Effectiveness of regionalized systems for stroke and myocardial infarction

Telehealth consultation before inter-hospital transfer after falls in a subacute hospital (the PREVENT-2 study)

OBJECTIVE

Inter-hospital transfers are increasingly common due to the regionalisation of healthcare, but are associated with patient discomfort, high costs and adverse events. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a trauma outreach service for preventing inter-hospital transfers to a major trauma centre.

METHODS

This was an observational pre- and post-intervention study over a 12-month period from 1 October 2020 to 30 September 2021. Eligible patients sustained a fall at Caulfield Hospital, a subacute care hospital specialising in community services, rehabilitation, geriatric medicine and aged mental health. The intervention was delivery of site-specific education at Caulfield Hospital and a trauma outreach service by specialist trauma clinicians at The Alfred Hospital who provided remote assessment, assisted with clinical management decisions and advised on appropriateness of transfer.

RESULTS

The present study included 160 patients in the pre-intervention phase and 203 after the intervention. The primary outcome of transfer occurred in 19 (11.9%) patients in the pre-intervention phase and 4 (2.0%) in the post-intervention phase (P < 0.001). In the subgroup of patients without pelvis or long bone fractures, pre-intervention transfer occurred for 17 (10.9%) patients and post-intervention transfer occurred for 4 (2.0%) patients (P < 0.001). CT imaging was performed for 54 (33.8%) patients in the pre-intervention and 45 (22.2%) patients in the post-intervention group (P = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

Telehealth consultation with a trauma specialist was associated with significant reduction of inter-hospital transfers, and significant reduction of CT imaging. This supports continuation of the service with scope for expansion and evaluation of patient-centred outcomes.

Concept review of regionalized systems of acute care: Is regionalization the next frontier in sepsis care?

Regionalization has become a buzzword in US health care policy. Regionalization, however, has varied meanings, and definitions have lacked contextual information important to understanding its role in improving care. This concept review is a comprehensive primer and summation of 8 common core components of the national models of regionalization informed by text-based analysis of the writing of involved organizations (professional, regulatory, and research) guided by semistructured interviews with organizational leaders. Further, this generalized model of regionalized care is applied to sepsis care, a novel discussion, drawing on existing small-scale applications. This discussion highlights the fit of regionalization principles to the sepsis care model and the actualized and perceived potential benefits. The principal aim of this concept review is to outline regionalization in the United States and provide a roadmap and novel discussion of regionalized care integration for sepsis care.

Regionalization of Critical Care in the United States: Current State and Proposed Framework From the Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine Task Force of the Society of the Critical Care Medicine

OBJECTIVES

The Society of Critical Care Medicine convened its Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine taskforce on February 22, 2016, during the 45th Critical Care Congress to develop a series of consensus papers with toolkits for advancing critical care organizations in North America. The goal of this article is to propose a framework based on the expert opinions of critical care organization leaders and their responses to a survey, for current and future critical care organizations, and their leadership in the health system to design and implement successful regionalization for critical care in their regions.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION

Members of the workgroup convened monthly via teleconference with the following objectives: to 1) develop and analyze a regionalization survey tool for 23 identified critical care organizations in the United States, 2) assemble relevant medical literature accessed using Medline search, 3) use a consensus of expert opinions to propose the framework, and 4) create groups to write the subsections and assemble the final product.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The most prevalent challenges for regionalization in critical care organizations remain a lack of a strong central authority to regulate and manage the system as well as a lack of necessary infrastructure, as described more than a decade ago. We provide a framework and outline a nontechnical approach that the health system and their critical care medicine leadership can adopt after considering their own structure, complexity, business operations, culture, and the relationships among their individual hospitals. Transforming the current state of regionalization into a coordinated, accountable system requires a critical assessment of administrative and clinical challenges and barriers. Systems thinking, business planning and control, and essential infrastructure development are critical for assisting critical care organizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the value-based paradigm, the goals are operational efficiency and patient outcomes. Health systems that can align strategy and operations to assist the referral hospitals with implementing regionalization will be better positioned to regionalize critical care effectively.

