Escalation of mortality and resource utilization in emergency general surgery transfer patients

Enrolling high-acuity emergency general surgery patients in a prospective longitudinal cohort study

Over 3 million patients are admitted to hospitals annually with high-acuity conditions mandating emergency abdominal or skin/soft-tissue operations. Patients with these high-acuity emergency general surgery (HA-EGS) diseases experience significant morbidity and mortality, yet the quality-of-life impact on survivors is not well studied. Acuity, transfer patterns, and adverse social determinants of health documented in epidemiologic studies are cited reasons for inability to measure patient-reported outcomes among HA-EGS survivors. We conducted a feasibility study to understand facilitators/barriers to conducting prospective studies of changes in quality of life after surviving HA-EGS. From September 2019 to April 2021, we collected baseline (preadmission) and 30/60 days' postsurgery data on activities of daily living, depression, self-efficacy, resilience, pain, work limitations, social support, and substance use from patients who enrolled in the study during index hospitalization. One hundred patients consented to participate (71.9% enrollment rate). The retention rate was 65.9% for 30-day follow-up telephone calls and 53.8% for 60-day follow-up calls. Median time needed to complete each time point remained under 25 minutes. Patients with a longer length of stay and nicotine users had higher odds of not completing their 30-day interview, while those with systemic complications had higher odds of not completing their 60-day interview. These results lay the foundation for future patient-reported outcome studies.

Impact of Procedure Risk vs Frailty on Outcomes of Elderly Patients Undergoing Emergency General Surgery: Results of a National Analysis

BACKGROUND

The direct association between procedure risk and outcomes in elderly patients who undergo emergency general surgery (EGS) has not been analyzed. Studies only highlight the importance of frailty. A comprehensive analysis of relevant risk factors and their association with outcomes in elderly patients who undergo EGS is lacking. We hypothesized that procedure risk has a stronger association with relevant outcomes in elderly patients who undergo EGS compared with frailty.

STUDY DESIGN

Elderly patients (age >65 years) undergoing EGS operative procedures were identified in the NSQIP database (2018 to 2020) and stratified based on the presence of frailty calculated by the Modified 5-Item Frailty Index (mFI-5; mFI 0 nonfrail, mFI 1 to 2 frail, and mFI ≥3 severely frail) and based on procedure risk. Multivariable regression models and receiving operative curve analysis were used to determine risk factors associated with outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 59,633 elderly patients who underwent EGS were classified into nonfrail (17,496; 29.3%), frail (39,588; 66.4%), and severely frail (2,549; 4.3%). There were 25,157 patients in the low-risk procedure group and 34,476 in the high-risk group. Frailty and procedure risk were associated with increased mortality, complications, failure to rescue, and readmissions. Differences in outcomes were greater when patients were stratified according to procedure risk compared with frailty stratification alone. Procedure risk had a stronger association with relevant outcomes in elderly patients who underwent EGS compared with frailty.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessing frailty in the population of elderly patients who undergo EGS without adjusting for the type of procedure or procedure risk ultimately presents an incomplete representation of how frailty impacts patient-related outcomes.

Outcomes After Interhospital Critical Care Transfer

OBJECTIVE

Patients who undergo interhospital transfer, particularly for intensive care unit (ICU) care, experience greater length of stay and mortality. There is evidence that patients transferred for surgical ICU care experience higher mortality rates; however, differences in length of stay or mortality across other ICU types remain unclear. The goals of this work were to assess how length of stay and mortality differ by ICU subspecialties.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of an existing critical care transfer data repository. We used multiple and logistic regression to identify significant factors that contribute to differences in length of stay and mortality for surgical ICU patients.

RESULTS

There were no differences in length of stay or mortality based on ICU subspecialty. For every 1-year increase in age, mortality odds increased by 8.6% (P = .002). Patients transferred from an ICU had a longer length of stay by 6.3 days (P < .001). Non-Caucasian patients had a shorter length of stay by 3.4 days (P = .012).

CONCLUSION

Length of stay and mortality are not influenced by ICU subspecialty. Further research is needed to determine the mechanism by which sending unit type and race influence length of stay and identify other factors that predict mortality for SICU patients.

