Operative Procedures in the Intensive Care Unit

Acute care surgery encompasses trauma, surgical critical care, and emergency general surgery (EGS). While the first two components are well defined, the scope of EGS practice remains unclear. This article describes the work of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma to define EGS. A total of 621 unique International Classification of Diseases-9th Rev. (ICD-9) diagnosis codes were identified using billing data (calendar year 2011) from seven large academic medical centers that practice EGS. A modified Delphi methodology was used by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Committee on Severity Assessment and Patient Outcomes to review these codes and achieve consensus on the definition of primary EGS diagnosis codes. National Inpatient Sample data from 2009 were used to develop a national estimate of EGS burden of disease. Several unique ICD-9 codes were identified as primary EGS diagnoses. These encompass a wide spectrum of general surgery practice, including upper and lower gastrointestinal tract, hepatobiliary and pancreatic disease, soft tissue infections, and hernias. National Inpatient Sample estimates revealed over 4 million inpatient encounters nationally in 2009 for EGS diseases. This article provides the first list of ICD-9 diagnoses codes that define the scope of EGS based on current clinical practices. These findings have wide implications for EGS workforce training, access to care, and research.

The Healthcare Economics Committee of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma has published a series of three articles on the topic of value in acute care surgery (ACS). In this series, the key elements of value, cost and outcomes, and the impact of stakeholder perspective on what constitutes high-value care are discussed. The fourth article in this series continues the discussion by focusing on the unique economic value that an ACS service brings to a hospital system and its patients. Characterized by the immediate 24-hour availability of surgeons trained in trauma management, emergency general surgery, and surgical critical care, acute care surgeons extend the benefits of surgical rescue and critical care to all hospitalized patients. As such, an ACS service acts as a vital part of a hospital's infrastructure to successfully care for complex and seriously ill patients, in addition to enabling the establishment of other, high revenue-generating services such as vascular, transplant, and complex oncologic surgery programs. The trauma service acts as intake for patients that lead to downstream revenue creation by other disciplines such as orthopedic and neurological surgery, while trauma center designation itself results in dedicated state funding to ensure trauma readiness in many states in the United States. The traditional "value equation" in health care of outcomes achieved per dollar spent is ill-suited to capture many of these unique aspects and benefits of ACS. This article provides the background to understand the economic value of an ACS service and future directions toward improving overall value of care.

Acute-care surgery (ACS), trauma, and surgical critical care (SCC) fellowships graduate fellows deemed qualified to perform complex cases immediately upon graduation. We hypothesize international fellow rotations can be a resource to supplement operative case exposure. A survey was sent to all program directors (PDs) of ACS and SCC fellowships via e-mail. Data were captured and analyzed using the REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) tool. The survey was sent to 113 PDs, with a response rate of 42%. Most fellows performed less than 150 operative cases (59.5%). The majority of PDs thought the operative exposure either could be improved or was not enough to ensure expertise in trauma and emergent general surgery. Only a minority of the PDs found their case load exceptional (can be improved: 43%, not enough: 30% exceptional: 27%). Most PDs thought an international experience could supplement the breadth of cases, provide research opportunities, and improve understanding of trauma systems (70%). Ten sites offered international rotations (70%). Most fellowships would be willing to provide reciprocity to the host institution (90%). The majority of PDs for ACS, trauma, and SCC programs perceive a need for increased quality and quantity of operative cases. The majority recognize international fellow rotations as a valuable tool to supplement fellows' education.

