Dataset Information

The association between self-declared acute care surgery services and operating room access: Results from a national survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Timely 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.

Methods

We 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).

Results

Of 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.

Conclusion

The 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 evidence

Therapeutic, Level III.

SUBMITTER: Ricci KB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8278363 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Few diseases truly require emergency surgery today. We investigated the relationship between access to operating room (OR) and outcomes for patients with life-threatening emergency general surgery (LT-EGS) diseases at US hospitals. METHODS:In 2015, we surveyed 2,811 US hospitals on EGS practices, including how OR access is assured (e.g., OR staffing, block time). There were 1,690 (60%) hospitals that responded. We anonymously linked survey data to 2015 Statewide Inpatient Sample data (17 states) using American Hospital Association identifiers. Adults admitted with life-threatening diagnoses (e.g., necrotizing fasciitis, perforated viscus) who underwent operative intervention the same calendar day as hospital admission were included. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses, clustered by treating hospital and adjusted for patient factors, were performed to examine hospital-level OR access variables. RESULTS:Overall, 3,620 patients were admitted with LT-EGS diseases. The median age was 63 years (interquartile range, 51-75), with half having three or more comorbidities (50%). Thirty-four percent had one or more major systemic complication, and 5% died. The majority got care at hospitals with less than 1 day of EGS block time but with policies to ensure emergency access to the OR. After adjusting for age, sex, race, insurance status, comorbidities, systemic complications, and surgical complications, we found that less presence of an in-house EGS surgeon, compared with around the clock, was associated with increased mortality (rarely/never in-house surgeon: odds ratio, 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.1-5.3; sometimes in-house surgeon: odds ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.1-2.3). In addition, after controlling for other factors, on-call overnight recovery room nurse, compared with in-house, was associated with an increased mortality (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.5-3.1). CONCLUSION:Round-the-clock availability of personnel, specifically emergency general surgeons and recovery room nurses, is associated with decreased mortality. These findings have implications for the creation of EGS patient triage criteria and Acute Care Surgery Centers of Excellence. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:Therapeutic, level III.

Project description:BackgroundDistractions during surgical procedures are associated with team inefficiency and medical error. Little is published about the healthcare provider's perception of distraction and its adverse impact in the operating room. We aim to explore the perception of the operating room team on multiple distractions during surgical procedures.MethodsA 26-question survey was administered to surgeons, anesthesia team members, nurses, and scrub technicians at our institution. Respondents were asked to identify and rank multiple distractions and indicate how each distraction might affect the flow of surgery.ResultsThere was 160 responders for a response rate of 19.18% (160/834), of which 71 (44.1%) male and 82 (50.9%) female, 48 (29.8%) surgeons, 59 (36.6%) anesthesiologists, Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists (CRNA), and 53 (32.9%) OR nurses and scrub technicians. Responders were classified into a junior group (< 10 years of experience) and a senior group (≥ 10 years). Auditory distraction followed by equipment were the most distracting factors in the operating room. All potential auditory distractions in this survey were associated with higher percentage of certain level of negative impact on the flow of surgery except for music. The top 5 distractors belonged to equipment and environment categories. Phone calls/ pagers/ beepers and case relevant communications were consistently among the top 5 most common distractors. Case relevant communications, music, teaching, and consultation were the top 4 most perceived positive impact on the flow of surgery. Distractors with higher levels of "bothersome" rating appeared to associate with a higher level of perceived negative impact on the flow of surgery. Vision was the least distracting factor and appeared to cause minimal positive impact on the flow of surgery.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first survey studying perception of surgery, anesthesia, and OR staff on various distractions in the operating room. Fewer unnecessary distractions might improve the flow of surgery, improve OR teamwork, and potentially improve patient outcomes.