Tag Archives: protocol

The Value of Protocols in Trauma

Most trauma centers have a book of practice protocols or guideleines. Actually, it is required by the American College of Surgeons verification standards. All centers must have a massive trauma protocol. Many have pain management or alcohol withdrawal or a number of other protocols. The question sometimes arises: why do we need another protocol? Can we show some benefit to using a protocol?

I’ve looked at the literature, and unfortunately there’s not a lot to go on. Here are my thoughts on the value of protocols.

In my view, there are a number of reasons why protocols need to be developed for commonly encountered issues.

  • They allow us to build in adherence to any known practice guidelines or literature.
  • They help conserve resources by standardizing care orders and resource use.
  • They reduce confusion. Nurses do not have to guess what cares are necessary based on the specific admitting surgeon.
  • They reduce errors for the same reason. All patients receive a similar regimen, so potential errors are more easily recognized.
  • They promote team building, particularly when the protocol components involve several different services within the hospital.
  • They teach a consistent, workable approach to our trainees. When they graduate, they are familiar with a single, evidence based approach that will work for them in their practice.

A number of years ago, we implemented a solid organ injury protocol here at Regions Hospital. I noted that there were large variations in simple things like time at bedrest, frequency of blood draws, how long the patient was kept without food and whether angiography should be considered. Once we implemented the protocol, patients were treated much more consistently and we found that costs were reduced by over $1000 per patient. Since we treat about 200 of these patients per year, the hospital saved quite a bit of money! And our blunt trauma radiographic imaging protocol has significantly reduced patient exposure to radiation.

Bottom line: Although the proof is not necessarily apparent in the literature, protocol development is important for trauma programs for the reasons outlined above. But don’t develop them for their own sake. Identify common problems that can benefit from consistency. It will turn out to be a very positive exercise and reap the benefits listed above.

Phlebotomy And Pediatric Solid Organ Injury

I recently wrote about this journal article from a couple of pediatric trauma programs in New York. The article tried to focus on reducing the rate of phlebotomy in children who are being observed for solid organ injury. I was more excited about the overall protocol being used to manage liver and spleen injury, as it was a great advance over the original APSA guideline. But let’s look at the phlebotomy part as well.

This is an interestingly weird study, and you’ll see what I mean shortly. Two New York trauma hospitals that take care of pediatric patients pooled 4 years of registry records on children with isolated blunt liver and/or spleen injuries. Then they did a tabletop excercise, looking at “what if” they had applied the APSA guideline, and “what if” they had applied their new, proposed guideline.

Interestingly, this implies that they were using neither! I presume they are trying to justify (and push all their partners) to move to the new protocol from (probably) random, individual choice.

Here are the factoids:

  • 120 records were identified across the 2 hospitals that met criteria
  • Late presentation to the hospital, contrast extravasation, comorbidities, lack of imaging, operative intervention at an outside hospital excluded 59 patients, leaving 61 for analysis. Three of those patients became unstable and were also excluded.
  • None of the remaining patients required operation or angioembolization
  • Use of the “new” (proposed) protocol would reduce ICU admissions by 65%, reduce blood draws by 70%, and reduce hospital stay by 37%
  • Conclusion: use of the protocol would eliminate the need for serial phlebotomy (huh?)

Bottom line: Huh? All this to justify decreasing blood draws? I know, kids hate needles, but the data on decreased length of stay in the hospital and ICU is much more important! We’ve been using a protocol similar to their “new” one at Regions Hospital, which I’ve shared below. We’ve been enjoying decreased resource utilization, blood draws, and very short lengths of stay for over a decade. And our analysis showed that we save $1000 for every patient entering the protocol, compared to the old-fashioned and inefficient way we used to manage them.

Related posts:

Reference: Reducing scheduled phlebotomy in stable pediatric patients with liver or spleen injury. J Ped Surg 49(5):759-762, 2014.