Emergency general surgery (EGS) admissions account for a large proportion of surgical care and represent the majority of surgical patients who suffer in-hospital mortality. Health care systems continue to experience growing demand for emergency services: one way in which this is being increasingly addressed is dedicated subspecialty teams for emergency surgical admissions, most commonly termed "emergency general surgery" in the United Kingdom. This study aims to understand the impact of the emergency general surgery model of care on outcomes from emergency laparotomies. Data was obtained from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database. Patients were dichotomized into EGS hospital or non-EGS hospital. Emergency general surgery hospital is defined as a hospital where >50% of in-hours emergency laparotomy operating is performed by an emergency general surgeon. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were intensive therapy unit (ITU) length of stay and duration of hospital stay. A propensity score weighting approach was used to reduce confounding and selection bias. There were 115,509 patients from 175 hospitals included in the final analysis. The EGS hospital care group included 5,789 patients versus 109,720 patients in the non-EGS group. Following propensity score weighting, mean standardized mean difference reduced from 0.055 to <0.001. In-hospital mortality was similar (10.8% vs. 11.1%, p = 0.094), with mean length of stay (16.7 days vs. 16.1 days, p < 0.001) and ITU stay (2.8 days vs. 2.6 days, p < 0.001) persistently longer in patients treated in EGS systems. No significant association between the emergency surgery hospital model of care and in-hospital mortality in emergency laparotomy patients was seen. There is a significant association between the emergency surgery hospital model of care and an increased length of ITU stay and overall hospital stay. Further studies are required to examine the impact of changing models of EGS delivery in the United Kingdom. Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

How decisions are made and communication is handled are essential to ensuring a good outcome.In the case of Scardoni v Hawryluck,1 Mrs H was an 81-year-old woman with advanced Alzheimer disease, cardiovascular illness, and septic shock whose family and physician could not agree on goals for care, requiring that a legal decision be made regarding the level of care to be provided. Over time and after much discussion, the multidisciplinary team on the intensive care unit (ICU) reached a consensus that intensive care for Mrs H would not improve her condition. So it was decided that after Mrs H was stepped down to a general medical unit, should an infection or respiratory distress develop, she would not be returned to the ICU. The attending ICU physician informed the family that instead of ICU care, “the hospital would offer her palliative care: painkillers and sedatives to keep her comfortable while her afflictions took their course.”2 In this particular case, the patient’s family challenged the health care team’s recommendations and insisted that their mother be readmitted to the ICU so that aggressive life-sustaining treatment would continue.This case, although Canadian, is relevant to ICU settings throughout North America. The purpose of this discussion is not to provide an in-depth ethical analysis, but rather to use the case of Mrs H to characterize one type of health care situation that clinical ethicists could help facilitate. Medical recommendations such as those involved in the care of Mrs H are made to prevent the “revolving door” patient, who according to ICU teams will receive no medical benefit if returned to the ICU. Decisions not to readmit are euphemistically referred to by some ICU staff as the “one-way ticket out of ICU” or “celestial transfer.” Such language shared between colleagues reflects a coping strategy, a “gallows humor,” intended to manage difficult feelings like sadness, anger, grief, sympathy, or moral distress. Cases like that of Mrs H are of particular concern to critical care nursing. Research has indicated that moral distress, a significant contributing factor to burnout, is encountered by ICU nurses when the care they are providing to a patient is regarded as futile.3It is not uncommon for hospital-based clinical ethicists to receive a request for consultation when disputes regarding similar recommendations for care arise between substitute decision makers and the ICU treatment team. These cases can lead to moral distress because of commonly held opinions among team members that futile treatment is being provided. Although staff can provide many life-sustaining treatments to such a patient, ethical questions often arise during the patient’s stay in the ICU. What ought to happen when an ICU team decides that a patient should be transferred to a general medical unit to receive comfort measures only, with no readmission to the ICU? Although teams discuss the practical questions about what can be done, the ethical questions about what ought to be done are sometimes not as clear. The following discussion explores how clinical ethicists can provide valuable assistance with the kinds of ethical challenges these situations customarily present. Particular emphasis will be placed on working within a process-driven, interdisciplinary framework that maintains a communication-oriented approach to ethical decision making.Clinical ethics is a relatively new field, and the role and purpose of clinical ethicists can vary somewhat according to the particular health care setting. For the purpose of this discussion, the authors describe the knowledge, skills, and activities of clinical ethicists through their review of relevant literature as well as their own training and experiences as staff clinical ethicists at 2 acute care settings in Ontario, Canada.Greater legal clarity or legislative measures to specifically address conflicts that arise over withdrawal or withholding of treatment for terminally ill patients are required, according to at least one legal expert. Current Canadian law, according to this same scholar, leaves doctors, patients and their families in a “grey zone” as to who should have ultimate authority on such decisions.4 The daily reality in most North American ICUs is that this gray zone persists—for better or worse. Although hospitals attempt to provide guidelines for addressing conflicts such as the one involving Mrs H, it is the quality of communication and relationship within the interdisciplinary team and between the treating team and the patient’s family that has a marked influence on decision making.5–7 In most cases similar to this one, consensus about level of care is first achieved by the interdisciplinary team, and a subsequent agreement is reached between the treatment team and the patient’s substitute decision maker and family. However, when agreement cannot be reached because of irreconcilable notions pertaining to what constitutes benefit to the patient and what constitutes harm, the results can be uncertain, stressful, and most unsatisfactory for both the health professionals involved and the patient’s family. This combination of an unfortunate turn of events for the patient, sharing of bad news with family members, and the recommendation for care outside of the ICU is a juncture of decision making at which conflict can occur and ethical challenges are most apparent to members of the interdisciplinary team.8,9Much has been written about the difficulties in communication within the ICU and how this affects patient care. Considerable evidence indicates that communication between the ICU team, patients, and patients’ families can be inadequate, leading to conflict and a possible long-term effect on the patient’s family.6,8,10,11 In one study,8 46% of families who had a loved one die in the ICU reported conflict over decisions to withdraw or withhold life-support measures. These family members also reported conflict over the manner in which staff communicated with or behaved toward them. The authors of that study8 cited family members who felt pressured by staff to “hasten their loved one’s death because they placed a burden on valued resources.” The importance of communication between treatment teams and patients and patients’ families cannot be overstated. In addressing the difficulties and deficiencies that have been identified, 2 experts concluded, “communication with caregivers is consistently identified as the most important and least achieved factor in patient/family satisfaction surveys.”12Intensive care is primarily intended to provide maximum benefit to those patients who are likely to recover from their infirmity or trauma.13 When the interdisciplinary team is not clearly communicating ethical considerations as well as the criteria they are using to determine the effectiveness or success of the treatment plan, patients’ families may develop erroneous expectations that life-sustaining interventions will continue to be offered.6 At the same time as a loved one is receiving ICU care with a grim prognosis, families are struggling to come to terms with impending loss. Family functioning or experience in coping with loss,14 unrealistic expectations regarding health outcome, within a societal context of diverse religious or cultural beliefs, can markedly influence families’ decision making about end-of-life care. Such formidable contributing factors further emphasize that effective communication strategies, as well as an appropriate level of sensitivity, ought to be used in ICUs when dealing with patients’ families.11Team communication, in particular communication between disciplines, also has proven problematic in decisions about end-of-life care in the ICU. Critical care nurses have cited difficulties in communication and decision making within interdisciplinary ICU teams. Ferrand et al15 reported that 75% of the nursing staff who participated believed that “collaboration was inadequate during decision making” despite general agreement that such team collaboration is necessary and desired. In another study,16 about one-third of the ICU nurses who participated felt “excluded by physicians from patient care decisions and felt their exclusion to be a detriment to patient care.”In terms of the burdens carried in making decisions about end-of-life care, some evidence suggests that physicians and nurses experience equal burdens. Physicians experience the burdens associated with having to make these decisions, and nurses feel the burden of having to carry out care decisions made by someone else.17 Given the shared burdens that members of the interdisciplinary team face, as well as the reported difficulties in end-of-life care decision making in the ICU, ensuring effective communication is a key feature of high-quality patient care.7 The following discussion is intended to demonstrate how clinical ethicists can be supportive of such strategies for effective communication and decision making.Medical recommendations like those pertaining to the care of patients such as Mrs H are based on best-practice standards of care and are informed by ethical principles like beneficence, nonmaleficence, and autonomy. Continued life-sustaining support in situations where benefit is in question can be regarded as futile, a concept with inherent ethical challenges. As Weijer et al18 point out, the values inherent in medical futility arguments often confuse treatment considered ineffective and treatment that will be effective but will ultimately result in a controversial outcome such as permanent unconsciousness. A team’s decision to not readmit a patient for ICU care can be an attempt to address futility based on controversial outcomes that the team may perceive as causing more harm for the patient than good. Poignantly stated, “if the welfare of the patient is the whole purpose of providing treatment and if that treatment brings needless suffering, then the whole purpose of medicine is defeated.”19 Although the concept of futility in ICU care is a subject worthy of ethical debate, it will not be the focus of this discussion. Rather, the subject of this discussion is the role of clinical ethicists in helping decision makers address ethical considerations such as futility.The results of inadequate communication, misunderstandings, or disagreements arising from divergent views about what is beneficent and the institutional realities surrounding resource allocation can be seen in the moral distress and subsequent moral residue experienced by both the patient’s family members and the health care staff involved. Moral distress occurs when a person can identify the ethically appropriate course of action, but does not feel able to carry this action forward because of barriers that may include lack of resources, legal limits, institutional obstacles, or imbalances in power, for example. Effects of moral distress on an individual can include feelings of anger, frustration, anxiety, or depression.20 Moral residue can be encountered when “deeply held beliefs, values and principles” are set aside at the expense of one’s personal sense of integrity.21 For families of patients, moral residue can manifest in lifelong memories about difficult health care experiences.The experience of moral distress and moral residue are of particular importance to critical care nursing. Some evidence indicates a relationship between an ICU care nurse’s perception of providing futile care, inadequate communication about the care plan within the interdisciplinary team, and the incidence of moral distress, emotional exhaustion, and burnout.3,16,22 Cases like that of Mrs H can present these kinds of challenges to nurses providing care at the bedside. The discussion also highlights how clinical ethicists can assist interdisciplinary teams in addressing ethical challenges that can lead to moral distress.Finally, the ethical climate within our health care settings is shaped by the organizational values inherent in hospital policies, approaches to handling conflict, allocation of human and material resources, the daily-lived experience of staff providing care, and those to whom care is provided.23,24 Economic constraints, resource allocation difficulties, and staffing shortages contribute to the moral climate of health settings, the moral distress of staff, and burnout among health care providers.25,26In cases such as that of Mrs H, the ethical challenges are not just about treatment requests considered inadvisable but also about scarce resources like ventilator-equipped beds in ICU settings. In the minds of some families, the need for an ICU bed is the primary reason that palliative measures are now being recommended. When conflict surrounds decisions about level of care, it is the bedside ICU nurse who fields the questions, concerns, and emotions expressed by patients’ families.It is through such challenging decision making, in which no agreement is reached, that the moral climate is regrettably defined for all persons with a stake in the decision. However oppressive these disagreements feel to both health care professionals and patients’ family members, most often the disagreements, ironically, do not result from a lack of good intentions on either side of the debate. Rather, these circumstances reflect the complex ethical challenges that are inherent in contemporary health care settings. Clinical ethicists can be an important resource to health care teams, patients, and patients’ families in addressing these difficult challenges.Clinical ethicists who provide consultative services may be requested by the ICU team when conflicts such as the one surrounding the planning of Mrs H’s level of care arise. What are the characteristics, skills, and knowledge that make clinical ethicists a useful resource in helping to address conflict over decisions about level of care for stable but critically ill ICU patients?Clinical ethicists come from a diverse background of training: clinical and academic experiences that include but are not limited to medicine, nursing, social work, theology, philosophy, and anthropology. Most clinical ethicists have advanced academic degrees and/or training in clinical ethics. Despite this diversity in background, clinical ethicists engage in common functions: consultative services, research, education and the development of policies pertaining to patient care and organizational ethics.27–29Clinical ethicists are trained to view ethical problems within an interdisciplinary health care environment whose primary commitment should always be to provide the best patient care possible. Patient care and goals for care are best understood through the wishes, beliefs, and values of the patient and the patient’s family. The approach taken by clinical ethicists in providing consultation is to model interdisciplinary collaboration and effective communication with patients and their families, with the objective of enhancing ethical decision making.28–30In effect, clinical ethicists in cases such as the one involving Mrs H act as facilitators of communication and decision making about goals for care, while directing attention to the ethical considerations underlying such decisions. Generally, clinical ethicists can help