A core outcome set for appendicitis: A consensus approach utilizing modified Delphi methodology.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is one of the most common pathologies encountered by general and acute care surgeons. The current literature is inconsistent, as it is fraught with outcome heterogeneity, especially in the area of nonoperative management. We sought to develop a core outcome set (COS) for future appendicitis studies to facilitate outcome standardization and future data pooling. METHODS: A modified Delphi study was conducted after identification of content experts in the field of appendicitis using both the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) landmark appendicitis articles and consensus from the EAST ad hoc COS taskforce on appendicitis. The study incorporated three rounds. Round 1 utilized free text outcome suggestions, then in rounds 2 and 3 the suggests were scored using a Likert scale of 1 to 9 with 1 to 3 denoting a less important outcome, 4 to 6 denoting an important but noncritical outcome, and 7 to 9 denoting a critically important outcome. Core outcome status consensus was defined a priori as >70% of scores 7 to 9 and <15% of scores 1 to 3. RESULTS: Seventeen panelists initially agreed to participate in the study with 16 completing the process (94%). Thirty-two unique potential outcomes were initially suggested in round 1 and 10 (31%) met consensus with one outcome meeting exclusion at the end of round 2. At completion of round 3, a total of 17 (53%) outcomes achieved COS consensus. CONCLUSION: An international panel of 16 appendicitis experts achieved consensus on 17 core outcomes that should be incorporated into future appendicitis studies as a minimum set of standardized outcomes to help frame future cohort-based studies on appendicitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Test or Criteria; Level V.

COVID Stressed, but Not due to the Virus.

INTRODUCTION: Acute care surgeons can experience posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to the cumulative stress of practice. This study sought to document the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PTSD in acute care surgeons and to identify potential contributing factors. METHODS: The six-item brief version of the PTSD Checklist-Civilian Version (PCL-6), a validated instrument capturing PTSD symptomology, was used to screen Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma members. Added questions gauged pandemic effects on professional and hospital systems-level factors. Regression modeling used responses from attending surgeons that fully completed the PCL-6. RESULTS: Complete responses from 334 of 360 attending surgeons were obtained, with 58 of 334 (17%) screening positive for PTSD symptoms. Factors significantly contributing to both higher PCL-6 scores and meeting criteria for PTSD symptomology included decreasing age, increased administrative duties, reduced research productivity, nonurban practice setting, and loss of annual bonuses. Increasing PCL-6 score was also affected by perceived illness risk and higher odds of PTSD symptomology with elective case cancellation. For most respondents, fear of death and concerns of illness from COVID-19 were not associated with increased odds of PTSD symptomology. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of PTSD symptomology in this sample was similar to previous reports using surgeon samples (15%-22%). In the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, stress was not directly related to infectious concerns but rather to the collateral challenges caused by the pandemic and unrelated demographic factors. Understanding factors increasing stress in acute care surgeons is critical as part of pandemic planning and management to reduce burnout and maintain a healthy workforce.

COVID-19 induced PTSD: Stressors for trauma and acute care surgeons.

BACKGROUND: At the peak of the pandemic, acute care surgeons at many hospitals were reassigned to treat COVID-19 patients. However, the effect of the pandemic on this population who are well versed in stressful practice has not been fully explored. METHODS: A web-based survey was distributed to the members of the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST). PTSD and the personal and professional impact of the pandemic were assessed. A positive screen was defined as a severity score of ≥14 or a symptomatic response to at least 5 of the 6 questions on the screen. RESULTS: A total of 393 (17.8%) participants responded to the survey. The median age was 43 (IQR: 38-52) and 238 (60.6%) were male. The majority of participants were surgeons (351, 89.3%), specializing in general surgery/trauma (379, 96.4%). The main practice type and setting were hospital-based (350, 89%) and university hospital (238, 60.6%), respectively. The incidence of PTSD was 16.3% when a threshold severity score of ≥14 was used and 5.6% when symptomatic responses were assessed. Risk factors for a positive PTSD screen included being single/unmarried (p = 0.02), having others close to you contract COVID-19 (p = 0.02), having family issues due to COVID-19 (p = 0.0004), rural (p = 0.005) and suburban (p = 0.047) practice settings, a fear of going to work (p = 0.001), and not having mental health resources provided at work (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic had a psychological impact on surgeons. Although acute care surgeons are well versed in stressful practice, the pandemic nevertheless induced PTSD symptoms in this population, suggesting the need for mental health resources.

