BACKGROUND To date, no studies have reported nationwide adoption of Acute Care Surgery (ACS) or identified structural and/or process variations for the care of emergency general surgery (EGS) patients within such models. METHODS We surveyed surgeons responsible for EGS coverage at University HealthSystems Consortium hospitals using an 8-page postal/email questionnaire querying respondents on hospital and EGS structure/process measures. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, univariate comparisons, and multivariable regression models. RESULTS 258 of 319 (81%) potential respondents completed surveys. 81 hospitals (31%) had implemented ACS while 134 (52%) had a traditional general surgeon on-call model (GSOC). 38 (15%) hospitals had another model (HYBRID). Larger bed, university-based, teaching hospitals with Level 1 trauma center verification status located in urban areas were more likely to have adopted ACS. In multivariable modeling, hospital type, setting, and trauma center verification predicted ACS implementation. EGS processes of care varied with 28% GSOC having block time vs 67% ACS (p<0.0001); 45% GSOC providing ICU care to EGS patients in a surgical/trauma ICU vs 93% ACS (p<0.0001); GSOC sharing call among 5.7 (+/− 3.2) surgeons vs 7.9 (+/−2.3) ACS surgeons (p<0.0001); and 13% GSOC taking in-house EGS call vs 75% ACS (p<0.0001). Among ACS hospitals there were variations in patient cohorting (25% EGS patients alone; 21% EGS+trauma; 17% EGS+elective; 30% EGS+trauma+elective), data collection (26% had prospective EGS registries), and patient handoffs (56% had attending surgeon presence), call responsibilities (averaging 4.8 (+/− 1.3) calls per month with 60% providing extra call stipend and 40% with no post-call clinical duties). CONCLUSION The potential of the ACS on the national crisis in access to EGS care is not fully met. Variations in EGS processes of care among adopters of ACS suggest that standardized criteria for ACS implementation, much like trauma center verification criteria, may be beneficial. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Survey results, Level III

Background Acute appendicitis is the most common indication for emergency general surgery (EGS) in the US. We examined the role of acute care surgery (ACS) on interventions and outcomes for acute appendicitis at a national sample of university-affiliated hospitals. Methods We surveyed senior surgeons responsible for EGS coverage at University HealthSystems Consortium (UHC) hospitals, representing >90% of university-affiliated hospitals in the US. The survey elicited data on resources allocated for EGS during 2013. Responses were linked to UHC outcomes data by unique hospital identifiers. Patients treated at hospitals reporting hybrid models for EGS coverage were excluded. Differences in interventions and outcomes between patients with acute appendicitis treated at ACS hospitals vs. hospitals with a general surgeon on-call model (GSOC) were analyzed using univariate comparisons and multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for patient demographics, clinical acuity, and hospital characteristics. Results We found 122 hospitals meeting criteria for analysis where 2,565 patients were treated for acute appendicitis. 48% of hospitals had an ACS model (N =1414), and 52% had a GSOC model (N=1151). Hospitals with ACS models were more likely to treat minority patients with greater severity of illness than GSOC models. Patients treated at ACS hospitals were more likely to undergo laparoscopic appendectomy. In multivariable modeling of patients who had surgery (N=2,258), patients treated at ACS hospitals had 1.86 [95%CI 1.23,2.80] greater odds of undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. Conclusion In an era when laparoscopic appendectomy is increasingly accepted for treating uncomplicated acute appendicitis, particularly in low risk patients, it is concerning that patients treated at GSOC model hospitals are more likely to undergo traditional open surgery despite having less severity of illness at the time of presentation. Furthermore, hospitals with ACS are functioning as safety net hospitals for vulnerable patients with acute appendicitis. Level of Evidence III