Is the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit Sustainable: A 5-Year Experience of a Beneficial and Novel Model.

Background: The 6-bed critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) is a unique and specialized intensive care unit (ICU) that streamlines the interhospital transfer (IHT-transfer between different hospitals) process for a wide range of patients with critical illness or time-sensitive disease. Previous studies showed the unit successfully increased the number of ICU admissions while reducing the time of transfer in the first year of its establishment. However, its sustainability is unknown. Methods: This was a descriptive retrospective analysis of adult, non-trauma patients who were transferred to an 800-bed quaternary medical center. Patients transferred to our medical center between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 were eligible. We used interrupted time series (ITS) and descriptive analyses to describe the trend and compare the transfer process between patients who were transferred to the CCRU versus those transferred to other adult inpatient units. Results: From 2014 to 2018, 50,599 patients were transferred to our medical center; 31,582 (62%) were non-trauma adults. Compared with the year prior to the opening of the CCRU, ITS showed a significant increase in IHT after the establishment of the CCRU. The CCRU received a total of 7,788 (25%) IHTs during this period or approximately 20% of total transfers per year. Most transfers (41%) occurred via ground. Median and interquartile range [IQR] of transfer times to other ICUs (156 [65-1027] minutes) were longer than the CCRU (46 [22-139] minutes, P < 0.001). For the CCRU, the most common accepting services were cardiac surgery (16%), neurosurgery (11%), and emergency general surgery (10%). Conclusions: The CCRU increases the overall number of transfers to our institution, improves patient access to specialty care while decreasing transfer time, and continues to be a sustainable model over time. Additional research is needed to determine if transferring patients to the CCRU would continue to improve patients' outcomes and hospital revenue.

Early Predictors of Near-Shore Spinal Injuries Among Emergency Department Patients.

BACKGROUND: Spinal injuries (SIs) can pose a significant burden to patients and family; delayed surgical intervention, associated with interhospital transfer, results in worse outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify early patient-centered factors associated with risk for near-shore SIs to assist clinicians with expeditious medical decision-making. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective study of all adults transported from Ocean City, Maryland to two emergency departments (EDs) and one regional trauma center for evaluation of suspected SIs from 2006 to 2017. Outcomes were any SI and any spinal cord injury (SCI). Multivariable logistic regression was performed for association of environmental and clinical factors with outcomes. RESULTS: We analyzed 278 records, 102 patients (37%) were diagnosed with any SI and 41 (15%) were diagnosed with SCIs. Compared with patients without SI, patients with SI were more likely to be older (48 vs. 39 years), male (90% vs. 70%), with pre-existing spinal condition (62% vs. 33%), and injury caused by diving (11% vs. 2%). Multivariable logistic regression showed age (odd ratio [OR] 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.11), diving (OR 3.5; 95% CI 3-100+), and wave height (OR 4.5; 95% CI 1.35-15.2) were associated with any SI, and a chief complaint of extremity numbness or tingling (OR 5.73; 95% CI 1.2-27.9) was associated with SCI. CONCLUSIONS: We identified older age, diving, and higher wave height as risk factors for any SI and symptoms of numbness and tingling were associated with SCIs. Clinicians should consider expediting these patients' transfers to a trauma center with neurosurgical capability.

Neuropsychological feedback services improve quality of life and social adjustment.

OBJECTIVE: In more recent years, studies have begun to examine levels of satisfaction of individuals or family members of individuals who undergo neuropsychological evaluation. However, to date there have been only a handful of formal studies that have specifically examined the role and contribution of neuropsychological assessment in patient care and management. This study sought to examine one specific component of neuropsychological assessment, namely the impact of patient feedback regarding neuropsychological testing on patient outcome. METHOD: Participants included 218 patients who were recruited from a neuropsychological outpatient clinic at a Midwest academic medical center. This study examined potential differences between outcome measures for patients who attended feedback sessions versus those who did not receive direct feedback. RESULTS: Results indicated that compared with the No Feedback group, the Feedback group reported greater improvement in quality of life, increased understanding of their condition, and an increased ability to cope with their condition at follow-up. There were no significant demographic differences between the Feedback and No Feedback group. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that there is benefit for the individuals who chose to engage in feedback sessions. Feedback sessions can be utilized to assist with integral decision-making processes and assisting in treatment planning among other areas. It also allows time for patients and family members to discuss their concerns regarding important test findings and recommendations. Given the current climate of value-based services and clinical outcomes, the findings from this study lend support to the utility of neuropsychological assessments and, in particular, the role of feedback within neuropsychological evaluations.