Greater cost without greater benefit: The need to refine transfer criteria for patients with severe acute pancreatitis

BACKGROUND

Appropriate and timely care is essential in the management of severe acute pancreatitis (SAP). We hypothesized that transferred patients with SAP undergoing procedural intervention would have higher mortality compared to those managed directly at academic centers.

METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of Maryland's statewide claims database from 2009 to 2022 of adult patients admitted with a primary diagnosis of SAP (acute pancreatitis with organ failure). Patients were divided into three groups: those admitted directly from the emergency room to academic facilities (AD), non-academic facilities (NA), or transferred to academic facilities (TR). Procedural intervention included endoscopic, percutaneous image-guided, or surgical. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were admission costs, length of stay (LOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) admission.

RESULTS

There were 7,648 (48.9%) in the NA group, 6,682 (42.7%) in the AD group and 1,316 (8.4%) in the TR group. On regression analysis, odds of death were 0.57x lower in the NA group and 0.67x lower in the AD group compared to transfers (<0.001). Procedural intervention was not associated with increased mortality. Transferred patients had longer median LOS (11 vs NA = 5, AD = 6, p < 0.001), increased median cost of admission ($41k vs NA = $12k, AD = $17k, p < 0.001) and greater ICU admission (45.6% vs NA = 20.6%, AD = 23.9%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Transferred patients have greater burden of illness and cost of care without evidence of improved outcomes in the management of SAP regardless of procedural intervention. Transfer criteria for patients with SAP must be further refined to reduce unnecessary transfers.

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.

Acute Care Surgery and Surgical Rescue: Expanding the Definition

BACKGROUND

Surgical rescue (SR) is the recovery of patients with surgical complications. Patients transferred (TP) for surgical diagnoses to higher-level care or inpatients (IP) admitted to nonsurgical services may develop intra-abdominal infection (IAI) and require emergency surgery (ES). The aims were to characterize the SR population by the site of ES consultation, open abdomen (OA), and risk of mortality.

STUDY DESIGN

This was an international, multi-institutional prospective observational study of patients requiring ES for IAI. Laparotomy before the transfer was an exclusion criterion. Patients were divided into groups: clinic/ED (C/ED), IP, or TP. Data collected included demographics, the severity of illness (SOI), procedures, OA, and number of laparotomies. The primary outcome was mortality. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed.

RESULTS

There were 752 study patients (C/ED 63.8% vs TP 23.4% and IP 12.8%), with a mean age of 59 years and 43.6% women. IP had worse SOI scores (Charlson Comorbidity Index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification System, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment). The most common procedures were small and large bowel (77.3%). IP and TP had similar rates of OA (IP 52.1% and TP 52.3 %) vs C/ED (37.7%, p < 0.001), and IP had more relaparotomies (3 or 4). The unadjusted mortality rate was highest in IP (n = 24, 25.0%) vs TP (n = 29, 16.5%) and C/ED (n = 68, 14.2%, p = 0.03). Adjusting for age and SOI, only SOI had an impact on the risk of mortality (area under the curve 86%).

CONCLUSIONS

IP had the highest unadjusted mortality after ES for IAI and was followed by the TP; SOI drove the risk of mortality. SR must be extended to IP for timely recognition of the IAI.

Comparing Outcomes between Major Trauma Patients Transferred from a Different Hospital and Patients Transported Directly to Trauma Centers: A Retrospective Analysis with Propensity Score Matching Analysis

This study aimed to explore differences in outcomes between these major trauma patients who were transferred and those directly transported to trauma centers. The medical information and outcome of 5,341 major trauma patients with an injury severity score (ISS) ≥ 16 who were hospitalized for treatment between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, were collected from the Trauma Registry System of the hospital. There were 2,386 patients who were transferred (transfer group) and 2,955 patients transported directly to trauma centers first (direct group). Regarding the outcomes, there was no significant difference in the mortality rate between patients in the transfer group and the direct group (11.1% vs. 10.5%, respectively, $p=0.527$ ). However, the patients in the transfer group had a longer hospital stay (16.8 days vs. 14.3 days, respectively, $p<0.001$ ) and higher incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (74.9% vs. 70.5%, respectively, $p<0.001$ ) than those patients in the direct group. Similar results were observed in the selected 2,139 pairs of propensity score-matched patient populations, who did not present with significant differences in sex, age, comorbidities, trauma mechanisms, and ISS. This study revealed no significant difference in the mortality rate between the two groups of major trauma patients. However, the transferred patients had significantly longer hospital stays and higher rates of ICU admission than patients directly transported to trauma centers.

