Biomedical subjects

Mark A Healey

Publications and source records attributed to Mark A Healey.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2003

Charges and reimbursement at a rural level I trauma center: a disparity between effort and reward among professionals.

BACKGROUND: A Level I trauma center must provide immediate availability general (trauma) surgical expertise. In the current practice few patients require a general surgical procedure. The expertise of subspecialists may also be required and frequently these patients will require subspecialty operative care. We hypothesized that trauma surgeons would receive less reimbursement than their subspecialty colleagues despite a greater commitment of time and effort in taking care of the multiply-injured patient. METHODS: Three fellowship trained trauma surgeons were specifically hired to cover the trauma service for the year 2000. Professional billings, contribution to margin (reimbursement minus direct costs) of the trauma surgeons and subspecialists were obtained from the hospital financial information system. A surrogate for effort was assessed by the number of attending notes in the chart. A surrogate for complexity of care was assessed by the length of notes in the chart. Weekly time sheets assessed the percentage of time involved in the care of trauma patients. RESULTS: There were 344 patients cared for exclusively on the trauma service for the year 2000. The billing generated per patient was $1005 for the trauma surgeon, $5904 for the subspecialists, and $27,554 for the hospital. Orthopedics and radiology generated more professional billing on the trauma patients than the trauma surgeons. The trauma surgeons spent 52% of their weekly clinical activity in the care of trauma patients, yet this activity accounted for only 16% of their billings (the rest came from general surgery and ICU care). The effort and complexity of care provided by the trauma surgeons was significantly greater than the subspecialists. CONCLUSION: The Level I trauma service is a conduit for patients coming into the hospital that provides a significant remuneration to the subspecialty services. Trauma surgeons are able to bill much less than many of their subspecialty colleagues despite expending significantly greater amounts of time and effort in the care of these patients. Strategies for improved reimbursement for trauma surgeons must be devised or trauma surgery will suffer the same fate as other areas of surgery, losing our brightest and best to more financially sound subspecialty services such as radiology and orthopedics.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Improving the Glasgow Coma Scale score: motor score alone is a better predictor.

BACKGROUND: The Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) has served as an assessment tool in head trauma and as a measure of physiologic derangement in outcome models (e.g., TRISS and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation), but it has not been rigorously examined as a predictor of outcome. METHODS: Using a large trauma data set (National Trauma Data Bank, N = 204,181), we compared the predictive power (pseudo R2, receiver operating characteristic [ROC]) and calibration of the GCS to its components. RESULTS: The GCS is actually a collection of 120 different combinations of its 3 predictors grouped into 12 different scores by simple addition (motor [m] + verbal [v] + eye [e] = GCS score). Problematically, different combinations summing to a single GCS score may actually have very different mortalities. For example, the GCS score of 4 can represent any of three mve combinations: 2/1/1 (survival = 0.52), 1/2/1 (survival = 0.73), or 1/1/2 (survival = 0.81). In addition, the relationship between GCS score and survival is not linear, and furthermore, a logistic model based on GCS score is poorly calibrated even after fractional polynomial transformation. The m component of the GCS, by contrast, is not only linearly related to survival, but preserves almost all the predictive power of the GCS (ROC(GCS) = 0.89, ROC(m) = 0.87; pseudo R2(GCS) = 0.42, pseudo R2(m) = 0.40) and has a better calibrated logistic model. CONCLUSION: Because the motor component of the GCS contains virtually all the information of the GCS itself, can be measured in intubated patients, and is much better behaved statistically than the GCS, we believe that the motor component of the GCS should replace the GCS in outcome prediction models. Because the m component is nonlinear in the log odds of survival, however, it should be mathematically transformed before its inclusion in broader outcome prediction models.

Algorithms↗

PubMed2002

H(2) antagonist-induced thrombocytopenia: is this a real phenomenon?

Critically ill patients routinely receive H(2) antagonists for stress ulcer prophylaxis while at risk for gastrointestinal bleeding. In these patients it is often difficult to assess accurately the cause of adverse effects such as thrombocytopenia. We evaluate the literature to better define thrombocytopenia related to H(2) antagonist administration and discuss mechanism, potential as a risk factor and case reports describing the severity and duration of thrombocytopenia.

Cimetidine↗

PubMed2002

Complications in surgical patients.

HYPOTHESIS: Complications are common in hospitalized surgical patients. Provider error contributes to a significant proportion of these complications. DESIGN: Surgical patients were concurrently observed for the development of explicit complications. All complications were reviewed by the attending surgeon and other members of the service and evaluated for the severity of sequelae (major or minor) and for whether the complication resulted from medical error (avoidable) or not. SETTING: University teaching hospital with a level I trauma designation. PATIENTS: All inpatients (operative or nonoperative) from 4 different surgical services: general surgery, combined general surgery and trauma, vascular surgery, and cardiothoracic surgery. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Total complication rate (number of complications divided by the number of patients) and the number of patients with complications. Complications were separated into those with major or minor sequelae and the proportion of each type that were due to medical error (avoidable). Rates of complications in a recent Institute of Medicine report were used as a criterion standard. RESULTS: The data for the respective groups (general surgery, vascular surgery, combined general surgery and trauma, and cardiothoracic surgery) are as follows. The number of patients was 1363, 978, 914, and 1403; number of complications, 413, 409, 295, and 378; total complication rate, 30.3%, 42.4%, 32.3%, and 26.9%; minor complication rate, 13.3%, 19.9%, 13.5%, and 13.0% (percentage of minor complications that were avoidable, 37.4%, 59.0%, 51.2%, and 49.5%); major complication rate, 16.2%, 21.1%, 18.1%, and 12.9% (percentage of major complications that were avoidable, 53.4%, 60.7%, 38.8%, and 38.7%); and mortality rate, 1.83%, 3.33%, 2.28%, and 3.34% (percentage of mortality that was avoidable, 28.0%, 44.1%, 19.0%, and 25.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite mortality rates that compare favorably with national benchmarks, a prospective examination of surgical patients reveals complication rates that are 2 to 4 times higher than those identified in an Institute of Medicine report. Almost half of these adverse events were judged contemporaneously by peers to be due to provider error (avoidable). Errors in care contributed to 38 (30%) of 128 deaths. Recognition that provider error contributes significantly to adverse events presents significant opportunities for improving patient outcomes.

Cardiac Surgical Procedures↗

PubMed2002

"Shock" bowel.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Accidents, Traffic↗