The Emergent General Surgical Patient: Evaluation Patterns in the Emergency Department

Bethany Harpole, S. Helmer, Karson R. Quinn, Howard A. Chang, N. Brown
{"title":"The Emergent General Surgical Patient: Evaluation Patterns in the Emergency Department","authors":"Bethany Harpole, S. Helmer, Karson R. Quinn, Howard A. Chang, N. Brown","doi":"10.17161/kjm.vol15.16006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction Emergency general surgery patients represent a growing segment of general surgical admissions and national healthcare burden. A paucity of literature exists evaluating the work-up of these patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED), particularly possible evaluation differentials between emergency physicians and physician assistants or advanced practice registered nurses (PA/ APRNs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in ED work-up of general surgical patients between emergency physicians and PA/APRNs. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of patients presenting to the ED with the chief complaint of abdominal pain. Demographic data, evaluating provider, laboratory and imaging tests, diagnostic data, and disposition were obtained. Results Patient median age was 53.5 years, with 49% male and 81.6% Caucasian. Emergency physicians saw the majority (61.2%) of patients. Emergency physicians saw older patients (62.0 vs. 45.5 years; p = 0.017), and more patients that were anemic (28.3% vs. 14.3%) or with elevated creatinine levels (46.7% vs. 25.7%). There was no significant difference between groups for time in the ED (6.1 ± 2.4 vs. 5.7 ± 2.6 hours; p = 0.519), time to surgical consult (3.4 vs. 3.3 hours; p = 0.298), or time to the operating room (29.5 vs. 12.0 hours; p = 0.075). Patients seen by emergency physicians had a longer length of hospital stay (4.5 vs. 2 days; p = 0.002). Conclusions Time in the ED and time to surgical consult did not vary between groups although patients first seen by emergency physicians had potentially higher acuity. Decreased hospital length of stay in patients seen by PA/APRNs may reflect disease-specific differences.","PeriodicalId":94121,"journal":{"name":"Kansas journal of medicine","volume":"15 1","pages":"112 - 118"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kansas journal of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17161/kjm.vol15.16006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction Emergency general surgery patients represent a growing segment of general surgical admissions and national healthcare burden. A paucity of literature exists evaluating the work-up of these patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED), particularly possible evaluation differentials between emergency physicians and physician assistants or advanced practice registered nurses (PA/ APRNs). The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences in ED work-up of general surgical patients between emergency physicians and PA/APRNs. Methods A retrospective review was conducted of patients presenting to the ED with the chief complaint of abdominal pain. Demographic data, evaluating provider, laboratory and imaging tests, diagnostic data, and disposition were obtained. Results Patient median age was 53.5 years, with 49% male and 81.6% Caucasian. Emergency physicians saw the majority (61.2%) of patients. Emergency physicians saw older patients (62.0 vs. 45.5 years; p = 0.017), and more patients that were anemic (28.3% vs. 14.3%) or with elevated creatinine levels (46.7% vs. 25.7%). There was no significant difference between groups for time in the ED (6.1 ± 2.4 vs. 5.7 ± 2.6 hours; p = 0.519), time to surgical consult (3.4 vs. 3.3 hours; p = 0.298), or time to the operating room (29.5 vs. 12.0 hours; p = 0.075). Patients seen by emergency physicians had a longer length of hospital stay (4.5 vs. 2 days; p = 0.002). Conclusions Time in the ED and time to surgical consult did not vary between groups although patients first seen by emergency physicians had potentially higher acuity. Decreased hospital length of stay in patients seen by PA/APRNs may reflect disease-specific differences.
急诊科急诊普通外科病人的评价模式
引言急诊普通外科患者在普通外科入院人数和国家医疗负担中所占比例越来越大。评估这些患者到急诊科(ED)就诊的文献很少,特别是急诊医生与医生助理或高级执业注册护士(PA/APRN)之间可能存在的评估差异。本研究的目的是评估急诊医生和PA/APRN之间普通外科患者ED检查的差异。方法对以腹痛为主要主诉的急诊患者进行回顾性分析。获得人口统计学数据、评估提供者、实验室和影像学测试、诊断数据和处置。结果患者中位年龄为53.5岁,其中49%为男性,81.6%为白种人。急诊医生为大多数(61.2%)患者看病。急诊医生看到了年龄较大的患者(62.0 vs.45.5岁;p=0.017),以及更多的贫血患者(28.3%vs.14.3%)或肌酸酐水平升高的患者(46.7%vs.25.7%)。两组在ED时间(6.1±2.4 vs.5.7±2.6小时;p=0.519)、手术咨询时间(3.4 vs.3.3小时;p=0.298)、,或到手术室的时间(29.5 vs.12.0小时;p=0.075)。急诊医生就诊的患者住院时间更长(4.5 vs.2天;p=0.002)。结论尽管急诊医生首次就诊的患者视力可能更高,但ED时间和手术咨询时间在各组之间没有差异。PA/APRN发现的患者住院时间缩短可能反映了疾病特异性差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信