The Value of Protocols in Trauma

Most trauma centers have a massive trauma protocol. Many have pain management or alcohol withdrawal or a number of other protocols. The question arose: why do we need another protocol? Can we show some benefit to using a protocol?

I’ve looked at the literature, and unfortunately there’s not a lot to go on. Here are my thoughts on the value of protocols.

In my view, there are a number of reasons why protocols need to be developed for commonly encountered issues.

  • They allow us to build in adherence to any known practice guidelines or literature.
  • They help conserve resources by standardizing care orders and resource use.
  • They reduce confusion. Nurses do not have to guess what cares are necessary based on the specific admitting surgeon.
  • They reduce errors for the same reason. All patients receive a similar regimen, so potential errors are more easily recognized.
  • They promote team building, particularly when the protocol components involve several different services within the hospital.
  • They teach a consistent, workable approach to our trainees. When they graduate, they are familiar with a single, evidence based approach that will work for them in their practice.

A number of years ago, we implemented a solid organ injury protocol here at Regions Hospital. I noted that there were large variations in simple things like time at bedrest, frequency of blood draws, how long the patient was kept without food and whether angiography should be considered. Once we implemented the protocol, patients were treated much more consistently and we found that costs were reduced by over $1000 per patient. Since we treat about 200 of these patients per year, the hospital saved quite a bit of money! And our blunt trauma radiographic imaging protocol has significantly reduced patient exposure to radiation.

Bottom line: Although the proof is not necessarily apparent in the literature, protocol development is important for trauma programs for the reasons outlined above. But don’t develop them for their own sake. Identify common problems that can benefit from consistency. It will turn out to be a very positive exercise and reap the benefits listed above.

Chest Tube Management Protocol – Pediatric

Yesterday I described a protocol for deciding when to remove a chest tube in adults. Today, I’ll go over a variant of this algorithm for children. In general, it’s very similar. The major change is in the volume criterion. In adults, we decided upon an (arbitrary) value of 150cc per three shifts. We chose a time interval of 3 shifts vs 1 day to speed up the process.

Suppose you use the 1 day rule for looking at chest tube output. Typically, this would be evaluated in the morning, and the process of pulling the tube or applying water seal, followed by delayed xrays, could lead to a very late discharge. If the output is checked every shift and the most recent three are summed, the patient could meet criteria later in the day and have the tube pulled in the evening. This would allow for an earlier discharge the following day, shaving 12 hours or more off of the hospital stay. This may not make much of a difference to the hospital (although for busy ones it does), but it’s huge for patient comfort and satisfaction.

Click this image or the link below for a full-size version.

Note that the output criterion has been changed to 2cc/kg over three shifts. This adjusts for the varying sizes of the children that we treat. Otherwise things are basically the same.

Related posts:

Chest Tube Management Protocol – Adult

Chest tubes are needed occasionally to help manage chest injuries. How do you decide when they are ready for removal?

Unfortunately, the literature is not very helpful in answering this question. To come up with a uniform way of pulling them, our group looked at any existing literature and then filled in the blanks, negotiating criteria that we could all live with. We came up with the following. Click the image to see a full-size version, or click the link below.

Removal criteria:

  • No (or a minimal, stable) residual pneumothorax
  • No air leak
  • Less than 150cc drainage over the past 3 shifts. We do not use daily numbers, as it may delay the removal sequence. We have moved away from the “only pull tubes on the day shift” mentality. Once the criteria are met, we begin the removal sequence, even in the evening or at night.

Removal sequence:

  • Has the patient ever had an air leak? If so, they are placed on water seal for 6 hours and a followup AP or PA view chest x-ray is obtained. If no pneumothorax is seen, proceed to the next step. If there was no air leak, skip this step.
  • Pull the tube. Click here to see a video demonstrating the proper technique.
  • Obtain a followup AP or PA view chest x-ray in 6 hours.
  • If no recurrent pneumothorax, send the patient home! (if appropriate)

Click here to download the full printed protocol.