Search

BACKGROUND Geographic information systems (GISs) are often used to analyze trauma systems. Geographic information system-based approaches can model access to a trauma center (TC), including estimates of transport time and population coverage, when accurate trauma registry and emergency medical systems (EMS) data are not available. We hypothesized that estimates of trauma system performance calculated using a standard GIS method with public data would be comparable with trauma registry data. METHODS A standardized GIS-based method was used to estimate metrics of TC access in a regional trauma system in which the number of TCs increased from one to three during a 3-year period. Registry data from the index TC in the system were evaluated for different periods during this evolution. The number of admissions to the TC in different periods was compared with changes predicted by the GIS-based model, and the distribution of observed ground-based transportation times was compared with the predicted distribution. RESULTS With the addition of two TCs to the system, the volume of patients transported by ground to the index TC decreased by 30%. However, the model predicted a 68% decrease in population having the shortest predicted transport time to the index TC. The model predicted the geographic trend seen in the registry data, but many patients were transported to the index TC even though it was not the closest center. Observed transport times were uniformly shorter than predicted times. CONCLUSION The GIS-based model qualitatively predicted changes in distribution of trauma patients, but registry data highlight that field triage decisions are more complex than model assumptions. Similarly, transport times were systematically overestimated. This suggests that model assumptions, such as vehicle speed, based on normal traffic may not fully reflect emergency medical systems (EMS) operations. There remains great need for metrics to guide policy based on widely available data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Epidemiological, level III.

OBJECTIVE To assess the current barriers in robotic surgery training for general surgery residents. DESIGN Multi-institutional web-based survey. SETTING 9 academic medical centers with a general surgery residency. PARTICIPANTS General surgery residents of at least PGY-3 training level. RESULTS 163 general surgery residents were contacted with 80 responses (49.1%). The most common responders were PGY-3s (38.8%) followed by PGY-5s (27.5%). The Northeast represented 42.5% of responses. Colorectal cases were the most common robotic case residents were involved in (51.3%). Residents’ typical roles were assisting at the bedside (31.3%) and splitting time between assisting at the bedside and operating at the surgeon console (31.3%). 43% report to be either extremely or somewhat dissatisfied with their robotic surgery experience. 62.5% report they do not intend to integrate robotic surgery into their future practice. 93.8% of residents have a standardized robotic curriculum. 47.5% report using the simulator only during required didactic time with 52.5% having the robotic simulator conveniently located. The majority of residents report that the presence of dual consoles and first-assists in robotic cases enhance their robotic training (93% - 62%, respectively). 72.5% felt like they had more autonomy during laparoscopic cases and 96.8% of residents felt that an attendings’ lack of experience impacted their time operating at the surgeon console. CONCLUSIONS General surgery residents report lack of effective OR teaching, real clinical experience, and simulated experience as main barriers in their robotic surgery training. Dual consoles and first-assistants are favorably looked upon. Lack of attending experience and comfort were universally negatively associated with resident participation. For residents interested in robotic surgery, advocating for more robust investment in dual consoles, first-assistants, and faculty development would likely improve their robotic surgery training experience. However, residency programs should consider whether robotic surgery should be a core competency of an already time restricted training paradigm.

Background For-profit (FP) trauma centers (TCs) charge more for trauma care than not-for-profit (NFP) centers. We sought to determine charges, length of stay (LOS), and complications associations with TC ownership status (FP, NFP, and government) for three diagnoses among patients with overall low injury severity. Methods Adult patients treated at TCs with an International Classification of Diseases-based injury severity score (ICISS) survival probability ≥ 0.85 were identified. Only those who with a principal diagnosis of femur, tibial or rib fractures were included. Results Total charges were significantly higher at FP centers than NFP and lower at government centers (89.6% and −12.8%, respectively). FP TCs had a 12.5% longer LOS and government TCs had a 20.4% longer LOS than NFP TCs. Conclusion Patients presenting to FP TCs with mild/moderate femur, tibial, or rib fractures experienced higher charges and increased LOS compared with government or NFP centers. There was no difference in overall complication rates.