clarify differences in the way ethical considerations such as sanctity or quality of life are valued on the basis of religious, personal, or cultural values. Some evidence suggests that ethics consultation generally has been useful in preventing or resolving conflicts, and in reducing the incidence of prolonged controversial treatment.31,32 Current trends in the training and education of clinical ethicists have emphasized skills, knowledge, and expertise better suited to provide ethics support in real time as dilemmas and conflict around decisions related to patient care unfold.28What is particularly important about the approach used by most clinical ethicists is the emphasis placed on fair and just processes for decisions of such importance and consequence in an ICU environment.In cases such as the one involving Mrs H, it is not just what decision ought to be made that is of interest to clinical ethicists, but if and why a particular decision is ethically defensible. If so, to whom is it ethically defensible? How ought discussions and conflicts be managed? These questions raise ethical concerns about justice, fairness, and a reasoned approach to decisions of such consequence. Ethical consideration must also be given to the moral climate, how people feel treated, and the concerns and opinions of key persons with a stake in the decision making, with overarching consideration given to trust in the process used to make such important decisions. Therefore clinical ethicists are as concerned with procedural fairness as they are with outcome when assisting with ethically challenging situations in health care settings.Principal aspects of procedural fairness are as follows: that the process for decision making be as transparent as possible to all involved; that concerns of key persons with a stake in the decision making be considered; that the reasons or rationale behind decisions can be understood and defended; that people responsible for decisions be held accountable; and that in the event disagreement occurs, decisions can be reviewed, taking into account the concerns of those who disagree.33 Process-driven approaches to decision making or to resolving conflict used by clinical ethicists are dependent on using frameworks to guide communication. Such frameworks for communication are not just ethically defensible; they have been shown empirically to be part of good practice standards in ICU settings.6,11,34 Lilly et al35(pS398) found that using a standardized framework for communication resulted in health care providers seeing decision making as a “process rather than as an event”—an attribute consistent with principles for ethical decision making.An example of such a framework to guide communication is described by Lautrette et al,34 who identify such attributes as timeliness, opportunities for the patient’s family to speak, use of appropriate and sensitive language, and ensuring that the setting is private and comfortable. In addition to these attributes, clinical ethicists would include discussion of the values in conflict and ethical obligations that underscore decision making.Frameworks for communication appear well supported in the literature anyway, so what makes the involvement of clinical ethicists of added benefit?Despite advances in implementing communication strategies in many settings, improvement in general is needed in managing communication, enhancing understanding, and meeting needs of ICU patients and their families.6,8,10,11 Furthermore, Sherwin36 believes that communication frameworks and hospital policies can be used coercively, to enforce a particular outcome, if those who lead these discussions or who adhere to policies are not reflecting on personal biases, institutional pressures, and ethical considerations.Clinical ethicists act as facilitators, helping to raise important ethical questions, model effective communication, and model ethical decision making by using teachable moments to heighten the awareness and understanding of the ethical considerations in each case. Within most health care settings, necessary and unavoidable imbalances in power are present between various persons who have a stake in the decision making. Clinical ethicists assist in discussing the values that underlie decisions of such importance, making these transparent to and understood by key involved parties. They model the principles of procedural fairness. Inherently challenging decisions about level of care, as in the case of Mrs H, are often met with challenging feelings and opinions, making fairness and ethical reflection more important than less to involved parties.Clinical ethicists advocate for policies and practices that reduce coercive consequences that can arise when members of the ICU treatment team, patients, or patients’ family members feel overruled or dismissed. In conducting an ethics consultation, the clinical ethicist leads discussions with the interdisciplinary team members about ethical considerations that contribute to moral distress, for example, the conflict in the way benefit and harm associated with a particular therapy or level of care are understood. In most instances, the clinical ethicist must ensure that concerns raised by members of the interdisciplinary team and concerns expressed by patients’ family members are shared and considered. This process is handled in an open and transparent manner. In creating an opportunity through the consultative process for the interdisciplinary team to address concerns, related to both areas of conflict and moral distress, clinical ethicists are also capitalizing on valuable teachable moments in which knowledge about ethics and decision making can be enhanced. As Kälvemark Sporrong et al37(p835) concluded, “Ethical competence is a key