Discharge to Skilled Nursing Facility Is a Risk Factor for Readmission: A Nationwide Propensity-Matched Study.

INTRODUCTION: General surgery procedures place stress on geriatric patients, and postdischarge care options should be evaluated. We compared the association of discharge to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) versus home on patient readmission. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the Nationwide Readmission Database (2016-2019) and included patients ≥65 y who underwent a general surgery procedure between January and September. Our primary outcome was 30-d readmissions. Our secondary outcome was predictors of readmission after discharge to an SNF. We performed a 1:1 propensity-matched analysis adjusting for patient demographics and hospital course to compare patients discharged to an SNF with patients discharged home. We performed a sensitivity analysis on patients undergoing emergency procedures and a stepwise regression to identify predictors of readmission. RESULTS: Among 140,056 included patients, 33,916 (24.2%) were discharged to an SNF. In the matched population of 19,763 pairs, 30-d readmission was higher in patients discharged to an SNF. The most common diagnosis at readmission was sepsis, and a greater proportion of patients discharged to an SNF were readmitted for sepsis. In the sensitivity analysis, emergency surgery patients discharged to an SNF had higher 30-d readmission. Higher illness severity during the index admission and living in a small or fringe county of a large metropolitan area were among the predictors of readmission in patients discharged to an SNF, while high household income was protective. CONCLUSIONS: Discharge to an SNF compared to patients discharged home was associated with a higher readmission. Future studies need to identify the patient and facility factors responsible for this disparity.

Lost in transition: Impact of interhospital transfer on outcomes after emergency general surgery in the older adult population.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery performed among patients over 65 years of age represents a particularly high-risk population. Although interhospital transfer has been linked to higher mortality in emergency general surgery patients, its impact on outcomes in the geriatric population remains uncertain. We aimed to establish the effect of interhospital transfer on postoperative outcomes in geriatric emergency general surgery patients. METHODS: Emergency general surgery patients 65 years and older were identified with American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2013 to 2019. Patients were categorized based on admission source as either directly admitted or transferred from an outside hospital inpatient unit or emergency department. The primary outcomes evaluated were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and overall morbidity. Propensity score matching was used to control for confounders, including age, race, comorbidities, and preoperative conditions. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test were used to compare 30-day survival in the matched cohort. RESULTS: Among the 88,424 patients identified, 13,872 (15.7%) were transfer patients. The median age was 74, and 53% were of female sex. Transfer patients had higher rates of comorbidities and preoperative conditions, including a higher prevalence of preoperative sepsis (21.8% vs 19.3%, P < .001) and ventilator dependence (6.4% vs 2.6%, P < .001). After propensity score-matched analysis, transferred patients exhibited higher rates of in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and overall morbidity. Transfer patients were also less likely to be discharged home and more likely to be discharged to an acute care facility. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis confirmed a poorer 30-day survival in transferred patients. CONCLUSION: Interhospital transfer independently contributed to overall mortality and morbidity amongst geriatric emergency general surgery patients. Further investigation into improved coordination between hospitals, tailored care plans, and comprehensive risk assessments are needed to help mitigate the observed differences in outcomes.

The Open Abdomen After Intra-abdominal Contamination in Emergency General Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Delayed fascial closure (DFC) is an increasingly utilized technique in emergency general surgery (EGS), despite a lack of data regarding its benefits. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of DFC versus immediate fascial closure (IFC) in EGS patients with intra-abdominal contamination. METHODS: This retrospective study was conducted using the 2013-2020 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database. Adult EGS patients who underwent an exploratory laparotomy with intra-abdominal contamination [wound classification III (contaminated) or IV (dirty)] were included. Patients with agreed upon indications for DFC were excluded. A propensity-matched analysis was performed. The primary outcome was 30-d mortality. RESULTS: We identified 36,974 eligible patients. 16.8% underwent DFC, of which 51.7% were female, and the median age was 64 y. After matching, there were 6213 pairs. DFC was associated with a higher risk of mortality (15.8% versus 14.2%, P = 0.016), pneumonia (11.7% versus 10.1%, P = 0.007), pulmonary embolism (1.9% versus 1.6%, P = 0.03), and longer hospital stay (11 versus 10 d, P < 0.001). No significant differences in postoperative sepsis and deep surgical site infection rates between the two groups were observed. Subgroup analyses by preoperative diagnosis (diverticulitis, perforation, and undifferentiated sepsis) showed that DFC was associated with longer hospital stay in all subgroups, with a higher mortality rate in patients with diverticulitis (8.1% versus 6.1%, P = 0.027). CONCLUSIONS: In the presence of intra-abdominal contamination, DFC is associated with longer hospital stay and higher rates of mortality and morbidity. DFC was not associated with decreased risk of infectious complications. Further studies are needed to clearly define the indications of DFC.

