The association between self-declared acute care surgery services and critical care resources: Results from a national survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Purpose
We examined differences in critical care structures and processes between hospitals with Acute Care Surgery (ACS) versus general surgeon on call (GSOC) models for emergency general surgery (EGS) care.Methods
2811 EGS-capable hospitals were surveyed to examine structures and processes including critical care domains and ACS implementation. Differences between ACS and GSOC hospitals were compared using appropriate tests of association and logistic regression models.Results
272/1497 hospitals eligible for analysis (18.2%) reported they use an ACS model. EGS patients at ACS hospitals were more likely to be admitted to a combined trauma/surgical ICU or a dedicated surgical ICU. GSOC hospitals had lower adjusted odds of having 24-h ICU coverage, in-house intensivists or respiratory therapists, and 4/6 critical-care protocols.Conclusions
Critical care delivery is a key component of EGS care. While harnessing of critical care structures and processes varies across hospitals that have implemented ACS, overall ACS models of care appear to have more robust critical care practices.
SUBMITTER: Tameron AM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8278360 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTimely access to the operating room (OR) for emergency general surgery (EGS) diseases is key to optimizing outcomes. We conducted a national survey on EGS structures and processes to examine if implementation of acute care surgery (ACS) would improve OR accessibility compared with a traditional general surgeon on call (GSOC) approach.MethodsWe surveyed 2,811 acute care general hospitals in the United States capable of EGS care. The questionnaire included queries regarding structures and processes related to OR access and on the model of EGS care (ACS vs. GSOC). Associations between the EGS care model and structures and processes to ensure OR access were measured using univariate and multivariate models (adjusted for hospital characteristics).ResultsOf 1,690 survey respondents (60.1%), 1,497 reported ACS or GSOC. 272 (18.2%) utilized an ACS model. The ACS hospitals were more likely to have more than 5 days of block time and a tiered system of booking urgent/emergent cases compared with GSOC hospitals (34.2% vs. 7.4% and 85.3% vs. 57.6%, respectively; all p values <0.001). Surgeons at ACS hospitals were more likely to be free of competing clinical duties, be in-house overnight, and cover at a single hospital overnight when covering EGS (40.1% vs. 4.7%, 64.7% vs. 25.6%, and 84.9% vs. 64.9%, respectively; all p values <0.001). The ACS hospitals were more likely to have overnight in-house scrub techs, OR nurses, and recovery room nurses (69.9% vs. 13.8%, 70.6% vs. 13.9%, and 45.6% vs. 5.4%, respectively; all p values <0.001). On multivariable analysis, ACS hospitals had higher odds of all structures and processes that would improve OR access.ConclusionThe ACS implementation is associated with factors that may improve OR access. This finding has implications for potential expansion of EGS care models that ensure prompt OR access for the EGS diseases that warrant emergency surgery.Level of evidenceTherapeutic, Level III.
| S-EPMC8278363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:(1) Background: System-level data on waiting time in the outpatient setting in Hungary is scarce. The objective of the study was to explore self-reported waiting time for an appointment and at a doctor's office. (2) Methods: An online, cross-sectional, self-administered survey was carried out in 2019 in Hungary among a representative sample (n = 1000) of the general adult population. Chi-squared test and logistic regression analysis were carried out to explore if socioeconomic characteristics, health status, or residence were associated with waiting times and the perception of waiting time as a problem. (3) Results: Proportions of 90%, 41%, and 64% of respondents were seen within a week by family doctor, public specialist, and private specialist, respectively. One-third of respondents waited more than a month to get an appointment with a public specialist. Respondents in better health status reported shorter waiting times; those respondents were less likely to perceive a problem with: (1) waiting time to get an appointment (OR = 0.400) and (2) waiting time at a doctor's office (OR = 0.519). (4) Conclusions: Longest waiting times were reported for public specialist visits, but waiting times were favorable for family doctors and private specialists. Further investigation is needed to better understand potential inequities affecting people in worse health status.
| S-EPMC7956329 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere are minimal data available on critical care case-mix, care processes and outcomes in lower and middle income countries (LMICs). The objectives of this paper were to gather data in the Solomon Islands in order to gain a better understanding of common presentations of critical illness, available hospital resources, and what resources would be helpful in improving the care of these patients in the future.MethodsThis study used a mixed methods approach, including a cross sectional survey of respondents' opinions regarding critical care needs, ethnographic information and qualitative data.ResultsThe four most common conditions leading to critical illness in the Solomon Islands are malaria, diseases of the respiratory system including pneumonia and influenza, diabetes mellitus and tuberculosis. Complications of surgery and trauma less frequently result in critical illness. Respondents emphasised the need for basic critical care resources in LMICs, including equipment such as oximeters and oxygen concentrators; greater access to medications and blood products; laboratory services; staff education; and the need for at least one national critical care facility.ConclusionsA large degree of critical illness in LMICs is likely due to inadequate resources for primary prevention and healthcare; however, for patients who fall through the net of prevention, there may be simple therapies and context-appropriate resources to mitigate the high burden of morbidity and mortality. Emphasis should be on the development and acquisition of simple and inexpensive tools rather than complicated equipment, to prevent critical care from unduly diverting resources away from other important parts of the health system.
| S-EPMC3307438 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn response to the COVID-19 pandemic, concerted efforts were made by provincial and federal governments to invest in critical care infrastructure and medical equipment to bridge the gap of resource-limitation in intensive care units (ICUs) across Pakistan. An initial step in creating a plan toward strengthening Pakistan's baseline critical care capacity was to carry out a needs-assessment within the country to assess gaps and devise strategies for improving the quality of critical care facilities.MethodsTo assess the baseline critical care capacity of Pakistan, we conducted a series of cross-sectional surveys of hospitals providing COVID-19 care across the country. These hospitals were pre-identified by the Health Services Academy (HSA), Pakistan. Surveys were administered via telephonic and on-site interviews and based on a unique checklist for assessing critical care units which was created from the Partners in Health 4S Framework, which is: Space, Staff, Stuff, and Systems. These components were scored, weighted equally, and then ranked into quartiles.ResultsA total of 106 hospitals were surveyed, with the majority being in the public sector (71.7%) and in the metropolitan setting (56.6%). We found infrastructure, staffing, and systems lacking as only 19.8% of hospitals had negative pressure rooms and 44.4% had quarantine facilities for staff. Merely 36.8% of hospitals employed accredited intensivists and 54.8% of hospitals maintained an ideal nurse-to-patient ratio. 31.1% of hospitals did not have a staffing model, while 37.7% of hospitals did not have surge policies. On Chi-square analysis, statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) were noted between public and private sectors along with metropolitan versus rural settings in various elements. Almost all ranks showed significant disparity between public-private and metropolitan-rural settings, with private and metropolitan hospitals having a greater proportion in the 1st rank, while public and rural hospitals had a greater proportion in the lower ranks.ConclusionPakistan has an underdeveloped critical care network with significant inequity between public-private and metropolitan-rural strata. We hope for future resource allocation and capacity development projects for critical care in order to reduce these disparities.
| S-EPMC9272593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo describe the extent and variation of critical care services in Pakistan.Materials and methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted in all intensive care units (ICUs) recognised for postgraduate training to determine administration, infrastructure, equipment, staffing, and training.ResultsThere were 151 hospitals recognised for training, providing 2166 ICU beds and 1473 ventilators. Regional distribution of ICU beds per 100,000 population ranged from 1.0 in Sindh to none in Gilgit Baltistan (median 0.7). A senior clinician trained in critical care was available in 19 (12.1%) of units. One-to-one nurse-to-bed ratio during the day was available in 84 (53.5%) of units, dropping to 75 (47.8%) at night. Availability of 1:1 nursing also varied between provinces, ranging from 56.5% in Punjab compared to 0% in Azad Jamu Kashmir. Similarly, there was disparity in the availability of ventilators between provinces. All ICUs had basic infrastructure (electricity, running water, piped oxygen) and basic equipment (electronic monitoring and infusion pumps).ConclusionPakistan, a lower middle-income country, has an established network of critical care facilities with access to basic equipment, but inequalities in its distribution. Investment in critical care training for doctors and nurses is needed.
| S-EPMC7441021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo date, no studies have reported nationwide adoption of acute care surgery (ACS) or identified structural and/or process variations for the care of emergency general surgery (EGS) patients within such models.MethodsWe surveyed surgeons responsible for EGS coverage at University Health Systems Consortium hospitals using an eight-page postal/e-mail questionnaire querying respondents on hospital and EGS structure/process measures. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, univariate comparisons, and multivariable regression models.ResultsOf 319 potential respondents, 258 (81%) completed the surveys. A total of 81 hospitals (31%) had implemented ACS, while 134 (52%) had a traditional general surgeon on-call (GSOC) model. Thirty-eight hospitals (15%) had another model (hybrid). Larger-bed, university-based, teaching hospitals with Level 1 trauma center verification status located in urban areas were more likely to have adopted ACS. In multivariable modeling, hospital type, setting, and trauma center verification predicted ACS implementation. EGS processes of care varied, with 28% of the GSOC hospitals having block time versus 67% of the ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001), 45% of the GSOC hospitals providing ICU [intensive care unit] care to EGS patients in a surgical/trauma ICU versus 93% of the ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001), 5.7 ± 3.2 surgeons sharing call at GSOC hospitals versus 7.9 ± 2.3 surgeons at ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001), and 13% of the GSOC hospitals requiring in-house EGS call versus 75% of the ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001). Among ACS hospitals, there were variations in patient cohorting (EGS patients alone, 25%; EGS + trauma, 21%; EGS + elective, 17%; and EGS + trauma + elective, 30%), data collection (26% had prospective EGS registries), patient hand-offs (56% had attending surgeon presence), and call responsibilities (averaging 4.8 ± 1.3 calls per month, with 60% providing extra call stipend and 40% with no postcall clinical duties).ConclusionThe potential of the ACS on the national crisis in access to EGS care is not fully met. Variations in EGS processes of care among adopters of ACS suggest that standardized criteria for ACS implementation, much like trauma center verification criteria, may be beneficial.
| S-EPMC4372126 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSmartphones and their associated technology have evolved to an extent where these devices can be used to provide digital health interventions. However, few studies have been conducted on the willingness to use (WTU) and willingness to pay (WTP) for digital health interventions.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate how previous service experience, the content of the services, and individuals' health status affect WTU and WTP.MethodsWe conducted a nationwide web-based survey in 3 groups: nonusers (n=506), public service users (n=368), and private service users (n=266). Participants read scenarios about an imagined health status (such as having a chronic illness) and the use of digital health intervention models (self-management, expert management, and medical management). They were then asked to respond to questions on WTU and WTP.ResultsPublic service users had a greater intention to use digital health intervention services than nonusers and private service users: scenario A (health-risk situation and self-management), nonusers=odd ratio [OR] .239 (SE .076; P<.001) and private service users=OR .138 (SE .044; P<.001); scenario B (health-risk situation and expert management), nonusers=OR .175 (SE .040; P<.001) and private service users=OR .219 (SE .053; P<.001); scenario C (chronic disease situation and expert management), nonusers=OR .413 (SE .094; P<.001) and private service users=OR .401 (SE .098; P<.001); and scenario D (chronic disease situation and medical management), nonusers=OR .480 (SE .120; P=.003) and private service users=OR .345 (SE .089; P<.001). In terms of WTP, in scenarios A and B, those who used the public and private services had a higher WTP than those who did not (scenario A: β=-.397, SE .091; P<.001; scenario B: β=-.486, SE .098; P<.001). In scenario C, private service users had greater WTP than public service users (β=.264, SE .114; P=.02), whereas public service users had greater WTP than nonusers (β=-.336, SE .096; P<.001). In scenario D, private service users were more WTP for the service than nonusers (β=-.286, SE .092; P=.002).ConclusionsWe confirmed that the WTU and WTP for digital health interventions differed based on individuals' prior experience with health care services, health status, and demographics. Recently, many discussions have been made to expand digital health care beyond the early adapters and fully into people's daily lives. Thus, more understanding of people's awareness and acceptance of digital health care is needed.
| S-EPMC10131682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhile there is a need for good quality care for patients with serious reversible disease in all countries in the world, Emergency and Critical Care tends to be one of the weakest parts of health systems in low-income countries. We assessed the structure and availability of resources for Emergency and Critical Care in Tanzania in order to identify the priorities for improving care in this neglected specialty.MethodsTen hospitals in four regions of Tanzania were assessed using a structured data collection tool. Quality was evaluated with standards developed from the literature and expert opinion.ResultsImportant deficits were identified in infrastructure, routines and training. Only 30% of the hospitals had an emergency room for adult and paediatric patients. None of the seven district and regional hospitals had a triage area or intensive care unit for adults. Only 40% of the hospitals had formal systems for adult triage and in less than one third were critically ill patients seen by clinicians more than once daily. In 80% of the hospitals there were no staff trained in adult triage or critical care. In contrast, a majority of equipment and drugs necessary for emergency and critical care were available in the hospitals (median 90% and 100% respectively. The referral/private hospitals tended to have a greater overall availability of resources (median 89.7%) than district/regional hospitals (median 70.6).ConclusionsMany of the structures necessary for Emergency and Critical Care are lacking in hospitals in Tanzania. Particular weaknesses are infrastructure, routines and training, whereas the availability of drugs and equipment is generally good. Policies to improve hospital systems for the care of emergency and critically ill patients should be prioritised.
| S-EPMC3639070 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has severely affected ICUs and critical care health-care providers (HCPs) worldwide.Research questionHow do regional differences and perceived lack of ICU resources affect critical care resource use and the well-being of HCPs?Study design and methodsBetween April 23 and May 7, 2020, we electronically administered a 41-question survey to interdisciplinary HCPs caring for patients critically ill with COVID-19. The survey was distributed via critical care societies, research networks, personal contacts, and social media portals. Responses were tabulated according to World Bank region. We performed multivariate log-binomial regression to assess factors associated with three main outcomes: limiting mechanical ventilation (MV), changes in CPR practices, and emotional distress and burnout.ResultsWe included 2,700 respondents from 77 countries, including physicians (41%), nurses (40%), respiratory therapists (11%), and advanced practice providers (8%). The reported lack of ICU nurses was higher than that of intensivists (32% vs 15%). Limiting MV for patients with COVID-19 was reported by 16% of respondents, was lowest in North America (10%), and was associated with reduced ventilator availability (absolute risk reduction [ARR], 2.10; 95% CI, 1.61-2.74). Overall, 66% of respondents reported changes in CPR practices. Emotional distress or burnout was high across regions (52%, highest in North America) and associated with being female (mechanical ventilation, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01-1.33), being a nurse (ARR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.13-1.53), reporting a shortage of ICU nurses (ARR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.05-1.33), reporting a shortage of powered air-purifying respirators (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.09-1.55), and experiencing poor communication from supervisors (ARR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.46).InterpretationOur findings demonstrate variability in ICU resource availability and use worldwide. The high prevalence of provider burnout and its association with reported insufficient resources and poor communication from supervisors suggest a need for targeted interventions to support HCPs on the front lines.
| S-EPMC7484703 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundChronic kidney disease (CKD) clinics across Canada provide tailored care for patients with CKD with an aim to slow progression and prevent complications. These clinics provide CKD self-management resources; however, there is limited information about what resources are being used by clinics. We undertook a survey of CKD clinics across Canada to identify self-management resources for adults aged 18 years and over with CKD categories 1 to 5 and not requiring dialysis or transplant.ObjectiveTo identify and collate self-management resources (eg, strategies, tools, educational materials) used by CKD clinics across Canada for adults with CKD (categories 1 to 5, not requiring kidney replacement therapy).DesignSelf-administered, semistructured electronic survey.Setting participantsCanadian CKD clinics with previously identified contact information.Methods and measurementsWe contacted 57 CKD English-speaking clinics and invited them to complete an online survey. The survey was available from October 2016 to January 2017 and consisted of 17 questions regarding the use and attributes of self-management resources including topic, delivery format, provider, target population, where the intervention was provided, and resource languages.ResultsForty-four clinics (77%) completed the survey. The most common topic was modality education provided in print format, by nurses. The most frequently used resource was the Kidney Foundation of Canada (KFOC) Living With Kidney Disease manual. We also identified that the majority of resources were available in English, targeting both patients and caregivers in the outpatient setting.LimitationsOur survey included Canadian adult CKD clinics, which may not be generalizability to other settings, such as care of people with CKD in primary care.ConclusionsAdult CKD clinics across Canada provide some similar resources, but also provide many different self-management resources. Even though some of the same resources were used by multiple clinics, the way they were provided them (ie, provider, location, delivery format) varied by the individual clinics. Knowledge of self-management resources currently provided in CKD clinics, along with synthesis of the literature and patient preferred self-management strategies, will inform the design and development of a novel self-management intervention that is patient-centric and adheres to the principles of self-management.
| S-EPMC5967152 | biostudies-literature