factor in preventing or reducing moral distress.”We have found that consultation on an individual case often helps treatment teams identify preventative strategies to reduce or avoid conflict and to engage in more timely discussion about ethics the next time a complex care situation arises. Such measures are necessary in creating a moral climate in which discussion about ethics in daily practice can be supported and thus reducing the effects or incidence of moral distress. The potential exists for all members of the interdisciplinary ICU team, including the most responsible physician, to be so engaged in ethical reflection and decision making on challenging cases. Clinical ethicists model skills of effective communication, ethical reflection, and decision making as well as principles of procedural fairness within the consultative process that they facilitate.We are not suggesting that effective communication, procedural fairness, ethical reflection, and decision making are deficient whenever clinical ethicists are not involved in such cases. In reality, complex and ethically challenging cases occur routinely in ICU settings, most often without the involvement of clinical ethicists. What is being proposed is that clinical ethicists should be seen as a valuable resource for addressing challenging cases in the ICU. Better understanding is needed about the role of clinical ethicists and the kinds of assistance they can provide.In most cases, the ICU team and patient’s family agree on recommendations that comfort measures be provided on a medical intermediate care unit or a palliative care unit for a stable but critically ill patient. However, as in the case of Mrs H, these decisions may be met with considerable emotion from the patient’s family and with differences of opinion about benefit and the appropriate level of care. We think that clinical ethicists can be a valuable resource when challenging cases arise. By providing consultation, clinical ethicists can model effective communication, ethical reflection, and decision making, while following principles of procedural fairness, all of which are key elements to upholding ethics in daily practice and are of particular importance when conflict occurs about level of care in the ICU.The following are practical considerations for critical care nurses:

Robotic-assisted surgery is increasingly used in acute care surgery, but the impact of individual surgeon robotic case volume on outcomes for both elective and emergency general surgery procedures remains uncertain. To evaluate the association between annual surgeon robotic case volume and patient outcomes following robotic-assisted elective and emergency general surgery. This retrospective cohort study used data from the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD), a large US all-payer hospital database, from January 2021 to December 2023. The PHD aggregates data from nonprofit, community, and teaching hospitals across rural and urban areas, representing 25% of all US inpatient admissions. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing robotic-assisted cholecystectomy, colectomy, appendectomy, small bowel resection, or ventral hernia repair were included. Annual surgeon-level robotic case volume, categorized as low (≤25), intermediate (26-75), high (76-150), or very high (≥151). The primary outcome was conversion to open surgery; secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 30-day readmission, operative time, hospital length of stay, total hospital cost, and in-hospital mortality. Multivariable logistic and linear regression models, respectively, were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and mean ratios with 95% CIs. Models adjusted for patient demographics, hospital characteristics, and surgeon specialty. Among 185 924 patients undergoing robotic procedures (137 879 elective and 48 045 emergency), most (58.2%) were female (57.1% of elective and 61.5% of emergency cases). Mean (SD) patient age was 54.9 (16.6) years overall (55.6 [15.8] years for elective and 53.0 [18.5] years for emergency procedures). In elective procedures, increasing annual surgeon volume was associated with stepwise improvements across most outcomes; compared with low volume surgeons, very high volume surgeons had lower odds of conversion to open surgery (AOR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36-0.56), complications (AOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.79-0.96), readmission (AOR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91), and ICU admission (AOR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.82). Operative time (mean ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.75-0.79), hospital length of stay (mean ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.88-0.91), and costs (mean ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.82-0.84) were also significantly lower. In emergency procedures, very high vs low surgeon volume was associated with lower odds of conversion to open surgery (AOR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.54-1.00) and modest reductions in operative time (mean ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.85-0.91) and cost (mean ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.94). No association was observed between surgeon volume and in-hospital mortality in either cohort. In this cohort study, greater annual surgeon robotic case volume was associated with better patient outcomes in elective general surgery and, to a lesser degree, in emergency procedures. These findings highlight the importance of surgeon-specific experience in robotic surgery and may inform training, credentialing, and strategies for safe expansion of robotic capabilities in acute care surgery.

