Summaries for Patients |

Accepting Critically Ill Transfer Patients FREE

[+] Article, Author, and Disclosure Information

The summary below is from the full report titled “Accepting Critically Ill Transfer Patients: Adverse Effect on a Referral Center's Outcome and Benchmark Measures.” It is in the 3 June 2003 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine (volume 138, pages 882-890). The authors are A.L. Rosenberg, T.P. Hofer, C. Strachan, C.M. Watts, and R.A. Hayward.

Ann Intern Med. 2003;138(11):I-42. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-11-200306030-00003
Text Size: A A A

What is the problem and what is known about it so far?

To make wise choices about their health care, people often want to know about the quality and efficiency of the care being dispensed by individual physicians, groups of physicians, hospitals, and health systems. Various organizations, like health insurance companies, and regulatory agencies, like the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (formerly the Health Care Financing Administration), regularly issue “report cards” on the quality of health care and the performance of those who provide it. These reports typically use a method called benchmarking, an approach that measures performance on standard quality indicators like patient outcomes (such as mortality rates), processes (such as tests administered), or costs of care (such as charges for surgical procedures). This information is then compared with a standard.

Why did the researchers do this particular study?

To find out if benchmarking unfairly penalized medical centers that accept critically ill patients transferred from other medical centers. Currently, benchmarking efforts frequently do not account for this factor, even though transfer patients often stay longer in the hospital and die at a higher rate than other patients.

Who was studied?

4208 patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit at a university hospital between January 1, 1994, and April 1, 1998. These included patients with diagnoses such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute respiratory distress syndrome, respiratory failure, pneumonia, gastrointestinal bleeding, sepsis, stroke, liver failure, and heart failure.

How was the study done?

The researchers collected information on these patients from an electronic clinical database. These data included length of stay in the intensive care unit; death; and admission source, such as direct admission from the emergency department, admission from a non–intensive care nursing floor of the hospital, or admission from another hospital. The researchers analyzed the data to determine whether admission source made a difference in quality-of-care factors, such as length of stay and death. They then evaluated the possible difference between a hospital that receives about a quarter of its medical intensive care unit patients as transfers and one that receives no transfer patients.

What did the researchers find?

Transferred patients were likely to be sicker than nontransferred patients. They were often admitted with conditions that complicated their care—such as severe infections and upper gastrointestinal bleeding—and increased the length of hospital stay and risk for death. Thus, two hospitals with the same efficiency and quality but a different percentage of transfer patients would perform differently in a benchmarking program that did not account for admission source. The hospital with more transfers would have a much higher mortality rate.

What were the limitations of the study?

The results may not be generalizable because the data were derived from only one hospital. Also, the results from this strictly medical intensive care unit may not be generalizable to other types of intensive care units, such as general surgical units. In addition, the researchers did not have information on the reason that the patients were transferred.

What are the implications of the study?

Because current benchmarking programs do not account for admission source, hospitals that accept transfer patients may seem to be less efficient and have lower quality than hospitals that do not. This may deter hospitals from taking patients who may benefit from transfer. The authors suggest that benchmarking and profiling efforts recognize and account for this phenomenon.





Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).


Submit a Comment/Letter
Submit a Comment/Letter

Summary for Patients

Clinical Slide Sets

Terms of Use

The In the Clinic® slide sets are owned and copyrighted by the American College of Physicians (ACP). All text, graphics, trademarks, and other intellectual property incorporated into the slide sets remain the sole and exclusive property of the ACP. The slide sets may be used only by the person who downloads or purchases them and only for the purpose of presenting them during not-for-profit educational activities. Users may incorporate the entire slide set or selected individual slides into their own teaching presentations but may not alter the content of the slides in any way or remove the ACP copyright notice. Users may make print copies for use as hand-outs for the audience the user is personally addressing but may not otherwise reproduce or distribute the slides by any means or media, including but not limited to sending them as e-mail attachments, posting them on Internet or Intranet sites, publishing them in meeting proceedings, or making them available for sale or distribution in any unauthorized form, without the express written permission of the ACP. Unauthorized use of the In the Clinic slide sets will constitute copyright infringement.


Want to Subscribe?

Learn more about subscription options

Related Articles
Topic Collections
PubMed Articles
Forgot your password?
Enter your username and email address. We'll send you a reminder to the email address on record.