All posts by TheTraumaPro

The 30-Minute Rules: What Are They Exactly?

Yesterday, I talked about the new 30-minute rules for orthopedics and neurosurgery in general terms. Today, I’ll write about the who and what.

The rules state that a service representative “must be present and respond within 30 minutes based on institutional-specific criteria.” The response needs to be in person and not by phone. But who can it be? The Clarification Document states that the response can be met by an orthopedic surgery resident, mid-level provider, or the orthopedic surgeonHowever, if a resident or midlevel respond, they must document their communication with the orthopedic surgeon in their note.

The neurosurgery service representative is not as clearly spelled out. However, it is presumed that this person meets the same requirements as for orthopedics: resident, midlevel, or neurosurgeon.

The most important issue the trauma program must address is the selection of the actual criteria.  Here are some tips to guide you:

  • Select only a few. Three is a good number. Any more than this will tax your specialists.
  • Choose good criteria that your orthopedic surgeon or neurosurgeon would absolutely want to be there  in 30 minutes for. See my examples below.
  • Make sure they are very specific. Vague terms like “TBI” or “open fracture” would result in your specialist being called in way too often.
  • Ensure that the criteria do not rely on the judgement of the specialist. For example, language such as “a subdural requiring operative intervention” requires the neurosurgeon to pass judgment from home and should be avoided.
  • One exception to the previous point: futile neurotrauma care. Your neurosurgeon may review the images from outside the trauma bay and pronounce the care futile. Howeverthey should document this clearly in a note in the chart as soon as possible. And they had better not change their mind later.
  • Avoid vague language like “when requested by the trauma team.”

So what are some good criteria? Here are a few:

  • Ortho
    • Mangled extremity
    • Dysvascular limb
    • Compartment syndrome
    • Unstable pelvic fracture
    • Open pelvic fracture with external hemorrhage
  • Neurosurgery (you/they pick the exact numbers)
    • Subdural/epidural > x mm
    • Subdural/epidural with midline shift > x mm
    • Subdural/epidural with impending herniation
    • Open skull fracture with brain extrusion
    • Brain extrusion from nose/ear
    • Decrease in GCS of > x points
    • Unilateral dilated pupil with GCS < x points
    • Spinal cord injury with unstable spine

This is not a comprehensive, list, but hopefully you get the idea. Each center needs to develop their own list, with input from their specialists. Once agreed upon, these should be put into policy and approved at the trauma program operations committee.

Tomorrow: call and response.

 

Trauma Centers: The 30-Minute Rules for Orthopedic Surgery and Neurosurgery

I’m kicking of a week-long series for trauma program leaders that explains the details of a trauma center requirement that creates confusion for many. With the adoption of the 2014 Resources for Optimal Care of the Injured Patient (i.e. The Orange Book), a number of new requirements were introduced to obtain and maintain status as an American College of Surgeons verified trauma center. One (or actually two) of the requirements for Level I and II centers are known collectively as the 30-minute rules.

The 30-minute rules apply to both orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons. They state that care must be continuously available and that a service representative “must be present and respond within 30 minutes based on institutional-specific criteria.” And most who peruse the Orange Book have already realized, any phrase that contains the word must denotes that failure to meet the requirement will result in a deficiency during a site review, whereas the word shall means that it will likely result in a weakness.

For the rest of the week, I’ll work through these requirements. I will describe what they mean and what some typical institutional-specific criteria are. I will explain who is actually required to respond. I’ll work through the logistics of being able to accurately record their response time, and offer best practices for how to capture it. And finally, I’ll look at the consequences of not meeting these criteria.

Tomorrow: Typical criteria for orthopedic surgery and orthopedics.

 

Mistaken Identity In Trauma Care

There was a well-publicized and tragic case of mistaken identity after a motor vehicle crash in Indiana a number of years ago. A van carrying several college students and staff crashed, resulting in multiple fatalities at the scene. Survivors were transported to a Michigan trauma center, and it wasn’t until five weeks later that the identity mixup was discovered.

One of the fatally injured students and one of the survivors were both female, blonde, and about the same height and size. Their identities were not confirmed because the next of kin of the deceased was advised not to look at the body. And the face of the surviving woman was significantly contused and she had sustained multiple facial fractures. She remained comatose and intubated for over month after the other was buried (by the wrong family, it turns out). After extubation, she began correcting people who called her by the deceased woman’s name, and the correct identification was finally made.

How can this happen?! It’s not as difficult as it might seem, for a number of reasons:

  • Faces and identifying marks may be mutilated
  • Position in the vehicle may be mistaken
  • Bystander descriptions are notoriously inaccurate in these situations

It is neither practical nor safe to delay transport from the scene in the interest of obtaining positive identification. And hospitals have even less information than prehospital providers, whom they rely on almost exclusively for accurate data.

What can be done to avoid a case of mistaken identity? EMS and hospitals must develop protocols to follow in any case where multiple patients are treated at once. The baseline assumption must be that the identities are unclear or unknown until definitively made, and preferably from multiple sources. What are these definitive items?

