Nicole A. Stassen

BACKGROUND Mentorship programs in surgery are used to overcome barriers to clinical and academic productivity, research success, and work-life balance. We sought to determine if the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) Mentoring Program has met its goals of fostering academic and personal growth in young acute care surgeons. METHODS We conducted a systematic program evaluation of EAST Mentoring Program's first 4 years. Demographic information was collected from EAST records, mentorship program applications, and mentee-mentor career development plans. We reviewed the career development plans for thematic commonalities and results of a structured, online questionnaire distributed since program inception. A mixed methods approach was used to better understand the program goals from both mentee and mentor perspectives, as well as attitudes and barriers regarding the perceived success of this career development program. RESULTS During 2012 to 2015, 65 mentoring dyads were paired and 60 completed the program. Of 184 surveys distributed, 108 were returned (57% response rate). Respondents were evenly distributed between mentees and mentors (53 vs. 55, p = 0.768). In participant surveys, mentoring relationships were viewed to focus on research (45%), “sticky situations” (e.g., communication, work-life balance) (27%), education (18%), or administrative issues (10%). Mentees were more focused on research and education versus mentors (74% vs. 50%; p = 0.040). Mentees felt that goals were “always” or “usually” met versus mentors (89% vs. 77%; p = 0.096). Two barriers to successful mentorship included time and communication, with most pairs communicating by email. Most respondents (91%) planned to continue the relationship beyond the EAST Mentoring Program and recommended the experience to colleagues. CONCLUSION Mentee satisfaction with the EAST Mentoring Program was high. Mentoring is a beneficial tool to promote success among EAST's young members, but differences exist between mentee and mentor perceptions. Revising communication expectations and time commitment to improve career development may help our young acute care surgeons.

BACKGROUND The Air Medical Prehospital Triage (AMPT) score was developed to identify injured patients who may benefit from scene helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) transport. External validation using a different data set is essential to ensure reliable performance. The study objective was to validate the effectiveness of the AMPT score to identify patients with a survival benefit from HEMS using the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study registry. METHODS Patients 16 years or older undergoing scene HEMS or ground EMS (GEMS) transport in the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study registry 2000–2013 were included. Patients with 2 or higher AMPT score points were triaged to HEMS, while those with less than 2 points were triaged to GEMS. Multilevel Poisson regression determined the association of survival with actual transport mode across AMPT score triage assignments, adjusting for demographics, mechanism, vital signs, interventions, and injury severity. Successful validation was defined as no survival benefit for actual HEMS transport in patients triaged to GEMS by the AMPT score, with a survival benefit for actual HEMS transport in patients triaged to HEMS by the AMPT score. Subgroup analyses were performed in patients treated by advanced life support providers and patients with transport times longer than 10 minutes. RESULTS There were 222,827 patients included. For patients triaged to GEMS by the AMPT score, actual transport mode was not associated with survival (adjusted relative risk, 1.004; 95% confidence interval, 0.999–1.009; p = 0.08). For patients triaged to HEMS by the AMPT score, actual HEMS transport was associated with a 6.7% increase in the relative probability of survival (adjusted relative risk, 1.067; 95% confidence interval, 1.040–1.083, p < 0.001). Similar results were seen in all subgroups. CONCLUSIONS This study is the first to externally validate the AMPT score, demonstrating the ability of this tool to reliably identify trauma patients most likely to benefit from HEMS transport. The AMPT score should be considered when protocols for HEMS scene transport are developed and reviewed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE Epidemiologic/prognostic study, level III; therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

