Impact of interhospital transfer on patient outcomes in emergency general surgery

Interhospital Transfer for Emergency General Surgery: A Contemporary National Analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS) often require complex management and transfer to higher acuity facilities, especially given increasing national efforts aimed at centralizing care. We sought to characterize factors and evaluate outcomes associated with interhospital transfer using a contemporary national cohort.

METHODS

All adult hospitalizations for EGS (appendectomy, cholecystectomy, laparotomy, lysis of adhesions, small/large bowel resection, and perforated ulcer repair) ≤2 days of admission were identified in the 2016-2020 National Inpatient Sample. Patients initially admitted to a different institution and transferred to the operating hospital comprised the Transfer cohort (others: Non-Transfer). Multivariable models were developed to consider the association of Transfer with outcomes of interest.

RESULTS

Of ∼1 653 169 patients, 107 945 (6.5%) were considered the Transfer cohort. The proportion of patients experiencing interhospital transfer increased from 5.2% to 7.7% (2016-2020, P < .001). On average, Transfer was older, more commonly of White race, and of a higher Elixhauser comorbidity index. After adjustment, increasing age, living in a rural area, receiving care in the Midwest, and decreasing income quartile were associated with greater odds of interhospital transfer. Following risk adjustment, Transfer remained linked with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (AOR 1.64, CI 1.49-1.80), as well as any perioperative complication (AOR 1.33, CI 1.27-1.38; Reference: Non-Transfer). Additionally, Transfer was associated with significantly longer duration of hospitalization (β + 1.04 days, CI + .91-1.17) and greater costs (β+$3,490, CI + 2840-4140).

DISCUSSION

While incidence of interhospital transfer for EGS is increasing, transfer patients face greater morbidity and resource utilization. Novel interventions are needed to optimize patient selection and improve post-transfer outcomes.

Rise of long-distance urology transfer during the COVID-19 pandemic: Identifying factors to enhance transfers of care efficiency and clinical outcomes

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to identify variables associated with clinical outcomes after urologic transfers before and during the COVID pandemic.

METHODS

After IRB approval, a retrospective chart review was performed on adult patients transferred to our institution from 01/01/2018 to 12/31/2019 ("pre-COVID") and from 01/02/2020 to 12/31/2022 ("COVID"). We identified demographics, origin hospitals, ICD-10 pre- and post-transfer diagnoses, distance of transfer, and post-transfer CPT codes.

RESULTS

During the study period, our adult urology service accepted 160 transfers with a mean patient age of 71 years. A total of 49/160 (30%) of subjects made up the "pre-COVID" cohort and 111/160 (70%) made up the "COVID" cohort. There were 11/111 (10%) transfers of >100 miles in the COVID period but 0/49 in the pre-COVID period (p = 0.02). Patients from the COVID period waited on average 1.2 days longer for a procedure after transfer compared to pre-COVID period (p = 0.03). The time until a patient's surgical procedure after transfer was a significant predictor of length of stay > 5 days (OR 1.91, CI 1.43 - 2.58, p < 0.01). Different diagnosis upon re-evaluation after transfer was associated with a decreased rate of subsequent readmission (OR 0.30, CI 0.09-0.97, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Long-distance transfer, even >100 miles (which we termed "mega-transfers"), was a new pandemic-related phenomenon at our institution. Delays in definitive care and changes in diagnoses after transfer were associated with readmission and length of stay. Our findings illustrate the importance of inter-institutional communication, diagnostic accuracy, and post discharge planning when managing transfer patients.

Patient Outcomes Compared Between Admissions Coordinated by the Transfer Center and Emergency Department at a U.S. Tertiary Care Hospital

BACKGROUND

Patient admissions at a U.S. tertiary care hospital occur via the emergency department (ED), or transfer center. We aim to compare the clinical outcomes of patients admitted from the ED to admissions coordinated by the transfer center.

METHODS

Admissions to Mayo Clinic Hospital, Rochester, MN, between July 2019 to June 2021 were identified in this retrospective study and categorized into two cohorts-transfer center and ED. The two cohorts were then matched for age, sex, admitting service, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to compare hospital length of stay (LOS), mortality, 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmissions between the two cohorts.

