Translating the Value of the Academic Surgeon Into Salary, Time, and Resources.

Academic surgeons provide tremendous value to institutions including notoriety, publicity, cutting-edge clinical advances, extramural funding, and academic growth and development. In turn, these attributes may result in improved reputation scores and hospital or medical center rankings. While many hospital systems, schools of medicine, and departments of surgery claim to have a major commitment to academic surgery and research, academic surgeons are often undercompensated compared to clinically focused counterparts. Existing salary benchmarks (e.g., the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA) or the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC)) are often used but are imperfect. Thus, the value proposition for academic surgeons goes beyond compensation and often includes protected time for academic pursuit, nonsalary financial support, and other intangible benefits to being associated with a major academic center (e.g., abundance of scientific collaborators, infrastructure for grant management). As a result, institution-specific practices have developed and academic surgeons are left to negotiate salary support including bonus structures, protected time, and recruitment packages on a case-by-case basis without a clear roadmap. A diverse panel representing a range of academic surgical experiences was convened at the 2022 Academic Surgical Congress to illuminate this complex, often stress-inducing, aspect of an academic surgeon's professional career.

The invisible work of transfer centre nurses: A qualitative study of strategies to overcome communication challenges.

AIMS: To explore the role of transfer centre nurses and how they facilitate communication between referring and accepting providers during calls about interhospital transfers, including their strategies to overcome communication challenges. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 17 transfer centre nurses at one tertiary medical centre from March to August 2019, asking participants to describe their work. We performed content analysis, applying codes based on the Relational Coordination Framework and generating emergent codes, then organized codes in higher-order concepts. We followed the COREQ checklist. RESULTS: Transfer centre nurses employed multiple strategies to mitigate communication challenges. When referring providers had misconceptions about the transfer centre nurse's role and the accepting hospital's processes, the nurses informed referring providers why sharing information with them was necessary. If providers expressed frustrations or lacked understanding about their counterpart's caseload, the nurses managed providers' emotions by letting them "vent," explaining the other provider's situational context and describing the hospital's capabilities. Some nurses also mediated conflict and sought to break the tension if providers debated about the best course of action. When providers struggled to share complete and accurate information, the nurses hunted down details and 'filled in the blanks'. CONCLUSION: Transfer centre nurses perform invisible work throughout the lifespan of interhospital transfers. Nurses' expert knowledge of the transfer process and hospitals' capabilities can enhance provider communication. Meanwhile, providers' lack of knowledge of the nurse's role can impede respectful and efficient transfer conversations. Interventions to support and optimize the transfer centre nurses' critical work are needed. IMPACT: This study describes how transfer centre nurses facilitate communication and overcome challenges during calls about interhospital transfers. An intervention that supports this critical work has the potential to benefit nurses, providers and patients by ensuring accurate and complete information exchange in an effective, efficient manner that respects all parties. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was designed to capture the perspectives and experiences of transfer centre nurses themselves through interviews. Therefore, it was not conducted using input or suggestions from the public or the patient population served by the organization.

Importance of Radiologists in Optimizing Outcomes for Older Americans with Acute Abdomen.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with acute abdominal pain often undergo a computed tomography (CT) scan as part of their diagnostic workup. We investigated the relationship between availability, timeliness, and interpretation of CT imaging and outcomes for life-threatening intra-abdominal diseases or "acute abdomen," in older Americans. METHODS: Data from a 2015 national survey of 2811 hospitals regarding emergency general surgery structures and processes (60.1% overall response, n = 1690) were linked to 2015 Medicare inpatient claims data. We identified beneficiaries aged ≥65 admitted emergently with a confirmatory acute abdomen diagnosis code and operative intervention on the same calendar date. Multivariable regression models adjusted for significant covariates determined odds of complications and mortality based on CT resources. RESULTS: We identified 9125 patients with acute abdomen treated at 1253 hospitals, of which 78% had ≥64-slice CT scanners and 85% had 24/7 CT technicians. Overnight CT reads were provided by in-house radiologists at 14% of hospitals and by teleradiologists at 66%. Patients were predominantly 65-74 y old (43%), white (88%), females (60%), and with ≥3 comorbidities (67%) and 8.6% died. STAT radiology reads by a board-certified radiologist rarely/never available in 2 h was associated with increased odds of systemic complication and mortality (adjusted odds ratio 2.6 [1.3-5.4] and 2.3 [1.1-4.8], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Delays obtaining results are associated with adverse outcomes in older patients with acute abdomen. This may be due to delays in surgical consultation and time to source control while waiting for imaging results. Processes to ensure timely interpretation of CT scans in patients with abdominal pain may improve outcomes in high-risk patients.

