Throughput analysis of trauma resuscitations with financial impact.

OBJECTIVES: In an era of diminishing reimbursement, efficient resource utilization is paramount. The effects of three parallel factors were tracked: (a) coordinated physician-hospital patient care, (b) increasing physician awareness of resources, and (c) in-house trauma attendings. DESIGN: Observational study. METHODS: A Windows-based database application was made to track all resuscitations at a Level I adult/pediatric trauma center. Time data were immediately entered upon discharge from the resuscitation bay, and further data (Injury Severity Score, length of stay, and mortality) were obtained by linking to a concurrent trauma registry. Group I was a 6-month control. Group II reflects factors a and b, and group III adds factor c, each contributing 3 months of additional data. Statistical comparisons were made using analysis of variance and Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: There were 2,546 resuscitations with 1,201, 636, and 709 in groups I, II, and III, respectively. The five most frequent dispositions, resuscitation times, and hospital costs were analyzed. CONCLUSIONS: Given similar patient groups, factors a and b together and factor c improved throughput in the resuscitation bay by approximately 35% (5-133 min) each. Hospital costs concurrently decreased with no rise in mortality.

The impact of selective laboratory evaluation on utilization of laboratory resources and patient care in a level-I trauma center.

BACKGROUND: Routine laboratory evaluation of preoperative patients has not been shown to be cost effective when a detailed history and physical examination are performed. However, since such a detailed history is not possible in trauma patients, the time-honored approach has been for laboratory evaluation to be protocol driven. The cost-benefit ratio of this practice has never been evaluated. METHODS: Trauma patients who underwent routine laboratory evaluation (n = 552; group I) were compared with patients who had laboratory evaluation based on clinical need (n = 603; group II). A concurrent review of each case in group II was conducted every day while a retrospective review of charts was conducted for patients in group I to determine patient care issues and identify abnormal trauma center test results. RESULTS: The number of patients with laboratory tests decreased from 97% in group I to 27% in group II (P < 0.0001). Positive chemistry profiles increased (55% versus 92%; P < 0.0001) as did coagulation profiles (8% versus 33%; P < 0.0001). There were no differences in the percentage of patients receiving intervention based on laboratory data (7% in group I versus 8% in group II). No adverse effect on patient care was identified as a result of absent laboratory information in group II. Mortality, length of stay, and intensive care unit days were statistically unchanged. There was an annualized savings of $1.5 million in billed trauma center laboratory charges in group II. CONCLUSION: Selective laboratory evaluation of trauma patients can greatly reduce medical cost and does not adversely affect care.