OBJECTIVES: Patient transfers between hospitals are becoming more common in the United States. Disease-specific studies have reported varying outcomes associated with transfer status. However, even as national quality improvement efforts and regulations are being actively adopted, forcing hospitals to become financially accountable for the quality of care provided, surprisingly little is known about transfer patients or their outcomes at a population level. This population-wide study provides timely analyses of the characteristics of this particularly vulnerable and sizable inpatient population. We identified and compared characteristics and outcomes of transfer and nontransfer patients. METHODS: With the use of the 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a nationally representative sample of U.S. hospitalizations, we examined patient characteristics, in-hospital adverse events, and discharge disposition for transfer versus nontransfer patients in this observational study. RESULTS: We identified 1,397,712 transfer patients and 31,692,211 nontransfer patients. Age, sex, race, and payer were significantly associated with odds of transfer (P < 0.05). Transfer patients had higher risk-adjusted inpatient mortality (4.6 versus 2.1, P < 0.01), longer length of stay (13.3 versus 4.5, P < 0.01), and fewer routine disposition discharges (53.6 versus 68.7, P < 0.01). In-hospital adverse events were significantly higher in transfer patients compared with nontransfer patients (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that transfer patients have inferior outcomes compared with nontransfer patients. Although they are clinically complex patients and assessing accountability as between the transferring and receiving hospitals is methodologically difficult, transfer patients must nonetheless be included in quality benchmark data to assess the potential impact this population has on hospital outcome profiles. With hospital accountability and value-based payments constituting an integral part of health care reform, documenting the quality of care delivered to transfer patients is essential before accurate quality assessment improvement efforts can begin in this patient population.
OBJECTIVES:Patient transfers between hospitals are becoming more common in the United States. Disease-specific studies have reported varying outcomes associated with transfer status. However, even as national quality improvement efforts and regulations are being actively adopted, forcing hospitals to become financially accountable for the quality of care provided, surprisingly little is known about transfer patients or their outcomes at a population level. This population-wide study provides timely analyses of the characteristics of this particularly vulnerable and sizable inpatient population. We identified and compared characteristics and outcomes of transfer and nontransfer patients. METHODS: With the use of the 2009 Nationwide Inpatient Sample, a nationally representative sample of U.S. hospitalizations, we examined patient characteristics, in-hospital adverse events, and discharge disposition for transfer versus nontransfer patients in this observational study. RESULTS: We identified 1,397,712 transfer patients and 31,692,211 nontransfer patients. Age, sex, race, and payer were significantly associated with odds of transfer (P < 0.05). Transfer patients had higher risk-adjusted inpatient mortality (4.6 versus 2.1, P < 0.01), longer length of stay (13.3 versus 4.5, P < 0.01), and fewer routine disposition discharges (53.6 versus 68.7, P < 0.01). In-hospital adverse events were significantly higher in transfer patients compared with nontransfer patients (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that transfer patients have inferior outcomes compared with nontransfer patients. Although they are clinically complex patients and assessing accountability as between the transferring and receiving hospitals is methodologically difficult, transfer patients must nonetheless be included in quality benchmark data to assess the potential impact this population has on hospital outcome profiles. With hospital accountability and value-based payments constituting an integral part of health care reform, documenting the quality of care delivered to transfer patients is essential before accurate quality assessment improvement efforts can begin in this patient population.
Authors: Gonzalo V Gonzalez-Stawinski; Albert S Y Chang; Jose L Navia; Michael K Banbury; Tiffany Buda; Kathy Hoercher; Randall C Starling; David O Taylor; Nicholas G Smedira Journal: ASAIO J Date: 2006 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Colin R Cooke; Brahmajee Nallamothu; Jeremy M Kahn; John D Birkmeyer; Theodore J Iwashyna Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jerry H Gurwitz; Robert J Goldberg; Judith A Malmgren; Hal V Barron; Alan J Tiefenbrunn; Paul D F Frederick; Joel M Gore Journal: Am J Med Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Jennifer L Philip; Dou-Yan Yang; Xing Wang; Sara Fernandes-Taylor; Bret M Hanlon; Jessica Schumacher; Megan C Saucke; Jeffrey Havlena; Heena P Santry; Angela M Ingraham Journal: Surgery Date: 2020-05-23 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Marc Heincelman; Mulugeta Gebregziabher; Elizabeth Kirkland; Samuel O Schumann; Andrew Schreiner; Phillip Warr; Jingwen Zhang; Patrick D Mauldin; William P Moran; Don C Rockey Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: James A Hall; Shamyal H Khan; Courtney Shaver; Kendall Pye; Ismail Salejee; Thomas Delmas; Badri Giri; Heath D White; Curtis Mirkes Journal: Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent) Date: 2019-07-30
Authors: Lauge Sokol-Hessner; Andrew A White; Katherine F Davis; Shoshana J Herzig; Samuel F Hohmann Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Theresa Williamson; Sarah Hodges; Lexie Zidanyue Yang; Hui-Jie Lee; Mostafa Gabr; Beatrice Ugiliweneza; Maxwell Boakye; Christopher I Shaffrey; C Rory Goodwin; Isaac O Karikari; Shivanand Lad; Muhammad Abd-El-Barr Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2021-06-01 Impact factor: 3.697