...
首页> 外文期刊>Orthopaedic surgery >Utilization of Orthopaedic Trauma Surgical Time: An Evaluation of Three Different Models at a Level I Pediatric Trauma Center
【24h】

Utilization of Orthopaedic Trauma Surgical Time: An Evaluation of Three Different Models at a Level I Pediatric Trauma Center

机译:骨外科手术时间的利用:一级儿科创伤中心的三种不同模型的评估

获取原文

摘要

Objective Over the past decade, our institution has instituted three different scheduling models in an attempt to care for pediatric trauma at our Level I Trauma Center. This has been in response to a number of factors, including a limited number of physicians covering the call schedule, increasing competition for operating room (OR) time after hours (pediatric surgery, urology, neurosurgery), an attempt to fully utilize OR time during the daytime, fully staffed hours, and optimizing patients' timeliness to surgery. We examined the three on-call systems in place at our institution to determine whether a more flexible approach to pediatric trauma call resulted in delays in treatment. Methods We retrospectively reviewed patient records for three distinct 1-year periods with three different surgical call schedules: (i) a traditional call schedule in which the call physician was responsible for patients who presented to our emergency room; (ii) a half-day trauma block OR reserved the morning following call; and (iii) a full-day trauma block. Variables included date of injury, time of admission, admission diagnosis, cause of injury, and OR procedure and start time. Results We reviewed 951 cases over the entire study, 268 during the traditional call schedule, 282 during the half-call block and 401 over the time period of the full-day block. Mechanisms of injury were similar among the three groups, with falls and motor vehicle accidents being the leading causes. The average delay time was 17:40 for the traditional call group, 15:10 for the half-block call group, and 15:09 for the full-day block group. Our findings suggest that there was a high incidence of cases performed on weekdays after peak staffing hours with a traditional call model (59%). In contrast, half-day and full-day block models saw only 4% and 1% of the cases performed after peak staffing hours, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in the number of patients admitted to the OR among the three groups (χsup2/sup = 488.8449, P 2/sup = 382.0576, P Conclusions The institution of more flexible and physician-directed half-call and full-day blocks did result in delays in treatment. However, it also has demonstrated benefits to patients in reducing the number of operative cases performed after weekday peak staffing hours; helped our institution better manage its staffing and financial resources; and provided the treating surgeon flexibility in determining the timing of operative care.
机译:目的在过去的十年中,我们的机构建立了三种不同的调度模型,以尝试在一级创伤中心护理小儿创伤。这是对许多因素的回应,包括数量有限的医生处理了呼叫计划,小时后手术室(OR)时间(小儿外科,泌尿科,神经外科)的竞争日益激烈,试图在手术期间充分利用OR时间白天,人员配备充足的时间,并优化患者的手术及时性。我们检查了我们机构中的三个随叫随诊系统,以确定更灵活的小儿创伤求助方法是否导致治疗延迟。方法我们回顾性地回顾了三个不同的1年期患者记录,并采用了三种不同的手术呼叫时间表:(i)传统的呼叫时间表,其中呼叫医师负责就诊到我们急诊室的患者; (ii)半天的创伤阻滞,或在致电后的早晨保留; (iii)一整天的创伤。变量包括受伤日期,入院时间,入院诊断,受伤原因,OR程序和开始时间。结果我们回顾了整个研究中的951例,传统呼叫计划中的268例,半呼叫期间的282例,全天的时间段的401例。三组的伤害机制相似,跌倒和机动车事故是主要原因。传统通话组的平均延迟时间为17:40,半通话组的平均延迟时间为15:10,全天通话组的平均延迟时间为15:09。我们的研究结果表明,在使用传统呼叫模式的高峰工作时间之后的工作日中,发生病例的比例很高(59%)。相比之下,半天和全天工作人员模型分别仅在高峰工作时间之后执行了4%和1%的案例。三组中接受OR的患者人数在统计学上有显着差异(χ 2 = 488.8449,P 2 = 382.0576,P结论结论定向的半日诊和全天候诊治确实导致了治疗的延迟,但是,这也显示出对患者减少工作日高峰时段后的手术病例数量的好处;帮助我们的机构更好地管理其人员和财务资源;并为主治医生提供了确定手术护理时机的灵活性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号