Predictive Factors for the Application of Pelvic Binders in the Prehospital Setting.

OBJECTIVES: Early pelvic binder placement in the field stabilizes pelvic fractures and tamponades potential hemorrhage within the pelvis. Despite known risk factors for pelvic fracture, it remains challenging to quickly triage and correctly apply a pelvic binder. We aim to develop a prediction model that exclusively uses prehospital criteria to inform the decision to place a pelvic binder. METHODS: The trauma registry was used to identify all trauma patients admitted to an urban Level I trauma center between January 2013 and December 2017. Variables collected included patient demographics, mechanism of injury, prehospital vital signs, and the presence of a pelvic fracture. Participants were randomly assigned to a training group (70%) or a validation group (30%). Univariate analyses were used to identify significant predictors for use in multivariate predictive models. RESULTS: A total of 8,480 (65% male; median age 49; median ISS 9) and 3,676 (65% male; median age 48; median ISS 9) trauma patients were randomly assigned to the training and validation groups, respectively. Univariate analysis showed significant likelihood of pelvic fracture associated with female sex, hemodynamic instability (initial systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg), blunt injury type, specific mechanisms of injury (motor vehicle collision, motorcycle collision, pedestrian struck by motor vehicle, crushing injury, and riding an animal), impact location, and position in vehicle. Multivariate models adjusting for blunt type injury, hemodynamic instability, impact location, and position in vehicle showed that presence of two or more of these risk factors is significantly associated with presence of pelvic fracture. CONCLUSION: Establishing select prehospital criteria for the empiric application of pelvic binders for patients in the field with blunt injuries, hemodynamic instability, frontal or side motor vehicle collision impact, and non-front seat passenger may improve outcomes among patients with pelvic fractures.

Early career acute care surgeons' priorities and perspectives: A mixed-methods analysis to better understand full-time employment.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the expectations of early career acute care surgeons will help clarify the practice and employment models that will attract and retain high-quality surgeons, thereby sustaining our workforce. This study aimed to outline the clinical and academic preferences and priorities of early career acute care surgeons and to better define full-time employment. METHODS: A survey on clinical responsibilities, employment preferences, work priorities, and compensation was distributed to early career acute care surgeons in the first 5 years of practice. A subset of agreeable respondents underwent virtual semistructured interviews. Both quantitative and thematic analysis were used to describe current responsibilities, expectations, and perspectives. RESULTS: Of 471 surgeons, 167 responded (35%), the majority of whom were assistant professors within the first 3 years of practice (80%). The median desired clinical volume was 24 clinical weeks and 48 call shifts per year, 4 weeks less than their median current clinical volume. Most respondents (61%) preferred a service-based model. The top priorities cited in choosing a job were geography, work schedule, and compensation. Qualitative interviews identified themes related to defining full-time employment, first job expectations and realities, and the often-misaligned system and surgeon. CONCLUSION: Understanding the perspectives of early career surgeons entering the workforce is important particularly in the field of acute care surgery where no standard workload or practice model exists. The wide variety of expectations, practice models, and schedule preferences may lead to a mismatch between surgeon desires and employment expectation. Consistent employment standards across our specialty would provide a framework for sustainability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Lost in Follow-Up: Predictors of Patient No-Shows to Clinic Follow-Up After Abdominal Injury.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to evaluate risk factors for non-attendance to post-discharge, hospital follow-up appointments for traumatically injured patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy. METHODS: This is a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy for traumatic abdominal injury at an urban, Midwestern, level I trauma center with clinic follow-up scheduled after discharge. Clinically, relevant demographic characteristics, patients' distance from hospital, and the presence of staples, sutures, and drains requiring removal were collected. Descriptive statistics of categorical variables were calculated as totals and percentages and compared with a chi-squared test or Fisher's exact when appropriate. RESULTS: The sample included 183 patients who were largely assaultive trauma survivors (68%), male (80%), and black (53%) with a mean age of 35.4 ± 14.9 years. Overall, 18.5% no-showed for their follow-up appointment. On multivariate analysis for clinic no-show; length of stay (odds ratio = 0.92 [0.84-0.99], P = 0.04) and the need for suture, staple, or drain removal were protective for clinic attendance (odds ratio = 5.59 [1.07-7.01], P = 0.04). Overall, 12 patients (6.4%) were readmitted. Forty patients (18.3%) had their follow-up in the emergency department (ED). On multivariate regression of risk factors for ED visits, the only statistically significant factors (P < 0.05) were clinic appointment no-show (OR = 2.81) and self-pay insurance (OR = 4.78). CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal trauma patients are at high risk of no-show for follow-up appointments and no-show visits are associated with ED visits. Future work is needed evaluating interventions to improve follow-up.