Evaluating the traditional day and night shift in an acute care surgery fellowship: Is the swing shift a better choice?

BACKGROUND: Fellowship trainees in acute care surgery require experience in the management of complex and operative trauma cases. Trauma center staffing usually follows standard 12-hour or 24-hour shifts, with resident and fellow trainees following a similar schedule. Although trauma admissions can be generally unpredictable, we analyzed temporal trends of trauma patient arrival times to determine the best time frame to maximize trainee experience during each day. METHODS: We reviewed 10 years (2007-2016) of trauma registry data for blunt and penetrating trauma activations. Hourly volumetric trends were observed, and three specific events were chosen for detailed analysis: (1) trauma activation with Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15, (2) laparotomy for trauma, and (3) thoracotomy for trauma. A retrospective shift log was created, which included day (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM), night (7:00 PM to 7:00 AM), and swing (noon to midnight) shifts. A swing shift was chosen because it captures the peak volume for all three events. Means and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and comparisons were made between shifts using the Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test with Bonferroni correction, and p less than 0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: During the 10-year study period, 28,287 patients were treated at our trauma center. This included the evaluation and management of 7,874 patients with ISS greater than 15, performance of 1,766 laparotomies, and 392 thoracotomies for trauma. Swing shift was superior to both day and night shifts for ISS greater than 15 (p < 0.001). Both swing and night shifts were superior to day shift for laparotomies (p < 0.001). Swing shift was superior to both day shift (p < 0.001) and night shift (p = 0.031). Shifts with the highest yield of ISS greater than 15, laparotomies, and thoracotomies include night and swing shifts on Fridays and Saturdays. CONCLUSION: Projected experience of acute care surgery fellows in managing complex trauma patients increases with the integration of swing shifts into the schedule. Daily trauma volume follows a temporal pattern which, when used correctly, can increase trainee exposure to complex and operative trauma cases. We encourage other centers to analyze their volume and adjust trainee schedules accordingly to maximize their educational experience. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic study, level IV.

International rotations: A valuable source to supplement operative experience for acute-care surgery, trauma, and surgical critical care fellows.

BACKGROUND: Acute-care surgery (ACS), trauma, and surgical critical care (SCC) fellowships graduate fellows deemed qualified to perform complex cases immediately upon graduation. We hypothesize international fellow rotations can be a resource to supplement operative case exposure. METHODS: A survey was sent to all program directors (PDs) of ACS and SCC fellowships via e-mail. Data were captured and analyzed using the REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) tool. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 113 PDs, with a response rate of 42%. Most fellows performed less than 150 operative cases (59.5%). The majority of PDs thought the operative exposure either could be improved or was not enough to ensure expertise in trauma and emergent general surgery. Only a minority of the PDs found their case load exceptional (can be improved: 43%, not enough: 30% exceptional: 27%). Most PDs thought an international experience could supplement the breadth of cases, provide research opportunities, and improve understanding of trauma systems (70%). Ten sites offered international rotations (70%). Most fellowships would be willing to provide reciprocity to the host institution (90%). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of PDs for ACS, trauma, and SCC programs perceive a need for increased quality and quantity of operative cases. The majority recognize international fellow rotations as a valuable tool to supplement fellows' education.

Acute care surgery fellowship graduates' practice patterns: The additional training is an asset.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Acute Care Surgery (ACS) fellowship program has matured to 20 verified programs. As part of an ongoing curricular evaluation, we queried the current practice patterns of the graduates of ACS fellowship programs regarding their view on their ACS training. We hypothesized that the majority of ACS fellowship graduates would be practicing ACS in academic Level I trauma centers and that fellowship training was pivotal in their career. METHODS: Graduates of American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-certified ACS fellowships completed an online survey that included practice demographics, specific categories of cases delineated by the current ACS curriculum, and perceived impact of training. RESULTS: Surveys were submitted by 56 of 77 graduates for a completion rate of 73%. The majority of respondents were male (68%) aged 40 years or younger (80%). All but four completed ACS fellowship training in last 5 years (93%), and 83% completed fellowship in the last 3 years. Regarding their current practice, broadly defined ACS predominated (96%) with 2% practicing only trauma surgery and 2% only general surgery. Practice settings were 64% urban, 29% suburban, and 7% rural locations, with 84% of graduates practicing in a hospital-based group. The practitioner's hospital was identified as university/university-affiliated in 53%, community in 38%, and military in 9%, with 91% identified as a teaching hospital; trauma designation was identified as Level I (55%), Level II (39%), and other (6%). The graduates' average current practice mix is 10% elective general surgery, 29% emergency general surgery, 32% trauma, 25% surgical critical care, and 4% other (burn, bariatric, vascular, and thoracic). Only 16% of graduates do not perform elective cases. Case specifics demonstrated 92% of graduates perform vascular cases, 88% perform thoracic cases, and 70% perform complex hepatobiliary. Practice elements that were satisfiers included (1) scope of practice, (2) case mix, (3) percentage emergency general surgery, (4) lifestyle, (5) case complexity (with 3 and 4 tied). Graduates agreed the ACS fellowship training prepared them well for practice and was worth the time invested (both 82%), increased their marketability and self-confidence (80%), and prepared them well for academics (71%) and administration (63%). Of those surveyed, 93% would encourage others to do an ACS fellowship. CONCLUSION: Although 93% of graduates practice in urban/suburban areas, there was a mixture of university, university-affiliated, and community institutions and an almost even division of Levels I and II designation. Graduates demonstrate ongoing use of their acquired advanced operative training, particularly in vascular and thoracic surgery. The majority of ACS fellowship graduates were practicing ACS and felt fellowship training was valuable in their career path and that they would recommend it to others.

