Interhospital Transfer and Receipt of Specialty Procedures

Racial and ethnic disparities in emergency department transfers to public hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To examine racial/ethnic differences in emergency department (ED) transfers to public hospitals and factors explaining these differences.

DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SETTING

ED and inpatient data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project for Florida (2010-2019); American Hospital Association Annual Survey (2009-2018).

STUDY DESIGN

Logistic regression examined race/ethnicity and payer on the likelihood of transfer to a public hospital among transferred ED patients. The base model was controlled for patient and hospital characteristics and year fixed effects. Models II and III added urbanicity and hospital referral region (HRR), respectively. Model IV used hospital fixed effects, which compares patients within the same hospital. Models V and VI stratified Model IV by payer and condition, respectively. Conditions were classified as emergency care sensitive conditions (ECSCs), where transfer is protocolized, and non-ECSCs. We reported marginal effects at the means.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We examined 1,265,588 adult ED patients transferred from 187 hospitals.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Black patients were more likely to be transferred to public hospitals compared with White patients in all models except ECSC patients within the same initial hospital (except trauma). Black patients were 0.5-1.3 percentage points (pp) more likely to be transferred to public hospitals than White patients in the same hospital with the same payer. In the base model, Hispanic patients were more likely to be transferred to public hospitals compared with White patients, but this difference reversed after controlling for HRR. Hispanic patients were - 0.6 pp to -1.2 pp less likely to be transferred to public hospitals than White patients in the same hospital with the same payer.

CONCLUSIONS

Large population-level differences in whether ED patients of different races/ethnicities were transferred to public hospitals were largely explained by hospital market and the initial hospital, suggesting that they may play a larger role in explaining differences in transfer to public hospitals, compared with other external factors.

Inter-Hospital Transfer Is an Independent Risk Factor for Hospital-Associated Infection

Background: Regionalization of surgical care shifts higher acuity patients to larger centers. Hospital-associated infections (HAIs) are important quality measures with financial implications. In our ongoing efforts to eliminate HAIs, we examined the potential role for inter-hospital transfer in our cases of HAI across a multihospital system. Hypothesis: Surgical patients transferred to a regional multihospital system have a higher risk of National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN)-labeled HAIs. Patients and Methods: The analysis cohort of adult surgical inpatients was filtered from a five-hospital health system administration registry containing encounters from 2014 to 2021. The dataset contained demographics, health characteristics, and acuity variables, along with the NHSN defined HAIs of central line-associated blood stream infection (CLABSI), catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI), and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Univariable and multivariable statistics were performed. Results: The surgical cohort identified 92,832 patients of whom 3,232 (3.5%) were transfers. The overall HAI rate was 0.6% (528): 86 (0.09%) CLABSI, 133 (0.14%) CAUTI, and 325 (0.35%) CDI. Across the three HAIs, the rate was higher in transfer patients compared with non-transfer patients (CLABSI: n = 18 (1.3%); odds ratio [OR], 4.79; CAUTI: n = 25 (1.8%); OR, 4.20; CDI: n = 37 (1.1%); OR, 3.59); p < 0.001 for all. Multivariable analysis found transfer patients had an increased rate of HAIs (OR, 1.56; p < 0.001). Conclusions: There is an increased risk-adjusted rate of HAIs in transferred surgical patients as reflected in the NHSN metrics. This phenomenon places a burden on regional centers that accept high-risk surgical transfers, in part because of the downstream effects of healthcare reimbursement programs.

Implementation of a standardised accept note to improve communication during inter-hospital transfer: a prospective cohort study

IMPORTANCE

The transfer of patients between hospitals (interhospital transfer, IHT), exposes patients to communication errors and gaps in information exchange.

OBJECTIVE

To design and implement a standardised accept note to improve communication during medical service transfers, and evaluate its impact on patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Prospective interventional cohort study.

SETTING

A 792-bed tertiary care hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

All patient transfers from any acute care hospital to the general medicine, cardiology, oncology and intensive care unit (ICU) services between August 2020 and June 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

A standardised accept note template was developed over a 9-month period with key stakeholder input and embedded in the electronic health record, completed by nurses within the hospital's Access Centre.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Primary outcome was clinician-reported medical errors collected via surveys of admitting clinicians within 72 hours after IHT patient admission. Secondary outcomes included clinician-reported failures in communication; presence and 'timeliness' of accept note documentation; patient length of stay (LOS) after transfer; rapid response or ICU transfer within 24 hours and in-hospital mortality. All outcomes were analysed postintervention versus preintervention, adjusting for patient demographics, diagnosis, comorbidity, illness severity, admitting service, time of year, hospital COVID census and census of admitting service and admitting team on date of admission.

