No abstract

Procedural time-outs are widely accepted safety standards that are protocolized in nearly all hospital systems. The trauma time-out, however, has been largely unstudied in the existing literature and does not have a standard protocol outlined by any of the major trauma surgery organizations. The goal of this study was to evaluate our institution's use of the trauma time-out and assess how trauma team members viewed its effectiveness. A multiple-answer survey was sent to trauma team members at a Level I trauma center. Questions included items directed at background, experience, opinions, and write-in responses. Most responders were experienced trauma team members who regularly participated in trauma codes. All respondents noted the total time required to complete the time-out was less than 5 min, with the majority saying it took less than 1 min. Seventy-five percent agreed that trauma time-outs should continue, with 92% noting that it improved understanding of patient presentation and prehospital evaluation. Seventy-seven percent said it improved understanding of other team member's roles, and 75% stated it improved patient care. Subgroups of physicians and nurses were statistically similar; yet, physicians did note that it improved their understanding of the team member's function more frequently than nurses. The trauma time-out can be an excellent tool to improve patient care and team understanding of the incoming trauma patient. Although used widely at multiple levels of trauma institutions, development of a documented protocol can be the next step in creating a unified safety standard.

Post-traumatic fluid management is a widely debated topic. No best-practice consensus exists. Adverse outcomes such as acute kidney injury or volume overload are common. Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is an adjunct therapy for severe acute renal failure and volume overload, but is costly and not without risk. Hemodynamic transesophageal echocardiography (hTEE) is widely accepted as a reliable way to monitor volume status of intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Although data exist evaluating hTEE and CRRT independently, there is a lack of research mutually inclusive of the two. We hypothesized that the use of hTEE is associated with less need for CRRT. Retrospective review of a level I trauma center from 2009 to 2015 identified patients that required CRRT. In 2013, we implemented a protocol using hTEE in trauma patients with significant resuscitation needs. We compared CRRTuse before and after implementation of the protocol (pre- and post-hTEE). Multivariate analysis using two sample t tests and χ2 test of the odds ratio (O.R.) was completed on variables such as injury severity score (ISS), acute kidney injury network (AKIN), days of CRRT, ICU length of stay (LOS), and hospital LOS. A total of 5037 and 6699 trauma patients were evaluated in the pre- and post-hTEE groups, respectively. Mean ISS was 22 and 28 for pre- and post-hTEE, respectively (P value 0.19). Mean AKIN was 2.7 for both groups. Mean days on CRRT was eight before hTEE and seven after hTEE (P value 0.7); 23 patients required CRRT pre-hTEE, and 15 required CRRT post-hTEE (P value 0.01 O.R. 2.4). Given, the odds of CRRT pre-hTEE are more than twice that of CRRT post-hTEE; we conclude that the use of hTEE is associated with a reduction of CRRT.

No abstract

Brief Reports should be submitted online to www.editorialmanager.com/ amsurg. (See details online under ''Instructions for Authors''.) They should be no more than 4 double-spaced pages with no Abstract or sub-headings, with a maximum of four (4) references. If figures are included, they should be limited to two (2). The cost of printing color figures is the responsibility of the author.In general, authors of case reports should use the Brief Report format.

No abstract

No abstract