Search

Background: Regionalization of emergency general surgery (EGS) has primarily focused on expediting care of high acuity patients through interfacility transfers. In contrast, triaging low-risk patients to a nondesignated trauma facility has not been evaluated. This study evaluates a 16-month experience of a five-surgeon team triaging EGS patients at a tertiary care, Level I trauma center (TC) to an affiliated community hospital 1.3 miles away., Methods: All EGS patients who presented to the Level I TC emergency department from January 2020 to April 2021 were analyzed. Patients were screened by EGS surgeons covering both facilities for transfer appropriateness including hemodynamics, resource need, and comorbidities. Patients were retrospectively evaluated for disposition, diagnosis, comorbidities, length of stay, surgical intervention, and 30-day mortality and readmission., Results: Of 987 patients reviewed, 31.5% were transferred to the affiliated community hospital, 16.1% were discharged home from the emergency department, and 52.4% were admitted to the Level I TC. Common diagnoses were biliary disease (16.8%), bowel obstruction (15.7%), and appendicitis (14.3%). Compared with Level I TC admissions, Charlson Comorbidity Index was lower (1.89 vs. 4.45, p < 0.001) and length of stay was shorter (2.23 days vs. 5.49 days, p < 0.001) for transfers. Transfers had a higher rate of surgery (67.5% vs. 50.1%, p < 0.001) and lower readmission and mortality (8.4% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.004; 0.6% vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001). Reasons not to transfer were emergency evaluation, comorbidity burden, operating room availability, and established care. No transfers required transfer back to higher care (under-triage). Bed days saved at the Level I TC were 693 (591 inpatients). Total operating room minutes saved were 24,008 (16,919, between 7:00 am and 5:00 pm)., Conclusion: Transfer of appropriate patients maintains high quality care and outcomes, while improving operating room and bed capacity and resource utilization at a tertiary care, Level I TC. Emergency general surgery regionalization should consider triage of both high-risk and low-risk patients., Level of Evidence: Prospective comparative cohort study, Level II., (Copyright © 2021 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma.)

Objective: There are limited data regarding the typical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients requiring interfacility transport or the clinical capabilities of the out-of-hospital transport clinicians required to provide safe transport. The objective of this study is to provide epidemiologic data and highlight the clinical skill set and decision making needed to transport critically ill COVID-19 patients., Methods: A retrospective chart review of persons under investigation for COVID-19 transported during the first 6 months of the pandemic by Johns Hopkins Lifeline was performed. Patients who required interfacility transport and tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 by polymerase chain reaction assay were included in the analysis., Results: Sixty-eight patients (25.4%) required vasopressor support, 35 patients (13.1%) were pharmacologically paralyzed, 15 (5.60%) were prone, and 1 (0.75%) received an inhaled pulmonary vasodilator. At least 1 ventilator setting change occurred for 59 patients (22.0%), and ventilation mode was changed for 11 patients (4.10%) during transport., Conclusion: The safe transport of critically ill patients with COVID-19 requires experience with vasopressors, paralytic medications, inhaled vasodilators, prone positioning, and ventilator management. The frequency of initiated critical interventions and ventilator adjustments underscores the tenuous nature of these patients and highlights the importance of transport clinician reassessment, critical thinking, and decision making., (Copyright © 2021 Air Medical Journal Associates. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Research that focuses on transfers to and from the intensive care unit (ICU) could highlight important patients' safety issues. This study aims to describe healthcare workers' (HCWs) practices involved in patient transfers to or from the ICU.This cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs during the Saudi Critical Care Society's annual International Conference, April 2017. Responses were assessed using Likert scales and frequencies. Bivariate analysis was used to evaluate the significance of different indicators.Overall, 312 HCWs participated in this study. Regarding transfer to ICUs, the most frequently reported complications were deterioration in respiratory status (51.4%), followed by deterioration in hemodynamic status (46.5%), and missing clinical information (35.5%). Regarding transfers from ICUs to the general ward, the most commonly reported complications were changes in respiratory status (55.6%), followed by incomplete clinical information (37.9%), and change in hemodynamic conditions (29%). The most-used models for communicating transfers were written documents in electronic health records (69.3%) and verbal communication (62.8%). One-fourth of the respondents were not aware of the Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR) method of patients' handover. Pearson's test of correlation showed that the HCW's perceived satisfaction with their hospital transfer guidelines showed significant negative correlation with their reported transfer-related complications (r = -0.27, P < .010).Hemodynamic and respiratory status deterioration is representing significant adverse events among patients transferred to or from the ICU. Factors controlling the perceived satisfaction of HCWs involved in patients, transfer to and from the ICU need to be addressed, focusing on their compliance to the hospital-wide transfer and handover policies. Quality improvement initiatives could improve patient safety to transfer patients to and from the ICU and minimize the associated adverse events., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Patients discharged from critical care to general hospital wards are vulnerable to clinical deterioration, critical care readmission, and death. In response, routine critical care stepdown programmes (CCSDPs) have been widely developed, which involve the review of all patients on general wards following discharge from critical care by multidisciplinary Outreach teams with critical care skills., Aims and Objectives: This review aims to answer the question: do routine CCSDPs reduce readmission and/or mortality among patients discharged from critical care?, Design: Systematic review of quantitative studies and meta-analysis., Methods: Six databases were comprehensively searched from inception (CENTRAL, Cochrane Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and web of Science), alongside grey literature and trial registers. Studies investigating the effect of routine CCSDPs delivered by Outreach nurses on readmission and/or mortality following discharge from adult critical care to general hospital wards were included. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool., Results: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria, with data from 6 studies pooled in 3 meta-analyses. Among patients exposed to routine CCSDPs, pooled data estimated a statistically nonsignificant reduction in the risk of readmission to critical care (risk ratio [RR] 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-1.09; P = .19), a statistically significant increase in the risk of readmission to critical care within 72 hours (RR 1.49; 95% CI 1.05-2.12; P = .03), a statistically non-significant reduction in risk of mortality following critical care discharge (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.75-1.07; P = .22), and no association with mortality within 14 days of discharge., Conclusion: This review is unable to definitively conclude whether routine CCSDPs reduce critical care readmission or mortality following critical care discharge., Relevance to Clinical Practice: While the synthesized evidence does not suggest a change in policy and practice are warranted, neither does it support routine CCSDPs in the absence of high-quality evidence., (© 2020 British Association of Critical Care Nurses.)

