Outcomes For Emergency General Surgery Patients Research Articles

A lay of the land: a description of academic acute care surgery models in Canada.

Patients who require emergency general surgery (EGS) are at a substantially higher risk for perioperative morbidity and mortality than patients undergoing elective general surgery. The acute care surgery (ACS) model has been shown to improve EGS patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness. A recent systematic review has shown extensive heterogeneity in the structure of ACS models worldwide. The objective of this study was to describe the current landscape of ACS models in academic centres across Canada. We sent an online questionnaire to the 18 academic centres in Canada. The lead ACS physicians from each institution completed the questionnaire, describing the structure of their ACS models. In total, 16 institutions responded, all of which reported having ACS models, with a total of 29 ACS services described. All services had resident coverage. Of the 29, 18 (62%) had dedicated allied health care staff. The staff surgeon was free from elective duties while covering ACS in 17/29 (59%) services. More than half (15/29; 52%) of the services described protected ACS operating room time, but only 7/15 (47%) had a dedicated ACS room all 5 weekdays. Four of 29 services (14%) had no protected ACS operating room time. Only 1/16 (6%) institutions reported a mandate to conduct ACS research, while 12/16 (75%) found ACS research difficult, owing to lack of resources. We saw large variations in the structure of ACS models in academic centres in Canada. The components of ACS models that are most important to patient outcomes remain poorly defined. Future research will focus on defining the necessary cornerstones of ACS models.

The association of closed-collaborative SICU modeling on emergency general surgery patient outcomes

The association of closed-collaborative SICU modeling on emergency general surgery patient outcomes

Evaluating the association between American Association for the Surgery of Trauma emergency general surgery anatomic severity grades and clinical outcomes using national claims data.

Emergency general surgery (EGS) encompasses a heterogeneous population of acutely ill patients, and standardized methods for determining disease severity are essential for comparative effectiveness research and quality improvement initiatives. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) has developed a grading system for the anatomic severity of 16 EGS conditions; however, little is known regarding how well these AAST EGS grades can be approximated by diagnosis codes in administrative databases. We identified adults admitted for 16 common EGS conditions in the 2012 to 2017q3 National Inpatient Sample. Disease severity strata were assigned using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) diagnosis codes based on AAST EGS anatomic severity grades. We evaluated whether assigned EGS severity (multiple strata or dichotomized into less versus more complex) were associated with in-hospital mortality, complications, length of stay, discharge disposition, and costs. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, hospital traits, geography, and year. We identified 10,886,822 EGS admissions. The number of anatomic severity strata derived from ICD-9/10-CM codes varied by EGS condition and by year. Four conditions mapped to four strata across all years. Two conditions mapped to four strata with ICD-9-CM codes but only two or three strata with ICD-10-CM codes. Others mapped to three or fewer strata. When dichotomized into less versus more complex disease, patients with more complex disease had worse outcomes across all 16 conditions. The addition of multiple strata beyond a binary measure of complex disease, however, showed inconsistent results. Classification of common EGS conditions according to anatomic severity is feasible with International Classification of Diseases codes. No condition mapped to five distinct severity grades, and the relationship between increasing grade and outcomes was not consistent across conditions. However, a standardized measure of severity, even if just dichotomized into less versus more complex, can inform ongoing efforts aimed at optimizing outcomes for EGS patients across the nation. Prognostic, level III.

Identifying the fundamental structures and processes of care contributing to emergency general surgery quality using a mixed-methods Donabedian approach

