Bedspacing and clinical outcomes in general internal medicine: A retrospective, multicenter cohort study
- PMID: 35504572
- DOI: 10.1002/jhm.2734
Bedspacing and clinical outcomes in general internal medicine: A retrospective, multicenter cohort study
Abstract
Background: Admitting hospitalized patients to off-service wards ("bedspacing") is common and may affect quality of care and patient outcomes.
Objective: To compare in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission to general internal medicine (GIM), and hospital length-of-stay among GIM patients admitted to GIM wards or bedspaced to off-service wards.
Design, participants, and measures: Retrospective cohort study including all emergency department admissions to GIM between 2015 and 2017 at six hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We compared patients admitted to GIM wards with those who were bedspaced, using multivariable regression models and propensity score matching to control for patient and situational factors.
Key results: Among 40,440 GIM admissions, 10,745 (26.6%) were bedspaced to non-GIM wards and 29,695 (73.4%) were assigned to GIM wards. After multivariable adjustment, bedspacing was associated with no significant difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-1.05, p = .304), slightly shorter median hospital length-of-stay (-0.10 days, 95% CI:-0.20 to -0.001, p = .047) and lower 30-day readmission to GIM (adjusted OR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83-0.95, p = .001). Results were consistent when examining each hospital individually and outcomes did not significantly differ between medical or surgical off-service wards. Sensitivity analyses focused on the highest risk patients did not exclude the possibility of harm associated with bedspacing, although adverse outcomes were not significantly greater.
Conclusions: Overall, bedspacing was associated with no significant difference in mortality, slightly shorter hospital length-of-stay, and fewer 30-day readmissions to GIM, although potential harms in high-risk patients remain uncertain. Given that hospital capacity issues are likely to persist, future research should aim to understand how bedspacing can be achieved safely at all hospitals, perhaps by strengthening the selection of low-risk patients.
© 2022 Society of Hospital Medicine.
Comment in
-
Are disruptions to geographic cohorting safe?J Hosp Med. 2022 Jan;17(1):69-70. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2739. Epub 2022 Jan 15. J Hosp Med. 2022. PMID: 35504584 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Bai AD, Srivastava S, Tomlinson GA, Smith CA, Bell CM, Gill SS. Mortality of hospitalised internal medicine patients bedspaced to non‐internal medicine inpatient units: Retrospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2018;27(1):11‐20. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2017-006925
-
- Liu J, Griesman J, Nisenbaum R, Bell CM. Quality of care of hospitalized internal medicine patients bedspaced to non‐internal medicine inpatient units. PLoS One. 2014;9:e106763. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106763
-
- Kohn R, Harhay MO, Bayes B, et al. Influence of bedspacing on outcomes of hospitalised medicine service patients: a retrospective cohort study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;30:116‐122. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010675
-
- Song H, Tucker AL, Graue R, Moravick S, Yang JJ. Capacity pooling in hospitals: the hidden consequences of off‐service placement. Manage Sci. 2019;66(9):3825‐3842. doi:10.2139/ssrn.3186726
-
- Verma AA, Guo Y, Kwan JL, et al. Patient characteristics, resource use and outcomes associated with general internal medicine hospital care: the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI) retrospective cohort study. CMAJ Open. 2017;5:E842‐E849. doi:10.9778/cmajo.20170097
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