Background: Hospitalized pediatric hematology-oncology (PHO) patients are at high risk for critical illness, especially in resource-limited settings. Unfortunately, there are no established quality indicators to guide institutional improvement for these patients. The objective of this study was to identify quality indicators to include in PROACTIVE (PediatRic Oncology cApaCity assessment Tool for IntensiVe carE), an assessment tool to evaluate the capacity and quality of pediatric critical care services offered to PHO patients., Methods: A comprehensive literature review identified relevant indicators in the areas of structure, performance, and outcomes. An international focus group sorted potential indicators using the framework of domains and subdomains. A modified, three-round Delphi was conducted among 36 international experts with diverse experience in PHO and critical care in high-resource and resource-limited settings. Quality indicators were ranked on relevance and actionability via electronically distributed surveys., Results: PROACTIVE contains 119 indicators among eight domains and 22 subdomains, with high-median importance (≥7) in both relevance and actionability, and ≥80% evaluator agreement. The top five indicators were: (a) A designated PICU area; (b) Availability of a pediatric intensivist; (c) A PHO physician as part of the primary team caring for critically ill PHO patients; (d) Trained nursing staff in pediatric critical care; and (e) Timely PICU transfer of hospitalized PHO patients requiring escalation of care., Conclusions: PROACTIVE is a consensus-derived tool to assess the capacity and quality of pediatric onco-critical care in resource-limited settings. Future endeavors include validation of PROACTIVE by correlating the proposed indicators to clinical outcomes and its implementation to identify service delivery gaps amenable to improvement., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of standardizing operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) handoffs in a mixed surgical population., Summary of Background Data: Standardizing OR to ICU handoffs improves information transfer after cardiac surgery, but there is limited evidence in other surgical contexts., Methods: This prospective interventional cohort study (NCT02267174) was conducted in 2 surgical ICUs in 2 affiliated hospitals. From 2014 to 2016, we developed, implemented, and assessed the effectiveness of a new standardized handoff protocol requiring bedside clinician communication using an information template. The primary study outcome was number of information omissions out of 13 possible topics, recorded by trained observers. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, bivariate analyses, and multivariable regression., Results: We observed 165 patient transfers (68 pre-, 97 postintervention). Before standardization, observed handoffs had a mean 4.7 ± 2.9 information omissions each. After standardization, information omissions decreased 21.3% to 3.7 ± 1.9 (P = 0.023). In a pre-specified subanalysis, information omissions for new ICU patients decreased 36.2% from 4.7 ± 3.1 to 3.0 ± 1.6 (P = 0.008, interaction term P = 0.008). The decrement in information omissions was linearly associated with the number of protocol steps followed (P < 0.001). After controlling for patient stability, the intervention was still associated with reduced omissions. Handoff duration increased after standardization from 4.1 ± 3.3 to 8.0 ± 3.9 minutes (P < 0.001). ICU mortality and length of stay did not change postimplementation., Conclusion: Standardizing OR to ICU handoffs significantly improved information exchange in 2 mixed surgical ICUs, with a concomitant increase in handoff duration. Additional research is needed to identify barriers to and facilitators of handoff protocol adherence.

Background: Evidence-based research demonstrates that postoperative formalized handoff improves communication and satisfaction among hospital staff members, leading to improved patient outcomes., Objective: To improve postoperative patient safety in the surgical intensive care unit of a tertiary academic medical center., Methods: A verbal and written formal reporting method was designed, implemented, and evaluated. The intervention created an admission "time-out," allowing the handoff from surgical and anesthesia teams to the intensive care unit team and bedside nurses to occur in a more structured manner. Before and 1 year after implementation of the intervention, nurses completed surveys on the quality of postoperative handoff., Results: After the intervention, the proportion of nurses who reported receiving handoff from the surgical team increased from 20% to 60% ( P < .001). More nurses felt satisfied with the surgical handoff (46% before vs 74% after the intervention; P < .001), and more nurses frequently felt included in the handoff process (42% vs 74%; P < .001). Nurses perceived improved communication with surgical teams (93%), anesthesia teams (89%), and the intensive care unit team (94%), resulting in a perception of better patient care (88%)., Conclusion: After implementation of a systematic multidisciplinary handoff process, surgical intensive care nurses reported improved frequency and completeness of the postoperative handoff process, resulting in a perception of better patient care., (©2019 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Transitions of care from acute hospitalization to postacute rehabilitation settings evolved as a function of cost-saving changes to the Medicare Prospective Payment System. Restricted criteria for inpatient rehabilitation facility admission limited access for patients with severe physical and cognitive deficits. Once used as a resource-intense supplement to hospital care, skilled nursing facilities have metamorphosed into rehabilitation settings with limited nursing staff, lower intensity of therapies, and decreased community discharge rates. A collaborative approach to care transitions, using acute and postacute health care providers, provides the opportunity to improve this process. Early physiatry consultation is a strategy for patients with neurologic disease., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To update the American Academy of Pediatrics and Society of Critical Care Medicine's 2004 Guidelines and levels of care for PICU., Design: A task force was appointed by the American College of Critical Care Medicine to follow a standardized and systematic review of the literature using an evidence-based approach. The 2004 Admission, Discharge and Triage Guidelines served as the starting point, and searches in Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and PubMed resulted in 329 articles published from 2004 to 2016. Only 21 pediatric studies evaluating outcomes related to pediatric level of care, specialized PICU, patient volume, or personnel. Of these, 13 studies were large retrospective registry data analyses, six small single-center studies, and two multicenter survey analyses. Limited high-quality evidence was found, and therefore, a modified Delphi process was used. Liaisons from the American Academy of Pediatrics were included in the panel representing critical care, surgical, and hospital medicine expertise for the development of this practice guidance. The title was amended to "practice statement" and "guidance" because Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology was not possible in this administrative work and to align with requirements put forth by the American Academy of Pediatrics., Methods: The panel consisted of two groups: a voting group and a writing group. The panel used an iterative collaborative approach to formulate statements on the basis of the literature review and common practice of the pediatric critical care bedside experts and administrators on the task force. Statements were then formulated and presented via an online anonymous voting tool to a voting group using a three-cycle interactive forecasting Delphi method. With each cycle of voting, statements were refined on the basis of votes received and on comments. Voting was conducted between the months of January 2017 and March 2017. The consensus was deemed achieved once 80% or higher scores from the voting group were recorded on any given statement or where there was consensus upon review of comments provided by voters. The Voting Panel was required to vote in all three forecasting events for the final evaluation of the data and inclusion in this work. The writing panel developed admission recommendations by level of care on the basis of voting results., Results: The panel voted on 30 statements, five of which were multicomponent statements addressing characteristics specific to PICU level of care including team structure, technology, education and training, academic pursuits, and indications for transfer to tertiary or quaternary PICU. Of the remaining 25 statements, 17 reached consensus cutoff score. Following a review of the Delphi results and consensus, the recommendations were written., Conclusions: This practice statement and level of care guidance manuscript addresses important specifications for each PICU level of care, including the team structure and resources, technology and equipment, education and training, quality metrics, admission and discharge criteria, and indications for transfer to a higher level of care. The sparse high-quality evidence led the panel to use a modified Delphi process to seek expert opinion to develop consensus-based recommendations where gaps in the evidence exist. Despite this limitation, the members of the Task Force believe that these recommendations will provide guidance to practitioners in making informed decisions regarding pediatric admission or transfer to the appropriate level of care to achieve best outcomes.

