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

IF 1.7 3区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Patient Safety Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-16 DOI:10.1097/PTS.0000000000001232
Sandeep R Pagali, Alexander J Ryu, Karen M Fischer, Riddhi S Parikh, James S Newman, M Caroline Burton
{"title":"Patient Outcomes Compared Between Admissions Coordinated by the Transfer Center and Emergency Department at a U.S. Tertiary Care Hospital.","authors":"Sandeep R Pagali, Alexander J Ryu, Karen M Fischer, Riddhi S Parikh, James S Newman, M Caroline Burton","doi":"10.1097/PTS.0000000000001232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":48901,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/PTS.0000000000001232","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国一家三甲医院由转运中心和急诊科协调入院的患者疗效比较。
背景介绍美国一家三级医院通过急诊科(ED)或转运中心收治病人。我们旨在比较从急诊科入院的患者与由转运中心协调的入院患者的临床结果:在这项回顾性研究中,我们确定了明尼苏达州罗切斯特市梅奥诊所医院在 2019 年 7 月至 2021 年 6 月期间的入院情况,并将其分为两个队列--转运中心和急诊室。然后对两个队列的年龄、性别、入院服务和 Charlson 生病指数进行匹配。通过单变量和多变量分析,比较两组患者的住院时间(LOS)、死亡率、30 天死亡率和 30 天再入院率:结果:共确定了 73,685 例住院病例,其中 24,262 例(33%)为转运中心住院病例。在匹配队列(各为 19,093 人)中,由转运中心协调的入院患者的院内死亡率(2.4% 对 1.9%)、30 天死亡率(5.4% 对 3.9%)、30 天再入院率(12.7% 对 7.2%)和住院时间(6.4 天对 5.1 天)均显著高于由转运中心协调的入院患者(P < 0.001)。在转运中心协调的入院患者中,姑息治疗咨询率较高(9.4% 对 6.2%,P < 0.001),出院回家的比例较低(76.2% 对 82.5%,P < 0.001)。即使对住院时间进行调整,多变量分析中也发现了类似的结果:结论:与急诊室入院患者相比,转运中心入院患者的院内死亡率、住院时间、30 天死亡率和 30 天再入院率均较高。本研究还强调了接受转院前姑息治疗咨询的新注意事项,尤其是要避免无用的转院。还需要开展更多研究,分析转运中心入院结果背后的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Patient Safety
Journal of Patient Safety HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
13.60%
发文量
302
期刊介绍: Journal of Patient Safety (ISSN 1549-8417; online ISSN 1549-8425) is dedicated to presenting research advances and field applications in every area of patient safety. While Journal of Patient Safety has a research emphasis, it also publishes articles describing near-miss opportunities, system modifications that are barriers to error, and the impact of regulatory changes on healthcare delivery. This mix of research and real-world findings makes Journal of Patient Safety a valuable resource across the breadth of health professions and from bench to bedside.
期刊最新文献
Response to the Letter to the Editor by Cioccari et al. Implementation and Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support for Apixaban Dosing in a Community Teaching Hospital. Patient Harm Events and Associated Cost Outcomes Reported to a Patient Safety Organization. Advancing Patient Safety: Harnessing Multimedia Tools to Alleviate Perioperative Anxiety and Pain. Translation and Comprehensive Validation of the Hebrew Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS 2.0).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1