Time to OR for patients with abdominal gunshot wounds: A potential process measure to assess the quality of trauma care?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Abdominal gunshot wounds (GSWs) require rapid assessment and operative intervention to reduce the risk of death and complications. We sought to determine if time to the operating room (OR) might be a useful process measure for the assessment of trauma care quality. We evaluated the facility benchmark time to OR for patients with serious injury and whether this was associated with lower rates of complications and mortality. METHODS We evaluated time to OR for adult patients with an abdominal GSW presenting in shock to American College of Surgeons Trauma Quality Improvement Program centers from 2015 to 2020. We calculated the 75th percentile time to the OR for each center and characterized centers as average, slow, or fast. We compared patient and facility characteristics across outlier status, as well as risk-adjusted complications and mortality using hierarchical multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS There were 4,027 patients in 230 centers that met the inclusion criteria. Mortality was 28%. There were 61 (27%) fast and 52 (23%) slow centers. The median time for slow centers was 83 minutes (68–94 minutes) compared with fast centers, 35 minutes (32–38 minutes). Injury Severity Score and emergency department vital signs were similar across centers. Fast hospitals had higher total case volumes, more cases per surgeon, and were more likely to be Level I centers. Patients cared for in these centers had similar risk-adjusted rates of complications and mortality. CONCLUSION Time to OR for patients with abdominal GSWs and shock might be a useful process measure to evaluate rapid decision making and OR access. Surgeon and center experience as measured by annual case volumes, coupled with a rapid surgical response required through Level I trauma center standards might be contributory. There was no association between outlier status and complications or mortality suggesting other factors apart from time to the OR are of greater significance. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Therapeutic/care management, Level IV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".