Is the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit Sustainable: A 5-Year Experience of a Beneficial and Novel Model

Background. The 6-bed critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) is a unique and specialized intensive care unit (ICU) that streamlines the interhospital transfer (IHT—transfer between different hospitals) process for a wide range of patients with critical illness or time-sensitive disease. Previous studies showed the unit successfully increased the number of ICU admissions while reducing the time of transfer in the first year of its establishment. However, its sustainability is unknown. Methods. This was a descriptive retrospective analysis of adult, non-trauma patients who were transferred to an 800-bed quaternary medical center. Patients transferred to our medical center between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 were eligible. We used interrupted time series (ITS) and descriptive analyses to describe the trend and compare the transfer process between patients who were transferred to the CCRU versus those transferred to other adult inpatient units. Results. From 2014 to 2018, 50,599 patients were transferred to our medical center; 31,582 (62%) were non-trauma adults. Compared with the year prior to the opening of the CCRU, ITS showed a significant increase in IHT after the establishment of the CCRU. The CCRU received a total of 7,788 (25%) IHTs during this period or approximately 20% of total transfers per year. Most transfers (41%) occurred via ground. Median and interquartile range [IQR] of transfer times to other ICUs (156 [65–1027] minutes) were longer than the CCRU (46 [22–139] minutes, $P<0.001$ ). For the CCRU, the most common accepting services were cardiac surgery (16%), neurosurgery (11%), and emergency general surgery (10%). Conclusions. The CCRU increases the overall number of transfers to our institution, improves patient access to specialty care while decreasing transfer time, and continues to be a sustainable model over time. Additional research is needed to determine if transferring patients to the CCRU would continue to improve patients’ outcomes and hospital revenue.

Interhospital transfer (IHT) in emergency general surgery patients (EGS): A scoping review

Background/Aims of study

Interhospital transfer of emergency general surgery patients continues to rise, and no system for transfer of emergency general surgery patients exists. This has major implications for cost of care and patient experience. We performed a scoping review to understand outcomes related to transfer and the associated factors and to identify any opportunities for improvement.

Methods

Studies involving emergency general surgery patients with interhospital transfer were identified by searching OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus. There were 1,785 records identified. After duplicates were removed, there were 1,303 articles screened in the initial phase. Fifty-eight articles were included in the second phase. Eventually, 21 articles were included in the review. Thirty-seven articles were removed during the full-text screening phase due to the following: wrong publication type (2), wrong population (8), abstract (11), outside the United States (3), and wrong study design (6).

Results

Transferred patients had a higher mortality rate, were older, were more likely to be male and to undergo reoperation, and had higher resource utilization compared to patients who were not transferred. All emergency general surgery patients had a high burden of chronic disease. Unnecessary transfer, typically defined by lack of intervention and discharge within 72 hours, was reported to be 8.8% to 19%.

Conclusion

Emergency general surgery patients have a high rate of comorbidities. Limited physiologic status information prior to patient transfer limits understanding of the necessity for transfer. Areas for improvement include assigning a physiologic status for all patients and utilizing telehealth. More detailed information needs to be captured to determine the appropriateness of transfer.

Predicting Outcomes for Interhospital Transferred Patients of Emergency General Surgery

Background. Interhospital transferred (IHT) emergency general surgery (EGS) patients are associated with high care intensity and mortality. However, prior studies do not focus on patient-level data. Our study, using each IHT patient’s data, aimed to understand the underlying cause for IHT EGS patients’ outcomes. We hypothesized that transfer origin of EGS patients impacts outcomes due to critical illness as indicated by higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score and disease severity. Materials and Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of all adult patients transferred to our quaternary academic center’s EGS service from 01/2014 to 12/2016. Only patients transferred to our hospital with EGS service as the primary service were eligible. We used multivariable logistic regression and probit analysis to measure the association of patients’ clinical factors and their outcomes (mortality and survivors’ hospital length of stay [HLOS]). Results. We analyzed 708 patients, 280 (39%) from an ICU, 175 (25%) from an ED, and 253 (36%) from a surgical ward. Compared to ED patients, patients transferred from the ICU had higher mean (SD) SOFA score (5.7 (4.5) vs. 2.39 (2), $P<0.001$ ), longer HLOS, and higher mortality. Transferring from ICU (OR 2.95, 95% CI 1.36–6.41, $P=0.006$ ), requiring laparotomy (OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.04–3.70, $P=0.039$ ), and SOFA score (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.13–1.32, $P<0.001$ ) were associated with higher mortality. Conclusions. At our academic center, patients transferred from an ICU were more critically ill and had longer HLOS and higher mortality. We identified SOFA score and a few conditions and diagnoses as associated with patients’ outcomes. Further studies are needed to confirm our observation.

