Sedation Analgesia for Orthopedic Procedures: An Analysis of Cost and Length of Stay in a Level 1 Trauma Center

Objective: Previous studies looking at emergency department (ED) crowding and delays of care on outcome measures for certain medical and surgical patients excluded trauma patients. The objectives of this study were to assess the relationship of trauma patients’ ED length of stay (EDLOS) on hospital length of stay (HLOS) and on mortality; and to examine the association of ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Methods: This was a retrospective database review of Level 1 and 2 trauma patients at a single site Level 1 Trauma Center in the Midwest over a one year period. Out of a sample of 1,492, there were 1,207 patients in the analysis after exclusions. The main outcome was the difference in hospital mortality by EDLOS group (short was less than 4 hours vs. long, greater than 4 hours). HLOS was compared by EDLOS group, stratified by Trauma Injury Severity Score (TRISS) category (< 0.5, 0.51-0.89, > 0.9) to describe the association between ED and hospital capacity on EDLOS.Results: There was no significant difference in mortality by EDLOS (4.8% short and 4% long, p = .5). There was no significant difference in HLOS between EDLOS, when adjusted for TRISS. ED census did not affect EDLOS (p = .59), however; EDLOS was longer when the percentage of staffed hospital beds available was lower (p < .001).Conclusions: While hospital overcrowding did increase EDLOS, there was no association between EDLOS and mortality or HLOS in leveled trauma patients at this institution.

Download Full-text

Experience in an Urban Level 1 Trauma Center With Tranexamic Acid in Pediatric Trauma: A Retrospective Chart Review

Journal of Intensive Care Medicine ◽

10.1177/0885066619890834 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 088506661989083

Author(s):

Julie M. Thomson ◽

Hanh H. Huynh ◽

Holly M. Drone ◽

Jessica L. Jantzer ◽

Albert K. Tsai ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Length Of Stay ◽

Tranexamic Acid ◽

Trauma Center ◽

Surgical Intervention ◽

Statistical Significance ◽

Pediatric Trauma ◽

End Points ◽

Transfusion Requirements ◽

Level 1 ◽

Level 1 Trauma Center

Background: Evidence for tranexamic acid (TXA) in the pharmacologic management of trauma is largely derived from data in adults. Guidance on the use of TXA in pediatric patients comes from studies evaluating its use in cardiac and orthopedic surgery. There is minimal data describing TXA safety and efficacy in pediatric trauma. The purpose of this study is to describe the use of TXA in the management of pediatric trauma and to evaluate its efficacy and safety end points. Methods: This retrospective, observational analysis of pediatric trauma admissions at Hennepin County Medical Center from August 2011 to March 2019 compares patients who did and did not receive TXA. The primary end point is survival to hospital discharge. Secondary end points include surgical intervention, transfusion requirements, length of stay, thrombosis, and TXA dose administered. Results: There were 48 patients aged ≤16 years identified for inclusion using a massive transfusion protocol order. Twenty-nine (60%) patients received TXA. Baseline characteristics and results are presented as median (interquartile range) unless otherwise specified, with statistical significance defined as P < .05. Patients receiving TXA were more likely to be older, but there was no difference in injury type or Injury Severity Score at baseline. There was no difference in survival to discharge or thrombosis. Patients who did not receive TXA had numerically more frequent surgical intervention and longer length of stay, but these did not reach significance. Conclusions: TXA was utilized in 60% of pediatric trauma admissions at a single level 1 trauma center, more commonly in older patients. Although limited by observational design, we found patients receiving TXA had no difference in mortality or thrombosis.

Download Full-text

A Handoff Protocol for Pediatric Trauma Patients at a Rural Level One Trauma Center Reduces Length of Stay

The American Surgeon ◽

10.1177/0003134820956339 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 000313482095633

Author(s):

Evelyn Coile ◽

Kathryn Bailey ◽

Eric J. Clayton ◽

Tatiana R. Eversley Kelso ◽

Heather MacNew

Keyword(s):

Length Of Stay ◽

Trauma Center ◽

Pediatric Trauma ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Before And After ◽