Factors associated with Interhospital transfers of emergency general surgery patients from emergency departments.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions account for over 3 million or 7.1% of hospitalizations per year in the US. Patients are increasingly transferred from community emergency departments (EDs) to larger centers for care, and a growing demand for treating EGS conditions mandates a better understanding of how ED clinicians transfer patients. We identify patient, clinical, and organizational characteristics associated with interhospital transfers of EGS patients originating from EDs in the United States. METHOD: We analyze data from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Nationwide Emergency Department Sample (NEDS) for the years 2010-2014. Patient-level sociodemographic characteristics, clinical factors, and hospital-level factors were examined as predictors of transfer from the ED to another acute care hospital. Multivariable logistic regression analysis includes patient and hospital characteristics as predictors of transfer from an ED to another acute care hospital. RESULTS: Of 47,442,892 ED encounters (weighted) between 2008 and 2014, 1.9% resulted in a transfer. Multivariable analysis indicates that men (Odds ratio (OR) 1.18 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI) 1.16-1.21) and older patients (OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.02-1.02)) were more likely to be transferred. Relative to patients with private health insurance, patients covered by Medicare (OR 1.09 (95% CI 1.03-1.15) or other insurance (OR 1.34 (95% CI 1.07-1.66)) had a higher odds of transfer. Odds of transfer increased with a greater number of comorbid conditions compared to patients with an EGS diagnosis alone. EGS diagnoses predicting transfer included resuscitation (OR 36.72 (95% CI 30.48-44.22)), cardiothoracic conditions (OR 8.47 (95% CI 7.44-9.63)), intestinal obstruction (OR 4.49 (95% CI 4.00-5.04)), and conditions of the upper gastrointestinal tract (OR 2.82 (95% CI 2.53-3.15)). Relative to Level I or II trauma centers, hospitals with a trauma designation III or IV had a 1.81 greater odds of transfer. Transfers were most likely to originate at rural hospitals (OR 1.69 (95% CI 1.43-2.00)) relative to urban non-teaching hospitals. CONCLUSION: Medically complex and older patients who present at small, rural hospitals are more likely to be transferred. Future research on the unique needs of rural hospitals and timely transfer of EGS patients who require specialty surgical care have the potential to significantly improve outcomes and reduce costs.

Identifying the fundamental structures and processes of care contributing to emergency general surgery quality using a mixed-methods Donabedian approach.

BACKGROUND: Acute Care Surgery (ACS) was developed as a structured, team-based approach to providing round-the-clock emergency general surgery (EGS) care for adult patients needing treatment for diseases such as cholecystitis, gastrointestinal perforation, and necrotizing fasciitis. Lacking any prior evidence on optimizing outcomes for EGS patients, current implementation of ACS models has been idiosyncratic. We sought to use a Donabedian approach to elucidate potential EGS structures and processes that might be associated with improved outcomes as an initial step in designing the optimal model of ACS care for EGS patients. METHODS: We developed and implemented a national survey of hospital-level EGS structures and processes by surveying surgeons or chief medical officers regarding hospital-level structures and processes that directly or indirectly impacted EGS care delivery in 2015. These responses were then anonymously linked to 2015 data from the American Hospital Association (AHA) annual survey, Medicare Provider Analysis and Review claims (MedPAR), 17 State Inpatient Databases (SIDs) using AHA unique identifiers (AHAID). This allowed us to combine hospital-level data, as reported in our survey or to the AHA, to patient-level data in an effort to further examine the role of EGS structures and processes on EGS outcomes. We describe the multi-step, iterative process utilizing the Donabedian framework for quality measurement that serves as a foundation for later work in this project. RESULTS: Hospitals that responded to the survey were primarily non-governmental and located in urban settings. A plurality of respondent hospitals had fewer than 100 inpatient beds. A minority of the hospitals had medical school affiliations. DISCUSSION: Our results will enable us to develop a measure of preparedness for delivering EGS care in the US, provide guidance for regionalized care models for EGS care, tiering of ACS programs based on the robustness of their EGS structures and processes and the quality of their outcomes, and formulate triage guidelines based on patient risk factors and severity of EGS disease. CONCLUSIONS: Our work provides a template for team science applicable to research efforts combining primary data collection (i.e., that derived from our survey) with existing national data sources (i.e., SIDs and MedPAR).

