Impact of hospital characteristics on best-practice adherence for gallstone pancreatitis: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend cholecystectomy during the index admission for gallstone pancreatitis, and a growing body of evidence indicates that patients benefit from cholecystectomy within the first 48 h of admission. We examined the impact of hospital characteristics on adherence to these data-driven practices. METHODS: We queried the National Inpatient Sample for patients admitted for gallstone pancreatitis between October 2015 and December 2018. Patients who underwent same-admission cholecystectomy were identified by procedure codes. Cholecystectomies within the first two days were classified as early cholecystectomies. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between hospital characteristics and adherence to these practices. RESULTS: Of 163,390 admissions for gallstone pancreatitis, only 90,790 (55.6%) underwent cholecystectomy before discharge. Mean time from admission to cholecystectomy was 2.9 days; 27.0% of patients (44,005) underwent early cholecystectomy. Odds of same-admission cholecystectomy were highest in large hospitals (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.28), urban teaching centers (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.21-1.46), and the South (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.57-1.83). Odds of early cholecystectomy did not vary with hospital size, urban-rural status, or teaching status but were highest in the West (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.80-2.18). CONCLUSION: Best-practice adherence for cholecystectomy in gallstone pancreatitis remains low despite an abundance of evidence and clinical practice guidelines. Active interventions are needed to improve delivery of surgical care for this patient population. Implementation efforts should focus on small hospitals, rural areas, and health systems in the Northeast region.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Consensus Guidelines for Emergency Laparotomy Part 3: Organizational Aspects and General Considerations for Management of the Emergency Laparotomy Patient.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. RESULTS: Components of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end-of-life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Part 2-Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care.

BACKGROUND: This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. RESULTS: Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies.

Utility of a Device Briefing Tool to Improve Surgical Safety.

INTRODUCTION: Clear communication around surgical device use is crucial to patient safety. We evaluated the utility of the Device Briefing Tool (DBT) as an adjunct to the Surgical Safety Checklist. METHODS: A nonrandomized, controlled pilot of the DBT was conducted with surgical teams at an academic referral center. Intervention departments used the DBT in all cases involving a surgical device for 10 wk. Utility, relative advantage, and implementation effectiveness were evaluated via surveys. Trained observers assessed adherence and team performance using the Oxford NOTECHS system. RESULTS: Of 113 individuals surveyed, 91 responded. Most respondents rated the DBT as moderately to extremely useful. Utility was greatest for complex devices (89%) and new devices (88%). Advantages included insight into the team's familiarity with devices (70%) and improved teamwork and communication (68%). Users found it unrealistic to review all device instructional materials (54%). Free text responses suggested that the DBT heightened awareness of deficiencies in device familiarity and training but lacked a clear mechanism to correct them. DBT adherence was 82%. NOTECHS scores in intervention departments improved over the course of the study but did not significantly differ from comparator departments. CONCLUSIONS: The DBT was rated highly by both surgeons and nurses. Adherence was high and we found no evidence of "checklist fatigue." Centers interested in implementing the DBT should focus on devices that are complex or new to any surgical team member. Guidance for correcting deficiencies identified by the DBT will be provided in future iterations of the tool.

Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations: Part 1-Preoperative: Diagnosis, Rapid Assessment and Optimization.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high-risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach. METHODS: Experts in aspects of management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non-emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1-Preoperative Care and Part 2-Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1. RESULTS: Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

Risk Prediction Accuracy Differs for Transferred and Nontransferred Emergency General Surgery Cases in the ACS-NSQIP.

