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

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.

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Competency: Pilot Data from a Comparison of Multiple Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Measurement of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) competency is often resource intensive. A popular emerging alternative to independent observers' ratings is using other perspectives for rating competency. AIMS: This pilot study compared ratings of CBT competency from four perspectives - patient, therapist, supervisor and independent observer using the Cognitive Therapy Scale (CTS). METHOD: Patients (n = 12, 75% female, mean age 30.5 years) and therapists (n = 5, female, mean age 26.6 years) completed the CTS after therapy sessions, and clinical supervisor and independent observers rated recordings of the same session. RESULTS: Analyses of variance revealed that therapist average CTS competency ratings were not different from supervisor ratings, and supervisor ratings were not different from independent observer ratings; however, therapist ratings were higher than independent observer ratings and patient ratings were higher than all other raters. CONCLUSIONS: Raters differed in competency ratings. Implications for potential use and adaptation of CBT competency measurement methods to enhance training and implementation are discussed.