The Silent Majority of Emergency General Surgery: An Assessment of Consult and Operative Volumes.

BACKGROUND: Defining the work performed by emergency general surgery (EGS) surgeons has relied on quantifying surgical interventions, failing to include nonsurgical management performed. The purpose of this study was to identify the extent of operative and nonoperative patient management provided by an EGS service line in response to consults from other hospital providers. METHODS: This is a retrospective descriptive study of all adult patients with an EGS consult request placed from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016 at a 1000-bed tertiary referral center. Consult requests were classified by suspected diagnosis and linked to patient demographic and clinical information. Operative and nonoperative cases were compared. RESULTS: About 4998 EGS consults were requested during the 2-y period, of which 69.6% were placed on the first day of the patient encounter. Disposition outcomes after consultation included admission to the EGS service (27.6%) and discharge from the emergency department (25.3%). Small bowel obstruction, appendicitis, and cholecystitis decisively comprised the top three diagnoses for overall consults and those requiring admission to the EGS service. For every consult requiring an operation (n = 1400), 2.6 consults were managed without an operation (n = 3598). CONCLUSIONS: EGS surgeons are asked to evaluate and manage a variety of potentially surgical diagnoses. As most consults do not require surgical intervention, operative volume is a poor surrogate for quantifying EGS productivity. The role of this service is vital to patient triage and disposition, particularly in the emergency department setting. Institutions should consider the volume of their nonoperative consultations when evaluating EGS service line workload and in guiding staffing needs.

Implementation of a pilot electronic stroke outcome reporting system for emergency care providers.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency department (ED) providers and clinicians find that feedback on acute stroke patients is rewarding, valuable to professional development, and helpful for practice improvement. However, feedback is rarely provided, particularly for patients with stroke. Here we describe the implementation of an electronic stroke outcome reporting tool for providing feedback to ED providers. METHODS: We sought to evaluate the implementation of an electronic stroke outcome reporting tool at 3 Nashville hospitals. ED staff and providers voluntarily enrolled to receive de-identified reports of clinical (e.g., survival) and operational (e.g., timeliness) outcomes of patients with acute ischemic stroke and were offered free continuing education (CE) credits for following up on patients. We evaluated the implementation of this system through a descriptive evaluation of the feasibility, use of the system and CE, and perceived usefulness of the reports. RESULTS: We enrolled 232 ED providers, including 107 (46%) nurses and 57 (25%) attending physicians and transmitted 55 stroke outcome reports. Reports took 30-60 min to compile and were viewed by a mean of 2.6 (SD 1.5) registered providers; 97.1% found the reports useful and 36.2% reported likelihood to change practice. Continuing education credits were initiated or claimed by 22 providers. CONCLUSIONS: An electronic stroke outcome reporting tool was used and liked by ED staff and providers but the time to compile the reports is the major challenge to scalability. Future research should address the effectiveness of this reporting tool as a source of provider education and its impact on clinical and operational outcomes.