OBJECTIVES: We applied social network analyses to determine how hospitals within Orange County, California, are interconnected by patient sharing, a system which may have numerous public health implications. METHODS: Our analyses considered 2 general patient-sharing networks: uninterrupted patient sharing (UPS; i.e., direct interhospital transfers) and total patient sharing (TPS; i.e., all interhospital patient sharing, including patients with intervening nonhospital stays). We considered these networks at 3 thresholds of patient sharing: at least 1, at least 10, and at least 100 patients shared. RESULTS: Geographically proximate hospitals were somewhat more likely to share patients, but many hospitals shared patients with distant hospitals. Number of patient admissions and percentage of cancer patients were associated with greater connectivity across the system. The TPS network revealed numerous connections not seen in the UPS network, meaning that direct transfers only accounted for a fraction of total patient sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrated that Orange County's 32 hospitals were highly and heterogeneously interconnected by patient sharing. Different hospital populations had different levels of influence over the patient-sharing network.
OBJECTIVES: We applied social network analyses to determine how hospitals within Orange County, California, are interconnected by patient sharing, a system which may have numerous public health implications. METHODS: Our analyses considered 2 general patient-sharing networks: uninterrupted patient sharing (UPS; i.e., direct interhospital transfers) and total patient sharing (TPS; i.e., all interhospital patient sharing, including patients with intervening nonhospital stays). We considered these networks at 3 thresholds of patient sharing: at least 1, at least 10, and at least 100 patients shared. RESULTS: Geographically proximate hospitals were somewhat more likely to share patients, but many hospitals shared patients with distant hospitals. Number of patient admissions and percentage of cancerpatients were associated with greater connectivity across the system. The TPS network revealed numerous connections not seen in the UPS network, meaning that direct transfers only accounted for a fraction of total patient sharing. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrated that Orange County's 32 hospitals were highly and heterogeneously interconnected by patient sharing. Different hospital populations had different levels of influence over the patient-sharing network.
Authors: R W Haley; A W Hightower; R F Khabbaz; C Thornsberry; W J Martone; J R Allen; J M Hughes Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1982-09 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: D U Himmelstein; S Woolhandler; M Harnly; M B Bader; R Silber; H D Backer; A A Jones Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 1984-05 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: B S Cooper; G F Medley; S P Stone; C C Kibbler; B D Cookson; J A Roberts; G Duckworth; R Lai; S Ebrahim Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2004-06-25 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Courtney R Murphy; Lyndsey O Hudson; Brian G Spratt; Kristen Elkins; Leah Terpstra; Adrijana Gombosev; Christopher Nguyen; Paul Hannah; Richard Alexander; Mark C Enright; Susan S Huang Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2013-04-22 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Weixiong Ke; Susan S Huang; Lyndsey O Hudson; Kristen R Elkins; Christopher C Nguyen; Brian G Spratt; Courtney R Murphy; Taliser R Avery; Marc Lipsitch Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2012-03-19 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Bruce Y Lee; Sarah M Bartsch; Kim F Wong; S Levent Yilmaz; Taliser R Avery; Ashima Singh; Yeohan Song; Diane S Kim; Shawn T Brown; Margaret A Potter; Richard Platt; Susan S Huang Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Bruce Y Lee; Sarah M Bartsch; Kim F Wong; Ashima Singh; Taliser R Avery; Diane S Kim; Shawn T Brown; Courtney R Murphy; Server Levent Yilmaz; Margaret A Potter; Susan S Huang Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-03 Impact factor: 2.983