BACKGROUND: Risk prediction accuracy of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) Surgical Risk Calculator has been shown to differ between emergency and elective surgery. Benchmarking methods of clinical performance require accurate risk estimation, and current methods rarely account for admission source; therefore, our goal was to assess whether the ACS-NSQIP predicts mortality comparably between transferred and nontransferred emergency general surgery (EGS) cases. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective study using the ACS-NSQIP database from 2005 to 2014including all inpatients who underwent one of seven previously described EGS procedures. The admission source was classified as directly admitted versus transferred from an outside emergency room or an acute care facility. We compared the accuracy of ACS-NSQIP-predicted mortality probabilities using the observed-to-expected (O:E) ratio and Brier score. A subgroup analysis was performed to compare accuracy of high-risk and low-risk procedures. RESULTS: A total of 206,103 EGS admissions were identified, of which 6.97% were transfers. Overall mortality was 3.26% for the entire cohort and 10.24% within the transfer group. The O:E ratios generated by ACS-NSQIP models differed between transferred patients (O:E = 1.0, 95% confidence interval = 0.97-1.02) and nontransferred patients (O:E = 1.12, 95% confidence interval = 1.09-1.14). The Brier score for transferred patients was greater than that for nontransferred patients (0.063 versus 0.018, respectively) showing higher accuracy for nontransferred patients. CONCLUSIONS: The ACS-NSQIP risk estimates used for benchmarking differ between transferred and nontransferred EGS cases. Analyses of the Brier score by the ACS-NSQIP risk calculator demonstrated inferior prediction for transferred patients. This increased burden on accepting institutions will have an impact on quality metrics and should be considered for benchmarking of clinical performance.

The Impact of Income on Emergency General Surgery Outcomes in Urban and Rural Areas.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) accounts for more than 2 million U.S. hospital admissions annually. Low-income EGS patients have higher rates of postoperative adverse events (AEs) than high-income patients. This may be related to health care segregation (a disparity in access to high-quality centers). The emergent nature of EGS conditions and the limited number of EGS providers in rural areas may result in less health care segregation and thereby less variability in EGS outcomes in rural areas. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of income on AEs for both rural and urban EGS patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The National Inpatient Sample (2007-2014) was queried for patients receiving one of 10 common EGS procedures. Multivariate regression models stratified by income quartiles in urban and rural cohorts adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical, and other hospital-based factors were used to determine the rates of surgical AEs (mortality, complications, and failure to rescue [FTR]). RESULTS: 1,687,088 EGS patients were identified; 16.60% (n = 280,034) of them were rural. In the urban cohort, lower income quartiles were associated with higher odds of AEs (mortality OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.15-1.27], complications, 1.07 [1.06-1.09]; FTR, 1.17 [1.10-1.24] P < 0.001). In the rural context, income quartiles were not associated with the higher odds of AE (mortality OR, 1.14 [0.83-1.55], P = 0.42; complications, 1.06 [0.97-1,16], P = 1.17; FTR, 1.12 [0.79-1.59], P = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Lower income is associated with higher postoperative AEs in the urban setting but not in a rural environment. This socioeconomic disparity in EGS outcomes in urban settings may reflect health care segregation, a differential access to high-quality health care for low-income patients.

Emergency General Surgery Volume and Its Impact on Outcomes in Military Treatment Facilities.

BACKGROUND: Low hospital volume for emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures is associated with worse patient outcomes within the civilian health care system. The military maintains treatment facilities (MTFs) in remote locations to provide access to service members and their families. We sought to determine if patients treated at low-volume MTFs for EGS conditions experience worse outcomes compared with high-volume centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed TRICARE data from 2006 to 2014. Patients were identified using an established coding algorithm for EGS admission. MTFs were divided into quartiles based on annual EGS volume. Outcomes included 30-d mortality, complications, and readmissions. Logistic regression models adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic differences in case-mix including EGS condition, surgical intervention, and comorbidities were used to determine the influence of hospital volume on outcomes. RESULTS: We identified 106,915 patients treated for an EGS condition at 79 MTFs. The overall mortality rate was 0.21%, with complications occurring in 8.55% and readmissions in 4.45%. After risk adjustment, lowest-volume MTFs did not demonstrate significantly higher odds of mortality (OR: 2.02, CI: 0.45-9.06) or readmissions (OR: 0.77, CI: 0.54-1.11) compared with the highest-volume centers. Lowest-volume facilities exhibited a lower likelihood of complications (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.59-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: EGS patients treated at low-volume MTFs did not experience worse clinical outcomes when compared with high-volume centers. Remote MTFs appear to provide care for EGS conditions comparable with that of high-volume facilities. Our findings speak against the need to reduce services at small, critical access facilities within the military health care system.

