Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Miren A Schinco

Publications and source records attributed to Miren A Schinco.

8 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

The burden of noncompliance with seat belt use on a trauma center.

INTRODUCTION: It is well-known that noncompliance with seat belt use results in worse injury. The impact of noncompliance on hospital resource consumption and hospital charges is less well known. This study was carried out to examine the economic burden of noncompliance with seat belt use. METHODS: Trauma registry data were reviewed for patients involved in motor vehicle crashes in 2003 and 2004. Routine demographic data were analyzed. Outcome data included hospital length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, number of ventilator days, and mortality. Hospital charges, rate of collection, hospital use (measured by need for admission), operating room use, and intensive care unit use were calculated to determine the burden of noncompliance with seat belt use. RESULTS: There were 3,426 patients identified for analysis. Of these patients, 1,744 (51%) were compliant with seat belt use (SEAT) while 1,682 were not compliant (NO SEAT). Patients in the NO SEAT group were significantly younger (31.2 versus 37.4 years old) and significantly more severely injured (Injury Severity Score of 11 versus 7) than those in the SEAT group. Patients in the NO SEAT group had a significantly longer hospital length of stay (4.4 versus 2.2 days) and intensive care unit length of stay (1.4 versus 0.3 days), as well as significantly more ventilator days (1.2 versus 0.2 days) than those in the SEAT group. Mortality was more than doubled in the NO SEAT group (2.2 versus 0.9%) as compared with the SEAT group. Resource consumption was significantly greater in the NO SEAT group, as evidenced by increased hospital use (64.9 versus 39%), increased critical care unit use (22.9 versus 10.3%) and increased operating room use (9.2 versus 4.9%) when compared with the SEAT group. Subsequently, hospital charges were significantly higher in the NO SEAT group ($32,138 versus $16,547) than in the SEAT group. Charge collection rate was lower in the NO SEAT group (30.5 versus 42.5%) than in the SEAT group. CONCLUSIONS: These data quantify the burden placed on a trauma center by noncompliance with seat belt use. This information should drive more focused education and injury prevention programs. It should also be clearly articulated to legislators to stimulate more support for more stringent legislative policy and improved trauma center funding.

Accidents, Traffic↗
PubMed2006

Urgent airway intervention: does outcome change with personnel performing the procedure?

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate that prehospital endotracheal intubation (PHEI) is associated with increased septic morbidity. Because the decision to intubate in the field is considered a life-sustaining mandate we analyzed our experience to validate these reports and to compare field intubation to that done in more controlled circumstances on patient arrival at the trauma center. METHODS: The registry of our Level l trauma center was queried from January 2002 through December 2003 for patients who required emergent EI and had a hospital stay > 2 days. Patients were stratified by site of EI into PHEI and trauma center intubation (TCEI). Demographic data (age, gender, Glasgow Comma Scale, Injury Severity Score) as well as outcome measures (incidence of pneumonia [PNA], Intensive Care Unit length of stay [ICU LOS], hospital length of stay [hospital LOS], and mortality) were compared between groups. Results were subjected to chi2 or unpaired t test, accepting p < 0.05 as significant. RESULTS: The 628 patients requiring EI consisted of 27l in PHEI and 357 in TCEL. When comparing these groups, PHEI were more severely injured (lower Glasgow Comma Scale score and higher Injury Severity Score), but had no other differences in demographics or in measured outcome variables. Within these groups, patients who developed PNA were comparable. They demonstrated similar time of onset of PNA after injury and had similar incidence of resistant organisms (46%). CONCLUSIONS: These data demonstrate no increased risk of PNA for urgent prehospital intubation. Moreover, the onset of PNA and the similar bacteriology is reflective of injury severity and not of additional infectious risk posed by these prehospital lifesaving maneuvers.

Adult↗
PubMed2005

The effect of early spine fixation on non-neurologic outcome.

