Impact of trauma attending surgeon case volume on outcome: is more better?

Regionalization of trauma care by operative experience: Does the volume of emergent laparotomy matter?

INTRODUCTION

The volume-outcome relationship led to the regionalization of trauma care. The relationship between trauma centers' injury-specific laparotomy volume and outcomes has not been explored. The aim of our study was to examine the relationship between a trauma center's injury-specific laparotomy volume and outcomes in blunt and penetrating trauma patients.

METHODS

We performed a (2017) analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. We included adult (age, ≥18 years) blunt and penetrating trauma patients who required emergent laparotomies for hemorrhage control. Trauma centers were stratified based on their blunt and penetrating laparotomy volumes: high volume (HV), ≥25 cases per year; medium volume (MV), 13 to 24 cases per year; and low volume (LV), ≤12 cases per year. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to explore predictors of in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 8,588 patients underwent emergent laparotomy for either blunt (4,936; 57.5%) or penetrating injuries (3,652; 42.5%). Overall, mean ± SD age was 40 ± 17 years, abdomen Abbreviated Injury Scale was 3 (2-4), and Injury Severity Score was 26 (17-35). For American College of Surgeons (ACS) level I centers, 50% were HV; 29%, MV; and 21%, LV. For ACS level II centers, 7% were HV; 23%, MV; and 70%, LV. For ACS level III centers, 100% were LV. On multivariate regression analysis, admission of blunt and penetrating trauma patients to HV blunt and HV penetrating centers, respectively, was independently associated with improved in-hospital mortality. High-volume blunt centers had a significantly lower time to laparotomy (72 [41-144] minutes) versus MV (81 [49-145] minutes) and LV (94 [56-158] minutes) centers (p < 0.001). The same trend was observed for HV penetrating trauma centers (35 [24-52] minutes) versus MV (46 [33-63] minutes) and LV (51 [38-69] minutes) centers (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Blunt and penetrating injury patients requiring emergent laparotomy had higher survival when admitted to trauma centers with HV operative experience for their particular mechanism of injury. The regionalization of trauma care should be based on a thorough evaluation of trauma centers' injury-specific operative experience.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic, Level III; Therapeutic/Care management, Level IV.

Nurse Staffing, the Clinical Work Environment, and Burn Patient Mortality

The complexity of modern burn care requires an integrated team of specialty providers working together to achieve the best possible outcome for each burn survivor. Nurses are central to many aspects of a burn survivor's care, including physiologic monitoring, fluid resuscitation, pain management, infection prevention, complex wound care, and rehabilitation. Research suggests that in general, hospital nursing resources, defined as nurse staffing and the quality of the work environment, relate to patient mortality. Still, the relationship between those resources and burn mortality has not been previously examined. This study used a multivariable risk-adjusted regression model and a linked, cross-sectional claims database of more than 14,000 adults (≥18 years) thermal burn patients admitted to 653 hospitals to evaluate these relationships. Hospital nursing resources were independently reported by more than 29,000 bedside nurses working in the study hospitals. In the high burn patient-volume hospitals (≥100/y) that care for the most severe burn injuries, each additional patient added to a nurse's workload is associated with 30% higher odds of mortality (P < .05, 95% CI: 1.02-1.94), and improving the work environment is associated with 28% lower odds of death (P < .05, 95% CI: 0.07-0.99). Nursing resources are vital in the care of burn patients and are a critical, yet previously omitted, variable in the evaluation of burn outcomes. Attention to nurse staffing and improvement to the nurse work environment is warranted to promote optimal recovery for burn survivors. Given the influence of nursing on mortality, future research evaluating burn patient outcomes should account for nursing resources.

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.

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.

Wiser with Age? Increased Per-Surgeon Elderly Patient Volume is Associated with Lower Postinjury Complications

We hypothesize that higher elderly patient volume per trauma surgeon is associated with fewer clinical complications. This is a retrospective cohort study which included elderly patients admitted to trauma surgery service within a five-year period, from 2009 to 2013, at two Level I trauma centers in Florida. Trauma surgeons were stratified into three groups depending on patient volume. Primary outcomes were postinjury complications and in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit LOS, and ventilator days. A total of 2379 elderly patients were included in this study. Elderly patient volume per surgeon did not significantly differ based on years in practice after fellowship (P = 0.88). The higher volume group had lower incidence of complications (15% complication rate, P = 0.02), compared with the average and low-volume group (18.1 and 21%, respectively), and had significantly lower rates of acute respiratory failure (P = 0.04) and acute renal failure (P = 0.004). In-hospital mortality was not affected by volume. Hospital LOS was decreased in the higher volume group (mean LOS 7.4 days, P < 0.001). There appears to be a relationship between elderly patient volume and outcome, independent of surgeon years of experience.

