Variations in the implementation of acute care surgery

Abstract

BACKGROUND To date, no studies have reported nationwide adoption of Acute Care Surgery (ACS) or identified structural and/or process variations for the care of emergency general surgery (EGS) patients within such models. METHODS We surveyed surgeons responsible for EGS coverage at University HealthSystems Consortium hospitals using an 8-page postal/email questionnaire querying respondents on hospital and EGS structure/process measures. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, univariate comparisons, and multivariable regression models. RESULTS 258 of 319 (81%) potential respondents completed surveys. 81 hospitals (31%) had implemented ACS while 134 (52%) had a traditional general surgeon on-call model (GSOC). 38 (15%) hospitals had another model (HYBRID). Larger bed, university-based, teaching hospitals with Level 1 trauma center verification status located in urban areas were more likely to have adopted ACS. In multivariable modeling, hospital type, setting, and trauma center verification predicted ACS implementation. EGS processes of care varied with 28% GSOC having block time vs 67% ACS (p<0.0001); 45% GSOC providing ICU care to EGS patients in a surgical/trauma ICU vs 93% ACS (p<0.0001); GSOC sharing call among 5.7 (+/− 3.2) surgeons vs 7.9 (+/−2.3) ACS surgeons (p<0.0001); and 13% GSOC taking in-house EGS call vs 75% ACS (p<0.0001). Among ACS hospitals there were variations in patient cohorting (25% EGS patients alone; 21% EGS+trauma; 17% EGS+elective; 30% EGS+trauma+elective), data collection (26% had prospective EGS registries), and patient handoffs (56% had attending surgeon presence), call responsibilities (averaging 4.8 (+/− 1.3) calls per month with 60% providing extra call stipend and 40% with no post-call clinical duties). CONCLUSION The potential of the ACS on the national crisis in access to EGS care is not fully met. Variations in EGS processes of care among adopters of ACS suggest that standardized criteria for ACS implementation, much like trauma center verification criteria, may be beneficial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Survey results, Level III

The impact of acute care surgery on appendicitis outcomes

“…This is likely due to the fact that hospitals adopting ACS are more likely to take on that role across many diagnoses (e.g. urban, larger inpatient bed capacity, higher trauma center verification) (29, 30). …”

“…The survey was implemented using a hybrid postal and email methodology targeting a single senior surgeon at each hospital who would be able to respond to queries regarding the structures and processes for EGS care at their hospital as described previously (30). The survey was implemented from June 2013 to November 2013.…”

Impact of Adaptive Thermogenesis in Mice on the Treatment of Obesity

“…Adipose tissues, both WAT and BAT, are highly affected during obesity. These alterations include adipocyte hyperplasia and hypertrophy [100], endoplasmic reticulum stress [101], oxidative stress [102], fibrosis [100] and mitochondrial dysfunction [103], among others. Obesity is associated with severe disorders such as cardiovascular disease, dyslipidemia, T2D or even some forms of cancer.…”

Time for metrics in emergency surgical care – the role of an emergency surgery registry

“…The barriers to achieving high-quality, safe, and effective emergency general surgical care across health systems are manifold and multifactorial. Within the United States of America previous indications [1] had suggested that specific national quality targets for EGS were being realised. This work had advocated the application of a quality improvement approach, founded upon the Donabedian Model, and introduction of accepted guidelines to EGS care.…”