scholarly journals REBOA for Inter-Hospital Transfer: Are We Walking in the Dark?

Author(s):  
Maya Paran ◽  
Mickey Dudkiewicz ◽  
Boris Kessel
Keyword(s):  

.

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (8) ◽  
pp. 470-476
Author(s):  
Gavin Denton ◽  
Lindsay Green ◽  
Marion Palmer ◽  
Anita Jones ◽  
Sarah Quinton ◽  
...  

Introduction: Ten thousand inter-hospital transfers of critically ill adults take place annually in the UK. Studies highlight deficiencies in experience and training of staff, equipment, stabilisation before departure, and logistical difficulties. This article is a quality improvement review of an advanced critical care practitioner (ACCP)-led inter-hospital transfer service. Methods: The tool Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence was used as the format for the review, combined with clinical audit of advanced critical care practitioner-led transfers over a period of more than 3 years. Results: The transfer service has operated for 8 years; ACCPs conducted 934 critical care transfers of mechanically ventilated patients, including 286 inter-hospital transfers, between January 2017 and September 2020. The acuity of transfer patients was high, 82.2% required support of more than one organ, 49% required more than 50% oxygen. Uneventful transfer occurred in 81.4% of cases; the most common patient-related complication being hypotension, logistical issues were responsible for half of the complications. Conclusion: This quality improvement project provides an example of safe and effective advanced practice in an area that is traditionally a medically led domain. ACCPs can provide an alternative process of care for critically ill adults who require external transfer, and a benchmark for audit and quality improvement.


Stroke ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 45 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Malik M Adil ◽  
Shyam Prabhakaran

Background: Hemorrhagic stroke patients may require inter-facility transfer for higher level of care. Limited data are available on outcome of transferred patients. Objective: To determine in-hospital mortality and discharge outcomes among transferred hemorrhagic stroke patients. Methods: Data from all patients admitted to US hospitals between 2008 and 2011 with a primary discharge diagnosis of hemorrhagic stroke [intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), and subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH)] were identified by ICD-9 codes (ICH: 431; SAH: 430). In separate models for ICH and SAH using logistic regression, the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for in-hospital mortality and good outcome (discharge home or inpatient rehabilitation) among transfer vs. non-transfers were estimated, after adjusting for potential confounders. Results: Of 290,395 patients with ICH, 48,749 (16.8%) arrived by inter-hospital transfer; for SAH, 25,726 (33%) of 78,156 were transfers. In-hospital mortality was lower among ICH transfers (21.2% vs. 23.2%; p=0.004). In adjusted analyses, in-hospital mortality was not significantly different (p=0.20) while discharge to home or inpatient rehabilitation was more likely among transferred ICH patients (OR 1.1, 95% CI 1.0-1.2, p=0.05). In-hospital mortality was lower for SAH transfers (17.4% vs. 22.9%, p<0.001) and remained significant in adjusted analyses (OR 0.7, 95% CI 0.6-0.8). Transferred SAH patients were also more likely to be discharged to home or inpatient rehabilitation (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4, p<0.001). Coiling and clipping procedures were significantly more common in SAH transferred patients while cerebral angiography, mechanical ventilation and gastrostomy were significantly higher in both ICH and SAH transfer patients. Conclusion: While ICH patients arriving by transfer have similar mortality as non-transfers, they are more likely to be discharged to home or acute rehabilitation. For SAH, transfer confers both mortality and outcome benefit. Definitive surgical treatments and aggressive medical supportive care at receiving hospitals may mediate the benefits of inter-hospital transfer in hemorrhagic stroke patients.


Perfusion ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 52-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Raspé ◽  
F Rückert ◽  
D Metz ◽  
B Hofmann ◽  
T Neitzel ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Adam B. Schlichting ◽  
Azeemuddin Ahmed ◽  
Joshua D. Stilley ◽  
Nicholas M. Mohr

2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 140-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Wilson ◽  
Katrina Chiu ◽  
Janet Parrott ◽  
Andrew Forrester

Aims and methodTo consider the link between responsible commissioner and delayed prison transfers. All hospital transfers from one London prison in 2006 were audited and reviewed by the prisoner's borough of origin.ResultsOverall, 80 prisoners were transferred from the audited prison to a National Health Service (NHS) facility in 2006: 26% had to wait for more than 1 month for assessment by the receiving hospital unit and 24% had to wait longer than 3 months to be transferred. These 80 individuals were the responsibility of 16 different primary care trusts. Of the delayed transfer cases (n=19), the services commissioned by three primary care trusts were responsible for the delays.Clinical implicationsThere are significant differences in performance between different primary care trusts related to hospital transfers of prisoners, with most hospitals able to admit urgent cases within 3 months. This suggests that a postcode lottery operates for prisoners requiring hospital transfer. Data from prison services may be useful in monitoring and improving the performance of local NHS services.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document