Background: Standards for interfacility transport in the United States recommend that each transport request be triaged to ensure that each patient is transported by an appropriate mechanism and by the appropriate clinicians in order to meet the patient's intratransport needs. No instrument currently exists to meet that need. The Transport Triage Tool, a novel instrument, has been designed to determine the clinician (paramedic, registered nurse, or advanced practice registered nurse) who will best meet the patient's needs during transport., Objective: To assess psychometric elements-that is, validity and reliability-of the Transport Triage Tool when used by health care professionals in determining which clinician is appropriate for interfacility transport., Methods: A 3-step process was used to initially evaluate the reliability and validity of this tool when assigning a lead clinician during transport. Content and predictive validity were evaluated. Both intrarater and interrater agreement were used to examine reliability., Results: Predictive validity was supported by an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.847 and a Youden index of 0.31. Percentage agreement and Cohen κ were reasonable across all periods of testing., Conclusions: The Transport Triage Tool has acceptable predictive validity and reliability; however, this preliminary evaluation indicates that further refinement is needed. Large tertiary centers that offer variations in transport team composition may be able to use the Tool in its present form to train and evaluate individuals who make decisions regarding interfacility transport, although additional testing and evaluation are recommended., (© 2019 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Aims and Objectives: The aims of this project were to (a) determine barriers to current handover and transport process, (b) develop a new protocol and process for team-to-team handover, and (c) evaluate staff satisfaction with the new process., Background: The handover and transport of critically ill patients from the paediatric emergency department to the paediatric intensive care unit is a period of vulnerability associated with adverse events., Design: A mixed-methods study using a quasi-experimental design and qualitative approach., Methods: Focus groups were conducted to determine the barriers and facilitators of the current handover and transport process. Using these themes, a multidisciplinary team developed and implemented a new process including establishment of eight patient criteria for specialised transport and a standardised, interdisciplinary handover tool for team-to-team handover. Staff satisfaction was examined pre- and postintervention., Results: Content analysis of focus groups revealed five categories: need for improved communication, cultural dissonance among units, defects in system and processes, need for standardisation and ambiguity between providers regarding acuity. Staff members reported improvements in their perceptions of satisfaction, safety, communication and role understanding associated with the new process., Conclusions: Standardisation through the establishment of severity of illness criteria and communication tools creates shared mental models and decreases risks to safety. A paradigm shift of team-to-team handover and transport is recommended., Relevance to Clinical Practice: This paper suggests the importance of improving communication during the handover and transport process through establishing standardised patient severity of illness criteria, use of standardised tools and team-to-team handover processes., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Critical care transport began in the 1970s as a response to the growing need to be able to transport critically ill and injured patients to tertiary care centers for higher levels of care or specialized treatments. Patients in critical condition now are transported great distances to receive potentially lifesaving treatment and interventions. Modes of critical care transport include ambulances, helicopters, and airplanes. Critical care transport teams consist of highly skilled paramedics, registered nurses, respiratory therapists, nurse practitioners, and physicians. Many patient populations benefit from transfer to a higher level of care via critical care transport, including patients who suffer acute neurologic insult such as spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage and ischemic stroke., (©2018 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Background: Early unplanned readmissions of "bouncebacks" to intensive care units are a healthcare quality metric and result in higher mortality and greater cost. Few studies have examined bouncebacks to the neurointensive care unit (neuro-ICU), and we sought to design and implement a quality improvement pilot to reduce that rate., Methods: First, we performed a retrospective chart review of 504 transfers to identify potential bounceback risk factors. Risk factors were assessed on the day of transfer by the transferring physician identifying patients as "high risk" or "low risk" for bounceback. "High-risk" patients underwent an enhanced transfer process emphasizing interdisciplinary communication and rapid assessment upon transfer during a 9-month pilot., Results: Within the retrospective cohort, 34 of 504 (4.7%) transfers required higher levels of care within 48 h. Respiratory failure and sepsis/hypotension were the most common reasons for bounceback among this group. During the intervention, 8 of 225 (3.6%) transfers bounced back, all of who were labeled "high risk." Being "high risk" was associated with a risk of bounceback (OR not calculable, p = 0.02). Aspiration risk (OR 6.9; 95% CI 1.6-30, p = 0.010) and cardiac arrhythmia (OR 7.1; 95% CI 1.6-32, p = 0.01) were independent predictors of bounceback in multivariate analysis. Bounceback rates trended downward to 2.8% in the final phase (p for trend 0.09). Eighty-five percent of providers responded that the pilot should become standard of care., Conclusion: Patients at high risk for bounceback after transfer from the neuro-ICU can be identified using a simple tool. Early augmented multidisciplinary communication and care for high-risk patients may improve their management in the hospital.

Introduction: It is widely accepted that transportation of critically ill patients is high risk. Unfortunately, however, there are currently no evidence-based criteria with which to determine the quality of various interhospital transport systems and their impact on the outcomes for patients. We aim to rectify this by assessing 2 scores which were developed in our hospital in a prospective, observational study. Primarily, we will be examining the Quality of interhospital critical care transportation in the Euregion Meuse-Rhine (QUIT EMR) score, which focuses on the quality of the transport system, and secondarily the SEMROS (Simplified EMR outcome score) which detects changes in the patient's clinical condition in the 24 hours following their transportation., Methods and Analysis: A web-based application will be used to document around 150 pretransport, intratransport and post-transport items of each patient case.To be included, patients must be at least 18-years of age and should have been supervised by a physician during an interhospital transport which was started in the study region.The quality of the QUIT EMR score will be assessed by comparing 3 predefined levels of transport facilities: the high, medium and low standards. Subsequently, SEMROS will be used to determine the effect of transport quality on the morbidity 24 hours after transportation.It is estimated that there will be roughly 3000 appropriate cases suitable for inclusion in this study per year. Cases shall be collected from 1 April 2015 until 31 December 2017., Ethics and Dissemination: This trial was approved by the Ethics committees of the university hospitals of Maastricht (Netherlands) and Aachen (Germany). The study results will be published in a peer reviewed journal. Results of this study will determine if a prospective randomised trial involving patients of various categories being randomly assigned to different levels of transportation system shall be conducted., Trial Registration Number: NTR4937., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.)

Quality Issue: Transfers from intensive care units to acute care units represent a complex care transition for hospitalized patients. Within our institution, variation in transfer practices resulted in unpredictable processes in which patient safety concerns were raised., Initial Assessment: Key stakeholders were engaged across the institution. Patient safety ('incident') reports and a staff survey identified safety concerns., Choice of a Solution: Using lean methodology, current transfer processes were mapped for the four adult intensive care units and waste was identified. During a summit of key stakeholders an ideal transfer process was conceived and a structured handoff tool (checklist) was developed. A daily management system (DMS) was implemented to monitor adherence., Evaluation: The primary process outcome was adherence to the standardized workflow. Audits at 4, 8, and 12 months after implementation indicated that the checklist was used for 100% of transfers. Secondary outcomes included the percentage of transfers completed within a pre-specified time window of 120 minutes, provider notification of patient arrival on the acute care unit, and staff survey responses assessing adequacy of transfer communication., Lessons Learned: Prior work has shown that structuring handoffs can improve patient safety, but the novelty of this project was addressing the transfer process in its entirety, across silos of care. Factors leading to the success of this project were the involvement of key stakeholders across the entire institution early in the project development phase, employment of lean methodology, and implementation of tools to guide workflow adherence and track causes of deviation from the workflow., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press in association with the International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Adult critical care patients in an academic medical center experienced adverse events during intrafacility transport resulting from lack of preparation. An intervention was needed to help keep patients safe during intrafacility transport., Objective: To develop a checklist for transport that is easy to use and effective in preparing patients for transport., Method: A checklist was developed and implemented. Elements of the checklist include preparation of the patient before transport, screening of patients for criteria that may place them at higher risk during transport, and a checklist for the procedural site., Results: From May 2011 through July 2014, 2506 transports were conducted. Of these, 97.6% (n = 2445) involved no reported complications., Conclusion: This tool is suitable for bedside clinicians to use when preparing patients for transport., (©2015 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Background: Interhospital transportation of critically ill patients is challenging. The risk incurred by the patient is compounded when stabilization and application of appropriate therapies are delayed. The purpose of this study was to first develop an interhospital intensive care unit (ICU) transfer instrument to systematize communication and determine feasibility of use. Then, the transfer instrument was tested for effects on patient mortality, stability on arrival, and recommended therapy implementation., Method: The instrument was developed and pilot tested for 6 months to optimize function and applicability. Then, a before-and-after quasi-experimental study tested this instrument by assessing several key outcomes. Outcomes measured included 48-hour mortality, ICU mortality, hospital mortality, emergent intubation, emergent central venous catheter insertion, immediate change in antibiotics, and addition of vasopressors immediately on arrival. Patients were compared by age, gender, cause for admission, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score. A standardized mortality ratio was calculated using the patient's APACHE II score. Pretransport recommendations to referring physicians and adherence to recommendations were also measured., Results: The preintervention group consisted of 134 patients collected continuously over 6 months. The postintervention group was collected continuously over a 6-month period and included 77 patients. The interhospital ICU transfer instrument was associated with fewer emergent central venous catheter insertions and fewer changes in antibiotics on arrival. Recommendations to transferring physicians were followed 90% of the time., Conclusions: The interhospital ICU transfer instrument is a tool that is effective in coordinating the transfer of medical ICU patients. Implementation leads to timely critical interventions and may reduce mortality., (© The Author(s) 2014.)

