Interhospital Transfer of Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure in the United States: A Scoping Review.

Q4 Medicine Critical care explorations Pub Date : 2024-07-05 eCollection Date: 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1097/CCE.0000000000001120
Amy Ludwig, Jennifer Slota, Denise A Nunes, Kelly C Vranas, Jacqueline M Kruser, Kelli S Scott, Reiping Huang, Julie K Johnson, Tara C Lagu, Nandita R Nadig
{"title":"Interhospital Transfer of Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure in the United States: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Amy Ludwig, Jennifer Slota, Denise A Nunes, Kelly C Vranas, Jacqueline M Kruser, Kelli S Scott, Reiping Huang, Julie K Johnson, Tara C Lagu, Nandita R Nadig","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Interhospital transfer of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is relevant in the current landscape of critical care delivery. However, current transfer practices for patients with ARF are highly variable, poorly formalized, and lack evidence. We aim to synthesize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and highlight persisting questions related to interhospital transfer of patients with ARF.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>Ovid Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and American Psychological Association.</p><p><strong>Study selection: </strong>We included studies that evaluated or described hospital transfers of adult (age > 18) patients with ARF between January 2020 and 2024 conducted in the United States. Using predetermined search terms and strategies, a total of 3369 articles were found across all databases. After deduplication, 1748 abstracts were screened by authors with 45 articles that advanced to full-text review. This yielded 16 studies that fit our inclusion criteria.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>The studies were reviewed in accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews by three authors.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>Included studies were mostly retrospective analyses of heterogeneous patients with various etiologies and severity of ARF. Overall, transferred patients were younger, had high severity of illness, and were more likely to have commercial insurance compared with nontransferred cohorts. There is a paucity of data examining why patients get transferred. Studies that retrospectively evaluated outcomes between transferred and nontransferred cohorts found no differences in mortality, although transferred patients have a longer length of stay. There is limited evidence to suggest that patients transferred early in their course have improved outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our scoping review highlights the sparse evidence and the urgent need for further research into understanding the complexity behind ARF transfers. Future studies should focus on defining best practices to inform clinical decision-making and improve downstream outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"6 7","pages":"e1120"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11230760/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001120","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Interhospital transfer of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is relevant in the current landscape of critical care delivery. However, current transfer practices for patients with ARF are highly variable, poorly formalized, and lack evidence. We aim to synthesize the existing evidence, identify knowledge gaps, and highlight persisting questions related to interhospital transfer of patients with ARF.

Data sources: Ovid Medline, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CINAHL Plus, and American Psychological Association.

Study selection: We included studies that evaluated or described hospital transfers of adult (age > 18) patients with ARF between January 2020 and 2024 conducted in the United States. Using predetermined search terms and strategies, a total of 3369 articles were found across all databases. After deduplication, 1748 abstracts were screened by authors with 45 articles that advanced to full-text review. This yielded 16 studies that fit our inclusion criteria.

Data extraction: The studies were reviewed in accordance to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews by three authors.

Data synthesis: Included studies were mostly retrospective analyses of heterogeneous patients with various etiologies and severity of ARF. Overall, transferred patients were younger, had high severity of illness, and were more likely to have commercial insurance compared with nontransferred cohorts. There is a paucity of data examining why patients get transferred. Studies that retrospectively evaluated outcomes between transferred and nontransferred cohorts found no differences in mortality, although transferred patients have a longer length of stay. There is limited evidence to suggest that patients transferred early in their course have improved outcomes.

Conclusions: Our scoping review highlights the sparse evidence and the urgent need for further research into understanding the complexity behind ARF transfers. Future studies should focus on defining best practices to inform clinical decision-making and improve downstream outcomes.

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
美国急性呼吸衰竭患者的院间转运:范围审查》。
目的:急性呼吸衰竭(ARF)患者的院间转运与当前的重症监护服务息息相关。然而,目前针对 ARF 患者的转运实践变化很大,不够正规,而且缺乏证据。我们旨在综合现有证据,找出知识差距,并强调与 ARF 患者院间转运相关的长期问题:研究选择:我们纳入了 2020 年 1 月至 2024 年期间在美国进行的评估或描述成年(年龄大于 18 岁)ARF 患者转院情况的研究。使用预先确定的检索词和策略,我们在所有数据库中共找到 3369 篇文章。经过重复筛选,作者筛选出 1748 篇摘要,其中 45 篇文章进入全文审阅阶段。最终有 16 项研究符合我们的纳入标准:由三位作者根据《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》的扩展内容对这些研究进行了范围界定综述:纳入的研究大多是对不同病因和严重程度的 ARF 患者进行的回顾性分析。总体而言,与非转院患者相比,转院患者更年轻、病情更严重、更有可能购买商业保险。关于患者转院原因的研究数据很少。回顾性评估转院和非转院患者的研究发现,虽然转院患者的住院时间较长,但死亡率并无差异。只有有限的证据表明,在病程早期转院的患者可以改善预后:我们的范围综述强调了证据的稀缺性以及进一步研究了解 ARF 转运背后复杂性的迫切需要。未来的研究应侧重于确定最佳实践,为临床决策提供依据并改善下游预后。
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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
"Awake" Cannulation of Patients for Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygen: An Analysis of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization Registry. Current Emergency Medical Service Vasoactive Use for the Management of Shock. Critical Data for Critical Care: A Primer on Leveraging Electronic Health Record Data for Research From Society of Critical Care Medicine's Panel on Data Sharing and Harmonization. Clinical Subtype Trajectories in Sepsis Patients Admitted to the ICU: A Secondary Analysis of an Observational Study. Septic Shock Requiring Three Vasopressors: Patient Demographics and Outcomes.
×
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