Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28929392›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2018

Preventing Early Bouncebacks to the Neurointensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Analysis and Quality Improvement Pilot.

David G Coughlin, Monisha A Kumar, Neha N Patel, Rebecca L Hoffman, Scott E Kasner

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David G CoughlinDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, 3W Gates Pavilion, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA. David.Coughlin@uphs.upenn.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4111-0102
Monisha A KumarDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, 3W Gates Pavilion, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Neha N PatelDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Rebecca L HoffmanDepartment of Surgery, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Scott E KasnerDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce St, 3W Gates Pavilion, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly 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.

methodsFirst, 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.

resultsWithin 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.

conclusionPatients 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.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCritical CareFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleMiddle AgedNervous System DiseasesPatient ReadmissionPatient TransferPilot ProjectsQuality ImprovementRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsBouncebackCritical careNeurointensive care unitQuality improvementReadmission

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.