Adherence to 20 Emergency General Surgery Best Practices: Results of a National Survey.

OBJECTIVE: To examine national adherence to emergency general surgery (EGS) best practices. BACKGROUND: There is a national crisis in access to high-quality care for general surgery emergencies. Acute care surgery (ACS), a specialty leveraging strengths of trauma systems, may ameliorate this crisis. A critical component of trauma care is adherence to clinical guidelines. We previously established best practices for EGS using RAND Appropriateness Methodology and pilot data. METHOD: A hybrid (postal/electronic) questionnaire measuring adherence to 20 EGS best practices was administered to respondents overseeing EGS at all eligible adult acute care general hospitals across the US (N = 2811). Questionnaire responses were analyzed using bivariate methods and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: The response rate was 60.1%. Adherence ranged from 8.5% for having an EGS registry to 86.2% for auditing 30-day postoperative readmissions. Adherence was higher for practices not restricted to EGS (eg, auditing readmissions) compared to EGS-specific practices (eg, registry, activation system). Adopting an ACS model of care increased adherence to practices for deferring elective cases; tiering urgent operations; following National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines; reversing anticoagulants; auditing returns to intensive care, time to evaluation, time to operation, and time to source control; and having transfer agreements to receive patients, ICU admission protocols, as well as EGS-specific activation systems, outpatient clinics, morbidity and mortality conferences, and registries. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial room for performance improvement, and adopting an ACS model predicts better performance. This novel overview of adherence to EGS best practices will enable surgeons and policymakers to address variations in EGS care nationally.

Characteristics and Timing of Interhospital Transfers of Emergency General Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: Transferred emergency general surgery (EGS) patients have increased morbidity, mortality, and costs, yet little is known about the characteristics of such transfers. Increasing specialization and a decreasing general surgery workforce have led to concerns about access to care, which may lead to increased transfers. We sought to evaluate the reasons for and timing of transfers for EGS diagnoses. METHODS: We performed a retrospective medical record review of patients transferred to a tertiary academic medical center between January 4, 2014 and March 31, 2016 who had an EGS diagnosis (bowel obstruction, appendicitis, cholecystitis/cholangitis/choledocholithiasis, diverticulitis, mesenteric ischemia, perforated viscus, or postoperative surgical complication). RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-four patients were transferred from 70 hospitals. Transfer reasons varied with the majority due to the need for specialized services (44.3%) or a surgeon (26.6%). Imaging was performed in 95.8% and 35.3% had surgeon contact before transfer. The percentage of patients who underwent procedures at referring facilities was 7.5% (n = 25), while 60.6% (n = 83) underwent procedures following transfer. Mean time between transfer request and arrival at the accepting hospital was lower for patients who subsequently underwent a procedure at the accepting hospital compared to those who did not for patients originating in emergency departments (2.6 versus 3.4 h, P < 0.05) and inpatient units (6.9 versus 14.3 h, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Interhospital transfers for EGS conditions are frequently motivated by a need for a higher level of care or specialized services as well as a need for a general surgeon. Understanding reasons for transfers can inform decisions regarding the allocation and provision of care for this vulnerable population.

