Hospital transfers for evaluation and treatment of hand infections: Are all transfers necessary?

Background

Hand infections represent a common hand condition in the emergency department and one that frequently requires a hand specialist. The purpose of our study is to analyze hospital transfers for hand infections with a primary outcome being potential clinically avoidable transfers and to identify areas for improvement in the care of hand infections.

Methods

Retrospective review of The Texas Healthcare Information Collection Database from 2015 to 2019. We analyzed all transfers for hand infections. Statistical analyses included: Transfer diagnosis, surgical interventions, length of stay (LOS), the day of the week that the transfer was initiated and whether or not the transfer or centralization was necessary or potentially avoidable.

Results

A total of 3489 patients were transferred from one hospital to another for the management of a hand infection. 1628 (46.6 ​%) underwent at least one surgical intervention and 1861 (53.3 ​%) were treated non-operatively. Patients undergoing operative interventions had a lower LOS compared to those non-operatively. Transfers admitted during the weekend had decreased average LOS relative to non-weekend transfers, but a 94.7 ​% increased odds of receiving a relevant surgical intervention during the hospital admission. Nearly all patients were transferred to urban region hospitals. Of total, 1194 (34.22 ​%) were considered potentially avoidable centralizations, which we defined as transfer that resulted in no surgical intervention and discharge to home within 72 ​h.

Conclusions

Although the reason for centralization was unknown, our analysis showed a high number of transfers that could have been potentially avoidable. We propose the development of specific guidelines, and perhaps the use of remote consultations for areas where hand specialist are not reliably available to help optimize the care of patient with hand infections.

Race and Ethnicity and Diagnostic Testing for Common Conditions in the Acute Care Setting

Importance

Overuse of diagnostic testing is pervasive, but the extent to which it varies by race and ethnicity in the acute care setting is poorly understood.

Objective

To use a previously validated diagnostic intensity index to evaluate differences in diagnostic testing rates by race and ethnicity in the acute care setting, which may serve as a surrogate for diagnostic test overuse.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a cross-sectional study of emergency department (ED) discharges, hospital observation stays, and hospital admissions using administrative claims among EDs and acute care hospitals in Kentucky, Maryland, North Carolina, and New Jersey, from 2016 through 2018. The diagnostic intensity index pairs nonspecific principal discharge diagnoses (nausea and vomiting, abdominal pain, chest pain, and syncope) with related diagnostic tests to estimate rates of nondiagnostic testing. Adults with an acute care encounter with a principal discharge diagnosis of interest were included. Data were analyzed from January to February 2024.

Exposure

Race and ethnicity (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, other [including American Indian, multiracial, and multiethnic], and missing).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Receipt of a diagnostic test. Generalized linear models with a hospital-specific indicator variable were estimated to calculate the adjusted odds ratio of receiving a test related to the principal discharge diagnosis by race and ethnicity, controlling for primary payer and zip code income quartile.

Results

Of 3 683 055 encounters (1 055 575 encounters [28.7%] for Black, 300 333 encounters [8.2%] for Hispanic, and 2 140 335 encounters [58.1%] for White patients; mean [SD] age of patients with encounters, 47.3 [18.8] years; 2 233 024 encounters among females [60.6%]), most (2 969 974 encounters [80.6%]) were ED discharges. Black compared with White patients discharged from the ED with a diagnosis of interest had an adjusted odds ratio of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.72-0.75) of having related diagnostic testing. No other racial or ethnic disparities of a similar magnitude were observed in any acute care settings.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, White patients discharged from the ED with a nonspecific diagnosis of interest were significantly more likely than Black patients to receive related diagnostic testing. The extent to which this represents diagnostic test overuse in White patients vs undertesting and missed diagnoses in Black patients deserves further study.

Futile trauma transfers: An infrequent but costly component of regionalized trauma care

BACKGROUND

Appropriate interfacility transfers are a key component of highly functioning trauma systems but transfer of unsalvageable patients can overburden the resources of higher-level centers. We sought to identify the occurrence and associated reasons for futile transfers within our trauma system.