Association between volume of severely injured patients and mortality in German trauma hospitals

BACKGROUND

The issue of patient volume related to trauma outcomes is still under debate. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between number of severely injured patients treated and mortality in German trauma hospitals.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of the TraumaRegister DGU® (2009-2013). The inclusion criteria were patients in Germany with a severe trauma injury (defined as Injury Severity Score (ISS) of at least 16), and with data available for calculation of Revised Injury Severity Classification (RISC) II score. Patients transferred early were excluded. Outcome analysis (observed versus expected mortality obtained by RISC-II score) was performed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 39,289 patients were included. Mean(s.d.) age was 49.9(21.8) years, 27,824 (71.3 per cent) were male, mean(s.d.) ISS was 27.2(11.6) and 10,826 (29.2 per cent) had a Glasgow Coma Scale score below 8. Of 587 hospitals, 98 were level I, 235 level II and 254 level III trauma centres. There was no significant difference between observed and expected mortality in volume subgroups with 40-59, 60-79 or 80-99 patients treated per year. In the subgroups with 1-19 and 20-39 patients per year, the observed mortality was significantly greater than the predicted mortality (P < 0.050). High-volume hospitals had an absolute difference between observed and predicted mortality, suggesting a survival benefit of about 1 per cent compared with low-volume hospitals. Adjusted logistic regression analysis (including hospital level) identified patient volume as an independent positive predictor of survival (odds ratio 1.001 per patient per year; P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

The hospital volume of severely injured patients was identified as an independent predictor of survival. A clear cut-off value for volume could not be established, but at least 40 patients per year per hospital appeared beneficial for survival.

Increased trauma center volume is associated with improved survival after severe injury: results of a Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the relationship between trauma center volume and outcome.

BACKGROUND

The Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium is a network of 11 centers and 60 hospitals conducting emergency care research. For many procedures, high-volume centers demonstrate superior outcomes versus low-volume centers. This remains controversial for trauma center outcomes.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of prospectively collected data from the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium multicenter out-of-hospital Hypertonic Saline Trial in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale score of 8 or less (traumatic brain injury) or systolic blood pressure of 90 or less and pulse of 110 or more (shock). Regression analyses evaluated associations between trauma volume and the following outcomes: 24-hour mortality, 28-day mortality, ventilator-free days, Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scale incidence, worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scale score, and poor 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended score.

RESULTS

A total of 2070 patients were evaluated: 1251 in the traumatic brain injury cohort and 819 in the shock cohort. Overall, 24-hour and 28-day mortality was 16% and 25%, respectively. For every increase of 500 trauma center admissions, there was a 7% decreased odds of 24-hour and 28-day mortality for all patients. As trauma center volume increased, nonorgan dysfunction complications increased, ventilator-free days increased, and worst Multiple Organ Dysfunction Scale score decreased. The associations with higher trauma center volume were similar for the traumatic brain injury cohort, including better neurologic outcomes at 6 months, but not for the shock cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased trauma center volume was associated with increased survival, more ventilator-free days, and less severe organ failure. Trauma system planning and implementation should avoid unnecessary duplication of services.

The relationship between patient volume and mortality in American trauma centres: a systematic review of the evidence

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise published and unpublished findings examining the relationship between institutional trauma centre volume or trauma patient volume per surgeon and mortality.

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the relationship between patient volume and survival in trauma patients is inconclusive in the literature and remains controversial.

METHODS

A literature search was performed to identify studies published between 1976 and 2013 via MEDLINE (Pubmed) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EbscoHost) as well as footnote chasing. Abstracts from appropriate conferences and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses were also searched. Inclusion criteria required studies to be original research published in English that examined the relationship between mortality and either institutional or per surgeon volume in American trauma centres. We employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement checklist and flowchart. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was employed to rate the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

Of 1392 studies reviewed, 19 studies met defined inclusion criteria; all studies were retrospective. The definition of volume was heterogeneous across the studies. Patient population and analysis methods also varied across the studies. Sixteen studies (84%) examined the relationship between institutional trauma centre volume and mortality. Of the 16 studies, 12 examined the volume of severely injured patients and eight examined overall trauma patient volume. High institutional volume was associated with at least somewhat improved mortality in ten of 16 studies (63%); however, nearly half of these studies found only some subpopulations experienced benefits. In the remaining six studies, volume was not associated with any benefits. Four studies (25%) analysed the impact of surgeon volume on mortality. High volume per surgeon was associated with improved mortality in only one of four studies (25%).

CONCLUSIONS

The studies were extremely heterogeneous, thus definitive conclusions cannot be drawn regarding optimal volume before a clear advantage in survival is observed. A prospective study defining volume as a continuous variable is warranted to support current admission criteria for American trauma patients.

Surgeon commitment to trauma care decreases missed injuries

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Missed injuries sustain an important issue concerning patient safety and quality of care. The purpose of this study is to examine the effect of surgeon commitment to trauma care on missed injuries. We hypothesised that surgeons committed to the trauma service has less missed injuries than surgeons not committed to the trauma service would have.

METHODS

By retrospective analysis of 976 adult patients admitted to the trauma intensive care unit (ICU) at an urban, university-based trauma centre. Missed injuries were compared between two groups; in group 1 the patients were evaluated and treated by the surgeons who were committed to the trauma service and in group 2 the patients were evaluated and treated by surgeons practicing mainly in other specialties.

RESULTS

Patients had significantly lower rates of missed major or life-threatening injuries when treated by group 1 surgeons. Logistic regression model revealed significant factors associated with missed major or life-threatening injuries including ISS and groups in which patients were treated by different group surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians will perform better when they are trained and interested in a specific area than those not trained, or even not having any particular interest in that specific area. Surgeons committed to the trauma service had less missed injuries in severely injured patients, and it is vital to improve patient safety and quality of care for trauma patients. Staff training and education for assessing severely injured patients and creating an open culture with detection and reduction of the potential for error are important and effective strategies in decreasing missed injuries and improving patient safety.

Mature Trauma Intensivist Model Improves Intensive Care Unit Efficiency But Not Mortality

Background:

Although the Leap Frog intensivist staffing model has been shown to improve outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU), to date, no one has examined the effect of an intensivist model in a dedicated trauma ICU. With stricter adherence to evidence-based protocols and 24-hour availability, we hypothesized that a mature intensivist model in a trauma ICU would decrease mortality.

Methods:

Level II trauma center trauma ICU admissions 2006 to 2011. The ICU care provided by 6 trauma intensivists. Two periods were compared: early (2006-2008) and mature (2009-2011). Patients matched on age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), preexisting conditions, and so on in a univariate analysis, with significant variables placed in a logistic regression model, with mortality as the outcome.

Results:

A total of 3527 patients (2999 excluding do not resuscitate status) were reviewed. Age ≥65 (odds ratio [OR] 2.38, P < .001), ISS ≥17 (OR 3.3, P < .001), coagulopathy (OR 1.64, P = .004), and anemia (OR 1.73, P = .02) were independent predictors of mortality. Multivariate logistic model encompassing these factors found no statistically significant differences in mortality across the 6-year period. The ICU efficiency showed significant improvements in terms of ventilator days (30.1% EARLY vs 24.4% MATURE; P < .001), decreases in mean consultant use per patient (0.55 ± 0.85 EARLY vs 0.40 ± 0.74 MATURE; P < .001), and increase in number of bedside procedures per patient (0.09 ± 0.48 EARLY vs 0.40 ± 0.74 MATURE; P < .001

Conclusions:

Our mature intensivists staffing model shows improvement in ICU throughput (ventilator days, ICU days, decreased consultant use, and increased bedside procedures) but no survival benefit. Further improvements in overall trauma mortality may lie in the resuscitative and operative phase of patient care.

Developing process guidelines for trauma care in the Netherlands for severely injured patients: results from a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

In organised trauma systems the process of care is the key to quality. Nevertheless, the optimal process of trauma care remains unclear due to lack of or inconclusive evidence. Because monitoring and improving the performance of a trauma system is complex, this study aimed to develop consensus-based process guidelines for trauma care in the Netherlands for severely injured patients.

METHODS

A five-round Delphi study was conducted with 141 participants that represent all professions involved in trauma care. Sensitivity analyses were carried out to evaluate whether consensus extended across all professions and to detect possible bias.

RESULTS

Consensus was reached on 21 guidelines within 4 categories: timeliness, actions, competent teams and interdisciplinary process. Timeliness guidelines set specific critical limits and definitions for 10 time intervals in the time period from an emergency call until the patient leaves the trauma room. Action guidelines reflect aspects of appropriate care and strongly rely on the international Advanced Trauma Life Support principles. Competence guidelines include flow charts to assess the competence of prehospital and emergency department teams. Essential to competent teams are education and experience of all team members. The interdisciplinary process guideline focuses on cooperation, communication and feedback within and between all professions involved. Consensus was extended across all professions and no bias was detected.

CONCLUSIONS

In this Delphi study, a large expert panel agreed on a set of guidelines describing the optimal process of care for severely injured trauma patients in the Netherlands. In addition to time intervals and appropriate actions, these guidelines emphasise the importance of team competence and interdisciplinary processes in trauma care. The guidelines can be seen as a description of a best practice and a new field standard in the Netherlands. The next step is to implement the guidelines and monitor the performance of the Dutch trauma system based on the guidelines.

Relationship of trauma centre characteristics and patient outcomes: a systematic review

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the relationship of trauma centre characteristics and trauma patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND

Numerous studies have documented the impact of trauma centre level, trauma centre verification, volume per centre and per surgeon or resource availability on outcomes among trauma patients. However, there continues to be debated about whether trauma care is comparable by these trauma centre characteristics.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified via electronic database searches, footnote chasing and contact with clinical experts. Quality of selected studies was assessed in terms of internal and external validity using 14 questions. Two reviewers independently examined titles, abstracts and whether each met the predefined criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 50 studies which met criteria were selected. Ten of 17 articles showed that level I trauma centres had better patient outcomes than level II centres. The achievement of trauma centre verification by American College of Surgeons or State was beneficial to decreasing mortality and length of stay in 9 of 11 studies. High trauma admission volume was beneficial in 8 of 16 studies. The volume per trauma surgeon did not contribute to better patient outcomes in 4 of 5 studies. The availability of in-house trauma surgeon was beneficial to lower mortality and shorter length of stay in only 2 of 9 studies.