RESULTS

73,685 admissions were identified, of which 24,262 (33%) were transfer center admissions. In the matched cohorts (n = 19,093, each), in-hospital mortality (2.4% versus 1.9%), 30-day mortality (5.4% versus 3.9%), 30-day readmission (12.7% versus 7.2%), and LOS (6.4 days versus 5.1 days) were significantly higher ( P < 0.001) among the admissions coordinated by transfer center. A higher palliative care consultation rate (9.4% versus 6.2%, P < 0.001), and a lower proportion of home discharges home (76.2% versus 82.5%, P < 0.001) among transfer center admissions was observed. Similar findings were noted in multivariate analysis, even when adjusting for LOS.

CONCLUSIONS

Transfer center admissions had higher in-hospital mortality, LOS, 30-day mortality, and 30-day readmission compared to ED admissions. This study also highlights new considerations for palliative care consultation before transfer acceptance, especially to avoid futile transfers. Additional studies analyzing factors behind the outcomes of transfer center admissions are required.

Lost in transition: Impact of interhospital transfer on outcomes after emergency general surgery in the older adult population

BACKGROUND

Emergency general surgery performed among patients over 65 years of age represents a particularly high-risk population. Although interhospital transfer has been linked to higher mortality in emergency general surgery patients, its impact on outcomes in the geriatric population remains uncertain. We aimed to establish the effect of interhospital transfer on postoperative outcomes in geriatric emergency general surgery patients.

METHODS

Emergency general surgery patients 65 years and older were identified with American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program 2013 to 2019. Patients were categorized based on admission source as either directly admitted or transferred from an outside hospital inpatient unit or emergency department. The primary outcomes evaluated were in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and overall morbidity. Propensity score matching was used to control for confounders, including age, race, comorbidities, and preoperative conditions. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and the log-rank test were used to compare 30-day survival in the matched cohort.

RESULTS

Among the 88,424 patients identified, 13,872 (15.7%) were transfer patients. The median age was 74, and 53% were of female sex. Transfer patients had higher rates of comorbidities and preoperative conditions, including a higher prevalence of preoperative sepsis (21.8% vs 19.3%, P < .001) and ventilator dependence (6.4% vs 2.6%, P < .001). After propensity score-matched analysis, transferred patients exhibited higher rates of in-hospital mortality, 30-day mortality, and overall morbidity. Transfer patients were also less likely to be discharged home and more likely to be discharged to an acute care facility. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis confirmed a poorer 30-day survival in transferred patients.

CONCLUSION

Interhospital transfer independently contributed to overall mortality and morbidity amongst geriatric emergency general surgery patients. Further investigation into improved coordination between hospitals, tailored care plans, and comprehensive risk assessments are needed to help mitigate the observed differences in outcomes.

Disparate potential for readmission prevention exists among inpatient and outpatient procedures in a minimally invasive surgery practice

BACKGROUND

Administrators have focused on decreasing postoperative readmissions for cost reduction without fully understanding their preventability. This study describes the development and implementation of a surgeon-led readmission review process that assessed preventability.

METHODS

A gastrointestinal surgical group at a tertiary referral hospital developed and implemented a template to analyze inpatient and outpatient readmissions. Monthly stakeholder assessments reviewed and categorized readmissions as potentially preventable or not preventable. Continuous variables were examined by the Student's t test and reported as means and standard deviations. Categorical variables were examined by the Pearson χ2 statistic and Fisher's exact test.

RESULTS

There were 61 readmission events after 849 inpatient operations (7.2%) and 16 after 856 outpatient operations (1.9%), the latter of which were all classified as potentially preventable. Colorectal procedures represented 65.6% of readmissions despite being only 37.2% of all cases. The majority (67.2%) of readmission events were not preventable. Compared to the not-preventable group, the potentially preventable group experienced more dehydration (30.0% vs 9.8%, P = .045) and ileostomy creation (78.6% vs 33.3%, P = .017). The potential for outpatient management to prevent readmission was significantly higher in the potentially preventable group (40.0% vs 0.0%, P < .001), as was premature discharge prevention (35.0% vs 0.0%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

The use of the standardized template developed for analyzing readmission events after inpatient and outpatient procedures identified a disparate potential for readmission prevention. This finding suggests that a singular focus on readmission reduction is misguided, with further work needed to evaluate and implement appropriate quality-based strategies.

