Multidisciplinary team approach to traumatic spinal cord injuries: a single institution’s quality improvement project

  • Georgina Alizo
  • Jason D. Sciarretta
  • Stefanie Gibson
  • Keely Muertos
  • Sharon Holmes
  • Felicia Denittis
  • Joseph Cheatle
  • John Davis
  • Antonio Pepe
Original Article
  • 57 Downloads

Abstract

Background

A stepwise multidisciplinary team (MDT) approach to the injured trauma patient has been reported to have an overall benefit, with reduction in mortality and improved morbidity. Based on clinical experience, we hypothesized that implementation of a dedicated Spinal Cord Injury Service (SCIS) would impact outcomes of a patient specific population on the trauma service.

Methods

The trauma center registry was retrospectively queried, from January 2011 through December 2015, for patients presenting with a spinal cord injury. In 2013, a twice weekly rounding SCIS MDT was initiated. This new multidisciplinary service, the post-SCIS, was compared to the 2011–2012 pre-SCIS. The two groups were compared across patient demographics, mechanism of injury, surgical procedures, and disposition at discharge. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary endpoints also included the incidence of complications, hospital length of stay (HLOS), ICU LOS, ventilator free days, and all hospital-acquired infectious complications. Logistic regression and Student’s t test were used to analyze data.

Results

Ninety-five patients were identified. Of these patients, 41 (43%) pre-SCIS and 54 (57%) post-SCIS patients were compared. Mean age was 46.9 years and 79% male. Overall, adjusted mortality rate between the two groups was significant with the implementation of the post-SCIS (p = 0.033). In comparison, the post-SCIS revealed shorter HLOS (23 vs 34.8 days, p = 0.004), increased ventilator free days (20.2 vs 63.3 days, p < 0.001), and less nosocomial infections (1.8 vs 22%, p = 0.002). While the post-SCIS mean ICU LOS was shorter (12 vs 17.9 days, p = 0.089), this relationship was not significant.

Conclusions

The application of an SCIS team in addition to the trauma service suggests that a structured coordinated approach can have an expected improvement in hospital outcomes and shorter length of stays. We believe that this clinical collaboration provides distinct specialist perspectives and, therefore, optimizes quality improvement.

Level of evidence Epidemiologic study, level III.

Keywords

Spinal cord injury Multidisciplinary Team approach Trauma Performance 

References

  1. 1.
    National Spinal Cord Injury Statistical Centre (NSCISC) Birmingham A. Spinal cord injury facts and figures at a glance. Alabama, 2012.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tubb CC, Oh JS, DO NV, Tai NR, Meissel MP, Place ML. Trauma care at a multinational United Kingdom-led Role 3 combat hospital: resuscitation outcomes from a multidisciplinary approach. Mil Med. 2014;179(11):1258–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bach JA, Leskovan JJ, Scharschmidt T, Boulger C, Papadimos TJ, Russell S, Bahner DP, Stawicki SP. The right team at the right time: multidisciplinary approach to multi-trauma patient with orthopedic injuries. OPUS 12 Sci. 2012;6(1):6–10.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Georgiou A, Lockey DJ. The performance and assessment of hospital trauma teams. Scan J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2010;18:66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fleissig A. Multidisciplinary teams in cancer care: are they effective in the UK? Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(11):935–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Croke JM, El-Sayed S. Multidisciplinary management of cancer patients: chasing a shadow or real value? An overview of the literature. Curr Oncol. 2012;19(4):e232–e8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carling P. Favorable impact of a multidisciplinary antibiotic management program conducted during 7 years. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2003;24(9):699–706.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wright FC, De Vito C, Langer B, Hunter A. On behalf of the Expert Panel on Multidisciplinary Cancer Conference Standards Multidisciplinary cancer conferences: a systematic review and development of practice standards. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:1002–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stephens MR, Lewis WG, Brewster AE, et al. Multidisciplinary team management is associated with improved outcomes after surgery for esophageal cancer. Dis Esophagus. 2006;19:164–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Griffith C, Turner J. United Kingdom National Health Service, Cancer Services Collaborative “Improvement Partnership”: redesign of cancer services, a national approach. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2004;30(suppl 1):1–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D’Amours SK, Rstogi P, Ball CG. Utility of simultaneous interventional radiology and operative surgery in a dedicated suite for seriously injured patients. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2013;19(6):587–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cherry RA, King TS, Carney DE, Bryant P, Cooney RN. Trauma team activation and the impact on mortality. J Trauma. 2007;63:326–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    American Trauma Society (ATS). Website: http://www.amtrauma.org. Accessed 21 Dec 2016.
  14. 14.
    Faul M, Sasser SM, Lairet J, Mould-Millman NK, Sugerman D. Trauma center staffing, infrastructure, and patient characteristics that influence trauma center need. West J Emerg Med. 2015;16(1):98–106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project Internet tool (HCUP). Facts and Figures: Statistics on Hospital-based Care in the United States. http://hcupnet.ahrq.gov. Accessed 12 Feb 2016.
  16. 16.
    Jain A, Brooks JT, Roa SS, Ain MC, Sponseller PD. Cervical fractures with associated spinal cord injury in children and adolescents: epidemiology, costs, and in-hospital mortality rates in 4418 patients. J Child Orthop. 2015;9:171–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baaj AA, Uribe JS, Nichols TA, Theodore N, Crawford NR, Sonntag VK, Vale FL. Health care burden of cervical spine fractures in the United States: analysis of a nationwide database over a 10-year period. J Neurosurg Spine. 2010;13(1):61–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peasah SK, McKay NL, Harman JS, Al-Amin M, Cook RL. Medicare non-payment of hospital-acquired: infection rates three years post implementation. Medicare Medicaid Res Rev. 2013;3(3):1–13.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rick H. Spinal cord injury registry. Spinal cord injury facts and statistics. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 2006, 1–11.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Epstein NE. Multidisciplinary in-hospital teams improve patient outcomes: A review. Surg Neurol Int. 2014;5(Suppl 7):S295–303.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kesson EM, Allardice GM, George WD, Burns HJ, Morrison DS. Effects of multidisciplinary team working on breast cancer survival: retrospective, comparative, interventional cohort study of 13 722 women. BMJ. 2012;344:e2718.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boxer MM., Vinod SK, Shafiq J, Duggan KJ. Do multidisciplinary team meetings make a difference in the management of lung cancer? Cancer. 2011;117(22):5112–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Parent S, Dimar J, Dekutoski M, Roy-Beaudry M. Unique features of pediatric spinal cord injury. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010;35(21 Suppl):S202–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hwang DY, Yagoda D, Perrey HM, Tehan TM, Guanci M, Ananian L, Currier PF, Cobb JP, Rosand J. Assessment of satisfaction with care among family members of survivors in a neuroscience intensive care unit. J Neurosci Nurs. 2014;46:106–16.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgina Alizo
    • 1
  • Jason D. Sciarretta
    • 1
  • Stefanie Gibson
    • 1
  • Keely Muertos
    • 1
  • Sharon Holmes
    • 1
  • Felicia Denittis
    • 1
  • Joseph Cheatle
    • 1
  • John Davis
    • 1
  • Antonio Pepe
    • 1
  1. 1.Grand Strand Medical CenterUniversity of South CarolinaMyrtle BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations