Tag Archives: transfer

Trauma Systems

Best of EAST #4: Futile Trauma Transfers

Leave a comment

Level I and II trauma centers are regularly on the receiving end of what may be termed as “futile transfers.” These are patients who have sustained unsalvageable injuries and are initially seen at a lower level center. They are then transferred upstream where they succumb shortly (0-48 hours) after arrival.

As you might imagine, these patients can place a significant burden on resources at the Level I or II center. This is an even more acute situation given the large numbers of COVID patients who also require hospitalization and palliative care services these days.

The group at the University of Kansas sought to put some numbers on this phenomenon. They examined their own experience as one of two Level I trauma centers in the Kansas City metro area. They defined futile care as patients who died or were discharged to hospice care within 48 hours of arrival and who did not undergo operative, endoscopic, or interventional radiology procedures.

Here are the factoids:

  • A total of 1,241 patients were transferred in during the two year study period
  • Of these, 407 had stays of 48 hours or less, and 18 (1.5%) were deemed futile care according to their definition
  • The futile care patients tended to be much older (75 vs 61 years) and were much more severely injured (ISS 21 vs 8)
  • When transport and hospital charges were combined, the average total cost was $56,000
  • Total cost to this hospital was $1.7 million, and this was extrapolated to an annual cost of 27 million for the entire US

The authors concluded that these futile transfers are a small yet costly patient population. They suggested that accurately identifying these patients and providing resources to help referral hospitals figure out how to care for them would be helpful.

My comments: This is a very straightforward descriptive paper that details a problem that every high level trauma center sees on a regular basis. Older patients, typically those with critical head injuries that are beyond treatment, are transferred to the “big house.” The families are frequently told that there are no local resources to provide the care needed, and that the higher level center is their only chance. 

The families then have unrealistic expectations, and are inconvenienced by the travel involved. Wouldn’t it be better to just tell the family that the injury is a really bad one, and provide palliative / hospice care in the local community? Unfortunately, it’s not that simple. Many small hospitals do not have providers who are well-versed in this type of care. Thus, the suggestion to provide resources (people? training?) is a sound one.

This abstract highlights a problem we all face but seldom publicize. Hopefully this one will get us talking. And acting.

Here are my questions for the authors and presenter:

  1. What kind of resources do you think are needed to allow referral hospitals to care for these patients?
  2. How will these hospitals know when care is futile? Will there be an expectation to work with the receiving center to help determine this?

I enjoyed this paper and can’t wait to hear the details!

Reference: Futile trauma transfers: an infrequent but costly component of regionalized trauma care. EAST 2021, paper 9.

CNS

Redefining Mild TBI: Who Needs To Be Transferred?

Leave a comment

One of the more common reasons for transfer to a higher level trauma center these days is the “mild or minimal TBI.” Technically, this consists of any patient with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 14 or 15. A transfer is typically requested for observation or neurosurgical consultation, or because the clinicians at the initial hospital are not comfortable looking after the patient.

Is this really necessary? With the number of ground level falls approaching epidemic proportions, transferring all these patients could begin to overwhelm the resources of high level trauma centers. The surgical group at Carolinas Medical Center examined their experience with a simple scoring system they designed to predict high risk minor TBI patients, and thus suitability for transfer. Here is their checklist:

Category A
  • Traumatic SAH
  • Tentorial or falcine SDH < 4mm thickn
  • Convexity SDH < 4mm thick
  • Solitary IPH < 1cm
  • Isolated intraventricular hemorrhage < 4mm
Category B
  • Any Category A lesion greater than the allowed size
  • Midline shift
  • Skull fracture
  • Compression of basal cisterns
  • Diffuse SAH or SAH involving basal cisterns
  • Subacute or chronic SDH
SAH = subarachnoid hemorrhage, SDH = subdural hemorrhage, IPH = intraparenchymal hemorrhage

Patients were considered to be low risk if they had only one or two category A lesions. If they had more than two, or any Category B lesions, they were higher risk and transfer was considered justified.

The authors retrospectively reviewed their experience with these patients over a three year period. They followed patients to see if they needed neurosurgical intervention, and evaluated the cost savings of avoiding selective transfers based on their criteria.

Here are the factoids:

  • A total of 2120 patients were studied, with 68% low risk and 32% high risk
  • Two of the low risk patients (0.14%)  ultimately required neurosurgical intervention, compared to 21% of high risk patients
  • Mean age (56), and patients taking anticoagulants or antiplatelet agents were the same in the two groups, about 2-3% for each
  • System saving by avoiding EMS transfer costs would have been $734K had the low risk patients been kept at the initial hospital

Bottom line: This study was presented as a Quick Shot paper at this year’s Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma meeting, so there are some key details missing. Was there an association between anticoagulation or antiplatelet agent and two failures in the low risk group? What were they, and what intervention did they require?

If this data holds up to publication, then it may provide a useful tool for deciding to keep minimal TBI patients at the local hospital. This is usually far more convenient for the patient and their family, but would require additional education of the clinicians at that hospital to help them become comfortable managing these patients. 

We use a similar tool within our Level I trauma center to decide which patients require a neurosurgical consultation. Since the low risk patients almost never require intervention, our trauma service provides comprehensive management while in hospital, and arranges for TBI clinic followup post-discharge. You can view and download a copy using the link below.

Link: Regions Hospital SAH/IPH/Skull fracture practice guideline

Reference: Redefining minimal traumatic brain injury (MTBI): a novel CT criteria to predict intervention. Quick Shot Paper #48, EAST 2019.

Trauma Center, Trauma Systems

Secondary Overtriage: What Is It, And Why Is It Bad?

Leave a comment

Simply put, secondary overtriage (SO) is the unnecessary transfer of a patient to another hospital. How can you, as the referring trauma professional, know that it is unnecessary? Almost by definition, you can’t, unless you have some kind of precognition. If you knew it wasn’t necessary, you wouldn’t do it in the first place, right?

But using the retrospectoscope, it’s much easier. The classic definition describes a patient who is discharged from the hospital shortly after arrival there. What is “shortly?” Typically, it occurs within 48 hours in a patient with low injury severity (ISS < 16) and without operative intervention. Definitions may vary slightly.

And why is it bad?

Several states with rural trauma systems have scrutinized this issue. The first study is from West Virginia, where six years of state registry data were analyzed. Over 19,000 adults were discharged home from a non-Level I center within 48 hours after an injury. Of those, about 1,900 (10%) had been transferred to a “higher level of care” and discharged from that center (secondary overtriage, could be any higher-level trauma center).

The factoids:

  • Patients with ISS > 15 and requiring blood transfusion were more likely to be SO. (I would argue that this is appropriate triage in most cases!)
  • Neurosurgical, spine and facial injuries were also associated with SO. (This one is a little more interesting, see below).
  • SO was more likely for transfers during the night shift, when resources are often more scarce

The problem is that this study is descriptive only. It doesn’t really help us figure out which patients could/should be kept based on any of the variables they collected.

The next study is from Dartmouth in New Hampshire and examines transfers into that single Level I center from 72 other hospitals. Registry data were examined over 5 years, identifying transfer patients with ISS < 15 who were discharged within 48 hours without an operation.

Yet more factoids:

  • 62% of the nearly 8,000 patients received by this center were transfers
  • Overall SO rate was 26%
  • A quarter of adult patients and one half of pediatric patients were considered SO, and about 15% of them were actually discharged from the ED (!)
  • Head and neck, and soft tissue injuries were most common among SO patients

The real bottom line: Here are my thoughts on what you can do to try to decrease the number of your patients with SO and optimize the transfer process:

  • Work with your upstream trauma center to determine how much imaging you really need to perform
  • Develop a reliable method of getting those images to them
  • Ask them to help you develop practice guidelines and educate your hospital/ED staff to help manage common diagnoses that often result in SO from your center
  • If you are located in a rural area, inquire about RTTD courses you might attend

References:

  • Secondary overtriage in a statewide rural trauma system. J Surg Research 198:462-467, 2015.
  • Secondary overtriage: the burden of unnecessary interfacility transfers in a rural trauma system. JAMA Surg 48(8):763-768, 2013.
Trauma Center, Trauma Systems

Radiographic Image Sharing Systems

Leave a comment

There are generally three ways to share radiographic images with your upstream trauma center:

  • Hard copy. These days, that usually means a CD. Nearly all PACS systems (picture archiving and communications systems) can write CDs that can accompany your patient. Advantage: super cheap. Possible downsides: the CD may be corrupted and not openable, the software on the disk cannot be installed or will not run at the receiving hospital, and finally it can just be forgotten in the rush to get the patient out of the ED.
  • PACS system connections. These are software links that enable one hospital’s PACS software to communicate with another’s. They must be established in advance, and generally require some expertise from the hospitals’ IT departments. Images can be pushed from one system to another. Advantages: once set up, it is very inexpensive to maintain, and images can be viewed prior to patient arrival at the receiving hospital. Possible downside: Al-though the interchange format is standardized, every once in a while the systems just can’t communicate.
  • Web-based image sharing system. This consists of a web server-based software application available via the internet that allows subscribing hospitals to sign on and share images. Referring hospitals can upload images from their PACS systems for free, and the receiving hospital can view the images and/or download into their own system. Advantage: these products are simple to set up, and easy to use after just a little training. Compatibility is very high, and the services are continually working to ensure it. Downside: expensive. Depending on specifics, the annual subscription may be up to $100K per year, and is generally footed by the receiving trauma center.

Is a web-based solution worth it? MetroHealth in Cleveland looked at this over five years ago, and published their results in 2015. They looked at their experience pre- and post-implementation and found the following:

  • Three years of transfer data prior to the web system implementation was compared to one year of experience after
  • CT imaging decreased at both referring and receiving hospitals across the study period
  • Repeat scan rate decreased from 38% to 28%. Repeat head scans were the major driver at 21%.
  • Cost of reimaging dropped from about $1000 per patient to $600

Bottom line: As a referring hospital, it is your responsibility to ensure that the (hopefully) few images you obtain make it to the upstream trauma center. Although hard copy (CD) is the cheapest, it is also the least reliable. Work with your radiology and IT departments to determine which electronic solution is best for you. Some states and regional trauma systems help subsidize or provide a web-based solution for their member hospitals.

Reference: Implementation of an image sharing system significantly reduced repeat computed tomographic imaging in a regional trauma system. J Trauma 80(1):51-56, 2016.

Trauma Center, Trauma Systems

Impact Of Patient Imaging Prior To Transfer Out

Leave a comment

The reality is that 90% of injuries are minor and can be treated at any hospital. A minority of patients actually have issues that require transfer to a higher-level trauma center. Physical examination can certainly help determine who some of those patients are. Think obvious open fracture or severe brain injury at a hospital without key specialists to care for them.

But not all injuries are that obvious. Imaging techniques are the next step to identifying injuries that would require transfer. The question is, how much imaging is appropriate?

A few hospitals are selective about it. But many proceed with a comprehensive battery of scans and x-rays. Some believe that their receiving trauma center expects it. And a few may be doing it for the money, unfortunately. So who is right?

There are three issues at play: time, accuracy, and radiation exposure. Let’s pick them apart.

Time. It takes time to get radiographic studies. Depending on the number obtained, it can take up to 90 minutes. A study looking at transfers from rural hospitals to a regional trauma center in Wisconsin found that the median time to transfer significantly in-creased from 67 to 140 minutes with the addition of even a single CT scan.

This issue appears to be even more of a problem in children. A group at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital studied the characteristics of children who experienced prolonged transfer times to a Level I pediatric trauma center. They reviewed 5 years of registry data, looking at time of injury to time of arrival at their center. The State of Ohio has a goal of a maximum 2-hour transfer time.

And here are the factoids:

  • 748 patients were included in the study, and the demographics were predictable (65%male, 97% blunt)
  • 25% were more severely injured (ISS > 15)
  • The majority of the patients (82%) arrived well after the 2-hour goal (7 hrs!!)
  • 79% of patients with high ISS and 47% of those with severe TBI arrived late (!!)
  • Transfer tardiness did not correlate with distance, and was only slightly improved when a helicopter was used
  • Significantly more CT scans were obtained in the late transfer group (49% vs 23%), and appeared to have no correlation with GCS or vital signs. There was, however, a significant correlation with private insurance.
  • Half of the children with scans arrived without results or had suboptimal imaging, resulting in repeat scans in about one third.

Accuracy and radiation exposure. These two factors are inextricably linked because inaccuracy begets additional imaging. As noted in the previous study, radiology results are frequently lacking, or the studies are not done well, as determined by the receiving center. This means that inaccurate results, or no results at all, are available after transfer. How much of a problem is this?

The Level I center at UC Davis looked at all incoming trauma transfers that had any CT imaging done prior. Of 370 patients, one quarter needed repeat scans. Most common were head scans (47%) and cervical spine (20%). The most common reasons for repetition were referring hospital scan not available (42%) (not sent, couldn’t open) and insufficient quality (20%). This resulted in significant additional radiation exposure, with 4% of patients receiving more than 10mSv!

Bottom line: Imaging prior to transfer definitely increases time to transfer and frequently results in repeat imaging and more radiation exposure. So why does it happen? Sometimes, it’s the mistaken belief that it will save time after transfer. Not the case. Or there is time left before the transport ambulance or helicopter arrives, so why not use it? Not a good reason, and it may delay the transfer team if they arrive early. Or the receiving trauma center “expects it.” Not if they’ve looked at any of these papers!

The best approach is to order only images that will guide your therapy. A chest x-ray on arrival or after intubation. A pelvic x-ray to determine if a binder should be applied. A CT of the abdomen to see if there are any injuries that can’t be taken care of at your hospital. As a general rule, once you have found an injury your hospital can’t treat, or have made the decision to transfer for any other reason, no additional imaging is indicated! 

References:

  • Consequences of increased use of computed tomography imaging for trauma patients in rural referring hospitals prior to transfer to a regional trauma centre. Injury 45:835-839, 2014.
  • Unnecessary imaging, not hospital distance, or transportation mode impacts delays in the transfer of injured children. Pediatric Emerg Care 26(7):481-486, 2010.
  • Rate and Reasons for Repeat CT Scanning in Transferred Trauma Patients. Am Surg 83(5):465-569, 2017.