Comparison of Specialist and Nonspecialist Transport Teams for Emergency Neurosurgery

OBJECTIVES

Current guidance in the United Kingdom recommends that children requiring emergency neurosurgical intervention should be transported by referring hospital (RH) teams. We aimed to compare transports performed by RH teams and by specialized pediatric critical care transport (PCCTs) teams in terms of timings and patient outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis over a 5-year period of children admitted from an external hospital to the pediatric intensive care unit at a pediatric neurosurgical center and receiving emergency neurosurgery within 24 hours of admission. Data were collected on RH characteristics, patient demographics, clinical status, transfer method (RH or PCCT team), timings (arrival at neurosurgical center, neurosurgical procedure), and clinical outcomes (length of stay and mortality). Univariate analysis was used to compare patient characteristics, times, and outcomes between RH and PCCT team transfers. Survival analysis was performed to analyze arrival time by transfer modality.

RESULTS

During the study period, 75 children with acute neurosurgical emergencies were transferred. Median age was 6.7 years (interquartile range, 1.8-10.7), and 63% had nontraumatic diagnoses. The commonest mode of transfer was by RH teams after initial referral to a PCCT team (53.3%). The median distance was greatest for transfers by RH teams (14 km). Overall median arrival time was 5 hours (interquartile range, 3.6-7.4) with no significant difference between groups ( P = 0.3). Median length of pediatric intensive care unit stay and mortality did not differ between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Specialist critical care transport teams are involved in one third of transfers of children with acute neurosurgical emergencies. While the overriding priority is timely transfer, a tailored approach to the use of PCCTs may be appropriate particularly for children presenting to hospitals nearer to neurosurgical centers.

Evaluation of the safety of inter-hospital transfers of critically ill patients led by advanced critical care practitioners

INTRODUCTION

Ten thousand inter-hospital transfers of critically ill adults take place annually in the UK. Studies highlight deficiencies in experience and training of staff, equipment, stabilisation before departure, and logistical difficulties. This article is a quality improvement review of an advanced critical care practitioner (ACCP)-led inter-hospital transfer service.

METHODS

The tool Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence was used as the format for the review, combined with clinical audit of advanced critical care practitioner-led transfers over a period of more than 3 years.

RESULTS

The transfer service has operated for 8 years; ACCPs conducted 934 critical care transfers of mechanically ventilated patients, including 286 inter-hospital transfers, between January 2017 and September 2020. The acuity of transfer patients was high, 82.2% required support of more than one organ, 49% required more than 50% oxygen. Uneventful transfer occurred in 81.4% of cases; the most common patient-related complication being hypotension, logistical issues were responsible for half of the complications.

CONCLUSION

This quality improvement project provides an example of safe and effective advanced practice in an area that is traditionally a medically led domain. ACCPs can provide an alternative process of care for critically ill adults who require external transfer, and a benchmark for audit and quality improvement.

Critical care transfer in an English critical care network: Analysis of 1124 transfers delivered by an ad-hoc system

Background

Critical care transfers between hospitals are time critical high-risk episodes for unstable patients who often require urgent lifesaving intervention. This study aimed to establish the scale, nature and safety of current transfer practice in the South West Critical Care Network (SWCCN) in England.

Methods

The SWCCN database contains prospectively collected data in accordance with national guidelines. It was interrogated for all adult (>15 years of age) patients from January 2012 to November 2017.

Results

A total of 1124 inter-hospital transfers were recorded, with the majority (935, 83.2%) made for specialist treatment. The transferring team included a doctor in 998 (88.8%) and nurse in 935 (93.7%) transfers. In 204 (18.1%) transfers, delays occurred, with the commonest cause being availability of transport. Critical incidents occurred in 77 (6.9%).

Conclusions

This is the first published data on the transfer activity of a UK adult critical care network. It demonstrates that current ad-hoc provision is not meeting the longstanding expectations of national guidelines in terms of training, clinical experience and timeliness. The authors hope that this study may inform national conversation regarding the development of National Health Service commissioned inter-hospital transfer services for adult patients in England.