Factors Associated With Pelvic Infection After Pre-Peritoneal Pelvic Packing for Hemodynamically Unstable Pelvic Fractures.

Background: Preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) and external fixation has led to improved mortality after devastating pelvic trauma. However, there is limited literature on infection after this intervention. We aim to study the risk factors associated with pelvic infection after PPP. Patients and Methods: A retrospective review of patients who underwent PPP at a single level 1 trauma center was performed. Results: Over the 18-year study period, 222 patients were identified. Twenty-three percent of patients had an open fracture. Pelvic angiography was performed in 24% of patients with 16% requiring angioembolization (AE). The average time to packing removal was two (one to two days) days, although 10% of patients had their pelvis re-packed. Overall infection rate was 14% (n = 31); if pelvic re-packing was performed, the infection rate increased to 45%. Twenty-two of the patients with an infection required additional procedures for their infection, and ultimately hardware removal occurred in eight patients. On univariable analysis, patients with pelvic infections had more open fractures (55% vs. 17%; p < 0.01), underwent AE more frequently (29% vs. 14%; p = 0.04), were more likely to undergo repacking (32% vs. 6%; p < 0.01), and had packing in place for longer (2 [1,2] vs. 2 [2,3]; p = 0.01). On logistic multivariable regression analysis, open fracture (odds ratio [OR], 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.4-14.1) and pelvic re-packing (OR, 4.7; 95% CI, 1.2-18.5) were independent risk factors for pelvic infection. Conclusions: Pelvic infection after PPP is a serious complication independently associated with open fracture and re-packing of the pelvis. Re-intervention was required in most patients with infection.

Handoffs and Transitions of Care: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Practice Management Guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma.

BACKGROUND: The Joint Commission reports at least half of communication breakdowns occur during handovers or transitions of care. There is no consensus on how best to approach the transfer of care within Acute Care Surgery (ACS). We conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the current data on handoffs and transitions of care in ACS patients and evaluate the impact of standardization and formalized communication processes. METHODS: Clinically relevant questions regarding handoffs and transitions of care with clearly defined patient Population(s), Intervention(s), Comparison(s), and appropriately selected Outcomes (PICO) were determined. These centered around specific transitions of care within the setting of ACS - specifically perioperative interactions, EMS and trauma team interactions, and intra/inter floor and ICU interactions. A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted utilizing the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were identified for analysis. These included 5,113 patients in the standardized handoff group and 5,293 in the current process group. Standardized handoffs reduced handover errors for perioperative interactions and preventable adverse events for intra/inter floor and ICU interactions. There was insufficient data to evaluate outcomes of clinical complications and medical errors. CONCLUSION: We conditionally recommend a standardized handoff in in the field of ACS, including perioperative interactions, EMS and trauma team interactions, as well as intra-inter floor and ICU interactions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Guideline; Systematic review/meta-analysis, Level III.

Contemporary management and outcomes of penetrating colon injuries: Validation of the 2020 AAST Colon Organ Injury Scale.

INTRODUCTION: The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Colon Organ Injury Scale (OIS) was updated in 2020 to include a separate OIS for penetrating colon injuries and included imaging criteria. In this multicenter study, we describe the contemporary management and outcomes of penetrating colon injuries and hypothesize that the 2020 OIS system correlates with operative management, complications, and outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients presenting to 12 Level 1 trauma centers between 2016 and 2020 with penetrating colon injuries and Abbreviated Injury Scale score of <3 in other body regions. We assessed the association of the new OIS with surgical management and clinical outcomes and the association of OIS imaging criteria with operative criteria. Bivariate analysis was done with χ 2 , analysis of variance, and Kruskal-Wallis, where appropriate. Multivariable models were constructed in a stepwise selection fashion. RESULTS: We identified 573 patients with penetrating colon injuries. Patients were young and predominantly male; 79% suffered a gunshot injury, 11% had a grade V destructive injury, 19% required ≥6 U of transfusion, 24% had an Injury Severity Score of >15, and 42% had moderate-to-large contamination. Higher OIS was independently associated with a lower likelihood of primary repair, higher likelihood of resection with anastomosis and/or diversion, need for damage-control laparotomy, and higher incidence of abscess, wound infection, extra-abdominal infections, acute kidney injury, and lung injury. Damage control was independently associated with diversion and intra-abdominal and extra-abdominal infections. Preoperative imaging in 152 (27%) cases had a low correlation with operative findings ( κ coefficient, 0.13). CONCLUSION: This is the largest study to date of penetrating colon injuries and the first multicenter validation of the new OIS specific to these injuries. While imaging criteria alone lacked strong predictive value, operative American Association for the Surgery of Trauma OIS colon grade strongly predicted type of interventions and outcomes, supporting use of this grading scale for research and clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Stop Flying the Patients! Evaluation of the Overutilization of Helicopter Transport of Trauma Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Helicopter transport is a resource intensive and expensive method for transportation of patients by helicopter. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of helicopter transport determined by procedural care within 1-h of transfer at an urban level I trauma center. METHODS: All trauma patients transported by helicopter from January 2015-December 2017 to an urban level I trauma center from referring hospitals or the scene were retrospectively analyzed. A subgroup analysis was performed evaluating patients that required a procedure or operation within 1-h of transport compared with the remainder of the patient cohort who were transported via helicopter. RESULTS: A total of 1590 patients were transported by helicopter. Thirty-nine percent of patients (n = 612) were admitted directly to the floor from the trauma bay and 16% (n = 249) of patients required only observation or were discharged home after helicopter transfer. Approximately one-third of the entire study cohort (36%, n = 572) required any procedure, with a median time to procedure of 31.5 h (interquartile range 54.4). Only 13% (n = 74) required a procedure within 1-h of helicopter transport. The average distance (in miles) if the patient had been driven by ground transport rather than helicopter was 67.0 miles (SD ± 27.9) and would take an estimated 71.5 min (±28.4) for patients who required a procedure within 1-h compared with 61.6 miles (SD ± 30.9) with an estimated 66.1 min (SD ± 30.8) for the remainder of the cohort (P value 0.899 and 0.680, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis demonstrates that helicopter transport was not necessary for the vast majority of trauma patients transported via helicopter.

Radioactive seed vs wire localization for nonpalpable breast lesions: A single institution review.

The aim of this study was to compare wire localization (WL) and radioactive seed localization (RSL) for nonpalpable breast lesions with regard to margin status, re-excision rate, procedure length, and complications related to localization. A retrospective review of the electronic health records at a single institution was performed. There was no difference in re-excision rate, margin positivity, volume of tissue removed, and complication rate for RSL vs WL (P = 0.9934, P = 0.9934, P = 0.6645, and P = 0.4716 respectively). The only difference was a longer OR time, RSL = 104.408 minutes vs WL = 82.386 minutes. (P = 0.0163). RSL and WL are comparable techniques for localization of nonpalpable breast lesions.

Continuous Cardiac Monitoring Policy Implementation: Three-year Sustained Decrease of Hospital Resource Utilization.

Inappropriate cardiac monitoring leads to increased hospital resource utilization and alarm fatigue, which is ultimately detrimental to patient safety. Our institution implemented a continuous cardiac monitoring (CCM) policy that focused on selective monitoring for patients based on the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines. The primary goal of this study was to perform a three-year median follow-up review on the longitudinal impact of a selective CCM policy on usage rates, length of stay (LOS), and mortality rates across the medical center. A secondary goal was to determine the effect of smaller-scale interventions focused on reeducating the nursing population on the importance of cardiac alarms. A system-wide policy was developed at The Ohio State University in December 2013 based on guidelines for selective CCM in all patient populations. Patients were stratified into Critical Class I, II, and III with 72 hours, 48 hours, or 36 hours of CCM, respectively. Pre- and post-implementation measures included average cardiac monitoring days (CMD), emergency department (ED) boarding rate, mortality rates, and LOS. A 12-week evaluation period was analyzed prior to, directly after, and three years after implementation. There was an overall decrease of 53.5% CMDs directly after implementation of selective CCM. This had remained stable at the three-year follow-up with slight increase of 0.5% (p = 0.2764). Subsequent analysis by hospital type revealed that the largest and most stable reductions in CMD were in noncardiac hospitals. The cardiac hospital CMD reduction was stable for roughly one year, then dipped into a lower stable level for nine months, then returned to the previous post-implementation levels. This change coincided with a smaller intervention to further reduce CMD in the cardiac hospital. There was no significant change in mortality rates with a slight decrease of 3.1% at follow-up (p = 0.781). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in LOS with a slight increase of 1.1% on follow-up (p = 0.649). However, there was a significant increase in ED boarding rate of 7.7% (p < 0.001) likely due to other hospital factors altering boarding times. Implementing selective CCM decreases average cardiac monitoring rate without affecting LOS or overall mortality rate. Selective cardiac monitoring is also a sustainable way to decrease overall hospital resource utilization and more appropriately focus on patient care.

