How often are interfacility transfers of spine injury patients truly necessary?

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Traumatic spine injuries are often transferred to regional tertiary trauma centers from outside hospitals (OSHs) and subsequently discharged from the trauma center's emergency department (ED) suggesting secondary overtriage of such injuries. PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to investigate the definitive treatment and disposition of traumatic spine injuries transferred from OSH, particularly those without other trauma injuries or neurologic symptoms. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective study. PATIENT SAMPLE: Adult patients presenting to a single Level 1 trauma center with spine injuries were included. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome measures considered in the study were appropriateness of transfer, treatment, and cost. METHODS: Four thousand five-hundred consecutive adult patients presenting to a single Level 1 trauma center with spine injuries (isolated or polytrauma) were reviewed. This consisted of 1,427 patients (32%) transferred from an OSH ED. All OSH, emergency medical services, and receiving institution (RI) patient records and imaging were reviewed. RESULTS: Patients who were neurologically intact, nonpolytrauma, and without critical medical issues at the OSH (isolated intact spine transfers) comprised 29% of transfers. Helicopters transported 13% of these patients. The most frequent injuries were compression (26%), burst (17%), and transverse process (10%) fractures. Seventy-eight percent were discharged directly from the RI's ED. Similarly, 15% were not given any formal treatment, 13% had surgery, and 72% given orthosis treatment. The average cost for transportation and ED costs for those discharged from the RI ED were $1,863 and $12,895, respectively. Of the isolated intact spine transfers, 42% were considered to be inappropriate to warrant transfer. This was defined as those sent from an OSH with an orthopedic or neurosurgeon on staff and clearly stable injuries with minimal chance of progressing to instability. Isolated intact spine transfers whose OSH spine imaging was not considered unstable was 25% of transfers with a helicopter used to transport 14% of these patients. Eighty-seven percent were discharged from the ED, whereas only 3% went onto surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first to investigate interfacility transfers with spine injuries and found high rate of secondary overtriage of neurologically intact patients with isolated spine injuries. Potential solutions include increasing spine coverage in community EDs, increasing direct communication between the OSH and the spine specialist at the tertiary center, and utilization of teleradiology.

Repeat spine imaging in transferred emergency department patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. OBJECTIVE: Assess frequency of repeat spine imaging in patients transferred with known spine injuries from outside hospital (OSH) to tertiary receiving institution (RI). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Unnecessary repeat imaging after transfer has started to become a recognized problem with the obvious issues related to repeat imaging along with potential for iatrogenic injury with movement of patients with spine problems. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients presenting to a single 1-level trauma center with spine injuries during a 51-month period were reviewed (n = 4500), resulting in 1427 patients transferred from OSH emergency department. All imaging and radiology reports from the OSH were reviewed, as well as studies performed at RI. A repeat was the same imaging modality used on the same spine region as OSH imaging. RESULTS: The overall rate of repeat spine imaging for both OSH imaging sent and not sent was 23%, and 6% if repeat spine imaging via traumagram (partial/full-body computed tomography [CT]) was excluded as a repeat. The overall rate of repeat CT was 29% (7% dedicated spine CT scans and 22% part of nondedicated spine CT scan).An observation of only those patients with OSH imaging that was sent and viewable revealed that 23% underwent repeat spine imaging with 23% undergoing repeat spine CT and 41% repeat magnetic resonance imaging.In those patients with sent and viewable OSH imaging, a lack of reconstructions prompted 14% of repeats, whereas inadequate visualization of injury site prompted 8%. In only 8% of the repeats did it change management or provide necessary surgical information. CONCLUSION: This study is the first to investigate the frequency of repeat spine imaging in transfers with known spine injuries and found a substantially high rate of repeat spine CT with minimal alteration in care. Potential solutions include only performing scans at the OSH necessary to establish a diagnosis requiring transfer and improving communication between OSH and RI physicians. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.