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.

A retrospective observational study of vCare: a virtual emergency clinical advisory and transfer service in rural and remote Australia

BACKGROUND

Provision of critical care in rural areas is challenging due to geographic distance, smaller facilities, generalist skill mix and population characteristics. Internationally, the amalgamation telemedicine and retrieval medicine services are developing to overcome these challenges. Virtual emergency clinical advisory and transfer service (vCare) is one of these novel services based in New South Wales, Australia. We aim to describe patient encounters with vCare from call initiation at the referring site to definitive care at the accepting site.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study reviewed all patients using vCare in rural and remote Australia for clinical advice and/or inter-hospital transfer for higher level of care between February and March 2021. Data were extracted from electronic medical records and included remoteness of sites, presenting complaint, triage category, camera use, patient characteristics, transfer information, escalation of therapeutic intervention and outcomes. Data were summarised using cross tabulation.

RESULTS

1,678 critical care patients were supported by vCare, with children (12.5%), adults (50.6%) and older people (36.9%) evenly split between sexes. Clinicians mainly referred to vCare for trauma (15.1%), cardiac (16.1%) and gastroenterological (14.8%) presentations. A referral to vCare led to an escalation of invasive intervention, skill, and resources for patient care. vCare cameras were used in 19.8% of cases. Overall, 70.5% (n = 1,139) of patients required transfer. Of those, 95.1% were transferred to major regional hospitals and 11.7% required secondary transfer to higher acuity hospitals. Of high-urgency referrals, 42.6% did not receive high priority transport. Imaging most requested included CT and MRI scans (37.2%). Admissions were for physician (33.1%) and surgical care (23.3%). The survival rate was 98.6%.

CONCLUSION

vCare was used by staff in rural and remote facilities to support decision making and care of patients in a critical condition. Issues were identified including low utilisation of equipment, heavy reliance on regional sites and high rates of secondary transfer. However, these models are addressing a key gap in the health workforce and supporting rural and remote communities to receive care.

Documenting surgical triage in rural surgical networks: Formalising existing structures

OBJECTIVE

It is essential that the embedded process of rural case selection be highlighted and documented to provide reassurance of rigour across rural surgical services supported by generalist surgeons, general practitioners with enhanced surgical skills and general practitioner anaesthetists. This enables feedback and improves the triage and case selection process to ensure the highest quality outcomes. Therefore, this research aims to explore participants' rational criteria for decision making around rural case selection.

DESIGN

Participants participated in a series of semi-structured in-depth interviews which were coded and underwent thematic analysis.

SETTING

Six community hospitals in British Columbia, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

General practitioners with enhanced surgical skills, general practitioner anaesthetists, local maternity care providers, and specialists.

RESULTS

Based on participant accounts, rural surgical and obstetrical decision-making processes for local patient selection or regional referral had five major components: (1) Clinical Factors, (2) Physician Factors, (3) Patient Factors, (4) Consensus Between Providers and (5) the Availability of Local Resources.

CONCLUSION

Decision-making processes around rural surgical and obstetrical patient selection are complex and require comprehensive understanding of local capacity and resources. Current policies and guidelines fail to consider the varying capacities of each rural site and should be hospital specific.

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.

Emergency General Surgery Quality Improvement: A Review of Recommended Structure and Key Issues

Emergency general surgery (EGS) accounts for 11% of hospital admissions, with more than 3 million admissions per year and more than 50% of operative mortality in the US. Recent research into EGS has ignited multiple quality improvement initiatives, and the process of developing national standards and verification in EGS has been initiated. Such programs for quality improvement in EGS include registry formation, protocol and standards creation, evidenced-based protocols, disease-specific protocol implementation, regional collaboratives, targeting of high-risk procedures such as exploratory laparotomy, focus on special populations like geriatrics, and targeting improvements in high opportunity outcomes such as failure to rescue. The authors present a collective narrative review of advances in quality improvement structure in EGS in recent years and summarize plans for a national EGS registry and American College of Surgeons verification for this under-resourced area of surgery.

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.

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.