CONCLUSION

This review supports that achieving the trauma centre verification by American College of Surgeons or State is definitely beneficial to patient outcomes. However, the benefit of level I centres compared with level II centres, and volume of annual trauma patients to outcomes is still debating. Further prospective study examining this relationship is required.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Understanding which characteristics of trauma centre provides the best prospect for improved outcomes depending on patient need and resource availability would allow further appreciation of the processes that foster such enhancement.

A systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization on patient outcome

BACKGROUND AND METHODS

Volume of surgery and specialization may affect patient outcome. Articles examining the effects of one or more of three variables (hospital volume of surgery, surgeon volume and specialization) on outcome (measured by length of hospital stay, mortality and complication rate) were analysed. Reviews, opinion articles and observational studies were excluded. The methodological quality of each study was assessed, a correlation between the variables analysed and the outcome accepted if it was significant.

RESULTS

The search identified 55,391 articles published between 1957 and 2002; 1075 were relevant to the study, of which 163 (9,904,850 patients) fulfilled the entry criteria. These 163 examined 42 different surgical procedures, spanning 13 surgical specialities. None were randomized and 40 investigated more than one variable. Hospital volume was reported in 127 studies; high-volume hospitals had significantly better outcomes in 74.2 per cent of studies, but this effect was limited in prospective studies (40 per cent). Surgeon volume was reported in 58 studies; high-volume surgeons had significantly better outcomes in 74 per cent of studies. Specialization was reported in 22 studies; specialist surgeons had significantly better outcomes than general surgeons in 91 per cent of studies. The benefit of high surgeon volume and specialization varied in magnitude between specialities.

CONCLUSION

High surgeon volume and specialization are associated with improved patient outcome, while high hospital volume is of limited benefit.

Prehospital triage of trauma patients: a trauma surgeon's perspective

A number of triage tools have been developed and used to make triage decisions. Studies have demonstrated better outcomes in patients who receive care in trauma centers. The field triage decision scheme from the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma involves patient triage based on the presence of physiologic derangement, specific anatomic injuries, mechanism of injury, and comorbid factors. Issues such as distance to a trauma center (rural areas) and methods of transport (e.g., air, ground) complicate the prehospital triage of trauma patients. The best system for a given community or region is one that begins with a triage scheme that is evidence based to the greatest extent possible but is then modified based on community or regional resources and geography. Delivering the severely injured trauma patient to a facility that can provide optimal care, in the shortest amount of the time, remains the overarching principle.

Survival after adult liver transplantation does not correlate with transplant center case volume in the MELD era

It has been demonstrated that low-volume orthotopic liver transplant centers have poorer outcomes compared to high-volume centers. In light of the recent significant changes in liver transplantation, we performed an analysis of transplant center procedure volume and mortality with data from the Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) era. We analyzed 9909 adult liver transplants performed in the United States since the beginning of the MELD allocation system. Transplant centers were categorized by volume of transplants performed per year. Multivariate survival models were constructed with raw survival as the primary endpoint for both high- and low-volume centers. Thirty percent of centers were categorized as low volume (< or =20 liver transplants per year) and 8.2% of all transplants were performed at low-volume centers. The unadjusted raw mortality rate at 1-year post-transplant at high-volume centers (9.5%, 95% CI 9.4-9.5) was significantly lower than the rate at low-volume centers (10.9%, 95% CI 10.4-11.4), p < 0.001. However, after adjusting for disease severity and multiple donor and recipient factors, transplant center volume was no longer a significant predictor of post-transplant survival (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00, p = 0.22). We conclude that transplant center case volume is no longer a significant predictor of post-transplant survival in the MELD era and factors which are currently unaccounted for in present survival models should be investigated.

Injured patients have lower mortality when treated by "full-time" trauma surgeons vs. surgeons who cover trauma "part-time"

BACKGROUND

Studies examining the effect of trauma surgeon volume on patient outcomes have had disparate results. We hypothesize that "full-time" trauma surgeons would have lower patient mortality rates than surgeons covering trauma "part-time."

METHODS

Retrospective review of 14,171 patients during a span of 6.5 years (January 1998 to June 2004) from the trauma registry at an urban, university-based Level I trauma center. "Full-time" surgeons practiced primarily trauma, emergency surgery, and critical care. "Part-time" surgeons took trauma call, but mainly practiced another type of surgery (e.g., pancreatic, hepatobiliary, vascular, transplant). Chi square and multiple logistic regression compared mortality between groups.