Survey of Surgeons' Perspectives of Wound Care Centers and Chronic Wound Care.

Multidisciplinary management of chronic wounds using comprehensive wound centers improves outcomes. With an increasing need for wound providers, little is known about surgeons' roles in wound centers. An online survey of two national surgical organization members covered demographics, wound center characterization, and surgeons' perspectives of wound centers and wound care. Surgeon perspectives were compared by age, gender, and relationship status. Three hundred sixty-four surgeons responded. Respondents were mostly older than 50 years, male, in practice older than 10 years, and used wound centers. Most respondents reported favorable experiences with wound centers but uncertainty about financial details. Most respondents were interested in formal wound care certification and participation in a wound practice, particularly as a transition to the retirement option for older surgeons. Surgeons are interested in pursuing a career focus in wound care. Further efforts are needed to educate surgeons and create a pathway for surgeons to become wound center directors. In a nationwide survey, surgeon perspectives on wound centers and wound specialization were positive, although financial understanding was limited. The importance of this finding is the support of wound care pathways for surgeons.

Survey of American College of Surgeons Committee on trauma members on firearm injury: Consensus and opportunities.

BACKGROUND: In the United States, there is a perceived divide regarding the benefits and risks of firearm ownership. The American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma Injury Prevention and Control Committee designed a survey to evaluate Committee on Trauma (COT) member attitudes about firearm ownership, freedom, responsibility, physician-patient freedom and policy, with the objective of using survey results to inform firearm injury prevention policy development. METHODS: A 32-question survey was sent to 254 current U.S. COT members by email using Qualtrics. SPSS was used for χ exact tests and nonparametric tests, with statistical significance being less than 0.05. RESULTS: Our response rate was 93%, 43% of COT members have firearm(s) in their home, 88% believe that the American College of Surgeons should give the highest or a high priority to reducing firearm-related injuries, 86% believe health care professionals should be allowed to counsel patients on firearms safety, 94% support federal funding for firearms injury prevention research. The COT participants were asked to provide their opinion on the American College of Surgeons initiating advocacy efforts and there was 90% or greater agreement on 7 of 15 and 80% or greater on 10 of 15 initiatives. CONCLUSION: The COT surgeons agree on: (1) the importance of formally addressing firearm injury prevention, (2) allowing federal funds to support research on firearms injury prevention, (3) retaining the ability of health care professionals to counsel patients on firearms-related injury prevention, and (4) the majority of policy initiatives targeted to reduce interpersonal violence and firearm injury. It is incumbent on trauma and injury prevention organizations to leverage these consensus-based results to initiate prevention, advocacy, and other efforts to decrease firearms injury and death. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic/epidemiologic study, level I; therapeutic care, level II.

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.

Cervical spine clearance when unable to be cleared clinically: a pooled analysis of combined computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

BACKGROUND: The role of cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of clinically unevaluable blunt trauma patients has been called into question by several recent studies. METHODS: A PubMed search was performed for all studies comparing computed tomography and MRI in the assessment of the cervical spine in patients who cannot be evaluated clinically. The radiologic findings and clinical outcomes from each study were collated for analysis. RESULTS: Data for 1,714 patients were available. All patients had a negative computed tomography scan and then underwent an MRI. There were 271 (15.8%) patients who had a previously undocumented finding on MRI with the majority (98.2%) being a ligamentous injury. Only 5 injuries (1.8%) resulted in surgical intervention. CONCLUSIONS: MRI identifies additional injuries; however, the vast majority are of minor clinical significance. Routine MRI after a negative computed tomography of the cervical spine is not supported by the current literature.

