Resource commitment to improve outcomes and increase value at a level I trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Optimal care of trauma patients requires cost-effective organization and commitment of trauma center resources. We examined the impact of creating a dedicated trauma care unit (TCU) and adding advanced practice nurses on the quality and cost of care at an adult Level I trauma center. METHODS: Patient demographic and injury data, length of stay, complications, outcomes, and total direct cost of care were evaluated for four 1-year intervals in the recent history of our trauma center: Year A, a trauma team of in-house trauma surgeons and resident physicians; Year B, the addition of nurse practitioners to the trauma team 5 days/week; Year C, the creation of a dedicated TCU for all non intensive care unit trauma patients; and Year D, the addition of a permanent clinical nurse specialist and an increase in nurse practitioner coverage to 7 days/week. For each year, value was determined by calculating the median cost of a survivor and the median cost of a survivor with no complications. Significance was attributed to p<0.05. RESULTS: Patient volume increased from 1,927 in year A to 2,546 by year D. Over the period of study, there was an increase in blunt trauma (87.1-89.9%; p<0.05), median Injury Severity Score (5-6; p<0.05), and patients aged ≥65 years (11.4-19.8%; p<0.05). However, risk-adjusted mortality was unchanged. There was a decrease in patients with a complication (20.8-14.9%; p < 0.05), median intensive care unit length of stay (39.5-23.4 hours; p < 0.05), and median cost of care ($4,306-$3,698; p<0.05). Value increased: both the median costs of a survivor and of a survivor with no complications decreased from $4,259 to $3,658 (p<0.05) and from $3,898 to $3,317 (p<0.05), respectively. The median cost of a survivor with severe injury (Injury Severity Score ≥15) decreased from $17,651 to $12,285 (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The addition of a dedicated TCU and advanced practice nurses improved the quality and reduced the cost of care, resulting in increased value at an adult Level I trauma center.

Retrievable vena cava filters for preventing pulmonary embolism in trauma patients: a cautionary tale.

BACKGROUND: Retrievable vena cava filters (RFs) offer the appeal of short-term prophylaxis for trauma patients temporarily at risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) without the long-term risks of permanent vena cava filters (PFs). However, the evidence that RFs and PFs reduce the risks of PE and death in trauma patients is not conclusive. RFs were introduced at our trauma center in August 2002. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of RFs on our strategy to prevent PE in trauma patients. METHODS: We reviewed our trauma registry to compare rates of filter placement, filter-related complications (FRCs), and PE before (Group I: January 2000 to August 15, 2002) and after (Group II: August 16, 2002 through December 2004) RF introduction. Indication for filter placement, filter retrieval, FRCs, and incidence of PE were compared. RESULTS: There were 5,042 patients in Group I and 5,038 patients in Group II. There was a threefold increase in filter placement in Group II compared with Group I (55 [1.1%] versus 161 [3.2%]; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the rates of PE (0.2% versus 0.2%, p = 0.636) or major FRCs (1.8% versus 2.5%, p = 0.777). Major FRCs included two filter infections with sepsis, one vena cava thrombotic occlusion, one filter lodged in the jugular vein during retrieval, and one PE after filter placement. RF removal was attempted in 43 (27%) patients and successful in 33 (21%). CONCLUSION: The advent of RFs was associated with a threefold increase in vena cava filter placement in our trauma center. Major FRCs were encountered and a very low incidence of PE was not altered by their use. Successful removal could be verified in only 21% of RFs. The results of this study lead us to question the rationale for a more liberal use of vena cava filters in trauma patients.