Modifying Interhospital Hepatopancreatobiliary Transfers Based on Predictive Analytics: Moving from a Center of Excellence to a Health-Care System of Excellence

Regionalization of complex surgical care has increased interhospital transfers to quaternary centers within large health-care systems. Risk-based patient selection is imperative to improve resource allocation without compromising care. This study aimed to develop predictive models for identifying low-risk patients for transfer to a fully integrated satellite hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) service in the northeast region of the health-care system. HPB transfers to the quaternary center over 15 months from hospitals in proximity to the satellite HPB center. A predictive tool was developed based on simple pretransfer variables and outcomes for 30-day major complications (Clavien grade ≥ 3), readmission, and mortality. Thresholds for “low risk” were set at different SDs below mean for each model. Predictive models were developed from 51 eligible northeast region patient transfers for major complications (Brier score 0.1948, receiver operator characteristic (ROC) 0.7123, P = 0.0009), readmission (Brier score 0.0615, ROC 0.7368, P = 0.0020), and mortality (Brier score 0.0943, ROC 0.7989, P = 0.0023). Thresholds set from 2 SD below the mean for all models identified 2 as “low risk.” Adjusting the threshold for the serious complication model to only 1 SD below the mean increased the “low-risk” cohort to five patients. These models demonstrate an easy-to-use tool to assist surgeons in identifying low-risk patients for diversion to a fully integrated satellite center. Improved interhospital transfers within a region could begin a transition from centers of excellence toward health-care systems of excellence.

Interhospital vascular surgery transfers to a tertiary care hospital

OBJECTIVE

Interhospital transfers (IHTs) to tertiary care centers are linked to lower operative mortality in vascular surgery patients. However, IHT incurs great health care costs, and some transfers may be unnecessary or futile. In this study, we characterize the patterns of IHT at a tertiary care center to examine appropriateness of transfer for vascular surgery care.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all IHT requests made to our institution from July 2014 to October 2015. Interhospital physician communication and reasons for not accepting transfers were reviewed. Diagnosis, intervention, referring hospital size, and mortality were examined. Follow-up for all patients was reviewed.

RESULTS

We reviewed 235 IHT requests for vascular surgical care involving 210 patients during 15 months; 33% of requested transfers did not occur, most commonly after communication with the physician resulting in reassurance (35%), clinic referral (30%), or further local workup obviating need for transfer (11%); 67% of requests were accepted. Accepted transfers generally carried life- or limb-threatening diagnoses (70%). Next most common transfer reasons were infection or nonhealing wounds (7%) and nonurgent postoperative complications (7%). Of accepted transfers, 72% resulted in operative or endovascular intervention; 20% were performed <8 hours of arrival, 12% <24 hours of arrival, and 68% during hospital admission (average of 3 days); 28% of accepted patients received no intervention. Small hospitals (<100 beds) were more likely than large hospitals (>300 beds) to transfer patients not requiring intervention (47% vs 18%; P = .005) and for infection or nonhealing wounds (30% vs 10%; P = .013). Based on referring hospital size, there was no difference in IHTs requiring emergent, urgent, or nonurgent operations. There was also no difference in transport time, time from consultation to arrival, or death of patients according to hospital size. Overall patient mortality was 12%.

CONCLUSIONS

Expectedly, most vascular surgery IHTs are for life- or limb-threatening diagnoses, and most of these patients receive an operation. Transfer efficiency and surgical case urgency are similar across hospital sizes. Nonoperative IHTs are sent more often by small hospitals and may represent a resource disparity that would benefit from regionalizing nonurgent vascular care.

Surgical Transfer Decision Making: How Regional Resources are Allocated in a Regional Transfer Network

BACKGROUND

Tertiary care centers often operate above capacity, limiting access to emergency surgical care for patients at nontertiary facilities. For nontraumatic surgical emergencies there are no guidelines to inform patient selection for transfer to another facility. Such decisions may be particularly difficult for gravely ill patients when the benefits of transfer are uncertain.

METHODS

To characterize surgeons' decision-making strategies for transfer, a qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews was conducted with 16 general surgeons who refer and accept patients within a regional transfer network. Interviews included case-based vignettes about surgical patients with high comorbidity, multisystem organ failure, and terminal conditions. An inductive coding strategy was used, followed by performance of a higher-level analysis to characterize important themes and trends.

RESULTS

Surgeons at outlying hospitals seek transfer when the resources to care for patients' surgical needs or comorbid conditions are unavailable locally. In contrast, surgeons at the tertiary center accept all patients regardless of outcome or resource considerations. Bed availability at the tertiary care center restricts transfer capacity, harming patients who cannot be transferred. Surgeons sometimes transfer dying patients in order to exhaust all treatment options or appease families, but they are conflicted about the value of transfer, which displaces patients from their local communities and limits access to tertiary care for others.

CONCLUSION

Decisions to transfer surgical patients are complex and require comprehensive understanding of local capacity and regional resources. Current decision-making strategies fail to optimize patient selection for transfer and can inappropriately allocate scarce tertiary care beds.

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.