Double inter-hospital transfer in Sepsis patients presenting to the ED does not worsen mortality compared to single inter-hospital transfer

6Citations
Citations of this article
30Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Purpose: Sepsis is a leading cause of hospital deaths. Inter-hospital transfer is frequent in sepsis and is associated with increased mortality. Some sepsis patients undergo two inter-hospital transfers (double transfer). This study assessed the (1) prevalence, (2) associated risk factors, (3) associated mortality, and (4) hospital length-of-stay and costs of double-transfer of sepsis patients. Materials and methods: Retrospective cohort study using 2005–2014 administrative claims data in Iowa. Multivariable generalized estimating equations adjusted for potential confounding variables, with a primary outcome of mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital length-of-stay and costs. Hospital-specific cost-to-charge ratios estimated hospital costs. Hospitals were categorized into quintiles based on sepsis-volume. Results: Of 15,182 sepsis subjects, there were 45.2% non-transfers and 2.1% double-transfers. Double-transfers had worse mortality than non-transfers but not single-transfers. Of the non-transfers, 44.9% presented to a top sepsis-volume hospital compared to 22.8% of double-transfers and 25.1% of single-transfers. After transfer from first to second hospital, 93.4% of the single-transfers and 92.2% of the double-transfers were at a top sepsis-volume hospital. Double-transfers had longer length-of-stay and more in total hospital costs than single-transfers. Conclusions: Double-transfer occurs in 2.1% of Iowa sepsis patients. Double-transfers had similar mortality and increased length of stay and costs compared to single-transfers.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Arulraja, M. D., Swanson, M. B., & Mohr, N. M. (2020). Double inter-hospital transfer in Sepsis patients presenting to the ED does not worsen mortality compared to single inter-hospital transfer. Journal of Critical Care, 56, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2019.11.018

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free