Double inter-hospital transfer in Sepsis patients presenting to the ED does not worsen mortality compared to single inter-hospital transfer

Provider-to-provider telehealth for sepsis patients in a cohort of rural emergency departments

BACKGROUND

Telehealth has been proposed as one strategy to improve the quality of time-sensitive sepsis care in rural emergency departments (EDs). The purpose of this study was to measure the association between telehealth-supplemented ED (tele-ED) care, health care costs, and clinical outcomes among patients with sepsis in rural EDs.

METHODS

Cohort study using Medicare fee-for-service claims data for beneficiaries treated for sepsis in rural EDs between February 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019. Our primary hospital-level analysis used multivariable generalized estimating equations to measure the association between treatment in a tele-ED-capable hospital and 30-day total costs of care. In our supporting secondary analysis, we conducted a propensity-matched analysis of patients who used tele-ED with matched controls from non-tele-ED-capable hospitals. Our primary outcome was total health care payments among index hospitalized patients between the index ED visit and 30 days after hospital discharge, and our secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, hospital length of stay, 90-day mortality, 28-day hospital-free days, and 30-day inpatient readmissions.

RESULTS

In our primary analysis, sepsis patients in tele-ED-capable hospitals had 6.7% higher (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.1%-11.5%) total health care costs compared to those in non-tele-ED-capable hospitals. In our propensity-matched patient-level analysis, total health care costs were 23% higher (95% CI 16.5%-30.4%) in tele-ED cases than matched non-tele-ED controls. Clinical outcomes were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Tele-ED capability in a mature rural tele-ED network was not associated with decreased health care costs or improved clinical outcomes. Future work is needed to reduce rural-urban sepsis care disparities and formalize systems of regionalized care.

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.

The Relationship Between Hospital Capability and Mortality in Sepsis: Development of a Sepsis-Related Hospital Capability Index

OBJECTIVES

Regionalized sepsis care could improve sepsis outcomes by facilitating the interhospital transfer of patients to higher-capability hospitals. There are no measures of sepsis capability to guide the identification of such hospitals, although hospital case volume of sepsis has been used as a proxy. We evaluated the performance of a novel hospital sepsis-related capability (SRC) index as compared with sepsis case volume.

DESIGN

Principal component analysis (PCA) and retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

A total of 182 New York (derivation) and 274 Florida and Massachusetts (validation) nonfederal hospitals, 2018.

PATIENTS

A total of 89,069 and 139,977 adult patients (≥ 18 yr) with sepsis were directly admitted into the derivation and validation cohort hospitals, respectively.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We derived SRC scores by PCA of six hospital resource use characteristics (bed capacity, annual volumes of sepsis, major diagnostic procedures, renal replacement therapy, mechanical ventilation, and major therapeutic procedures) and classified hospitals into capability score tertiles: high, intermediate, and low. High-capability hospitals were mostly urban teaching hospitals. Compared with sepsis volume, the SRC score explained more variation in hospital-level sepsis mortality in the derivation (unadjusted coefficient of determination [ R2 ]: 0.25 vs 0.12, p < 0.001 for both) and validation (0.18 vs 0.05, p < 0.001 for both) cohorts; and demonstrated stronger correlation with outward transfer rates for sepsis in the derivation (Spearman coefficient [ r ]: 0.60 vs 0.50) and validation (0.51 vs 0.45) cohorts. Compared with low-capability hospitals, patients with sepsis directly admitted into high-capability hospitals had a greater number of acute organ dysfunctions, a higher proportion of surgical hospitalizations, and higher adjusted mortality (odds ratio [OR], 1.55; 95% CI, 1.25-1.92). In stratified analysis, worse mortality associated with higher hospital capability was only evident among patients with three or more organ dysfunctions (OR, 1.88 [1.50-2.34]).

CONCLUSIONS

The SRC score has face validity for capability-based groupings of hospitals. Sepsis care may already be de facto regionalized at high-capability hospitals. Low-capability hospitals may have become more adept at treating less complicated sepsis.

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

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

The Prevalence and Emergency Department Utilization of Patients Who Underwent Single and Double Inter-hospital Transfers in the Emergency Department: a Nationwide Population-based Study in Korea, 2016-2018

BACKGROUND

Inter-hospital transfer (IHT) for emergency department (ED) admission is a burden to high-level EDs. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and ED utilization patterns of patients who underwent single and double IHTs at high-level EDs in South Korea.

METHODS

This nationwide cross-sectional study analyzed data from the National Emergency Department Information System for the period of 2016-2018. All the patients who underwent IHT at Level I and II emergency centers during this time period were included. The patients were categorized into the single-transfer and double-transfer groups. The clinical characteristics and ED utilization patterns were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

We found that 2.1% of the patients in the ED (n = 265,046) underwent IHTs; 18.1% of the pediatric patients (n = 3,556), and 24.2% of the adult patients (n = 59,498) underwent double transfers. Both pediatric (median, 141.0 vs. 208.0 minutes, P < 0.001) and adult (median, 189.0 vs. 308.0 minutes, P < 0.001) patients in the double-transfer group had longer duration of stay in the EDs. Patient's request was the reason for transfer in 41.9% of all IHTs (111,076 of 265,046). Unavailability of medical resources was the reason for transfer in 30.0% of the double transfers (18,920 of 64,054).

CONCLUSION

The incidence of double-transfer of patients is increasing. The main reasons for double transfers were patient's request and unavailability of medical resources at the first-transfer hospitals. Emergency physicians and policymakers should focus on lowering the number of preventable double transfers.