Interhospital transfer of blunt multiply injured patients to a level 1 trauma center does not adversely affect outcome.

BACKGROUND: Stops at nontrauma centers for severely injured patients are thought to increase deaths and costs, potentially because of unnecessary imaging and indecisive/delayed care of traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). METHODS: We studied 754 consecutive blunt trauma patients with an Injury Severity Score greater than 20 with an emphasis on 212 patients who received care at other sites en route to our level 1 trauma center. RESULTS: Referred patients were older, more often women, and had more severe TBI (all P < .05). After correction for age, sex, and injury pattern, there was no difference in the type of TBI, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) upon arrival at the trauma center, or overall mortality between referred and directly admitted patients. GCS at the outside institution did not influence promptness of transfer. CONCLUSIONS: Interhospital transfer does not affect the outcome of blunt trauma patients. However, the unnecessarily prolonged stay of low GCS patients in hospitals lacking neurosurgical care is inappropriate.

A proposal for enhancing the general surgical workforce and access to surgical care.

OBJECTIVE(S): The goals of this focused meeting were to verify and clarify the causes and extent of the general surgery (GS) workforce shortfalls. We also sought to define workable solutions within the existing framework of medical accreditation and certification. BACKGROUND: Numerous peer-reviewed and lay reports describe a current and worsening availability of GS services, affecting rural areas as well as large cities, academia, and the military. METHOD: Primary recommendations were broadly agreed upon by attendee surgeons who were selected from numerous different professional scenarios and included 2 nonmedical observers. RECOMMENDATIONS: (1) enhance the number of GS trainees and the breadth of training, (2) incorporate more flexibility and breadth in residency, (3) minimally invasive surgery should largely return to GS, (4) broader use of community hospitals in these efforts, (5) publicize loan forgiveness and improved visa status for international medical graduates going into GS, and (6) select candidates with a bias toward a general surgical career. CONCLUSION: These methods are promising approaches to this serious deficiency but will require regular reporting and publicity for the recording of actual increases in GS output.

Long-term morbidity, pain, and disability after repair of severe chest wall injuries.

Long-term morbidity after severe chest wall injuries is common. We report our experience with acute chest wall injury repair, focusing on long-term outcomes and comparing our patients' health status with the general population. We performed a retrospective medical record review supplemented with a postal survey of long-term outcomes including the McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ) and RAND-36 Health Survey. RAND-36 outcomes were compared with reference values from the Medical Outcomes Study and from the general population. Forty-six patients underwent acute chest wall repair between September 1996 and September 2005. Indications included flail chest with failure to wean from the ventilator (18 patients), acute, intractable pain associated with severely displaced rib fractures (15 patients), acute chest wall defect/deformity (5 patients), acute pulmonary herniation (3 patients), and thoracotomy for other traumatic indications (5 patients). Three patients had a concomitant sternal fracture repair. Fifteen patients with a current mean age of 60.6 years (range 30-91) responded to our surveys a mean of 48.5 +/- 22.3 months (range 19-96) postinjury. Mean long-term MPQ Pain Rating Index was 6.7 +/- 2.1. RAND-36 indices indicated equivalent or better health status compared with references with the exception of role limitations due to physical problems when compared with the general population. The operative repair of severe chest wall injuries is associated with low long-term morbidity and pain, as well as health status nearly equivalent to the general population. Both the MPQ and the RAND-36 surveys were useful tools for determining chest wall pain and disability outcomes.

Battlefield trauma, traumatic shock and consequences: war-related advances in critical care.

Over the course of history, while the underlying causes for wars have remained few, mechanisms of inflicting injury and our ability to treat the consequent wounds have dramatically changed. Success rates in treating war-related injuries have improved greatly, although the course of progress has not proceeded linearly. From Homer's Iliad to the Civil War to Vietnam, there have been significant improvements in mortality, despite a concurrent increase in the lethality of weapons. These improvements have occurred primarily as a result of progress in three key areas: management of wounds, treatment of shock, and systems of organization.

Rib fracture repair: indications, technical issues, and future directions.

Rib fracture repair has been performed at selected centers around the world for more than 50 years; however, the operative indications have not been established and are considered controversial. The outcome of a strictly nonoperative approach may not be optimal. Potential indications for rib fracture repair include flail chest, painful, movable rib fractures refractory to conventional pain management, chest wall deformity/defect, rib fracture nonunion, and during thoracotomy for other traumatic indication. Rib fracture repair is technically challenging secondary to the human rib's relatively thin cortex and its tendency to fracture obliquely. Nonetheless, several effective repair systems have been developed. Future directions for progress on this important surgical problem include the development of minimally invasive techniques and the conduct of multicenter, randomized trials.

US Trauma Center Preparation for a Terrorist Attack in the Community.

BACKGROUND: Since the 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, federal and state funding, primarily from the National Bioterrorism Hospital Preparedness Program, has resulted in a surge of hospital activity to prepare for future natural or human-caused catastrophes. Trauma centers were integrally involved in the response to the 2001 attacks as first receivers of patients, communication hubs, and as convergence sites for families, the worried well, volunteers, and donors. After the Madrid train station terrorist attack, Congress identified the need to study trauma center preparedness as an essential part of the nation's emergency management system. METHODS: The NFTC received a one-year grant funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC/NCIPC) to survey the capability and capacity of trauma centers to respond successfully to mass casualty incidents, particularly those brought about by acts of terrorism. This report summarizes responses to a US CDC/NCIPC-funded survey, R 49 CE000792-01, sent to all designated or verified Level I and II trauma centers in the US, to which 33% or 175 trauma centers replied. RESULTS: The results are categorized by preparedness scoring, vulnerability, threats, and funding. Planning communication, surge capacity, diversion, sustainability, special populations, and finance represent additional categories examined in the survey. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma centers are a major resource in disaster management. One-hundred and seventy-five centers candidly reported their resources and vulnerabilities. This inventory should be expanded to all trauma centers and recommendations for change as discussed.

The medical world is flat too.

BACKGROUND: Tom Friedman, in his book,"The World is Flat," makes a very persuasive argument that our current economic policy transcends national boundaries. Friedman describes various processes that prove his point. These include workflow software, open sourcing, outsourcing, off-shoring, supply chaining, in-sourcing, and informing. The United States already outsources surgery. In this article, I give the retail surgical rates and discount rates of the US, and compare them to that of the same surgery in India, Thailand, and Singapore. Supply chaining is another example that applies to the field of medicine, particularly pharmaceuticals. Most pharmaceutical firms are located in developed countries, but 80% of the pharmaceuticals are manufactured in developing countries. A phenomenon that may be unique to the United States is that we off-shore some of our diagnostic capabilities, primarily during out nighttime hours. Under the rubric of "Nighthawk," X-rays, including CT scans, are digitized and sent to Australia, Spain, and other countries during our nighttime hours. A diagnosis is made and sent back to the referring hospital in the US, usually within 30 minutes. I think an argument can be made that almost all of the issues that Friedman talks about in his book, apply to the field of medicine. Trauma care is a microcosm of medicine and uses most of the resources shared by other specialties. The trauma patient has to be identified and ambulances called, usually by 911 or similar numeric systems in other countries. The patient is transported to an emergency room, and if the injury is severe, admitted for acute care, which often requires surgery, intensive care, and ward care. When possible, the patient is discharged home, but is often sent to a rehabilitation facility or a nursing home. To improve trauma care and outcome, surgeons have turned to the organization and system approach that has been so successful in military situations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An extensive review of the surgical and public health papers relating to trauma was carried out. This article is an inventory of how trauma systems are progressing in different countries and whether they are effective. Some of the pitfalls that globalization may bring are also discussed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: For the last 100 years, there has been gradual improvement in care of the civilian patients, as a system approach similar to the military care of injured patients has been introduced and matured. These systems include prehospital care, acute care, rehabilitation; ideally, using a public health approach, preventive components are also utilized. Research is another component that is key in improving patient outcomes.

The emerging crisis in trauma care: a history and definition of the problem.

The crisis in patient access to emergency surgical care as articulated by the Division of Advocacy and Health Policy of the American College of Surgeons is real. It is most likely that in the next 10 years this crisis will only get worse. At last count, there were 190 Level I trauma centers in the United States, of which, 48 have been verified by the American College of Surgeons. There are 263 Level II centers, of which, 51 have been verified. These centers provide approximately 50% of tertiary trauma care in the United States. The data is overwhelming that they do make a difference in outcome. Neurosurgical professional societies participated with the American College of Surgeons in developing the recent white paper from the Division of Advocacy and Health Policy. It is now time to solve the crisis, and neurosurgery should step up to the plate and provide coverage for Level I and Level II trauma centers at a reasonable cost. Furthermore, neurosurgery should be involved in continuing to help to solve the crisis that currently exists. If neurosurgery cannot or does not want to provide coverage, they should let other surgeons provide coverage.

Regional differences in outcomes for hospitalized injured patients.

BACKGROUND: Our goal was to use a hospital population-based data set that was a sample of all injured patients admitted to a hospital in the United States to develop universal measures of outcome and processes of care. METHODS: Patients with a primary discharge diagnosis of injury (ICD-9 800 to 959) in the HCUP/Nationwide Inpatient Sample for the years 1995 to 2000 were used to estimate the annual number of hospitalized injured patients. Using census data, we calculated age- and sex- adjusted average annual incidence rates for four census regions in the United States: Northeast, Midwest, South and West. Outcomes measured were annual rates per million populations of hospitalization rate, death rate, and potentially ineffective care (PIC) rate defined as >28 days of hospitalization ending in death. Length of stay (LOS) was calculated as total number of days annually hospitalized for injury for census regions per million populations. RESULTS: Incidence rates per million populations and 95% confidence intervals for rate of hospitalizations for injury were: Northeast, 5596 (5338-5853); Midwest, 5516 (5316-5716); South, 5639 (5410-5869); West, 5307 (5071-5543). Incidence rates per million populations and 95% confidence intervals for rate of in-hospital deaths were: Northeast, 129 (119-139); Midwest, 131 (122-139); South, 141 (129-152); West, 114 (106-123). Incidence rates per million populations and 95% confidence intervals for rate of PIC were: Northeast, 11 (10-13); Midwest, 5 (4-5); South, 6 (5-7); West, 4 (3-4). Incidence rates per million populations and 95% confidence intervals for hospital days were: Northeast, 34 (32-36); Midwest, 30 (28-31); South, 30 (29-32); West, 26 (24-27). CONCLUSION: Regional differences in outcomes and processes of care for hospitalized injured patients exist and may be influenced by hospital characteristics and region of the country. Research to identify the factors that cause these hospital and regional variations is needed. These observations suggest that to develop a uniform standard for quality of care, it will be essential to have valid and robust hospital population-based measures.