Standardized Transfer Process for a Neurointensive Care Unit and Assessment of Patient Bounceback.

BACKGROUND: Patients who require readmission to an intensive care unit (ICU) after transfer to a lower level of care ("bounceback") suffer from increased mortality and longer hospital stays. We aimed to create a multifaceted standardized transfer process for patients moving from the neurointensive care unit (neuro-ICU) to a lower level of care. We hypothesized that this process would lead to improvement in provider-rated safety and a decreased rate of bouncebacks to the neuro-ICU after transfer. METHODS: The study took place at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from October 2018 to October 2020. A standardized five-step transfer process was created and implemented for transferring patients from the neuro-ICU to a lower level of care. Patient care providers completed a survey before and after implementation of the protocol to assess a variety of components related to safety concerns when transferring patients. The rate of bouncebacks pre and post intervention was calculated by using a two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and disposition at discharge was calculated by using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Of the 1176 total patient transfers out of the neuro-ICU, 29 patients bounced back within 48 h. The average age of patients who bounced back was 63.3 years old, with a similar distribution among men and women. The most common reason for bounceback was respiratory distress, followed by cardiac arrhythmia, stroke, and sepsis. Implementation of the standardized process led to a decrease in provider-rated concern of overall safety (5 to 3, p = 0.008). There was improvement in transfer delays due to bed availability (3 to 4.5, p = 0.020), identification of high-risk patients (5 to 6, p = 0.021), patient assignment to the appropriate level of care (5 to 6, p = 0.019), and use of the electronic medical record handoff indicator (5 to 6, p = 0.003). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of patient bounceback rate after implementation of the process (2.4% vs. 2.5%, p = 1.00) or patient disposition at discharge (p = 0.553). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who bounceback to the neuro-ICU within 48 h had an increased length of hospital stay, had an increased length of ICU stay, and were more likely to be intubated for more than 96 h. Implementation of a standardized five-step transfer process from the neuro-ICU to a lower level of care resulted in improvement in multiple provider-rated safety outcomes and identification of high-risk patients but led to no difference in the patient bounceback rate or patient disposition at discharge.

Time to Transfer as a Quality Improvement Imperative: Implications of a Hub-and-Spoke Health System Model on the Timing of Emergency Procedures.

BACKGROUND: In the increasingly prevalent hub-and-spoke health system model, specialized services are centralized at a hub hospital, while spoke hospitals offer more limited services and transfer patients to the hub as needed. In one urban, academic health system, a community hospital without procedural capabilities was recently incorporated as a spoke. The goal of this study was to assess the timeliness of emergent procedures for patients presenting to the spoke hospital under this model. METHODS: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study of patients transferred from the spoke hospital to the hub hospital for emergency procedures after the health system restructuring (April 2021-October 2022). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who arrived within their goal transfer time. Secondary outcomes were time from transfer request to procedure start and whether procedure start occurred within guideline-recommended treatment time frames for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), necrotizing soft tissue infection (NSTI), and acute limb ischemia (ALI). RESULTS: A total of 335 patients were transferred for emergency procedural intervention during the study period, most commonly for interventional cardiology (23.9%), endoscopy or colonoscopy (11.0%), or bone or soft tissue debridement (10.7%). Overall, 65.7% of patients were transferred within the goal time. 23.5% of patients with STEMI met goal door-to-balloon time, and more patients with NSTI (55.6%) and ALI (100%) underwent intervention within the guideline-recommended time frame. CONCLUSION: A hub-and-spoke health system model can provide access to specialized procedures in a high-volume, resource-rich setting. However, ongoing performance improvement is required to ensure that patients with emergency conditions receive timely intervention.