Factors Associated With the Interhospital Transfer of Emergency General Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: Transferred emergency general surgery (EGS) patients constitute a highly vulnerable, acutely ill population. Guidelines to facilitate timely, appropriate EGS transfers are lacking. We determined patient- and hospital-level factors associated with interhospital EGS transfers, a critical first step to identifying which patients may require transfer. METHODS: Adult EGS patients (defined by American Association for the Surgery of Trauma International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes) were identified within the 2008-2013 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (n = 17,175,450). Patient- and hospital-level factors were examined as predictors of transfer to another acute care hospital with a multivariate proportional cause-specific hazards model with a competing risk analysis to assess the effect of risk factors for transfer. RESULTS: 1.8% of encounters resulted in a transfer (n = 318,286). Transferred patients were on average 62 y old and most commonly had Medicare (52.9% [n = 168,363]), private (26.7% [n = 84,991]), or Medicaid insurance (10.8% [n = 34,279]). 67.7% were white. The most common EGS diagnoses among transferred patients were related to hepatic-pancreatic-biliary (n = 90,989 [28.6%]) and upper gastrointestinal tract (n = 60,088 [18.9%]) conditions. Most transferred patients (n = 269,976 [84.8%]) did not have a procedure before transfer. Transfer was more likely if patients were in small (hazard ratio 2.52, 95% confidence interval 2.28-2.79) or medium (1.32, 1.21-1.44) versus large facilities, government (1.19, 1.11-1.28) versus private facilities, and rural (4.58, 3.98-5.27) or urban nonteaching (1.89, 1.70-2.10) versus urban teaching facilities. Patient-level factors were not strong predictors of transfer. CONCLUSIONS: We identified that hospital-level characteristics more strongly predicted the need for transfer than patient-related factors. Consideration of these factors by providers as care is delivered in the context of the resources and capabilities of local institutions may facilitate transfer decision-making.

Variations in the Delivery of Emergency General Surgery Care in the Era of Acute Care Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Acute care surgery (ACS) was proposed to improve emergency general surgery (EGS) care; however, the extent of ACS model adoption in the United States is unknown. A national survey was conducted to ascertain factors associated with variations in EGS models of care, with particular focus on ACS use. METHODS: A hybrid mail/electronic survey was sent in 2015 to 2,811 acute care hospitals with an emergency room and an operating room. If a respondent indicated that the approach to EGS was a dedicated clinical team whose scope encompasses EGS (± trauma, ± elective general surgery, ± burns), the hospital was considered an ACS hospital. RESULTS: Survey response was 60.1% (n = 1,690); 272 (16.1%) of these hospitals reported having used an ACS model of care for EGS patients. Teaching status and general hospital practices (for example, interventional radiology available within one hour) were associated with ACS use. In bivariate analyses, ACS use was associated with many EGS-specific practices (40.1% of ACS hospitals freed their surgeons of daytime clinical responsibilities after operating overnight vs. 4.7% of general surgeon on call (GSOC) hospitals; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: There are wide variations in EGS practices in the United States, with use of an ACS model of care being relatively low despite reported benefits of ACS models of care on EGS access, quality, and costs. Hospital factors associated with using ACS models are overall size and higher level of existing resources. These findings could be applied to the development of centers of excellence for EGS care.

Patient-Centered Outcome Spectrum: An Evidence-based Framework to Aid in Shared Decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop an alternate construct for reporting anticipated outcomes after emergency general surgery (EGS) that presents risk in terms of a composite measure. BACKGROUND: Currently available prediction tools generate risk outputs for discrete as opposed to composite measures of postoperative outcomes. A construct to synthesize multiple discrete estimates into a global understanding of a patient's likely postoperative health status is lacking and could augment shared decision-making conversations. METHODS: Using the 2012 to 2014 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File, we developed the Patient-Centered Outcomes Spectrum (PCOS) for patients ≥65 years old who underwent an EGS operation. The PCOS defines 3 exclusive types of global outcomes (good, intermediate, and bad outcomes) and allows patients to be prospectively stratified by both their EGS diagnosis and preoperative surgical risk profile. RESULTS: Of the patients in our study population, 13,330 (46.4%) experienced a 30-day postoperative course considered a good outcome. Conversely, 3791 (13.2%) of study patients experienced a bad outcome. The remainder of patients (11,617; 40.4%) were classified as experiencing an intermediate outcome. The incidence of good, intermediate, and bad outcomes was 69.7%, 28.2%, and 2.1% for low-risk patients, and 22.0%, 48.9%, and 29.1% for high-risk patients. Diagnosis-specific PCOS constructs are also provided. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the goals of shared decision-making, the PCOS provides an evidence-based construct based upon a composite outcome measure for patients and providers as they weigh the risks of undergoing EGS.

Assessing written communication during interhospital transfers of emergency general surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Poor communication causes fragmented care. Studies of transitions of care within a hospital and on discharge suggest significant communication deficits. Communication during transfers between hospitals has not been well studied. We assessed the written communication provided during interhospital transfers of emergency general surgery patients. We hypothesized that patients are transferred with incomplete documentation from referring facilities. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of written communication provided during interhospital transfers to our emergency department (ED) from referring EDs for emergency general surgical evaluation between January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2016. Elements of written communication were abstracted from referring facility documents scanned into the medical record using a standardized abstraction protocol. Descriptive statistics summarized the information communicated. RESULTS: A total of 129 patients met inclusion criteria. 87.6% (n = 113) of charts contained referring hospital documents. 42.5% (n = 48) were missing history and physicals. Diagnoses were missing in 9.7% (n = 11). Ninety-one computed tomography scans were performed; among 70 with reads, final reads were absent for 70.0% (n = 49). 45 ultrasounds and x-rays were performed; among 27 with reads, final reads were missing for 80.0% (n = 36). Reasons for transfer were missing in 18.6% (n = 21). Referring hospital physicians outside the ED were consulted in 32.7% (n = 37); consultants' notes were absent in 89.2% (n = 33). In 12.4% (n = 14), referring documents arrived after the patient's ED arrival and were not part of the original documentation provided. CONCLUSIONS: This study documents that information important to patient care is often missing in the written communication provided during interhospital transfers. This gap affords a foundation for standardizing provider communication during interhospital transfers.

Effect of transfer status on outcomes for necrotizing soft tissue infections.

BACKGROUND: Whether patients with necrotizing soft tissue infections (NSTI) who presented to under-resourced hospitals are best served by immediate debridement or expedited transfer is unknown. We examined whether interhospital transfer status impacts outcomes of patients requiring emergency debridement for NSTI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective review studying patients with an operative diagnosis of necrotizing fasciitis, Fournier's gangrene, or gas gangrene in the 2010-2015 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Data Files. Multivariable regression analyses determined if transfer status independently predicted 30-d mortality, major morbidity, minor morbidity, and length of stay. RESULTS: Among 1801 patients, 1243 (69.0%) were in the non-transfer group and 558 (31.0%) were in the transfer group. The transfer group experienced higher rates of 30-d mortality (14.5% versus 13.0%) and major morbidity (64.5% versus 60.1%) than the non-transfer group, which were not significant after risk adjustment (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.87 [0.62-1.22] and 1.00 [0.79-1.27], respectively). The transferred group experienced a longer median length of postoperative hospitalization (14 d [interquartile range 8-24] versus 11 d [6-20]), which maintained statistical significance after adjustment for other factors (adjusted beta coefficient [95% confidence interval]: 1.92 [0.48-3.37]; P = 0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that interhospital transfer status is not an independent risk factor for mortality or morbidity after surgical management of NSTI. Although expedient debridement remains a basic tenet of NSTI management, our findings provide some reassurance that transfer before initial debridement will not significantly jeopardize patient outcomes should such transfer be deemed necessary.