Ancillary Staff ◽

Trauma Triage ◽

Level 1 ◽

Trauma Surgeons ◽

Level 1 Trauma Center

Background The management of the pediatric trauma patient is variable among trauma centers. In some institutions, the trauma surgeon maintains control of the patient throughout the hospital stay, while others transfer to a pediatric specialist after the initial evaluation and resuscitation period. We hypothesized that handoff to the pediatric surgeon would decrease the length of stay by more efficient coordination with pediatric subspecialists and ancillary staff. Methods A retrospective review from October 2014 to October 2018 was conducted at our rural level 1 trauma center analyzing the length of stay across all demographics and trauma triage levels before and after institution of a handoff protocol from adult specialized trauma surgeons to pediatric surgeons within a 24-hour window. Further analysis included emergency department (ED) disposition to include the effect of handoff on the length of stay in the setting of a higher post-ED acuity, that is, disposition of monitored beds. Results 1267 patient charts were analyzed and the mean length of stay was reduced by .38 days ( t = 5.92, P < .0005) across all demographics, trauma triage levels, post-ED dispositions, and mechanisms of injury after institution of our handoff protocol. Conclusion Handoff from adult specialized trauma surgeons to pediatric surgeons within a 24-hour window at a rural level 1 trauma center significantly improved the length of stay by .38 ( t = 5.92, P < .0005) among pediatric trauma patients in all demographics, trauma triage activations levels, mechanisms of injury, and post-ED dispositions acuity levels.

Download Full-text

Unrestricted Access to the Intravenous Tylenol Is Associated with Shorter Length of Stay in the Retrospective Cohort of Patients Treated for the Maxillofacial Trauma in a Level 1 Trauma Center

Journal of the American College of Surgeons ◽

10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2021.08.443 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 233 (5) ◽

pp. e164

Author(s):

Mindaugas Pranevicius ◽

Afshin Parsikia ◽

Howard Stupak ◽

Jody M. Kaban ◽

Benn Lieberman ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Length Of Stay ◽

Trauma Center ◽

Retrospective Cohort ◽

Maxillofacial Trauma ◽

Unrestricted Access ◽

Level 1 ◽

Level 1 Trauma Center

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of [CONFERENCE POSTER]: Outcomes of endoscopic realignment of blunt posterior urethral injuries at a Level 1 trauma center.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.11414968.12436067 ◽

2011 ◽

Author(s):

Sanjay Kulkarni

Keyword(s):

Trauma Center ◽

Level 1 ◽

Level 1 Trauma Center ◽

Urethral Injuries

Download Full-text

Identifying trauma patients with benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers

BMC Emergency Medicine ◽

10.1186/s12873-021-00487-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Charlie A. Sewalt ◽

Benjamin Y. Gravesteijn ◽

Daan Nieboer ◽

Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽

Dennis Den Hartog ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Logistic Regression ◽

Trauma Center ◽

Trauma Patients ◽

Trauma Centers ◽

Absolute Benefit ◽

Predicted Probability ◽

Prehospital Triage ◽

Level 1 ◽

Level 1 Trauma Center ◽

Level 2

Abstract Background Prehospital triage protocols typically try to select patients with Injury Severity Score (ISS) above 15 for direct transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. However, ISS does not necessarily discriminate between patients who benefit from immediate care at Level-1 trauma centers. The aim of this study was to assess which patients benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. Methods We used the American National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB), a retrospective observational cohort. All adult patients (ISS > 3) between 2015 and 2016 were included. Patients who were self-presenting or had isolated limb injury were excluded. We used logistic regression to assess the association of direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers with in-hospital mortality adjusted for clinically relevant confounders. We used this model to define benefit as predicted probability of mortality associated with transportation to a non-Level-1 trauma center minus predicted probability associated with transportation to a Level-1 trauma center. We used a threshold of 1% as absolute benefit. Potential interaction terms with transportation to Level-1 trauma centers were included in a penalized logistic regression model to study which patients benefit. Results We included 388,845 trauma patients from 232 Level-1 centers and 429 Level-2/3 centers. A small beneficial effect was found for direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers (adjusted Odds Ratio: 0.96, 95% Confidence Interval: 0.92–0.99) which disappeared when comparing Level-1 and 2 versus Level-3 trauma centers. In the risk approach, predicted benefit ranged between 0 and 1%. When allowing for interactions, 7% of the patients (n = 27,753) had more than 1% absolute benefit from direct transportation to Level-1 trauma centers. These patients had higher AIS Head and Thorax scores, lower GCS and lower SBP. A quarter of the patients with ISS > 15 were predicted to benefit from transportation to Level-1 centers (n = 26,522, 22%). Conclusions Benefit of transportation to a Level-1 trauma centers is quite heterogeneous across patients and the difference between Level-1 and Level-2 trauma centers is small. In particular, patients with head injury and signs of shock may benefit from care in a Level-1 trauma center. Future prehospital triage models should incorporate more complete risk profiles.

Download Full-text