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.

Factors associated with potentially avoidable interhospital transfers in emergency general surgery-A call for quality improvement efforts

BACKGROUND

Emergency general surgery conditions are common, require urgent surgical evaluation, and are associated with high mortality and costs. Although appropriate interhospital transfers are critical to successful emergency general surgery care, the performance of emergency general surgery transfer systems remains unclear. We aimed to describe emergency general surgery transfer patterns and identify factors associated with potentially avoidable transfers.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of emergency general surgery episodes in 8 US states using the 2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and Emergency Department Databases and the American Hospital Association Annual Surveys. We identified Emergency Department-to-Inpatient and Inpatient-to-Inpatient interhospital emergency general surgery transfers. Potentially avoidable transfers were defined as discharge within 72 hours after transfer without undergoing any procedure or operation at the destination hospital. We examined transfer incidence and characteristics. We performed multilevel regression examining patient-level and hospital-level factors associated with potentially avoidable transfers.

RESULTS

Of 514,410 adult emergency general surgery episodes, 26,281 (5.1%) involved interhospital transfers (Emergency Department-to-Inpatient: 65.0%, Inpatient-to-Inpatient: 35.1%). Over 1 in 4 transfers were potentially avoidable (7,188, 27.4%), with the majority occurring from the emergency department. Factors associated with increased odds of potentially avoidable transfers included self-pay (versus government insurance, odds ratio: 1.26, 95% confidence interval: 1.09-1.45, P = .002), level 1 trauma centers (versus non-trauma centers, odds ratio: 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-1.47, P = .01), and critical access hospitals (versus non-critical access, odds ratio: 1.30, 95% confidence interval: 1.15-1.47, P < .001). Hospital-level factors (size, trauma center, ownership, critical access, location) accounted for 36.1% of potentially avoidable transfers variability.

CONCLUSION

Over 1 in 4 emergency general surgery transfers are potentially avoidable. Understanding factors associated with potentially avoidable transfers can guide research, quality improvement, and infrastructure development to optimize emergency general surgery care.

High Resource Utilization in Emergent Versus Elective General Surgery

BACKGROUND

In an era of pay for performance metrics, we sought to increase understanding of factors driving high resource utilization (HRU) in emergent (EGS) versus same-day elective (SDGS) general surgery patients.

METHODS

General surgery procedures from the 2016 ACS-NSQIP public use file were grouped according to the first four digits of the primary procedure CPT code. Groups having at least 100 of both elective and emergent cases were included (22 groups; 83,872 cases). HRU patients were defined as those in-hospital >7D, returned to the OR, readmitted, and/or had morbidity likely requiring an intensive care unit (ICU)stay. Independent NSQIP predictors of HRU were identified through forward regression; P for entry < 0.05, for exit > 0.10.

RESULTS

Of all patients, 33% were HRU. The three highest HRU procedures (total colectomy, enterolysis, and ileostomy) comprised a higher proportion of EGS than SDGS cases (10.3 versus 2.6%, P < 0.001). The duration of operation was 40 Min lower in EGS after adjustment. Thirty-nine of the remaining 40 HRU predictors were higher in EGS including preoperative SIRS/Sepsis (50 versus 2%), ASA classification IV-V (31 versus 5%), albumin <3.5 g/dL (40 versus 12%), transfers (26 versus 2%, P's < 0.001), septuagenarians (35 versus 25%) and disseminated cancer (6.3 versus 4.8%, P's < 0.001); while sex did not differ. After adjustment, EGS patients remained more likely to be HRU (odds ratio 2.5, 95% CI 2.4 - 2.6, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

EGS patients utilize significantly more resources than SDGS patients above what can be adjusted for in the clinically robust ACS-NSQIP dataset. Distinctive payment and value-based performance models are necessary for EGS.