Analyzing the Impact of Concomitant COVID-19 Infection on Outcomes in Trauma Patients.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 infection at the time of traumatic injury remains understudied. Previous studies demonstrate that the rate of COVID-19 vaccination among trauma patients remains lower than in the general population. This study aims to understand the impact of concomitant COVID-19 infection on outcomes in trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients ≥18 years old admitted to a level I trauma center from March 2020 to December 2022. Patients tested for COVID-19 infection using a rapid antigen/PCR test were included. We matched patients using 2:1 propensity accounting for age, gender, race, comorbidities, vaccination status, injury severity score (ISS), type and mechanism of injury, and GCS at arrival. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), Intensive Care Unit (ICU) LOS, 30-day readmission, and major complications. RESULTS: Of the 4448 patients included, 168 (3.8%) were positive (COV+). Compared with COVID-19-negative (COV-) patients, COV+ patients were similar in age, sex, BMI, ISS, type of injury, and regional AIS. The proportion of White and non-Hispanic patients was higher in COV- patients. Following matching, 154 COV+ and 308 COV- patients were identified. COVID-19-positive patients had a higher rate of mortality (7.8% vs 2.6%; P = .010), major complications (15.6% vs 8.4%; P = .020), and thrombotic complications (3.9% vs .6%; P = .012). Patients also had a longer hospital LOS (median, 9 vs 5 days; P < .001) and ICU LOS (median, 5 vs 3 days; P = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection have higher mortality and morbidity in the matched population. Focused interventions aimed at recognizing this high-risk group and preventing COVID-19 infection within it should be undertaken.

To Resect or Not to Resect: A Nationwide Comparison of Management of Sigmoid Volvulus.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the high recurrence rate of sigmoid volvulus, there is reluctance to perform a prophylactic colectomy in frail patients due to the operation's perceived risks. We used a nationally representative database to compare risk of recurrence in patients undergoing a prophylactic colectomy versus endoscopic detorsion alone. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the National Readmission Database (2016-2019) including patients aged ≥18 y who had an emergent admission for sigmoid volvulus and underwent endoscopic detorsion on the day of admission. We performed a 1:1 propensity matching adjusting for patient demographics, frailty score comprising of 109 components, and hospital characteristics. Our primary outcome was readmission due to colonic volvulus and secondary outcomes included mortality, complications, length of stay (LOS), and costs during index admission and readmission. We performed a subgroup analysis in patients with Hospital Frailty Score >5. RESULTS: We included 2113 patients of which 1046 patients (49.5%) underwent a colectomy during the initial admission. In the matched population of 830 pairs, readmission due to colonic volvulus was significantly lower in patients undergoing endoscopy followed by colectomy than endoscopy alone. Patients undergoing a colectomy had higher gastric and renal complications, longer LOS, and higher costs but no difference in mortality. In the subgroup analysis of frail patients, readmission was significantly lower in patients with prophylactic colectomy with no significant difference in mortality in 439 matched patients. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic colectomy was associated with lower readmission, a higher rate of complications, increased LOS, and higher costs compared to sigmoid decompression alone.

The overlooked factor: The impact of disability on postoperative complications after emergency general surgery procedures.