  • An official ID that is still on the victim’s person (not cut off in the clothes)
  • Self identification
  • Visual identification from someone who personally knows the victim and views or talks to them
  • Written description, where the patients have very different identifying characteristics

However, remember that every one of these can be made in error. This is why multiple sources are so important. If in doubt, the patients should remain a “Doe” and not be given a real name.

If you have specific protocols or policies, please share them with me by email so I can post them!

Trends In IVC Filter Placement And Retrieval

Yesterday, I reviewed a paper that highlighted a single-institution experience for IVC filter usage. Today, let’s look at a much larger pool of data.

Placement of a filter in the inferior vena cava (IVC) is one of the many tools for managing pulmonary embolism. There was a significant increase in filter placement during the 1990s and 2000s due to a broadening of the indications for its use.  There has been continuing debate over the complications and efficacy of use of this device.

A paper from NYU Langone Health in New York City, the Harvey L. Neiman Health Policy Institute, and Georgia Institute of Technology School of Economics looked a long-term trends in IVC filter use in the Medicare population. They scanned a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) database over the 22 year period from 1994 to 2015. They specifically analyzed trends in insertion, removal, placement setting, and specialty of the inserting physician.

Here are the factoids:

  • 2008 seemed to be the heyday of IVC filter insertion. Rates nearly tripled by 2008, but have declined about 40% since then (see below). Pay attention to the retrieval rates.

  • Overall, filters were most commonly placed by radiologists, followed by surgeons and cardiologists. Here’s the diagram above broken down by specialty.

  • This chart shows the market share of each specialists inserting IVC filters during the study period. Of note, radiologists continue to increase and surgeons are decreasing.

Bottom line: This study shows some interesting data, but can’t be completely applied to trauma patients because it focuses on Medicare recipients. But the trends are valid. IVC filter use peaked in 2008 and has been declining ever since. Radiologists place more filters than other specialties, and their market share continues to increase.

Most disturbing is the low filter retrieval rate, similar to what was seen in yesterday’s post. Device manufacturers recommend removal of most filters, but timeframes are not specified. The real bottom line is that we have an indwelling device which works well in very limited situations only, can cause long term complications, and that we frequently forget to remove. It behooves all trauma professionals to develop strict guidelines for both use and removal.

Reference: National Trends in Inferior Vena Cava Filter Placement and Retrieval Procedures in the Medicare Population Over Two Decades. J Am Coll Radiol 15:1080-1086, 2018.

The IVC Filter In Trauma: Why?

The inferior vena cava (IVC) filter has been around in one form or another for over 40 years. One would think that we would have figured everything about it out by now. But no!  The filter has evolved through a number of iterations and form factors over the years. The existing studies, in general, give us piecemeal information on the utility and safety of the device.

One of the major innovations with this technology came with the development of a removable filter. Take a look at the product below. Note the hook at the top and the (relatively) blunt tips of the feet. This allows a metal sheath to be slipped over the filter while in place in the IVC. The legs collapse, and the entire thing can be removed via the internal jugular vein.

ivc-filter-complications1

The availability of the removable filter led the American College of Chest Physicians to recommend their placement in patients with known pulmonary embolism (PE) or proximal deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in patients with contraindications to anticoagulation. Unfortunately, this has been generalized by some trauma professionals over the years to include any trauma patients at high risk for DVT or PE, but who don’t actually have them yet.

One would think that, given the appearance of one of these filters, they would be protective and clots would get caught up in the legs and be unable to travel to the lungs as a PE. Previous studies have taught us that this is not necessarily the case. Plus, the filter can’t stop clots that originate in the upper extremities from becoming an embolism. And there are quite a few papers that have demonstrated the short- and long-term complications, including clot at and below the filter as well as post-phlebitic syndrome in the lower extremities.

A study from Boston University reviewed their own experience retrospectively over a 9 year period. This cohort study looked at patients with and without filters, matching them for age, sex, race, and injury severity. The authors specifically looked at mortality, and used four study periods during the 9 year interval.

Here are the factoids:

  • Over 18,000 patients were admitted during the study period, resulting in 451 with an IVC filter inserted and 1343 matched controls
  • The patients were followed for an average of 4 years after hospitalization
  • Mortality was identical between patients with filters vs the matched controls

dvt-study

  • There was still no difference in mortality, even if the patients with the filter had DVT or PE present when it was inserted
  • Only 8% ever had their “removable” filter removed (!)

Bottom line: Hopefully, it’s becoming obvious to all that the era of the IVC filter has come and gone. There are many studies that show the downside of placement. And there are several (including this one) that show how forgetful we are about taking them out when no longer needed. And, of course, they are expensive. But the final straw is that they do not seem to protect our patients like we thought (hoped?) they would. It’s time to reconsider those DVT/PE protocols and think really hard about whether we should be inserting IVC filters in trauma patients at all.

Tomorrow: a look at trends in filter insertion and retrieval.

Related post:

Reference: Association Between Inferior Vena Cava Filter Insertion
in Trauma Patients and In-Hospital and Overall Mortality. JAMA Surg, online ahead of print, September 28, 2016.