Making The Trauma Team Time Out Even Better!

Over the past two days, I’ve discussed a method for optimizing the hand-off process between prehospital providers and the trauma team. Besides improving the quality and completeness of information exchange, it also fosters a good relationship between the two. All too often, the medics feel that “the trauma team is not listening to me” if the procedure is to move the patient onto the ED bed as quickly as possible.

And they are right! As soon as the patient hits the table, the trauma team starts doing what they do so well. It’s impossible for humans to multi-task, even though they think they can (look at texting and driving). We switch contexts with our brain, from looking at the patient to listening to EMS, back and forth. And it takes a few extra seconds to switch from one to the other. Team members will not be able to concentrate on the potentially important details that are being relayed.

What should you do if the team doesn’t want to wait?

First, educate them. Except for those who are in extremis or arrest, the patient can wait on the EMS stretcher for 30 seconds. Nothing harmful is going to happen in that short period.

Then, create a hard stop. The easiest way to do this is to place a laminated copy of the timeout procedure on the ED bed. And the rule is that the card doesn’t move until the timeout is done. This is very similar to what happens in the OR. The process should take only 30 seconds, then it’s over and the team can start.

Here’s a copy of a sample TTA Timeout card:

Download a TTA timeout card

Modify it to suit your hospital and process, and try it out!

Thanks to the trauma team at Ridgeview Hospital in Waconia MN for telling me about this cool trick!

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

Prehospital To Trauma Team Handoff: A Solution

I wrote about handoffs between EMS and the trauma team yesterday. It’s a problem at many hospitals. So what to do?

Let’s learn from our experience in the OR. Best practice in the operating room mandates a specific time out process that involves everyone in the OR. Each participant in the operation has to stop, identify the patient, state what the proposed procedure and location is, verify that the site is marked properly, and that they have carried out their own specific responsibilities (e.g. infused the antibiotic).

image

Some trauma centers have initiated a similar process for their trauma team as well. Here’s how it works:

  • The patient is rolled into the resuscitation room by EMS personnel, but remains on the stretcher.
  • Any urgent cares continue, such as ventilation.
  • The trauma team leader is identified and the EMS lead gives a brief report while everyone in the room listens. The report consists of only mechanism, all identified injuries, vital signs (including pupils and GCS), any treatments provided. This should take no more than 30 seconds.
  • An opportunity for questions to be asked and answered is presented
  • The patient is moved onto the hospital bed and evaluation and treatment proceed as usual.
  • EMS personnel provide any additional information to the scribe, and may be available to answer any additional questions for a brief period of time.

Bottom line: This is an excellent way to improve the relationship between prehospital and trauma team while improving patient care. It should help increase the amount of clinically relevant information exchanged between care providers. Obviously, there will be certain cases where such a clean process is not possible (e.g. CPR in progress). I recommend that all trauma programs consider implementing this “Trauma Activation Time Out For EMS” concept.

Tomorrow, I’ll share a best practice to make this process even better!

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

The EMS Handoff: Opportunity for Improvement

Handoffs occur in trauma care all the time. EMS hands the patient off to the trauma team. ED physicians hand off to each other at end of shift. They also hand off patients to the inpatient trauma service. Residents on the trauma service hand off to other residents at the end of their call shift. Attending surgeons hand off to each other as they change service or a call night ends. The same process also occurs with many of the other disciplines involved in patient care as well.

Every one of these handoffs is a potential problem. Our business is incredibly complicated, and given that dozens of details on dozens of patients need to be passed on, the opportunity for error is always present. And the fact that resident work hours are becoming more and more limited increases the need for handoffs and the number of potential errors.

Today, I’ll look at information transfer at the first handoff point, EMS to trauma team. Some literature has suggested that there are 16 specific prehospital data points that affect patient outcome and must be included in the EMS report. How good are we at making sure this happens?

An observational study was carried out at a US Level I trauma center with video recording capabilities in the resuscitation room. Video was reviewed to document the “transmission” part of the EMS report. Trauma chart documentation was also reviewed to see if the “reception” half of the process by the trauma team occurred as well.

Here are the factoids:

  • A total of 96 handoffs were reviewed over a one year period
  • The maximum number of data elements in the study was 1536 (96 patients x 16 data elements)
  • The total number “transmitted” was 473, but only 329 of those were “received.”
  • This is not quite as bad as it seems, since 483 points were judged as not applicable by the reviewers. However, this left 580 that were applicable but were not mentioned by EMS.
  • Of the 16 key elements, the median number transmitted was 5, with a range of 1-9.

This sounds bad. However, the EMS professionals and the physicians have somewhat different objectives. EMS desperately wants to share what they know about the scene and the patient. The trauma team wants to start the evaluation process using their own eyes and hands. What to do?

Bottom line: EMS to trauma team handoffs are a problem for many hospitals. EMS has a lot of valuable information, and the trauma team wants to keep the patient alive. They are both immersed in their own world, working to do what they think is best for the patient. Unfortunately, they could do better if the just worked together a bit more.

Tomorrow I’ll share a solution to the EMS-trauma team handoff problem.

Reference: Information loss in emergency medical services handover of trauma patients. Prehosp Emerg Care 13:280-285, 2009.

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

Does Trauma Team Prenotification By EMS Decrease Mortality?

A few months ago, I heard this statement at a conference I was attending:

“Of course, prenotification of the trauma team by EMS decreases hospital mortality”

And of course, whenever I hear someone say “of course”, it makes me think about it. How do we know for sure? So I made one of my frequent trips to PubMed to find the basis for the statement.

And guess what? He shouldn’t have said “of course.” The literature is very scarce on this topic. There are actually some good papers detailing the advantages of prehospital notification for things like stroke and STEMI. But trauma?

A group in Melbourne, Australia performed a systematic review of the literature on this topic for the Australia-India Trauma System Collaboration. They were interesting in finding information about early (<24 hour) and overall (<30 day) mortality, as well as trauma team presence, time to critical hospital interventions, and hospital length of stay. Over a thousand articles were identified, but half did not have proper study design, and a quarter weren’t about notification. After excluding those, and others that failed other criteria, they were left with only three to review!

Here are the factoids:

  • Two of the studies were small, with only 81 and 269 participants and individual hospitals
  • The remaining study was a very large retrospective analysis of over 72,000 patients from 59 hospitals in Canada
  • All three had serious risk for bias and significant confounding variables
  • The large study showed a significant improvement in overall mortality from 32% to 23%, the smaller studies did not. But the study quality was so poor for this outcome that we can’t really be certain, and these numbers seem very high coming from Canada.
  • No conclusions could be drawn for short term mortality, length of stay, or time to interventions in the ED
  • The studies only involved high-income countries; nothing could be learned for low to medium-income countries.

Bottom line: Three studies in 27 years??! So sad. It certainly seems like having the trauma team informed and prepped in advance should count for something. But like so many other things in this business, we just don’t know for sure. Having everyone in place and ready to receive the patient, and getting other in-hospital resources ready (e.g. OR) may shorten time to definitive, life-saving treatment. But for now, we’ll just have to pretend. Until someone designs and performs a much better study.

Related posts:

Reference: Prehospital notification for major trauma patients requiring emergency hospital transport: A systematic review. J Evidence Based Med 10(3):212-221, 2017.

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

Chest X-Ray After Chest Tube Insertion: Why Do We Do It?

More dogma, or is it actually useful? Any time a chest tube (tube thoracostomy) is inserted, we automatically order a chest x-ray. Even the ATLS course recommends obtaining an image after placement. But anything we do “automatically” is grounds for critical analysis to see if there is a valid reason for doing it.