Purpose: The transfer of patient care from one health care worker to another involves communication in high-pressure contexts that are often vulnerable to error. This research project captured current practices for handoffs during the critical care stage of surgical recovery in a hospital setting. The objective was to characterize information flow during transfer and identify patterns of communication between nurses and physicians., Design and Methods: Observations were used to document communication exchanges. The data were analyzed qualitatively according to the types of information exchanged and verbal behavior types., Findings: Reporting and questions were the most common verbal behaviors, and retrospective medical information was the focus of information exchange. The communication was highly interactive when discussing patient status and future care plans. Nurses proactively asked questions to capture a large proportion of the information they needed., Conclusions: Findings reflect positive and constructive patterns of communication during handoffs in the observed hospital unit., (Copyright © 2015 American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To explore how registered nurses (RNs) in the general ward perceive discharge processes and practices for patients recently discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU)., Background: Patients discharged from the ICU environment often require complicated and multifaceted care. The ward-based RN is at the forefront of the care of this fragile patient population, yet their views and perceptions have seldom been explored., Design: A qualitative grounded theory design was used to guide focus group interviews with the RN participants., Methods: Five semi-structured focus group interviews, including 27 RN participants, were conducted in an Australian metropolitan tertiary referral hospital in 2011. Data analyses of transcripts, field notes and memos used concurrent data generation, constant comparative analysis and theoretical sampling., Results: Results yielded a core category of 'two worlds' stressing the disconnectedness between ICU and the ward setting. This category was divided into sub categories of 'communication disconnect' and 'remember the family'. Properties of 'what we say', 'what we write', 'transfer' and 'information needs' respectively were developed within those sub-categories., Conclusion: The discharge process for patients within the ICU setting is complicated and largely underappreciated. There are fundamental, misunderstood differences in prioritisation and care of patients between the areas, with a deep understanding of practice requirements of ward based RNs not being understood. The findings of this research may be used to facilitate inter departmental communications and progress practice development., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: To use intensive care unit (ICU) facilities efficiently and ensure high quality of care, an optimal patient flow is necessary. Discharging patients relieves the pressure on ICU beds but the risk of premature discharge must be managed carefully. Suboptimal patient discharge may result in ICU readmissions and in patients' death.The aim of this study is to obtain insight into the safety and efficiency of current ICU discharge practices and into barriers and facilitators to the implementation of effective ICU discharge interventions, and to develop an implementation strategy tailored to the barriers and facilitators identified., Methods/design: This study exists of five phases. Phase A: analysis of routinely registered data on variation in ICU readmissions and hospital mortality after ICU discharge of all ICUs participating in the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation registry (n=83). Phase B: systematic review of effective interventions aiming to improve the efficiency and safety of the ICU discharge process. Phase C: assessing the intervention adherence with a questionnaire survey among all Dutch ICUs (n=90). Phase D: assessing barriers and facilitators to the implementation of effective ICU discharge interventions with a questionnaire survey among all Dutch intensivists (n=700). The questionnaire will be based on barriers and facilitators identified by focus groups (n=4) and individual interviews with professionals of ICUs and general wards and adult discharged ICU patients (n=25 to 30). Phase E: systematic development of an implementation strategy based on the sampled data in phase A to D, and effective implementation strategies from the literature using the intervention mapping method., Discussion: Using theory and empirical data, an implementation strategy will be developed to improve the safety and efficiency of the ICU discharge process. The developed strategy will be evaluated in a subsequent study. The knowledge obtained in this study should be used for further implementation of ICU discharge interventions, and can be used for implementation of handover interventions in other healthcare transition settings.

Background: Handover (or 'handoff') is the exchange of information between health professionals that accompanies the transfer of patient care. This process can result in adverse events. Handover 'best practices', with emphasis on standardization, have been widely promoted. However, these recommendations are based mostly on expert opinion and research on medical trainees. By examining handover communication of experienced physicians, we aim to inform future research, education and quality improvement. Thus, our objective is to describe handover communication patterns used by attending critical care physicians in an academic centre and to compare them with currently popular, standardized schemes for handover communication., Methods: Prospective, observational study using video recording in an academic intensive care unit in Ontario, Canada. Forty individual patient handovers were randomly selected out of 10 end-of-week handover sessions of attending physicians. Two coders independently reviewed handover transcripts documenting elements of three communication schemes: SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendations); SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan); and a standard medical admission note. Frequency and extent of questions asked by incoming physicians were measured as well. Analysis consisted of descriptive statistics., Results: Mean (± standard deviation) duration of patient-specific handovers was 2 min 58 sec (± 57 sec). The majority of handovers' content consisted of recent and current patient status. The remainder included physicians' interpretations and advice. Questions posed by the incoming physicians accounted for 5.8% (± 3.9%) of the handovers' content. Elements of all three standardized communication schemes appeared repeatedly throughout the handover dialogs with no consistent pattern. For example, blocks of SOAP's Assessment appeared 5.2 (± 3.0) times in patient handovers; they followed Objective blocks in only 45.9% of the opportunities and preceded Plan in just 21.8%. Certain communication elements were occasionally absent. For example, SBAR's Recommendation and admission note information about the patient's Past Medical History were absent from 22 (55.0%) and 20 (50.0%), respectively, of patient handovers., Conclusions: Clinical handover practice of faculty-level critical care physicians did not conform to any of the three predefined structuring schemes. Further research is needed to examine whether alternative approaches to handover communication can be identified and to identify features of high-quality handover communication.

Background: Caring for patients during intrahospital transport is a high-risk activity. Few data exist on the use of specialized transport teams similar to the teams used for out-of-hospital transport., Objective: To describe the experience with a dedicated, intra-hospital transport program, to report the rate of clinically significant adverse events, and to examine types of adverse events, interventions provided, and outcomes., Methods: Patient transports within an academic quaternary-care hospital from November 2007 through April 2008 were retrospectively reviewed. Adverse events were defined as extubation, code team activation, death, sustained arrhythmia, hypoxia exceeding 5 minutes, hypotension exceeding 20% of baseline systolic or diastolic blood pressure and requiring intervention, use of physical restraints, or acute change in mental status., Results: A total of 3383 charts were reviewed (91.8% of all completed transports).The overall rate of adverse events was 1.7% (59 events). Most events were related to hypoxia (25/59) and blood pressure changes (25/59). One extubation and one code team activation occurred. Most interventions involved adjustments to oxygen therapy (22/59) and vasopressor management (18/59). Only 12 (20.3%) of the transports with adverse events were aborted, more often during magnetic resonance imaging (χ(2) = 6.86, df = 1, P = .01) and in older patients (mean [SD], 70.8 [14.2] vs 58.7 [14.9] years; P = .02)., Conclusions: The rate of clinically significant adverse events during patient transport by a specialized team is relatively low. Further studies are needed to compare effectiveness and mortality benefits between intrahospital transport teams and traditional transport teams.

Background: Critical Care Outreach Services (CCOS) have been reported to streamline the transfer of patients from the intensive care unit (ICU) to the wards and provide a follow-up service supporting ward staff to provide optimum care for patients discharged from ICU., Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions of nursing staff before and after the introduction of a CCOS at three adult teaching hospitals in Perth, Western Australia., Methods: Exploratory focus groups were conducted with registered nurses (RNs) at each of the participating hospitals prior to and 6 months after the introduction of a CCOS. Framework analysis was used to analyse the transcribed data using a thematic approach with themes developed from the narratives of the participants., Results: Inexperienced RNs in particular voiced positive comments about the CCOS. The role was seen as a senior nurse who was an additional resource for less experienced staff as they educated them on complex procedures that were not common on the general wards. The RNs reported that apprehensions about the role that they had pre-implementation were not borne out in practice and that they believed that the CCOS had positive effects on patient outcomes., Conclusion: The CCOS improved communication processes between members of the multidisciplinary team and units within the hospital, which subsequently enhanced the ward transition process for critically ill patients and ward nursing staff., (Crown Copyright © 2010. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine a) if a checklist covering a diverse group of intensive care unit protocols and objectives would improve clinician consideration of these domains and b) if improved consideration would change practice patterns., Design: Pre- and post observational study., Setting: A 24-bed surgical/burn/trauma intensive care unit in a teaching hospital., Patients: A total of 1399 patients admitted between June 2006 and May 2007., Interventions: The first component of the study evaluated whether mandating verbal review of a checklist covering 14 intensive care unit best practices altered verbal consideration of these domains. Evaluation was performed using real-time bedside audits on morning rounds. The second component evaluated whether the checklist altered implementation of these domains by changing practice patterns. Evaluation was performed by analyzing data from the Project IMPACT database after patients left the intensive care unit., Measurements and Main Results: Verbal consideration of evaluable domains improved from 90.9% (530/583) to 99.7% (669/671, p < .0001) after verbal review of the checklist was mandated. Bedside consideration improved on the use of deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis (p < .05), stress ulcer prophylaxis (p < .01), oral care for ventilated patients (p < 0.01), electrolyte repletion (p < .01), initiation of physical therapy (p < .05), and documentation of restraint orders (p < .0001). Mandatory verbal review of the checklist resulted in a greater than two-fold increase in transferring patients out of the intensive care unit on telemetry (16% vs. 35%, p < .0001) and initiation of physical therapy (28% vs. 42%, p < .0001) compared with baseline practice., Conclusions: A mandatory verbal review of a checklist covering a wide range of objectives and goals at each patient's bedside is an effective method to improve both consideration and implementation of intensive care unit best practices. A bedside checklist is a simple, cost-effective method to prevent errors of omission in basic domains of intensive care unit management that might otherwise be forgotten in the setting of more urgent care requirements.

Background: A patient admitted to the medical step-down unit experienced severe hypoglycemia due to an infusion of a higher-than-ordered insulin dose. The event could have been prevented if the insulin syringe pump was checked during the nursing shift handoff., Methods: Risk management exploration included direct observations of nursing shift handoffs, which highlighted common deficiencies in the process. This led to the development and implementation of a handoff protocol and the incorporation of handoff training into a simulation-based teamwork and communication workshop. A second round of observations took place 6 to 8 weeks following training., Results: The intervention demonstrated an increase in the incidence of nurses communicating crucial information during handoffs, including patient name, events that had occurred during the previous shift, and treatment goals for the next shift. However, there was no change in the incidence of checking the monitor alarms and the mechanical ventilator., Conclusions: Simulation-based training can be incorporated into the risk management process and can contribute to patient safety practice.

Research in adult patients, in the last decade, has highlighted suboptimal care and failures in the recognition of sick adults in ward areas. In addition, many of these patients (at least 50%) demonstrated documented evidence, on observation charts, of clinical deterioration in the 24-48 h preceding cardiopulmonary arrest or emergency intensive care unit admission. However, there is little published data on whether these findings apply to children (0-17 years). The aim of the study was to examine the extent of inpatient deterioration and critical care unit admission within a children's hospital based in the North West of England, during a 4-month period. The design included a prospective chart review of clinical observations. As noted in adult patients, there is considerable documented evidence (in terms of abnormal vital signs) of physiological deterioration in the 24 h preceding intensive care or high-dependency unit admission. The use of a Paediatric Early Warning (PEW) tool could potentially have identified 87% of these children of being 'at risk' of deterioration. It is recommended that a PEW tool be incorporated into the routine paediatric ward observation charts and practice to identify children 'at risk' of deterioration.

Aim: The purpose of this study was to establish healthcare professionals' perceptions of critical care outreach., Method: A multi-site survey approach was used to collect qualitative data., Results: Most respondents felt that outreach assisted with patient care by enabling the admission and smooth discharge to and from the critical care units and providing useful education and training that changed practice. Respondents also thought that the audits undertaken by the outreach teams benefited patient care., Conclusion: Overall, outreach was considered by healthcare professionals to enhance patient care and improve practice.

The transfer of critically ill patients between hospitals carries significant risk. The Mobile Intensive Care Ambulance Service (MICAS) in Ireland was established in 1996 to provide a ground transfer service between hospitals for critically ill patients. The aim of this audit was to determine if a centralised retrieval system for interhospital transport of critically ill patients in Ireland by MICAS is safe and efficient. 484 critically ill patients transported by MICAS between April 1996 and December 2004 were studied retrospectively. There were no patient deaths during transfer. 47% of transfers were between hospitals in the greater Dublin area. 45% were from regional centres to Dublin. 93% of patients required airway intervention before transfer (intubation or tracheostomy) and 32% needed inotropic support during transfer. The MICAS data confirm the demand for interhospital transport of critically ill patients and suggest that transfer using a centralised retrieval system is safe.

Nurse-led discharge from the High Dependency Unit (HDU) was introduced in 2002 with the aim of improving access to level 2 beds (beds offering higher level of support and observation; ). The project has yet to be formally evaluated but there have been perceived benefits for both patients and staff.

Objectives: Transport of the critically ill patient to or from the emergency department (ED) is a frequent occurrence. This study was designed to determine whether UK EDs currently have appropriate equipment, monitoring, staff training systems, and processes of care for transportation of the critically ill patient., Methods: A postal questionnaire regarding ED transfer patients was sent to 247 UK EDs, followed by repeat mailing and telephone follow up of non-responders., Results: In total, 139 EDs (56%) responded. An estimated 20-30 critically ill patients are transferred from and <20 are received by each ED annually. Processes of care are poorly developed; only 79 EDs (56%) have transfer guidelines available. Audit of transfers is ongoing in 59 EDs (42%), and critical incident reporting is ongoing in 122 (88%). There is a lack of immediately available transport equipment; for example, 17 EDs (12%) have no transport ventilator, 9 (6%) have no transport monitor, and 9 (6%) have no syringe pump. Transport equipment is invariably not standardised. Anaesthetic staff of specialist registrar (74 doctors; 53%) or senior house officer (36 doctors; 26%) grades carry out the majority of ED transfers accompanied by a D or E grade nurse. Both invariably have no formal transfer training., Conclusions: This study highlights inadequacies in provision of equipment and monitoring during interhospital transfer from the ED. Training and processes of care for transport of the critically ill are also suboptimum. Many departments are currently reviewing these processes to formalize and improve transfer training procedures and protocols.

How good is the care patients receive during interhospital transfer? The results of a study in this journal make for some disturbing reading. Adverse events occur in about one-third of cases. Half the time this can be related to not following advice from the receiving centre. Of these events, 70% are, in the author's opinion, avoidable and 30% are related to technical problems. So how do we make things better? All transfer equipment needs to be standardized and be "fit-for-purpose". Each hospital needs to take responsibility for the quality of care received in transfer, and this should include guidelines, training and equipment.

Objective: To demonstrate safety and efficacy of intraosseous needle placement among health care provider groups in the setting of pediatric critical care transport., Design: Retrospective chart review., Setting: Pediatric critical care transports to a pediatric intensive care unit., Patients: Children undergoing pediatric critical care transport between January 1, 2000, and March 31, 2002, requiring intraosseous access before arrival to the pediatric intensive care unit., Interventions: Intraosseous access placed for emergent vascular access., Measurements and Main Results: During the study period, the transport team performed 1,792 transports and identified 47 patients requiring 58 intraosseous placements. These were placed by emergency medical technician-paramedics (18%), referring emergency medicine physicians (42%), and the transport team members (40%). The intraosseous needles were placed with a mean of 1.2 attempts per placement and a first attempt success rate of 78%. Main site of placement was the proximal anterior tibia (95%). Access was maintained for a mean of 5.2 hrs. The intraosseous needle was used for fluids, medications, and laboratory studies. Admitting diagnoses included respiratory distress (28%), cardiopulmonary arrest (26%), neurologic insults (17%), dehydration (15%), sepsis (11%), and other (3%). Ages ranged from 3 wks to 14 yrs (mean 2.2 yrs) and weights from 2.1 to 60 kg (mean 12.3 kg). Complications were noted in seven of 58 (12%), all limited to local edema or infiltration., Conclusions: Intraosseous placement is frequently needed in the care of critically ill pediatric patients before they reach the pediatric intensive care unit. We have demonstrated that intraosseous needles can be placed safely with similar rates of success when comparing different provider groups. Emergency medical technician-paramedics, emergency medicine physicians, and pediatric critical care transport teams should be familiar with intraosseous placement.

During the past three decades, the specialty of pediatric critical care medicine has grown rapidly, leading to a number of pediatric intensive care units being opened across the country. Many patients who are admitted to the hospital require a higher level of care than the routine inpatient general pediatric care, yet not to the degree of intensity as pediatric critical care; therefore, an intermediate care level has been developed in institutions providing multiple disciplinary subspecialty pediatric care. These patients may require frequent monitoring of vital signs and nursing interventions but usually do not require invasive monitoring. The admission of the pediatric intermediate care patient is guided by physiologic parameters depending on the respective organ system involved relative to the institution's resources and capacity in caring for a patient in a general care environment. This report provides admission and discharge guidelines for intermediate pediatric care. Intermediate care promotes greater flexibility in patient triage and provides a cost-effective alternative to admission to a pediatric intensive care unit. This level of care may enhance the efficiency of care and improve the healthcare affordability for patients receiving intermediate care.