METHODS

Using prospectively collected data from our system database, a retrospective cohort study was conducted to identify patients who underwent interfacility transfer to our American College of Surgeons level I center. Adult patients from June 2017 to June 2019 who died, had comfort measures implemented, were discharged, or went to hospice care within 48 hours of admission without significant operation, procedure, or radiologic intervention were examined. Futility was defined as resulting in death or hospice discharge within 48 hours of transfer without major operative, endoscopic, or radiologic intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 1,241 patients transferred to our facility during the study period. Four hundred seven patients had a length of stay less than or equal to 48 hours. Eighteen (1.5%) met the criteria for futility. The most common reason for transfer in the futile population was traumatic brain injury (56%) and need for neurosurgical capabilities (62%). Futile patients had a median age and Injury Severity Score of 75 and 21. The main transportation method was ground 9 (50%) with 8 (44.4%) being transported by helicopter and 1 (5.6%) being transported by both. Combining transport costs with hospital charges, each futile transfer was estimated to cost US $56,396 (interquartile range, 41,889-106,393) with a total cost exceeding US $1.7 million. With an estimated 33,000 interfacility transfers annually for trauma in the United States, the cost of futile transfers to the American trauma system would exceed 27 million dollars each year.

CONCLUSION

Futile transfers represent a small but costly portion transfer volume. Identification of patients whose conditions preclude the benefit of transfer due to futility and development of appropriate support for referral will significantly improve appropriate allocation of health care resources.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic; Care management, level IV.

Additional and repeated computed tomography in interfacility trauma transfers: Room for standardization

BACKGROUND

Despite the recommendations of the Advanced Trauma Life Support course of the American College of Surgeons, patients undergo computed tomography (CT) in local hospitals before transfer to a trauma center. The problem of repeat CTs caused by technical and protocol issues is ongoing. The objective is to measure the importance of repeat CTs and CTs involving other body regions.

METHODS

All secondary transfers to our level 1 facility with CT at the local hospital over 9 years were reviewed. Patients were considered to have had a repeat CT if the same body region or an another body region was scanned as a part of the initial assessment but not for reasons of clinical follow-up.

RESULTS

Of 6,292 patients received from local hospitals, 685 (12%) had undergone 1097 CT scans at the local hospitals. Patients being scanned in local hospitals were sicker (injury severity score: 21 vs 13) and required more intensive care unit admissions (38% vs 29%) and more ventilation (32% vs 22%). Thirty-nine percent of CTs were repeated, and 55% of these patients required imaging of another body part.

CONCLUSION

Repeat and additional images remain a major issue in trauma transfers. Improvement requires standardization of CT protocols and change in the approach of local hospitals from "finding and requiring need level 1 trauma center" to "not missing any injuries."

Repeat computed tomography scans among inter-facility transferred major trauma patients in Oklahoma, 2009-2015

PURPOSE

Computed tomography (CT) scans play a vital role in the diagnosis and evaluation of trauma patients. Repeat CT scans occurred often among transferred trauma patients. The objective was to describe CT use and identify patient- and hospital-level factors associated with repeat CT scans among inter-facility transferred major trauma patients.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data extracted from the Oklahoma State Trauma Registry between 2009 and 2015. Both bivariate and multivariate analyses were employed to assess the factors associated with repeat CT scans.

RESULTS

During the 7-year study period, 8678 major trauma patients were transferred between acute-care hospitals in Oklahoma. Among them, 4311 patients had at least one repeat CT scan. Head CT scans were the most commonly performed as well as repeated. Bivariate analysis showed that differences in repeat CT scans were associated with age, injury type, injury severity score, head injury severity, revised trauma score, payer source, transport mode to referring facilities, and facility levels at the 5% level. Multivariate analysis showed the odds of repeat CT scans were higher for adult and geriatric patients, patients with blunt injuries, severely injured patients, patients with severe head injuries, patients with a good revised trauma score, patients discharged alive, and mode to referring facilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrated that inter-facility transfers within an organized rural trauma system often underwent repeat CT scans. The large proportion of patients with multiple and repeated CT scans should underline the importance of trauma systems evaluating the necessity of CT scans, image-sharing capability, and obtaining appropriate scans in order to optimize use. Overall, reducing unnecessary CT scans should be an essential part of trauma care quality improvement efforts.

Early repeat computed tomographic imaging in transferred trauma and neurosurgical patients: Incidence, indications and impact

INTRODUCTION

Computed tomographic (CT) imaging is widely available in Australian rural and remote hospitals and is often performed prior to patient transfer to definitive tertiary hospital care. We hypothesised that critically ill trauma and neurosurgical patients might have CT scans repeated after interhospital transfer and that the utility of this practice might be low in relation to the additional financial cost and radiation exposure.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of clinical records to determine the proportion of trauma and neurosurgical patients transferred to our tertiary ICU from other hospitals between 1 June 2013 and 30 June 2014 who underwent a repeat CT scan. The additional effective radiation dose was estimated using the dose length product method and the Australian Medicare Benefits Schedule was used to estimate the associated cost.