Assessment of Hospital Characteristics and Interhospital Transfer Patterns of Adults With Emergency General Surgery Conditions

Importance

Although patients with emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions frequently undergo interhospital transfers, the transfer patterns and associated factors are not well understood.

Objective

To examine whether patients with EGS conditions are consistently directed to hospitals with more resources and better outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study performed a network analysis of interhospital transfers among adults with EGS conditions from January 1 to December 31, 2016. The analysis used all-payer claims data from the 2016 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project state inpatient and emergency department databases in 8 states. A total of 728 hospitals involving 85 415 transfers of 80 307 patients were included. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were 18 years or older and had an acute care hospital encounter with a diagnosis of an EGS condition as defined by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2020, to June 17, 2021.

Exposures

Hospital-level measures of size (total bed capacity), resources (intensive care unit [ICU] bed capacity, teaching status, trauma center designation, and presence of trauma and/or surgical critical care fellowships), EGS volume (annual EGS encounters), and EGS outcomes (risk-adjusted failure to rescue and in-hospital mortality).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The main outcome was hospital-level centrality ratio, defined as the normalized number of incoming transfers divided by the number of outgoing transfers. A higher centrality ratio indicated more incoming transfers per outgoing transfer. Multivariable regression analysis was used to test the hypothesis that a higher hospital centrality ratio would be associated with more resources, higher volume, and better outcomes.

Results

Among 80 307 total patients, the median age was 63 years (interquartile range [IQR], 50-75 years); 52.1% of patients were male and 78.8% were White. The median number of outgoing and incoming transfers per hospital were 106 (IQR, 61-157) and 36 (IQR, 8-137), respectively. A higher log-transformed centrality ratio was associated with more resources, such as higher ICU capacity (eg, >25 beds vs 0-10 beds: β = 1.67 [95% CI, 1.16-2.17]; P < .001), and higher EGS volume (eg, quartile 4 [highest] vs quartile 1 [lowest]: β = 0.78 [95% CI, 0-1.57]; P = .01). However, a higher log-transformed centrality ratio was not associated with better outcomes, such as lower in-hospital mortality (eg, quartile 4 [highest] vs quartile 1 [lowest]: β = 0.30 [95% CI, -0.09 to 0.68]; P = .83) and lower failure to rescue (eg, quartile 4 [highest] vs quartile 1 [lowest]: β = -0.50 [95% CI, -1.13 to 0.12]; P = .27).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, EGS transfers were directed to high-volume hospitals with more resources but were not necessarily directed to hospitals with better clinical outcomes. Optimizing transfer destination in the interhospital transfer network has the potential to improve EGS outcomes.

Transfer Status and 90-Day Mortality in ICU Patients with Sepsis: A Propensity Matched Analysis

BACKGROUND

Timely identification and management of sepsis in surgical patients is crucial, and transfer status may delay optimal treatment of these patients. The objective of this study was to compare in-house and 90-day mortality between patients primarily admitted or transferred into the surgical ICU (SICU) at a tertiary referral center.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

All patients admitted to the SICU with a diagnosis of sepsis (Sepsis III) were reviewed at a single institution between 2014 to 2019 (n = 1489). Demographics, comorbidities, and sepsis presentation were compared between transferred (n = 696) and primary patients (n = 793). Primary outcomes evaluated were in-house and 90 day mortality in an unmatched and propensity score matched cohorts. A P value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Transfer patients were more likely to have obesity (60% versus 49%, P < 0.005), a higher median SOFA (6 (4-8) versus 5 (3-8), P = 0.007), and require vasopressors on admission (42% versus 35%, P = 0.004). Compared to primary patients, transfer patients exhibited higher rates of respiratory failure (76% versus 69%, P = 0.003), in-house (30% versus 17%, P < 0.005), and 90 day mortality (36% versus 24%, P < 0.005). After matching, transferred patients were associated with 75% and 83% increased odds of in-house and 90 day mortality after controlling for age, sex, race, comorbidities, BMI, and sepsis severity.

