Surgical Science and the Evolution of Critical Care Medicine

Value in acute care surgery, part 4: The economic value of an acute care surgery service to a hospital system

ABSTRACT

The Healthcare Economics Committee of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma has published a series of three articles on the topic of value in acute care surgery (ACS). In this series, the key elements of value, cost and outcomes, and the impact of stakeholder perspective on what constitutes high-value care are discussed. The fourth article in this series continues the discussion by focusing on the unique economic value that an ACS service brings to a hospital system and its patients. Characterized by the immediate 24-hour availability of surgeons trained in trauma management, emergency general surgery, and surgical critical care, acute care surgeons extend the benefits of surgical rescue and critical care to all hospitalized patients. As such, an ACS service acts as a vital part of a hospital's infrastructure to successfully care for complex and seriously ill patients, in addition to enabling the establishment of other, high revenue-generating services such as vascular, transplant, and complex oncologic surgery programs. The trauma service acts as intake for patients that lead to downstream revenue creation by other disciplines such as orthopedic and neurological surgery, while trauma center designation itself results in dedicated state funding to ensure trauma readiness in many states in the United States. The traditional "value equation" in health care of outcomes achieved per dollar spent is ill-suited to capture many of these unique aspects and benefits of ACS. This article provides the background to understand the economic value of an ACS service and future directions toward improving overall value of care.

The State of the Union: Trauma System Development in the United States

Injury is both a national and international epidemic that affects people of all age, race, religion, and socioeconomic class. Injury was the fourth leading cause of death in the United States (U.S.) in 2021 and results in an incalculable emotional and financial burden on our society. Despite this, when prevention fails, trauma centers allow communities to prepare to care for the traumatically injured patient. Using lessons learned from the military, trauma care has grown more sophisticated in the last 50 years. In 1966, the first civilian trauma center was established, bringing management of injury into the new age. Now, the American College of Surgeons recognizes 4 levels of trauma centers (I-IV), with select states recognizing Level V trauma centers. The introduction of trauma centers in the U.S. has been proven to reduce morbidity and mortality for the injured patient. However, despite the proven benefits of trauma centers, the U.S. lacks a single, unified, trauma system and instead operates within a "system of systems" creating vast disparities in the level of care that can be received, especially in rural and economically disadvantaged areas. In this review we present the history of trauma system development in the U.S, define the different levels of trauma centers, present evidence that trauma systems and trauma centers improve outcomes, outline the current state of trauma system development in the U.S, and briefly mention some of the current challenges and opportunities in trauma system development in the U.S. today.

Transforming the Future of Surgeon-Scientists

OBJECTIVE

To create a blueprint for surgical department leaders, academic institutions, and funding agencies to optimally support surgeon-scientists.

BACKGROUND

Scientific contributions by surgeons have been transformative across many medical disciplines. Surgeon-scientists provide a distinct approach and mindset toward key scientific questions. However, lack of institutional support, pressure for increased clinical productivity, and growing administrative burden are major challenges for the surgeon-scientist, as is the time-consuming nature of surgical training and practice.

METHODS

An American Surgical Association Research Sustainability Task Force was created to outline a blueprint for sustainable science in surgery. Leaders from top NIH-sponsored departments of surgery engaged in video and in-person meetings between January and April 2023. A strength, weakness, opportunities, threats analysis was performed, and workgroups focused on the roles of surgeons, the department and institutions, and funding agencies.

RESULTS

Taskforce recommendations: (1) SURGEONS: Growth mindset : identifying research focus, long-term planning, patience/tenacity, team science, collaborations with disparate experts; Skill set : align skills and research, fill critical skill gaps, develop team leadership skills; DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY (DOS): (2) MENTORSHIP: Chair : mentor-mentee matching/regular meetings/accountability, review of junior faculty progress, mentorship training requirement, recognition of mentorship (eg, relative value unit equivalent, awards; Mentor: dedicated time, relevant scientific expertise, extramural funding, experience and/or trained as mentor, trusted advisor; Mentee : enthusiastic/eager, proactive, open to feedback, clear about goals; (3) FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: diversification of research portfolio, identification of matching funding sources, departmental resource awards (eg, T-/P-grants), leveraging of institutional resources, negotiation of formalized/formulaic funds flow investment from academic medical center toward science, philanthropy; (4) STRUCTURAL/STRATEGIC SUPPORT: Structural: grants administrative support, biostats/bioinformatics support, clinical trial and research support, regulatory support, shared departmental laboratory space/equipment; Strategic: hiring diverse surgeon-scientist/scientists faculty across DOS, strategic faculty retention/ recruitment, philanthropy, career development support, progress tracking, grant writing support, DOS-wide research meetings, regular DOS strategic research planning; (5) COMMUNITY AND CULTURE: Community: right mix of faculty, connection surgeon with broad scientific community; Culture: building research infrastructure, financial support for research, projecting importance of research (awards, grand rounds, shoutouts); (6) THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS: Foundation: research space co-location, flexible start-up packages, courses/mock study section, awards, diverse institutional mentorship teams; Nurture: institutional infrastructure, funding (eg, endowed chairs), promotion friendly toward surgeon-scientists, surgeon-scientists in institutional leadership positions; Expectations: RVU target relief, salary gap funding, competitive starting salaries, longitudinal salary strategy; (7) THE ROLE OF FUNDING AGENCIES: change surgeon research training paradigm, offer alternate awards to K-awards, increasing salary cap to reflect market reality, time extension for surgeon early-stage investigator status, surgeon representation on study section, focused award strategies for professional societies/foundations.

CONCLUSIONS

Authentic recommitment from surgeon leaders with intentional and ambitious actions from institutions, corporations, funders, and society is essential in order to reap the essential benefits of surgeon-scientists toward advancements of science.

American Trauma Care: A System of Systems

OBJECTIVE

The benefits of organized trauma systems have been well-documented during 50 years of trauma system development in the United States. Unfortunately, despite this evidence, trauma system development has occurred only sporadically in the 50 states.

METHODS

The relevant literature related to trauma system design and development was reviewed based on relevance to the study. Information from these sources was summarized into a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) analysis.

RESULTS

Strengths discovered were leadership brought forth by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma and meaningful change generated from The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine report addressing the fractionation of the nation's trauma systems, whereas weaknesses included patient outcome disparities due to the lack of a national governing authority, undertriage, underresourced rural trauma, and underfunded trauma research. Opportunities included the creation of level IV trauma centers; telemedicine; the development of rural trauma management courses; air medical transport to bring high-intensity care to the patient, particularly in rural areas; trauma research; and trauma prevention through outreach and educational programs. The following threats were determined: mass casualty incidents, motor vehicle collisions because of the high rate of motor vehicle collision deaths in the United States relative to other developed countries, and underfunded trauma systems.

CONCLUSION

Much work remains to be done in the development of an American trauma system. Recommendations include implementation of trauma care governance at the federal level; national oversight and support of emergency medical services systems, particularly in rural areas with strict reporting processes for emergency medical services programs; national organization of our mass casualty response; increased federal and state funding allocated to trauma centers; a consistent model for trauma system development; and trauma research.