Search

Your search keyword '"Holena, Daniel N."' showing total 232 results
Start Over Author "Holena, Daniel N." Search Limiters Academic (Peer-Reviewed) Journals
232 results on '"Holena, Daniel N."'

2. Getting out of the bay faster: Assessing trauma team performance using trauma video review

Author

Maiga, Amelia W., Vella, Michael A., Appelbaum, Rachel D., Irlmeier, Rebecca, Ye, Fei, Holena, Daniel N., Dumas, Ryan P., Dumas, Ryan P., Vella, Michael A., Maiga, Amelia W., Erickson, Caroline R., Dennis, Brad M., da Luz, Luis T., Pannell, Dylan, Quigley, Emily, Velopulos, Catherine G., Hendzlik, Peter, Marinica, Alexander, Bruce, Nolan, Margolick, Joseph, Butler, Dale F., Estroff, Jordan, Zebley, James A., Alexander, Ashley, Mitchell, Sarah, Grossman Verner, Heather M., Truitt, Michael, Berry, Stepheny, Middlekauff, Jennifer, Luce, Siobhan, Leshikar, David, Krowsoski, Leandra, Bukur, Marko, Polite, Nathan M., McMann, Ashley H., Staszak, Ryan, Armen, Scott B., Horrigan, Tiffany, Moore, Forrest O., Bjordahl, Paul, Guido, Jenny, Mathew, Sarah, Diaz, Bernardo F., Mooney, Jennifer, Hebeler, Katherine, and Holena, Daniel N.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

8. Outcomes among trauma patients with duodenal leak following primary versus complex repair of duodenal injuries: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial

Author

Choron, Rachel L., Teichman, Amanda L., Bargoud, Christopher G., Sciarretta, Jason D., Smith, Randi N., Hanos, Dustin S., Afif, Iman N., Beard, Jessica H., Dhillon, Navpreet K., Zhang, Ashling, Ghneim, Mira, Devasahayam, Rebekah J., Gunter, Oliver L., Smith, Alison A, Sun, Brandi L., Cao, Chloe S., Reynolds, Jessica K., Hilt, Lauren A., Holena, Daniel N., Chang, Grace, Jonikas, Meghan, Echeverria, Karla, Fung, Nathaniel S., Anderson, Aaron, Fitzgerald, Caitlin A., Dumas, Ryan P., Levin, Jeremy H., Trankiem, Christine T., Yoon, JaeHee Jane, Blank, Jacqueline, Hazelton, Joshua, McLaughlin, Christopher J., Al-Aref, Rami, Kirsch, Jordan M., Howard, Daniel S., Scantling, Dane R., Dellonte, Kate, Vella, Michael, Hopkins, Brent, Shell, Chloe H., Udekwu, Pascal O., Wong, Evan G., Joseph, Bellal A., Lieberman, Howard, Ramsey, Walter, Stewart, Collin, Alvarez, Claudia, Berne, John D., Nahmias, Jeffry, Puente, Ivan, Patton, Joe H., Jr, Rakitin, Ilya, Perea, Lindsey L., Pulido, Odessa R., Ahmed, Hashim, Keating, Jane, Kodadek, Lisa M., Wade, Jason, Henry, Reynold, Schreiber, Martin A., Benjamin, Andrew J., Khan, Abid, Mann, Laura K., Mentzer, Caleb J., Mousafeiris, Vasileios, Mulita, Francesk, Reid-Gruner, Shari, Sais, Erica, Marks, Joshua, Foote, Christopher, Palacio, Carlos H., Argandykov, Dias, Kaafarani, Haytham, Coyle, Susette, Macor, Marie, Manderski, Michelle T. Bover, Narayan, Mayur, and Seamon, Mark J.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. Moving the needle on time to resuscitation: An EAST prospective multicenter study of vascular access in hypotensive injured patients using trauma video review

Author

Dumas, Ryan P., Vella, Michael A., Maiga, Amelia W., Erickson, Caroline R., Dennis, Brad M., da Luz, Luis T., Pannell, Dylan, Quigley, Emily, Velopulos, Catherine G., Hendzlik, Peter, Marinica, Alexander, Bruce, Nolan, Margolick, Joseph, Butler, Dale F., Estroff, Jordan, Zebley, James A., Alexander, Ashley, Mitchell, Sarah, Grossman Verner, Heather M., Truitt, Michael, Berry, Stepheny, Middlekauff, Jennifer, Luce, Siobhan, Leshikar, David, Krowsoski, Leandra, Bukur, Marko, Polite, Nathan M., McMann, Ashley H., Staszak, Ryan, Armen, Scott B., Horrigan, Tiffany, Moore, Forrest O., Bjordahl, Paul, Guido, Jenny, Mathew, Sarah, Diaz, Bernardo F., Mooney, Jennifer, Hebeler, Katherine, and Holena, Daniel N.

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

17. Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) Society Recommendations: Part 1—Preoperative: Diagnosis, Rapid Assessment and Optimization

Author

Peden, Carol J., Aggarwal, Geeta, Aitken, Robert J., Anderson, Iain D., Bang Foss, Nicolai, Cooper, Zara, Dhesi, Jugdeep K., French, W. Brenton, Grant, Michael C., Hammarqvist, Folke, Hare, Sarah P., Havens, Joaquim M., Holena, Daniel N., Hübner, Martin, Kim, Jeniffer S., Lees, Nicholas P., Ljungqvist, Olle, Lobo, Dileep N., Mohseni, Shahin, Ordoñez, Carlos A., Quiney, Nial, Urman, Richard D., Wick, Elizabeth, Wu, Christopher L., Young-Fadok, Tonia, and Scott, Michael

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

31. Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Consensus Guidelines for Emergency Laparotomy Part 3: Organizational Aspects and General Considerations for Management of the Emergency Laparotomy Patient.

Author

Peden, Carol J., Aggarwal, Geeta, Aitken, Robert J., Anderson, Iain D., Balfour, Angie, Foss, Nicolai Bang, Cooper, Zara, Dhesi, Jugdeep K., French, W. Brenton, Grant, Michael C., Hammarqvist, Folke, Hare, Sarah P., Havens, Joaquim M., Holena, Daniel N., Hübner, Martin, Johnston, Carolyn, Kim, Jeniffer S., Lees, Nicholas P., Ljungqvist, Olle, and Lobo, Dileep N.

Subjects
ENHANCED recovery after surgery protocol, SURGERY, ABDOMINAL surgery, SURGICAL emergencies, ELECTIVE surgery, TUMOR grading
Abstract

Background: This is Part 3 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy using an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses organizational aspects of care. Methods: Experts in management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Results: Components of organizational aspects of care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi process. Conclusions: These guidelines are based on best current available evidence for organizational aspects of an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy and include discussion of less common aspects of care for the surgical patient, including end-of-life issues. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

32. Consensus Guidelines for Perioperative Care for Emergency Laparotomy Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations Part 2—Emergency Laparotomy: Intra- and Postoperative Care.

Author

Scott, Michael J., Aggarwal, Geeta, Aitken, Robert J., Anderson, Iain D., Balfour, Angie, Foss, Nicolai Bang, Cooper, Zara, Dhesi, Jugdeep K., French, W. Brenton, Grant, Michael C., Hammarqvist, Folke, Hare, Sarah P., Havens, Joaquim M., Holena, Daniel N., Hübner, Martin, Johnston, Carolyn, Kim, Jeniffer S., Lees, Nicholas P., Ljungqvist, Olle, and Lobo, Dileep N.