Delirium and neuropsychological recovery among emergency general surgery survivors (DANE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial and collaborative care intervention.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome which consists of acute and varying changes in cognition and consciousness. Patients who develop delirium are at increased risk for a constellation of physical, cognitive, and psychological disabilities long after the delirium has ended. Collaborative care models integrating primary and specialty care in order to address patients with complex biopsychosocial needs have been demonstrated to improve outcomes in patients with chronic diseases. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the ability of a collaborative care model on the neuropsychologic recovery of delirium survivors following emergency surgery. METHODS: This protocol describes a multicenter (eight hospitals in three states) randomized controlled trial in which 528 patients who develop delirium following emergency surgery will be randomized to either a collaborative care model or usual care. The efficacy of the collaborative care model on cognitive, physical, and psychological recovery in these delirium survivors will then be evaluated over 18 months. DISCUSSION: This will be among the first randomized clinical trials in postoperative delirium survivors evaluating an intervention designed to mitigate the downstream effects of delirium and improve the neuropsychologic recovery after surgery. We hope that the results of this study will add to and inform strategies to improve postoperative recovery in this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05373017. Registered on May 12, 2022.

Greater patient sharing between hospitals is associated with better outcomes for transferred emergency general surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Access to emergency surgical care has declined as the rural workforce has decreased. Interhospital transfers of patients are increasingly necessary, and care coordination across settings is critical to quality care. We characterize the role of repeated hospital patient sharing in outcomes of transfers for emergency general surgery (EGS) patients. METHODS: A multicenter study of Wisconsin inpatient acute care hospital stays that involved transfer of EGS patients using data from the Wisconsin Hospital Association, a statewide hospital discharge census for 2016 to 2018. We hypothesized that higher proportion of patients transferred between hospitals would result in better outcomes. We examined the association between the proportion of EGS patients transferred between hospitals and patient outcomes, including in-hospital morbidity, mortality, and length of stay. Additional variables included hospital organizational characteristics and patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: One hundred eighteen hospitals transferred 3,197 emergency general surgery patients over the 2-year study period; 1,131 experienced in-hospital morbidity, mortality, or extended length of stay (>75th percentile). Patients were 62 years old on average, 50% were female, and 5% were non-White. In the mixed-effects model, hospitals' proportion of patients shared was associated with lower odds of an in-hospital complication; specifically, when the proportion of patients shared between two hospitals doubled, the relative odds of any outcome changed by 0.85. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest the importance of emergent relationships between hospital dyads that share patients in quality outcomes. Transfer protocols should account for established efficiencies, familiarity, and coordination between hospitals. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Delirium and Neuropsychological Recovery among Emergency General Surgery Survivors (DANE): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial and collaborative care intervention.

Background: Delirium is a complex neuropsychiatric syndrome which consists of acute and varying changes in cognition and consciousness. Patients who develop delirium are at increased risk for a constellation of physical, cognitive, and psychological disability long after the delirium has ended. Collaborative care models integrating primary and specialty care in order to address patients with complex biopsychosocial needs has been demonstrated to improve outcomes in patients with chronic diseases. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the ability of a collaborative care model on the neuropsychologic recovery of delirium survivors following emergency surgery. Methods: This protocol describes a multicenter (eight hospitals in three states) randomized controlled trial in which 528 patients who develop delirium following emergency surgery will be randomized to either a collaborative care model or usual care. The efficacy of the collaborative care model on cognitive, physical, and psychological recovery in this delirium survivors will then be evaluated over eighteen months. Discussion: This will be among the first randomized clinical trials in postoperative delirium survivors evaluating an intervention designed to mitigate the downstream effects of delirium and improve the neuropsychologic recovery after surgery. We hope that the results of this study will add to and inform strategies to improve postoperative recovery in this patient group. Trial registration: NCT05373017 (clinicaltrials.gov).

Communication During Interhospital Transfers of Emergency General Surgery Patients: A Qualitative Study of Challenges and Opportunities.

