EAST Practice Management Guideline: Handoffs And Transitions Of Care

March 8, 2024 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Medicine, in general, and trauma care, specifically, require frequent communication. These communications may be between two providers to maintain continuity of care or between providers and patients to explain it. Unfortunately, the Joint Commission has identified breakdowns in the process as a root cause of preventable events and a significant factor in preventable death.

To address this problem, many centers have sought to standardize this process, which may include some of the principles in my previous post. However, until now, there have been no evidence-based recommendations for this practice.

The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to develop a practice guideline. They focused specifically on handoffs for acute care surgery during perioperative interactions, patients arriving in the trauma bay, and patients transitioning to or from the ICU and floor. The goal was to reduce complications, handoff errors, medical errors, and preventable events.

The literature on this topic was searched from 1960 to 2021, and only observational and randomized studies were included. This yielded only ten papers that met all search criteria. The reviewers then used these papers to answer three questions. These and their answers are outlined below.

Question 1. Should perioperative interactions in the care of ACS patients (P) include a standardized handoff versus current process without a standardized handoff to help reduce clinical complications, handoff errors, medical errors, and preventable adverse events?

Patients who received a standardized handoff were significantly less likely to experience a handoff error. However, the impact on medical errors and adverse events could not be gauged because only one paper covered these problems.

Question 2. Should EMS utilize a standardized handoff at the arrival of trauma patients versus the current process without a standardized handoff to help reduce clinical complications, handoff errors, medical errors, and preventable adverse events?

We instituted a trauma team EMS timeout process in 2012, which persists to this day. Please take a look at my post here. The prehospital providers like it because they feel like they are more a part of the team. The receiving team can listen to their report without distraction. But what does the literature say? Unfortunately, we don’t know yet. Only one published paper covered this topic, and it included only 18 patients. Thus, no conclusions can be drawn.

Question 3. Should intra/inter floor and ICU interactions in the care of ACS patients include a standardized handoff versus currently process without a standardized handoff to help reduce clinical complications, handoff errors, medical errors, and preventable adverse events?

Significantly fewer preventable adverse events occurred when a standardized handoff was used. There was no difference in clinical complications. The impact on medical errors could not be evaluated because only one study assessed this.

Bottom line: The general belief is that using a standardized handoff is a good thing. But I think you see the theme here. As in most EAST systematic reviews, there is painfully little high-quality data available for us to prove it. Most of the mundane, day-to-day things we do and decisions we make as trauma professionals are too dull to perform a study about.

From the few papers available for this guideline, standardized handoffs are a good thing. They decrease handoff errors and reduce preventable adverse events as well. The EMS to trauma team handoff is well-received and is subjectively valuable. Unfortunately, there is little real data to prove this.

Overall, the real data on this topic is weak, and much more work needs to be done. I would encourage all trauma professionals to develop and refine their handoff processes. I strongly recommend coupling that with your own study so you can teach the rest of us how good it really can be.

Reference: Handoffs and Transitions of Care: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Practice Management Guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. J Trauma, Publish Ahead of Print
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004285

Abdomen

The Handoff In Damage Control Surgery

March 5, 2024 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Damage control surgery is now over 30 years old! We continue to refine the techniques and closure techniques/devices, and have developed novel ways to speed closure of the abdominal wall in order to avoid pesky hernias. But the process itself is time intensive, and typically several days pass with regular returns to OR until closure is achieved. This is one of the prime areas in which human error can occur, especially with modern service-style coverage of trauma patients.

In the old days, trauma patients were admitted by their surgeon, and that person provided their care nearly continuously until discharge. He or she rounded on them daily, took them back to the OR when needed, and then discharged them.

This is less practical (and desirable) in this day and age. And even if it seems possible, it’s not. No one can be on call 24 hours a day, and provide comprehensive care to every patient, around the clock. Many trauma programs have adopted a “service model”, where patients are admitted to a defined care team and managed by them. The team is led by a surgeon, but that person may change on a weekly (or in some cases nearly daily) basis. I call this the “interchangeable head” model, and to make it work there must be excellent handoffs during any leadership change.

