Literature DB >> 26034433

Comparison of hand emergency triage before and after specialty templates (2007 vs. 2012).

Loretta Coady-Fariborzian1, Amy McGreane2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Emergency hand service is a national problem both for civilian and veteran patients. The North Florida/South Georgia Veterans Health system began coordinating emergency hand coverage within the plastic surgery service in 2008. Consult templates were designed to facilitate access to the appropriate service. Trainees were taken out of transfer decisions. Clinic templates were designed to fast track urgent patients to 8 a.m. appointments. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of our templates and triage system.
METHODS: All consults completed by the plastic surgery service were reviewed retrospectively. Emergent and urgent hand consults were identified. Time from consult submission to the patient being seen by the plastic surgery provider was recorded. Time frames were categorized as same day, next day, within 2 days, less than or equal to 7 days, and greater than 7 days. Type of emergency (trauma or infection) and treatment plan were noted.
RESULTS: There were 1,090 consults in 2007 and 1,868 consults in 2012 that were completed by the plastic surgery service. We found the number of urgent and emergent hand consults increased by a factor of 6 (49 to 294). Furthermore, 16.3 % (8/49) of patients were seen greater than 1 week after consult submission in 2007, compared with 8.1 % (24/294) of patients in 2012. Only one patient from 2007 and two patients from 2012 went to the OR after regular operating room hours.
CONCLUSION: A well-coordinated effort to speed access for hand emergencies can minimize expenses and improve quality of care.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Hand emergency; Hand trauma; Template; Triage

Year:  2015        PMID: 26034433      PMCID: PMC4447650          DOI: 10.1007/s11552-014-9664-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Hand (N Y)        ISSN: 1558-9447


  8 in total

1.  Lack of emergency hand surgery: discrepancy between elective and emergency hand care.

Authors:  Melissa A Mueller; Victor Zaydfudim; Kevin W Sexton; R Bruce Shack; Wesley P Thayer
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2012-05       Impact factor: 1.539

2.  The shortage of on-call surgical specialist coverage: a national survey of emergency department directors.

Authors:  Mitesh B Rao; Catherine Lerro; Cary P Gross
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 3.451

3.  Hand education for emergency medicine residents: results of a pilot program.

Authors:  Scott D Lifchez
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 2.230

4.  Standard of care for hand trauma: Where should we be going?

Authors:  J Daniel Labs
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2008-06-25

5.  Access to hand surgery emergency care.

Authors:  Hollis Caffee; Chad Rudnick
Journal:  Ann Plast Surg       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 1.539

6.  Evaluation of appropriateness of patient transfers for hand and microsurgery to a level I trauma center.

Authors:  Ilvy Friebe; Jonathan Isaacs; Satya Mallu; Anton Kurdin; Varatharaj Mounasamy; Harinder Dhindsa
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2013-12

7.  Tennessee emergency hand care distributions and disparities: Emergent hand care disparities.

Authors:  Joshua R Anthony; Victoria N Poole; Kevin W Sexton; Li Wang; Melissa A Mueller; Oscar Guillamondegui; R Bruce Shack; Wesley P Thayer
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2013-06

8.  Repeat emergency room visits for hand and wrist injuries.

Authors:  Vishnu C Potini; Walter Bratchenko; Glen Jacob; Linda Chen; Virak Tan
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2014-03-01       Impact factor: 2.230

  8 in total
  1 in total

1.  Analysis of Factors Influencing the Grading of Condition Severity and Zoning Management in an Emergency Triage System.

Authors:  Yongxia Sun; Xiuping Wang; Huiping Xue; Xiuzhen Li
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 1.429

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.