What percentage of high acuity cases do you really influence?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

Ryan17

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2013
Messages
79
Reaction score
5
I was just wondering, in high acuity/trauma cases, about what percentage of cases do EM physicians truly influence whether the person lives or dies?

In other words, exclude the cases where no matter what you did, the patient was certainly going to die or already dead (brain dead), and exclude the cases where when the patient arrived, despite high acuity, the patient was stable and probably going to live.

Sorry if its kind of a strange question, but I guess I'm just curious!
 
I would also consider reduction in morbidity from good EM (maybe more important, depending on one's perspective)

HH
 
I was just wondering, in high acuity/trauma cases, about what percentage of cases do EM physicians truly influence whether the person lives or dies?

In other words, exclude the cases where no matter what you did, the patient was certainly going to die or already dead (brain dead), and exclude the cases where when the patient arrived, despite high acuity, the patient was stable and probably going to live.

Sorry if its kind of a strange question, but I guess I'm just curious!

I was going to answer your question with a painstakingly written and edited 1,500 word post, but instead, I decided I'll just get right to the point and answer your question as simply and concisely as possible, and without any unnecessary or fluffy verbiage. The answer to your question is simply this:

34%.






(Just kidding. It's a very good question, and I'll try to answer when I have more time. It's not a simple answer, though. I can't seem to ever give a simple answer to any question asked here.)
 
Last edited:
Are you asking how many of the saveable we save? Because that seems like it would vary widely depending on the skill of the physician involved. Conservatively, I would say that I save 100% of the patients that are salvageable. Of course my definition of salvageable is that I can save them, so my numbers may lack validity. If you're asking what percentage of patients I see that my care determines whether they live or die, that's a much lower percentage.

There are plenty of people that would die if you did absolutely nothing but "saving" them requires essentially trivial intervention (IV fluids for dehydrated nursing home dwellers, O2 and abx for pneumonia, etc). Do I get to count these? Does it only count if it's some ridiculous zebra case or the airway is a Mallampati IV with no neck, gushing blood, and deviated trachea? I think we would all count ROSC after cardiac arrest, surgical airways, and tension pneumothoraces as saves, but after that you're going to start getting significant disagreement about what a save means.
 
I was going to answer your question with a painstakingly written and edited 1,500 word post, but instead, I decided I'll just get right to the point and answer your question as simply and concisely as possible, and without any unnecessary or fluffy verbiage. The answer to your question is simply this:

34%.

This figure seems a lot higher than whitecoatinvestor's figure 😛

I look forward to your more detailed explanation.

Are you asking how many of the saveable we save?

Yep.

I'd say less than 10%.

That's about what I guessed...but even if the "real" figure is 5%, that's 5 out of 100 people, which doesn't seem like a lot, but given the volume of acute patients you see every day, that's probably what, at least one a week? I have to imagine that's gotta be pretty satisfying, knowing that even only once a week, you saved another person who was in that middle ground between going to die for sure, and going to live for sure with very basic treatment.
 
Anecdotal, but I'd say:

- 90% would live/die no matter what (i.e. come for viral syndrome, chronic abd pain, ankle sprain, traumatic arrest, etc). Just not much to do either way.

- 5-8% a competent physician with general practice skills could steer on the right course (shoulder dislocation, asthmatic with nebs/steroids/fluids, EKG showing STEMI, precipitous delivery, etc)

- 2-5% where being a well-trained emergency physician means life or death based on minute-to-minute critical actions (fiberoptic intubation for angioedema, intubation/line/ECMO in under an hour for an asthmatic arrest, cordis + massive transfusion for GI bleed on Xarelto, crashing neonate with undiagnosed congenital heart disease needing PGE)
 
It all depends on how you define "influence." If you are hoping to choose a specialty with highest percentage of "life and death" interactions with the highest likelihood of tipping the life/death balance towards life, you're view of what it's like to be a "real doctor" is one from 30,000 feet. Even the most life and death specialties (ER, ICU, Neurosurgery, Trauma Surgery) are dominated by routine cases, less dramatic decisions, lots of charting, lab/xray checking, routine non-life saving procedures, administrative pressures, co-worker interaction, administrative interference, business realities, utterly worthless and mind-rotting government "boxes to check" (ie, "meaningful use"), medical-legal concerns, and non-medical time pressures.

Yes, in Trauma, you will have the occasional gunshot victim, brought back from a flat-line with a thoracotomy and evacuation of pericardial tamponade. But you'll have lots and lot's of "fell hit head, and slow to wake up," and "consult ORTHO," "CT normal," "transfer note to rehab," or "spleen lac, admit, non-op, watch vitals, advance diet, 'did you poop yet?'"

Yes, in Neurosurgery there will be subdural evacuations that make the comatose live, breath, walk and talk again. But there will also be lots of "back pain," "foot drop," and "brain tumor too big, sorry can't help."

Yes, in ICU you will turn around the occasional spiraling patient with sepsis and ARDS and live to see them walk out of the hospital, smiling waving and saying, "Thanks." But you'll also have the "trach, peg, transfer to floor," "call family, discuss code status," "repeat culture, repeat culture, repeat culture."

Yes, in ER, you will have the occasional airway or cardiac defibrillation maneuver that takes a dying patient from the brink. But you'll have a lot more "uri's," "toothaches," and "kidney stones."

But these things are only clips from the highlight reel of the "profession" and "career" which much of the time like something that resembles what other people call a "job." That's right. A "job." One with a "boss" you didn't choose, a paycheck that's not guaranteed, with downside liabilities, with huge responsibilities, with future uncertainties, with co-workers you like and others you don't, with "shop politics" and the same unrelenting obsession with "budgets," "profits," "productivity," and a "system" that is bigger than you and I as utterly terminable and replaceable "providers."

On the flip side, you can make a "difference" with each patient you see, no matter what you do, if you define it the right way and choose to see it. A good doctor is a good doctor. On the most basic level, being a doctor simply involves one person trying to help another. For a dermatologist, that might mean finding that melanoma right before it metastasizes. For a pathologist, it might mean seeing that early cancer that someone less trained, less diligent may not have looked hard enough to see. For an internist, it may mean convincing a family to put their demented mother in a nursing home a day before she falls and dies of a subdural, not after she falls and the decision becomes unfortunately obvious. For an Emergency Physician having an "influence" may involve being the first person to spend 60 seconds non-judgmentally convincing an alcoholic it might not be a bad idea to try rehab just one more time. Or the surgeon that decides not operating is best, saving a patient a potential surgical complication. A Pain physician may save more lives by skillfully deciding who not to prescribe pain medications to, than by any pain relieving treatments he can provide.

In our blood sucking, soul-crushing, schizophrenic, illogical, money/government/administration/insurance company/lawyer/politics-driven system that we find ourselves trying to remain "doctors" in, there still are way to have an "influence" with each patient and make a difference, no matter what specialty you are in. 99% of the time, no matter what specialty you are in, it will not take the form of heroic and skillful maneuvers, but will simply take the form of you trying to help another human being in some real, but underwhelming way that makes little if any difference to anyone but you and (sometimes, but not always) the one you've helped, or at least tried to help. Most, if not all, of this "influence" will not be detectable on patient satisfaction surveys, recognized by administrators or result in a larger paycheck. But if you can see through the smog, smoke and mirrors that the insanity of our current healthcare-less system throws up, you just might find its enough to make you feel you make a bit of a "difference" to this world in a meaningful way.

So to answer your question, "What percentage of high acuity cases do you really influence?"

The answer is "almost none," or "almost all," and it depends entirely on whether you choose to see the "Mona Lisa" or the "missing eyebrows."
 
Couldn't agree more with the above.

Btw I am an Pulm/cc guy and I have seen a fair number of really really good doctors but I think I only know one doctor who may affect the mortality numbers of an ICU. The vast majority of good doctors affect morbidity for the most part. If you are one of those I think you will have done well. Mind you that's still pretty darn difficult.
 
Almost none. I'd say 10% would be a high estimate. I would say that if I can make a real difference in the life of one patient per shift, even if it's something as simple as taking the time to talk to them about their illness so they understand it more or print out their labs so they have them when they see their outpatient physician that's a win. I guess that is why I don't like sweatshop/RVU departments.

Otherwise the drug seekers are gonna seek, the obese/sedentary/diabetic/ cardiac/stroke patients are gonna MI/stroke (and that's if they don't dissect), and almost everyone who has been in PEA/Asystole is going to die in the hospital even with ROSC in the ER. Society is upsold on the value of transplants all the time, but what if the naked truth was known: this isn't death vs cure, but rather death vs a life with iatrogenic AIDS measured in five year survival chunks?

Let's put it this way: say you bought one of those old cars that are well known for getting into the Guiness Book of world records for 1,000,000 plus miles like a Mercedes or Volvo and you never did anything to it. 60,000 miles later your transmission is out or the engine is burning oil and you have it towed in to your mechanic. There isn't much he's going to be able to do for you to get to the 1,000,000 mile mark.

That may sound fatalistic, but that is the reality of life in modern medicine. I actually envy the preventive medicine guys, if it wasn't for the chronic pain management aspect of their training which is a known suicide risk.

In terms of influencing all cause mortality, we were probably better off when sloth and gluttony were on the list of seven deadly sins and stress tests and stents were unknown entities.

Forgive my bastardization of Kipling:

...On the first Medical Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by leeching our neighbour and ended by killing his wife)
Till societal pillars had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."

In the epoch of socialized medicine we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But eventually we ran out of money, so there were no cures we could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work out you die."

Then the gods of health care, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.

As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only two things certain since medical progress began.
That studies will contradict studies, and publish or perish is true...
 
Last edited:
Agree w/ the above. I'd say it really depends on how you define a "save" and "high acuity."

I'll give you an example of 3 shifts I had last week (university level 1 trauma center):

-URI x6
-abdominal pain/nausea x4
-headache x2
-scalp lac x2
-diverticulitis
-burst appendicitis
-elbow fracture
-distal radius fracture
-wrist fracture x3
-diabetic cellulitis/osteomyelitis
-consussion x4
-STEMI x2
-alcoholic detox
-anterior shoulder dislocation
-patellar dislocation
-finger amputation
-3rd degree heart block
-PSVT
-OHCA x2 (no ROSC)

For reference this was probably one of the highest acuity weeks i've ever had (thinks in part to a large ice storm that caused a ton of ortho and head injuries) Even so, if you define "high acuity" as someone on the brink of death, most likely only the STEMIs, appendicitis, heart block, and OHCA would qualify. We didn't save the cardiac arrest patients, and who knows if the STEMI and appy pts would have survived w/o treatment (although even if they did survive, their life expectancy and QOL would be significantly decreased). On the other hand, by treating some of the more serious (but not immediately life threatening) ortho injuries, we prevented future life threatening complications, disability, and improved their QOL.

Unfortunately most things in medicine aren't black and white enough to say save vs. no save. One of my favorite Osler quotes:
"...In seeking absolute truth we aim at the unattainable and must be content with finding broken portions…"

In the end, it all depends on your own personal perspective as to what it means to influence high acuity cases.
 
Tough question to answer, as my colleagues above point out. On one hand, a good ER doctor positively influences MANY patients every day. Reassuring them, giving them GOOD advice for their minor problems, caring, understanding, gently fixing that chin laceration on a new Mom's 2 year old... etc. They also DO save lives, in some way, on most shifts. Old people DIE without antibiotics for pneumonia, IV fluids for renal failure, etc.

That said, how often due we have a "clean save"? By which I mean, a truly terminal patient who we, in a few minutes/hours, take from certain death to certain life. These don't come along all that time. Maybe a couple times a month? By which I mean a Vtach heading down a toilet, a severe OD (say high dose calcium channel blocker), tension pneumothorax, angioedema that needs expert airway management NOW before anyone else can come help? I've had those recently. They were clean saves, in my book.

An even MORE interesting question to me... are you familiar with advanced baseball stats? There is a concept called VORP, or value over replacement player. Basically, they try to quantify the positive impact of a player, assuming that in their place you could replace them with a completely average major league player from their position (i.e. what is the difference between YOUR second baseman, and the MEAN second baseman... its a bit more complicated, but thats the idea).

Anyway, how often does a good ER doctor save someone that any given random doctor wouldn't / couldn't? Probably even more rare. But it is nice when it happens.
 
Interesting replies guys.

So it sounds like a "clean save" is pretty rare...but I'm guessing its one of the things that you enjoy most about working in EM?

Would you say that overall, even if its not every case (or only a minority of cases, some more acute, some less) you truly make a difference in someone's life, and that provides the bulk of the job satisfaction? I realize this sounds a bit idealistic, but I'm guessing there has to be some of these elements for you guys to enjoy your work and feel like you are providing unique value.
 
Interesting replies guys.

So it sounds like a "clean save" is pretty rare...but I'm guessing its one of the things that you enjoy most about working in EM?

Would you say that overall, even if its not every case (or only a minority of cases, some more acute, some less) you truly make a difference in someone's life, and that provides the bulk of the job satisfaction? I realize this sounds a bit idealistic, but I'm guessing there has to be some of these elements for you guys to enjoy your work and feel like you are providing unique value.

Sure, it's satisfying and natural high, but the thing I enjoy the most is the ability to make somebody's day better (IV fluids for the flu, zofran for vomiting, droperidol for migraine, pain meds for real acute pain, warm blanket for the homeless guy, etc ...)
 
My vote for "purest save" from a strictly physiologic stand point would be the pre-hospital administration of Narcan for opioid OD. You can have someone who is apneic and bradying down and really has one foot in the grave and due to a little magic DIVP Narcan in 30 seconds they can go from nearly dead to trying to punch you in the face. However, I don't think I've ever really met anybody who looks back on these "saves" with much of a warm-fuzzy feeling.

But, agree with everyone else who has said that trying to really figure out if YOU, and you alone, actually saved someone's life is not a helpful paradigm.
 
I think the most ego-rewarding is some type of difficult clean save, where either your years of education and dedication let you make a rapid diagnosis or skillful airway or the like. Very rare, but the high-five type of stuff.

That said, day-to-day, we're ER doctors to make people feel better. Give me a bucket of zofran and some motrin and I can make a lot of people feel better 🙂
 
I think I had two "clean saves" in my 3 years of residency both of which were arguably EM-specific saves. 1) Brought a 19 year old girl back from torsades after a 70 minute code; dc'd 10d later, no neurologic sequelae. 2) tPA for a saddle embolism in a 2oish yo girl who smelled so strongly of PE she got heparin before CT. BP 80/40 HR 140 pre-tPA. BP 120/80 HR 80 post-tPA.

I think my total patient tally for 3 years of residency was +/- 8000, so if I got 2 saves out of it, that makes 0.025%. Agree with above, though - it all depends on what you mean by "life and death". There were a smattering of tylenol ODs, OHCAs which were "resuscitated" and subsequently iced, brain bleeds which we intubated and potentially "kept alive" although with varying long term outcomes... Recently I had one nasty case of ADEM in which I maybe bought the guy a few hours, but he died anyway.

The satisfaction, though, as Tiger said - comes from being happy about the small changes you make to improve patient health, even if it isn't as dramatic as an episode of ER or Grey's. The best way to avoid burnout IMHO is to focus on those little victories, because the big stuff happens only rarely.
 
Top