Search

Background: United States state-level firearm legislation is linked to rates of firearm-related suicides, pediatric injuries, nonfatal injuries, hospital discharges, and mortality. Our objective was to evaluate the burden of firearm-related injuries requiring surgery for states with strict as opposed to nonstrict firearm legislation., Materials and Methods: The 2014 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient Database was utilized to extract data for all available 28 states and the District of Columbia. States were dichotomized into strict and nonstrict legislative categories using the 2014 Brady and Gifford's scores (15 strict, 14 nonstrict). Patients with a firearm injury requiring surgery were identified and the incidence of surgery aggregated to the county level. Negative binomial regression with an offset for county-level residential population was used to estimate the incident rate ratio for surgical volume comparing counties in strict and nonstrict states. Models were stratified by injury intent and adjusted for county population characteristics., Results: A total of 11,939 patients were hospitalized with firearm-related injuries, with 65% (n = 7759) undergoing an operative procedure. The adjusted incidence rate of firearm-related surgery per 100,000 people was 1.29 (95% confidence interval; 1.13-1.46, P < 0.001) times higher and the adjusted cost of hospitalization per 100,000 people was $6028.69 ($3744.61-$8312.78, P = 0.001) greater for counties in nonstrict states than those for counties in strict states. The burden of health care for these injuries is invariably shifted to state- and county-level finances., Conclusions: The rate of firearm-related surgical intervention was higher for states with nonstrict firearm legislation than that for states with strict legislation. States should reevaluate their firearm legislation to potentially reduce the burden of firearm-related surgery and health care costs., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Low hospital volume for emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures is associated with worse patient outcomes within the civilian health care system. The military maintains treatment facilities (MTFs) in remote locations to provide access to service members and their families. We sought to determine if patients treated at low-volume MTFs for EGS conditions experience worse outcomes compared with high-volume centers., Materials and Methods: We analyzed TRICARE data from 2006 to 2014. Patients were identified using an established coding algorithm for EGS admission. MTFs were divided into quartiles based on annual EGS volume. Outcomes included 30-d mortality, complications, and readmissions. Logistic regression models adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic differences in case-mix including EGS condition, surgical intervention, and comorbidities were used to determine the influence of hospital volume on outcomes., Results: We identified 106,915 patients treated for an EGS condition at 79 MTFs. The overall mortality rate was 0.21%, with complications occurring in 8.55% and readmissions in 4.45%. After risk adjustment, lowest-volume MTFs did not demonstrate significantly higher odds of mortality (OR: 2.02, CI: 0.45-9.06) or readmissions (OR: 0.77, CI: 0.54-1.11) compared with the highest-volume centers. Lowest-volume facilities exhibited a lower likelihood of complications (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.59-0.98)., Conclusions: EGS patients treated at low-volume MTFs did not experience worse clinical outcomes when compared with high-volume centers. Remote MTFs appear to provide care for EGS conditions comparable with that of high-volume facilities. Our findings speak against the need to reduce services at small, critical access facilities within the military health care system., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Emergency general surgery (EGS) accounts for more than 2 million U.S. hospital admissions annually. Low-income EGS patients have higher rates of postoperative adverse events (AEs) than high-income patients. This may be related to health care segregation (a disparity in access to high-quality centers). The emergent nature of EGS conditions and the limited number of EGS providers in rural areas may result in less health care segregation and thereby less variability in EGS outcomes in rural areas. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of income on AEs for both rural and urban EGS patients., Materials and Methods: The National Inpatient Sample (2007-2014) was queried for patients receiving one of 10 common EGS procedures. Multivariate regression models stratified by income quartiles in urban and rural cohorts adjusting for sociodemographic, clinical, and other hospital-based factors were used to determine the rates of surgical AEs (mortality, complications, and failure to rescue [FTR])., Results: 1,687,088 EGS patients were identified; 16.60% (n = 280,034) of them were rural. In the urban cohort, lower income quartiles were associated with higher odds of AEs (mortality OR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.15-1.27], complications, 1.07 [1.06-1.09]; FTR, 1.17 [1.10-1.24] P < 0.001). In the rural context, income quartiles were not associated with the higher odds of AE (mortality OR, 1.14 [0.83-1.55], P = 0.42; complications, 1.06 [0.97-1,16], P = 1.17; FTR, 1.12 [0.79-1.59], P = 0.52)., Conclusions: Lower income is associated with higher postoperative AEs in the urban setting but not in a rural environment. This socioeconomic disparity in EGS outcomes in urban settings may reflect health care segregation, a differential access to high-quality health care for low-income patients., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Index length of stay (LOS) and readmissions are viewed as important quality measures. However, these metrics represent competing demands as an inordinate reduction in LOS may lead to unplanned readmissions. We sought to assess the optimal LOS associated with the lowest 90-d readmission rate following discharge after common surgical procedures., Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective study relying on Tricare claims. We identified all eligible adult patients (18-64 y) receiving a series of common surgical procedures between 2006 and 2014. We used a generalized additive model with spline regression to determine the optimal LOS associated with the lowest 90-d risk of readmission., Results: Ninety-day readmission rates varied from 6.03% to 34.69%. Most procedures exhibited a logit linear relationship, with the lowest risk of readmission evident on postoperative day-1 and increasing thereafter. Among the more invasive procedures (e.g., esophagectomy and radical cystectomy), a U-shaped relationship was realized, indicating that expedited discharge would increase the potential for readmission as would any extended hospital LOS. For these procedures, the ideal index LOS appeared to be 6-7 d for radical cystectomy and 12-13 d for esophagectomy., Conclusions: Our results support the practice of discharging patients as soon as clinically feasible after hip and knee arthroplasty, lumbar spine surgery, hernia repair, appendectomy, nephrectomy, and colectomy. Among esophagectomy or radical cystectomy, there is a well-defined optimal index admission period and discharge outside this window appears to be detrimental. Our results suggest that invasive procedures appear to possess a unique "signature" when it comes to optimal LOS., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)