A South African group looked at the utility of this practice retrospectively in 1004 of their patients. They place 1042 tubes. Here are the factoids:

  • Patients were included if they had at least one chest x-ray obtained after insertion
  • Patients were grouped as follows: Group A (10%) had the tube inserted on clinical grounds with no pre-insertion x-ray (e.g. tension pneumothorax). Group B (19%) had a chest x-ray before and had ongoing clinical concerns after insertion. Group C (71%) had a chest-xray before and no ongoing concerns.
  • 75% of injuries were penetrating (75% stab, 25% GSW), 25% were blunt
  • Group A (insertion with pre-x-ray): 9% had post-insertion findings that prompted a management change (kinked, not inserted far enough)
  • Group B (ongoing clinical concerns): 58% required a management change based on the post-x-ray. 33% were subcutaneous or not inserted far enough (!!)
  • Group C (no ongoing clinical concerns): 32 of 710 (5%) required a management change, usually because the tube was too deep

The authors concluded that if there are no clinical concerns (tube functioning, no clinical symptoms) after insertion, then a chest x-ray is not necessary.

Bottom line: But I disagree with the authors! Even with no obvious clinical concerns, the tube may not be functioning for a variety of reasons. Hopefully, this fact would then be discovered the next day when another x-ray is obtained. But this delays the usual progression toward removing the tube promptly by at least one day. It increases hospital stay, as well as the likelihood of infection or other hospital-associated complication. A chest x-ray is cheap compared to a day in the hospital, which would potentially happen in 5% of these patients. I recommend that we continue to obtain a simple one-view chest x-ray after tube insertion.

Related posts:

Reference: What is the yield of routine chest radiography following tube thoracostomy for trauma?  Injury 46(1):45-48, 2015.

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

Is Applying Or Removing That Cervical Collar Dangerous?

Cervical collars are applied to blunt trauma patients all the time. Maybe a bit too often. And most of the time, the neck is fine. It’s just those few patients that have fracture or ligamentous injury that really, truly need it.

I’ve previously written about how good some of the various types of immobilization are at limiting movement (click here). But what happens when you are actually putting them on or taking them off? Could there be dangerous amounts of movement then?

Several orthopaedics departments studied this issue using an electromagnetic motion detector on “fresh, lightly embalmed cadavers” (!) to determine how much movement occurred when applying and removing 1- and 2-piece collars. Specifically, they used an Aspen 2-piece collar, and an Ambu 1-piece. They were able to measure flexion/extension, rotation and lateral bending.

Here are the factoids:

  • There were no significant differences in rotation (2 degrees) and lateral bending (3 degrees) when applying either collar type or removing them (both about 1 degree)
  • There was a significant difference (of 0.8 degrees) in flexion/extension between the two types (2-piece flexed more). Really? 0.8 degrees is significant? Not clinically!
  • Movement was similarly small and not significantly different in either collar when removing them

Bottom line: Movement in any plane is less than 3-4 degrees with either a 1-piece or 2-piece collar. This is probably not clinically significant at all. Just look at my related post below, which showed that once your patient is in the rigid collar, they can still flex (8 degrees), rotate (2 degrees) and move laterally (18 degrees) quite a bit! So be careful when using any collar, but don’t worry about doing damage if you use it correctly.

Related post:

Reference: Motion generated in the unstable cervical spine during the application and removal of cervical immobilization collars. J Trauma 72(6):1609-1613, 2012.

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

Sinus Precautions: Another Trauma Urban Legend?

The trauma service typically helps our facial surgery colleagues manage patients from time to time. Every now and again, I see their request/instructions for “sinus precautions” when patients have certain fracture patterns or undergo surgery involving sinuses.  Where did these “precautions” come from? Do they really make sense?

The paranasal sinuses shown above are the most commonly injured after facial trauma. They are lined with mucosa, and like the rest of our body, colonized with bacteria. They are interconnected with each other and the nasal cavity via tiny ostia that allow for normal drainage into the nose. Facial surgeons worry that these bacteria may seep out of fractured areas into clean tissue and cause deep infections. This may occur spontaneously, and could be accelerated if the pressure in the sinuses is increased in any way.

If you do a simple internet search on “sinus precautions”, it seems like every facial surgery group in the country has a set in their patient information sheet. And they all look suspiciously similar. As if they’ve been copied from each other and over, and from the same very, very old document.

As noted above, the main issue to be avoided is increasing pressure across the sinuses. Here’s the usual list of precautions, and my comments on their utility.

