RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We compared the survival of trauma patients in urban versus rural settings after the implementation of a novel rural non-trauma center alternative care model called the Model Rural Trauma Project (MRTP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of all trauma patients brought to eight rural northern California hospitals and two southern California urban trauma centers over a one-year period (1995-1996). Trauma patients with an injury severity score (ISS) of >10 were included in the study. We used logistic regression to assess disparities in odds of survival while controlling for Trauma and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) parameters. RESULTS: A total of 1,122 trauma patients met criteria for this study, with 336 (30%) from the rural setting. The urban population was more seriously injured with a higher median ISS (17 urban and 14 rural) and a lower Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (GCS 14 urban and 15 rural). Patients in urban trauma centers were more likely to suffer penetrating trauma (25% urban versus 9% rural). After correcting for differences in patient population, the mortality associated with being treated in a rural hospital (OR 0.73; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.39) was not significantly different than an urban trauma center. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that rural and urban trauma patients are inherently different. The rural system utilized in this study, with low volume and high blunt trauma rates, can effectively care for its population of trauma patients with an enhanced, committed trauma system, which allows for expeditious movement of patients toward definitive care.
RESUMEN
Laparoscopy and work-hour restrictions are altering surgical training. We hypothesized interns were no longer gaining experience in open appendectomy, historically an intern index case. We retrospectively reviewed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) case logs of postgraduate Year (PGY) 1 general surgery trainees from our academic teaching program for the last 9 years. Number of appendectomies performed (Current Procedural Terminology codes 44950, 44960, and 44970) were recorded and analyzed. The national ACGME database was similarly evaluated for resident experience during junior (PGY-1 to 4) years. Data were available for 47 residents completing internship at our institution between 2003 and 2011. Mean number of appendectomies performed per intern steadily decreased throughout the study period from 22 in 2003 to 5 in 2011 (P=0.0367). Mean percentage of cases done open decreased from 79.5 to 2.4 per cent (P=0.0001). National data found residents graduating in the year 2000 performed an average of 26.6 open appendectomies during junior years, whereas those graduating in 2011 had done only 13.7. Surgical trainees are performing fewer open appendectomies than just several years ago. Open appendectomy traditionally served as an introduction to open surgery. Because outcome differences are small between open and laparoscopic appendectomy, we propose teaching institutions consider performing open appendectomies in select patients to preserve an important educational experience.