Objective: The aim of this study was to develop and internally validate a triage score that can identify trauma patients at the scene who would potentially benefit from helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). Summary Background Data: Although survival benefits have been shown at the population level, identification of patients most likely to benefit from HEMS transport is imperative to justify the risks and cost of this intervention. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of subjects undergoing scene HEMS or ground emergency medical services (GEMS) in the National Trauma Databank (2007–2012). Data were split into training and validation sets. Subjects were grouped by triage criteria in the training set and regression used to determine which criteria had a survival benefit associated with HEMS. Points were assigned to these criteria to develop the Air Medical Prehospital Triage (AMPT) score. The score was applied in the validation set to determine whether subjects triaged to HEMS had a survival benefit when actually transported by helicopter. Results: There were 2,086,137 subjects included. Criteria identified for inclusion in the AMPT score included GCS P < 0.01). In subjects triaged to GEMS, actual transport mode was not associated with survival (AOR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97–1.11, P = 0.20). Conclusions: The AMPT score identifies patients with improved survival following HEMS transport and should be considered in air medical triage protocols.

During the last century, the management of blunt force trauma to the spleen has changed from observation and expectant management in the early part of the 1900s to mainly operative intervention, to the current practice of selective operative and nonoperative management. These issues were first addressed by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) in the Practice Management Guidelines for Non-operative Management of Blunt Injury to the Liver and Spleen published online in 2003. Since that time, a large volume of literature on these topics has been published requiring a reevaluation of the current EAST guideline. The National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health MEDLINE database was searched using Pub Med (www.pubmed.gov). The search was designed to identify English-language citations published after 1996 (the last year included in the previous guideline) using the keywords splenic injury and blunt abdominal trauma. One hundred seventy-six articles were reviewed, of which 125 were used to create the current practice management guideline for the selective nonoperative management of blunt splenic injury. There has been a plethora of literature regarding nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries published since the original EAST practice management guideline was written. Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries is now the treatment modality of choice in hemodynamically stable patients, irrespective of the grade of injury, patient age, or the presence of associated injuries. Its use is associated with a low overall morbidity and mortality when applied to an appropriate patient population. Nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries should only be considered in an environment that provides capabilities for monitoring, serial clinical evaluations, and has an operating room available for urgent laparotomy. Patients presenting with hemodynamic instability and peritonitis still warrant emergent operative intervention. Intravenous contrast enhanced computed tomographic scan is the diagnostic modality of choice for evaluating blunt splenic injuries. Repeat imaging should be guided by a patient's clinical status. Adjunctive therapies like angiography with embolization are increasingly important adjuncts to nonoperative management of splenic injuries. Despite the explosion of literature on this topic, many questions regarding nonoperative management of blunt splenic injuries remain without conclusive answers in the literature.

During the last century, the management of blunt force trauma to the liver has changed from observation and expectant management in the early part of the 1900s to mainly operative intervention, to the current practice of selective operative and nonoperative management. These issues were first addressed by the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma in the Practice Management Guidelines for Nonoperative Management of Blunt Injury to the Liver and Spleen published online in 2003. Since that time, a large volume of literature on these topics has been published requiring a reevaluation of the previous Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma guideline. The National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health MEDLINE database were searched using PubMed (http://www.pubmed.gov). The search was designed to identify English-language citations published after 1996 (the last year included in the previous guideline) using the keywords liver injury and blunt abdominal trauma. One hundred seventy-six articles were reviewed, of which 94 were used to create the current practice management guideline for the selective nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injury. Most original hepatic guidelines remained valid and were incorporated into the greatly expanded current guidelines as appropriate. Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injuries currently is the treatment modality of choice in hemodynamically stable patients, irrespective of the grade of injury or patient age. Nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injuries should only be considered in an environment that provides capabilities for monitoring, serial clinical evaluations, and an operating room available for urgent laparotomy. Patients presenting with hemodynamic instability and peritonitis still warrant emergent operative intervention. Intravenous contrast enhanced computed tomographic scan is the diagnostic modality of choice for evaluating blunt hepatic injuries. Repeated imaging should be guided by a patient's clinical status. Adjunctive therapies like angiography, percutaneous drainage, endoscopy/endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography and laparoscopy remain important adjuncts to nonoperative management of hepatic injuries. Despite the explosion of literature on this topic, many questions regarding nonoperative management of blunt hepatic injuries remain without conclusive answers in the literature.