No abstract

Background: Dedicated emergency general surgery (EGS) service models were developed to improve efficiency of care and patient outcomes. The degree to which the EGS model delivers these benefits is debated. We performed a systematic review of the literature to identify whether the EGS service model is associated with greater efficiency and improved outcomes compared to the traditional model. Methods:We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science (Core Collection) databases from their earliest date of coverage through March 2017. Pri mary outcomes for efficiency of care were surgical response time, time to operation and total length of stay in hospital. The primary outcome for evaluating patient out comes was total complication rate. Results:The EGS service model generally improved efficiency of care and patient outcomes, but the outcome variables reported in the literature varied.Conclusion: Development of standardized metrics and comprehensive EGS data bases would support quality control and performance improvement in EGS systems.

Background Acute care surgery (ACS) models address high volumes of emergency general surgery and emergency room (ER) overcrowding. The impact of ACS service model implementation on the quality and efficiency of care (EOC) outcomes in acute appendicitis (AA) and acute cholecystitis (AC) cohorts was evaluated. Methods A retrospective chart review (N=1,229) of adult AA and AC patients admitted prior to (pre-ACS; n=507; three hospitals; 2007) and after regionalization (R-ACS; n=722; one hospital; 2011). Results R-ACS time to ER physician assessment was significantly longer for AA (3.4 ± 2.3 versus 2.4 ± 2.6 hr; p ≤ 0.001). Surgical response times (1.3 ± 1.2 vs 2.6 ± 4.3 hr for AA; 1.8 ± 1.5 vs 4.1 ± 5.0 hr for AC; p ≤ 0.0001) and acquisition of imaging (4.1 ± 4.1 vs 6.9 ± 9.9 hr for AA, p ≤ 0.0001; 7.8 ± 1.9 vs 13.2 ± 18.5 hr for AC, p ≤ 0.008) occurred significantly faster with R-ACS. R-ACS resulted in a significant increase in night-time appendectomies (21.7% vs 11.1%; p ≤ 0.002), perforated appendices (29.1 % vs 18.9 %; p ≤ 0.006), 30-day readmissions (4.56% vs 0.82%; p ≤ 0.01), and lower rate of intraoperative complications for AC patients (2.78% vs 7.69%; p ≤ 0.02). Conclusions Despite the increased volume of patients seen with the implementation of R-ACS, surgical assessments and diagnostic imaging were significantly more prompt. EOC measures were maintained. Worse AA outcomes highlight areas for improvement in delivering R-ACS.