Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34791596›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2022

Standardized Transfer Process for a Neurointensive Care Unit and Assessment of Patient Bounceback.

Cody L Nathan, Laura Stein, Lisa J George, Bethany Young, Jessica Fuller, Brianna Gravina, Phyllis Dubendorf, Scott E Kasner, Monisha A Kumar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Cody L NathanDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA. cody.nathan@nm.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9407-3427
Laura SteinDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Lisa J GeorgeDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Bethany YoungDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Jessica FullerDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Brianna GravinaDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Phyllis DubendorfDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Scott E KasnerDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Monisha A KumarDepartment of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania Health System, Philadelphia, PA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients who require readmission to an intensive care unit (ICU) after transfer to a lower level of care ("bounceback") suffer from increased mortality and longer hospital stays. We aimed to create a multifaceted standardized transfer process for patients moving from the neurointensive care unit (neuro-ICU) to a lower level of care. We hypothesized that this process would lead to improvement in provider-rated safety and a decreased rate of bouncebacks to the neuro-ICU after transfer.

methodsThe study took place at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from October 2018 to October 2020. A standardized five-step transfer process was created and implemented for transferring patients from the neuro-ICU to a lower level of care. Patient care providers completed a survey before and after implementation of the protocol to assess a variety of components related to safety concerns when transferring patients. The rate of bouncebacks pre and post intervention was calculated by using a two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and disposition at discharge was calculated by using Fisher's exact test.

resultsOf the 1176 total patient transfers out of the neuro-ICU, 29 patients bounced back within 48 h. The average age of patients who bounced back was 63.3 years old, with a similar distribution among men and women. The most common reason for bounceback was respiratory distress, followed by cardiac arrhythmia, stroke, and sepsis. Implementation of the standardized process led to a decrease in provider-rated concern of overall safety (5 to 3, p = 0.008). There was improvement in transfer delays due to bed availability (3 to 4.5, p = 0.020), identification of high-risk patients (5 to 6, p = 0.021), patient assignment to the appropriate level of care (5 to 6, p = 0.019), and use of the electronic medical record handoff indicator (5 to 6, p = 0.003). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of patient bounceback rate after implementation of the process (2.4% vs. 2.5%, p = 1.00) or patient disposition at discharge (p = 0.553).

conclusionsPatients who bounceback to the neuro-ICU within 48 h had an increased length of hospital stay, had an increased length of ICU stay, and were more likely to be intubated for more than 96 h. Implementation of a standardized five-step transfer process from the neuro-ICU to a lower level of care resulted in improvement in multiple provider-rated safety outcomes and identification of high-risk patients but led to no difference in the patient bounceback rate or patient disposition at discharge.

Indexed as

Intensive Care UnitsPatient TransferFemaleHumansLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedNeurocritical carePatient handoffPatient transferQuality improvementReadmission

Identifiers

PMID34791596
PMCPMC8598102

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.