RESULTS

Of the 1004 and 654 IHT patients during preintervention and postintervention periods, surveys were collected on 735 (73.2%) and 462 (70.6%), respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar among patients in each time period and between survey responders and non-responders. Adjusted analyses demonstrated a 27% reduction in clinician-reported medical error rates postimplementation versus preimplementation (11.5 vs 15.8, adjusted OR (aOR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99). Secondary outcomes demonstrated lower adjusted odds of clinician-reported failures in communication (aOR 0.88; 0.78 to 0.98) and rapid response/ICU transfer (aOR 0.57; 0.34 to 0.97), and improved presence (aOR 2.30; 1.75 to 3.02) and timeliness (-21.4 hours vs -8.7 hours, p<0.001) of accept note documentation. There were no significant differences in LOS or mortality.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among 1658 medical patient transfers, implementing a standardised accept note was associated with improved presence and timeliness of accept note documentation, clinician-reported medical errors, failures in communication and clinical decline following transfer, suggesting that improving communication during IHT can improve patient outcomes.

A Statewide Analysis of Predictors of Trauma Center Transfer: The Burden of Non-Clinical Factors

OBJECTIVES

There is a perception, with mixed literary support, that patients are transferred from community hospitals to tertiary medical centers for non-clinical reasons (ie, payor, race, and admission time). Over-triage risks unequally burdening the tertiary medical centers within a trauma system. This study aims to identify potential non-clinical factors associated with the transfer of injured patients.

METHODS

Using the 2018 North Carolina State Inpatient Database, patients with a primary diagnosis of spine, rib or extremity fractures, or TBI were identified using ICD-10-CM code and admission type of "Urgent," "Emergency," or "Trauma." Patients were divided into cohorts of "retained" (at community hospital) or "transferred" (Level-1 or 2 trauma centers).

RESULTS

11,095 patients met inclusion criteria; 2432 (21.9%) patients made up the transfer cohort. The mean ISS for all retained patients was 2.2 (±.9) and 2.9 (±1.4) for all transferred patients. The transfer cohort was younger (mean age 66 v 75.8), underinsured, and more likely to be admitted after 1700 (P < .001). Similar differences were seen regardless of injury pattern.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients transferred to trauma centers were more likely to be underinsured and be admitted outside of normal business hours. These transferred patients had longer lengths of stay and higher mortality rates. Across all cohorts, similar ISS suggests that a portion of the transfers could be managed at a community hospital. After hours transfers suggest a need for more robust community hospital coverage. Intentional triage of the injured patient encourages appropriate utilization of resources and is crucial to maintaining high-functioning trauma centers and systems.

Impact of interhospital transfer on patients with Alzheimer's disease and other related dementias

Older adults are often transferred from one emergency department (ED) to another hospital for speciality care, but little is known about whether those transfers positively impact patients, particularly those with Alzheimer's disease and other related dementias (ADRD). In this study we aimed to describe the impact of interhospital transfer on older adults with and without ADRD. In a retrospective review of electronic medical records, we collected data on demographics, insurance type, initial code status, intensive care, length of stay, specialist consult, procedure within 48 hours, and discharge disposition for older adults (≥ 65 years). We included older adults with at least one ED visit, who were transferred to a tertiary care hospital. With logistic regression, we estimated odds of death, intensive care stay, or procedure within 48 hours by ADRD diagnosis. Patients with ADRD more often received a geriatrics (p < 0.001) or palliative care consult (p = 0.038). They were less likely to be full code at admission (p < 0.001) or to be discharged home (p < 0.001). Patients living with ADRD less often received intensive care or a procedure within 48 hours of transfer (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22-2.88). Patients with ADRD were less likely to receive intensive care unit admission or specialist procedures after transfer. Further study is indicated to comprehensively understand patient-centered outcomes.

A Conceptual Framework for Optimizing the Equity of Hospital-Based Emergency Care: The Structure of Hospital Transfer Networks

Policy Points Current pay-for-performance and other payment policies ignore hospital transfers for emergency conditions, which may exacerbate disparities. No conceptual framework currently exists that offers a patient-centered, population-based perspective for the structure of hospital transfer networks. The hospital transfer network equity-quality framework highlights the external and internal factors that determine the structure of hospital transfer networks, including structural inequity and racism.

CONTEXT

Emergency care includes two key components: initial stabilization and transfer to a higher level of care. Significant work has focused on ensuring that local facilities can stabilize patients. However, less is understood about transfers for definitive care. To better understand how transfer network structure impacts population health and equity in emergency care, we proposea conceptual framework, the hospital transfer network equity-quality model (NET-EQUITY). NET-EQUITY can help optimize population outcomes, decrease disparities, and enhance planning by supporting a framework for understanding emergency department transfers.

METHODS

To develop the NET-EQUITY framework, we synthesized work on health systems and quality of health care (Donabedian, the Institute of Medicine, Ferlie, and Shortell) and the research framework of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities with legal and empirical research.

FINDINGS

The central thesis of our framework is that the structure of hospital transfer networks influences patient outcomes, as defined by the Institute of Medicine, which includes equity. The structure of hospital transfer networks is shaped by internal and external factors. The four main external factors are the regulatory, economic environment, provider, and sociocultural and physical/built environment. These environments all implicate issues of equity that are important to understand to foster an equitable population-based system of emergency care. The framework highlights external and internal factors that determine the structure of hospital transfer networks, including structural racism and inequity.

CONCLUSIONS

The NET-EQUITY framework provides a patient-centered, equity-focused framework for understanding the health of populations and how the structure of hospital transfer networks can influence the quality of care that patients receive.

