Comparison of a standardized negative pressure wound therapy protocol after midline celiotomy to primary skin closure and traditional open wound vacuum-assisted closure management.

A negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) protocol using Hydrofera Blue® bacteriostatic foam wicks and silver-impregnated foam overlay to close midline skin incisions after emergency celiotomy was compared to primary skin closure only and traditional open wound vacuum-assisted closure management as part of a quality improvement initiative. This single-institution retrospective cohort study assessed all consecutive emergency celiotomies from July 2013 to June 2014 excluding clean wounds. Included variables were demographics, wound classification, NPWT days, and surgical site occurrences (SSOs). Primary outcome was days of NPWT. Secondary outcomes included SSOs (surgical site infections, fascial dehiscence, return to operating room). Analysis used exact chi-square between categorical variables, Kruskal-Wallis for analysis of variance for ordinal and categorical variables, and Wilcoxon rank sum for total days of NPWT. One hundred fifty-eight patients underwent emergency celiotomy with primary skin closure (n = 51), open NPWT (n = 63), or the NPWT protocol (n = 44). There was no difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status score, body mass index, wound classification, or SSO between the three groups. Total NPWT days were reduced in protocol versus open NPWT (median 3 vs 20.5 days, range 3-51 vs 3-405 days, P = 0.001). Primary skin closure and NPWT protocol had fewer patients discharged with NPWT than open NWPT (0% and 14% vs 63.5%, P < 0.0001, odds ratio = 10.7, 95% confidence interval 3.7-35.1). Primary skin closure and NPWT protocol decrease NPWT usage days and maintain low SSOs in emergency midline celiotomy incisions.

Concurrent chart review provides more accurate documentation and increased calculated case mix index, severity of illness, and risk of mortality.

BACKGROUND: Case mix index (CMI) is calculated to determine the relative value assigned to a Diagnosis-Related Group. Accurate documentation of patient complications and comorbidities and major complications and comorbidities changes CMI and can affect hospital reimbursement and future pay for performance metrics. STUDY DESIGN: Starting in 2010, a physician panel concurrently reviewed the documentation of the trauma/acute care surgeons. Clarifications of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services term-specific documentation were made by the panel, and the surgeon could incorporate or decline the clinical queries. A retrospective review of trauma/acute care inpatients was performed. The mean severity of illness, risk of mortality, and CMI from 2009 were compared with the 3 subsequent years. Mean length of stay and mean Injury Severity Score by year were listed as measures of patient acuity. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and t-test, with p < 0.05 for significance. RESULTS: Each year demonstrated an increase in severity of illness, risk of mortality, and CMI compared with baseline values (p < 0.05). Length of stay was not significantly different, reflecting similar patient populations throughout the study. Injury Severity Score decreased in 2011 and 2012 compared with 2009, reflecting a lower level of injury in the trauma population. CONCLUSIONS: A concurrent documentation review significantly increases severity of illness, risk of mortality, and CMI scores in a trauma/acute care service compared with pre-program levels. These changes reflect more accurate key word documentation rather than a change in patient acuity. The increased scores might impact hospital reimbursement and more accurately stratify outcomes measures for care providers.