Subjects
PERIOPERATIVE care, POSTOPERATIVE care, SURGERY, ENHANCED recovery after surgery protocol, ABDOMINAL surgery, ELECTIVE surgery
Abstract

Background: This is Part 2 of the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of patients undergoing emergency laparotomy (EL) using an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) approach. This paper addresses intra- and postoperative aspects of care. Methods: Experts in aspects of management of high-risk and emergency general surgical patients were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, and Medline database searches were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and large cohort studies and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on elective patients when appropriate. A modified Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. Some ERAS® components covered in other guideline papers are outlined only briefly, with the bulk of the text focusing on key areas pertaining specifically to EL. Results: Twenty-three components of intraoperative and postoperative care were defined. Consensus was reached after three rounds of a modified Delphi Process. Conclusions: These guidelines are based on best available evidence for an ERAS® approach to patients undergoing EL. These guidelines are not exhaustive but pull together evidence on important components of care for this high-risk patient population. As much of the evidence is extrapolated from elective surgery or emergency general surgery (not specifically laparotomy), many of the components need further evaluation in future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

36. In Response

Author

MacKay, Emily J., Stubna, Michael D., Holena, Daniel N., Reilly, Patrick M., Seamon, Mark J., Smith, Brian P., Kaplan, Lewis J., and Cannon, Jeremy W.

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

37. Under the Lens: Team Perception of Trauma Video Review.

Author

Scrushy, Marinda G., Nagaraj, Madhuri, Burke, Kristen, Kuhlenschmidt, Kali, Jeter, Shannon, Johnson, Della, Brown, Kristie, Edwards, Courtney, Marinica, Alexander, Vella, Michael A., Holena, Daniel N., Park, Caroline, and Dumas, Ryan P.

Subjects
MEDICAL quality control, NATIONAL competency-based educational tests, KRUSKAL-Wallis Test, NURSES' attitudes, TRAUMA centers, ATTITUDES of medical personnel, LEADERSHIP, PROFESSIONAL employee training, COLLEGE teacher attitudes, QUALITY assurance, QUESTIONNAIRES, DESCRIPTIVE statistics, WOUNDS & injuries, RESUSCITATION, ANXIETY, DATA analysis software, STUDENT attitudes, VIDEO recording
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Video-based assessment and review are becoming increasingly common, and trauma video review (TVR) has been shown to be an effective educational, quality improvement, and research tool. Yet, trauma team perception of TVR remains incompletely understood. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated positive and negative perceptions of TVR across multiple team member groups. We hypothesized that members of the trauma team would find TVR educational and that anxiety would be low across all groups. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was provided to nurses, trainees, and faculty during weekly multidisciplinary trauma performance improvement conference following each TVR activity. Surveys assessed perception of performance improvement and anxiety or apprehension (Likert scale: 1 "strongly disagree" to 5 "strongly agree"). We report individual and normalized cumulative scores (average of responses for each positive [n = 6] and negative [n = 4] question stem). RESULTS: We analyzed 146 surveys over 8 months, with 100% completion rate. Respondents were trainees (58%), faculty (29%), and nurses (13%). Of the trainees, 73% were postgraduate year (PGY) 1–3 and 27% were PGY 4–9. Of all respondents, 84% had participated previously in a TVR conference. Respondents reported an improved perception of resuscitation education quality and personal leadership skills development. Participants found TVR to be more educational than punitive overall. Analysis of team member types showed lower scores for faculty for all positive stemmed questions. Trainees were more likely to agree with negative stemmed questions if they were a lower PGY, and nurses were least likely to agree with negative stemmed questions. CONCLUSIONS: TVR improves trauma resuscitation education in a conference setting, with trainees and nurses reporting the greatest benefit. Nurses were noted to be the least apprehensive about TVR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

38. Evaluating emergency department tube thoracostomy: A single-center use of trauma video review to assess efficiency and technique.

Author

Marinica, Alexander L., Nagaraj, Madhuri B., Elson, Matthew, Vella, Michael A., Holena, Daniel N., and Dumas, Ryan P.

