Shahid Shafi M.D.

McCrum, M. L., K. A. Davis, H. Kaafarani, H. Santry, S. Shafi and M. Crandall (2020). “Current Opinion on Emergency General Surgery Transfer and Triage Criteria.” J Trauma Acute Care Surg May 26. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

The objective of this opinion piece is to propose a list of criteria, similar to trauma triage criteria, that may be used to inform decisions to transfer a patient from a smaller facility to a higher level of care. We have approached this by considering three essential elements: the underlying disease, the degree of physiologic derangement and available hospital resources. Consideration of each of these factors will help guide patient triage in the field or emergency department. [No abstract; excerpt from article].

Zerhouni, Y. A., J. W. Scott, C. Ta, P. C. Hsu, M. Crandall, S. C. Gale, A. J. Schoenfeld, A. J. Bottiggi, E. E. Cornwell, 3rd, A. Eastman, J. K. Davis, B. Joseph, B. R. H. Robinson, S. Shafi, C. Q. White, B. H. Williams, E. R. Haut and A. H. Haider (2019). “Impact of the Affordable Care Act on trauma and emergency general surgery: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma systematic review and meta-analysis.” J Trauma Acute Care Surg 87(2): 491-501.

Full text of this article.

BACKGROUND: Trauma and emergency general surgery (EGS) patients who are uninsured have worse outcomes as compared with insured patients. Partially modeled after the 2006 Massachusetts Healthcare Reform (MHR), the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010 with the goal of expanding health insurance coverage, primarily through state-based Medicaid expansion (ME). We evaluated the impact of ME and MHR on outcomes for trauma patients, EGS patients, and trauma systems. METHODS: This study was approved by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Guidelines Committee. Using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology, we defined three populations of interest (trauma patients, EGS patients, and trauma systems) and identified the critical outcomes (mortality, access to care, change in insurance status, reimbursement, funding). We performed a systematic review of the literature. Random effect meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were calculated for outcomes with sufficient data. RESULTS: From 4,593 citations, we found 18 studies addressing all seven predefined outcomes of interest for trauma patients, three studies addressing six of seven outcomes for EGS patients, and three studies addressing three of eight outcomes for trauma systems. On meta-analysis, trauma patients were less likely to be uninsured after ME or MHR (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% confidence interval, 0.37-0.66). These coverage expansion policies were not associated with a change in the odds of inpatient mortality for trauma (odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.88-1.05). Emergency general surgery patients also experienced a significant insurance coverage gains and no change in inpatient mortality. Insurance expansion was often associated with increased access to postacute care at discharge. The evidence for trauma systems was heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: Given the evidence quality, we conditionally recommend ME/MHR to improve insurance coverage and access to postacute care for trauma and EGS patients. We have no specific recommendation with respect to the impact of ME/MHR on trauma systems. Additional research into these questions is needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Review, Economic/Decision, level III.

Zogg, C. K., W. Jiang, T. D. Ottesen, S. Shafi, K. Schuster, R. Becher, K. A. Davis and A. H. Haider (2018). “Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Longer-term Outcomes Among Emergency General Surgery Patients: The Unique Experience of Universally Insured Older Adults.” Ann Surg 268(6): 968-979.

Full text of this article.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether racial/ethnic disparities in 30/90/180-day mortality, major morbidity, and unplanned readmissions exist among universally insured older adult (>/=65 years) emergency general surgery patients; vary by diagnostic category; and can be explained by variations in geography, teaching status, age-cohort, and a hospital’s percentage of minority patients. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: As the US population ages and discussions surrounding the optimal method of insurance provision increasingly enter into national debate, longer-term outcomes are of paramount concern. It remains unclear the extent to which insurance changes disparities throughout patients’ postacute recovery period among older adults. METHODS: Survival analysis of 2008 to 2014 Medicare data using risk-adjusted Cox proportional-hazards models. RESULTS: A total of 6,779,649 older adults were included, of whom 82.8% identified as non-Hispanic white (NHW), 9.2% non-Hispanic black (NHB), 5.6% Hispanic, and 1.5% non-Hispanic Asian (NHA). Relative to NHW patients, each group of minority patients was significantly less likely to die [30-day NHB vs NHW hazard ratio (95% confidence interval): 0.88 (0.86-0.89)]. Differences became less apparent as outcomes approached 180 days [180-day NHB vs NHW: 1.00 (0.98-1.02)]. For major morbidity and unplanned readmission, differences among NHW, Hispanic, and NHA patients were comparable. NHB patients did consistently worse. Efforts to explain the occurrence found similar trends across diagnostic categories, but significant differences in disparities attributable to geography and the other included factors that combined accounted for up to 50% of readmission differences between racial/ethnic groups. CONCLUSION: The study found an inversion of racial/ethnic mortality differences and mitigation of non-NHB morbidity/readmission differences among universally insured older adults that decreased with time. Persistent disparities among nonagenarian patients and hospitals managing a regionally large share of minority patients warrant particular concern.