INTRODUCTION: It has been shown that spinal fracture fixation within 3 days can reduce the incidence of pneumonia, length of stay, number of ventilator days, and hospital charges. Our institutional protocol calls for surgical stabilization of spinal fractures within 3 days of admission. We hypothesized that compliance with an early spinal fracture fixation protocol (within 3 days of admission) would improve non-neurologic outcome in patients with spinal fractures. METHODS: The trauma registry was queried for the period January 1988 through October 2001 to identify patients with spinal fractures requiring surgical stabilization. Patients were analyzed to determine the compliance with our protocol and to determine whether early spinal fixation can reduce the incidence of pneumonia, reduce length of stay, and reduce mortality. RESULTS: 1,741 patients with spinal fractures were identified. 299 (17.2%) required surgical stabilization. 174 (58.2%) had surgical stabilization within 3 days while 125 (41.8%) had surgical stabilization greater than 3 days from admission. There were no significant differences between the two groups with regards to age (37.9 versus 42.5), admission GCS (14.1 versus 13.9), or ISS (22 versus 20.8). The incidence of pneumonia was similar in both groups (21.8 versus 25.6%). The mortality was higher in the early group as compared with the late group (6.9 versus 2.5%), although it did not reach statistical significance. The hospital length of stay was significantly shorter (14.3 versus 21.1) for patients who had early spine fixation, however there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups with regards to intensive care unit length of stay (7.2 versus 7.9) or number of ventilator days (5.02 versus 1.9). Patients who were severely injured (ISS > 25) also had a significantly shorter hospital length of stay (19.6 versus 29.1) if they underwent early spinal fixation. Patients with thoracic spine injury and associated spinal cord injury had a significantly shorter HLOS (10.1 versus 30.5), ICULOS (2.3 versus 13.1), and lower incidence of pneumonia (6.5 versus 33.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Reasonable compliance with an early spinal fracture fixation protocol produced some outcome improvements in non-neurologic outcome. Early spine stabilization reduced hospital length of stay in all patients. Patients with thoracic spine trauma and a spinal cord injury had the greatest benefit in reduction of morbidity, HLOS and ICULOS from early stabilization. There was a trend toward poorer outcome in some groups with early spine stabilization. A rigid protocol requiring early surgical spine stabilization in all patients does not appear justified. Although early spine stabilization should be performed whenever possible to reduce hospital length of stay, the timing of this procedure should be individualized to allow patients with the most severe physiologic derangements to be optimized preoperatively.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Pediatric trauma is very much a surgical disease.

OBJECTIVE: The evolution of nonoperative management of certain solid visceral injuries has stimulated speculation that management of the severely injured child is no longer a surgical exercise. The authors hypothesized that the incidence of injuries that require surgical evaluation is disproportionately high in children at risk of death or disability from significant injury. METHODS: National Pediatric Trauma Registry data were queried for all patients with ICDA-9-CM diagnoses requiring at least surgical evaluation. Selected diagnoses included CNS: 800 to 804, 850 to 854; thoracoabdominal: 860 to 870; pelvic fracture: 808; and acute vascular disruption: 900 to 904. Operative intervention was identified by ICDA-9-CM operative codes less than 60 and selected operative orthopedic codes between 79.8 and 84.4. At-risk patients were identified as those with at least one of the following: Glasgow Coma Scale score less than 15, Glasgow Coma Scale motor score less than 6, initial systolic blood pressure less than 90, or Injury Severity Scale score more than 10. The incidence of a surgical diagnosis in at-risk children was compared to the incidence in the population with no identifiable risk. Within the population undergoing surgical evaluation, resource utilization, as reflected by operative intervention and ICU days, and outcome, as reflected by mortality, were compared between the at-risk group and the group with no identifiable risk. RESULTS: From 1987 to 2000, 87,424 records were complete enough for analysis. Of those, 48,687 (55.6%) patients sustained at least one injury requiring a surgical evaluation and 28,645 (32.7%) children were determined to be at risk. Mortality for at-risk children was 5.8% versus 0.02% for those with no identifiable risk. Of the children at risk, 24,706 (86.2%) had at least one injury requiring a surgical evaluation. Of the 58,779 children with no risk, 23,981 (40.8%) also had at least one injury requiring a surgical evaluation. Operative intervention for surgical injuries was required in 20.5% of cases (n = 10,015). Of these, 5,562 (56%) were at-risk children, and they had a mortality rate of 11.5%. Of the children not at risk, 4,453 required operative care, and they had a mortality of 0.1%. At-risk children undergoing surgery required an average of 5.02 days of ICU care compared to 1.2 for cases performed on children without risk. CONCLUSIONS: These data clearly demonstrate the primacy of surgical pathology as the major determinant of outcome in pediatric injury. Operative intervention and the option of timely operative care remain major components of clinical management of children with injuries that pose a significant risk of morbidity or mortality.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Radiographic clearance of blunt cervical spine injury: plain radiograph or computed tomography scan?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the roles of cervical spine radiographs (CSR) and computed tomography of the cervical spine (CTC) in the exclusion of cervical spine injury for adult blunt trauma patients. METHODS: At the authors' institution, all adult blunt trauma patients with physical findings of posterior midline neck tenderness, altered mental status, or neurologic deficit are considered at risk of cervical spine injury and undergo both CSR and CTC for evaluation of the cervical spine. The TRACS database at level 1 of the trauma center at this institution was queried for all blunt trauma patients from November 2000 to October 2001. Patient injury severity score (ISS), Glascow Coma Score (GCS), age, gender, CSR results, CTC results, and treatment data were analyzed. RESULTS: The review included 3,018 blunt trauma patients with appropriate data. For 1,199 of these patients (779 men and 420 women) (40%) at risk for cervical spine injury, both CSR and CTC were performed for cervical spine evaluation. The average age of these patients was 39.4 years (range, 18-89 years). The average GCS was 13 and the average ISS was 8.4 in this study population. In 116 (9.5%) of these patients, a cervical spine injury (fracture or subluxation) was detected. The injury was identified on both CSR and CTC in 75 of these patients. In the remaining 41 patients (3.2%), the CSR results were negative, but injury was detected by CTC. All these injuries missed by CSR required treatment. For this group with false-negative CSR, the average GCS was 12 and the average ISS was 14.6. There were no missed cervical spine injuries among the patients with negative CTC results. CONCLUSION: No identifiable factors predicted false-negative CSR. There does not appear to be any role for CSR screening in this setting. The data from this study add to the growing body of evidence that CTC should replace CSR for the evaluation of the cervical spine in blunt trauma.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Two careers in one: an analysis of the earning power of certification in surgical critical care.