Abstract

Emergency department tube thoracostomy is a common procedure; however, assessing procedural skills is difficult. We sought to describe procedural variability and technical complications of emergency department tube thoracostomy using trauma video review. We hypothesized that factors such as hemodynamic abnormality lead to increased technical difficulty and malpositioning. Using trauma video review, we reviewed all emergency department tube thoracostomy from 2020 to 2022. Patients were stratified into hemodynamically abnormal (systolic blood pressure <90 or heart rate >120) and hemodynamically normal (systolic blood pressure ≥90 or heart rate ≤120). Emergency department tube thoracostomies outside of video-capable rooms, with incomplete visualization, or in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation or resuscitative thoracotomy were excluded. The primary outcome was a procedure score modified from the validated tool ranging from 0 to 11 (higher score indicating better performance). Also measured were procedural times to (1) decision to place, (2) pleural entry, and (3) procedure completion. Postprocedure x-ray and chart review were used to determine accuracy. In total, 51 videos met the inclusion criteria. The median age was 34 [interquartile range 24–40] years, body mass index 25.8 [interquartile range 21.8–30.7], predominately male (75%), blunt injury (57%), with Injury Severity Score of 22 [14.5–41]. The median procedure score was 9 [7–10]. Emergency department tube thoracostomies in patients with abnormal hemodynamics had significantly lower procedure scores (8 vs 10, P <.05). Hemodynamically abnormal patients had significantly shorter times from decision to proceed to pleural entry (4.05 vs 8.25 minutes, P <.001), and to completion (6.31 vs 14.23 minutes, P <.001). The most common complication was malpositioning (35.1%), with no significant difference noted when comparing hemodynamically normal and abnormal patients (P =.41). Using trauma video review we identified significant procedural variability in emergency department tube thoracostomy, mainly that hemodynamic abnormality led to lower proficiency scores and increased malpositioning. Efforts are needed to define procedural benchmarks and evaluation in the context of patient outcomes. Using this technology and methodology can help establish procedural norms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2023
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. Analgesia for Older Adults with Abdominal or Back Pain in the Emergency Department

Author

Mills, Angela M, Edwards, J. Matthew, Shofer, Frances S, Holena, Daniel N, and Abbuhl, Stephanie B

Subjects
analgesia, abdominal pain, back pain, older adults, emergency department, Medicine, Medical emergencies. Critical care. Intensive care. First aid, RC86-88.9
Abstract

Objective: To determine the association between age and analgesia for emergency department (ED) patients with abdominal or back pain.Methods: Using a fully electronic medical record, we performed a retrospective cohort study of adults presenting with abdominal or back pain to two urban EDs. To assess differences in analgesia administration and time to analgesia between age groups, we used chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis test respectively. To adjust for potential confounders, we used a generalized linear model with log link and Gaussian error.Results: Of 24,752 subjects (mean age 42 years, 65% female, 69% black, mean triage pain score 7.5), the majority (76%) had abdominal pain and 61% received analgesia. The ≥80 years group (n=722; 3%), compared to the 65-79 years group (n=2,080; 8%) and to the (n=21,950; 89%), was more often female (71 vs. 61 vs. 65%), black (72 vs. 65 vs. 69%), and had a lower mean pain score (6.6 vs. 7.1 vs. 7.6). Both older groups were less likely to receive any analgesia (48 vs. 59 vs. 62%, p

Published
2011

42. Emergency General Surgery Quality Improvement: A Review of Recommended Structure and Key Issues.

Author

Ross, Samuel W FACS, Reinke, Caroline E MSHP, FACS, Ingraham, Angela M MS, FACS, Holena, Daniel N FACS, Havens, Joaquim M FACS, Hemmila, Mark R FACS, Sakran, Joseph V FACS, Staudenmayer, Kristan L FACS, Napolitano, Lena M FCCP, MCCM, FACS, Coimbra, Raul FACS, Ross, Samuel W, Reinke, Caroline E, Ingraham, Angela M, Holena, Daniel N, Havens, Joaquim M, Hemmila, Mark R, Sakran, Joseph V, Staudenmayer, Kristan L, Napolitano, Lena M, and Coimbra, Raul

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results