The surgical specialty of critical care has evolved into a field where the surgeon manages complex medical and surgical problems in critically ill patients. As a specialty, surgical critical care began when acutely ill surgical patients were placed in a designated area within a hospital to facilitate the delivery of medical care. As technology evolved to allow for development of increasingly intricate and sophisticated adjuncts to care, there has been recognition of the importance of physician availability and continuity of care as key factors in improving patient outcomes. Guidelines and protocols have been established to ensure quality improvement and are essential to licensing by state and national agencies. The modern ICU team provides continuous daily care to the patient in close communication with the primary operating physician. While the ultimate responsibility befalls the primary physician who performed the preoperative evaluation and operative procedure, the intensivist is expected to establish and enforce protocols, guidelines and patient care pathways for the critical care unit. It is difficult to imagine modern surgical ICU care without the surgical critical care specialist at the helm.

Concern over lack of resident interest caused by the nonoperative nature and compromised lifestyle associated with a career as a "trauma surgeon" has led to the emergence of a new acute care surgery (ACS) specialty. This study examined the opinions of current general surgical residents about training and careers in this new field. A 36-item online anonymous survey regarding ACS was sent to the program directors of 55 randomly selected general surgery (GS) training programs for distribution to their categorical residents. The national sample consisted of 1,515 PGY 1 to 5 trainees. Response rate was 45%. More than 90% of residents had an appropriate understanding of the components of ACS as generally described (trauma, surgical critical care, and emergency GS). Nearly half (46%) of all respondents have considered ACS as a career. Overall, ACS ranked as the second most appealing career ahead of surgical critical care and trauma but behind GS. Most residents believed that ACS offers better or equivalent case complexity (88%), scope of practice (84%), case volume (75%), and level of reimbursement (69%) compared with GS alone. Respondents who answered ACS had a better scope of practice (61% vs. 36%), lifestyle as an attending surgeon (77% vs. 34%), or level of reimbursement (83% vs. 38%) compared with GS were twice as likely (p < 0.0001) to have considered ACS as a career. Overall, 40% of the residents believed that ACS offers a worse lifestyle in comparison with GS. These results suggest that there is notable interest in the emerging specialty of ACS. The level of resident interest in ACS as a fellowship and career may be increased by marketing those aspects of practice, which are viewed positively and addressing negative perceptions related to lifestyle. It may be appealing to add an elective GS component to certain ACS practice options.

Infectious Risk of Continuous Peripheral Nerve Blocks

Education and training of the future trauma surgeon in acute care surgery: trauma, critical care, and emergency surgery

Division of Traumatology, Surgical Critical Care and Emergency Surgery Penn Presbyterian Medical Center Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania Philadelphia, Pennsylvania The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acute care surgery (ACS) is a specialty that includes trauma, emergency general surgery, and surgical critical care. It has become a vital surgical specialty in the United States, providing surgical services, rescue functions, disaster response, and other important services. Despite its key role in patient care and hospital operations, ACS faces challenges to its sustainability. This overview targets readers who wish to understand the structure and scope of ACS and who work with or manage these practices. The goal is to provide an overview of ACS, its current challenges, and suggestions for developing the specialty. This consensus statement was created by the Acute Care Surgery Workforce Workgroup, which includes representatives from various national surgical organizations. The article combines current ACS models, staffing and compensation practices, and institutional value. It relies on expert agreements and national trends. Several key themes are examined. The value of ACS is shown through better patient outcomes, efficiency, cost savings, and support for institutional missions like disaster preparedness and education. Current ACS programs differ significantly in structure, but two main staffing models exist: traditional (historic) and time delineated. Each model has its own advantages and challenges regarding workload, sustainability, and academic involvement. Regardless of the staffing model, most physician compensation often depends on the measurement of work relative value units. However, these do not fully capture the extent and intensity of ACS work. Additional challenges for the specialty include inconsistencies in terminologies, the absence of board certification, and varying compensation standards. Acute care surgery is a crucial specialty that provides significant value to patients, hospitals, and health care systems. To maintain sustainability and quality, health care leaders need to consider the complexities of ACS practice discussed in this article as well as local demands. Staffing and compensation models should be sustainable and optimize for patient care. Recognizing both clinical and nonclinical contributions of ACS surgeons is essential for resilience and further development of the specialty.

