Distance to Burn Center Does Not Impact Long-term Anxiety and Depression Risk Following Burn Injury.

Burn injury predisposes patients to significant psychological morbidity, including anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress. Adding to the burden of injury, patients often require transfer to specialized burn centers located far from home. We hypothesized that greater distances between a patient's home address and the treating burn center would increase the rate of postinjury anxiety and depression. From January 2021 to June 2023, patients who were admitted to our American Burn Association verified center and seen for posthospitalization follow-up were identified. Demographics, burn characteristics, and follow-up anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7) and depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2) screening scores were reviewed. Comparisons between patients with positive and negative screens were performed using univariate analysis followed by logistic regression. Linear regression was used to evaluate the relationship between distance to the burn center and incremental screening scores. Of the 272 patients identified, 35.6% and 27.9% screened positive for anxiety and depression, respectively. The distance to burn center was not greater among patients with positive screens. Likewise, no statistically significant linear relationship was found between distance to the burn center and incremental screening scores. Morphine milligram equivalents on the last day of hospitalization (P = .04) and a prior psychiatric history (P < .001) all predicted postinjury anxiety. Total body surface area burned (P = .02) and a prior psychiatric history (P = .02) predicted postinjury depression. The distance between a patient's home and the treating burn center does not alter anxiety and depression rates following burn injury, further supporting the transfer of patients to specialized centers.

Escalation of mortality and resource utilization in emergency general surgery transfer patients.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) patients require greater resources and have increased rates of morbidity and mortality. Previous work has shown mortality differences in colectomy patients between direct admissions and transfers patients based on source, including emergency department, inpatient, and nursing home transfers. We hypothesize that patient transfer status negatively effects morbidity, mortality, and resource utilization in a mixed population of EGS patients. METHODS: Data were obtained for patients undergoing EGS using public files from the American College of Surgeons National Surgery Quality Improvement Program for the years 2014 through 2016. We analyzed risk factors and 30-day outcomes by transfer status on frequently performed procedures using χ analysis and multivariable logistic regression. Significance was set at p < 0.001 for the bivariate analyses and p < 0.05 for the multivariable analyses. RESULTS: A total of 167,636 procedures were identified. Transferred patients had increased clinical risk, operative complexity, and poorer outcomes. Fewer transfers were initiated for less technically sophisticated cases such as laparoscopic appendectomy and cholecystectomy, whereas more complex acute open cases were more often transferred. Transfer patients required longer operations and more transfusions and experienced more complications likely to require an intensive care unit stay. Transfer patients returned to the operating room more often, had higher rates of readmission, and greater 30-day mortality. These effects remained after adjusting for procedure group, secondary procedures, age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists class. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates significant increases in mortality, morbidity, and resource utilization in EGS transfer patients who were not attributable to case mix, demographics, and comorbid status alone. These data point to potential financial and quality assessment challenges for tertiary referral centers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, level III; therapeutic, level IV.

Cost Burden and Mortality in Rural Emergency General Surgery Transfer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Recent articles have suggested regionalization of some emergency general surgery (EGS) problems to tertiary referral centers. We sought to characterize the clinical and cost burden of such transfers to our tertiary referral center. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively for nine EGS diagnoses for patients admitted to the EGS service during calendar years 2015 and 2016. Patients were grouped as inpatient transfers (IPTs), Emergency Department transfers (EDTs), or local admissions (LAs). Demographic data, length of stay at originating site, insurance status, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and all relevant financial data were obtained. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-three patients were reviewed: 93 IPTs, 343 EDTs, and 227 LAs. IPTs required longer lengths of stay (7.0 d compared to 4.0 d for EDTs and 3.0 d for LAs), higher median direct costs, and higher case mix index, which produced a higher median revenue but averaged a median net loss (-$264 compared to +$2436 for EDTs and +$3125 for LAs). The IPTs had higher median comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index 3.5 versus 2.9 for EDTs and 2.0 for LAs), age (62 y versus 58 for EDTs and 52 for LAs), and mortality rate (7.5% versus 2.3% for EDTs and 0.4% for LAs). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who present to a tertiary care EGS service as an IPT from another hospital have more comorbidities, higher mortality rate, and result in a financial loss. These data suggest the need for adequate risk adjustment in quality assessment of tertiary referral center outcomes and the need for increased financial reimbursement for the care of these patients.