Literature DB >> 24719279

Time to surgical review: an assessment of the traditional model of emergency surgical care.

M E Kelly1, C Conlon, G N Le, G J Nason, E Mansour, K C Conlon, P F Ridgway.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The traditional model for emergency surgical care consists of an on-call team providing service to the emergency department, while simultaneously balancing the demands of elective work. Various newer models, such as the "surgeon of the week" aim to reduce the conflict between elective and emergency duties. Despite the recent focus on newer models, there remains no data on the effectiveness of the traditional model. We aim to assess the efficacy of the traditional model in a large regional hospital.
METHODS: A retrospective study between July 2009 and March 2010 was performed. Primarily, we assessed the initial time to surgical consultation after emergency department referral. Secondarily, we evaluated the impact of time periods, days of week, and case-mix etiology on this consultation time.
RESULTS: The overall median time to surgical consultation after emergency department referral was 30 min (N = 860, P = 0.709). However, the median time to consultation was 60, 30, and 20 min for daytime, evening and night time, respectively (*P < 0.001). Trauma cases had a median time of 15 min, vascular had 45 min, neoplasm had 120 min, while other categories (upper and lower gastroenterology, and skin related) were 30 min (*P = 0.025). DISCUSSION: Newer models of acute surgical care have desirable outcomes in consultation times. However, regional and economical implications have a substantial impact on which model is feasible at local levels. We demonstrated that the traditional model still remains effective in a large sized tertiary referral unit.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24719279     DOI: 10.1007/s11845-014-1113-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ir J Med Sci        ISSN: 0021-1265            Impact factor:   1.568


  15 in total

1.  The triad of trauma, emergency surgery, and surgical critical care: practice patterns and financial considerations.

Authors:  B R Hill; R Nirula
Journal:  Scand J Surg       Date:  2010       Impact factor: 2.360

Review 2.  Acute care surgery: the trauma surgeon's perspective.

Authors:  Gregory J Jurkovich
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.982

3.  Acute care surgery: can New Zealand afford to wait?

Authors:  Savitha Bhagvan; Ian Civil
Journal:  N Z Med J       Date:  2009-02-13

4.  Organization of emergency surgery.

Authors:  A Leppäniemi
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 6.939

5.  Electronic medical handover: towards safer medical care.

Authors:  Lean-Peng Cheah; Debbie H Amott; James Pollard; David A K Watters
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  2005-10-03       Impact factor: 7.738

6.  Making sense of emergency surgery in New South Wales: a position statement.

Authors:  Stephen A Deane; Donald G MacLellan; Gavin L Meredith; Patrick C Cregan
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 1.872

7.  Impact of a new electronic handover system in surgery.

Authors:  S Ryan; J M O'Riordan; S Tierney; K C Conlon; P F Ridgway
Journal:  Int J Surg       Date:  2010-12-01       Impact factor: 6.071

8.  The impact of an acute care emergency surgical service on timely surgical decision-making and emergency department overcrowding.

Authors:  Adnan Qureshi; Andy Smith; Frances Wright; Fred Brenneman; Sandro Rizoli; Taulee Hsieh; Homer C Tien
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2011-05-20       Impact factor: 6.113

9.  Acute-care surgical service: a change in culture.

Authors:  Andrew D Parasyn; Philip G Truskett; Michael Bennett; Sharon Lum; Jennie Barry; Koroush Haghighi; Philip J Crowe
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2009 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 1.872

10.  Electronic software significantly improves quality of handover in a London teaching hospital.

Authors:  Dimitri A Raptis; Carl Fernandes; Weiliang Chua; Paul B Boulos
Journal:  Health Informatics J       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 2.681

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.