Objective: The development of practice guidelines for the conduct of intra- and interhospital transport of the critically ill patient., Data Source: Expert opinion and a search of Index Medicus from January 1986 through October 2001 provided the basis for these guidelines. A task force of experts in the field of patient transport provided personal experience and expert opinion., Study Selection and Data Extraction: Several prospective and clinical outcome studies were found. However, much of the published data comes from retrospective reviews and anecdotal reports. Experience and consensus opinion form the basis of much of these guidelines., Results of Data Synthesis: Each hospital should have a formalized plan for intra- and interhospital transport that addresses a) pretransport coordination and communication; b) transport personnel; c) transport equipment; d) monitoring during transport; and e) documentation. The transport plan should be developed by a multidisciplinary team and should be evaluated and refined regularly using a standard quality improvement process., Conclusion: The transport of critically ill patients carries inherent risks. These guidelines promote measures to ensure safe patient transport. Although both intra- and interhospital transport must comply with regulations, we believe that patient safety is enhanced during transport by establishing an organized, efficient process supported by appropriate equipment and personnel.

Review how one facility updated its pre-procedure checklist for transferring patients from the telemetry unit to the cardiovascular laboratory.

Introduction: Every day many admitted patients wait in emergency departments for available beds or for a receiving nurse to accomplish a transfer to an inpatient bed. The purpose of this study was to examine critical care patients' length of stay and time held in the emergency department once admitted to determine if (1) holding critical care patients in emergency departments after admission was related to skilled nursing shortages and/or limitations in available resources and (2) admission orders or tests may have been overlooked during this time. Little or no literature exists on this topic., Methods: A Likert scale survey designed to yield descriptive comparative correlational data was sent to directors of critical care and emergency service areas., Results: Received responses totaled 109. There is a positive correlation between increased length of stay and delays in implementation of admission orders while in emergency departments and tests missed or delayed upon arrival at the critical care unit. A majority of respondents indicated that ED nursing staff had responsibility for critical care admitted patients and other patients. Few indicated a formal process or committee was in place to address this issue specific to critical care patients. Limitations included a convenience sample and variations in operations related to size, location, and culture., Discussion: Further study is necessary to determine whether patients' length of stay in the hospital is increased because of delays in plans of care and if patient outcomes are ultimately affected.

Objective: To develop a predictive model to triage patients for discharge from intensive care units to reduce mortality after discharge., Design: Logistic regression analyses and modelling of data from patients who were discharged from intensive care units., Setting: Guy's hospital intensive care unit and 19 other UK intensive care units from 1989 to 1998., Participants: 5475 patients for the development of the model and 8449 for validation., Main Outcome Measures: Mortality after discharge and power of triage model., Results: Mortality after discharge from intensive care was up to 12.4%. The triage model identified patients at risk from death on the ward with a sensitivity of 65.5% and specificity of 87.6%, and an area under the receiver operating curve of 0.86. Variables in the model were age, end stage disease, length of stay in unit, cardiothoracic surgery, and physiology. In the validation dataset the 34% of the patients identified as at risk had a discharge mortality of 25% compared with a 4% mortality among those not at risk., Conclusions: The discharge mortality of at risk patients may be reduced by 39% if they remain in intensive care units for another 48 hours. The discharge triage model to identify patients at risk from too early and inappropriate discharge from intensive care may help doctors to make the difficult clinical decision of whom to discharge to make room for a patient requiring urgent admission to the unit. If confirmed, this study has implications on the provision of resources.

In recent years there has been a growing awareness of the problems people living in rural areas of Australia face in accessing health-care services. In particular, those experiencing a critical illness or major trauma and requiring specialist critical care services, often available only in metropolitan areas, may require inter-hospital transportation, usually by air ambulance. Management of such patients aims at achieving physiological stabilisation, organising the transfer and communicating with the transport team. As critical care nurses espouse a holistic approach to care, it is imperative that nursing practice aim to meet all the needs of these people. Therefore, critical care nurses should be aware of what such patients are experiencing. A qualitative research study, using Heideggerian hermeneutic phenomenology, was undertaken to explore the experiences of a group of people from rural NSW with a critical illness that necessitated their transfer by air ambulance to a metropolitan critical care unit for further management. Data analysis from interviews with the study participants revealed four major themes. This paper discusses the findings from one such theme, the impact of interhospital transportation, and highlights the anxiety and confusion experienced by rural people transferred to a metropolitan critical care unit. Recommendations for nursing care that minimises this anxiety and confusion are discussed.

Objectives: To evaluate the training of clinical staff in the use of interhospital transfer guidelines and to examine the underlying decision-making behavior in organizing patient transfers between hospitals., Design: Prospective assessment of clinical scenarios, given before (time 1), immediately after (time 2), and 3 months after (time 3) a program informing clinical staff about the use of interhospital transfer guidelines., Setting: Three emergency departments and one intensive care unit at three hospitals and a medical retrieval service in Sydney, Australia., Subjects: Physicians, nurses, and a paramedic working in critical care areas and at a medical retrieval service., Measurements and Main Results: A questionnaire containing clinical scenarios was administered to clinical staff. There was a significant difference in mean scores for selecting the appropriate escort levels across time (F2,78 = 24.2; p < .01) and for participant's experience with interhospital transfer (F2,39 = 4.63; p = .02). Significant improvement in mean scores occurred between time 1 (7.55 +/- 1.84 and time 2 (9.48 +/- 1.47) (t41 = -6.21; p < .01). The improvement in selecting appropriate escorts was maintained at time 3 (mean score 9.86 +/- 2.01). The error rate for inappropriate assignment of low levels of escorts decreased from 35% (time 1) to 10% (time 2) and 14% (time 3). Using conjoint analysis, there were large variations in the decision-making behaviour between each time period. The relative importance of each factor in influencing the decision to organize an escort at time 3 were as follows: treatment (43%); physiology (29%); patient age (24%); and diagnosis (4%). The decision-making model observed at time 3 had a high predictive value (87%) as compared with the model at time 1 (48%)., Conclusion: Clinical staff can make informed and appropriate decisions by using standardized guidelines when organizing interhospital transfers.