A reassessment of the impact of trauma systems consultation on regional trauma system development.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that trauma systems decrease morbidity and mortality after injury, but progress in system development has been slow and inconsistent. This study evaluated the progress in 20 state or regional systems following a consultative visit conducted by the Trauma Systems Evaluation and Planning Committee (TSEPC) of the Committee on Trauma, expanding on a previous study published in 2008, which demonstrated significant progress in six systems following consultation. METHODS: Twenty trauma systems that underwent TSEPC consultation between 2004 and 2010 were studied. Status was assessed using a set of 16 objective indicators. Baseline scores for 14 regions were calculated during the consultation visit and taken from the 2008 study for the remaining six. Postconsultation status was assessed during facilitated teleconferences. Progress was assessed by comparing changes in indicator scores. RESULTS: There was significant improvement in approximately 80% of systems evaluated within 60 months following the consultation. There was no progress in five of six systems reevaluated over 80 months after consultation, and all four systems evaluated over 100 months after consultation showed erosion of progress. Significant improvements were seen in 10 of the 16 individual indicators, with the greatest gains related to system standards, data systems, performance improvement, prehospital triage criteria, and linkages with public health. Consistent with the 2008 study, the two indicators related to financing for the trauma system showed no improvement. CONCLUSION: The TSEPC consultation process continues to be associated with improvements in trauma system development in approximately 80% of cases, consistent with the 2008 study, but gains are not self-sustaining. There was a stagnation in progress and a deterioration in total score over time, suggesting that a repeat consultation may be beneficial. System funding remains a challenge and was the area most likely to suffer setbacks over during study period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Care management study, level V.

Screening for at-risk drinking behavior in trauma patients.

CONTEXT: A blood alcohol level above 0 g/dL is found in up to 50% of patients presenting with traumatic injuries. The presence of alcohol in the blood not only increases the risk of traumatic injury, but it is also associated with worse outcomes and trauma recidivism. In light of these risks, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma advocates screening for at-risk drinking. Although many institutions use blood alcohol levels to determine at-risk drinking in trauma patients, the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) offers a cheap and easy alternative. Few direct comparisons have been made between these 2 tests in trauma patients. OBJECTIVE: To compare the utility of blood alcohol level and AUDIT score as indicators of at-risk drinking in trauma patients. METHODS: Records for all trauma patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to a level I trauma center from May 2013 through June 2014 were reviewed in this retrospective cohort study. Inclusion criteria required patients to have undergone both blood alcohol level testing and AUDIT on admission. A blood alcohol level greater than 0 g/dL and an AUDIT score equal to or above 8 were considered positive for at-risk drinking. Performance of both tests was indexed against the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) criteria for at-risk drinking. RESULTS: Of 750 patients admitted for trauma, 222 records (30%) contained data on both blood alcohol level and AUDIT score. The patients were predominantly male (178 [80%]) and had a mean (SD) age of 40.1 (16.7) years. Most patients (178 [80%]) had sustained blunt trauma. Ninety-seven patients (44%) had a positive blood alcohol level, 70 (35%) had a positive AUDIT score, and 54 (24%) met NIAAA criteria for at-risk drinking. The sensitivity and specificity of having a positive blood alcohol level identify at-risk drinking were 61% and 62%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of having a positive AUDIT score identify at-risk drinking were 83% and 81%, respectively. CONCLUSION: As a stand-alone indicator of at-risk drinking behavior in trauma patients, the AUDIT score was shown to be superior to blood alcohol level. The utility of obtaining routine blood alcohol levels in trauma patients as a screening tool for at-risk drinking should be reexamined.

Pre-hospital transport times and survival for Hypotensive patients with penetrating thoracic trauma.

BACKGROUND: Achieving definitive care within the "Golden Hour" by minimizing response times is a consistent goal of regional trauma systems. This study hypothesizes that in urban Level I Trauma Centers, shorter pre-hospital times would predict outcomes in penetrating thoracic injuries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed using a statewide trauma registry for the years 1999-2003. Total pre-hospital times were measured for urban victims of penetrating thoracic trauma. Crude and adjusted mortality rates were compared by pre-hospital time using STATA statistical software. RESULTS: During the study period, 908 patients presented to the hospital after penetrating thoracic trauma, with 79% surviving. Patients with higher injury severity scores (ISS) were transported more quickly. Injury severity scores (ISS) ≥16 and emergency department (ED) hypotension (systolic blood pressure, SBP <90) strongly predicted mortality (P < 0.05 for each). In a logistic regression model including age, race, and ISS, longer transport times for hypotensive patients were associated with higher mortality rates (all P values <0.05). This was seen most significantly when comparing patient transport times 0-15 min and 46-60 min (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In victims of penetrating thoracic trauma, more severely injured patients arrive at urban trauma centers sooner. Mortality is strongly predicted by injury severity, although shorter pre-hospital times are associated with improved survival. These results suggest that careful planning to optimize transport time-encompassing hospital capacity and existing resources, traffic patterns, and trauma incident densities may be beneficial in areas with a high burden of penetrating trauma.

Early subspecialization and perceived competence in surgical training: are residents ready?

BACKGROUND: In order to understand how current surgical residents feel about their training, a survey focused on perceptions regarding early entry into a subspecialty and the adequacy of training was sent to selected residency programs in general surgery (GS). STUDY DESIGN: A 36-item online anonymous survey was sent to the program directors of 55 GS programs. The national sample consisted of 1,515 PGY 1 to PGY 5 categorical residents. RESULTS: The response rate was 45%. Overall, 80% were planning on pursuing a fellowship. The majority (63%) believed that the Residency Review Committee for Surgery and the American Board of Surgery should consider the shift to early subspecialty training. Almost 70% of respondents preferred a 3-year basic track followed by a 3-year subspecialty track. In response to the survey item, "Do you think a 5-year GS residency fully prepares you to practice GS?", 38% of residents overall responded "no" or "unsure." This figure decreased with each increasing year of residency training, from PGY 1 (53.3%) to PGY 5 (23%). Finally, 71% of residents who answered "no" or "unsure" to the above question believe there should be a change to a track system. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of fellowship training for 80% of trainees partially reflects that 38% are not confident about their skills with 5 years of training in GS, including 23% of graduating chief residents. Training and certifying groups should update and strengthen the current curriculum for categorical residents in GS and continue their efforts to offer shortened independent or integrated residency training for those who will enter surgical specialties. Innovative solutions are needed to solve the logistic and financial problems involved.

Acute care surgery: now that we have built it, will they come?

BACKGROUND: Concern over lack of resident interest caused by the nonoperative nature and compromised lifestyle associated with a career as a "trauma surgeon" has led to the emergence of a new acute care surgery (ACS) specialty. This study examined the opinions of current general surgical residents about training and careers in this new field. METHODS: A 36-item online anonymous survey regarding ACS was sent to the program directors of 55 randomly selected general surgery (GS) training programs for distribution to their categorical residents. The national sample consisted of 1,515 PGY 1 to 5 trainees. RESULTS: Response rate was 45%. More than 90% of residents had an appropriate understanding of the components of ACS as generally described (trauma, surgical critical care, and emergency GS). Nearly half (46%) of all respondents have considered ACS as a career. Overall, ACS ranked as the second most appealing career ahead of surgical critical care and trauma but behind GS. Most residents believed that ACS offers better or equivalent case complexity (88%), scope of practice (84%), case volume (75%), and level of reimbursement (69%) compared with GS alone. Respondents who answered ACS had a better scope of practice (61% vs. 36%), lifestyle as an attending surgeon (77% vs. 34%), or level of reimbursement (83% vs. 38%) compared with GS were twice as likely (p < 0.0001) to have considered ACS as a career. Overall, 40% of the residents believed that ACS offers a worse lifestyle in comparison with GS. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that there is notable interest in the emerging specialty of ACS. The level of resident interest in ACS as a fellowship and career may be increased by marketing those aspects of practice, which are viewed positively and addressing negative perceptions related to lifestyle. It may be appealing to add an elective GS component to certain ACS practice options.

Implications of alcohol intoxication at the time of burn and smoke inhalation injury: an epidemiologic and clinical analysis.

Up to 50% of burn patient fatalities have a history of alcohol use, and for those surviving to hospitalization, alcohol intoxication may increase the risk of infection and mortality. Yet, the effect of binge drinking on burn patients, specifically those with inhalation injuries, is not well described. We aimed to investigate the epidemiology and outcomes of this select patient population. In a prospective study, 53 patients with an inhalation injury and a documented blood alcohol content (BAC) were grouped as BAC negative (n = 37), BAC = 1 to 79 mg/dl (n = 4), and BAC ≥ 80 mg/dl (n = 12). Those in the last group were designated as binge drinkers according to National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism criteria. Binge drinkers with an inhalation injury had considerably smaller %TBSA burns than did their nondrinking counterparts (mean %TBSA 10.6 vs 24.9; P = .065) and significantly lower revised Baux scores (mean 75.9 vs 94.9; P = .030). Despite binge drinkers having smaller injuries, the groups did not differ in terms of outcomes and resource utilization. Finally, those in the binge-drinking group had considerably higher carboxyhemoglobin levels (median 5.2 vs 23.0; P = .026) than did nondrinkers. Binge drinkers with inhalation injuries surviving to hospitalization had less severe injuries than did nondrinkers, although their outcomes and burden to the healthcare infrastructure were similar to the nondrinking patients. Our findings affirm the effect of alcohol intoxication at the time of burn and smoke inhalation injury, placing renewed emphasis on injury prevention and alcohol abuse education.

Evaluation of distracting pain and clinical judgment in cervical spine clearance of trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: The concept of distracting pain (DP) is a controversial subjective confounder that often impedes the efficient and timely clearance of the cervical spine (C-spine). This study attempted to define DP more objectively and assess its true potential to mask the presence of C-spine injury. It also evaluated reliability and safety of clinical judgment in discounting the significance of pain peripheral to the neck (PP). METHODS: This prospective study included patients with a Glasgow Coma Score ≥14 at a level I trauma center presenting in a C-spine collar. Demographics, mechanism of injury, severity and location of all pain, and C-spine imaging data were obtained. Patient and examiner perception of DP were ascertained using the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS) along with the examiner's clinical opinion as to the presence of a fracture. RESULTS: A total of 160 patients were studied: 65 % male, mean age 39 years, and 44 % presenting after a motor vehicle crash. In all, 16 % complained of neck pain (NP) and 82 % of PP. There were 134 patients without NP, 110 of whom (82 %) had PP. The mean VNRS in patients with no NP was 4.2; in patients with NP it was 4.8. When examined, 14 patients without NP exhibited posterior cervical tenderness, one of whom had a fracture (7 %). Of the patients with PP, 10 % stated it was DP. The mean VNRS described as DP by all patients was 7.5 but by clinician 6.5. VNRS described as not DP was 4.8 for both patients and clinicians. Overall, 8 of the 160 patients (5 %) had confirmed C-spine injuries. Regardless of NP or PP and its potentially distracting nature, clinicians believed no fracture was present in 95 % of all cases. Clinical impression was 98 % accurate. For patients with NP, clinical impression had a 91 % negative predictive value (NPV) and a 100 % a positive predictive value (PPV). In those without NP, the NPV was 99 % and the PPV 25 %. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of DP is subjective and unreliable as a method to mitigate missed C-spine injuries. If it is to be considered for use, DP should be defined as VNRS ≥5. Reliance on clinical impressions regardless of the presence or absence of NP or PP, distracting or otherwise, is accurate and safe.