In some cases, a patient may undergo a damage control procedure by one surgeon, but another must do the takeback and possibly the definitive closure. In this case, the handoff is critical! It is paramount that the next surgeon know everything about the first case so that they can perform the correct procedure.

How can this be accomplished? Here are some tips:

Do not rely on the medical record and previous operative note. It may not be available, and there is usually some loss of information in recording it anyway. Don’t believe it.
Ideally, meet face to face with the previous surgeon(s). Get the blow by blow description of exactly everything that was done and how. Also discuss what still needs to be done, and when. Try to maintain a uniform philosophy of patient care across surgeons.
If face to face is not possible, a telephone call is acceptable. The discussion is exactly the same.
If the surgery occurred at an outside hospital and was then transferred, you must call the initial surgeon to have this discussion before going to the OR!
If something unexpected is encountered during the case, make sure you have contact information so you can call during the case.

Applying these concepts will decrease the possibility of error, as well as the likelihood of any iatrogenic harm to these complex patients.

In my next post, I’ll review a new paper from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) that performs a systematic review and meta-analysis of handoffs in acute care surgery (which includes damage control, of course) and proposes a practice management guideline.

Resuscitation

Giving TXA Via An Intraosseous Line?

March 1, 2024 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Seriously injured patients frequently develop coagulopathy, which makes resuscitation (and survival) more challenging. A few years ago, the CRASH-2 study lent support for using tranexamic acid (TXA) in select trauma patients to improve survival. This drug is cheap and has antifibrinolytic properties that may be beneficial if given for life-threatening bleeding within 3 hours of initial injury. It’s typically given as a rapid IV infusion, followed by a slower followup infusion. The US military has adopted its routine use at forward combat hospitals.

But what if you don’t have IV access? This can and does occur with military type injuries. Surgeons at Madigan Army Medical Center in Washington state tried using a common alternative access device, the intraosseous needle, to see if the results were equivalent. This study used an adult swine model with hemorrhage and aortic crossclamping to simulate military injury and resuscitation. Half of the animals then received IV TXA, the other half had it administered via IO. Only the bolus dose was given. Serum TXA levels were monitored, and serial ROTEM determinations were performed to evaluate coagulopathy.

Here are the factoids:

The serum TXA peak and taper curves were similar. The IV peak was higher than IO and approached statistical significance (0.053)
ROTEM showed that the animals were significantly hyperfibrinolytic after injury, but rapidly corrected after administration of TXA. Results were the same for both IV and IO groups.

Bottom line: This was a very simple and elegant study. The usual animal study issues come into play (small numbers, pigs are not people). But it would be nearly impossible to have such a study approved in humans. Even though the peak TXA concentration via IO is (nearly significantly) lower, this doesn’t appear to matter. The anti-fibrinolytic effect was very similar according to ROTEM analysis.

From a practical standpoint, I’m not recommending that we start giving TXA via IO in civilian practice. We don’t typically see military style injuries, and are usually able to establish some type of IV access within a reasonably short period of time. But for our military colleagues, this could be a very valuable tool!

Reference: No intravenous access, no problem: Intraosseous administration of tranexamic acid is as effective as intravenous in a porcine hemorrhage model. J Trauma 84(2):379-385, 2018.

Complications, Device

Air Embolism From an Intraosseous (IO) Line

February 27, 2024 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Intraosseous (IO) lines are a godsend when we are faced with a patient who desperately needs access but has no veins. The tibia is generally easy to locate and the landmarks for insertion are straightforward. They are so easy to insert and use, we sometimes “set it and forget it”, in the words of infomercial guru Ron Popeil.

But complications are possible. The most common is an insertion “miss”, where the fluid then infuses into the knee joint or soft tissues of the leg. Problems can also arise when the tibia is fractured, leading to leakage into the soft tissues. Infection is extremely rare.

This photo shows the inferior vena cava of a patient with bilateral IO line insertions (black bubble at the top of the round IVC).

During transport, one line was inadvertently disconnected and probably entrained some air. There was no adverse clinical effect, but if the problem is not recognized and the line is not closed properly, there could be.

Bottom line: Treat an IO line as carefully as you would a regular IV. You can give anything through it that can be given via a regular IV: crystalloid, blood, drugs. And even air, so be careful!

