Search

Background Patients presenting with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) routinely undergo repeat head Computed Tomography (CT) scans with the goal of identifying progressing hemorrhage early and providing timely intervention. Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score and Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS) are typically used to grade the severity of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and triage subsequent management. However, most patients receive a repeat head CT scan within 6 hours of the initial insult, regardless of these clinical scores. We investigated the yield of a repeat CT scan for mild blunt TBI (GCS 13-15, AIS 1-2). Methods This was a single-center retrospective chart review at a level 1 trauma center between 2009 and 2019. Our primary outcome was medical or surgical intervention directly resulted from change in CT head findings. We used multivariate regression to identify predictors of surgical and medical intervention. Results 234 mild TBI patients met inclusion criteria. 33.7% of all patients had worsening ICH. 7.7% of patients required a surgical intervention, and 27.4% received a medical intervention. Multivariate analysis found that a decline in GCS (OR 8.64), and polytrauma (Injury Severity Score >15; OR 3.32) predicted surgical intervention. Worsening ICH did not predict surgical or medical intervention. Patients requiring medical intervention were more likely to have a decline in GCS (OR 2.53, P = .02) and be older (age >65, OR 2.06, P = .02). Conclusion In the population of blunt traumatic injury, worsening ICH did not predict surgical or medical intervention. Routine repeat imaging for this population is low yield, and clinical exam should guide the decision to reimage.

Background As palliative medicine concepts emerge as essential surgical education, there has been a resulting spike in surgical palliative care research. Historic surgical dogma viewed mortality and comfort-focused care as a failure of the providers’ endurance, knowledge base, or technical skill. Therefore, many providers avoided consultation to a palliative medicine service until it became evident a patient could not survive or was actively dying. As the need for surgical palliative care grows, the identification of deficits in surgical providers’ understanding of the scope of palliative medicine is necessary to direct further training and development efforts. Method A ten-question survey was emailed to all residents, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and attending physicians in the general surgery and subspecialty surgical departments within the Einstein Healthcare Network. Results 30 non-trainees (attending surgeons, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) and 26 trainees (PGY-1 to PGY-5) completed the survey. Less than half of participants reported training in conversations regarding withdrawal of life-prolonging treatments in the setting of expected poor outcomes, 55% reported receiving training in pain management, and 64% reported receiving training in delivery of bad news. 54% report being involved in five or more end-of-life discussions in the last year with trainees reporting fewer end-of-life discussions than non-trainees; 67% of trainees reported zero to four discussions while 23% of non-trainees reported over twenty discussions ( P = .009). Conclusions Despite many participants training in intensive care settings, providers lack the training to carry out major discussions regarding life-limiting illness, goals of care, and end-of-life independently.