Search

Evaluating the relationship between health care costs and quality is paramount in the current health care economic climate, as an understanding of value is needed to drive policy decisions. While many policy analyses are focused on the larger health care system, there is a pressing need for surgically focused economic analyses. Surgical care is costly, and innovative technology is constantly introduced into the operating room, and surgical care impacts patients' short- and long-term physical and economic well-being. Unfortunately, significant knowledge gaps exist regarding the relationship between cost, value, and economic impact of surgical interventions. Despite the plethora of health care data available in the forms of claims databases, discharge databases, and national surveys, no single source of data contains all the information needed for every policy-relevant analysis of surgical care. For this reason, it is important to understand which data are available and what can be accomplished with each of the data sets. In this article, we provide an overview of databases commonly used in surgical health services research. We focus our review on the following five categories of data: governmental claims databases, commercial claims databases, hospital-based clinical databases, state and national discharge databases, and national surveys. For each, we present a summary of the database sampling frame, clinically relevant variables, variables relevant to economic analyses, strengths, weaknesses, and examples of surgically relevant analyses. This review is intended to improve understanding of the current landscape of data available, as well as stimulate novel analyses among surgical populations. Ongoing debates over national health policy reforms may shape the delivery of surgical care for decades to come. Appropriate use of available data resources can improve our understanding of the economic impact of surgical care on our health care system and our patients.Regular Review, Level V.

Across disciplines, mentorship has been recognized as a key to success. Acute care surgeons, focused on the care of trauma surgery, emergency general surgery and surgical critical care, practice in a wide variety of settings and have unique mentorship needs across all phases of their career. Recognizing the need for robust mentorship and professional development, the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) convened an expert panel entitled ‘The Power of Mentorship’ at the 81st annual meeting in September 2022 (Chicago, Illinois). This was a collaboration between the AAST Associate Member Council (consisting of surgical resident, fellow and junior faculty members), the AAST Military Liaison Committee, and the AAST Healthcare Economics Committee. Led by two moderators, the panel consisted of five real-life mentor-mentee pairs. They addressed the following realms of mentorship: clinical, research, executive leadership and career development, mentorship through professional societies, and mentorship for military-trained surgeons. Recommendations, as well as pearls and pitfalls, are summarized below.

BackgroundIn 2015, the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma convened a consensus conference to develop the Needs-Based Assessment of Trauma Systems (NBATS) tool to assist in determining the number of trauma centers required for a region. We tested the performance of NBATS with respect to the optimal number of trauma centers needed by region in California.MethodsTrauma center data were obtained from the California Emergency Services Authority Information Systems (CEMSIS). Numbers of admitted trauma patients (ISS > 15) were obtained using statewide nonpublic admissions data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development (OSHPD), CEMSIS, and data from local emergency medical service agency (LEMSA) directors who agreed to participate in a telephone survey. Population estimates per county for 2014 were obtained from the U.S. Census. NBATS criteria used included population, transport time, community support, and number of discharges for severely injured patients (ISS > 15) at nontrauma centers and trauma centers. Estimates for the number of trauma centers per region were created for each of the three data sources and compared to the number of existing centers.ResultsA total of 62 state-designated trauma centers were identified for California: 13 (21%) Level I, 36 (58%) Level II, and 13 (11%) Level III. NBATS estimates for the total number of trauma centers in California were 27% to 47% lower compared to the number of trauma centers in existence, but this varied based on urban/rural status. NBATS estimates were lower than the current state in 70% of urban areas but were higher in almost 90% of rural areas. All data sources (OSHPD, CEMSIS, local data) produced similar results.ConclusionEstimates from the NBATS tool are different from what is currently in existence in California, and differences exist based on whether the region is rural or urban. Findings from the current study can help inform future iterations of the NBATS tool.Level of evidenceEconomic, level V.