Hand and Microvascular Replantation Call Availability Study: A National Real-time Survey of Level 1 and 2 Trauma Centers

2013 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 88-92
Author(s):  
Daniel S Mangiapani ◽  
Bret C Peterson ◽  
Ryan Kellogg ◽  
Fraser J Leversedge

ABSTRACT Purpose The inconsistency of subspecialty emergency call services is a growing concern as declining reimbursements, increased legal risk, and challenging social and professional issues present a deterrent to call panel participation. This study assessed call availability of hand and microvascular replantation surgery at all level I and II trauma centers in the US. Materials and methods Between May and December 2010, all level I (n = 137) and level II (n = 153) trauma centers across the US were contacted by telephone. Phone contact was unannounced; responders were invited to participate in our IRBapproved anonymous survey regarding hand and microvascular replantation emergency coverage specific to their hospital. Results: Level 1 centers: 117 of 137 (85%) participated, of which 64 (54.7%) had immediate access for hand surgery and microvascular replantation services. Six hospitals provided services 15 to 31 days per month and 3 hospitals supported 1 to 15 days per month. Ten hospitals indicated an inconsistent coverage which was difficult to estimate and 34 hospitals reported no coverage. Level 2 centers 132 of 153 (86.3%) participated, of which 38 (29%) had immediate access for hand surgery and microvascular replantation services. Seven hospitals provided services 15 to 31 days per month and 3 hospitals for 1 to 15 days per month. 84 hospitals reported no specific coverage protocol. Conclusion Consistent on-call availability for emergency hand and microvascular replantation services remains a challenge across the US: • 54.7% of level I trauma centers had immediate access to emergency hand and microvascular replantation services although many hospitals had intermittent coverage; • 29% of level II trauma centers had immediate access to emergency hand and microvascular replantation services although many hospitals had intermittent coverage. Over 50% had no specific coverage protocol; • Many hospitals indicated the presence of subspecialty hand surgery coverage, however microvascular replantation resources were not available consistently; • While not confirmed, the current study findings suggest that a more clearly defined and coordinated system of hand surgery and microvascular replantation emergency call coverage will likely improve the efficiency of a limited resource and, ultimately, improve patient care. Peterson BC, Mangiapani DS, Kellogg R, Leversedge FJ. Hand and Microvascular Replantation Call Availability Study: A National Real-time Survey of Level 1 and 2 Trauma Centers. The Duke Orthop J 2013;3(1):88-92.

2012 ◽  
Vol 94 (24) ◽  
pp. e185-1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bret C Peterson ◽  
Daniel Mangiapani ◽  
Ryan Kellogg ◽  
Fraser J Leversedge

2011 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 2
Author(s):  
Bret C. Peterson ◽  
Daniel Mangiapani ◽  
Ryan Kellogg ◽  
Fraser J. Leversedge

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-368
Author(s):  
Eric O. Yeates ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Sebastian D. Schubl ◽  
Catherine M. Kuza ◽  
Victor Joe ◽  
...  

Patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) are at an increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Because of concerns of worsening intracranial hemorrhage, clinicians are hesitant to start VTE chemoprophylaxis in this population. We hypothesized that ACS Level I trauma centers would be more aggressive with VTE chemoprophylaxis in adults with severe TBI than Level II centers. We also predicted that Level I centers would have a lower risk of VTE. We queried the Trauma Quality Improvement Program (2010–2016) database for patients with Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of 4 and 5 of the head and compared them based on treating the hospital trauma level. Of 204,895 patients with severe TBI, 143,818 (70.2%) were treated at Level I centers and 61,077 (29.8%) at Level II centers. The Level I cohort had a higher rate of VTE chemoprophylaxis use (43.2% vs 23.3%, P < 0.001) and a shorter median time to chemoprophylaxis (61.9 vs 85.9 hours, P < 0.001). Although Level I trauma centers started VTE chemoprophylaxis more often and earlier than Level II centers, there was no difference in the risk of VTE ( P = 0.414) after controlling for covariates. Future prospective studies are warranted to evaluate the timing, safety, and efficacy of early VTE chemoprophylaxis in severe TBI patients.


Author(s):  
Wendy Y. Rockne ◽  
Areg Grigorian ◽  
Ashton Christian ◽  
Jeffry Nahmias ◽  
Michael Lekawa ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Level Ii ◽  

2005 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 435-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. John McConnell ◽  
Craig D. Newgard ◽  
Richard J. Mullins ◽  
Melanie Arthur ◽  
Jerris R. Hedges

2016 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 735-742 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahid Shafi ◽  
Sunni Barnes ◽  
Chul Ahn ◽  
Mark R. Hemilla ◽  
H. Gill Cryer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Level Ii ◽  

2014 ◽  
Vol 77 (5) ◽  
pp. 764-768 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan G. Carr ◽  
Juliet Geiger ◽  
Nathan McWilliams ◽  
Patrick M. Reilly ◽  
Douglas J. Wiebe

2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (12) ◽  
pp. 1227-1231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron M. Lewis ◽  
Salvador Sordo ◽  
Leonard J. Weireter ◽  
Michelle A. Price ◽  
Leopoldo Cancio ◽  
...  

Mass casualty incidents (MCIs) are events resulting in more injured patients than hospital systems can handle with standard protocols. Several studies have assessed hospital preparedness during MCIs. However, physicians and trauma surgeons need to be familiar with their hospital's MCI Plan. The purpose of this survey was to assess hospitals’ and trauma surgeon's preparedness for MCIs. Online surveys were e-mailed to members of the American College of Surgeons committee on Trauma Ad Hoc Committee on Disaster and Mass Casualty Management before the March 2012 meeting. Eighty surveys were analyzed (of 258). About 76 per cent were American College of Surgeons Level I trauma centers, 18 per cent were Level II trauma centers. Fifty-seven per cent of Level I and 21 per cent of Level II trauma centers had experienced an MCI. A total of 98 per cent of respondents thought it was likely their hospital would see a future MCI. Severe weather storm was the most likely event (95%), followed by public transportation incident (86%), then explosion (85%). About 83 per cent of hospitals had mechanisms to request additional physician/surgeons, and 80 per cent reported plans for operative triage. The majority of trauma surgeons felt prepared for an MCI and believed an event was likely to occur in the future. The survey was limited by the highly select group of respondents and future surveys will be necessary.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document