Remote triage practices in general surgery patients from freestanding emergency departments: A 6-year analysis

BACKGROUND

Freestanding emergency departments have risen in popularity as a means to expand access to care. Although some evaluation of freestanding emergency department utility in specific patient populations exists, management of surgical patients via remote triage and disposition has not been previously described. We report our experience with remote triage to discharge home, level I trauma center, or community hospital admission for general surgery patients who present to an affiliated freestanding emergency department.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study of patients presenting to freestanding emergency departments requiring surgical consultation between 2016 and 2021 was conducted. Outcomes included disposition, length of stay, surgical intervention, 30-day mortality, and readmission. Undertriage and overtriage rates were calculated and defined as the following: (1) discharge undertriage-discharge home with 30-day emergency department visit/readmission; 2) transfer undertriage-transfers to community hospital requiring transfer to trauma center; and (3) overtriage-admissions <24 hours without surgery.

RESULTS

Of 1,105 patients, 15% were discharged home, 27% were transferred to trauma centers, and 58% were transferred to community hospitals. Patients admitted to trauma centers were older and had higher acuity pathology, whereas patients admitted to community hospitals had higher operative rates with shorter lengths of stay, operating room time, 30-day readmission, and mortality. Transfer undertriage was 0.9% (n = 6), with only 1 patient requiring transfer from a community hospital to a trauma center for disease acuity. Discharge undertriage was 12% (n = 20) due to worsening or persistent pathology. Overtriage was 5.5% (n = 52), with most having a partial small bowel obstruction or ambiguous diagnostic imaging requiring observation.

CONCLUSION

Remote surgery triage at freestanding emergency departments, without an in-person examination, demonstrated both low undertriage and overtriage rates, reflecting appropriate triage practices.

A National Analysis of Racial and Sex Disparities Among Interhospital Transfers for Emergency General Surgery Patients and Associated Outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Studies focusing on Emergency General Surgery (EGS) and Interhospital Transfer (IHT) and the association of race and sex and morbidity and mortality are yet to be conducted. We aim to investigate the association of race and sex and outcomes among IHT patients who underwent emergency general surgery.

METHODS

A retrospective review of adult patients who were transferred prior to EGS procedures using the National Surgery Quality Improvement Project from 2014 to 2020. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare outcomes (readmission, major and minor postoperative complications, and reoperation) between interhospital transfer and direct admit patients and to investigate the association of race and sex for adverse outcomes for all EGS procedures. A secondary analysis was performed for each individual EGS procedure.

RESULTS

Compared to patients transferred directly from home, IHT patients (n = 28,517) had higher odds of readmission [odds ratio (OR): 1.004, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.002-1.006), P < 0.001], major complication [adjusted OR: 1.119, 95% CI (1.117-1.121), P < 0.001), minor complication [OR: 1.078, 95% CI (1.075-1.080), P < 0.001], and reoperation [OR: 1.014, 95% CI (1.013-1.015), P < 0.001]. In all EGS procedures, Black patients had greater odds of minor complication [OR 1.041, 95% CI (1.023-1.060), P < 0.001], Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander patients had greater odds of readmission [OR 1.081, 95% CI (1.008-1.160), P = 0.030], while Asian and Hispanic patients had lower odds of adverse outcome, and female patients had greater odds of minor complication [OR 1.017, 95% CI (1.008-1.027), P < 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Procedure-specific racial and sex-related disparities exist in emergency general surgery patients who underwent interhospital transfer. Specific interventions should be implemented to address these disparities to improve the safety of emergency procedures.

The Impact of Interhospital Transfer on the Extent of Neurological Recovery in Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury: Analysis of a Prospective Multicenter Data Set in 970 Cases

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Interhospital transfer from community hospitals to centers specialized in managing traumatically injured individuals can strain patients, healthcare systems, and delay appropriate care. The purpose was to compare long-term neurological outcomes in transferred or directly admitted patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI).