IntroductionTrauma is the fourth leading cause of death globally and constitutes a huge burden on limited critical care resources.Aim​​​​This study aimed to identify the trauma patient burden in terms of resources used in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU) of Aga Khan University Hospital in Pakistan which also included characteristics and outcomes of trauma and non-trauma patients.​​​Methods​​​We retrospectively reviewed all patient data for adult patients (>16 years old) admitted to the SICU from July through December 2014.ResultsOf 141 SICU cases included in our study period, 32 (22.7%) trauma patients were identified. On further stratification of trauma patients, road traffic injuries (43.8%), gunshot injuries (43.8%), and blast injuries (6.3%) were the most common, and about 73% of all trauma patients underwent emergency surgical interventions, comprising a huge burden on all resources. The average age of the trauma patients was significantly lower than non-trauma patients (36 years ± 13 vs. 49 years ± 19; p < 0.01). The male-to-female ratio was 7:1 in trauma cases and 2:1 in non-trauma cases (p = 0.019).There was no statistically significant difference in mortality (31.3% vs. 42.2% p > 0.05) and median length of stay [Median (interquartile range), 5(8) vs. 4(7); p > 0.05] between trauma and non-trauma patients.​​​​​​ConclusionsTrauma constitutes a significant burden in terms of resources used for the SICU of the Aga Khan University, Pakistan. Trauma victims are predominantly young men in whom gunshot injuries are as common as road traffic injuries. Emergency surgical interventions comprise the largest draw on resources, followed by use of blood products, radiological, and laboratory investigations.

Contribution of the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital to French Anesthesiology

In acute care surgery, predicting mortality is important to determine appropriate patient transfer to a regional emergency general surgery (EGS) center. We hypothesized that distance to a referral center and severity of illness (SOI) would be predictors of death. We performed a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected EGS registry from 2004 to 2008. The study population consisted of all patients discharged from the EGS service with an available home zip code in the registry. Study data included age, gender, length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, distance between our facility and patient home zip code, and need for operative management. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome/sepsis/shock, peritonitis, perforation, and acute renal failure were used as SOI indicators. Mortality at discharge was the primary outcome. Patients were stratified by survival and compared using non-parametric statistical tests. Logistic regression assessed the simultaneous contribution of age, SOI, and distance to risk of death. A total of 3,439 patients met study criteria. Females slightly outnumbered males (1,813, 52.7%) with a median age of 47 years. The overall LOS was 6.4 days±9.3 days, and 2,331 (67.8%) of the patients underwent operation. Mean distance was 41.5 miles±51.2 miles (median, 22.2). Overall mortality was 2.7%. Increasing distance, age, and presence of SOI indicators were associated with mortality in univariable analyses. In multivariable logistic regression controlling for patient age and SOI, increasing distance in miles was related to increased mortality (odds ratio, 1.005; p<0.001). This odds ratio equates to a doubling in odds of death for each 132 miles between our center and the patient's home zip code. Age, SOI, and distance from a regional referral center explain much of the variation in mortality and can be used for triage to regional EGS centers.