Trauma and emergency surgery (TES) surgeons performed a similar number of operations per surgeon compared to elective general surgeons (253 ± 83 vs 234 ± 40; p=0.59).
Observational
Does combining trauma and general surgery emergencies provide a comparable operative experience to elective general surgery practice?
Combining trauma and general surgery emergencies provides trauma surgeons with a breadth and scope of practice comparable to elective general surgeons.
Absolute Event Rate: 253% vs 234%
p-value: p=0.59
BACKGROUND: The success of nonoperative management of injuries has diminished the operative experience of trauma surgeons. To enhance operative experience, our trauma surgeons began caring for all general surgery emergencies. Our objective was to characterize and compare the experience of our trauma surgeons with that of our general surgeons. METHODS: We reviewed records to determine case diversity, complexity, time of operation, need for intensive care unit care, and payor mix for patients treated by the trauma and emergency surgery (TES) surgeons and elective practice general surgery (ELEC) surgeons over a 1-year period. RESULTS: TES and ELEC surgeons performed 253 +/- 83 and 234 +/- 40 operations per surgeon, respectively (p = 0.59). TES surgeons admitted more patients and performed more after-hours operations than their ELEC colleagues. Both groups had a mix of cases that was diverse and complex. CONCLUSION: Combining the care of patients with trauma and general surgery emergencies resulted in a breadth and scope of practice for TES surgeons that compared well with that of ELEC surgeons.
Scherer et al. (2004) conducted an observational in Trauma and general surgery emergencies. Trauma and emergency surgery (TES) practice vs. Elective practice general surgery (ELEC) was evaluated on Operations per surgeon (p=0.59). Trauma and emergency surgery (TES) surgeons performed a similar number of operations per surgeon compared to elective general surgeons (253 ± 83 vs 234 ± 40; p=0.59).