RESULTS

Of the 247 patients transferred for trauma and neurosurgical indications, many (144; 58%) had undergone CT imaging at the referring hospital. Repeat scans were performed in 60 (42%) already imaged patients (24% of all transferred patients), most frequently for changed clinical indications. While in 11 (18%) of those 60 already imaged patients the repeat scan led to an identifiable change in management, for another 13 (22%) patients the repeat scans appeared to be potentially avoidable. The median cost of a repeat scan was AU$250 and the median additional effective radiation dose was 2.74 mSv per patient.

CONCLUSION

Repeat CT scans for patients already imaged prior to transfer were relatively common, occurring mostly for apparently valid clinical reasons. However, the additional radiation risk and financial cost of these repeat scans appeared on retrospective audit to be potentially avoidable in approximately one in five cases.

Head CT before Transfer Does Not Decrease Time to Craniotomy for TBI Patients

Rural trauma education emphasizes that radiologic imaging should be discouraged if it delays transfer to definitive care. With increased capacity for image sharing, however, radiography obtained at referring hospitals (RH) could help providers at trauma centers (TC) prepare for patients with traumatic brain injury. We evaluated whether a head CT prior to transfer accelerated time to neurosurgical intervention at the TC. The study was conducted at a combined adult Level I and pediatric Level II TC with a catchment area that includes rural hospitals within a 150 mile radius. The trauma registry was used to identify patients with traumatic brain injury who went to surgery for a neurosurgical procedure immediately after arrival at the TC. All patients were transferred in from a RH. Differences between groups were assessed using analysis of variance and chi-square. Fifty-six patients met study criteria during the study period (2010-2015). The majority (86%) of patients received head CT imaging at the RH, including a significant percentage of patients (18%) who presented with GCS ≤8. There was no statistically significant decrease in time to surgery when patients received imaging at the RH. CTimaging was associated with a delay in transfer that exceeded 90 minutes. Findings demonstrate that imaging at the RH delayed transfer to definitive care and did not improve time to neurosurgical intervention at the TC. Transfer to the TC should not be obstructed by imaging, especially for patients with severe TBI.

Factors associated with imaging overuse in the emergency department: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Emergency departments (ED) are sites of prevalent imaging overuse; however, determinants that drive imaging in this setting are not well-characterized. We systematically reviewed the literature to summarize the determinants of imaging overuse in the ED.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE® and Embase® from January 1998 to March 2017. Studies were included if they were written in English, contained original data, pertained to a U.S. population, and identified a determinant associated with overuse of imaging in the ED.

RESULTS

Twenty relevant studies were included. Fourteen evaluated computerized tomography (CT) scanning in patents presenting to a regional ED who were then transferred to a level 1 trauma center; incomplete transfer of data and poor image quality were the most frequently described reasons for repeat scanning. Unnecessary pre-transfer scanning or repeated scanning after transfer, in multiple studies, was highest among older patients, those with higher Injury Severity Scores (ISS) and those being transferred further. Six studies explored determinants of overused imaging in the ED in varied conditions, with overuse greater in older patients and those having more comorbid diseases. Defensive imaging reportedly influenced physician behavior. Less integration of services across the health system also predisposed to overuse of imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature is heterogeneous with surprisingly few studies of determinants of imaging in minor head injury or of spine imaging. Older patient age and higher ISS were the most consistently associated with ED imaging overuse. This review highlights the need for precise definitions of overuse of imaging in the ED.

Adequacy and accuracy of nontrauma center computed tomography: What are we missing?

BACKGROUND

Timely and appropriate use of computed tomography (CT) scans is critical to the evaluation of traumatic injuries. The objective of this study was to assess the adequacy of CT scans performed at nontrauma centers (NTCs) as they pertain to the management of trauma patients.

METHODS

Adult patients transferred to our ACS-verified Level I trauma center from any NTC between May and December 2012 were enrolled prospectively. Available CT images from NTCs were reviewed in a blinded fashion by our facility's trauma radiologist; his interpretations were compared with those from the NTC. Interpretations of the trauma centers (TCs) images were compared with the NTC interpretations. Means and proportions were used to summarize the data.

RESULTS

A total of 235 consecutive patients with a complete dataset were included, of which, 203 (86.4%) had a CT scan performed at an NTC. Additional imaging was obtained at the TC in 76% of patients with outside CT (154 of 203), with inadequacy of outside CTs for patient workup based on mechanism of injury (76%) and technical inadequacy of outside images (31%) being the main, nonexclusive reasons to repeat imaging. Image interpretation by the trauma radiologist at the TC using NTC images identified missed injuries in 49% of the patients, and 90% of these missed injuries were deemed clinically significant, meaning the injury would have altered patient care had they been identified. When the same body region was imaged at the TC, 54% had missed injuries, of which 76% were deemed significant.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates inaccuracy in the interpretation of NTC images, which can lead to inappropriate management of trauma patients. Parameters other than imaging need to be used to identify patients requiring a higher level of care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic and care management study, level V.

Identifying Futile Interfacility Surgical Transfers

Surgeons perceive that some surgical transfers are futile, but the incidence and risk factors of futile transfer are not quantified. Identifying futile interfacility transfers could save cost and undue burdens to patients and families. We sought to describe the incidence and factors associated with futile transfers. We conducted a retrospective cohort study from 2009 to 2013 including patients transferred to a tertiary referral center for general or vascular surgical care. Futile transfers were defined as resulting in death or hospice discharge within 72 hours of transfer without operative, endoscopic, or radiologic intervention. One per cent of patient transfers were futile (27/ 1696). Characteristics of futile transfers included older age, higher comorbidity burden and illness severity, vascular surgery admission, Medicare insurance, and surgeon documentation of end-stage disease as a factor in initial decision-making. Among futile transfers, 82 per cent were designated as do not resuscitate (vs 9% of nonfutile, P < 0.01), and 59 per cent received a palliative care consult (vs 7%, P < 0.01). A small but salient proportion of transferred patients undergo deliberate care de-escalation and early death or hospice discharge without intervention. Efforts to identify such patients before transfer through improved communication between referring and accepting surgeons may mitigate burdens of transfer and facilitate more comfortable deaths in patients’ local communities.

Rate and Reasons for Repeat CT Scanning in Transferred Trauma Patients

To describe the reasons and additional radiation for CT scans repeated after transfer to a trauma center. Retrospective study of patients transferred to a trauma center. Patients had repeat CT if a CTof the same region was repeated at the trauma center's emergency department. Indications for repeat CT scanning were abstracted. Radiation dosage was calculated in millisieverts. A total of 370 had CT scans and were transferred. Mean age was 39.1 ± 28.0 years. Seventy-four [20.0%, 95% confidence interval (CI) 16.0–24.4%] had 103 CTs repeated. Adults (64/254, 25.2%) were more likely than children (10/116, 8.6%) to undergo repeat CT (difference 16.6%, 95% CI 9.2–24.0%). Types of CTs repeated included: head 48 (47%), face 6 (6%), cervical spine/neck 21 (20%), thoracolumbar spine 4 (4%), chest 4 (4%), and abdominal/pelvic 20 (19%). Reasons for repeat CT were outside CT unavailable 31 (42%), insufficient image quality/additional details needed 15 (20%), disease progression 16 (22%), unknown 10 (14%), and consult request unknown reason 2 (3%). Median dose for the repeat CT scans was 4.19 mSv (interquartile range 1.98, 6.28) and was 4.79 mSv (interquartile range 2.47, 8.22) when the CTs were unavailable. Effective dose of the repeat scans was greater than 10 mSv in 13 (3.5%) patients. Patients transferred to a trauma center often undergo repeat CT. The most common reason for repeated imaging was failure to transport original CT scans with the patient or images that were unable to be viewed. Trauma centers should work with their catchment areas to establish systems that ensure transfer of all radiographic imaging.

Patient Perceptions of Participating in the RSNA Image Share Project: a Preliminary Study

The purpose of this study was to gauge patient perceptions of the RSNA Image Share Project (ISP), a pilot program that provides patients access to their imaging studies online via secure Personal Health Record (PHR) accounts. Two separate Institutional Review Board exempted surveys were distributed to patients depending on whether they decided to enroll or opt out of enrollment in the ISP. For patients that enrolled, a survey gauged baseline computer usage, perceptions of online access to images through the ISP, effect of patient access to images on patient-physician relationships, and interest in alternative use of images. The other survey documented the age and reasons for declining participation for those that opted out of enrolling in the ISP. Out of 564 patients, 470 enrolled in the ISP (83 % participation rate) and 456 of these 470 individuals completed the survey for a survey participation rate of 97 %. Patients who enrolled overwhelmingly perceived access to online images as beneficial and felt it bolstered their patient-physician relationship. Out of 564 patients, 94 declined enrollment in the ISP and all 94 individuals completed the survey for a survey participation rate of 100 %. Patients who declined to participate in the ISP cited unreliable access to Internet and existing availability of non-web-based intra-network images to their physicians. Patients who participated in the ISP found having a measure of control over their images to be beneficial and felt that patient-physician relationships could be negatively affected by challenges related to image accessibility.

Unnecessary Transfers for Acute Surgical Care: Who and Why?

Interhospital transfers for acute surgical care occur commonly, but without clear guidelines or protocols. Transfers may subject patients and delivery systems to significant burdens without clear clinical benefit. The incidence and factors associated with unnecessary transfers are not well described. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patient transfers within a regional referral network to a tertiary center for nontrauma acute surgical care from 2009 to 2013. Clinically unnecessary transfers were defined as transfers that resulted in no intervention (operation, endoscopy, or interventional radiology procedure) and discharge to home within 72 hours. We performed bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses. The study population included 2177 patient transfers, 19 per cent of which were determined to be clinically unnecessary. After adjustment, clinically unnecessary transfers were more commonly performed for patient request (odds ratio = 2.52, 95% confidence interval = 1.60–3.99), continuity of care (1.87, 1.44–2.42), and care by urologic (1.50, 1.06–2.13) and vascular services (1.44, 1.03–2.01). Patients with higher comorbidity and severity of illness scores were less likely to have unnecessary transfers. The burden of unnecessary transfers could be mitigated by identifying appropriate transfer candidates through mutually developed guidelines, interfacility collaboration, and increased use of remote care to provide surgical subspecialty consultation and maintain continuity.

Implementation of an image sharing system significantly reduced repeat computed tomographic imaging in a regional trauma system

BACKGROUND

The practice of repeating computed tomography (re-CT) is common among trauma patients transferred between hospitals incurring additional cost and radiation exposure. This study sought to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing modern cloud-based technology (lifeIMAGE) across a regional trauma system to reduce the incidence of re-CT imaging.

METHODS

This is a prospective interventional study to evaluate outcomes after implementation of lifeIMAGE in January 2012. Key outcomes were rates of CT imaging, including the rates and costs of re-CT from January 2009 through December 2012.

RESULTS

There were 1,081 trauma patients transferred from participating hospitals during the study period (657 patients before and 425 patients after implementation), with the overall re-CT rate of 20.5%. Rates of any CT imaging at referring hospitals decreased (62% vs. 55%, p < 0.05) and also decreased at the accepting regional Level I center (58% vs. 52%, p < 0.05) following system implementation. There were 639 patients (59%) who had CT imaging performed before transfer (404 patients before and 235 patients after implementation). Of these patients, the overall re-CT rate decreased from 38.4% to 28.1% (p = 0.01). Rates of re-CT of the head (21% vs. 11%, p = 0.002), chest (7% vs. 3%, p = 0.05), as well as abdomen and pelvis (12% vs. 5%, p = 0.007) were significantly reduced following system implementation. The cost of repeat imaging per patient was significantly lower following system implementation (mean charges, $1,046 vs. $589; p < 0.001). These results were more pronounced in a subgroup of patients with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of greater than 14, with a reduction in overall re-CT rate from 51% to 30% (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

The implementation of modern cloud-based technology across the regional trauma system resulted in significant reductions in re-CT imaging and cost.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/care management study, level IV; economic analysis, level IV.

Effect of an image-sharing network on CT utilization for transferred trauma patients: a 5-year experience at a level I trauma center

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of an image-sharing network established between referring hospitals and a level I trauma center on CT utilization at the trauma center.

METHODS

This retrospective study was approved by the local institutional review board. The requirement for informed consent was waived. Harborview Medical Center's trauma registry was linked to billing department data, and detailed information on all resources utilized during each patient's hospitalization was obtained. Negative binomial regression was used to evaluate body region-specific CT utilization between direct-admit and transfer patients after adjustment for potential confounding variables. Special attention was paid to 2005 as the year internet-based image sharing between Harborview Medical Center and referring hospitals was established.

RESULTS

A total of 81,159 trauma patients were admitted to Harborview Medical Center (44% transfers) during the study period. The utilization of head CT slightly increased from 1996 to 2005, with no significant difference between direct-admit and transfer patients. Between 2005 and 2010, utilization remained relatively unchanged; however, significantly higher utilization rates were observed for direct-admit patients. A relatively similar pattern was observed for pelvic CT; however, between 2005 and 2010, CT use was greater for direct-admit compared with transfer patients. Abdominal and thoracic CT was relatively unchanged between 2005 and 2010. However, both studies had significantly higher utilization rates for direct-admit patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization rates of CT of different body regions have been higher for direct-admit trauma patients compared with transfer patients since 2005; however, decreasing utilization trends have been observed in recent years.