Racial Differences in Complication Risk Following Emergency General Surgery: Who Your Surgeon Is May Matter.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the mechanisms that lead to health-care disparities is necessary to create robust solutions that ensure all patients receive the best possible care. Our objective was to quantify the influence of the individual surgeon on disparate outcomes for minority patients undergoing an emergency general surgery (EGS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using the Florida State Inpatient Database, we analyzed patients who underwent one or more of seven EGS procedures from 2010 to 2014. The primary outcome was development of a major postoperative complication. To determine the individual surgeon effect on complications, we performed multilevel mixed effects modeling, adjusting for clinical and hospital factors, such as diagnosis, comorbidities, and hospital teaching status and volume. RESULTS: 215,745 cases performed by 5816 surgeons at 198 hospitals were included. The overall unadjusted complication rate was 8.6%. Black patients had a higher adjusted risk of having a complication than white patients (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.03-1.22). Surgeon random effects, when hospital fixed effects were held constant, accounted for 27.2% of the unexplained variation in complication risk among surgeons. This effect was modified by patient race; for white patients, surgeon random effects explained only 12.4% of the variability, compared to 52.5% of the variability in complications among black patients. CONCLUSIONS: This multiinstitution analysis within a single large state demonstrates that not only do black patients have a higher risk of developing a complication after undergoing EGS than white patients but also surgeon-level effects account for a larger proportion of the between-surgeon variation. This suggests that the individual surgeon contributes to racial disparities in EGS.

Failure to rescue and disparities in emergency general surgery.

BACKGROUND: Racial and socioeconomic disparities are well documented in emergency general surgery (EGS) and have been highlighted as a national priority for surgical research. The aim of this study was to identify whether disparities in the EGS setting are more likely to be caused by major adverse events (MAEs) (e.g., venous thromboembolism) or failure to respond appropriately to such events. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was undertaken using administrative data. EGS cases were defined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnostic codes recommended by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. The data source was the National Inpatient Sample 2012-2013, which captured a 20%-stratified sample of discharges from all hospitals participating in the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project. The outcomes were MAEs, in-hospital mortality, and failure to rescue (FTR). RESULTS: There were 1,345,199 individual patient records available within the National Inpatient Sample. There were 201,574 admissions (15.0%) complicated by an MAE, and 12,006 of these (6.0%) resulted in death. The FTR rate was therefore 6.0%. Uninsured patients had significantly higher odds of MAEs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.19), mortality (1.28, 1.16-1.41), and FTR (1.20, 1.06-1.36) than those with private insurance. Although black patients had significantly higher odds of MAEs (adjusted odds ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.16), they had lower mortality (0.95, 0.90-0.99) and FTR (0.86, 0.80-0.91) than white patients. CONCLUSIONS: Uninsured EGS patients are at increased risk of MAEs but also the failure of health care providers to respond effectively when such events occur. This suggests that MAEs and FTR are both potential targets for mitigating socioeconomic disparities in the setting of EGS.

Is there a "weekend effect" in emergency general surgery?

BACKGROUND: Weekend admission is associated with increased mortality across a range of patient populations and health-care systems. The aim of this study was to determine whether weekend admission is independently associated with serious adverse events (SAEs), in-hospital mortality, or failure to rescue (FTR) in emergency general surgery (EGS). METHODS: An observational study was performed using the National Inpatient Sample in 2012-2013; the largest all-payer inpatient database in the United States, which represents a 20% stratified sample of hospital discharges. The inclusion criteria were all inpatients with a primary EGS diagnosis. Outcomes were SAE, in-hospital mortality, and FTR (in-hospital mortality in the population of patients that developed an SAE). Multivariable logistic regression were used to adjust for patient- (age, sex, race, payer status, and Charlson comorbidity index) and hospital-level (trauma designation and hospital bed size) characteristics. RESULTS: There were 1,344,828 individual patient records (6.7 million weighted admissions). The overall rate of SAE was 15.1% (15.1% weekend, 14.9% weekday, P < 0.001), FTR 5.9% (6.2% weekend, 5.9% weekday, P = 0.010), and in-hospital mortality 1.4% (1.5% weekend, 1.3% weekday, P < 0.001). Within logistic regression models, weekend admission was an independent risk factor for development of SAE (adjusted odds ratio 1.08, 1.07-1.09), FTR (1.05, 1.01-1.10), and in-hospital mortality (1.14, 1.10-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence that outcomes coded in an administrative data set are marginally worse for EGS patients admitted at weekends. This justifies further work using clinical data sets that can be used to better control for differences in case mix.

An evidence-based intraoperative communication tool for emergency general surgery: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) is characterized by high rates of morbidity and mortality. Though checklists and associated communication-based huddle strategies have improved outcomes, these tools have never been specifically examined in EGS. We hypothesized that use of an evidence-based communication tool aimed to trigger intraoperative discussion could improve communication in the EGS operating room (OR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a set of discussion prompts based on modifiable factors identified from previously published studies aimed to encourage all team members to speak up and to centralize awareness of patient disposition and intraoperative transfusion practices. This tool was pilot-tested using OR human patient simulators and was then rolled out to EGS ORs at an academic medical center. The perceived effect of our tool's implementation was evaluated through mixed-methodologic presurvey and postsurvey analysis. RESULTS: Preimplementation and postimplementation survey-based data revealed that providers reported the EGS-focused discussion prompts as improving team communication in EGS. A trend toward shared awareness of intraoperative events was observed; however, nurses described cultural impedance of discussion initiation. Providers described a need for further reinforcement of the tool and its indications during implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a discussion-based communication tool is perceived as supporting team communication in the EGS OR and led to a trend toward improving a shared understanding of intraoperative events. Analyses suggest the need for enhanced reinforcement of use during implementation and improvement of team-based education regarding EGS. Furthermore work is needed to understand the full impact of this evidence-based tool on OR team dynamics and EGS patient outcomes.

The impact of individual physicians on outcomes after trauma: is it the system or the surgeon?

BACKGROUND: Benchmarking of mortality outcomes across the country has revealed major differences in survival based on the trauma center at which a patient receives care. The role of the individual surgeon in determining trauma outcomes is unknown. Most believe that differences in outcomes are primarily driven by system- and process-based variations. Our objective was to determine if variation in individual surgeon outcomes could help explain difference in survival after trauma. METHODS: Analysis of trauma patients in the Florida State Inpatient Database from 2010 to 2014. The presence of unique physician identifiers, in addition to hospital identifiers, rendered this data set ideal for performance of multilevel analysis. The amount of the variation attributable to surgeon-level variation was calculated using multilevel random-effects models controlling for patient clinical factors (such as injury severity and comorbidities/age) and hospital-level factors, such as case mix and bed size. RESULTS: There were 31 hospitals, 175 surgeons, and 65,706 admissions. The overall mortality rate was 5.6%. The average mortality rate across surgeons ranged from 0% to 17.4% (mean 0.4%, standard deviation 1.85). At the individual surgeon level, when controlling for clinical and hospital-level factors, 9% of this variation was attributable solely to the surgeon. CONCLUSIONS: At the state level, we found that differences in outcomes among trauma centers are impacted by individual surgeon-level variation. Implementation of protocolized, system-based trauma care is useful for improving the overall quality of care for injured patients but does not entirely negate surgeon-specific variations in management.

The Need to Consider Longer-term Outcomes of Care: Racial/Ethnic Disparities Among Adult and Older Adult Emergency General Surgery Patients at 30, 90, and 180 Days.

OBJECTIVES: Following calls from the National Institutes of Health and American College of Surgeons for "urgently needed" research, the objectives of the present study were to (1) ascertain whether differences in 30/90/180-day mortality, major morbidity, and unplanned readmissions exist among adult (18-64 yr) and older adult (≥65 yr) emergency general surgery (EGS) patients; (2) vary by diagnostic category; and (3) are explained by variations in insurance, income, teaching status, hospital EGS volume, and a hospital's proportion of minority patients. BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic disparities have been described in in-hospital and 30-day settings. How longer-term outcomes compare-a critical consideration for the lived experience of patients-has, however, only been limitedly considered. METHODS: Survival analysis of 2007 to 2011 California State Inpatient Database using Cox proportional hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 737,092 adults and 552,845 older adults were included. In both cohorts, significant differences in 30/90/180-day mortality, major morbidity, and unplanned readmissions were found, pointing to persistently worse outcomes between non-Hispanic Black and White patients [180-d readmission hazard ratio (95% confidence interval):1.04 (1.03-1.06)] and paradoxically better outcomes among Hispanic adults [0.85 (0.84-0.86)] that were not encountered among Hispanic older adults [1.06 (1.04-1.07)]. Stratified results demonstrated robust morbidity and readmission trends between non-Hispanic Black and White patients for the majority of diagnostic categories, whereas variations in insurance/income/teaching status/EGS volume/proportion of minority patients all significantly altered the effect-combined accounting for up to 80% of risk-adjusted differences between racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Racial/ethnic disparities exist in longer-term outcomes of EGS patients and are, in part, determined by differences in factors associated with emergency care. Efforts such as these are needed to understand the interplay of influences-both in-hospital and during the equally critical, postacute phase-that underlie disparities' occurrence among surgical patients.

Differences in rural and urban outcomes: a national inspection of emergency general surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: About 19% of the United States population lives in rural areas and is served by only 10% of the physician workforce. If this misdistribution represents a shortage of available surgeons, it is possible that outcomes for rural patients may suffer. The objective of this study was to explore differences in outcomes for emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions between rural and urban hospitals using a nationally representative sample. METHODS: Data from the 2007-2011 National Inpatient Sample were queried for adult patients (≥18 years) with a primary diagnosis consistent with an EGS condition, as defined by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Urban and rural patients were matched on patient-level factors using coarsened exact matching. Differences in outcomes including mortality, morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and total cost of hospital care were assessed using multivariable regression models. Analogous counterfactual models were used to further examine hypothetical outcomes, assuming that all patients had been treated at urban centers. RESULTS: A total of 3,749,265 patients were admitted with an EGS condition during the study period. Of 3259 hospitals analyzed, 40.2% (n = 1310) were rural; they treated 14.6% of patients. Relative to urban centers, EGS patients treated at rural centers had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.28) and lower odds of major complications (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-0.99). Rural patients had 0.51 d (95% CI: 0.50-0.53) shorter LOS and $744 (95% CI: 712-774) higher cost of hospitalization compared to urban patients. In counterfactual models overall odds of death decreased by 0.05%, whereas the overall odds of complications increased by 0.02%. Overall difference in LOS and total costs were comparable with absolute differences of 0.08 d and $98, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the statistically significant difference in mortality and cost of care at rural versus urban hospitals, the magnitude of absolute differences is sufficiently small to indicate limited clinical importance. Large urban centers are designed to manage complex cases, but our results suggest that for cases appropriate to treat in rural hospitals, equivalent outcomes are found. These findings will inform future work on rural outcomes and provide impetus for regionalization of care for complex EGS presentations.

Emergency general surgery in Rwandan district hospitals: a cross-sectional study of spectrum, management, and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Management of emergency general surgical conditions remains a challenge in rural sub-Saharan Africa due to issues such as insufficient human capacity and infrastructure. This study describes the burden of emergency general surgical conditions and the ability to provide care for these conditions at three rural district hospitals in Rwanda. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study included all patients presenting to Butaro, Kirehe and Rwinkwavu District Hospitals between January 1st 2015 and December 31st 2015 with emergency general surgical conditions, defined as non-traumatic, non-obstetric acute care surgical conditions. We describe patient demographics, clinical characteristics, management and outcomes. RESULTS: In 2015, 356 patients presented with emergency general surgical conditions. The majority were male (57.2%) and adults aged 15-60 years (54.5%). The most common diagnostic group was soft tissue infections (71.6%), followed by acute abdominal conditions (14.3%). The median length of symptoms prior to diagnosis differed significantly by diagnosis type (p < 0.001), with the shortest being urological emergencies at 1.5 days (interquartile range (IQR):1, 6) and the longest being complicated hernia at 17.5 days (IQR: 1, 208). Of all patients, 54% were operated on at the district hospital, either by a general surgeon or general practitioner. Patients were more likely to receive surgery if they presented to a hospital with a general surgeon compared to a hospital with only general practitioners (75% vs 43%, p < 0.001). In addition, the general surgeon was more likely to treat patients with complex diagnoses such as acute abdominal conditions (33.3% vs 4.1%, p < 0.001) compared to general practitioners. For patients who received surgery, 73.3% had no postoperative complications and 3.2% died. CONCLUSION: While acute abdominal conditions are often considered the most common emergency general surgical condition in sub-Saharan Africa, soft tissue infections were the most common in our setting. This could represent a true difference in epidemiology in rural settings compared to referral facilities in urban settings. Patients were more likely to receive an operation in a hospital with a general surgeon as opposed to a general practitioner. This provides evidence to support increasing the surgical workforce in district hospitals in order to increase surgical availability for patients.