OBJECTIVES: Transferred emergency general surgery (EGS) patients experience worse outcomes than directly admitted patients. Improving communication during transfers may improve patient care. We sought to understand the nature of and challenges to communication between referring (RP) and accepting (AP) providers transferring EGS patients from the transfer center nurse's (TCN) perspective. METHODS: Guided by the Relational Coordination Framework, we interviewed 17 TCNs at an academic medical center regarding (in)efficient and (in)effective communication between RPs and APs. In-person interviews were recorded, transcribed, and managed in NVivo. Four researchers developed a codebook, cocoded transcripts, and met regularly to build consensus and discuss emergent themes. We used data matrices to perform constant comparisons and arrive at higher-level concepts. RESULTS: Challenges to ideal communication centered on the appropriateness and completeness of information, efficiency of the conversation, and degree of consensus. Transfer center nurses described that RPs provided incomplete information because of a lack of necessary infrastructure, personnel, or technical knowledge; competing clinical demands; or a fear of the transfer request being rejected. Inefficient communication resulted from RPs being unfamiliar with the information APs expected and the lack of a structured process to share information. Communication also failed when providers disagreed about the necessity of the transfer. Accepting providers diffused tension and facilitated communication by embracing the role of a "coach," negotiating "wait-and-see" agreements, and providing explanations of why transfers were unnecessary. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer center nurses described numerous challenges to provider communication. Opportunities for improvement include sharing appropriate and complete information, ensuring efficient communication, and reaching consensus about the course of action.

Which hospital-acquired conditions matter the most in trauma? An evidence-based approach for prioritizing trauma program improvement.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of hospital-acquired conditions (HACs) is a focus of trauma center quality improvement. The relative contributions of various HACs to postinjury hospital outcomes are unclear. We sought to quantify and compare the impacts of six HACs on early clinical outcomes and resource utilization in hospitalized trauma patients. METHODS: Adult patients from the 2013 to 2016 American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program Participant Use Data Files who required 5 days or longer of hospitalization and had an Injury Severity Score of 9 or greater were included. Multiple imputation with chained equations was used for observations with missing data. The frequencies of six HACs and five adverse outcomes were determined. Multivariable Poisson regression with log link and robust error variance was used to produce relative risk estimates, adjusting for patient-, hospital-, and injury-related factors. Risk-adjusted population attributable fractions estimates were derived for each HAC-outcome pair, with the adjusted population attributable fraction estimate for a given HAC-outcome pair representing the estimated percentage decrease in adverse outcome that would be expected if exposure to the HAC had been prevented. RESULTS: A total of 529,856 patients requiring 5 days or longer of hospitalization were included. The incidences of HACs were as follows: pneumonia, 5.2%; urinary tract infection, 3.4%; venous thromboembolism, 3.3%; surgical site infection, 1.3%; pressure ulcer, 1.3%; and central line-associated blood stream infection, 0.2%. Pneumonia demonstrated the strongest association with in-hospital outcomes and resource utilization. Prevention of pneumonia in our cohort would have resulted in estimated reductions of the following: 22.1% for end organ dysfunction, 7.8% for mortality, 8.7% for prolonged hospitalization, 7.1% for prolonged intensive care unit stay, and 6.8% for need for mechanical ventilation. The impact of other HACs was comparatively small. CONCLUSION: We describe a method for comparing the contributions of HACs to outcomes of hospitalized trauma patients. Our findings suggest that trauma program improvement efforts should prioritize pneumonia prevention. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Quality of Care for Gallstone Pancreatitis-the Impact of the Acute Care Surgery Model and Hospital-Level Operative Resources.