BACKGROUND: The core of general surgery supports multiple disciplines, each of which entails similar operative care for different diseases. The purpose of this study was to compare variations of practice patterns of four general surgeons to define the general surgical core that each shared in common, and to determine the effect of subspecialization in surgical critical care on the scope of practice and efficiency of revenue production. METHODS: The charges and collections of four members of the same surgical faculty were analyzed for the 6 months beginning July 1, 2000. Three members practiced general surgery with additional specialization in surgical oncology, surgical endoscopy, and trauma/critical care. The fourth covered all aspects of general surgery, including in-house trauma call, but not surgical critical care. Data were stratified by Current Procedural Terminology code and categorized as operative, bedside care (which included minor procedures), and evaluation/consultation care. Scope of practice was defined as the proportion of operative cases represented by the 10 most frequently performed procedures. General surgical core was defined as those cases that were preformed by all four surgeons at the same frequency. Efficiency of revenue generation was defined as collection rate for these procedures divided by the established, budgeted collection rate for each practitioner. All results were compared using chi(2) with significance accepted at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Fifteen operative procedures were performed with equal frequency by each surgeon and represented a broad spectrum of surgical disease. These procedures constituted a similar proportion of operative practice for all specialists (mean, 45.2%; 90% confidence limit, 3.5%), yet occupied 70% of the trauma surgeon's 10 most frequent surgical procedures versus 36% for the surgical oncology and surgical endoscopy. Charges generated by the provision of surgical critical care, especially in bedside procedures commonly performed in the intensive care unit, exceeded all of the other three surgeons and equaled the revenue generated by operative care. Although overall revenue-generating efficiency was less for the trauma surgeons (57% of eventual collections vs. 67%, chi(2) p = 0.1), immediate reimbursement for critical care was higher than for any other clinical services. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that subspecialization in surgical critical care provides valid additional earning capacity to surgical practitioners. Reimbursement is at least as good as for traditional operative care, and fees generated can actually exceed revenue from operative care. With impending decreases in global reimbursement, and attempts to unbundle operative fees, this additional capability becomes an important consideration in potential career choice, as well as a major component in the fiscal stability of trauma programs.

Critical Care↗