Long-Term Results After Lung Volume Reduction Surgery: A Single Institution's Experience.

BACKGROUND: The National Emphysema Treatment Trial (NETT) showed a clear survival and quality of life benefit for patients selected for lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS). However, long-term outcomes after LVRS are still lacking. The aim of this study was to evaluate overall mortality and functional durability in this single-institution cohort of patients undergoing LVRS. METHODS: A single-institution registry identified all patients who had undergone LVRS from January 2006 through August 2017. Records were retrospectively reviewed, and data were collected to include pulmonary functions test values, he University of California, San Diego shortness of breath questionnaire and complication and mortality rate. RESULTS: LVRS was performed in 135 patients with a 2.2% 90-day mortality rate (n = 3). Estimated 1-, 2- and 5-year survival was 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88 to 0.97), 0.91 (95% CI, 0.83 to 0.95), and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.57 to 0.81), respectively. Mean improvement in forced expiratory volume in 1 second% predicted from preoperative baseline at 1 and 2 years was 5.3 (95% CI, 3.1 to 7.4) and 4.3 (95% CI, 1.9 to 6.6), respectively. There was a mean improvement in maximum workload of 5.2 W (95% CI, 0.9 to 9.4) at 1 year. Also, shortness of breath questionnaire scores had a mean decrease of -17.3 points (95% CI, -21.8 to -13) at 6 months and -13.9 points (95% CI, -18.4 to -9.3) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: LVRS is an effective operation with overall improvement in functional status and quality of life in appropriately selected patients.

A qualitative analysis of clinical decompensation in the surgical patient: Perceptions of nurses and physicians.

BACKGROUND: There is little knowledge on how health care providers individually interpret and communicate early warning signs to other providers. The aim of the study described here was to qualitatively assess the similarities and differences in how nurses and physicians perceive early warning signs that potentially predict clinical decompensation, changes in clinical acuity in surgical patients, and need for escalation of care. METHODS: Ethnographic interviews were conducted with nurses, surgical residents, and attending surgeons on an acute care medical-surgical unit. Constant comparative analysis was used to analyze and draw conclusions from the interview data. RESULTS: There were many areas of strong agreement across all care providers including the same data analyzed, importance of temporal trends, and lower acuity level for an established patient. However, physicians differed from nurses in that their primary indicator of patient stability was their level of confidence in the current diagnosis. Nurses, however, deemed patients to be stable only when their symptoms resolved. Other differences were the methods and frequency they used to monitor unstable patients. CONCLUSION: Differences in the type of communication and clinician's mental models of acuity and stability could lead to coordination failures and adverse events. Understanding and addressing these differences has the potential to improve outcomes.

Improving the mortality index by capturing patient acuity through interprofessional real-time documentation improvement in a single hospital system.

BACKGROUND: The observed to expected mortality ratio is a standardized way for reporting inpatient mortality and is used as a measure for hospital quality rankings and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services value-based payments. The goal of this study is to describe a single institution's mortality index improvement initiative through improved documentation of patient severity. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected October 2016 through May 2017 on patients discharged from the acute care surgery, open heart surgery, neurosurgery, and University Hospital East. Mortalities were reviewed by a multidisciplinary committee for missed coding opportunities. These captured codes were adjusted based on the Vizient risk-adjustment model for mortality and the observed to expected mortality ratio was calculated. RESULTS: Every service reviewed showed improvement in the expected mortality rate. Additional coding opportunities were present in 55.6% of acute care surgery, 24.3% of neurosurgery, 18.3% of open heart surgery, and 35.3% of University Hospital East cases. A total of 70 codes were improved during the 8-month period. The acute care surgery service showed the most improvement, with a 0.45 improvement in the observed to expected mortality ratio, followed by neurosurgery, with 0.43 improvement. CONCLUSION: Institutional observed to expected mortality ratio can be improved by targeting high-acuity services and capturing coding opportunities, leading to improvement in value-based payments and rankings.