A Comprehensive Spinal Cord Injury Treatment Protocol Improves Outcomes and Decreases Complications.

BACKGROUND: Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating event with a complicated recovery. Through the use of an interdisciplinary team a comprehensive care plan was developed, utilizing all available best practices, to prevent secondary complications. Previous work has shown the benefit of single system protocols or interventions. This study aimed to assess changes in outcomes after implementation of a comprehensive protocol. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study performed at an ACS Level I trauma center. It was based on data abstract from the institutions trauma registry over a 10 year period. Patients with quadriplegia after a traumatic injury were included. Data on hospital outcomes and complications was collected and compared before and after the use of the Spinal cord injury protocol. RESULTS: 58 patients were evaluated. Overall, there was a reduction in complications after the implementation, with significant reductions in pneumonia (47% vs 16%; P = .02) and decubitus ulcers (47% to 11%; P = .005). ICU length of stay decreased by 7 days and hospital length of stay decreased 13 days. There was no difference in mortality. Hospital costs also decreased a mean of $42,000. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive SCI protocol can reduce secondary complications in quadriplegic patients. This study found significant decreases in pneumonia and decubitus ulcer rates after implementation of the protocol. Lengths of stay and cost were also significantly reduced. Future research using comprehensive SCI protocols is needed to further assess its effects on outcomes for this specific patient population. Similar centers should consider adoption of comprehensive SCI protocols.

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.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review, Economic/Decision, level III.