BACKGROUND: Despite more than 61 million people in the United States living with a disability, studies on the impact of disability on health care disparities in surgical patients remain limited. Therefore, we aimed to understand the impact of disability on postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Readmission Database (2019). We compared patients ≥18 years undergoing emergency general surgery procedures with a disability condition with those without a disability. In accordance with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, disability was defined as severe hearing, visual, intellectual, or motor impairment/caregiver dependency. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission rates. Secondary outcomes included hospital length of stay and 30-day complications and mortality. Patients were 1:1 propensity-matched using patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Among our population of 378,733 patients, 5,877 (1.6%) patients had at least 1 disability condition. A higher proportion of patients with a disability had low household income, $1 to $45,999, and an Elixhauser Comorbidity score ≥3. Among 5,768 matched pairs, patients with a disability had a significantly higher incidence of 30-day readmission (17.2% vs 12.7%; P < .001), infectious complications (29.8% vs 19.5%; P < .001), and a longer length of stay (8 vs 6 days; P < .001). Motor impairment, the most common disability, was associated with the greatest increase in patient readmission, morbidity, and length of stay. CONCLUSION: Severe intellectual, hearing, visual, or motor impairments were associated with higher readmission, morbidity, and longer length of stay. Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms responsible for these disparities and to develop interventions to ameliorate them.

Does practice make perfect? The impact of hospital and surgeon volume on complications after intra-abdominal procedures.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the regionalization of surgical procedures. However, evidence on the volume-outcome relationship for emergency intra-abdominal surgery is not well-synthesized. This systematic review and meta-analysis summarize evidence regarding the impact of hospital and surgeon volume on complications. METHODS: We identified cohort studies assessing the impact of hospital/surgeon volume on postoperative complications after emergency intra-abdominal procedures, with data collected after the year 2000 through a literature search without language restriction in the PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. A weighted overall complication rate was calculated, and a random effect regression model was used for a summary odds ratio. A sensitivity analysis with the removal of studies contributing to heterogeneity was performed (PROSPERO: CRD42022358879). RESULTS: The search yielded 2,153 articles, of which 9 cohort studies were included and determined to be good quality according to the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. These studies reported outcomes for the following procedures: cholecystectomy, colectomy, appendectomy, small bowel resection, peptic ulcer repair, adhesiolysis, laparotomy, and hernia repair. Eight studies (2,358,093 patients) with available data were included in the meta-analysis. Low hospital volume was not significantly associated with higher complications. In the sensitivity analysis, low hospital volume was significantly associated with higher complications when appropriate heterogeneity was achieved. Low surgeon volume was associated with higher complications, and these findings remained consistent in the sensitivity analysis. CONCLUSION: We found that hospital and surgeon volume was significantly associated with higher complications in patients undergoing emergency intra-abdominal surgery when appropriate heterogeneity was achieved.

The association of disability conditions with access to minimally invasive general surgery.

BACKGROUND: Despite the high prevalence of disability conditions in the US, their association with access to minimally invasive surgery (MIS) remains under-characterized. OBJECTIVE: To understand the association of disability conditions with rates of MIS and describe nationwide temporal trends in MIS in patients with disability conditions. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Nationwide Readmission Database (2016-2019). We included patients ≥18 years undergoing general surgery procedures. Our primary outcome was the impact of disability conditions on the rate of MIS. We performed 1:1 propensity matching, comparing patients with disability conditions with those without and adjusting for patient, procedure, and hospital characteristics. We performed a subgroup analysis among patients<65 years and with patients with each type of disability. We evaluated temporal trends of MIS in patients with disabilities. We identified predictors of undergoing MIS using mixed effects regression analysis. RESULTS: In the propensity-matched comparison, a lower proportion of patients with disabilities had MIS. In the sub-group analyses, the rate of MIS was significantly lower in patients below 65 years with disabilities and among patients with motor and intellectual impairments. There was an increasing trend in the proportion of patients with disabilities undergoing MIS (p < 0.005). The regression analysis confirmed that the presence of a disability was associated with decreased odds of undergoing MIS. CONCLUSIONS: This study characterizes the negative association of disability conditions with access to MIS. As the healthcare landscape evolves, considerations on how to equitably share new treatment modalities with a wide range of patient populations are necessary.

Negative pressure wound therapy for emergency laparotomy incisions: A national database propensity matched study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSI) are a common complication of laparotomy incisions. The role of Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (NPWT) in preventing SSIs has not yet been explored in a nationwide analysis. We aimed to evaluate the association of the prophylactic use of NPWT with SSIs in patients undergoing an emergency laparotomy procedure. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the National Surgery Quality Initiative Program (NSQIP) database from 2013 to 2020. We included patients ≥18 years undergoing an emergency laparotomy. We performed a 1:1 propensity matching adjusting for patient age, sex, race, ethnicity, BMI, comorbid conditions, ASA status, diagnosis, preoperative factors and laboratory variables, procedure type, wound class, and intraoperative variables. We compared NPWT with standard dressings in two patient populations: 1. patients with completely closed (skin and fascia) laparotomy incisions and 2. patients with partially closed (fascia only) laparotomy incisions. Our primary outcome was the rate of incisional SSI. Secondary outcomes included the type of SSI, postoperative 30-day complications, postoperative hospital length of stay, and discharge disposition. RESULTS: We included 65,803 patients with completely closed incisions of whom 387 patients received NPWT. There was no significant difference in the rate of total SSIs (13.4 â€‹% vs. 11.9 â€‹%; p â€‹= â€‹0.52) in the matched population of 387 pairs. We included 7285 patients with partially closed incisions of whom 477 patients received NPWT. There was no significant difference in the rate of total SSIs (3.6 â€‹% vs. 4.4 â€‹%; p â€‹= â€‹0.51) in the matched population of 477 pairs. Secondary outcomes did not differ significantly in either group. CONCLUSION: The rate of SSIs was not significantly different when prophylactic NPWT was used compared to standard dressings for patients with a closed or partially closed laparotomy incision.

From admission to vaccination: COVID-19 vaccination patterns and their relationship with hospitalization in trauma patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccination rates in the hospitalized trauma population are not fully characterized and may lag behind the general population. This study aimed to outline COVID-19 vaccination trends in hospitalized trauma patients and examine how hospitalization influences COVID-19 vaccination rates. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective institutional study using our trauma registry paired with the COVID-19 vaccination ENCLAVE registry. We included patients ≥18 years admitted between April 21, 2021 and November 30, 2022. Our primary outcome was the change in vaccination posthospitalization, and secondary analyzed outcomes included temporal trends of vaccination in trauma patients and predictors of non-vaccination. We compared pre and posthospitalization weekly vaccination rates. We performed joinpoint regression to depict temporal trends and multivariate regression for predictors of nonvaccination. RESULTS: The rate of administration of the first vaccine dose increased in the week after hospitalization (P = .018); however, this increase was not sustained in the following weeks. The percentage of unvaccinated patients declined faster in the general population in Massachusetts compared to the hospitalized trauma population. By the conclusion of the study, 27.1% of the trauma population was unvaccinated, whereas <5% of the Massachusetts population was unvaccinated. Urban residence, having multiple hospitalizations, and experiencing moderate to severe frailty were associated with vaccination. Conversely, being in the age groups 18 to 45 years and 46 to 64 years, as well as having Medicaid or self-pay insurance, were linked to being unvaccinated. CONCLUSION: Hospitalization initially increased the rate of administration of the first vaccine dose in trauma patients, but the effect was not sustained. By the conclusion of the study period, a greater percentage of trauma patients were unvaccinated compared to the general population of Massachusetts. Strategies for sustained health care integration need to be developed to address this ongoing challenge in the high-risk trauma population.

Missing Narrative: Examining the Impact of Disability on Post-Operative Infectious Complications.

Background: More than 20% of the population in the United States suffers from a disability, yet the impact of disability on post-operative outcomes remains understudied. This analysis aims to characterize post-operative infectious complications in patients with disability. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective review of the National Readmission Database (2019) among patients undergoing common general surgery procedures. As per the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), disability was defined as severe hearing, visual, intellectual, or motor impairment/caregiver dependency. A propensity-matched analysis comparing patients with and without a disability was performed to compare outcomes, including post-operative septic shock, sepsis, bacteremia, pneumonia, catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), urinary tract infection (UTI), catheter-associated blood stream infection, Clostridioides Difficile infection, and superficial, deep, and organ/space surgical site infections during index hospitalization. Patients were matched using age, gender, comorbidities, illness severity, income, neighborhood, insurance, elective procedure, and the hospital's bed size and type. Results: A total of 710,548 patients were analysed, of whom 9,451(1.3%) had at least one disability. Motor disability was the most common (3,762; 40.5%), followed by visual, intellectual, and hearing impairment. Patients with disability were older (64 vs. 57 years; p < 0.001), more often insured under Medicare (65.2% vs. 37.3% p < 0.001) and had more medical comorbidities (Elixhauser comorbidity score ≥3; 69.2% vs. 41.9%; p < 0.001). After matching, 9,292 pairs were formed. Patients with a disability had a higher incidence of pneumonia (10.1% vs. 6.5%; p < 0.001), aspiration pneumonia (5.2% vs. 1.4%; p < 0.001), CAUTI (1.0% vs. 0.4%; p < 0.001), UTI (10.4% vs. 6.2%; p < 0.001), and overall infectious complications (21.8% vs. 14.5%; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Severe intellectual, hearing, visual, or motor impairments were associated with a higher incidence of infectious complications. Further investigation is needed to develop interventions to reduce disparities among this high-risk population.

Geographic Variation in the Utilization of and Mortality After Emergency General Surgery Operations in the Northeastern and Southeastern United States.

OBJECTIVE: To define geographic variations in emergency general surgery (EGS) care, we sought to determine how much variability exists in the rates of EGS operations and subsequent mortality in the Northeastern and Southeastern United States (US). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: While some geographic variations in healthcare are normal, unwarranted variations raise questions about the quality, appropriateness, and cost-effectiveness of care in different areas. METHODS: Patients ≥18 years who underwent 1 of 10 common EGS operations were identified using the State Inpatient Databases (2011-2012) for 6 states, representing Northeastern (New York) and Southeastern (Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi) US. Geographic unit of analysis was the hospital service area (HSA). Age-standardized rates of operations and in-hospital mortality were calculated and mapped. Differences in rates across geographic areas were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and variance quantified using linear random-effects models. Variation profiles were tabulated via standardized rates of utilization and mortality to compare geographically heterogenous areas. RESULTS: 227,109 EGS operations were geospatially analyzed across the 6 states. Age-standardized EGS operation rates varied significantly by region (Northeast rate of 22.7 EGS operations per 10,000 in population versus Southeast 21.9; P < 0.001), state (ranging from 9.9 to 29.1; P < 0.001), and HSA (1.9-56.7; P < 0.001). The geographic variability in age-standardized EGS mortality rates was also significant at the region level (Northeast mortality rate 7.2 per 1000 operations vs Southeast 7.4; P < 0.001), state-level (ranging from 5.9 to 9.0 deaths per 1000 EGS operations; P < 0.001), and HSA-level (0.0-77.3; P < 0.001). Maps and variation profiles visually exhibited widespread and substantial differences in EGS use and morality. CONCLUSIONS: Wide geographic variations exist across 6 Northeastern and Southeastern US states in the rates of EGS operations and subsequent mortality. More detailed geographic analyses are needed to determine the basis of these variations and how they can be minimized.

Development of an Operative Trauma Course in Uganda-A Report of a Three-Year Experience.

BACKGROUND: Trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in low-income countries. Improved health care systems and training are potential avenues to combat this burden. We detail a collaborative and context-specific operative trauma course taught to postgraduate surgical trainees practicing in a low-resource setting and examine its effect on resident practice. METHOD: Three classes of second year surgical residents participated in trainings from 2017 to 2019. The course was developed and taught in conjunction with local faculty. The most recent cohort logged cases before and after the course to assess resources used during initial patient evaluation and operative techniques used if the patient was taken to theater. RESULTS: Over the study period, 52 residents participated in the course. Eighteen participated in the case log study and logged 117 cases. There was no statistically significant difference in patient demographics or injury severity precourse and postcourse. Postcourse, penetrating injuries were reported less frequently (40 to 21% P < 0.05) and road traffic crashes were reported more frequently (39 to 60%, P < 0.05). There was no change in the use of bedside interventions or diagnostic imaging, besides head CT. Of patients taken for a laparotomy, there was a nonstatistically significant increase in the use of four-quadrant packing 3.4 to 21.7%) and a decrease in liver repair (20.7 to 4.3%). CONCLUSIONS: The course did not change resource utilization; however, it did influence clinical decision-making and operative techniques used during laparotomy. Additional research is indicated to evaluate sustained changes in practice patterns and clinical outcomes after operative skills training.

Hospital Volume and Operative Mortality for General Surgery Operations Performed Emergently in Adults.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to answer 2 questions: first, to what degree does hospital operative volume affect mortality for adult patients undergoing 1 of 10 common emergency general surgery (EGS) operations? Second, at what hospital operative volume threshold will nearly all patients undergoing an emergency operation realize the average mortality risk? BACKGROUND: Nontrauma surgical emergencies are an underappreciated public health crisis in the United States; redefining where such emergencies are managed may improve outcomes. The field of trauma surgery established regionalized systems of care in part because studies demonstrated a clear relationship between hospital volume and survival for traumatic emergencies. Such a relationship has not been well-studied for nontrauma surgical emergencies. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of all acute care hospitals in California performing nontrauma surgical emergencies. We employed a novel use of an ecological analysis with beta regression to investigate the relationship between hospital operative volume and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 425 acute care hospitals in California performed 165,123 EGS operations. Risk-adjusted mortality significantly decreased as volume increased for all 10 EGS operations (P < 0.001 for each); the relative magnitude of this inverse relationship differed substantially by procedure. Hospital operative volume thresholds were defined and varied by operation: from 75 cases over 2 years for cholecystectomy to 7 cases for umbilical hernia repair. CONCLUSIONS: Survival rates for nontrauma surgical emergencies were improved when operations were performed at higher-volume hospitals. The use of ecological analysis is widely applicable to the field of surgical outcomes research.

Hospital Variation in Geriatric Surgical Safety for Emergency Operation.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons maintains that surgical care in the US has not reached optimal safety and quality. This can be driven partially by higher-risk, emergency operations in geriatric patients. We therefore sought to answer 2 questions: First, to what degree does standardized postoperative mortality vary in hospitals performing nonelective operations in geriatric patients? Second, can the differences in hospital-based mortality be explained by patient-, operative-, and hospital-level characteristics among outlier institutions? STUDY DESIGN: Patients 65 years and older who underwent 1 of 8 common emergency general surgery operations were identified using the California State Inpatient Database (2010 to 2011). Expected mortality was obtained from hierarchical, Bayesian mixed-effects logistic regression models. A risk-adjusted hospital-level standardized mortality ratio (SMR) was calculated from observed-to-expected in-hospital deaths. "Outlier" hospitals had an SMR 80% CI that did not cross the mean SMR of 1.0. High-mortality (SMR >1.0) and low-mortality (SMR <1.0) outliers were compared. RESULTS: We included 24,207 patients from 107 hospitals. SMRs varied widely, from 2.3 (highest) to 0.3 (lowest). Eleven hospitals (10.3%) were poor-performing high-SMR outliers, and 10 hospitals (9.3%) were exceptional-performing low-SMR outliers. SMR was 3 times worse in the high-SMR compared with the low-SMR group (1.7 vs 0.6; p < 0.001). Patient-, operation-, and hospital-level characteristics were equivalent among outlier-hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Significant hospital variation exists in standardized mortality after common general surgery operations done emergently in older patients. More than 10% of institutions have substantial excess mortality. These findings confirm that the safety of emergency operation in geriatric patients can be significantly improved by decreasing the wide variability in mortality outcomes.