Risk Prediction Accuracy Differs for Emergency Versus Elective Cases in the ACS-NSQIP.

BACKGROUND: Accurate risk estimation is essential when benchmarking surgical outcomes for reimbursement and engaging in shared decision-making. The greater complexity of emergency surgery patients may bias outcome comparisons between elective and emergency cases. OBJECTIVE: To test whether an established risk modelling tool, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) predicts mortality comparably for emergency and elective cases. METHODS: From the ACS-NSQIP 2011-2012 patient user files, we selected core emergency surgical cases also common to elective scenarios (gastrointestinal, vascular, and hepato-biliary-pancreatic). After matching strategy for Common Procedure Terminology (CPT) and year, we compared the accuracy of ACS-NSQIP predicted mortality probabilities using the observed-to-expected ratio (O:E), c-statistic, and Brier score. RESULTS: In all, 56,942 emergency and 136,311 elective patients were identified as having a common CPT and year. Using a 1:1 matched sample of 37,154 emergency and elective patients, the O:E ratios generated by ACS-NSQIP models differ significantly between the emergency [O:E = 1.031; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.028-1.033] and elective populations (O:E = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.77-0.80, P < 0.0001) and the c-statistics differed significantly (emergency c-statistic = 0.927; 95% CI = 0.921-0.932 and elective c-statistic = 0.887; 95% CI = 0.861-0.912, P = 0.003). The Brier score, tested across a range of mortality rates, did not differ significantly for samples with mortality rates of 6.5% and 9% (eg, emergency Brier score = 0.058; 95% CI = 0.048-0.069 versus elective Brier score = 0.057; 95% CI = 0.044-0.07, P = 0.87, among 2217 patients with 6.5% mortality). When the mortality rate was low (1.7%), Brier scores differed significantly (emergency 0.034; 95% CI = 0.027-0.041 versus elective 0.016; 95% CI = 0.009-0.023, P value for difference 0.0005). CONCLUSION: ACS-NSQIP risk estimates used for benchmarking and shared decision-making appear to differ between emergency and elective populations.

The elderly patient with spinal injury: treat or transfer?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this investigation was to delineate whether elderly patients with spinal injuries benefit from transfers to higher level trauma centers. METHODS: Retrospective review of the National Trauma Data Bank 2007 to 2011, including patients > 65 (y) with any spinal fracture and/or spinal cord injury from a blunt mechanism. Patients who were transferred to level I and II centers from other facilities were compared to those admitted and received their definitive treatment at level III or other centers. RESULTS: Of 3,313,117 eligible patients, 43,637 (1.3%) met inclusion criteria: 19,588 (44.9%) were transferred to level I-II centers, and 24,049 (55.1%) received definitive treatment at level III or other centers. Most of the patients (95.8%) had a spinal fracture without a spinal cord injury. Transferred patients were more likely to require an intensive care unit admission (48.5% versus 36.0%, P < 0.001) and ventilatory support (16.1% versus 13.3%, P < 0.001). Mortality for the entire cohort was 7.7% (8.6% versus 7.1%, P < 0.001) and significantly higher, at 21.7% for patients with a spinal cord injury (22.3% versus 21.0%, P < 0.001). After adjusting for all available covariates, there was no difference in the adjusted mortality between patients transferred to higher level centers and those treated at lower level centers (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.05 [0.95-1.17], P = 0.325). CONCLUSIONS: Transfer of elderly patients with spinal injuries to higher level trauma centers is not associated with improved survival. Future studies should explore the justifications used for these transfers and focus on other outcome measures such as functional status to determine the potential benefit from such practices.

