RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines for adult patients with pneumococcal meningitis (PM) recommend initial management in intermediate or intensive care units (ICU), but evidence to support these recommendations is limited. We aimed to describe ICU admission practices of patients with PM. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of the French medico administrative database of consecutive adult patients with PM and sepsis criteria hospitalized between 2011 and 2020. We defined two groups, "Direct ICU" corresponding to a direct ICU admission and "Delayed ICU" corresponding to a secondary ICU admission. RESULTS: We identified 4052 patients hospitalized for a first episode of PM, including 2006 "Direct ICU" patients (50%) and 2046 "delayed ICU" patients (50%). The patients were mainly males [n = 2260 (56%)] with median age of 61 years [IQR 50-71] and a median Charlson index of 1 [0-3]. Among them, median SAPS II on admission was 46 [33-62], 2173 (54%) had a neurological failure on admission with 2133 (53%) in coma, 654 (16%) with brainstem failure, 488 (12%) with seizures and 779 (19%) with focal signs without coma. PM was frequently associated with pneumonia [n = 1411 (35%)], and less frequently with endocarditis [n = 317 (8%)]. The median ICU length of stay and hospital length of stay were 6 days [2-14] and 21 days [13-38], respectively. In-hospital mortality was 27% (n = 1100) and 640 (16%) patients were secondarily transferred to rehabilitation care unit. Direct ICU group was significantly more severe but after adjustment for age, sex, comorbidities, organ failures on admission and admission from home, direct ICU admission was significantly associated with a lower mortality (Odds ratio 0.67 [0.56-0.80], p < 0.01). This corresponded to one death avoided for 11 PM directly admitted in ICU. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with PM and sepsis, direct ICU admission was associated with lower mortality rates when compared to delayed admission.

RESUMEN

Introducción y objetivo Más de la mitad de los ancianos institucionalizados necesita de una derivación anual a urgencias generando, por su complejidad, un alto uso de recursos y mayor riesgo de eventos adversos. El objetivo del estudio es valorar si la hospitalización directa en una unidad de geriatría de agudos, tras evaluación conjunta del equipo médico de residencia y del geriatra consultor, puede ser una alternativa segura y de utilidad en comparación con la atención en urgencias. Métodos Estudio observacional retrospectivo de los pacientes ingresados en la unidad de geriatría de agudos procedentes de las residencias atendidas por nuestro equipo de atención geriátrica a residencia entre el 01/01/2021 y el 31/12/2021. Se excluyeron los pacientes ingresados de forma programada o con diagnóstico de infección por SARS-CoV-2. Se recogieron variables de la historia clínica (sociodemográficas, clínicas, funcionales, cognitivas). Como variables resultado se registraron mortalidad durante el ingreso, estancia hospitalaria y en urgencias, traslado a urgencias y delirium en las primeras 48h del ingreso, ubicación al alta. Resultados 206 pacientes no COVID ingresaron directamente desde la residencia, 101 derivados desde urgencias (N: 307). Al ingreso el 62,5% presentaba Índice Barthel<40 y el 65% Cruz Roja Mental≥2, con Índice de Charlson ≥3 en el 56,4% de los casos. La mortalidad intrahospitalaria entre los ingresos directos fue del 14,6%, en el grupo derivado de urgencias del 20,8%, p=0,14. La estancia hospitalaria total de los pacientes valorados por atención geriátrica a residencia fue 9,61±6,01 días, mientras en los derivados a urgencias 11,22±5,36 días, p=0,02. Presentaron delirium en las primeras 48h del ingreso, 27,7% de los ingresos directos y 36,6% desde urgencias (p=0,11) (AU)

Background and objective More than half of institutionalized older people need a emergency department visit annually, with high resources consumption and higher risk of adverse events, due to high complexity. Direct admission to Acute Geriatric Unit (AGU), after geriatric consultant and nursing home medical team assessment, could be a safety and effective alternative to emergency department (ED) admission. Methods Retrospective observational study of AGU patients admitted by Nursing Home Geriatric Team between January, 1st and December, 31st, 2021. Planned admissions and SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were excluded. Medical (sociodemographic, clinical, functional and cognitive) records and outcomes data (inpatient mortality, hospital and ED lenght of stay, transfer to ED and delirium within 48h after admission, hospital discharge location) were collected. Results Two hundred and six patients directly admitted, 101 through ED (N 307). 62.5% with Barthel index <40, 65% with dementia, 56.4% with Charlson index ≥3. Inpatient mortality was 14.6% in direct admission, 20.8% in ED referral group, p=0.14. Hospital lenght of stay was 9.61±6.01 days in direct admission, 11.22±5.36 days in ED group, p=0.02. 27.7% of patients with delirium in direct admission and 36.6% in ED group; only one patient was transferred to ED, within 48h after admission. Conclusions Direct admission is a safety and effective alternative to ED referral in institutionalized older people after geriatric assessment, due to no increased mortality, shorter length of stay and hospital cost reduction (AU)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: More than half of institutionalized older people need a emergency department visit annually, with high resources consumption and higher risk of adverse events, due to high complexity. Direct admission to Acute Geriatric Unit (AGU), after geriatric consultant and nursing home medical team assessment, could be a safety and effective alternative to emergency department (ED) admission. METHODS: Retrospective observational study of AGU patients admitted by Nursing Home Geriatric Team between January, 1st and December, 31st, 2021. Planned admissions and SARS-CoV-2 positive patients were excluded. Medical (sociodemographic, clinical, functional and cognitive) records and outcomes data (inpatient mortality, hospital and ED lenght of stay, transfer to ED and delirium within 48h after admission, hospital discharge location) were collected. RESULTS: Two hundred and six patients directly admitted, 101 through ED (N 307). 62.5% with Barthel index <40, 65% with dementia, 56.4% with Charlson index ≥3. Inpatient mortality was 14.6% in direct admission, 20.8% in ED referral group, p=0.14. Hospital lenght of stay was 9.61±6.01 days in direct admission, 11.22±5.36 days in ED group, p=0.02. 27.7% of patients with delirium in direct admission and 36.6% in ED group; only one patient was transferred to ED, within 48h after admission. CONCLUSIONS: Direct admission is a safety and effective alternative to ED referral in institutionalized older people after geriatric assessment, due to no increased mortality, shorter length of stay and hospital cost reduction.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

There is concern whether patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who admitted to a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) center from interhospital transfer is associated with longer reperfusion time compared with direct admission. We evaluated the reperfusion delays in patients with STEMI who admitted to a primary PCI center through interhospital transfer or direct admission. We retrospectively analyzed 6,494 consecutive STEMI patients admitted between 2011 and 2019. Compared with direct admission ( n = 4,121; 63%), interhospital transferred patients ( n = 2,373) were younger (55 ± 10 vs. 56 ± 10 years, p < 0.001), had similar gender (85.6 vs. 86% male, p = 0.67), greater proportion of off-hour admission (65.2 vs. 48.3%, p < 0.001), less diabetes mellitus (28 vs. 30.8%, p = 0.019), and received more primary PCI (70.5 vs. 48.7%, p < 0.001). Interhospital transferred patients who received primary PCI ( n = 3,677) or fibrinolytic ( n = 238) had longer symptom-to-PCI center admission time (median, 360 vs. 300 minutes, p < 0.001), shorter door-to-device (DTD) time for primary PCI (median, 74 vs. 87 minutes, p < 0.001), and longer total ischemic time (median, 465 vs. 414 minutes, p < 0.001). Logistic regression in interhospital transferred patients showed that delay in door-in-to-door-out (DI-DO) time at the first hospital was strongly associated with prolonged total ischemic time (adjusted odds ratio = 3.92; 95% confidence interval: 3.06-5.04, p < 0.001). This study suggests that although interhospital transferred patients received more primary PCI with shorter DTD time, interhospital transfer creates longer total ischemic time that associates with the delay in DI-DO time at the first hospital that should be improved.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Many patients with suspected appendicitis are initially evaluated at outlying hospitals and then transferred to a tertiary care pediatric hospital for surgical management. We sought to evaluate whether diagnosis prior to transfer provides a reliable basis for direct admission to a pediatric surgery service. METHODS: Patients transferred during calendar year 2018 with the principal diagnosis of acute appendicitis were compared based on the service accepting the patient: Emergency Department (ED) or Pediatric Surgery (PS). Data were evaluated using Student's t-tests. RESULTS: Overall patient characteristics were consistent among ED and PS transfers. The number of patients accepted directly to PS underwent significantly more computed tomography (80.2% vs 54.1%, P = .0002). Despite diagnostic "confirmation" with cross-sectional imaging, 14.7% of patients admitted directly to PS were found to be false positives. CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of patients referred to pediatric hospitals for appendicitis do not require admission or operation. A protocol which encourages cross-sectional imaging before PS evaluation may subject children to unnecessary radiation and still result in non-surgical admissions. Routine ED transfer allows PS evaluation, targeted imaging, and discharge for non-surgical patients. This approach decreases costs for the families whose children received a false positive diagnosis at a referring facility, while preserving inpatient bed availability.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: To compare mortality among severe and critically injured patients who were directly admitted (DA) to level I trauma center (TCI) or level II trauma center (TCII) with those who were transferred to a TCI after being initially admitted to a TCII. METHODS: A cohort study of severe and critically injured patients (Injury Severity Score 16-75) hospitalized between 2010 and 2019 using data from the National Program for Trauma Registration. Multivariate logistic regression models estimated mortality risk, including stratified analyses. RESULTS: Of the 27,131 hospitalizations, 9.5% were transfers, 60.1% were DA to TCI and 30.4% were DA to TCII. Children ages ≤ 17 years, Non-Jews (minority), critical injuries (ISS 25-75), head injuries (AIS ≥ 3) and fall injuries were significantly more frequent among transfers, compared with the DA groups. Evacuation by emergency medical services was less frequent among transfers. After accounting for possible confounders, transfers had a greater risk of in-hospital mortality [DA to TCI vs transfer, OR (95% CI) 0.61 (0.52-0.72); DA to TCII vs transfer, OR (95% CI) 0.78 (0.65-0.94)]. In stratified analyses, these mortality differences persisted among the sub-group of patients who sustained critical injuries, among the patients with non-penetrating injuries, among the elderly ages ≥ 65 year and during the first 2 weeks of hospitalization. CONCLUSION: This study has intervention implications that should be directed primarily at prehospital triage and the inter-hospital transfer processes. In addition, there may be a need to optimize the capabilities of regional trauma systems along with continuous performance evaluations and actions as required.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Little is known about the current scenario of inter-hospital transfer for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in China. Methods: From November 2014 to December 2019, 94,623 AMI patients were enrolled from 241 hospitals in 30 provinces in China. We analyzed the pattern of inter-hospital transfer, and compared in-hospital treatments and outcomes between transferred patients and directly admitted patients. Results: Of these patients, 40,970 (43.3%) were transferred from hospitals that did not provide percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The proportion of patients who were transferred from non-PCI hospital was 46.3% and 11.9% (P < 0.001) in tertiary hospitals and secondary hospitals, respectively; 56.2% and 37.3% (P < 0.001) in hospitals locating in low-economic regions and affluent areas, respectively. Compared with directly admitted patients, transferred patients had lower rates of reperfusion for STEMI (57.8% vs. 65.2%, P < 0.001) and timely PCI for NSTEMI (34.7%vs. 41.1%, P < 0.001). The delay for STEMI patients were long, with 6.5h vs. 4.5h from symptom onset to PCI for transferred and directly admitted patients, respectively. The median time-point was 9 days for in-hospital outcomes. Compared with direct admission, the hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals associated with inter-hospital transfer were 0.87 (0.75-1.01) and 0.87 (0.73-1.03) for major adverse cardiovascular events and total mortality, respectively, in inverse probability of treatment weighting models in patients with STEMI, and 1.02 (0.71-1.48) and 0.98 (0.70-1.35), respectively, in patients with NSTEMI. Conclusion: More than 40% of the hospitalized AMI patients were transferred from non-PCI-capable hospitals in China. Further strategies are needed to enhance the capability of revascularization and reduce the inequality in management of AMI.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated that mechanical thrombectomy (MT) could provide more benefit than standard medical care for acute ischemic stroke (AIS) patients due to emergent large vessel occlusion. However, most primary stroke centers (PSCs) are unable to perform MT, and MT can only be performed in comprehensive stroke centers (CSCs) with on-site interventional neuroradiologic services. Therefore, there is an ongoing debate regarding whether patients with suspected AIS should be directly admitted to CSCs or secondarily transferred to CSCs from PSCs. This meta-analysis was aimed to investigate the two transportation paradigms of direct admission and secondary transfer, which one could provide more benefit for AIS patients treated with MT. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis through searching PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library database up to March 2020. Primary outcomes are as follows: symptomatic intracerebral hemorrhage (sICH) within 7 days; favorable functional outcome at 3 months; mortality in hospital; mortality at 3 months; and successful recanalization rate. RESULTS: Our pooled results showed that patients directly admitted to CSCs had higher chances of achieving a favorable functional outcome at 3 months than those secondarily transferred to CSCs (OR = 1.26; 95% CI, 1.12-1.42; P < 0.001). In addition, no significant difference was found between the two transportation paradigms in the rate of sICH (OR = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.62-1.18; P = 0.35), mortality in hospital (OR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.51-1.39; P = 0.51), mortality at 3 months (OR = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.85-1.21; P = 0.91), and successful recanalization (OR = 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20; P = 0.74). However, in the 100% bridging thrombolysis usage rate subgroup, our subgroup analysis indicated that no difference was found in any outcome between the two transportation paradigms. CONCLUSION: Patients with AIS directly admitted to CSCs for MT may be a feasible transportation paradigm for AIS patients. However, more large-scale randomized prospective trials are required to further investigate this issue.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Approximately 2 million children are hospitalized each year in the United States, with more than three-quarters of non-elective hospitalizations admitted through emergency departments (EDs). Direct admission, defined as admission to hospital without first receiving care in the hospital's ED, may offer benefits for patients and healthcare systems in quality, timeliness, and experience of care. While ED utilization patterns are well studied, there is a paucity of research comparing the effectiveness of direct and ED admissions. The overall aim of this project is to compare the effectiveness of a standardized direct admission approach to admission beginning in the ED for hospitalized children. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial at 3 structurally and geographically diverse hospitals. A total of 70 primary and urgent care practice sites in the hospitals' catchment areas will be randomized to a time point when they will begin participation in the multi-stakeholder informed direct admission program. This crossover will be unidirectional and occur at 4 time points, 6 months apart, over a 24-month implementation period. Our primary outcome will be the timeliness of clinical care provision. Secondary outcomes include (i) parent-reported experience of care, (ii) unanticipated transfer to the intensive care unit within 6 h of hospital admission, and (iii) rapid response calls within 6 h of hospital admission. We anticipate that 190 children and adolescents will be directly admitted, with 1506 admitted through EDs. Analyses will compare the effectiveness of direct admission to admission through the ED and will evaluate the causal effect of implementing a direct admission program using linear regression with random effects for referring practice clusters and time period fixed effects. We will further examine the heterogeneity of treatment effects based on hypotheses specified a priori. In addition, we will conduct a mixed-methods process evaluation to assess reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of our direct admission intervention. DISCUSSION: Our study represents the first randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of direct admission to admission through the ED for pediatric patients. Our scientific approach, pairing a stepped wedge design with a multi-level assessment of barriers to and facilitators of implementation, will generate valuable data about how positive findings can be reproduced across other healthcare systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04192799 . Registered on December 10, 2019).

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: In a primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) program, interhospital transfer of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) can increase ischemic time, compared to patients who are admitted directly to a catheterization laboratory. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of interhospital transfer in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI, in terms of time to reperfusion and one-year mortality. METHODS: This was an observational, retrospective, longitudinal study of patients with STEMI admitted to Hospital de Braga between June 2011 and May 2016, who were treated successfully within 12 hours of symptom onset. A total of 1222 patients were included and divided into two groups according to admission to Hospital de Braga: direct or interhospital transfer. RESULTS: In this study, 37.0% (n=452) of the population were admitted directly to Hospital de Braga and 63.0% (n=770) were transferred from other hospitals. Although timings (in min) until reperfusion were longer in interhospital transfer patients (symptom onset-first medical contact (median 76.5, IQR 40.3-150 vs. 91.0, IQR 50-180, p=0.002), first medical contact-reperfusion (median 87.5, IQR 69.0-114 vs. 145, IQR 115-199, p<0.001) and symptom onset-reperfusion (median 177, IQR 125-265 vs. 265, IQR 188-400, p<0.001)), one-year mortality did not differ significantly between the groups (53 [11.7%] vs. 71 [9.2%], p=0.193). In multivariate analysis, age, symptom onset-reperfusion time and especially Killip class IV at admission (HR 11.2, 95% CI 6.35-19.8, p<0.001) were the main independent predictors of one-year mortality. CONCLUSION: Interhospital transfer of patients with STEMI increased the time before PCI. No differences were detected between groups in one-year mortality. This may be related to the fact that the direct admission group had twice as many patients in Killip class IV as the interhospital transfer group.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the benefit of direct ICU admission from the emergency department (ED) compared to admission from wards, in patients with hematological malignancies requiring critical care. METHODS: Post hoc analysis derived from a prospective, multicenter cohort study of 1011 critically ill adult patients with hematologic malignancies admitted to 17 ICU in Belgium and France from January 2010 to May 2011. The variable of interest was a direct ICU admission from the ED and the outcome was in-hospital mortality. The association between the variable of interest and the outcome was assessed by multivariable logistic regression after multiple imputation of missing data. Several sensitivity analyses were performed: complete case analysis, propensity score matching and multivariable Cox proportional-hazards analysis of 90-day survival. RESULTS: Direct ICU admission from the ED occurred in 266 (26.4%) cases, 84 of whom (31.6%) died in the hospital versus 311/742 (41.9%) in those who did not. After adjustment, direct ICU admission from the ED was associated with a decreased in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR: 0.63; 95% CI 0.45-0.88). This was confirmed in the complete cases analysis (adjusted OR: 0.64; 95% CI 0.45-0.92) as well as in terms of hazard of death within the 90 days after admission (adjusted HR: 0.77; 95% CI 0.60-0.99). By contrast, in the propensity score-matched sample of 402 patients, direct admission was not associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted OR: 0.92; 95% CI 0.84-1.01). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, patients with hematological malignancies admitted to the ICU were more likely to be alive at hospital discharge if they were directly admitted from the ED rather than from the wards. Assessment of early predictors of poor outcome in cancer patients admitted to the ED is crucial so as to allow early referral to the ICU and avoid delays in treatment initiation and mis-orientation.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to study whether the acute care of frail elderly patients directly admitted to a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) unit is superior to the care in a conventional acute medical care unit in terms of patient satisfaction. DESIGN: TREEE (Is the TReatment of frail Elderly patients Effective in an Elderly care unit?) is a clinical, prospective, controlled, one-center intervention trial comparing acute treatment in CGA units and in conventional wards. SETTING: This study was conducted in the NÄL-Uddevalla county hospital in western Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: In this follow-up to the TREEE study, 229 frail patients, aged ≥75 years, in need of acute in-hospital treatment, were eligible. Of these patients, 139 patients were included in the analysis, 72 allocated to the CGA unit group and 67 to the conventional care group. Mean age was 85 years and 65% were female. INTERVENTION: Direct admittance to an acute elderly care unit with structured, systematic interdisciplinary CGA-based care, compared to conventional acute medical care via the emergency room. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the satisfaction reported by the patients shortly after discharge from hospital. A four-item confidential questionnaire was used. Responses were given on a 4-graded scale. RESULTS: The response rate was 61%. In unadjusted analyses, significantly more patients in the intervention group responded positively to the following three questions about the hospitalization: "Did you get the nursing from the ward staff that you needed?" (p=0.003), "Are you satisfied with the information you received on your diseases and medication?" (p=0.016), and "Are you satisfied with the planning before discharge from the hospital?" (p=0.032). After adjusted analyses by multiple regression, a significant difference in favor of the intervention remained for the first question (p=0.027). CONCLUSION: Acute care in a CGA unit with direct admission was associated with higher levels of patient satisfaction compared with conventional acute care via the emergency room.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: One quarter of pediatric hospitalizations begin as direct admissions, defined as hospitalization without receiving care in the hospital's emergency department (ED). Direct admission rates are highly variable across hospitals, yet previous studies have not examined reasons for this variation. We aimed to determine the relationships between hospital and community factors and pediatric direct admission rates, and to evaluate the degree to which these characteristics explain variation in risk-adjusted direct admission rates. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Kids Inpatient Database, American Hospital Association Database, and Area Health Resource File, including children <18 years of age who were admitted for a medical hospitalization in states contributing data to all data sets. Using hierarchical generalized linear modeling, we generated risk-adjusted direct admission rates and used generalized linear models to assess the association of hospital and community characteristics with these risk-adjusted rates. RESULTS: We included 211,458 children discharged from 933 hospitals and 26 states; 20.2% were admitted directly. One-fifth of the variance in risk-adjusted direct admission rates was attributed to observed hospital and community factors. The greatest proportion of this explained variance was related to ED volume (37%), volume of pediatric hospitalizations (27%), and size of the pediatrician workforce (12%). CONCLUSIONS: Direct admission rates were associated with several hospital and community characteristics, but the majority of variation in hospitals' direct admission rates was not explained by these factors. These findings suggest opportunities for diverse hospital types to develop the infrastructure and communication systems necessary to support pediatric direct admissions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The multilevel designation system given to U.S. trauma centers has proven useful in providing injury-level-appropriate care and guiding field triage. Despite the system, patients are often transferred to Level I trauma centers for higher-level care/specialized services. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to assess whether there is a difference in outcomes of patients transferred to Level I centers compared with direct admissions. METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample was queried to identify patients involved in motor vehicle accidents, using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification E-codes. Patients that were admitted to Level I trauma centers were identified using American College of Surgeons or American Trauma Society designations. RESULTS: There were 343,868 patients that met inclusion criteria. Of these patients, 29.2% (100,297) were admitted to Level I trauma centers, 5.7% (5691) of which were identified as trauma transfers. The lead admitting diagnosis for transfers was pelvic fracture (11.5%). Caucasians were 2.62 times as likely to be transferred as African-Americans (confidence interval 2.32-2.97), and 3.71 times as likely as Hispanics (confidence interval 3.25-4.23). Despite transfer patients having higher adjusted severity scores and higher adjusted risk of mortality, there were no differences in mortality (p = 0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Nationally, trauma transfers do not have an increase in mortality when compared with directly admitted patients, despite a higher adjusted severity of illness and higher adjusted risk of mortality.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the impact of a "direct potential thrombolysis" pathway with direct admission to a neurological stroke unit (SU) on delays of admission, stroke care and proportion of patients with ischemic stroke (IS) treated with intravenous (IV) rtPA. METHODS: This prospective study included all patients admitted in the intensive SU for potential thrombolysis over a 2-month period. Data collected included the time of symptom onset, mode of transport, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score on arrival, delays of care, delays of imaging and modalities, diagnosis and therapeutic data. RESULTS: During the 2-month study period, 81 patients (mean age of 65 years) were included in the study. The Emergency Medical Services (EMS) were involved in 86% of admissions, with a median delay of admission of 1h48 and access within 4.5h in 84% of cases. Every patient underwent immediate neurovascular assessment and imaging examination, which was a MRI in 80% of cases. Only 70% of patients had a final diagnosis of stroke. Intravenous rtPA therapy was administered to 26 patients (32%), and 58% of patients with IS. The median door-to-needle time delay was 63min. CONCLUSION: A direct 'potential thrombolysis' pathway, based on EMS and located in the SU, can result in earlier admission, reaching the recommended care delay, and a large proportion (58%) of IS patients receiving rtPA therapy. On the other hand, the proportion of patients with stroke mimics is high, thereby increasing the chances of intermittent periods of saturation of this specific pathway.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Direct admissions account for 25% of pediatric unscheduled hospitalizations. Despite this, our knowledge of direct admission practices and safety is limited. This study aimed to characterize direct admission practices, benefits, and challenges at a diverse sample of hospitals and to identify diagnoses most appropriate for this admission approach. METHODS: We conducted a national survey at a stratified random sample of 177 US hospitals using both closed and open-ended questions. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize numeric responses, while qualitative content analysis was performed to identify emergent themes. RESULTS: Responses were received from 108 hospitals (61%). Hospitals represented all geographic regions and employed varied emergency medicine and inpatient care models. One hundred three respondents (95%) reported that their hospitals accepted direct admissions, and 45 (50%) expressed the view that more children should be admitted directly. Perceived benefits included the following: improved efficiency; patient and physician satisfaction; earlier access to pediatric-specific care; continuity of care; and reduced risk of nosocomial infection. Risks and challenges included the following: difficulties determining admission appropriateness; inconsistent processes; provision of timely care; and patient safety. Populations and diagnoses reported as most appropriate and inappropriate for direct admission varied considerably across respondents. CONCLUSIONS: While respondents described benefits of direct admission for both patients and health care systems, many also reported challenges and safety concerns. Our results may inform subsequent epidemiologic and patient-centered outcomes research to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of direct admissions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Appropriate patient placement at the time of admission to avoid unplanned transfers to the ICU and codes outside of the ICU is an important safety goal for many institutions. The objective of this study was to determine if the overall rate of unplanned ICU transfers within 12 hours of admission to the inpatient medical/surgical unit was higher for direct admissions compared with emergency department (ED) admissions. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of all unplanned ICU transfers within 12 hours of admission to an inpatient unit at a tertiary care children's hospital from January 2010 to December 2012. Proportions of preventable unplanned transfers from the ED and from direct admission were calculated and compared. RESULTS: Over the study period, there were a total of 46,998 admissions; 279 unplanned ICU transfers occurred during the study period of which 101 (36%) were preventable. Preventable unplanned transfers from each portal of entry were calculated and compared with the total number of admissions from those portals. The portals of entry evaluated included admissions from our internal ED versus all outside facility transfers. The rates of early unplanned transfer (per 1000 admissions) by portal of entry were 3.50 for direct admissions and 3.18 for ED. There was no difference between direct admissions and ED admissions resulting in preventable unplanned transfers to the ICU (P=.64). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of unplanned ICU transfers within 12 hours of admission to an inpatient unit are not higher for direct admissions compared with ED admissions. Further studies are required to determine clinical risk factors associated with unplanned ICU transfer after admission, thus allowing for more accurate initial patient placement.

Asunto(s)