BackgroundAcute Care Surgery (ACS) was developed as a structured, team-based approach to providing round-the-clock emergency general surgery (EGS) care for adult patients needing treatment for diseases such as cholecystitis, gastrointestinal perforation, and necrotizing fasciitis. Lacking any prior evidence on optimizing outcomes for EGS patients, current implementation of ACS models has been idiosyncratic. We sought to use a Donabedian approach to elucidate potential EGS structures and processes that might be associated with improved outcomes as an initial step in designing the optimal model of ACS care for EGS patients.MethodsWe developed and implemented a national survey of hospital-level EGS structures and processes by surveying surgeons or chief medical officers regarding hospital-level structures and processes that directly or indirectly impacted EGS care delivery in 2015. These responses were then anonymously linked to 2015 data from the American Hospital Association (AHA) annual survey, Medicare Provider Analysis and Review claims (MedPAR), 17 State Inpatient Databases (SIDs) using AHA unique identifiers (AHAID). This allowed us to combine hospital-level data, as reported in our survey or to the AHA, to patient-level data in an effort to further examine the role of EGS structures and processes on EGS outcomes. We describe the multi-step, iterative process utilizing the Donabedian framework for quality measurement that serves as a foundation for later work in this project.ResultsHospitals that responded to the survey were primarily non-governmental and located in urban settings. A plurality of respondent hospitals had fewer than 100 inpatient beds. A minority of the hospitals had medical school affiliations.DiscussionOur results will enable us to develop a measure of preparedness for delivering EGS care in the US, provide guidance for regionalized care models for EGS care, tiering of ACS programs based on the robustness of their EGS structures and processes and the quality of their outcomes, and formulate triage guidelines based on patient risk factors and severity of EGS disease.ConclusionsOur work provides a template for team science applicable to research efforts combining primary data collection (i.e., that derived from our survey) with existing national data sources (i.e., SIDs and MedPAR).

Role of interprofessional teams in emergency general surgery patient outcomes

BackgroundIn response to duty hour restrictions, hospitals expanded residency programs and added advanced practice providers. We sought to determine if type of clinical support was associated with emergency general surgery outcomes. MethodsAs part of our 2015 survey of acute care hospitals, we asked hospitals whether residents and advanced practice providers participate in emergency general surgery care. Data from responding hospitals were linked to patient data (≥18 years old admitted with an emergency general surgery diagnosis) from 17 State Inpatient Databases using American Hospital Association identifiers. Analyses compared emergency general surgery patient and hospital characteristics based on type of providers assisting emergency general surgery surgeons (none, only advanced practice providers, only residents, or both). Multivariable analysis determined if presence of advanced practice providers and/or residents was associated with type of management, mortality, or complications. ResultsEighty-three hospitals and 49,271 unique emergency general surgery admissions were included. Hospitals without residents and advanced practice providers were most likely to manage patients operatively. However, hospitals with residents (alone or with advanced practice providers) had reduced odds of systemic complication compared with hospitals without clinical support (adjusted odds ratio 0.77 [95% confidence interval 0.60–0.98] and adjusted odds ratio 0.77 [95% confidence interval 0.62–0.95], respectively), while hospitals with only residents had the lowest odds of operative complication. ConclusionOur findings highlight the positive effect residents (alone or partnering with advanced practice providers) can have on emergency general surgery patient outcomes.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act on trauma and emergency general surgery: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma systematic review and meta-analysis.

Trauma and emergency general surgery (EGS) patients who are uninsured have worse outcomes as compared with insured patients. Partially modeled after the 2006 Massachusetts Healthcare Reform (MHR), the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 with the goal of expanding health insurance coverage, primarily through state-based Medicaid expansion (ME). We evaluated the impact of ME and MHR on outcomes for trauma patients, EGS patients, and trauma systems. This study was approved by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Guidelines Committee. Using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology, we defined three populations of interest (trauma patients, EGS patients, and trauma systems) and identified the critical outcomes (mortality, access to care, change in insurance status, reimbursement, funding). We performed a systematic review of the literature. Random effect meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were calculated for outcomes with sufficient data. From 4,593 citations, we found 18 studies addressing all seven predefined outcomes of interest for trauma patients, three studies addressing six of seven outcomes for EGS patients, and three studies addressing three of eight outcomes for trauma systems. On meta-analysis, trauma patients were less likely to be uninsured after ME or MHR (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.66). These coverage expansion policies were not associated with a change in the odds of inpatient mortality for trauma (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.05). Emergency general surgery patients also experienced a significant insurance coverage gains and no change in inpatient mortality. Insurance expansion was often associated with increased access to postacute care at discharge. The evidence for trauma systems was heterogeneous. Given the evidence quality, we conditionally recommend ME/MHR to improve insurance coverage and access to postacute care for trauma and EGS patients. We have no specific recommendation with respect to the impact of ME/MHR on trauma systems. Additional research into these questions is needed. Review, Economic/Decision, level III.

How does a concurrent diagnosis of cancer influence outcomes in emergency general surgery patients?

BackgroundA significant proportion of hospital admissions in the US are secondary to emergency general surgery (EGS). The aim of this study is to quantify outcomes for EGS patients with cancer. MethodsThe Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2007 to 2011) was queried for patients with a diagnosis of an EGS condition as determined by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Of these, patients with a diagnosis of malignant cancers (ICD-9-CM diagnosis codes; 140-208.9, 238.4, 289.8) were identified. Patients with and without cancer were matched across baseline characteristics using propensity-scores. Outcome measures included all-cause mortality, complications, failure-to-rescue, length of stay, and cost. Multivariable logistic regression analyses further adjusted for hospital characteristics and volume. ResultsAnalysis of 3,625,906 EGS patients revealed an 8.9% prevalence of concurrent malignancies. The most common EGS conditions in cancer patients included gastro-intestinal bleeding (24.8%), intestinal obstruction (13.5%), and peritonitis (10.7%). EGS patients with cancer universally had higher odds of complications (odds ratio [OR] 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.20 [1.19 to 1.21]), mortality (OR [95% CI]: 2.00 [1.96 to 2.04]), failure-to-rescue (OR [95% CI]: 1.52 [1.48 to 1.56]), and prolonged hospital stay (OR [95% CI]: 1.69 [1.67 to 1.70]). ConclusionsEGS patients with concurrent cancer have worse outcomes compared with patients without cancer after risk-adjustment.

Creation and Implementation of an Emergency General Surgery Registry Modeled after the National Trauma Data Bank

As emergency general surgery (EGS) evolves, an EGS patient-tracking database (EGS registry [EGSR]) similar to the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) will be essential to study outcomes and improve care. The goal of this study was to establish diagnostic ICD-9 codes to define EGS patients. The hypothesis was that creating standardized ICD-9-based inclusion criteria would facilitate patient identification for an EGSR and aid in its ongoing development. We conducted a retrospective review of EGS admissions over a 9-month period to define ICD-9 diagnostic codes of patients admitted to our EGS service. Subsequently, prospective data were collected into the EGSR by testing ICD-9-based inclusion criteria over 1 month. Patient, hospital, and severity scoring variables, as well as quality assurance information, were identified. We identified 959 admissions to the EGS service over 9 months with 306 ICD-9 diagnosis codes that define EGS patients; the prospective population of the EGSR confirmed feasibility of ICD-9-based inclusion criteria. The EGSR captures 107 data points and 33 comorbidities per patient over 11 categories, akin to the 10 NTDB categories. Following the model of the NTDB, we have successfully completed creation and initial implementation of an EGSR by using ICD-9-based inclusion criteria. Our comprehensive EGSR creates a prospective data-collection modality to capture and define EGS patients. A uniform patient-tracking EGSR, akin to the NTDB, will advance the science of acute care surgery, improve EGS patient outcomes, and facilitate multi-institutional collaboration.

Acute Care Surgery Program: Mentoring Fellows and Patient Outcomes

Acute care surgery programs have demonstrated that trauma patient outcomes have not changed with the addition of emergency general surgery (EGS) responsibilities. EGS patient outcomes and the mentoring of fellows on EGS service have not been previously studied. We hypothesize that EGS patient outcomes would not differ by provider on a service driven by evidence-based medicine (EBM) protocols. Retrospective study of prospectively collected EGS repository. academic level I trauma center, and regional EGS referral center from 2003 to 2007. There were 14 faculty and seven fellows during the study period. EGS coverage is a full week, with weeknight coverage by the in-house trauma/EGS faculty. Fellows are mentored by designated faculty while on service, who discuss patients, assist in the OR, or assume care if necessary. Data collected included age, gender, LOS, ICU LOS, ventilator days, disposition (home/rehab), and infectious complications(IC) (VAP, BSI, UTI, SSI). Primary outcome was mortality. 1769 patients met study criteria. The mean age was 47.1 (+/-18), 47% were males. The average ICU LOS was 2.9 d (+/-7.9), ventilator d 2.6 (+/-7.6); 82.1% were discharged home and 13.7% were referred to rehab. There was no statistical difference in mortality, LOS, ICU LOS, disposition, ventilator d, and IC between faculty and fellow providers. An EGS service with EBM protocols assures consistency in patient outcomes independent of provider level: faculty or fellows. Our model for mentoring fellows did not decrease EGS patient outcomes.