Potentially Avoidable Admissions and Prolonged Hospitalization in Patients with Suspected Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Suspicion of cancer in the Emergency Department (ED) may lead to potentially avoidable and prolonged admissions. We aimed to examine the reasons for potentially avoidable and prolonged hospitalizations after admissions from the ED for new colon cancer diagnoses (ED-dx). METHODS: A retrospective, single-institution analysis was conducted of patients with ED-dx between 2017 and 2018. Defined criteria were used to identify potentially avoidable admissions. Patients without avoidable admissions were examined for ideal length of stay (iLOS), using separate defined criteria. Prolonged length of stay (pLOS) was defined as actual length of stay (aLOS) being greater than 1 day longer than iLOS. RESULTS: Of 97 patients with ED-dx, 12% had potentially avoidable admissions, most often (58%) for cancer workup. Very little difference in demographic, tumor characteristics, or symptoms were found, except patients with potentially avoidable admissions were more functional (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group [ECOG] score 0-1: 83% vs. 46%; p = 0.049) and had longer symptom duration prior to ED presentation {24 days (interquartile range [IQR] 7-75) vs. 7 days (IQR 2-21)}. Among the 60 patients who had necessary admissions but did not require urgent intervention, 78% had pLOS, most often for non-urgent surgery (60%) and further oncologic workup. The median difference between iLOS and aLOS was 12 days (IQR 8-16) for pLOS. CONCLUSIONS: Potentially avoidable admissions following Ed-dx were uncommon but were mostly for oncologic workup. Once admitted, the majority of patients had pLOS, most often for definitive surgery and further oncologic workup. This suggests a lack of systems to safely transition to outpatient cancer management.

The Association Between Hospital Characteristics and Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act Citation Events.

OBJECTIVES: The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law enacted in 1986 prohibiting patient dumping (refusing or transferring patients with emergency medical conditions without appropriate stabilization), and discrimination based upon ability to pay. We evaluate hospital-level features associated with citation for EMTALA violation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of observational data on EMTALA enforcement (2005-2013). Regression analysis evaluates the association between facility-level features and odds of EMTALA citation by hospital-year. RESULTS: Among 4916 EMTALA-obligated hospitals there were 1925 EMTALA citation events at 1413 facilities between 2005 and 2013, with 4.3% of hospitals cited per year. In adjusted analyses, increased odds of EMTALA citations were found at hospitals that were: for-profit [odds ratio (OR): 1.61; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32-1.96], in metropolitan areas (OR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.11-1.57); that admitted a higher proportion of Medicaid patients (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 1.0-1.01); and were in the top quartiles of hospital size (OR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.10-1.99) and emergency department (ED) volume (OR: 1.56; 95% CI: 1.14-2.12). Predicted probability of repeat EMTALA citation in the year following initial citation was 17% among for-profit and 11% among other hospital types. Among citation events for patients presenting to the same hospital's ED, there were 1.30 EMTALA citation events per million ED visits, with 1.04 at private not-for-profit, 1.47 at government-owned, and 2.46 at for-profit hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: For-profit ownership is associated with increased odds of EMTALA citations after adjusting for other characteristics. Efforts to improve EMTALA might be considered to protect access to emergency care for vulnerable populations, particularly at large, urban, for-profit hospitals admitting high proportions of Medicaid patients.

Diagnosis Setting and Colorectal Cancer Outcomes: The Impact of Cancer Diagnosis in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: The rate of diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) in the emergency department (ED), its characteristics, and its effect on outcomes have been poorly described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Chart review was conducted to identify presenting clinical setting leading to diagnosis, symptoms, and history of colonoscopy for patients diagnosed with CRC at a single institution from 2012-2014. Patients diagnosed with CRC as a result of an ED visit (EDDx) were compared with those diagnosed after presentation to other settings (non-EDDx). RESULTS: Of 638 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 271 (42.4%) were EDDx patients. These patients were more likely to be older than 80 y (29.89% versus 19.35%), have Medicare (59.78% versus 42.78%) or Medicaid (23.62% versus 12.81%) insurance, have stage IV cancer (45.02% versus 18.26%), and were symptomatic at the time of presentation (94.83% versus 64.03%). EDDx patients were less likely to ever have had a colonoscopy (21.77% versus 41.69%). In a model adjusted for patient demographics, cancer stage, presence of symptoms, and history of prior colonoscopy, EDDx was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.3-2.8). On stratifying survival by stage, it was found that for all stages, EDDx was associated with decreased survival. CONCLUSIONS: More than 40% of patients with CRC received their diagnosis through the ED. EDDx was associated with a nearly twofold mortality risk increase. EDDx should be considered a marker of poor outcomes for CRC and may be related to unaccounted patient-level or systems-level factors. Efforts should be made to identify modifiable risks of cancer diagnosis in the ED to improve cancer outcomes.

Pancreaticoduodenectomy in high-grade pancreatic and duodenal trauma.

INTRODUCTION: High-grade pancreaticoduodenal injuries are highly morbid and may require complex surgical management. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (Whipple procedure) is sometimes utilized in the management of these injuries, but guidelines on its use are lacking. This paper aims to present our 14-year experience in management of high-grade pancreaticoduodenal injuries at our busy, urban trauma center. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on patients (ages >15 years) presenting with high-grade (AAST-OIS Grades IV and V) injuries to the pancreas or duodenum at our Southeastern Level 1 trauma center. Inclusion criteria included high-grade injury and requirement of Whipple procedure based on surgeon discretion. Patients were divided into two groups: (1) those who underwent Whipple procedures during the index operation and (2) Whipple candidates. Whipple candidates included patients who received Whipples in a staged fashion or who would have benefited from the procedure but either died or were salvaged to another procedure. Demographics, injury patterns, management, and outcomes were compared. Primary outcome was survival to discharge. RESULTS: Of 66,272 trauma patients in this study period, 666 had pancreatic or duodenal injuries, and 20 met inclusion criteria. Of these, 6 had Whipples on the index procedure and 14 were Whipple candidates (among whom 7 had staged Whipples, 6 died before completing a Whipple, and 1 was salvaged). Median (IQR) age was 28 (22.75-40) years. Patients were 85 % male, 70 % Black. GSWs comprised 95 % of injuries. All patients had at least one concomitant injury, most commonly major vascular injury (75 %), colonic injury (65 %), and hepatic injury (60 %). In-hospital mortality among Whipple patients was 15 %. CONCLUSIONS: Complex pancreaticoduodenal injuries requiring pancreaticoduodenectomy are rare but life-threatening. In such patients, hemorrhage was the leading cause of death in the first 24 h. Approximately half underwent damage control surgery with staged Whipple Procedures. However, pancreaticoduodenectomy at the initial operation is feasible in highly selective patients, depending on the extent of injury, physiologic status, and resuscitation.