METHODS

An ambispective cohort study was conducted using prospectively collected data (between 2005 and 2018) from 11 specialized level 1 trauma centers across the United States and Canada. All patients who underwent surgical management for SCI were included and placed into 2 comparison cohorts: (1) direct admission and (2) transfer from intermediate hospital. Outcomes were change in American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade and its components: upper-extremity motor, lower-extremity motor, pinprick, and light touch scores from baseline (assessed ≤72 hours after injury) to follow-up (12-52 weeks). Nearest-neighbor 1:1 propensity score matching between the transferred and directly admitted cohorts was performed. Paired analysis using McNemar's test and paired Student's t -test was used to determine the extent of the difference in neurological outcomes.

RESULTS

Nine hundred seventy patients (55.5% male, 55.2 ± 18.9 years) with traumatic SCI were directly admitted to a specialized trauma center (N = 474, 48.9%) or transferred from an intermediate hospital (N = 496, 51.1%). After propensity score matching, 283 pairs were matched. Compared with a matched cohort of transferred patients, American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade improved more in directly admitted patients (56.2% vs 46.3%, P = .024), as did upper-extremity motor score (13.7 ± 12.8 vs 10.4 ± 11.5, P = .018) and light touch score (22.0 ± 29.7 vs 16.9 ± 26.6, P = .034).

CONCLUSION

Patients with SCI directly admitted to specialized trauma centers have greater neurological recovery compared with patients transferred from an intermediate hospital. Feasibility of direct admission to a center specialized in the management of acute SCI through implementation of a standardized code program must be further investigated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic level II.

Greater patient sharing between hospitals is associated with better outcomes for transferred emergency general surgery patients

BACKGROUND

Access to emergency surgical care has declined as the rural workforce has decreased. Interhospital transfers of patients are increasingly necessary, and care coordination across settings is critical to quality care. We characterize the role of repeated hospital patient sharing in outcomes of transfers for emergency general surgery (EGS) patients.

METHODS

A multicenter study of Wisconsin inpatient acute care hospital stays that involved transfer of EGS patients using data from the Wisconsin Hospital Association, a statewide hospital discharge census for 2016 to 2018. We hypothesized that higher proportion of patients transferred between hospitals would result in better outcomes. We examined the association between the proportion of EGS patients transferred between hospitals and patient outcomes, including in-hospital morbidity, mortality, and length of stay. Additional variables included hospital organizational characteristics and patient sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

RESULTS

One hundred eighteen hospitals transferred 3,197 emergency general surgery patients over the 2-year study period; 1,131 experienced in-hospital morbidity, mortality, or extended length of stay (>75th percentile). Patients were 62 years old on average, 50% were female, and 5% were non-White. In the mixed-effects model, hospitals' proportion of patients shared was associated with lower odds of an in-hospital complication; specifically, when the proportion of patients shared between two hospitals doubled, the relative odds of any outcome changed by 0.85.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest the importance of emergent relationships between hospital dyads that share patients in quality outcomes. Transfer protocols should account for established efficiencies, familiarity, and coordination between hospitals.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiological; Level III.

Air ambulance retrievals of patients with suspected appendicitis and acute abdominal pain: The patients' journeys, referral pathways and appendectomy outcomes using linked data in Central Queensland, Australia

INTRODUCTION

Acute appendicitis is the most common cause of acute abdominal pain presentations to the ED and common air ambulance transfer.

AIMS

describe how linked data can be used to explore patients' journeys, referral pathways and request-to-activation responsiveness of patients' appendectomy outcomes (minor vs major complexity).

METHODS

Data sources were linked: aeromedical, hospital and death. Request-to-activation intervals showed strong right-tailed skewness. Quantile regression examined whether the longest request-to-activation intervals were associated with appendicitis complexity in patients who underwent an appendectomy.

RESULTS

There were 684 patients in three referral pathways based on hospital capability levels. In total, 5.6 % patients were discharged from ED. 83.3 % of all rural origins entered via the ED. 3.8 % of appendicitis patients were triaged to tertiary hospitals. Appendectomy patients with major complexity outcomes were less likely to have longer request-to-activation wait times & had longer lengths of stay than patients with minor complexity outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Linked data highlighted four aspects of a functioning referral system: appendectomy outcomes of major complexity were less likely to have longer request-to-activation intervals compared to minor (sicker patients were identified); few were discharged from EDs (validated transfer); few were triaged to tertiary hospitals (appropriate level for need), and no deaths relating to appendectomy.

