Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Multicenter Study
. 2012 Oct 3;16(5):R179.
doi: 10.1186/cc11662.

Effect of non-clinical inter-hospital critical care unit to unit transfer of critically ill patients: a propensity-matched cohort analysis

Multicenter Study

Effect of non-clinical inter-hospital critical care unit to unit transfer of critically ill patients: a propensity-matched cohort analysis

Helen Barratt et al. Crit Care. .

Abstract

Introduction: No matter how well resourced, individual hospitals cannot expect to meet all peaks in demand for adult general critical care. However, previous analyses suggest that patients transferred for non-clinical reasons have worse outcomes than those who are not transferred, but these studies were underpowered and hampered by residual case-mix differences. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of transferring adult general critical care patients to other hospitals for non-clinical reasons.

Methods: We carried out a propensity-matched cohort analysis comparing critical care patients who underwent a non-clinical critical care unit to unit transfer to another hospital with those who were not transferred. The primary outcome measure was mortality at ultimate discharge from acute hospital. Secondary outcomes were mortality at ultimate discharge from critical care, plus length of stay in both critical care and acute hospital.

Results: A total of 308,323 patients were admitted to one of 198 adult general critical care units in England and Wales between January 2008 and September 2011. This included 759 patients who underwent a non-clinical transfer within 48 hours of admission to the unit and 1,518 propensity-matched patients who were not transferred. The relative risk of ultimate acute hospital mortality was 1.01 (95% confidence interval = 0.87 to 1.16) for the non-clinical transfer group, compared with patients who were not transferred but had a similar propensity for transfer. There was no statistically significant difference in ultimate critical care unit mortality. Transferred patients received on average three additional days of critical care (P < 0.001) but the difference in length of acute hospital stay was of only borderline significance (P = 0.05).

Conclusion: In our analysis the difference in mortality between non-clinical transferred and nontransferred patients was not statistically significant. Nevertheless, non-clinical transfers received, on average, an additional 3 days of critical care. This has potential ramifications in terms of distress, inconvenience and cost for patients, their families, and the National Health Service. We therefore need further evidence, including qualitative data from family members and cost-effective analyses, to better understand the broader effects of non-clinical transfer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Adjusted odds ratio for non-clinical transfer by age. Adjusted odds ratio for patients undergoing non-clinical transfer within 48 hours of admission to critical care by age relative to age 60 years.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Adjusted odds ratio for non-clinical transfer by physiology score. Adjusted odds ratio for patients undergoing non-clinical transfer within 48 hours of admission to critical care by Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC) Physiology Score relative to a score of 20.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Quantile-quantile plot comparing the distribution of age in cases and controls. Quantile-quantile plot comparing the distribution of age in patients undergoing a non-clinical transfer within 48 hours of admission to critical care (cases) and matched patients not undergoing transfer (controls).
Figure 4
Figure 4
Quantile-quantile plot comparing the distribution of physiology scores in cases and controls. Quantile-quantile plot comparing Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre Physiology Scores in cases and controls.

Comment in

References

    1. Ligtenberg JJ, Arnold LG, Stienstra Y, van der Werf TS, Meertens JH, Tulleken JE, Zijlstra JG. Quality of interhospital transport of critically ill patients: a prospective audit. Crit Care. 2005;16:R446–R451. doi: 10.1186/cc3749. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Easby J, Clarke F, Bonner S, Lawler P. Secondary inter-hospital transfers of critically ill patients: completing the audit cycle. Br J Anaesth. 2002;16:354.
    1. Department of Health. Comprehensive Critical Care. London: Department of Health; 2000.
    1. Intensive Care Society. Guidelines for Transport of the Critically Ill Adult. London: Intensive Care Society; 2011.
    1. Flabouris A, Hart GK, George C. Observational study of patients admitted to intensive care units in Australia and New Zealand after interhospital transfer. Crit Care Resusc. 2008;16:90–96. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources