Readmission of any patient to the hospital is considered a quality indicator. Was the patient discharged too soon for some reason? Were there any missed or undertreated injuries? Information from the Medicare system in the US (remember, this represents an older age group than the usual trauma patient) indicates that 18% of patients are readmitted and 13% of these are potentially preventable.
A non-academic Level II trauma center in Indiana retrospectively reviewed their admissions and readmissions over a 3 year period and excluded patients who were readmitted on a planned basis (surgery), with a new injury, and those who died. This left about 5,000 patients for review. Of those, 98 were identified as unexpected readmissions.
There were 6 major causes for readmission:
- Wound (23) – cellulitis, abscess, thrombophlebitis. Two thirds required surgery, and 4 required amputation. All of these amputations were lower extremity procedures in obese or morbidly obese patients.
- Abdominal (16) – ileus, missed injury, abscess. Five required a non-invasive procedure (mainly endoscopy). Only 2 required OR, and both were splenectomy for spleen infarction after angioembolization.
- Pulmonary (7) – pneumonia, empyema, pneumothorax, effusion. Two patients required an invasive procedure (decortication, tube placement).
- Thromboembolic (4) – DVT and PE. Two patients were admitted with DVT, 2 with PE, and 1 needed surgery for a bleed due to anticoagulation.
- CNS (21) – mental status or peripheral neuro exam change. Eight had subdural hematomas that required drainage; 3 had spine fractures that failed nonoperative management.
- Hematoma (5) – enlargement of a pre-existing hematoma. Two required surgical drainage.
About 14% of readmissions were considered to be non-preventable by a single senior surgeon. Wound complications had the highest preventability and CNS changes the lowest. Half occurred prior to the first followup visit, which was typically scheduled 2-3 weeks after discharge. This prompted the authors to change their routine followup to 7 days.
Bottom line: This retrospective study suffers from the usual weaknesses. However, it is an interesting glimpse into a practice with fewer than the usual number patients lost to followup. The readmission rate was 2%, which is pretty good. One in 7 were considered “preventable.” Wounds and pulmonary problems were the biggest contributors. I recommend that wound and pulmonary status be thoroughly assessed prior to discharge to bring this number down further. Personally, I would not change the routine followup date to 1 week, because most patients have far more complaints that are of little clinical importance than compared to 2 weeks after discharge.
Reference: Readmission of trauma patients in a nonacademic Level II trauma center. J Trauma 72(2):531-536, 2012.
I’ve put together another issue of miscellaneous, interesting stuff!
In this issue, learn about:
- The effect of ambulance deceleration on ICP in head injury patients
- An interesting technique for sealing vacuum systems applied around external fixators
- An analysis of thrombotic events following TXA administration
- The utility of a second head CT in patients taking DOACs
To download the current issue, just click here!
Or copy this link into your browser: https://www.traumameded.com/courses/more-potpourri-july-21/
This newsletter was released to subscribers over a week ago. If you would like to be the first to get your hands on future newsletters, just click here to subscribe!
Over the years I’ve seen a number of trauma professionals, both surgeons and emergency physicians, order liver transaminases (SGOT, SGPT) and bilirubin in patients with liver laceration. I’ve never been clear on why, so I decided to check it out. As it turns out, this is another one of those “old habits die hard” phenomena.
Liver lacerations, by definition, are disruptions of the liver parenchyma. Liver tissue and bile ducts of various size are both injured. Is it reasonable to expect that liver function tests would be elevated? A review of the literature follows the typical pattern. Old studies with very few patients.
From personal hands-on observations, the liver tissue itself tears easily, but the ducts are a lot tougher. It is fairly common to see small, intact ducts bridging small tears in the substance of the liver. However, larger injuries can certainly disrupt major ducts, leading to major problems. But I’ve never seen obstructive problems develop from this injury.
A number of papers (very small, retrospective series) have shown that transaminases can rise with liver laceration. However, they do not rise reliably enough to be a good predictor of either having an injury, or the degree of injury. Similarly, bilirubin can be elevated, but usually not as a direct result of the injury. The most common causes are breakdown of transfused or extravasated blood, or from critical care issues like sepsis, infection, and shock.
Bottom line: Don’t bother to get liver function tests in patients with known or suspected injury. Only a CT scan can help you find and/or grade the injury. And never blame an elevated bilirubin on the injury. Start searching for other causes, because they will end up being much more clinically significant.
- Evaluation of liver function tests in screening for intra-abdominal injuries. Ann Emerg Med 20(8):838-841, 1991.
- Markers for occult liver injury in cases of physical abuse in children. Pediatrics 89(2):274-278.
- Combination of white blood cell count with liver enzymes in the diagnosis of blunt liver laceration. Am J Emerg Med 28(9):1024-1029, 2010.
I’m excited to be a part of the upcoming 8th Annual Excellence in Trauma Care Conference, sponsored by Intermountain Healthcare in Salt Lake City! I was a speaker last year, virtually.
This will be my first in-person conference since before the pandemic! I’m very excited to attend and give not one, but two talks this year. It is being held physically at the Zermatt Utah Resort & Spa in Midway, Utah. It will also be live online for those who are unable to travel.
This is a fun conference with lots of interesting talks and speakers. You can download the full brochure by clicking here. I will be giving two talks:
- World class trauma care – a team sport. I will be talking about best practices for the numerous “teams” that take care of trauma patients.
- Trauma Mythbusters Part Deux – yet more myths to be busted!
I hop to see you there, or at least in the online audience. Check it out!
8th Annual Excellence in Trauma Care Conference
click here for meeting info
In this day and age of ride sharing apps like Uber and Lyft, it is possible to get a cheap ride virtually anywhere there is car service and a smart phone. And of course, some people have used these services for transportation to the hospital in lieu of an ambulance ride. What might the impact be of ride services on patient transport, for both patient and EMS?
Ambulance rides are expensive. Depending on region, they may range from $500-$5000. And although insurance may reduce the out of pocket cost, it can still be expensive. So what are the pros vs the cons of using Uber or Lyft for medical transport?
- Ride shares are inexpensive compared to an ambulance ride
- They may arrive more quickly because they tend to circulate around an area, as opposed to using a fixed base
- Riders may select their preferred hospital without being overridden by EMS (although it may be an incorrect choice)
- May reduce EMS usage for low acuity patients
- No professional medical care available during the ride
- May end up being slower due to lack of lights and siren
- Damage fees of $250+ for messing up the car
A very interesting paper suggests that ambulance service calls decreased by 7% after the introduction of UberX rides. The authors mapped out areas where UberX rides were launching, and examined emergency response data in these areas. They used a complex algorithm to examine trends over time in over 700 cities in the US, and used several techniques to try to account for other factors. Here is a chart of the very fascinating results:
Bottom line: Uber and Lyft are just another version of the “arrival by private vehicle” paradigm. Use of these services relies on the customer/patient having very good judgment and insight into their medical conditions and care needs. And from personal experience, this is not always the case. I would not encourage the general public to use these services for medical transport, and neither do the companies themselves!
Reference: Did UberX Reduce Ambulance Volume? Health Econ 28(7)L817-829, 2019.