Subclavian line infiltration causing neck compartment syndrome and bradycardic arrest: A case report.

Unrecognized central venous catheter (CVC) infiltration is an uncommon but potentially life-threatening complication. For instance, a malpositioned subclavian line can infuse into the mediastinum, pleural cavity, or interstitial space of the neck. We present the case of a 30-year-old male with gunshot wounds to the right chest, resuscitated with an initially functional left subclavian CVC, which later infiltrated into the neck causing compression of the carotid sinus and consequent bradycardic arrest. Return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was achieved following intravenous epinephrine, cardiac massage, and emergency neck exploration and cervical fasciotomy. Our case highlights the importance of frequent reassessment of lines, especially those placed during fast-paced, high-intensity clinical situations. We recommend being mindful when using rapid transfusion devices as an interstitial catheter may not mount enough back pressure to trigger the system's alarm before significant tissue damage or compartment syndrome occurs.

Preparing for participation in the centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' bundle care payment initiative-advanced for major bowel surgery.

BACKGROUND: As healthcare costs rise, there is an increasing emphasis on alternative payment models to improve care efficiency. The bundled payment represents an alternative reimbursement model gaining popularity within the surgical sphere. We aimed to assess where the largest opportunities for care improvement lay and how best to identify patients at high risk of suffering costly complications. METHODS: We utilized itemized CMS claims data for a retrospective cohort of patients between 2014 and 2016 who met inclusion criteria for the Major Bowel Bundled Payment Program and performed a cost analysis to identify opportunities for improved care efficiency. Based on the results of this cost analysis, we identified readmissions as a target for improvement. We then assessed whether the American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program surgical risk calculator (ACS NSQIP SRC) could accurately identify patients within our bundled payment population who were at high risk of readmission using a logistic regression model. RESULTS: Our study cohort included 252 patients. Readmissions accounted for 12.8% of the average total care episode cost with a coefficient of variation of 2.72, thereby representing the most substantial, non-fixed cost for our bundled payment patients. Patients readmitted within their 90-day care episode were 2.53 times more likely to be high-cost (>$60,000) than patients not readmitted. However, the ACS NSQIP SRC did not accurately predict patients at high risk of readmission within the first 30 days with an AUROC of 0.58. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the importance of reducing readmissions as a central component of improving care for bowel surgery bundled payment patients. Preventing such readmissions requires accurate identification of patients at high risk of readmission; however, current risk prediction models lack the adaptability necessary for this task.

Emergency general surgery utilization and disparities during COVID-19: an interrupted time-series analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare general surgery emergency (GSE) volume, demographics and disease severity before and during COVID-19. BACKGROUND: Presentations to the emergency department (ED) for GSEs fell during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers to accessing care may be heightened, especially for vulnerable populations, and patients delaying care raises public health concerns. METHODS: We included adult patients with ED presentations for potential GSEs at a single quaternary-care hospital from January 2018 to August 2020. To compare GSE volumes in total and by subgroup, an interrupted time-series analysis was performed using the March shelter-in-place order as the start of the COVID-19 period. Bivariate analysis was used to compare demographics and disease severity. RESULTS: 3255 patients (28/week) presented with potential GSEs before COVID-19, while 546 (23/week) presented during COVID-19. When shelter-in-place started, presentations fell by 8.7/week (31%) from the previous week (p<0.001), driven by decreases in peritonitis (ß=-2.76, p=0.017) and gallbladder disease (ß=-2.91, p=0.016). During COVID-19, patients were younger (54 vs 57, p=0.001), more often privately insured (44% vs 38%, p=0.044), and fewer required interpreters (12% vs 15%, p<0.001). Fewer patients presented with sepsis during the pandemic (15% vs 20%, p=0.009) and the average severity of illness decreased (p<0.001). Length of stay was shorter during the COVID-19 period (3.91 vs 5.50 days, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GSE volumes and severity fell during the pandemic. Patients presenting during the pandemic were less likely to be elderly, publicly insured and have limited English proficiency, potentially exacerbating underlying health disparities and highlighting the need to improve care access for these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Reflections on the Complexity of Surgical Site Infection Prevention and Detection from an Organizational Lens.

Background: Within the United States, surgical site infections (SSIs) have now become the most common hospital-acquired infection and impact 2%-5% of all surgical patients. It is estimated that approximately 60% of SSIs could be prevented through improved adherence to pre-existing practice guidelines. Methods: The myriad of contributing factors leading to SSIs highlights the need for a multi-faceted approach. Although collaboration and coordination among providers and patients represents a requirement of any sustainable solution, it also creates a space and possible role for innovative technologies and mobile applications utilizing patient-generated health data (PGHD). Results: Upon analysis of hospital practice, we have identified substantial variability in documentation, peri-operative care, and post-discharge instruction with regard to SSI prevention and incision care techniques. This variability is further exacerbated by a loss of information within each transition of patient care. As a result, a patient's risk of SSI often becomes dictated by their provider's preferred (and sometimes arbitrary) peri-operative practices and their own initiative in following poorly explained pre-operative instructions. The quality and efficiency of any subsequent SSI treatment similarly rests on a seemingly inconsistent approach with poor patient instruction for the post-discharge setting. Conclusions: Surgical site infection risk can be mitigated successfully through reliable performance of several evidence-based process measures within the operating room, which are now at the guideline level. However, optimal performance only happens when teams and patients are aligned and truly believe both that the evidence is correct, and that SSIs are preventable. The journey toward this goal will be an iterative process that may take months to years. Although technology can be complementary, it cannot replace human passion for harm prevention.