How much and what type: analysis of the first year of the acute care surgery operative case log.

BACKGROUND: A case log was created by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Acute Care Surgery (ACS) committee to track trainee operative experiences, allowing them to enter their cases in the form of Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. We hypothesized that the number of cases an ACS trainee performed would be similar to the expectations of a fifth-year general surgery resident and that the current list of essential and desired cases (E/D list) would accurately reflect cases done by ACS trainees. METHODS: The database was queried from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2012. Trainees were classified as those in American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-accredited fellowships (ACC) and those in ACS fellowships not accredited (non-ACC). CPT codes were mapped to the E/D list. Cases entered manually were individually reviewed and assigned a CPT code if possible or listed as "noncodable." To compensate for nonoperative rotations and noncompliance, case numbers were analyzed both annually and monthly to estimate average case numbers for all trainees. In addition, case logs of trainees were compared with the E/D list to assess how well it reflected actual trainee experience. RESULTS: Eighteen ACC ACS and 11 non-ACC ACS trainees performed 16.4 (12.6) cases per month compared with 15.7 (14.2) cases for non-ACC ACS fellows (p = 0.71). When annualized, trainees performed, on average, 195 cases per year. Annual analysis led to similar results. The E/D list captured only approximately 50% of the trainees' operative experience. Only 77 cases were categorized as pediatric. CONCLUSION: ACS trainees have substantial operative experience averaging nearly 200 major cases during their ACS year. However, high variability exists in the number of essential or desirable cases being performed with approximately 50% of the fellows' operative experience falling outside the E/D list of cases. Modification of the fellows' operative experience and/or the rotation requirements seems to be needed to provide experience in E/D cases.

Health care reform at trauma centers--mortality, complications, and length of stay.

OBJECTIVE: The Trauma Quality Improvement Program has demonstrated existence of significant variations in risk-adjusted mortality across trauma centers. However, it is unknown whether centers with lower mortality rates also have reduced length of stay (LOS), with associated cost savings. We hypothesized that LOS is not primarily determined by unmodifiable factors, such as age and injury severity, but is primarily dependent on the development of potentially preventable complications. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank (2002-2006) was used to include patients (older than 16 years) with at least one severe injury (Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥ 3) from Level I and II trauma centers (217,610 patients, 151 centers). A previously validated risk-adjustment algorithm was used to calculate observed-to-expected mortality ratios for each center. Poisson regression was used to determine the relationship between LOS, observed-to-expected mortality ratios, and complications while controlling for confounding factors, such as age, gender, mechanism, insurance status, comorbidities, and injuries and their severity. RESULTS: Large variations in LOS (median, 4-8 days) were observed across trauma centers. There was no relationship between mortality and LOS. The most important predictor of LOS was complications, which were associated with a 62% increase. Injury severity score, shock, gunshot wounds, brain injuries, intensive care unit admission, and comorbidities were less important predictors of LOS. CONCLUSION: Quality improvement programs focusing on mortality alone may not be associated with reduced LOS. Hence, the Trauma Quality Improvement Program should also focus on processes of care that reduce complications, thereby shortening LOS, which may lead to significant cost savings at trauma centers.

Trauma quality improvement using risk-adjusted outcomes.

PURPOSE: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program has improved the quality of surgical care by tracking risk-adjusted patient outcomes. Unlike the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the trauma center verification program of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) focuses on availability of optimal resources, not outcomes. We hypothesized that significant variations in outcomes exist across similar level ACS-verified trauma centers despite availability of similar resources. METHODS: The National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify adult patients (age 16-99 years) who were treated at ACS-verified Level I trauma centers that submitted at least 1,000 patients during the 5-year study period (264,102 patients from 58 trauma centers, excluding dead upon arrival). Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyze expected survival for each patient, adjusted for age, gender, race, injury mechanism, transfer status, and injury severity. Observed-to-expected survival ratios (O/E ratios with 95% confidence intervals) were used to rank trauma centers as high performers (O/E ratio significantly larger than 1), low performers (O/E ratio significantly less than 1), or average performers (O/E ratio overlapping 1). RESULTS: Almost half the centers performed significantly different from their risk-adjusted expectation. Fourteen were high performers, 11 were low performers, and 33 were average performers. CONCLUSIONS: The trauma center verification process in its present form may not ensure optimal outcome across all verified centers. If further validated, these findings suggest significant room for trauma quality improvement by replicating structures and processes of high performing trauma centers.