BACKGROUND: Index cholecystectomy is the standard of care for gallstone pancreatitis. Hospital-level operative resources and implementation of an acute care surgery (ACS) model may impact the ability to perform index cholecystectomy. We aimed to determine the influence of structure and process measures related to operating room access on achieving index cholecystectomy for gallstone pancreatitis. METHODS: In 2015, we surveyed 2811 US hospitals on ACS practices, including infrastructure for operative access. A total of 1690 hospitals (60%) responded. We anonymously linked survey data to 2015 State Inpatient Databases from 17 states using American Hospital Association identifiers. We identified patients ≥ 18 years who were admitted with gallstone pancreatitis. Patients transferred from another facility were excluded. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses, clustered by hospital and adjusted for patient factors, were performed to examine multiple structure and process variables related to achieving an index cholecystectomy rate of ≥ 75% (high performers). RESULTS: Over the study period, 5656 patients were admitted with gallstone pancreatitis and 70% had an index cholecystectomy. High-performing hospitals achieved an index cholecystectomy rate of 84.1% compared to 58.5% at low-performing hospitals. On multivariable regression analysis, only teaching vs. non-teaching hospital (OR 2.91, 95% CI 1.11-7.70) and access to dedicated, daytime operative resources (i.e., block time) vs. no/little access (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.11-3.37) were associated with high-performing hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Access to dedicated, daytime operative resources is associated with high quality of care for gallstone pancreatitis. Health systems should consider the addition of dedicated, daytime operative resources for acute care surgery service lines to improve patient care.

General surgeon involvement in the care of patients designated with an American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-endorsed ICD-10-CM emergency general surgery diagnosis code in Wisconsin.

BACKGROUND: The current national burden of emergency general surgery (EGS) illnesses and the extent of surgeon involvement in the care of these patients remain largely unknown. To inform needs assessments, research, and education, we sought to: (1) translate previously developed International Classification of Diseases (ICD), 9th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) diagnosis codes representing EGS conditions to ICD 10th Revision, CM (ICD-10-CM) codes and (2) determine the national burden of and assess surgeon involvement across EGS conditions. METHODS: We converted ICD-9-CM codes to candidate ICD-10-CM codes using General Equivalence Mappings then iteratively refined the code list. We used National Inpatient Sample 2016 to 2017 data to develop a national estimate of the burden of EGS disease. To evaluate surgeon involvement, using Wisconsin Hospital Association discharge data (January 1, 2016 to June 30, 2018), we selected adult urgent/emergent encounters with an EGS condition as the principal diagnosis. Surgeon involvement was defined as a surgeon being either the attending provider or procedural physician. RESULTS: Four hundred and eighty-five ICD-9-CM codes mapped to 1,696 ICD-10-CM codes. The final list contained 985 ICD-10-CM codes. Nationally, there were 2,977,843 adult patient encounters with an ICD-10-CM EGS diagnosis. Of 94,903 EGS patients in the Wisconsin Hospital Association data set, most encounters were inpatient as compared with observation (75,878 [80.0%] vs. 19,025 [20.0%]). There were 57,780 patients (60.9%) that underwent any procedure. Among all Wisconsin EGS patients, most had no surgeon involvement (64.9% [n = 61,616]). Of the seven most common EGS diagnoses, surgeon involvement was highest for appendicitis (96.0%) and biliary tract disease (77.1%). For the other five most common conditions (skin/soft tissue infections, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, intestinal obstruction/ileus, pancreatitis, diverticular disease), surgeons were involved in roughly 20% of patient care episodes. CONCLUSION: Surgeon involvement for EGS conditions ranges from highly likely (appendicitis) to relatively unlikely (skin/soft tissue infections). The wide range in surgeon involvement underscores the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration in the care of EGS patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiological, Level III.

Emergency General Surgery Quality Improvement: A Review of Recommended Structure and Key Issues.

Emergency general surgery (EGS) accounts for 11% of hospital admissions, with more than 3 million admissions per year and more than 50% of operative mortality in the US. Recent research into EGS has ignited multiple quality improvement initiatives, and the process of developing national standards and verification in EGS has been initiated. Such programs for quality improvement in EGS include registry formation, protocol and standards creation, evidenced-based protocols, disease-specific protocol implementation, regional collaboratives, targeting of high-risk procedures such as exploratory laparotomy, focus on special populations like geriatrics, and targeting improvements in high opportunity outcomes such as failure to rescue. The authors present a collective narrative review of advances in quality improvement structure in EGS in recent years and summarize plans for a national EGS registry and American College of Surgeons verification for this under-resourced area of surgery.