Outcomes in Post-operative Delirium Following Bowel Resection: A Single Center Retrospective Review

INTRODUCTION

Delirium is associated with adverse post-operative outcomes, long-term cognitive dysfunction, and prolonged hospitalization. Risk factors for its development include longer surgical duration, increased operative complexity and invasiveness, and medical comorbidities. This study aims to further evaluate the incidence of delirium and its impact on outcomes among patients undergoing both elective and emergency bowel resections.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study using an institutional patient registry. All patients undergoing bowel resection over a 3.5-year period were included. The study measured the incidence of post-operative delirium via the nursing confusion assessment method. This incidence was then compared to patient age, emergency versus elective admission, length of stay, mortality, discharge disposition, and hospital cost.

RESULTS

A total of 1934 patients were included with an overall delirium incidence of 8.8%. Compared to patients without delirium, patients with delirium were more likely to have undergone emergency surgery, be greater than 70 y of age, have a longer length of stay, be discharged to a skilled nursing facility, and have a more expensive hospitalization. In addition, the overall mortality was 14% in patients experiencing delirium versus 0.1% in those that did not. Importantly, when broken down between elective and emergency groups, the mortality of those experiencing delirium was similar (11 versus 13%).

CONCLUSIONS

The development of delirium following bowel resection is an important risk factor for worsened outcomes and mortality. Although the incidence of delirium is higher in the emergency surgery population, the development of delirium in the elective population infers a similar risk of mortality.

Worse cranial neurosurgical outcomes predicted by increasing frailty in patients with interhospital transfer status: Analysis of 47,736 patients from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2015-2019

INTRODUCTION

With limited healthcare resources and risks associated with unwarranted interhospital transfers (IHT), it is important to select patients most likely to have improved outcomes with IHT. The present study analyzed the effect of IHT and frailty on postoperative outcomes in a large database of patients who underwent cranial neurosurgical operations.

METHODS

The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database was queried for patients who underwent cranial neurosurgical procedures (2015-2019, N = 47,736). Baseline demographics, clinical characteristics, and outcome variables were compared between IHT and n-IHT patients. Univariate and multivariable analyses analyzed the effect of IHT status on postoperative outcomes and the utility of frailty (modified frailty index-5 [mFI-5] stratified into "pre-frail, "frail", and "severely frail") as a preoperative risk factor. Effect sizes from regression analyses were presented as odds ratio (OR) with associated 95% confidence intervals (95% CI).

RESULTS

Of 47,736 patients with cranial neurosurgical operations, 9612 (20.1%) were IHT. Patients with IHT were older, frailer, with a higher rate of functional dependence. In multivariable analysis adjusted for baseline covariates, IHT status was independent associated with 30-day mortality (OR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.2-3.6), major complication (OR: 1.5, 95% CI: 1.1-2.1), extended hospital length of stay (eLOS) (OR: 3.8, 95% CI: 3.6-4.1), and non-routine discharge disposition (OR: 2.4, 95% CI: 1.8-3.2) (all p < 0.05). Within the IHT cohort, increasing frailty ("pre-frail", "frail", "severely frail") was independently associated with increasing odds of 30-day mortality (OR: 1.4, 1.9, 3.9), major complication (OR: 1.4, 1.9, 3.3), unplanned readmission (OR: 1.1, 1.4, 2.1), reoperation (OR: 1.3, 1.5, 1.9), eLOS (OR: 1.2, 1.3, 1.5), and non-routine discharge (OR: 1.4, 1.9, 4.4) (all p < 0.05). All levels of frailty were more strongly associated with postoperative outcomes than chronological age.

CONCLUSIONS

This novel analysis suggests that patients transferred for cranial neurosurgery operations are significantly more likely to have worse postoperative health outcomes. Furthermore, the analysis suggests that frailty (as measured by mFI-5) is a powerful independent predictor of outcomes in transferred cranial neurosurgery patients. The findings support the use of frailty scoring in the pre-transfer and preoperative setting for patient counseling and risk stratification.

Interfacility Transfer for Nonelective Cholecystectomy in High MELD Patients: An ACS-NSQIP Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Interfacility transfer to a referral center is often considered for patients with liver disease undergoing nonelective cholecystectomy given management complexities and perioperative risk. We sought to determine the association between the Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, transfer frequency, and outcomes in those patients using a national database.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The ACS-NSQIP participant use files were queried for nonelective open or laparoscopic cholecystectomy from 2016 to 2018. Patients were grouped according to low (6-11), intermediate (12-18), or high (>18) MELD. In the high MELD group, patient characteristics and outcomes were compared between transferred and nontransferred patients and multivariate regression was performed to evaluate independent predictors of outcomes. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, complications, length-of-stay (LOS), and 30-d reoperation and readmission.

RESULTS

30,171 subjects were included. Transfer was more likely as MELD increased (19.5% high versus 12.1% low, P < 0.001). High MELD patients had increased LOS, reoperation, readmission, and mortality rates compared to low MELD. In high MELD patients (n = 1016), those transferred were more likely older, white, obese, and septic. Transferred patients had increased mortality (7.6% versus 4.2%, P = 0.044), LOS, reoperation, and complications. After controlling for differences between transferred and nontransferred patients, transfer status was not independently associated with mortality (OR = 1.593, P = 0.177), postoperative complications or LOS, but was associated with increased risk for reoperation. Sepsis and laparoscopic surgery were independently associated with higher and lower mortality, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Transfer status is not independently associated with mortality, postoperative complications, or prolonged LOS, suggesting patients with advanced liver disease undergoing acute cholecystectomy may not benefit from interfacility transfer.

Factors influencing interhospital transfer delays in emergency general surgery: a systematic review and narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

Emergency general surgery is an emerging public health issue globally, with substantial healthcare burden. Interhospital transfer of critically unwell surgical patients has been the mainstay of bridging gaps in surgical coverage in regional and rural locations, despite evidence of greater morbidity and mortality. Delays in transfer invariably occurs and compounds the situation. Our aim was to examine the factors influencing interhospital transfer delays in emergency general surgical patients.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMED and EmBase, was performed by two researchers from 2020 to 23rd Feb 2021, for English articles related to interhospital transfer delays in emergency general surgical patients, with an age of >16. Articles were critically appraised and data were extracted into a pre-specified data extraction form. No data was suitable for statistical analysis and a narrative synthesis was performed instead.

RESULTS

Six relevant articles were identified from the search. All studies were retrospective cohort studies with moderate to high risk of bias. Lack of consultant surgeon input, after hours transfer, need for intensive care bed and poor transfer documentation may have a role in interhospital transfer delays. Patients with public health insurance, multiple comorbidities and non-emergency medical conditions experience longer transfer request time and may be at risk of precipitating interhospital transfer delays. Transfer delays are seen in transfers over longer distances.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of knowledge on what and how factors influence interhospital transfer delays in emergency general surgical patients. Well-designed prospective cohort studies are required to bridge this knowledge gap.

Predictors of interhospital transfer delays in acute surgical patient deaths in Australia: a retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Interhospital transfers in Australia facilitate access to acute surgical services, however transfer delays can occur. The aims of this study were to examine Australian mortality audit data on acute surgical patients who were transferred after presenting with a surgical emergency, and to identify modifiable predictors of transfer delay.

METHODS

Surgical admissions between 1 January 2001 and 18 August 2020 were retrospectively extracted from the Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality database. Relevant factors and themes of interest were collated. Results were presented as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), with statistical significance defined as P <0.05.

RESULTS

After exclusion, a final 8270 cases were analysed. Non-modifiable predictors identified were female gender (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.05-1.70, P = 0.0184), comorbidities (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.40-161, P <0.0001) and major non-trauma non-vascular specialty (OR 1.54 to 7.77, depending on specialty, P < 0.05). Modifiable predictors were inadequate clinical assessment (OR 49.48, 95% CI 32.91-74.38, P <0.0001), poor communication (OR 6.62, 95% CI 3.70-11.85, P <0.0001) and multiple transfers (OR 6.30, OR 95% 4.31-9.21, P <0.0001). Age, lack of bed and after-hours transfer did not predict transfer delays. Metropolitan transfers was protective against transfer delays (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.47-0.86, P = 0.0035).

CONCLUSION

In the view of the receiving surgeon or assessor, all transfer delays potentially contributed to patient deaths, and may have been preventable. Strategies directed at modifiable factors could minimize delays. Increased surgical services in non-metropolitan regions could reduce need for transfer. Prospective data is required to examine if the same predictors are observed in surgical patients who survive.

Quality of Care for Gallstone Pancreatitis-the Impact of the Acute Care Surgery Model and Hospital-Level Operative Resources

BACKGROUND

Index cholecystectomy is the standard of care for gallstone pancreatitis. Hospital-level operative resources and implementation of an acute care surgery (ACS) model may impact the ability to perform index cholecystectomy. We aimed to determine the influence of structure and process measures related to operating room access on achieving index cholecystectomy for gallstone pancreatitis.

METHODS

In 2015, we surveyed 2811 US hospitals on ACS practices, including infrastructure for operative access. A total of 1690 hospitals (60%) responded. We anonymously linked survey data to 2015 State Inpatient Databases from 17 states using American Hospital Association identifiers. We identified patients ≥ 18 years who were admitted with gallstone pancreatitis. Patients transferred from another facility were excluded. Univariate and multivariable regression analyses, clustered by hospital and adjusted for patient factors, were performed to examine multiple structure and process variables related to achieving an index cholecystectomy rate of ≥ 75% (high performers).

RESULTS

Over the study period, 5656 patients were admitted with gallstone pancreatitis and 70% had an index cholecystectomy. High-performing hospitals achieved an index cholecystectomy rate of 84.1% compared to 58.5% at low-performing hospitals. On multivariable regression analysis, only teaching vs. non-teaching hospital (OR 2.91, 95% CI 1.11-7.70) and access to dedicated, daytime operative resources (i.e., block time) vs. no/little access (OR 1.93, 95% CI 1.11-3.37) were associated with high-performing hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

Access to dedicated, daytime operative resources is associated with high quality of care for gallstone pancreatitis. Health systems should consider the addition of dedicated, daytime operative resources for acute care surgery service lines to improve patient care.

The unequal impact of interhospital transfers on emergency general surgery patients: Procedure risk and time to surgery matter

BACKGROUND

The impact of interhospital transfer on outcomes of patients undergoing emergency general surgery (EGS) procedures is incompletely studied. We set out to determine if transfer before definitive surgical care leads to worse outcomes in EGS patients.

METHODS

Using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database (2013-2019), a retrospective cohort study was conducted including nine surgical procedures encompassing 80% of the burden of EGS diseases, performed on an urgent/emergent basis. The procedures were classified as low risk (open and laparoscopic appendectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy) and high risk (open cholecystectomy, laparoscopic and open colectomy, lysis of adhesions, perforated ulcer repair, small bowel resection, and exploratory laparotomy). Time to surgery was recorded in days. The impact of interhospital transfer on outcomes (mortality, major complications, 30-day reoperations, and 30-day readmissions) and length of stay, according to procedure risk and time to surgery, were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression and inverse probability treatment of the weighting with treatment effect in the treated.

RESULTS

A total of 329,613 patients were included in the study (284,783 direct admission and 44,830 transfers). Adjusted mortality (3.1% vs. 10.4%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.28; p < 0.001), major complications (6.7% vs. 18.9%; AOR, 1.39; p < 0.001), 30-day reoperations (3.1% vs. 6.4%; AOR, 1.22; p < 0.001), and length of stay (2 vs. 5) were higher in transferred patients. Transfer had no effect on 30-day readmissions (6% vs. 8.5%; AOR, 1.04; p = 0.063). These results were also observed in high-risk surgery patients and in the late surgery group. The results were further confirmed after robust propensity score weighting was performed.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that delays to surgical intervention affect outcomes and that interhospital transfer of EGS patients for definitive surgical care has a negative impact on mortality, development of postoperative complications, and reoperations in patients undergoing high-risk EGS procedures. These findings may have important implications for regionalization of EGS care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic/epidemiological, level III.

Implementation and Outcomes of an Urban Mobile Adult Extracorporeal Life Support Program

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions