ArticleNeurocritical care2018
Preventing Early Bouncebacks to the Neurointensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Analysis and Quality Improvement Pilot.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Rothman Index predicts unplanned readmissions to intensive care associated with increased mortality and hospital length of stay: a propensity-matched cohort study.Patient safety in surgery · 2024Article
- Facilitators and inhibitors of traumatic brain injury transfers: A fieldwork investigation.Nursing open · 2023Article
- Frequency, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Unplanned Readmission to the Neurological Intensive Care Unit after Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Neurocritical care · 2022Observational
- Standardized Transfer Process for a Neurointensive Care Unit and Assessment of Patient Bounceback.Neurocritical care · 2022Article
- Novel Score for Stratifying Risk of Critical Care Needs in Patients With Intracerebral Hemorrhage.Neurology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
28929392What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.