Dataset Information

Interhospital transport of critically ill patients: experiences and challenges, a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:No consensus based national standard for interhospital transports of critically ill patients exists in Norway. The local hospitals are responsible for funding, organizing and performing these transports, resulting in potentially different level of care for the critically ill patients depending on local hospital resources and not the level of severity in the patient's condition. The aim of this study was to examine how these transports are executed and to discover challenges during transports and potentials of improvement. METHODS:A qualitative study with 20 semi-structured interviews of doctors, nurses and ambulance personnel representing a wide range in experience and formal education, reflecting the different compositions of crews performing interhospital transports was conducted. A systematic text condensation of the interviews was performed to describe personal experiences and values. RESULTS:Few interviewees reported special adverse events when asked. Instead they chose to describe more general characteristics of the working environment, their own positive emotions or fears and the strengths and weaknesses of the organizational system. The prehospital working environment was described as different from the in-hospital environment. The personnel experienced being on their own during transports, lack of procedures and checklists and often no systematic education or demanded preparedness for participating. The resident doctors described pressure from elderly colleagues to participate in the transports. At the same time, all interviewees reported a self-interest in participating in these transports. CONCLUSIONS:Safe interhospital transports of the critically ill patients are challenged by the characteristics of the out of hospital environment. The transports are described as potentially unsafe for both patients and personnel. Systematic education is warranted, highlighting the use of checklists and special educational programs in prehospital critical care medicine. The strong personal interest to participate in these transports may serve as a barrier against changing todays system. To ensure the right level of competence and safety for each unique patient, it is imperative to standardize the interhospital transports on a national level, built on consensus from experienced prehospital personnel. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The trial is approved and registered by the local representative for the Norwegian Data Protection Authority as trial 13-7751.

SUBMITTER: Eiding H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6399939 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSuboptimal triage of critically ill patients with surgical sepsis may contribute to adverse outcomes. Patients transferred to a tertiary care center after spending 24 hours or longer at an outside facility were compared with patients who had early triage to a tertiary care center with the null hypothesis that management parameters and outcomes would be similar between groups.MethodsThis prospective observational cohort study included 308 patients treated for surgical sepsis in a surgical intensive care unit at a tertiary care center. Patients transferred after spending more than 24 hours at an outside facility (n = 69) were compared with patients who were directly admitted or transferred within 24 hours (n = 239). Patient characteristics, management parameters, and outcomes were compared between groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02276066).ResultsAverage outside facility length of stay in the delayed transfer group was 43 hours. Delayed transfer patients had higher sequential organ failure assessment (7 vs. 5, p = 0.003) and APACHE II scores (19 vs. 16, p = 0.007) on admission. The interval between admission and source control was significantly longer in the delayed transfer group (12.1 hours vs. 1.0 hours, p = 0.009). The incidence of nosocomial infection was significantly higher in the delayed transfer group (41% vs. 23%, p = 0.005). Delayed transfer was independently associated with a 10-day increase in hospital length of stay. Delayed transfer patients were less likely to be discharged home (22% vs. 59%, p < 0.001) and suffered twofold higher in-hospital mortality (14.5% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.056).ConclusionPatients with surgical sepsis who spent more than 24 hours at an outside facility prior to transfer had greater initial illness severity, longer intervals between admission and source control, and more nosocomial infections compared with patients who had early triage to a tertiary care center.Level of evidenceCare management/therapeutic, Level IV; Epidemiologic/prognostic, Level III.

Project description:Studying interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia in the spring 2020 surge may help inform future pandemic management.ObjectivesTo compare outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 transferred to a tertiary referral center with increased surge capacity with patients admitted from the emergency department.Design setting participantsObservational cohort study of single center urban academic medical center ICUs. All patients admitted and discharged with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia who received invasive ventilation between March 17, 2020, and October 14, 2020.Main outcome and measuresDemographic and clinical variables were obtained from the electronic medical record. Patients were classified as emergency department admits or interhospital transfers. Regression models tested the association between transfer status and survival, adjusting for demographics and presentation severity.ResultsIn total, 298 patients with coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia were admitted to the ICU and received mechanical ventilation. Of these, 117 were transferred from another facility and 181 were admitted through the emergency department. Patients were primarily male (64%) and Black (38%) or Hispanic (45%). Transfer patients differed from emergency department admits in having English as a preferred language (71% vs 56%; p = 0.008) and younger age (median 57 vs 61 yr; p < 0.001). There were no differences in race/ethnicity or primary payor. Transfers were more likely to receive extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (12% vs 3%; p = 0.004). Overall, 50 (43%) transferred patients and 78 (43%) emergency department admits died prior to discharge. There was no significant difference in hospital mortality or days from intubation to discharge between the two groups.Conclusions and relevanceIn a single-center retrospective cohort, no significant differences in hospital mortality or length of stay between interhospital transfers and emergency department admits were found. While more study is needed, this suggests that interhospital transfer of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 can be done safely and effectively.

Project description:Objective: COVID19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and has been associated with severe inflammation leading to organ dysfunction and mortality. Our aim was to profile the transcriptome in leukocytes from critically ill ICU patients positive for COVID19 vs. those negative for COVID19 to better understand the COVID19 associated host response. Design: Transcriptome profiling of buffy coat cells via ribonucleic acid sequencing (RNAseq) at the time of admission to the ICU. Setting: Tertiary care ICU and academic laboratory. Subjects: All patients admitted to the ICU suspected of being infected with SARS-CoV-2, using standardized hospital screening methodologies, had blood samples collected at the time of admission to the ICU. Interventions: None. Measurement and Main Results: Age- and sex-matched ICU patients that were either COVID19+ (PCR positive, 2 genes) or COVID19- (PCR negative) were enrolled. Cohorts were well-balanced with the exception that COVID19- patients had significantly higher total white blood cell counts and circulating neutrophils and COVID19+ patients were more likely to suffer bilateral pneumonia compared to COVID19- patients. Further, the mortality rate for this cohort of COVID19+ ICU patients was 29%. Transcriptional analysis revealed that when compared to COVID19- patients, the altered transcriptional responses of leukocytes in critically ill COVID19+ ICU patients appeared to be associated with multiple interrelated outcomes, including but not limited to robust interferon (IFN)-associated transcriptional responses, a marked decrease in the transcriptional activity of genes contributing to protein synthesis and the dysregulated expression of genes that contribute to coagulation, platelet activation, Toll-like receptor activation, neurotrophin signaling, and protein SUMOylation/ubiquitination. Conclusions: COVID19+ patients on day 1 of admission to the ICU display a unique leukocyte transcriptional profile that distinguishes them from COVID19- patients. Identification of this profile provides guidance for future targeted studies exploring novel prognostic/therapeutic aspects of COVID19.

Dataset Information

Interhospital transport of critically ill patients: experiences and challenges, a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets