Understanding characteristics and trajectories of patients experiencing early death after interhospital transfer

Twenty- to fifty-thousand patients die annually within 72 h of interhospital transfer (early death after transfer; EDAT). The characteristics and trajectories of these patients are ill-defined. In this retrospective cohort study, we characterized EDAT at three representative major referral centers. Primary outcomes included the presence and timing of goals of care (GOC) and/or prognostic discussions. Among 190 medical patients experiencing EDAT, 95 (50.0%) were >65 years, 115 (60.5%) male, and 137 (72.6%) White; 140 (73.7%) patients traveled >50 miles from home, and 174 (91.6%) were referred for specialty care. Whereas GOC were documented pretransfer for 40 patients (21.1%) and unknown for 97 patients (51%); 152 (80.0%) had posttransfer discussions, often within 24 h of death (125; 82.2%). Transfer >50 miles was associated with death ≤24 h after transfer and with posttransfer changes in code status. Further research is needed to evaluate disparities and describe the potential burdens of transfer at end-of-life. Infrequent pretransfer discussions of GOC suggest potential targets for improvement.

Defining futile and potentially avoidable interhospital trauma transfers

PURPOSE

Interhospital transfer of critically injured patients to a major trauma service reduces preventable death in major trauma. Yet some of those transferred die without intervention. These 'futile' interhospital trauma transfers (IHTs), and other potentially avoidable IHTs place enormous stress on families of trauma victims, can delay care, and incur great cost to public health resources. This study sought to characterise these IHTs using current state guidelines for interhospital transfer.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using our institution's trauma registry from January 2016-December 2020. All adult patients transferred to our major trauma service were analysed. Futile IHTs were defined as death or transfer to hospice care without surgical, endoscopic, or radiological intervention, and without ICU admission, within 72 h of admission. Potentially avoidable IHTs were defined as all patients discharged alive without intervention or ICU care, and secondary over-triage patients are a subset of these patients who were discharged within 72 h of admission. Patient demographics, injuries, and treatments were categorised from electronic records and analysed.

RESULTS

Of 2,837 IHTs, seven (0.2 %) met criteria for futility. The majority were female, median age of 80 (IQR 85-75) and had a median Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 16 (IQR 25.5-11.5). By contrast, 1391 patients (49 %) were classified as potentially avoidable and 513 (18 %) were considered secondary over-triage. The majority were male, median age of 43 (IQR 62-28), and had a median ISS of 9 (IQR 13-4). Of these potentially avoidable IHTs, 984 (70.7 %) were discharged directly home.

CONCLUSION

Futile IHTs were infrequent, however over half of all trauma patients transferred from other hospitals were discharged without tertiary-level intervention. Trauma services should consider developing systems such as telehealth to support regional general and orthopaedic surgeons to co-manage lower risk trauma, particularly minor head and minor spinal trauma patients. This could be an integral part of safely reducing potentially avoidable IHTs and their associated costs while maintaining a low rate of preventable mortality in trauma.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Futility in acute care surgery: first do no harm

The consequences of the delivery of futile or potentially ineffective medical care and interventions are devastating on the healthcare system, our patients and their families, and healthcare providers. In emergency situations in particular, determining if escalating invasive interventions will benefit a frail and/or severely critically ill patient can be exceedingly difficult. In this review, our objective is to define the problem of potentially ineffective care within the specialty of acute care surgery and describe strategies for improving the care of our patients in these difficult situations.

Frequency and Predictors of Trauma Transfer Futility to a Rural Level I Trauma Center

INTRODUCTION

Transfer of trauma patients whose injuries are deemed unsurvivable, often results in early death or transition to comfort care and could be considered misuse of health care resources. This is particularly true where tertiary care resources are limited. Identifying riskfactors for and predicting futile transfers could reduce this impact and help to optimize triage and management.

METHODS

A retrospective study of interfacility trauma transfers to a single rural Level I rauma center from 2014 to 2019. Futility was defined as death, hospice, or declaration of comfort measures within 48 h of transfer without procedural or radiographic intervention at the accepting center. Multiple logistic regressions identified independent predictors of futile transfers. The predictive power of Mechanism,Glasgow coma scale, Age, and Arterial pressure (MGAP), an injury severity score based on Mechanism, Glasgow coma scale, Age, and systolic blood Pressure, were evaluated.

RESULTS

Of the 3368 trauma transfers, 37 (1.1%) met criteria as futile. Futile transfers occurred among patients who were significantly older with falls as the most common mechanism. Age, Glasgow coma scale, systolic blood Pressure and Injury Severity Score were significant (P < 0.05) independent predictors of futile transfer. MGAP had a high predictive power area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC 0.864, 95% confidence interval 0.803-0.925) for futility.

CONCLUSIONS

A small proportion (1.1%) of transfers to a rural Level I trauma center met criteria for futility. Predictive tools, such as MGAP scoring, can provide objective criteria for evaluation of transfer necessity and prompt care pathways that involve pre-transfer communications, telemedicine, and/or patient centered goals of care discussions. Such tools could be used in conjunction with a more granular assessment regarding potential operational barriers to reduce futile transfers and to enhance optimization of resource utilization in low-resource service areas.

Palliative Care Consultation is Associated with Decreased Rates of In-Hospital Mortality Among Patients Undergoing Major Amputation

OBJECTIVE

Despite advancements in medical care and surgical techniques, major amputation continues to be associated with risks for morbidity and mortality. Palliative care programs may help alleviate symptoms and align patients' goals and the care they receive with their treatment plan. Access to specialty Palliative medicine among vascular surgery patients is limited . Here, we aim to describe utilization and impact of formal palliative care consultation for patients receiving major amputations.

METHODS

This is a retrospective, secondary data analysis project examining the records of patients who received major amputations by the vascular surgery team between 2016 and 2021. Demographics, operative, and postoperative outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome variable was palliative care consultation during index admission (the admission in which the patient received their first major amputation). Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality as well as code status at time of death, if death occurred during the index admission, location of death, and discharge destination RESULTS: The cohort comprised of 292 patients (39% female, 53% Black, mean age 63) who received a lower extremity major amputation. Most patients (65%) underwent amputation for limb ischemia. One-year mortality after first major amputation was 29%. Average length of stay was 20 days. Thirty-five (12%) patients received a palliative care consultation during the hospitalization in which they received their first major amputation. On multivariable analysis, patients were more likely to receive a palliative care consult during their index admission if they had undergone a through knee amputation (OR = 2.89, p = 0.039) or acute limb ischemia (OR = 4.25, p = 0.005). A formal palliative care consult was associated with lower likelihood of in-hospital death and increased likelihood of discharge to hospice (OR = 0.248, p = 0.0167, OR1.283, p < 0.001).There were not statistically significant differences in the code status of patients who received a palliative care consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

In a large academic medical center, palliative medicine consultation was associated with lower in-hospital mortality among patients with advanced vascular disease and major limb amputation. These data will hopefully stimulate much needed prospective research to develop and test tools to identify patients in need and derive evidence about the impact of palliative care services.

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.

Rural Interfacility Emergency Department Transfers: Framework and Qualitative Analysis

Introduction

Interfacility transfers from rural emergency departments (EDs) are an important means of access to timely and specialized care.

Methods

Our goal was to identify and explore facilitators and barriers in transfer processes and their implications for emergency rural care and access. Semi-structured interviews with ED staff at five rural and two urban Veterans Health Administration (VHA) hospitals were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed using an iterative inductive-deductive approach to identify themes and construct a conceptual framework.

Results

From 81 interviews with clinical and administrative staff between March–June 2018, four themes in the interfacility transfer process emerged: 1) patient factors; 2) system resources; and 3) processes and communication for transfers, which culminate in 4) the location decision. Current and anticipated resource limitations were highly influential in transfer processes, which were described as burdensome and diverting resources from clinical care for emergency patients. Location decision was highly influenced by complexity of the transfer process, while perceived quality at the receiving location or patient preferences were not reported in interviews as being primary drivers of location decision. Transfers were described as burdensome for patients and their families. Finally, patients with mental health conditions epitomized challenges of emergency transfers.

Conclusion

Interfacility transfers from rural EDs are multifaceted, resource-driven processes that require complex coordination. Anticipated resource needs and the transfer process itself are important determinants in the location decision, while quality of care or patient preferences were not reported as key determinants by interviewees. These findings identify potential benefits from tracking transfer boarding as an operational measure, directed feedback regarding outcomes of transferred patients, and simplified transfer processes.

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.