Trauma Attending in the Resuscitation Room: Does it Affect Outcome?

Abstract

Although there are no Class I data supporting the regionalization of trauma care the consensus is that trauma centers decrease morbidity and mortality. However, the controversy continues over whether trauma surgeons should be in-house or take call from home. The current literature does not answer the question because in all of the recent studies the attendings who took call from home were in the resuscitation room guiding the care. We believe the correct question is: Does the presence of the trauma attending in the resuscitation room make a difference? At a university-affiliated Level II trauma center data from the trauma registry, resuscitation room flowsheet, and dictated admission notes were reviewed on all patients over a 6-month period. Data points were: attending present in the resuscitation room, standard demographics, resuscitation room time, time to operating room (OR), time to CT scan, length of stay, complications, and mortality. A total of 943 patients were studied with 216 (23%) having the attending present in the resuscitation room and 727 (77%) without the attending present. The groups were similar in terms of age, sex, Injury Severity Score, percentage Injury Severity Score greater than 15 (16–17.1%), and mechanism of injury (24–29% penetrating). Of all the data points studied only time to the OR had a statistically significance difference (P < 0.05) with it taking 43.8 minutes (±20.1) when the attending was present and 109.4 minutes (±107) when the attending was absent. There were also no missed injuries, delays to the OR, or inappropriate workups when the attendings were present. Only the time to the OR reached statistical significance. The time to the OR is indicative of the decisionmaking process in the resuscitation room, and it is in this area that the attendings’ presence is the most useful. Also, we believe that it is important that there were no missed injuries, delays to the OR, or inappropriate workups when the attendings were present in the resuscitation room. This again speaks to the decision-making process. We believe that these data support the need for the attending to be present in the resuscitation room to facilitate accurate and timely decisions regardless of whether they take the call from home or in-house.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Cohen

, Fath

, Chung , . Impact of a dedicated trauma service on the quality and cost of care provided to injured patients at an urban teaching hospital. J Trauma 1999;46:1114–9.

O'Keefe

, Jurkovich

, Copass

, Maier

Ten-year trend in survival and resource utilization at a Level I trauma center.

Ann Surg 1999;229:409–15.

Sampalis

, Denis

, Lavoie

, . Trauma care regionalization: A process-outcome evaluation. J Trauma 1999;46:565–81.

Clemmer

, Orme

, Thomas

, Brooks

Outcome of critically injured patients treated at level I trauma centers versus full-service community hospitals.

Crit Care Med 1985;13:861–3.

Rogers

, Simons

, Hoyt

, . In-house board-certified surgeons improve outcome for severely injured patients: A comparison of two university centers. J Trauma 1993;34:871–7.

Thompson

, Bickell

, Siemens

, . Community hospital Level II trauma center outcome. J Trauma 1992;32: 336–43.

Luchette

, Kelly

, Davis

, . Impact of the in-house trauma surgeon on initial patient care, outcome, and cost. J Trauma 1997;42:490–7.

Demarest

, Scannell

, Sanchez

, . In-house versus on-call attending trauma surgeons at comparable Level I trauma centers: A prospective study. J Trauma 1999;46:535–42.

American College of Surgeons’ Committee on Trauma: Resources for the Optimal Care of the Injured Patient. Chicago, American College of Surgeons, 1999.