Are appendectomy outcomes in level I trauma centers as good as we think?

BACKGROUND: Designated trauma centers improve outcomes for severely injured patients. However, major trauma workload can disrupt other care pathways and some patient groups may compete ineffectively for resources with higher priority trauma cases. This study tested the hypothesis that treatment at a higher-level trauma center is an independent predictor for worse outcome after appendectomy. METHODS: An observational study was undertaken using an all-payer longitudinal data set (California State Inpatient Database 2007-2011). All patients with an ICD-90-CM diagnosis of "acute appendicitis" (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code 540) that subsequently underwent appendectomy were included. Patients transferred between hospitals were excluded to minimize selection bias. The outcome measures were days to the operating room, length of stay, unplanned 30-d readmission (to any hospital in California), and in-hospital mortality. Logistic and generalized linear regression models were used to adjust for patient- (age, sex, payer status, race, Charlson comorbidity index, weekend admission, and generalized peritonitis) and hospital-level (teaching status and bed size) factors. RESULTS: There were 119,601 patients treated in 278 individual hospitals. Patients in level I trauma centers (L1TCs) reached the operating room later (predicted mean difference 0.25 d [95% confidence interval 0.14-0.36]), stayed in hospital longer (0.83 d [0.36-1.31]), and had higher adjusted odds of generalized peritonitis (odds ratio 1.63 [95% confidence interval 1.13-2.36]) than those in nontrauma centers. There were no differences in mortality or unplanned 30-d readmissions to hospital; or between level II trauma centers and nontrauma centers across any of the measured outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Odds of generalized peritonitis are higher and hospital length of stay is longer in L1TCs, although we found no evidence that patients come to serious harm in such institutions. Further work is necessary to determine whether pressure for resources in L1TCs can explain these findings.

Analgesic Access for Acute Abdominal Pain in the Emergency Department Among Racial/Ethnic Minority Patients: A Nationwide Examination.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of acute abdominal pain provide conflicting data regarding the presence of racial/ethnic disparities in the emergency department (ED). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate race/ethnicity-based differences in ED analgesic pain management among a national sample of adult patients with acute abdominal pain based on a uniform definition. RESEARCH DESIGN/SUBJECTS/MEASURES: The 2006-2010 CDC-NHAMCS data were retrospectively queried for patients 18 years and above presenting with a primary diagnosis of nontraumatic acute abdominal pain as defined by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Independent predictors of analgesic/narcotic-specific analgesic receipt were determined. Risk-adjusted multivariable analyses were then performed to determine associations between race/ethnicity and analgesic receipt. Stratified analyses considered risk-adjusted differences by the level of patient-reported pain on presentation. Secondary outcomes included: prolonged ED-LOS (>6 h), ED wait time, number of diagnostic tests, and subsequent inpatient admission. RESULTS: A total of 6710 ED visits were included: 61.2% (n=4106) non-Hispanic white, 20.1% (n=1352) non-Hispanic black, 14.0% (n=939) Hispanic, and 4.7% (n=313) other racial/ethnic group patients. Relative to non-Hispanic white patients, non-Hispanic black patients and patients of other races/ethnicities had 22%-30% lower risk-adjusted odds of analgesic receipt [OR (95% CI)=0.78 (0.67-0.90); 0.70 (0.56-0.88)]. They had 17%-30% lower risk-adjusted odds of narcotic analgesic receipt (P<0.05). Associations persisted for patients with moderate-severe pain but were insignificant for mild pain presentations. When stratified by the proportion of minority patients treated and the proportion of patients reporting severe pain, discrepancies in analgesic receipt were concentrated in hospitals treating the largest percentages of both. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of 5 years of CDC-NHAMCS data corroborates the presence of racial/ethnic disparities in ED management of pain on a national scale. On the basis of a uniform definition, the results establish the need for concerted quality-improvement efforts to ensure that all patients, regardless of race/ethnicity, receive optimal access to pain relief.