RESULTS

There were no differences in patient demographics or admission injury patterns between the two groups. On bivariate analysis, the subgroup of patients with severe head injury had lower mortality when treated by "full-time" surgeons. With ED deaths excluded, more severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score [ISS] >15) had a survival benefit in the "full-time" group. Multiple logistic regression showed a 50% increase in mortality for patients treated by "part-time" trauma surgeons when adjusting for age, sex, ISS >15, severe head injury, hypotension, nighttime admission, day of the week, and penetrating mechanism (odds ratio of death 1.45, 95% CI 1.04-2.02). Similar results are seen in only patients surviving to emergency room discharge (odds ratio of death 1.50, 95% CI 1.01-2.22). Z and W scores showed higher than expected survival for all patients with the "full-time" cohort showing a larger benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Even within an established trauma program treating many injured patients, mortality is significantly lower in patients initially treated by "full-time" trauma surgeons.

United States military surgical response to modern large-scale conflicts: the ongoing evolution of a trauma system

This article provides a brief description of the evolution of military trauma surgical care since Operation Desert Storm and the ongoing evolution of the trauma system in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Effect of patient load on trauma outcomes in a Level I trauma center

OBJECTIVE

Increased medical staff workload has been associated with worse outcomes in several studies. Inappropriate staffing has also been implicated in the increased risk of mortality for medical patients admitted on weekends. A theoretical threshold patient load may exist, beyond which the resources are strained and patient outcomes suffer. The goal of the study was to see whether trauma patients admitted during 'high' patient-load periods, at night, or on weekends had worse outcomes.

METHODS

Trauma patients admitted to a high-volume Level I trauma center from 1994 to 2002 were analyzed. Patient load was defined as a combination of the number of patients admitted and the severity of their illness. On the basis of a multivariate regression model, a probability of fatal outcome was calculated for each patient as a marker for the severity of illness. For each patient, two new variables were calculated, the number of admissions (#ad) and the average probability of fatal outcome (PFO) for the 24-hour period in which the patient was admitted (excluding the patient him- or herself). The above variables, night/d, and weekend/d were placed in a multivariate regression model.

RESULTS

There were 30,686 patients. Age, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, maximum head Abbreviated Injury Scale score, admission Glasgow Coma Scale score, systolic blood pressure, and intubation status were the independent predictors of mortality. This model had an outstanding predictive power, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.96. The mean #ad was 11 +/- 4 and PFO was 0.08 +/- 0.07. Values above the 90th percentile were considered 'high' for #ad > 17 or PFO > 0.18. There was no difference in mortality for patients admitted during high #ad (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; p = 0.7) or high PFO (OR, 0.99; p = 0.9) versus low. There was no difference in mortality if a patient was admitted on weekends versus weekdays (OR, 0.9; p = 0.2) or at night versus day (OR, 0.9; p = 0.2). There was no difference in hospital length of stay for high #ad, high PFO, nights, or weekends.

CONCLUSION

At this Level I trauma center that is part of an established statewide trauma system, patient outcomes were not compromised during high-patient-load periods, at night, or on weekends.

Is Outcome after Blunt Splenic Injury in Adults Better in High-Volume Trauma Centers?

An association between outcome and case volume has been demonstrated for selected complex operations. The relationship between trauma center volume and patient outcome has also been examined, but no clear consensus has been established. The American College of Surgeons (ACS) has published recommendations on optimal trauma center volume for level 1 designation. We examined whether this volume criteria was associated with outcome differences for the treatment of adult blunt splenic injuries. Using a state trauma database, ACS criteria were used to stratify trauma centers into high-volume centers (>240 patients with Injury Severity Score >15 per year) or low-volume centers, and outcome was evaluated. There were 1,829 patients treated at high-volume centers and 1,040 patients treated at low-volume centers. There was no difference in age, gender, emergency department pulse, emergency department systolic blood pressure, or overall mortality between high- and low-volume centers. Patients at low-volume centers were more likely to be treated operatively, but the overall success rate of nonoperative management between high-and low-volume centers was similar. These data suggest that ACS criteria for trauma centers level designation are not associated with differences in outcome in the treatment of adult blunt splenic injuries in this regional trauma system.

Creating an emergency general surgery service enhances the productivity of trauma surgeons, general surgeons and the hospital

BACKGROUND

Several models that integrate trauma and emergency general surgery (EGS) have been proposed to provide a diverse and challenging operative practice for trauma surgeons and improve recruitment. In July 2002, our institution established a 24/7 EGS consult service, staffed primarily by critical care/trauma surgeons (CCTS). The objective of this report was to evaluate the impact of this new service on CCTS, general surgeons (GS) and the hospital.

METHODS

All admissions to CCTS and GS from July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2003 were reviewed by querying hospital and physician databases for demographics, diagnoses, operative intervention(s), and resource utilization. Data were analyzed using nonparametric methods.

RESULTS

[See ]. 9,405 admissions were identified, with GS and EGS admissions increasing over time. In July 2002, EGS became a separate service and captured 26% of GS admissions. Hospital-wide trauma admissions remained stable despite a slight decrease in trauma admissions to CCTS. A decrease in trauma operations by CCTS was offset by an increased EGS operative volume. EGS included "bread and butter" GS procedures including appendectomies and cholecystectomies and complex surgical procedures. EGS patients were often sicker with more than 50% requiring ICU admission compared with GS admissions of which only 10% required ICU care.(Table is included in full-text article.)