Impact of ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Regionalization Programs on the Treatment and Outcomes of Patients Diagnosed With Non-ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Background Many communities have implemented systems of regionalized care to improve access to timely care for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. However, patients who are ultimately diagnosed with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarctions (NSTEMIs) may also be affected, and the impact of regionalization programs on NSTEMI treatment and outcomes is unknown. We set out to determine the effects of ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction regionalization schemes on treatment and outcomes of patients diagnosed with NSTEMIs. Methods and Results The cohort included all patients receiving care in emergency departments diagnosed with an NSTEMI at all nonfederal hospitals in California from January 1, 2005 to September 30, 2015. Data were analyzed using a difference-in-differences approach. The main outcomes were 1-year mortality and angiography within 3 days of the index admission. A total of 293 589 patients with NSTEMIs received care in regionalized and nonregionalized communities. Over the study period, rates of early angiography increased by 0.5 and mortality decreased by 0.9 percentage points per year among the overall population (95% CI, 0.4-0.6 and -1.0 to -0.8, respectively). Regionalization was not associated with early angiography (-0.5%; 95% CI, -1.1 to 0.1) or death (0.2%; 95% CI, -0.3 to 0.8). Conclusions ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction regionalization programs were not statistically associated with changes in guideline-recommended early angiography or changes in risk of death for patients with NSTEMI. Increases in the proportion of patients with NSTEMI who underwent guideline-directed angiography and decreases in risk of mortality were accounted for by secular trends unrelated to regionalization policies.

Evaluation of STEMI Regionalization on Access, Treatment, and Outcomes Among Adults Living in Nonminority and Minority Communities

IMPORTANCE

Cardiac care regionalization, specifically for patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), has been touted as a potential mechanism to reduce systematic disparities by protocolizing the treatment of these conditions. However, it is unknown whether such regionalization arrangements have widened or narrowed disparities in access, treatment, and outcomes for minority communities.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which disparities in access, treatment, and outcomes have changed for patients with STEMI living in zip codes that are in the top tertile of the Black or Hispanic population compared with patients in nonminority zip codes in regionalized vs nonregionalized counties.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used a quasi-experimental approach exploiting the different timing of regionalization across California. Nonpublic inpatient data for all patients with STEMI from January 1, 2006, to October 31, 2015, were analyzed using a difference-in-difference-in-differences estimation approach.

EXPOSURE

Exposure to the intervention was defined as on and after the year a patient's county was exposed to regionalization.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Access to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-capable hospital, receipt of PCI on the same day and at any time during the hospitalization, and time-specific all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

This study included 139 494 patients with STEMI; 61.9% of patients were non-Hispanic White, 5.6% Black, 17.8% Hispanic, and 9.0% Asian; 32.8% were women. Access to PCI-capable hospitals improved by 6.3 percentage points (95% CI, 5.5 to 7.1 percentage points; P < .001) when patients in nonminority communities were exposed to regionalization. Patients in minority communities experienced a 1.8-percentage point smaller improvement in access (95% CI, -2.8 to -0.8 percentage points; P < .001), or 28.9% smaller, compared with those in nonminority communities when both were exposed to regionalization. Regionalization was associated with an improvement to same-day PCI and in-hospital PCI by 5.1 percentage points (95% CI, 4.2 to 6.1 percentage points; P < .001) and 5.0 percentage points (95% CI, 4.2 to 5.9 percentage points; P < .001), respectively, for patients in nonminority communities. Patients in minority communities experienced only 33.3% and 15.1% of that benefit. Only White patients in nonminority communities experienced mortality improvement from regionalization.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although regionalization was associated with improved access to PCI hospitals and receipt of PCI treatment, patients in minority communities derived significantly smaller improvement relative to those in nonminority communities.

High acuity polytrauma centers in orthopaedic trauma: Decreasing patient mortality with effective resource utilization

BACKGROUND

There is a select number of massive-volume, high-acuity trauma centers (HACs) in the United States. Expertise in polytrauma care has been associated with improved mortality in general surgery trauma, though has not been investigated in orthopaedic trauma. With complex polytrauma proficiency comes the inherent risk of intensive care, complications, and prolonged inpatient stays, without a commensurate increase in allocated resources. The purpose of this study was to compare mortality, complications, and length of stay in polytraumatized orthopaedic patients treated at HACs vs. low-acuity trauma centers (LACs).

METHODS

The National Trauma Data Bank was queried for orthopaedic injuries with injury severity score (ISS)>15 and mortality, complications, hospital length of stay, ICU length of stay, ventilation duration, and demographics. Hospitals where at least 13% (median percentage of patients with ISS > 15 admitted to all hospitals) of total admissions had an ISS>15 were classified as HAC; all others were LACs.

RESULTS

HACs admitted 86.8% of 28,314 patients with ISS>15. On univariate analysis, patients at HACs have 16% decreased odds of in-hospital mortality vs. LACs (p=0.005); the effect increased to 27% (p=0.002) on multivariate analysis. Patients at HACs have 63% greater odds of ICU admission (p<0.001), 48% higher odds of ventilatory support (p=<0.001), 38% increased odds of unplanned reoperation (p=0.007), and 37% increased odds of medical complications (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, secondary outcome measures showed no significant difference between HACs and LACs. Patients at HACs had 2.8 days longer length-of-stay (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Severely injured orthopaedic trauma patients have decreased mortality at HACs, despite having a higher average ISS and a higher prevalence of obesity and active smoking. While there is a higher incidence of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, complications, and unplanned reoperation on univariate analysis, correction for ISS and patient factors enhances the effect of HACs on mortality, but removes the effect on secondary measures. Thus, HACs are life-saving institutions for polytraumatized orthopaedic patients, and the known resource demand of these hospitals is supported by their favorable outcome profile.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Predicted effect of regionalised delivery care on neonatal mortality, utilisation, financial risk, and patient utility in Malawi: an agent-based modelling analysis

BACKGROUND

Health-care regionalisation, in which selected services are concentrated in higher-level facilities, has successfully improved the quality of complex medical care. However, the effectiveness of this strategy in routine maternal care is unknown. Malawi has established a national goal of halving its neonatal mortality by 2030. In this study, we aimed to assess the effect of obstetric service regionalisation in pregnant women and their newborn babies in Malawi.

METHODS

In this analysis, we assessed regionalisation through the use of an agent-based simulation model. We used a previously estimated utilisation function, incorporating both patient-specific and health-facility-specific characteristics, to inform patient choice. The model was validated against known utilisation patterns in Malawi. Four regionalisation scenarios were compared with the status quo: scenario 1 restricted deliveries to facilities currently capable of providing caesarean sections; scenario 2 had the same restrictions as scenario 1, but with selected facilities upgraded to provide caesarean sections; scenario 3 restricted delivery to facilities that provided five or more basic emergency obstetric and neonatal care services in the preceding 3 months; and scenario 4 had the same restrictions as scenario 3, but with selected facilities upgraded to provide at least five basic emergency obstetric and neonatal care services. We assessed neonatal mortality, utilisation, travel distance, median out-of-pocket expenditure, and proportion of women facing catastrophic expenditure. The effects of upgrading the obstetric readiness of all facilities, of removing all user fees, and of upgrading without restriction were considered in scenario analyses. Heterogeneity and parameter uncertainty were incorporated to create 95% posterior credible intervals (PCIs).

FINDINGS

Scenarios restricting women to give birth in facilities with caesarean section capabilities reduced neonatal mortality by 11·4 deaths per 1000 livebirths (scenario 1; 95% PCI 9·8-13·1) and 11·6 deaths per 1000 livebirths (scenario 2; 10·2-13·1), whereas scenarios restricting women to facilities that provided five or more basic emergency obstetric and neonatal care services did not affect neonatal mortality. Similarly, the caesarean section rate in Malawi, which is 4·6% under the status quo, was predicted to rise significantly in scenario 1 (14·7%, 95% PCI 14·5-14·9; p<0·0001) and scenario 2 (10·4%, 10·2-10·6; p<0·0001), but not in scenarios 3 and 4. Women were required to travel longer distances in scenario 1 (increase of 7·2 km, 95% PCI 4·5-9·9) and in scenario 2 (4·4 km, 1·5-7·2) than in the status quo (p<0·0001). Out-of-pocket costs tripled (p<0·0001; status quo vs scenario 1 and scenario 2), and the risk of catastrophic expenditure significantly increased from a baseline of 6·4% (95% PCI 6·1-6·6) to 14·7% (14·5-14·9) in scenario 1 and 11·3% (11·0-11·5) in scenario 2. This increase was especially pronounced among the poor (p<0·0001; status quo vs scenario 1 and scenario 2).

INTERPRETATION

Policies restricting women to give birth in facilities with caesarean section capabilities is likely to result in significant decreases in neonatal mortality and might allow Malawi to meet its goal of halving its neonatal mortality by 2030. However, this improvement comes at the cost of increased distances to care and worsening financial risks among women.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation.

Does the Addition of Non-Approved Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for rtPA Impact Treatment Rates? Findings in Australia, the UK, and the USA

BACKGROUND

Strict criteria for recombinant tissue plasminogen activator (rtPA) eligibility are stipulated on licences for use in ischaemic stroke; however, practitioners may also add non-standard rtPA criteria. We examined eligibility criteria variation in 3 English-speaking countries including use of non-standard criteria, in relation to rtPA treatment rates.

METHODS

Surveys were mailed to 566 eligible hospitals in Australia (AUS), the UK, and the USA. Criteria were pre-classified as standard (approved indication and contraindications) or non-standard (approved warning or researcher "decoy"). Percentage for criterion selection was calculated/compared; linear regression was used to assess the association between use of non-standard criteria and rtPA treatment rates, and to identify factors associated with addition of non-standard criteria.

RESULTS

Response rates were 74% AUS, 65% UK, and 68% USA; mean rtPA treatment rates were 8.7% AUS, 12.7% UK, and 8.7% USA. Median percentage of non-standard inclusions was 33% (all 3 countries) and included National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) scores > 4, computed tomography (CT) angiography documented occlusion, and favourable CT perfusion. Median percentage of non-standard exclusions was 25% AUS, 28% UK, and 60% USA, and included depressed consciousness, NIHSS > 25, and use of antihypertensive infusions. No AUS or UK sites selected 100% of standard exclusions.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-standard criteria for rtPA eligibility were evident in all three countries and could, in part, explain comparably low use of rtPA. Differences in the use of standard criteria may signify practitioner intolerance for those derived from original efficacy studies that are no longer relevant.

Effectiveness of regionalized systems for stroke and myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are ischemic emergencies. Guidelines recommend care delivery within formally regionalized systems of care at designated centers, with bypass of nearby centers of lesser or no designation. We review the evidence of the effectiveness of regionalized systems in AIS and STEMI.

METHODS

Literature was searched using terms corresponding to designation of AIS and STEMI systems and from 2010 to the present. Inclusion criteria included report of an outcome on any dependent variable mentioned in the rationale for regionalization in the guidelines and an independent variable comparing care to a non- or pre-regionalized system. Designation was defined in the AIS case as certification by the Joint Commission as either a primary (PSC) or comprehensive (CSC) stroke center. In the STEMI case, the search was conducted linking "regionalization" and "myocardial infarction" or citation as a model system by any American Heart Association statement.

RESULTS

For AIS, 17 publications met these criteria and were selected for review. In the STEMI case, four publications met these criteria; the search was therefore expanded by relaxing the criteria to include any historical or anecdotal comparison to a pre- or nonregionalized state. The final yield was nine papers from six systems.

CONCLUSION

Although regionalized care results in enhanced process and reduced unadjusted rates of disparity in access and adverse outcomes, these differences tend to become nonsignificant when adjusted for delayed presentation and hospital arrival by means other than emergency medical services. The benefits of regionalized care occur along with a temporal trend of improvement due to uptake of quality initiatives and guideline recommendations by all systems regardless of designation. Further research is justified with a randomized registry or cluster randomized design to support or refute recommendations that regionalization should be the standard of care.