CONCLUSIONS

Transfer status is associated with an over 80% increase in the odds of 90 day mortality for patients admitted to the SICU with sepsis. Aggressive patient identification and earlier transfer of those at higher risk of death may reduce this effect.

Impact of interhospital transfer on patient outcomes in emergency general surgery

BACKGROUND

Emergency general surgery patients are at an increased risk for morbidity and mortality compared to their elective surgery counterparts. The complex nature of emergency general surgery conditions can challenge community hospitals, which may lack appropriate systems and personnel. Outcomes related to transfer have not been well-established. We aimed to compare postoperative outcomes of patients who were transferred from another hospital to a center with dedicated acute care surgery services with patients admitted directly to the acute care surgery centers.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of a national, multicenter review of emergency general surgery patients undergoing complex emergency general surgery at 5 centers across Canada. The primary outcome was the development of any complication. The adjusted odds of postoperative complication was assessed using logistic regression, controlling for age, comorbidities, duration of stay before transfer, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and booking priority.

RESULTS

A total of 1,846 patients were included in the study, and 176 (9.5%) were transferred. Of these 21% (n = 37) underwent an operative procedure, and 15% (n = 27) underwent an operation at the transferring center. Transferred patients were more likely to have at least 1 comorbidity (68% vs 57%; P = .004), were classified as greater urgency on arrival (<2 hours booking priority, 43% vs 17%; P < .001), had a greater American Society of Anesthesiologists classification (American Society of Anesthesiologists ≥3 = 81% vs 65%; P < .001), a greater duration of operation (119 vs 110 minutes; P = .004), and were more likely to undergo a second operation (28% vs 14%; P < .001) compared to patients directly admitted to an acute care surgery center. On univariate analysis, transferred patients had greater rates of complications (48% vs 31%; P < .001), mortality (14% vs 7%; P = .005), and admission to the intensive care unit (22% vs 12%; P < .001). Transfer status remained an independent predictor of complication (odds ratio 1.9 [95% confidence interval 1.3-2.7]; P < .001) and intensive care unit admission (odds ratio 1.9 [95% confidence interval 1.2-3.0]; P = .007), but not mortality (odds ratio 1.1 [95% confidence interval 0.6-1.9]; P = .79) on regression analysis.

CONCLUSION

Complex emergency general surgery patients transferred to acute care surgery centers may have worse outcomes and greater use of resources compared to those admitted directly. This finding has clinically and financially important implications for the design and regionalization of acute care surgery services as well as resource allocation at acute care surgery centers.

An evaluation of emergency general surgery transfers and a call for standardization of practices

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing trend toward regionalization of emergency general surgery, which burdens patients. The absence of a standardized, emergency general surgery transfer algorithm creates the potential for unnecessary transfers. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical reasoning prompting emergency general surgery transfers and to initiate a discussion for optimal emergency general surgery use.

METHODS

Consecutive emergency general surgery transfers (December 2018 to May 2019) to 2 tertiary centers were prospectively enrolled in an institutional review board-approved protocol. Clinical reasoning prompting transfer was obtained prospectively from the accepting/consulting surgeon. Patient outcomes were used to create an algorithm for emergency general surgery transfer.

RESULTS

Two hundred emergency general surgery transfers (49% admissions, 51% consults) occurred with a median age of 59 (18 to 100) and body mass index of 30 (15 to 75). Insurance status was 25% private, 45% Medicare, 21% Medicaid, and 9% uninsured. Weekend transfers (Friday to Sunday) occurred in 45%, and 57% occurred overnight (6:00 pm to 6:00 am). Surgeon-to-surgeon communication occurred with 22% of admissions. Pretransfer notification occurred with 10% of consults. Common transfer reasons included no surgical coverage (20%), surgeon discomfort (24%), or hospital limitations (36%). A minority (36%) underwent surgery within 24 hours; 54% did not require surgery during the admission. Median length of stay was 6 (1 to 44) days.

CONCLUSION

Conditions prompting emergency general surgery transfers are heterogeneous in this rural state review. There remains an unmet need to standardize emergency general surgery transfer criteria, incorporating patient and hospital factors and surgeon availability. Well-defined requirements for communication with the accepting surgeon may prevent unnecessary transfers and maximize resource allocation.