The Impact of Interdisciplinary Care on Cost Reduction in a Geriatric Trauma Population.

The current growth of the geriatric population and increased burden on trauma services throughout the United States (US) has created a need for systems that can improve patient care and reduce hospital costs. We hypothesize that the multidisciplinary services provided through the Geriatric Injury Institute (GII) can reduce hospital costs, improve patient triage throughput, and decrease hospital length of stay (LOS). METHODS AND MATERIAL: We performed a single-center, retrospective chart review of our Level II trauma center registry and electronic medical records of patients ages 65 and older who satisfied trauma activation/code criteria between July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2016 (N = 663). Patients presenting from July 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015, were grouped as Pre-GII, while those presenting from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2016, were grouped as Post-GII. Primary outcomes were emergency department (ED) triage time, overall LOS, and hospital costs. Secondary outcomes included patient disposition, mortality, and health assessments. Statistical comparisons were made using a one-way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Pre-GII vs. Post-GII average ages and the Injury Severity Score (ISS) were not statistically different (p>0.05). The average LOS was similar between the Pre-GII and Post-GII groups (4.64 ± 4.42 days vs. 4.26 ± 5.58 days, p = 0.48). More patients were discharged earlier (≤ 4 days; 64% vs. 73%) as well as discharged to home (37% vs. 45%) in the Post-GII group. The total cost savings were $53,000 with a median savings of $1061 per patient ($8808 vs. $7747, p = 0.04). Savings were highest during the first two days of admission (p = 0.03). The reduction in ED triage time was not significant (310.7 minutes vs 219. 8 minutes, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: With the increase in geriatric trauma, innovative models of care are needed. Our study suggests that the GII multidisciplinary approach to trauma services can lower overall hospital costs.

Regionalization of emergency general surgery operations: A simulation study.

BACKGROUND: It has been theorized that a tiered, regionalized system of care for emergency general surgery (EGS) patients-akin to regional trauma systems-would translate into significant survival benefits. Yet data to support this supposition are lacking. The aim of this study was to determine the potential number of lives that could be saved by regionalizing EGS care to higher-volume, lower-mortality EGS institutions. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent one of 10 common EGS operations were identified in the California Inpatient Database (2010-2011). An algorithm was constructed that "closed" lower-volume, higher-mortality hospitals and referred those patients to higher-volume, lower-mortality institutions ("closure" based on hospital EGS volume-threshold that optimized to 95% probability of survival). Primary outcome was the number of lives saved. Fifty thousand regionalization simulations were completed (5,000 for each operation) employing a bootstrap resampling method to proportionally redistribute patients. Estimates of expected deaths at the higher-volume hospitals were recalculated for every bootstrapped sample. RESULTS: Of the 165,123 patients who underwent EGS operations over the 2-year period, 17,655 (10.7%) were regionalized to a higher-volume hospital. On average, 128 (48.8%) of lower-volume hospitals were "closed," ranging from 68 (22.0%) hospital closures for appendectomy to 205 (73.2%) for small bowel resection. The simulations demonstrated that EGS regionalization would prevent 9.7% of risk-adjusted EGS deaths, significantly saving lives for every EGS operation: from 30.8 (6.5%) deaths prevented for appendectomy to 122.8 (7.9%) for colectomy. Regionalization prevented 4.6 deaths per 100 EGS patient-transfers, ranging from 1.3 for appendectomy to 8.0 for umbilical hernia repair. CONCLUSION: This simulation study provides important new insight into the concept of EGS regionalization, suggesting that 1 in 10 risk-adjusted deaths could be prevented by a structured system of EGS care. Future work should expand upon these findings using more complex discrete-event simulation models. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management, level IV.