Ogola, G. O., M. L. Crandall, K. M. Richter and S. Shafi (2018). “High-volume hospitals are associated with lower mortality among high-risk emergency general surgery patients.” J Trauma Acute Care Surg 85(3): 560-565.

Full text of this article.

INTRODUCTION: We have previously demonstrated that Emergency General Surgery (EGS) patients treated at high-volume hospitals experience lower mortality rates than those treated at low-volume hospitals. However, EGS comprises a wide spectrum of diseases. Our goal was to determine which EGS diseases had better outcomes at high-volume hospitals. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective analysis of the National Inpatient Sample database for 2013 (a nationwide representative sample). Patients with EGS diseases were identified using American Association for the Surgery of Trauma definitions. A hierarchical logistic regression model was used to measure risk-adjusted probability of death, adjusting for age, sex, race, ethnicity, insurance type, and comorbidities. Patients were then grouped into 16 risk groups based upon their predicted probability of death. We then compared observed mortality rates at high- versus low-volume hospitals within each risk group. RESULTS: Nationwide, 3,006,615 patients with EGS diseases were treated at 4,083 hospitals in 2013. Patients with predicted risk of death of 4% or higher (275,615 patients, 9.2%) had lower observed mortality rates at high-volume hospitals than at low-volume hospitals (7.7% vs. 10.2%, p < 0.001). We estimated that 1,002 deaths were potentially preventable if high-risk patients who were treated at low-volume hospitals were instead transferred to high-volume hospitals. CONCLUSION: EGS patients with predicted risk of death of 4% or higher experience lower mortality rates at high-volume hospitals than at low-volume hospitals. A regional system of EGS care that enables rapid transfer of high-risk patients to high-volume hospitals may prevent several deaths. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic and epidemiological, level III; Therapeutic/Case Management, level IV.

Shafi, S., A. W. Collinsworth, L. A. Copeland, G. O. Ogola, T. Qiu, M. Kouznetsova, I. C. Liao, N. Mears, A. T. Pham, G. J. Wan and A. L. Masica (2018). “Association of Opioid-Related Adverse Drug Events With Clinical and Cost Outcomes Among Surgical Patients in a Large Integrated Health Care Delivery System.” JAMA Surg. May 23. [Epub ahead of print].

Full text of this article.

Importance: Opioids are commonly used for pain control during and after invasive procedures. However, opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) are common and have been associated with worse patient outcomes. Objectives: To examine the incidence of ORADEs in patients undergoing hospital-based surgical and endoscopic procedures and to evaluate the association of ORADEs with clinical and cost outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this retrospective study of clinical and administrative data, ORADEs were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis codes for known adverse effects of opioids or by opioid antagonist use. Multivariable regression analysis was used to measure the association of ORADEs with outcomes after adjusting for potential confounding factors. The setting was 21 acute care hospitals in a large integrated health care delivery system. Participants were 135379 patients (aged >/=18 years, admitted from January 1, 2013, to September 30, 2015) who underwent surgical and endoscopic procedures and were given opioids. Exposure: Opioid use, reported as morphine milligram equivalent doses. Main Outcomes and Measures: Opioid-related adverse drug events and their association with inpatient mortality, discharge to another care facility, length of stay, cost of hospitalization, and 30-day readmission. Results: Among 135379 adult patients in this study (67.5% female), 14386 (10.6%) experienced at least one ORADE. Patients with ORADEs were more likely to be older, of white race/ethnicity, and male and have more comorbidities. Patients with ORADEs received a higher total dose of opioids (median morphine milligram equivalent dose, 46.8 vs 30.0 mg; P < .001) and for a longer duration (median, 3.0 vs 2.0 days; P < .001). In adjusted analyses, ORADEs were associated with increased inpatient mortality (odds ratio [OR], 28.8; 95% CI, 24.0-34.5), greater likelihood of discharge to another care facility (OR, 2.9; 95% CI, 2.7-3.0), prolonged length of stay (OR, 3.1; 95% CI, 2.8-3.4), high cost of hospitalization (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 2.4-3.0), and higher rate of 30-day readmission (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.2-1.4). ORADEs were associated with a 2.9% increase in absolute mortality, an $8225 increase in cost for the index hospitalization, and a 1.6-day increase in length of stay for the index hospitalization. Conclusions and Relevance: Opioid-related adverse drug events were common among patients undergoing hospital-based invasive procedures and were associated with significantly worse clinical and cost outcomes. Hospital-acquired harm from ORADEs in the surgical patient population is an important opportunity for health systems to improve patient safety and reduce cost.