Decreased hospital length of stay and intensive care unit admissions for non-COVID blunt trauma patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

Comparison of Emergency Department Disposition Times in Adult Level I and Level II Trauma Centers

Introduction

The efficient utilization of resources is a crucial aspect of healthcare, particularly in both Level I and Level II American College of Surgeons (ACS)-verified trauma centers. The effect of resource allocation on emergency department length of stay (ED-LOS) of trauma patients has remained under-investigated. As ED crowding has become more prevalent, especially at quaternary care centers, an evaluation of the potential disparities in ED-LOS between Level I and Level II trauma centers is warranted. We hypothesized a longer ED-LOS at Level I centers compared to Level II centers.

Methods

We queried the 2017-2021 Trauma Quality Improvement Process (TQIP) database for trauma patients ≥18 years of age presenting to either a Level-I or -II center. The TQIP defines ED-LOS as the time from arrival until the time an ED disposition (admission or discharge) order is written. We excluded transferred patients and those with missing data regarding ACS trauma center verification level. We performed bivariate analyses, as well as subgroup analyses based on location of disposition.

Results

Of 2,225,067 trauma patients, 59.3% (1,318,497) received treatment at Level I centers. No significant differences were found in Injury Severity Scores between patients admitted to the operating room or non-intensive care unit (ICU) locations, or discharged home from Level-I and -II centers (all P < 0.05). The ED-LOS for trauma patients was longer at Level-I centers for all patient categories: overall (198 vs 145 minutes [min], P < 0.001), discharged home (286 vs 160 min, P < 0.001), non-ICU admissions (234 vs 164 min, P < 0.001), and those requiring surgery (126 vs 101 min, P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Even when treating patients with similar injury severity, trauma patients at Level I trauma centers had longer ED-LOS compared to Level II centers, irrespective of the patients' final disposition (surgery, non-ICU admission, or discharge). To optimize resource utilization and alleviate ED saturation, further research must delve into the underlying causes of these discrepancies to identify best practices and solutions.

A joinpoint analysis examining trends in firearm injuries at six us trauma centers from 2016 to 2022

BACKGROUND

There is an epidemic of firearm injuries in the United States since the mid-2000s. Thus, we sought to examine whether hospitalization from firearm injuries have increased over time, and to examine temporal changes in patient demographics, firearm injury intent, and injury severity.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort study of patients hospitalized with a traumatic injury to six US level I trauma centers between 1/1/2016 and 6/30/2022. ICD-10-CM cause codes were used to identify and describe firearm injuries. Temporal trends were compared for demographics (age, sex, race, insured status), intent (assault, unintentional, self-harm, legal intervention, and undetermined), and severity (death, ICU admission, severe injury (injury severity score ≥ 16), receipt of blood transfusion, mechanical ventilation, and hospital and ICU LOS (days). Temporal trends were examined over 13 six-month intervals (H1, January-June; H2, July-December) using joinpoint regression and reported as semi-annual percent change (SPC); significance was p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Firearm injuries accounted for 2.6% (1908 of 72,474) of trauma hospitalizations. The rate of firearm injuries initially declined from 2016-H1 to 2018-H2 (SPC = - 4.0%, p = 0.002), followed by increased rates from 2018-H2 to 2020-H1 (SPC = 9.0%, p = 0.005), before stabilizing from 2020-H1 to 2022-H1 (0.5%, p = 0.73). NH black patients had the greatest hospitalization rate from firearm injuries (14.0%) and were the only group to demonstrate a temporal increase (SPC = 6.3%, p < 0.001). The proportion of uninsured patients increased (SPC = 2.3%, p = 0.02) but there were no temporal changes by age or sex. ICU admission rates declined (SPC = - 2.2%, p < 0.001), but ICU LOS increased (SPC = 2.8%, p = 0.04). There were no significant changes over time in rates of death (SPC = 0.3%), severe injury (SPC = 1.6%), blood transfusion (SPC = 0.6%), and mechanical ventilation (SPC = 0.6%). When examined by intent, self-harm injuries declined over time (SPC = - 4.1%, p < 0.001), assaults declined through 2019-H2 (SPC = - 5.6%, p = 0.01) before increasing through 2022-H1 (SPC = 6.5%, p = 0.01), while undetermined injuries increased through 2019-H1 (SPC = 24.1%, p = 0.01) then stabilized (SPC = - 4.5%, p = 0.39); there were no temporal changes in unintentional injuries or legal intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalizations from firearm injuries are increasing following a period of declines, driven by increases among NH Black patients. Trauma systems need to consider these changing trends to best address the needs of the injured population.

The Influence of COVID-19 on Patient Mobilization and Injury Attributes in the ICU: A Retrospective Analysis of a Level II Trauma Center

The objectives of this study were to determine the effect of COVID-19 on physical therapy (PT) mobilization of trauma patients and to determine if mobilization affected patient course in the ICU. This retrospective study included patients who were admitted to the ICU of a level II trauma center. The patients were divided into two groups, i.e., those admitted before (n = 378) and after (n = 499) 1 April 2020 when Georgia's COVID-19 shelter-in-place order was mandated. The two groups were contrasted on nominal and ratio variables using Chi-square and Student's t-tests. A secondary analysis focused specifically on the after-COVID patients examined the extent to which mobilization (n = 328) or lack of mobilization (n = 171) influenced ICU outcomes (e.g., mortality, readmission). The two groups were contrasted on nominal and ratio variables using Chi-square and Student's t-tests. The after-COVID patients had higher injury severity as a greater proportion was classified as severely injured (i.e., >15 on Injury Severity Score) compared to the before-COVID patients. After-COVID patients also had a greater cumulative number of comorbidities and experienced greater complications in the ICU. Despite this, there was no difference between patients in receiving a PT consultation or days to mobilization. Within the after-COVID cohort, those who were mobilized were older, had greater Glasgow Coma Scale scores, had longer total hospital days, and had a lesser mortality rate, and a higher proportion were female. Despite shifting patient injury attributes post-COVID-19, a communicable disease, mobilization care remained consistent and effective.

Trends in Industry Payments to Surgeons During COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The Physician Payment Sunshine Act created the Open Payments Program (OPP), which is used to disclose transactions between physicians and industry. The impact of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic on this relationship is yet to be determined. Our aim was to compare payments before and after the onset of COVID-19 through the OPP.

METHODS

The OPP database was queried between 2014 and 2021 for all general surgery specialties. Payments were classified as general payments and research payments. Payments during 2014-2019 were classified as pre-COVID and compared to payments from 2020 to 2021 which were classified as post-COVID-Outbreak.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2021, 60,245 surgeons received general payments totaling $1.16 billion dollars. Comparing 2019 to 2020, general payments declined from $204.6 million to $108.5 million (-47%) and research payments from $157.3 million to $115.7 million (-26.5%). When comparing trends from 2014-2019 to 2020-2021, the mean number of payments was significantly higher at 394,782 versus 240,778 (P = 0.03) for general payments and 13,671 versus 10,382 (P = 0.03) for research payments. When comparing general payments among various surgical subspecialties, all fields saw a notable decline in general payments. Travel/lodging was the category of payment that saw the most significant change.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry payments declined as we entered the COVID-19 pandemic for both general and research payments. This decrease was seen across all surgical subspecialties. These trends in payments seen during the COVID-19 pandemic and the long-term economic impact of COVID-19 on the physician-industry relationship are still developing. Ongoing changes in future years to industry payments are worthy of continued monitoring.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Trauma Emergency Patients in Southeastern Iran

Objective

With the COVID-19 outbreak in countries around the world, the countries' healthcare systems underwent an unprecedented shock. This study aimed to examine the resilience of the medical service delivery system in providing emergency services during the Covid-19 pandemic.

Methods

This study was conducted in a reference hospital in Kerman that provided emergency services to trauma patients. It compared service delivery before and after COVID-19, as well as during the COVID-19 peak and non-peak periods. The compared variables were the number of trauma patients admitted to the hospital and the ICU, the number of patients who died in the hospital due to trauma, and the length of stay in the hospital and the ICU.

Results

The pre- and post-COVID-19 comparisons showed no significant difference in the number of daily hospital admissions, ICU admissions, and patient deaths. The median length of stay in the ICU was significantly reduced by almost 2 days during the COVID-19 outbreak. However, the length of stay at the hospital was almost the same. Furthermore, a comparison of the COVID-19 peaks and non-peak periods indicated no statistically significant difference in the number of admissions in the ICU, hospital and ICU length of stay, and trauma-induced mortality.

Conclusion

Despite the substantial workload imposed by COVID-19 on hospitals, especially during the peak periods of the disease, the provision of medical services to emergency trauma patients did not drop significantly, and the quality of services provided to patients was within the acceptable range.

Anastomotic Leak and Perioperative Outcomes of Esophagectomy for Esophageal Cancer during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic influenced the healthcare system tremendously, as well as the number of elective surgical procedures worldwide. The aim of this study is to investigate the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on esophagectomies. Materials and Methods: The MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar bibliographical databases were systematically searched. Original clinical studies investigating the outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic were deemed eligible. After exclusion criteria were applied, eight studies were considered eligible for inclusion. Results: Eight studies with non-overlapping populations, reporting on patients undergoing esophagectomy for resectable esophageal cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic, were included in our analysis, with a total of 18548 patients. Background characteristics for age, lung disease, smoking history as well as Body Mass Index and age were equal among the groups. The background of diabetes presented a statistically significant difference among the groups. Perioperative outcomes like reoperation rates, the length of intensive care unit stay, or readmission rates were not significantly increased during the pandemic. The 30-day readmission, and 30- and 90-day mortality were not affected either. The length of hospital stay was significantly lower in the non-pandemic period. Conclusions: The results of our study support the evidence that in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, esophageal cancer operations took place safely and effectively, similarly to the standards of the non-COVID-19 era.

Colorectal Surgery Outcomes in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to assess colorectal surgery outcomes, discharge destination, and readmission in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Adult colorectal surgery patients in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2019-2020) and its colectomy and proctectomy procedure-targeted files were included. The prepandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2019 to December 31, 2019. The pandemic time period was defined from April 1, 2020 to December 31, 2020 in quarterly intervals (Q2 April-June; Q3 July-September; Q4 October-December). Factors associated with morbidity and in-hospital mortality were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

Among 62,393 patients, 34,810 patients (55.8%) underwent colorectal surgery prepandemic and 27,583 (44.2%) during the pandemic. Patients who had surgery during the pandemic had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class and presented more frequently with dependent functional status. The proportion of emergent surgeries increased (12.7% prepandemic versus 15.2% pandemic, P < 0.001), with less laparoscopic cases (54.0% versus 51.0%, P < 0.001). Higher rates of morbidity with a greater proportion of discharges to home and lesser proportion of discharges to skilled care facilities were observed with no considerable differences in length of stay or worsening readmission rates. Multivariable analysis demonstrated increased odds of overall and serious morbidity and in-hospital mortality, during Q3 and/or Q4 of the 2020 pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in hospital presentation, inpatient care, and discharge disposition of colorectal surgery patients were observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pandemic responses should emphasize balancing resource allocation, educating patients and providers on timely medical workup and management, and optimizing discharge coordination pathways.