, and hospital length of stay were similar between groups. Direct hospital costs were decreased for TU patients ($4941(±$4740) versus $5639(±$4897), p = 0.006). Fewer TU patients experienced inpatient complications (7.8% versus 13.5%, p < 0.001). More TU patients were discharged to home (78.9% versus 73.8%, p = 0.02). Linear regression analysis demonstrated admission to NTUs predicted a direct cost increase of $766.35 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clustering minorly injured trauma patients on a dedicated unit resulted in reduced costs, decreased complications, and higher likelihood for discharge to home.

Surgical stabilization of rib fractures combined with intercostal nerve cryoablation proves to be more cost effective by reducing hospital length of stay and narcotics.

BACKGROUND: Intercostal nerve cryoablation (INCA) coupled with surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) has been shown to reduce post-operative pain scores but at what monetary cost. We hypothesize that in-hospital outcomes improve with the addition of INCA to SSRF and potential increased hospital charges are justified by patient benefits. METHODS: Multi-institutional, retrospective review of patients undergoing SSRF with and without INCA over an 8-year period. Institutions involved were Level II or higher trauma centers. Basic demographics were obtained. Patients were included if SSRF was performed during the index hospitalization. Primary outcomes included total hospital length of stay (HLOS) and HLOS after SSRF, total hospital charges (HC), HC the day of surgery and HC after surgery. Secondary outcome included total narcotic consumption in morphine milliequivalents (MME) after SSRF. Mann-Whitney U test was used for analysis. Statistical significance p < 0.05. RESULTS: 136 patients analyzed; 92 underwent SSRF only and 44 underwent SSRF with INCA. Demographics were similar between groups. Number of ribs stabilized was comparable; 4.78 ± 1.64 SSRF only and 4.73 ± 1.66 SSRF with INCA (p = 0.463). Median ISS [16 (IQR 11.5-16) SSRF only and 14 (IQR 9-18.75) SSRF with INCA (p = 0.463)] was not statistically different. The INCA group showed a decrease in the median total HLOS, 9 versus 10 days (U = 1517.5, p = 0.026) and HLOS after SSRF, 4 versus 6 days (U = 1217.5, p < 0.001). HC the day of surgery were higher for the INCA group, $93,932 versus $71,143 (U = 1106, p < 0.001). However, total HC were similar between groups and total HC after SSRF was significantly less for the INCA group, $10,556 versus $20,269 (U = 1327, p = 0.001). Total median narcotic use after SSRF was significantly less for the INCA group, 88.6 vs 113.7 MME (U = 1544.5, p = 0.026). CONCLUSION: SSRF with INCA is safe and does not increase overall HC with the added benefit of decreased HLOS post-operatively and decreased narcotic consumption.

"I got it on Ebay!": cost-effective approach to surgical skills laboratories.

BACKGROUND: Surgical education is witnessing a surge in the use of simulation. However, implementation of simulation is often cost-prohibitive. Online shopping offers a low budget alternative. The aim of this study was to implement cost-effective skills laboratories and analyze online versus manufacturers' prices to evaluate for savings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four skills laboratories were designed for the surgery clerkship from July 2014 to June 2015. Skills laboratories were implemented using hand-built simulation and instruments purchased online. Trademarked simulation was priced online and instruments priced from a manufacturer. Costs were compiled, and a descriptive cost analysis of online and manufacturers' prices was performed. Learners rated their level of satisfaction for all educational activities, and levels of satisfaction were compared. RESULTS: A total of 119 third-year medical students participated. Supply lists and costs were compiled for each laboratory. A descriptive cost analysis of online and manufacturers' prices showed online prices were substantially lower than manufacturers, with a per laboratory savings of: $1779.26 (suturing), $1752.52 (chest tube), $2448.52 (anastomosis), and $1891.64 (laparoscopic), resulting in a year 1 savings of $47,285. Mean student satisfaction scores for the skills laboratories were 4.32, with statistical significance compared to live lectures at 2.96 (P < 0.05) and small group activities at 3.67 (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A cost-effective approach for implementation of skills laboratories showed substantial savings. By using hand-built simulation boxes and online resources to purchase surgical equipment, surgical educators overcome financial obstacles limiting the use of simulation and provide learning opportunities that medical students perceive as beneficial.