Abdomen, Solid organ

Use Of A Solid Organ Injury Protocol For Pediatrics

February 23, 2024 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Kids are frequent flyers when it comes to abdominal injury, with about 15% of their injuries involving this anatomic area. Solid organ injuries, mainly the liver and spleen, are the most prevalent ones. The American Pediatric Surgical Association (APSA) published a practice guideline way back in 2000 that outlined a consistent way to care for children with solid organ injuries.

Unfortunately, they were very conservative, recommending days of bedrest, extended NPO status, very frequent blood draws, and a lengthy hospital stay. Many hospitals, including mine, developed less conservative management routines, noting that children nearly always tolerate liver and spleen injury better than adults.

The trauma group at Vanderbilt modified the APSA guidelines and, more recently, made additional changes based on a new algorithm released by the organization. This new guideline moved away from organ injury grade-based factors and embraced hemodynamic status as the overall guide to care. The Vanderbilt group performed a retrospective study comparing hospital and ICU length of stay, patient costs, readmission, and death rates using the two guidelines.

Under the old protocol, grade I-III injuries were admitted to a floor bed and higher grades to an ICU at the discretion of the surgeon. The minimum hospital stay was, at minimum, the organ injury grade. Children were kept NPO overnight and placed on bed rest for nearly one day per injury grade.

With the new protocol, children were admitted to the floor if their vital signs normalized after volume resuscitation. Hematocrit was obtained on admission and possibly again after 6 hours, then only repeated if < 21 or a change in vitals was noted. There were no diet or activity restrictions. Children with abnormal vital signs after volume were admitted to the ICU and kept on bed rest until they normalized. Labs were drawn regularly. Length of stay was based on meeting pain control, diet, and activity goals.

Here are the factoids:

There were 176 children (age < 18) enrolled in the old protocol during a four-year period and 170 in the new protocol over 3.5 years
Both groups were similar demographically and in injury grade and ISS
ICU length of stay was “significantly” shorter under the new protocol (.54 vs .78 days)
Hospital length of stay was also “significantly” shorter (2.9 vs 3.5 days)
Inflation-adjusted costs were slightly higher under the new protocol ($68,042 vs $65,437) even though the authors claim the opposite in the abstract once injury grade and ISS are factored in
Survival was the same at 99.4%
Readmission rates were significantly higher under the new protocol (7.1% vs 2.3%)

The authors’ conclusions parroted these results and recommended larger studies to detail any cost advantage and identify the cause for the difference in readmission rates.

Bottom line: This study leaves a lot to be desired. The authors’ definition of “pediatric” is age < 18. As we all know, there is a big difference in “kids” who are pre- vs post-puberty. The good news is that the mean and median ages are about 11 in the study, so there should be fewer older “kids” to cause interference.

The authors reported hazard ratios for the lengths of stay, which were statistically significantly different. However, their clinical significance is in doubt. A difference of 6 ICU hours? Or two-thirds of a hospital day? I’m not impressed.

Cost differences are basically a wash, and a deep read of the paper shows that many kids did not have an isolated solid organ injury. Non-abdominal injuries could have an Abbreviated Injury Scale score of up to 3. It is easy to imagine that these could impact both length of stay and cost.

Finally, the readmission rates include many problems related to non-abdominal injuries, including the thorax, soft tissues, and even an epidural hematoma. After excluding these non-abdominal complications, the numbers for both protocols are so low it’s hard to believe that a good significance test can be performed.

The authors’ conclusions are correct: more work needs to be done. This paper doesn’t really teach us much since all the conclusions are extremely weak. A much better, prospective, multicenter trial should be performed. Unfortunately, getting buy-in from multiple centers/surgeons to use the same protocol in children is hard.

But with all that being said, there is no reason you can’t adopt something similar to the new protocol at your center. My own experience has shown that a more aggressive guideline gets kids home sooner and healthier and that there is no difference in readmission rates. I just need a bunch of other surgeons to duplicate these results and write them up!

Reference: A Protocol Driven Approach to Reduce Lengths of Stay for Pediatric Blunt Liver and Spleen Injury Patients. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery ():10.1097/TA.0000000000004259, January 26, 2024. | DOI: 10.1097/TA.0000000000004259

Home of the Trauma Professional's Blog