Adam N Paine1,2, Bradley L Krompf2, Edward C Borrazzo1,2, Thomas P Ahern1, Ajai K Malhotra1,2, Mitchell C Norotsky1,2, Mitchell H Tsai3. 1. Department of Surgery, The University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT. 2. Department of Surgery, The University of Vermont Medical Center, Burlington, VT. 3. Department of Anesthesiology and Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation (by courtesy), The University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Acute Care Surgery (ACS) model has been widely adopted by hospitals across the United States, with ACS services managing emergency general surgery (EGS) patients previously treated by general surgery (GS) services. We evaluated the operational and financial impact of an ACS service model on general surgeons at an academic medical center. METHODS: Using WiseOR® (Palo Alto, CA), we compared surgical case volumes for the GS service two years before (October, 2013 - September, 2015) and two years after (October, 2015 - September, 2017) implementation of an ACS service at the University of Vermont Medical Center. From financial reports, we obtained monthly wRVUs, clinical FTEs, net patient revenue, and payer mix for the GS service and compared the two years before and after ACS model implementation. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the average number of cases performed by the GS service following ACS service implementation (monthly mean ± SD, 139.1 ± 16.0 vs. 116.7 ± 14.0, p < 0.001). The normal-hours caseload remained stable, while a significant decrease in after-hours cases accounted for the reduction in overall volume. Despite the reduction in operative volume, the decrease in mean monthly wRVU/FTE for the GS service when comparing the pre- and post- ACS periods did not reach statistical significance (614.9 ± 82.9 vs. 576.3 ± 62.1, p = 0.08).There was a significant increase in average monthly clinic-derived wRVU/FTE for the GS service (106.3 ± 13.5 vs. 120.5 ± 16.4, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Shifting EGS patient management from the GS to ACS service did not negatively impact the productivity of the GS service.
BACKGROUND: The Acute Care Surgery (ACS) model has been widely adopted by hospitals across the United States, with ACS services managing emergency general surgery (EGS) patients previously treated by general surgery (GS) services. We evaluated the operational and financial impact of an ACS service model on general surgeons at an academic medical center. METHODS: Using WiseOR® (Palo Alto, CA), we compared surgical case volumes for the GS service two years before (October, 2013 - September, 2015) and two years after (October, 2015 - September, 2017) implementation of an ACS service at the University of Vermont Medical Center. From financial reports, we obtained monthly wRVUs, clinical FTEs, net patient revenue, and payer mix for the GS service and compared the two years before and after ACS model implementation. RESULTS: There was a significant reduction in the average number of cases performed by the GS service following ACS service implementation (monthly mean ± SD, 139.1 ± 16.0 vs. 116.7 ± 14.0, p < 0.001). The normal-hours caseload remained stable, while a significant decrease in after-hours cases accounted for the reduction in overall volume. Despite the reduction in operative volume, the decrease in mean monthly wRVU/FTE for the GS service when comparing the pre- and post- ACS periods did not reach statistical significance (614.9 ± 82.9 vs. 576.3 ± 62.1, p = 0.08).There was a significant increase in average monthly clinic-derived wRVU/FTE for the GS service (106.3 ± 13.5 vs. 120.5 ± 16.4, p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Shifting EGS patient management from the GS to ACS service did not negatively impact the productivity of the GS service.
Entities:
Keywords:
Acute Care Surgery; Emergency General Surgery; General Surgery; productivity; work Relative Value Units
Authors: Robert C Gandy; Phillip G Truskett; Shing W Wong; Sanchia Smith; Michael H Bennett; Andrew D Parasyn Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2010-09-06 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Angela S Earley; John P Pryor; Patrick K Kim; Joseph H Hedrick; Jibby E Kurichi; Amy C Minogue; Seema S Sonnad; Patrick M Reilly; C W Schwab Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Akpofure Peter Ekeh; Benjamin Monson; Curtis J Wozniak; Matthew Armstrong; Mary C McCarthy Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2008-04-24 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Alexis L Cralley; Clay C Burlew; Charles J Fox; Fredric M Pieracci; K Barry K Platnick; Eric M Campion; Mitchell J Cohen; Ernest E Moore; Ryan A Lawless Journal: JSLS Date: 2022 Jul-Sep Impact factor: 1.789