CONCLUSIONS

Departmental restructuring to include an EGS service: 1) increased CCTS volume despite decreased CCTS trauma admissions and operations; 2) increased elective GS volume; 3) generated increased use of ICU and operating room resources; and 4) demonstrated that CCTS with broad operative GS backgrounds and critical care knowledge can effectively staff an EGS service.

The association between trauma system and trauma center components and outcome in a mature regionalized trauma system

BACKGROUND

Regionalized trauma systems have been shown repeatedly to improve the outcome of seriously injured patients. However, we do not have data regarding which components of these systems have the most impact on outcome and to what degree. The objective of this study was to understand the association between various components that make up a trauma system and outcome.

METHODS

Surveys were administered to trauma directors at 59 hospitals in the province of Quebec, Canada. Data from the surveys were then linked with specific outcome variables obtained from a regionalized trauma database. Specific outcomes were assigned to trauma system- and in-hospital-based components after controlling for injury severity.

RESULTS

Over 4.8 years, 72,073 patients met inclusion criteria. Components found to affect survival after risk adjustment were prehospital notification (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.39-0.94) and the presence of a performance improvement program in that hospital (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.94). Increased patient volume was associated with a reduction in risk-adjusted mortality (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-0.99). Tertiary trauma centers were also associated with a reduction in risk-adjusted mortality compared with both secondary and primary centers (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Improvements in outcome in a regionalized trauma system are secondary to a combination of elements, as well as to the interplay of these elements on each other. Prehospital notification protocols and performance improvement programs appear to be most associated with decreased risk-adjusted odds of death.

Mortality benefit of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers for head-injured patients

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether head-injured patients transferred to level I trauma centers have reduced mortality relative to transfers to level II trauma centers.

DATA SOURCE/STUDY SETTING

Retrospective cohort study of 542 patients with head injury who initially presented to 1 of 31 rural trauma centers in Oregon and Washington, and were transferred from the emergency department to 1 of 15 level I or level II trauma centers, between 1991 and 1994.

STUDY DESIGN

A bivariate probit, instrumental variables model was used to estimate the effect of transfer to level I versus level II trauma centers on 30-day postdischarge mortality. Independent variables included age, gender, Injury Severity Scale (ISS), other indicators of injury severity, and a dichotomous variable indicating transfer to a level I trauma center. The differential distance between the nearest level I and level II trauma centers was used as an instrument.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Patients transferred to level I trauma centers differ in unmeasured ways from patients transferred to level II trauma centers, biasing estimates based on standard statistical methods. Transfer to a level I trauma center reduced absolute mortality risk by 10.1% (95% confidence interval 0.3%, 22.2%) compared with transfer to level II trauma centers.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with severe head injuries transferred from rural trauma centers to level I centers are likely to have improved survival relative to transfer to level II centers.

Redefining the future of trauma surgery as a comprehensive trauma and emergency general surgery service1 1No competing interests declared

BACKGROUND

Dwindling operative opportunities in trauma care may have a detrimental impact on career satisfaction among trauma surgeons and on career attractiveness to surgical trainees. Addition of emergency general surgery may alleviate some of these concerns.

STUDY DESIGN

The trauma service at our institution incorporated nontrauma emergency general surgery over a 3-year period. The institution's trauma registry and hospital perioperative database were queried. The changes in operative caseload are described. Current trauma faculty anonymously completed a Web-based questionnaire about the addition of emergency general surgery to the trauma service.

RESULTS

Operations for trauma decreased in 2002 compared with 1999, despite a higher number of penetrating injuries and total trauma contacts. Nontrauma general surgery operations performed by trauma faculty increased in proportion to coverage provided by the trauma service. In 2002, 57% of all cases performed by trauma surgeons were emergency general surgery, which accounted for 32% to 74% of an individual surgeon's caseload. In anonymously completed Web-based questionnaires, current trauma faculty expressed satisfaction with the combined trauma and emergency general surgery model.

CONCLUSIONS

The combined trauma and nontrauma surgery service increased operative caseloads and improved satisfaction of trauma surgeons. A comprehensive trauma and emergency general surgery service may be an attractive model for the future of trauma surgery and provide logistical and medical advantages to the emergency general surgery patient population.

Impact of American College of Surgeons verification on trauma outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of trauma patient outcomes before and after Level II American College of Surgeons (ACS) verification was received in a not-for-profit community hospital.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of hospital discharge data for timeframes before and after Level II ACS verification was conducted. Originally, 8,674 patients were identified using the International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes for trauma. These data were parsed to 7,811 patients by using International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes 800 xx through 959.9 x, which signify an admitting diagnosis of trauma; 3,835 of the patients were admitted after the July 28, 1998, verification date. Blunt injuries constituted the vast majority of the patients (n = 7,488). Outcome measures studied included changes in length of stay (LOS), mortality, and total cost. Internal control was coronary artery bypass graft patients at the same hospital, and external control was trauma patients at a non-ACS hospital over the same time period. Data are presented with p values and SE and the ratio of observed/expected values on the basis of the all-payer severity-adjusted diagnosis-related group severity model.

