The Economic Effects on Acute Care Surgery in a New York City Public Hospital During the COVID Pandemic

Background Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, less acute care surgical procedures have been performed and consequently hospitals have experienced significant revenue loss. We aim to investigate these procedures performed before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as their effect on the economy. Methods This is a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent cholecystectomies and appendectomies during March–May 2019 compared to the same time period in 2020 using Chi-square and t-tests. Results There were 345 patients who presented with appendicitis or cholecystitis to Elmhurst Hospital Center during the March–May 2019 and 2020 time period. There were three times as many total operations, or about 75%, in 2019 (261) compared to 2020 (84). There was a decrease in the number of admissions from 2019 to 2020 for both acute cholecystitis (149 vs 43, respectively) and acute appendicitis (112 vs 41, respectively). The largest decrease in the number of admissions in 2020 compared to 2019 was observed in April 2020 (98 vs 9, P < .01) followed by May [69 vs 20, P < .01], and March [94 vs 55, P < .01]. Corresponding to the decrease in operative patterns was a noticeable six-time reduction in revenue for the procedures in 2019 ($187,283) compared to 2020 ($30,415). Conclusion We observed almost a triple reduction in the number of cholecystitis and appendicitis procedures performed during the 2020 pandemic surge as compared to the 2019 pre-pandemic data. Elmhurst hospital also experienced four times the loss of revenue during the same time period.

Urgent Breast-Related Consults Seen by Acute Care Surgery at a Safety Net Hospital

Background Classically, urgent breast consults are seen by Breast Surgery or Surgical Oncology (BS/SO). At our safety net hospital, Acute Care Surgery (ACS) performs all urgent surgical consultations, including initial assessment of breast consults with coordinated BS/SO follow-up. The objective was to determine safety of ACS initial assessment of acute breast pathology. Methods All urgent breast-related consultations were included (2016-2019). Demographics, consult indications, and investigations/interventions were captured. Outcomes were compared between patients assessed by ACS versus both ACS and BS/SO at presentation. Results 234 patients met study criteria, with median age 39 years. Patients were primarily Hispanic (82%) women (96%). Most were not seen by BS/SO at presentation (69%), although BS/SO assessment was more frequent among patients ultimately diagnosed with cancer (8% vs 1%, P = .012). No patient had delay >90 days to core biopsy from presentation. Outcomes including time to cancer diagnosis (14 vs 8 days, P = .143) and outpatient BS/SO assessment (16 vs 13 days, P = .528); loss to follow-up (25% vs 21%, P = .414); and ED recidivism (24% vs 18%, P = .274) were comparable between patients seen by ACS versus ACS/BS/SO at index presentation. Conclusion Urgent breast consults at our safety net hospital typically underwent initial assessment by ACS with outpatient evaluation by BS/SO. Time to follow-up and cancer diagnosis, loss to follow-up, and ED recidivism were similar after index presentation assessment by ACS versus ACS and BS/SO. In a resource-limited environment, urgent breast consults can be safely managed in the acute setting by ACS with coordinated outpatient BS/SO follow-up.

Acute Care Surgeons Spend More Time than General Surgeons on the Electronic Health Record (EHR)

Background The paradigm of Acute Care Surgery (ACS) emerged in response to decreasing operative opportunities for trauma surgeons and increasing need for surgical coverage in disciplines to which the expertise of trauma surgeons naturally extends. While the continued evolution of this specialty remains largely beneficial, unintended consequences may have arisen along the way. One aspect of ACS that remains to be thoroughly investigated is the impact of the electronic health record (EHR). The purpose of this study is to objectively quantify EHR usage for ACS and compare it to other general surgery specialties. Methods EHR user data were collected for fifteen ACS attendings and thirty-seven general surgery attendings from October 2014 to September 2019. Comparative analysis was conducted using two-tailed t-tests. Subgroup analysis was conducted for subspecialties included in the general surgery group. Results ACS attendings opened almost 3 times as many charts as general surgery attendings per month (180 vs 64 charts/month, P < .0001), and ultimately spent more time on the EHR as a result (10 vs 6.4 hours/month, P < .0001). Documentation was the most time consuming EHR task for both groups. Although ACS attendings spent less overall time per patient chart, the proportion of time spent on certain EHR tasks was similar to that of general surgery colleagues. Discussion The EHR imposes a disproportionate burden on ACS attendings compared to their general surgery counterparts, and additional study is warranted to improve usage. EHR usage burden has workforce implications for trainees considering a career in ACS.