Demographics and Outcomes of Interhospital Transfer Patients Undergoing Intracranial Tumor Resection: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Introduction

Interhospital transfer (IHT) contributes to increasing health care costs and typically accounts for increased patient morbidity and mortality compared to non-IHT patients. IHT inefficiencies leave patients vulnerable to delayed care and subsequent poor outcomes. In this study, we investigated factors influencing IHT of patients undergoing intracranial tumor resection (ITR), by comparing the variables distinguishing IHTs from non-IHT patients.

Methods

We performed a single-center retrospective review comparing IHT and non-IHT patients undergoing ITR from 2016 to 2018. Study variables included age, sex, race, the Milan Complexity Scale (MCS) score, 11-factor modified frailty index (mFI-11), length of stay (LOS), and Clavien-Dindo Score (CDS). Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to identify significant differences in these variables between groups, while variables predictive of transfer status were identified using binary logistic regression.

Results

Data were collected from 219 patients undergoing ITR, with 80 (36.5%) IHT patients overall. The average age was 52 years (SD 18) and 57.7% were men. The MCS score was significantly higher in the IHT group (p = 0.014); however, mFI-11 was not (p = 0.322). The MCS score was predictive of IHT status in regression analysis (OR 1.17, p = 0.034). The IHT patients had a longer LOS (12 days vs 8 days, p = 0.014) with a lower CDS (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

The transfer patients for intracranial tumor resection had a higher MCS score and thus comprised a more surgically challenging population compared to non-transfer patients. As expected, IHT patients had a longer LOS as they lived further from hospital by definition.

Application of comprehensive u nit-based safety program model in the inter-hospital transfer of patients with critical diseases: a retrospective controlled study

Background

To explore the effect of applying a comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) in the intrahospital transfer of patients with critical diseases.

Methods

A total of 426 critically ill patients in the first affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University from August 2018 to February 2019 were divided into two groups according to the time of admission. Overall, 202 patients in the control group were treated with the routine transfer method, and 224 patients in the observational group were treated with the transfer method based on the CUSP model. The safety culture assessment data of medical staff, the occurrence rate of adverse events and related causes, the time of transfer, and the satisfaction of patients’ relatives to the transfer process were compared before and after implementation of the transfer model between the two groups.

Results

Before and after the implementation of the CUSP mode transfer program, there were significant differences in the scores of all dimensions of the safety culture assessment of medical staff (P < 0.05), and the occurrence rate of adverse events and the causes in the observational group were significantly lower than those in the control group (disease-related, staff-related, equipment-related, environment-related) (P < 0.05). The transfer time for Computed Tomography (CT), Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), operating room, and the interventional room was significantly shorter in the observational group than that in the control group (P < 0.05), while the satisfaction of relatives to the transfer process was significantly higher than those in the control group (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The implementation of CUSP model for the intrahospital transfer of critically ill patients can significantly shorten the in-hospital transfer time, improve the attitude of medical staff towards safety, reduce the occurrence rate of adverse events, and improve the satisfaction of patients’ relatives to the transfer process.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06650-7.

Complications After Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: Benefits and Costs Associated with Inter-hospital Transfer Among Medicare Beneficiaries

BACKGROUND

Inter-hospital transfer (IHT) may help reduce failure-to-rescue (FTR) by transferring patients to centers with a higher level of expertise than the index hospital. We sought to identify factors associated with an IHT and examine if IHT was associated with improved outcomes after complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery.

METHODS

Medicare Inpatient Standard Analytic Files were utilized to identify patients with >1 postoperative complication following resection for esophageal, pancreatic, liver, or colorectal cancer between 2013 and 2017. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association of different factors with the chance of IHT, as well as the impact of IHT on failure-to-rescue (FTR) and expenditures.

RESULTS

Among 39,973 patients with >1 postoperative complications, 3090 (7.7%) patients were transferred to a secondary hospital. The median LOS at the index hospital prior to IHT was 10 days (IQR, 6-17 days). Patients who underwent IHT more often had experienced multiple complications at the index hospital compared with non-IHT patients (57.7% vs. 38.9%) (p<0.001). Transferred patients more commonly had undergone surgery at a low-volume index hospital (n=218, 60.2%) compared with non-IHT (n=10,351, 25.9%) patients (p<0.001). On multivariate analysis, hospital volume remained strongly associated with transfer to an acute care hospital (ACH) (OR 5.53; 95% CI 3.91-7.84; p<0.001), as did multiple complications (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.56-2.57). The incidence of FTR was much higher among IHT-ACH patients (20.2%) versus non-IHT patients (11.5%) (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.11-2.05) (p<0.001). Medicare expenditures were higher among patients who had IHT-ACH ($72.1k USD; IQR, $48.1k-$116.7k) versus non-IHT ($38.5k USD; IQR, $28.1k-$59.2k USD) (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Approximately 1 in 13 patients had an IHT after complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery. IHT was associated with high rates of FTR, which was more pronounced among patients who underwent surgery at an index low-volume hospital. IHT was associated with higher overall CMS expenditures.