RESULTS

The two timeframes exhibited statistically different outcomes in several variables. Adjusting for severity postverification, LOS was 10% less (p < 0.000). Similarly, severity-adjusted mortality observed/expected ratios were significantly different: 0.81 before versus 0.59 after (p < 0.000). The severity-adjusted ratio of costs found that the postverification era was 5% lower (p < 0.000). The contribution margin of the trauma patient population to the hospital well exceeded any postverification costs. Both control groups exhibited no significant changes in their severity-adjusted outcomes, which could have invalidated these results.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that the efforts and resources consumed achieving ACS Level II trauma center verification appear to result in desired outcomes as evidenced by decreased LOS, reduced in-hospital mortality rates, reduced cost, and improved contribution margins.

Is there a relationship between trauma center volume and mortality?

BACKGROUND

The guidelines for Level I trauma center verification require 1,200 admissions per year. Several studies looking at the relationship between hospital volume and outcomes after injury have reached conflicting conclusions. The goal of our study was to examine the relationship between patient volume and outcomes (mortality and length of hospital stay) in California's trauma centers.

METHODS

Data for patients >or= 18 years old admitted after injury (n = 98,245) to a Level I or II trauma center (n = 38) in 1998 and 1999 were obtained from the Patient Discharge Data of the State of California. Hospital volume was derived from the annual number of admissions per center, and covariates including age, sex, mechanism of injury, Injury Severity Score, and trauma center designation were analyzed.

RESULTS

Hospital volume was not a significant predictor of death or length of hospital stay. More severely injured patients appeared to have worse outcomes at the highest volume centers.

CONCLUSION

In our study, hospital volume was not a good proxy for outcome. Low-volume centers appeared to have outcomes that were comparable to centers with higher volumes. Perhaps institutional outcomes rather than volumes should be used as a criterion for trauma center verification.

[Relation between activity volume and surgeon's results: myth or reality?]

The relationship between volume and surgical outcome seems logical, but needs to be demonstrated in the real world. A qualitative systematic review has been conducted to verify this hypothesis. Five systematic reviews and hundred original papers have been retrieved and analysed. Most of the studies were retrospective and used administrative data instead of medical charts. Moreover few studies involved a good case mix adjustment when comparing surgical units or individual surgeons. These methodological flaws do not allow any evidence based conclusions. Even though a positive relationship is suggested for surgical units, the relationship between volume and outcome was however less obvious for an individual surgeon. There is some evidence that the relationship varied greatly according to the specialty or the procedure evaluated. A new approach based on predictive scores comparing expected versus observed outcomes is mandatory and seems to be the best way to assess objectively the relationship between surgical volume and outcomes.

A statewide analysis of level I and II trauma centers for patients with major injuries

BACKGROUND

This study examines statewide outcomes and resource use in Level I and II trauma centers for patients with major injuries.

METHODS

This study analyzed trauma registry data on patients admitted to North Carolina Level I and II trauma centers from January 1995 to December 1996 with one of four major injuries: thoracic aortic disruption, liver injury, pelvic fracture, or pulmonary contusion.

RESULTS

There were 59 thoracic aortic disruptions, 109 liver injuries, 153 pelvic fractures, and 962 pulmonary contusions identified among 26,030 admissions. Case fatality was not significantly different (Level I, 16.8%; Level II, 14.9%). Hospital charges were significantly higher in Level I centers (Level I, $47,366; Level II, $35,490), but this difference was confined to transferred patients. Controlling for Revised Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score, age, gender, and race, multivariable regression confirmed findings regarding hospital charges, and multiple logistic regression confirmed findings regarding case fatality.

CONCLUSION

Case fatality was similar in Level I and Level II trauma centers in North Carolina, and hospital charges were comparable in patients with comparable injuries not requiring transfer. This suggests that patients with major injuries may be optimally cared for in both Level I and Level II trauma centers.

Patient volume per surgeon does not predict survival in adult level I trauma centers

BACKGROUND

The 1999 American College of Surgeons resources for optimal care document added the requirement that Level I trauma centers admit over 240 patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) > 15 per year or that trauma surgeons care for at least 35 patients per year. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that high volume of patients with ISS > 15 per individual trauma surgeon is associated with improved outcome.

METHODS

Data were obtained from the trauma registry of the five American College of Surgeons-verified adult Level I trauma centers in our mature trauma system between January 1, 1998, and March 31, 1999. Data abstracted included age, sex, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, probability of survival (Ps), mechanism of injury, number of patients per each trauma surgeon and institution, and mortality. Multiple logistic regression was performed to select independent variables for modeling of survival.