  • Avoid blowing your nose. This one actually makes sense. Closing the nose and mouth, pressurizing the pharynx and releasing through the nose will certainly increase sinus pressures. And there are actually reported cases of new onset cellulitis after this maneuver. True
  • Avoid sneezing. Good luck on this one. Who actually does this on purpose anyway? Sneezing will certainly increase sinus pressures, but this can be minimized by avoiding trying to stifle the sneeze. True
  • Do not drink through a straw. What? This causes a low pressure zone in the oropharynx so that fluids can be sipped, but the nasopharynx is isolated. If it weren’t you’d have beverages pouring out of your nose. False
  • Do not smoke. Well, this is certainly a good idea for many reasons, but has little impact on nasopharyngeal pressures. If anything, it decreases them slightly on inhalation, and works the same on exhalation as breathing out without the smoke. False
  • Do not blow musical instruments, balloons, … Yes, this can increase pressures. True
  • Do not push or lift heavy objects.  Hmm. The natural tendency is to perform a Valsalva maneuver (holding breath against a closed glottis) when doing this. In theory, this shouldn’t impact the sinuses because they are not attached to the trachea in any way. And even though it is possible to let some air escape the glottis and keep your mouth closed, it immediately exits the nose. Exhaling through the nose rapidly could increase pressures slightly. Most people don’t do this. Mostly false
  • Do not bend over, keep your head above your heart, sleep with your head slightly elevated. Come on, now. Sinuses are rigid, air-filled cavities. They don’t compress. False
  • Do not fly in a plane.  Definitely an issue. Everybody experiences popping ears and sinuses when flying. And it’s the descent that is of most concern. The increasing air pressure during this phase of flight can push fluid and air out of the sinuses. True
  • Do not spit. Okay, this goes without saying. It’s rude, but doesn’t do a thing to your sinuses. False

Bottom line: I was unable to find any seminal paper or book chapter as the source for “sinus precautions”. Most of the items on the list are bogus. But a few do actually increase sinus pressures and could result in fluid, air, and bacteria moving out of sinuses and into areas where they don’t belong. Pare down the list before you hand it to your patients.

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

The September Trauma MedEd Newsletter Is Coming Soon: Trauma in the Hybrid Room

A growing number of hospitals have a “hybrid OR.” My next newsletter will answer all your questions about what it is, and what you can do in it. It can be a handy dandy tool for trauma cases, but there are a number of things you need to think about before you use it for the first time.

In this issue I’ll cover:

  • What exactly is a hybrid OR?
  • What types of trauma cases can it be used for?
  • What are the limitations?
  • What do I need to think about before I use it for trauma?
  • And more!

As always, this issue will go to all of my subscribers first. If you are not yet one of them, click this link to sign up and/or download back issues.

Unfortunately, non-subscribers will have to wait until I release the issue on this blog, about 10 days later. So sign up now!

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

Nurses: Stop The Insanity! What To Do When The Doc Won’t Listen

“Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

– Albert Einstein

This post applies specifically to nurses. I know it’s happened to you. Your patient is having a problem. You do a little troubleshooting, but you feel that a doctor needs to know and possibly take some action. So you page them and duly note it in the medical record. No response. You do it again, and document it. No response. And a third time, with the same result.

And now what? Call someone else? Give up and hope the patient improves?

What if the doctor on call is a known asshole? Are you even reluctant to call in the first place? Do you delay as long as you possibly can?

Believe it or not, I’ve seen many chart review cases over the years where this situation does arise. And every once in a while, the patient actually dies. Sometimes this is directly related to the lack of intervention, but sometimes it just sets the ball rolling that eventually leads to patient demise days or weeks later.

What’s the answer? We all want to provide the best care possible for our patients. But sometimes social factors (or pager malfunctions) just get in the way. Here’s how to deal with it.

Every hospital / nursing unit needs to have a procedure for escalating patient care calls to more advanced providers. When one of your patients develops a problem, you usually have a pretty good idea of what the possible solutions are. So call/page the proper person (PA/NP/MD) who can provide that solution. If they don’t give you the “right answer”, then question it. They are not all-knowing.

If they give you a good explanation, go with it, but keep your eye on your patient’s progress. If they can’t explain why they are giving you the wrong answer, suggest they check with someone more senior. And if they don’t want to, let them know that you will have to. Consider no answer the same as a wrong answer.

Don’t stop going up the chain of command until you get that right answer, or an explanation that satisfies you. The hard part here is going up the chain. You may not be comfortable with this. But you do have resources that can help you that have more authority (nurse manager, supervisor, etc). If they, too, are uncomfortable, then your hospital has much bigger problems (unhealthy workplace). 

Example: trauma unit nurses at my hospital will call the first year resident first, then escalate to the junior and/or chief residents. If they don’t do the right thing, the in-house trauma attending gets the call. If they don’t handle it, then the trauma medical director (me) gets called. And, of course, I always do the right thing (chuckle). And our nurses know that the surgeons support them completely, since this facilitates the best patient care. The residents and PAs are educated about this chain of command when they first start on the trauma service, and it makes them more likely to choose the “right answer” since they know the buck may not stop with them.

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

More on Malpractice: Can Surgical Residents Be Sued?

Respondeat superior. Let the master answer. This is a common law term that allows employers to be held responsible for the misdeeds of their employees or agents.

And more than half a century ago, the “captain of the ship” doctrine arose in surgery. This held the supervising surgeon responsible for everything that happened in the operating room.

And because of these two premises, there has been widespread presumption that surgical trainees are immune to being named in a malpractice action. Unfortunately, this is not true! There is no law that prevents residents from being included in a lawsuit.

So how common is resident involvement in malpractice suits? What are the damages? What are the consequences?  Researchers at the Mayo Clinic reviewed 10 years of data from the Westlaw online legal research database. They included all cases that involved surgical interns, residents, or fellows.

Here are the factoids:

  • A total of 87 malpractice cases involving surgical trainees were identified over 10 years (!)
  • 47% involved general surgical cases, 18% orthopedics, and 11% OB. The remainder were less than 5% each.
  • 70% of cases involved elective surgical procedures. The most common one was cholecystectomy (6 cases).
  • Half involved nonoperative decision making, and 39% involved intraoperative errors and injuries. The remainder had both components.
  • Failure of the trainee to evaluate a patient in person was cited in 12% of cases.
  • Lack of attending supervision was involved in 55%.
  • Informed consent issues were cited in 21%, documentation errors in 15%, and communications problems in 10%
  • There were twice as many cases involving junior residents compared to seniors and fellows
  • Median payout to the patient (and his attorney) was about $900K

Bottom line: At first, I though this was going to be an interesting paper. But it went downhill as soon as I started to read the analysis. Yes, it scanned 10 years worth of detailed malpractice data. BUT IT DIDN’T GIVE US A DENOMINATOR! There must have been tens of thousands of surgical malpractice cases during that time period across the US. And they found only 87 involving surgical trainees!

The authors conclude that this work “highlights the importance of perioperative management, particularly among junior residents, and appropriate supervision by attending physicians as targets for education on litigation prevention.”

This is ridiculous. The mere fact that the authors do not mention the total number of surgical malpractice cases in the database over the study period (denominator) implies that they were trying to emphasize the numbers they did publish. They didn’t want to show you how low the resident numbers were by comparison. On average, 9 were involved in a lawsuit every year. 

How many surgical residents and fellows are there? This is a bit hard to pin down. There are roughly 1200 categorical surgical residency spots every year. And then there are some prelim spots. Let’s add a few thousand more (wild ass guess), so that puts us at 5,000. Include orthopedics and other surgical specialty residencies? Add a few thousand more. And then fellows. Who knows? Add another  thousand? (If anybody has more accurate answers, please leave a comment!)

So 9 out of 10,000+ surgical trainees get sued every year. Do we really need to set up some kind of formal education on malpractice avoidance??? Not for those numbers. Just read, see your patients, especially when they are having problems, document everything you do, and practice good handoff communications. Then worry about more important things!

Reference: Medical malpractice lawsuits involving surgical residents  JAMA  Surg, published online Aug 30, 2017  

Related posts:

 

Source: The Trauma Professionals’s Blog

The Regions Trauma Website