Login
Site Search
Subscribe
Modify
Home >
List Archives
Subacute Care Surgery (was trauma activation and stratification)
Tony Joseph tjoseph at ihug.com.auFri Oct 13 00:02:37 BST 2006
- Previous message: Subacute Care Surgery (was trauma activation and stratification)
- Next message: Consensus
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Ron We have reached consensus Regards Tony On 13/10/06 12:41 AM, "Ronald Gross" <Rgross at harthosp.org> wrote: > Tony, > I am gonna have to agree with you here. It does depend on where you > are. Most important in your discussion, however, is the concept of the > multidisciplinary approach - and that should be the case regardless of > where you are and who is "in charge". > Ron > >>>> Tony Joseph <tjoseph at ihug.com.au> 10/12/2006 9:33 AM >>> > Dear Ron > I guess it depends on where you are. > I agree that trauma is a surgical disease but the fact remains that > not > many of our surgeons see it as a viable career pathway related to > relatively > poor remuneration, lifestyle etc and we have too many hospitals taking > too > few trauma patients in my state (which requires a political solution). > There is only 1 surgeon in Australasia that I am aware of who is > responsible > for patients in Intensive Care. > As a result the management of the trauma patient here is > multidisciplinary > and, although there is always room for improvement, in the main our > outcomes are acceptable according to limited data from the > Australasian > National Trauma Registry ( NTR) > Regards > Tony > > > On 12/10/06 10:30 PM, "Ronald Gross" <Rgross at harthosp.org> wrote: > >> Hi Tony, >> lets make one thing clear here - Mattox is NEVER provocative..... >> YEAH, RIGHT! ;-) >> All kidding aside, I think that we are relatively spoiled here at >> Hartford. We still follow the "15 minute rule" - in fact we are in >> house and frequently beat the patient in the doors because of our > pager >> alert system. We also stay with the patient from arrival to ICU to >> discharge, whether the patient gets an operation or not. And unless > the >> patient really does have an isolated ortho or neurologic injury that >> requires surgery, the patients usually stay on our service for the >> duration. So my comments are, clearly, coming from my point of > bias. >> On the other hand, if I did not believe that this is the way it > should >> be, I clearly would not have come here and stayed here........Now it > is >> my turn to be provocative as I afffirm my very strong conviction > that >> trauma is a surgical disease, and should be managed by surgeons. >> Best wishes, >> Ron >>>>> Tony Joseph <tjoseph at ihug.com.au> 10/10/2006 9:42 AM >>> >> Dear Ron >> I have only come into this late. >> No one is arguing that if the patient needs an urgent operation , > then >> the >> surgeon should be involved from time of arrival as there is good >> evidence >> that the presence of a surgeon in the resus room shortens the time > to >> OR >> significantly. In this country where the trauma laparotomy rate is < >> 5%, it >> is relatively easy to understand why Trauma surgeons are few and far >> between >> because they don;t get to operate. They don;t look after the patient > in >> the >> Intensive care unit and they don;t usually clear the cervical spine > ( >> that >> is usually left to the Emergency , Orthopedics or Neurosurgical > docs). >> The trauma team leader is usually either the ER or Intensive care > doc, >> so >> the patient would be in deep trouble if we waved them "goodbye" on >> their way >> to ITU, OR or radiology. I am sure Ken was just being provocative in >> an >> earlier post >> Regards >> Tony Joseph >> Sydney, Australia >> >> >> On 10/10/06 10:50 PM, "Ronald Gross" <Rgross at harthosp.org> wrote: >> >>> Ian, >>> >>> With all due respect, as I remember it, surgeons operate, and that >>> operation is what the trauma patient needs when the bleeding is >> audible. >>> Surgeons also provide critical care in the ICU; who better than > the >>> surgeon who has just done the case, or the surgeon who might do the >> case >>> in the near future, and who knows the patient intimately and >> understands >>> the physiology of the entire patient in front of him/her, to care >> for >>> that patient? >>> >>> As to your colleagues concept about who does trauma, I suggest that >> he >>> come on board here and see just how many of the surgeons on this > list >> DO >>> trauma - at the very least that fellow might have to alter his >> misguided >>> concept just a little bit. >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> Ron >>> >>>>>> "Ian Seppelt" <SeppelI at wahs.nsw.gov.au> 10/9/2006 12:20 AM >>> >>> Let me weight in to a CONSTRUCTIVE debate! >>> >>> Karim has already highlighted the differences between trauma > surgery >>> in >>> the USA and elsewhere in the world, including the difficulty > getting >>> subspecialised surgeons interested in trauma. >>> >>> I saw that first hand when I first bought Ken Mattox's book 'Top >>> Knife'. A senior Professor of Surgery (upper GI and oesophageal >>> surgery, >>> weekly oesophagectomy list, etc) came across me reading it, and I >>> described to him the 'Top Knife / Top Gun' analogy, for training > the >>> 'best of the best'. "BUT", he pointed out to me, "The BEST surgeons >>> don't DO trauma". >>> >>> So given that in Australia / New Zealand / the UK etc it is >> difficult >>> to get senior surgeons interested in trauma (with notable >> exceptions), >>> for the most part it is Emergency Physicians, Intensivists and >>> Anaesthetists that take up the slack. I'm happy to accept that that >> is >>> substandard compared to having a highly trained 'Trauma Surgey >>> Attending' present when every seriously injured patient arrives, > but >>> as >>> Craig Ellis asked, where is the evidence that that is actually >>> correct? >>> >>> >>> What I need is something strong enough that even a senior Professor >> of >>> Surgery will agree that the evidence supports having trauma > surgeons >>> present in the emergency department when the patient arrives. >>> >>> Or could it be that a well trained DOCTOR is what is needed, >>> regardless >>> of specialty, with the ability to activate emergency surgery for > the >>> minority of our (predominantly blunt) trauma patients who actually >>> need >>> an operation? >>> >>> Cheers, Ian >>> >>> Ian Seppelt FANZCA FJFICM >>> Senior Staff Specialist >>> Dept of Intensive Care Medicine >>> The Nepean Hospital, PO Box 63 Penrith NSW 2751 >>> Clinical Lecturer, University of Sydney >>> >>>>>> karim at trauma.org 5/10/2006 6:19am >>> >>> OK, it's possible I overstated the case for the sake of a little >>> argument >>> (the list has been rather quiet recently!) but there are trends > here >>> which I >>> believe are important. First, clearly if you are a member of this >>> list, >>> attend trauma conferences, or are an attending at a level 1 trauma >>> centre, >>> chances are that you are committed to trauma/emergency care and you >>> are >>> not >>> the subject of my ranting. However if you consider the whole body >> of >>> surgeons I think the picture looks less rosy - whether you are in >> the >>> UK, >>> South Africa, Australia or the US. If you do not work in a Level >> 1/2 >>> trauma >>> centre, if you are a resident planning on going straight in to >> private >>> practice, if you are a laparoscopic left adrenal surgeon, I don't >>> believe >>> the same zeal for trauma or emegency surgery is present. If I am >>> totally >>> off base, then I happily stand corrected, and certainly I was >>> exaggerating >>> to make the point. But the fact stands that emergency medicine >>> developed >>> (initially) to fill a vacuum left by surgery, and some specialties >>> (witness >>> cardiothoracics) are retreating to the operating room. We need to >>> make >>> sure >>> trauma or acute care surgery doesn't go the same way. >>> >>> Karim >>> >>> >>> >>> >> > ###################################################################### >>> Attention: >>> This message is intended for the addresses named and may contain >>> confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, >>> please >>> delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message > are >>> those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views > of >>> Sydney West Area Health Service. >>> >>> >>> This e-mail has been scanned for viruses >>> >> > ###################################################################### >>> -- >>> trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG >>> To change your settings or unsubscribe visit: >>> http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG >>> To change your settings or unsubscribe visit: >>> http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html >> >> -- >> trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG >> To change your settings or unsubscribe visit: >> http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html >> >> >> >> >> -- >> trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG >> To change your settings or unsubscribe visit: >> http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html > > -- > trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG > To change your settings or unsubscribe visit: > http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html > > > > > -- > trauma-list : TRAUMA.ORG > To change your settings or unsubscribe visit: > http://www.trauma.org/traumalist.html
- Previous message: Subacute Care Surgery (was trauma activation and stratification)
- Next message: Consensus
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the trauma-list mailing list
