PATHway to success: Implementation of a multiprofessional acute trauma health care team decreased length of stay and cost in patients with neurological injury requiring tracheostomy.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine whether the implementation of a dedicated multiprofessional acute trauma health care (mPATH) team would decrease length of stay without adversely impacting outcomes of patients with severe traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries. The mPATH team was comprised of a physical, occupational, speech, and respiratory therapist, nurse navigator, social worker, advanced care provider, and physician who performed rounds on the subset of trauma patients with these injuries from the intensive care unit to discharge. METHODS: Following the formation and implementation of the mPATH team at our Level I trauma center, a retrospective cohort study was performed comparing patients in the year immediately prior to the introduction of the mPATH team (n = 60) to those in the first full year following implementation (n = 70). Demographics were collected for both groups. Inclusion criteria were Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 8 on postinjury Day 2, all paraplegic and quadriplegic patients, and patients older than 55 years with central cord syndrome who underwent tracheostomy. The primary endpoint was length of stay; secondary endpoints were time to tracheostomy, days to evaluation by occupational, physical, and speech therapy, 30-day readmission, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The median time to evaluation by occupational, physical, and speech therapy was universally decreased. Injury Severity Score was 27 in both cohorts. Time to tracheostomy and length of stay were both decreased. Thirty-day readmission and mortality rates remained unchanged. A cost savings of US $11,238 per index hospitalization was observed. CONCLUSION: In the year following the initiation of the mPATH team, we observed earlier time to occupational, physical, and speech therapist evaluation, decreased length of stay, and cost savings in severe traumatic brain and spinal cord injury patients requiring tracheostomy compared with our historical control. These benefits were observed without adversely impacting 30-day readmission or mortality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/care management, Level III.

Have We Come as Far as We Had Hoped? Discrimination in the Residency Interview.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to use a pilot survey of fourth-year medical students at our institution to determine if female residency applicants were asked potentially illegal questions regarding family status and childbearing more frequently than male applicants. Secondary objectives included comparing the use of potentially illegal questions in surgical versus nonsurgical specialties and between community and academic residency programs. DESIGN: A 20-item questionnaire was distributed to all fourth-year medical students at the University of Kansas School of Medicine. Data were analyzed in SPSS using descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariate analysis. SETTING: University of Kansas Health System, Tertiary Care Center. PARTICIPANTS: Fourth-year medical students from the University of Kansas School of Medicine. RESULTS: There were 57 survey respondents (51% male and 49% female). Female applicants were more likely to report being asked about their desire to have a family than male applicants (32% vs. 3%, respectively, p = 0.041). However, male and female students were equally likely to report being asked specifically if they had or intended to have children (p = 0.194). No significant differences were found in potentially illegal question-asking between surgical and nonsurgical specialties or between community-based and academic programs. CONCLUSIONS: Although women now represent 47% of the applicant pool, gender discrimination in the residency interview has not been eradicated. Women are more likely to report potentially illegal questions regarding their desire to have a family on residency interviews than men. Community and academic programs appear to ask similar numbers and types of potentially illegal questions. Further study is warranted to determine if these findings apply to the entire applicant pool. Further education of interviewers is necessary regarding potentially illegal questions during the residency interview process.

Pediatric peritonsillar abscess: Quinsy ie versus interval tonsillectomy.

PERITONSILLAR ABSCESS: Quinsy versus interval tonsillectomy. OBJECTIVES STUDY DESIGN: Case series with chart review. METHODS: We reviewed the records of children treated for peritonsillar abscess between 2007 and 2011 at an academic tertiary pediatric hospital. We identified patients by searching the hospital database for all children treated for the ICD-9 code 475 (peritonsillar abscess). Data points extracted included length of stay, intraoperative blood loss, operative time, and incidence of complications. Statistical analysis was performed to identify significant differences between treatment categories. Children who never received a tonsillectomy (CPT codes 42820/42821/42825/42826) were excluded. RESULTS: 34 children received tonsillectomy for peritonsillar abscess from 2007 to 2011. Of these: 23 received a Quinsy tonsillectomy, and 11 received antibiotics with or without incision and drainage, followed by tonsillectomy a minimum of 2 weeks later. Total hospital days in treatment course was 2.2 days for Quinsy tonsillectomy group and 2.3 days for the interval tonsillectomy group. Estimated blood loss was less than 20 ml for both groups. Operative time was 38 min for Quinsy tonsillectomy and 39 min for interval tonsillectomy. There were no post-tonsillectomy hemorrhages. One patient in the interval tonsillectomy group required readmission for dehydration. CONCLUSION: There were no significant differences in total hospital days, blood loss, operative time, or post-operative complications between Quinsy tonsillectomy and interval tonsillectomy in the treatment of pediatric peritonsillar abscess.