RESULTS

From the five Level I centers there were 11,932 trauma patients in this time interval; of these, 1,754 patients (14.7%) with ISS > 15 were identified and used for analysis. Patients with ISS > 15 varied from 173 to 625 per institution; trauma surgeons varied from 8 to 25 per institution; per-surgeon patient volume varied from 0.8 to 96 per year. Logistic regression analysis revealed that the best independent predictors of survival were Ps, GCS score, age, mechanism of injury, and institutional volume (p < 0.01). Age and institutional volume correlated negatively with survival. Analysis of per-surgeon patient caseload added no additional predictive value (p = 0.44).

CONCLUSION

The significant independent predictors of survival in severely injured trauma patients are Ps, GCS score, age, mechanism of injury, and institutional volume. We found no statistically meaningful contribution to the prediction of survival on the basis of per-surgeon patient volume. Since this volume criterion for surgeon enpanelment and trauma center designation would not be expected to improve outcome, such a requirement should be justified by other measures or abandoned.

Outcome analysis of Pennsylvania trauma centers: factors predictive of nonsurvival in seriously injured patients

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of five trauma center characteristics on survival outcome in nine serious injury categories.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from 1992 to 1996 on patients older than 14 years of age from 24 accredited trauma centers in Pennsylvania was performed. Trauma center characteristics selected for evaluation were level of accreditation, volume of trauma admissions, presence of in-house trauma surgeons, presence of a surgical residency program, and presence of an on-site medical school. Each of these characteristics was evaluated to determine its impact on survival in the selected serious injuries. A logistic regression model was then created to evaluate the most seriously injured patients as defined by A Severity Characterization of Trauma score of < 0.50. On the basis of the logistic regression model, odd ratios were calculated treating low volume as a significant risk factor for mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 88,723 patients meeting registry criteria, 13,942 met the serious injury criteria. Independent analysis suggested that accreditation was beneficial regardless of level, volume of patients treated had a direct impact on survival outcome, and the presence of a surgical residency program may confer survival benefit. Of the 13,942 patients with serious injuries, those with A Severity Characterization of Trauma score of < 0.5 were selected for evaluation by logistic regression (n = 3,562). The logistic regression model, however, showed that only volume of patients treated had a consistent association with improved survival. Odds ratio analysis revealed low volume as a significant risk factor for mortality in seven of the nine injuries studied.

CONCLUSION

In this analysis, only volume of patients treated had a direct impact on survival outcome. Accreditation, regardless of level, appears to be beneficial.

The Brain Trauma Foundation. The American Association of Neurological Surgeons. The Joint Section on Neurotrauma and Critical Care. Trauma systems

Published case series and cohort comparison studies of patients treated in regions where planned trauma systems are in place compared to regions without trauma systems, or before and after instituting a trauma system, conclude that mortality is reduced after major trauma in patients treated in a trauma system. For optimal care of neurotrauma, neurosurgeons should be involved in the planning and implementation of trauma systems and in support of a system once it is in place.

Rural trauma: the challenge for the next decade

Improving the care of trauma patients in a rural environment requires that several important issues be addressed. First, a universal definition of what constitutes "rural" must be established. We propose that a combined effort of the Federal Government and the Committee on Trauma of the American College of Surgeons develop this definition. Second, data on rural trauma demographics and outcome must be collected in a national database. We propose that this database be incorporated in the "TRACS" database of the Committee on Trauma of the American College of Surgeons. Such a database will allow a "needs assessment analysis of existing care in rural environments and facilitate planning and implementation of efficient systems of care. Funding for the rural database should come from the federal government. Finally, increased public awareness of problems unique to rural trauma care is necessary. The rural trauma subcommittee of the ACSCOT should go from an ad hoc committee to a standing committee with the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. We propose a national conference on rural trauma care hosted by the federal government for the purpose of addressing these issues and simultaneously increasing public awareness.

Trauma center maturation: quantification of process and outcome

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The regional trauma system with the trauma center as its center is a model for health care networks. However, trauma center maturation has not been defined in the literature. The authors' hypothesis was that maturation of the trauma center would affect quantitatively both process and patient outcome.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 15,303 trauma patients were admitted from 1987 to 1995. Annual admissions increased from 813 to 2669. Resources were generated as patient volume increased. Time to the operating room, length of stay, and complications were determined. TRISS methodology was used to calculate z scores and w values to compare actual with predicted mortality rates.

RESULTS

Time to the operating room for laparotomy decreased from 62+/-73 to 35+/-47 minutes, from 32+/-32 to 20+/-17 minutes in hypotensive patients, and for craniotomy decreased from 88+/-54 to 67+/-49 minutes. The incidence of infectious, airway, neurologic, orthopedic, respiratory, gastrointestinal, and procedure-related complications declined significantly. Z scores and w values increased for penetrating and blunt injuries. Deaths for patients with ISS >15 declined significantly. Hospital length of stay decreased for all ranges of injury severity.

CONCLUSIONS

As the trauma center matured, the process of delivering patient care became more efficient. The result was improved survival, fewer complications, and a shorter length of stay.