The triad of trauma, emergency surgery, and surgical critical care: practice patterns and financial considerations

Time to surgical review: an assessment of the traditional model of emergency surgical care

BACKGROUND

The traditional model for emergency surgical care consists of an on-call team providing service to the emergency department, while simultaneously balancing the demands of elective work. Various newer models, such as the "surgeon of the week" aim to reduce the conflict between elective and emergency duties. Despite the recent focus on newer models, there remains no data on the effectiveness of the traditional model. We aim to assess the efficacy of the traditional model in a large regional hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective study between July 2009 and March 2010 was performed. Primarily, we assessed the initial time to surgical consultation after emergency department referral. Secondarily, we evaluated the impact of time periods, days of week, and case-mix etiology on this consultation time.

RESULTS

The overall median time to surgical consultation after emergency department referral was 30 min (N = 860, P = 0.709). However, the median time to consultation was 60, 30, and 20 min for daytime, evening and night time, respectively (*P < 0.001). Trauma cases had a median time of 15 min, vascular had 45 min, neoplasm had 120 min, while other categories (upper and lower gastroenterology, and skin related) were 30 min (*P = 0.025).

DISCUSSION

Newer models of acute surgical care have desirable outcomes in consultation times. However, regional and economical implications have a substantial impact on which model is feasible at local levels. We demonstrated that the traditional model still remains effective in a large sized tertiary referral unit.

Interhospital transfers of acute care surgery patients: should care for nontraumatic surgical emergencies be regionalized?

BACKGROUND

Patients with major nontraumatic surgical emergencies (NTSEs) are commonly transferred from small hospitals to tertiary care centers. We hypothesized that transferred patients (TRANS) have worse outcomes than patients with similar diagnoses admitted directly to a tertiary center (DIRECT).

METHODS

We reviewed all patients admitted to the acute care surgery service of our tertiary center (September 1, 2006-October 31, 2009) with one of eight diagnoses indicating a major NTSE. Patients transferred for reasons other than the severity of illness were excluded. Univariate and multivariable analyses compared TRANS and DIRECT patients.

RESULTS

Of 319 patients eligible for analysis, 103 (34%) were TRANS and averaged 3.8 days in the referring hospital before transfer. Compared to DIRECT patients, TRANS patients were more likely to be obese (18.5 vs. 8.0%, P = 0.006) and have cardiac (24 vs. 14%, P = 0.022) or pulmonary (25 vs. 12%, P = 0.003) co-morbidities. TRANS patients were also more likely to present to the tertiary center with hypotension (9 vs. 2%, P = 0.021), tachycardia (20 vs. 13%, P = 0.036), anemia (83 vs. 58%, P < 0.001), and hypoalbuminemia (50 vs. 14%, P < 0.001). TRANS patients had higher mortality (4.9 vs. 0.9%, P = 0.038) and longer hospital stay (8 with 5-13 days vs. 5 with 3-8 days, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

TRANS patients comprised a significant portion of the population with major NTSEs admitted to the acute care surgery service of our tertiary center. They presented with greater physiologic derangement and had worse outcomes than DIRECT patients. As is currently established for trauma care, regionalization of care for NTSEs should be considered.