File(s) under permanent embargo
Resuscitation status and characteristics and outcomes of patients transferred from subacute care to acute care hospitals: a multi‐site prospective cohort study
journal contribution
posted on 2020-04-01, 00:00 authored by Maryann StreetMaryann Street, Patricia Dunning, Tracey BucknallTracey Bucknall, Alison HutchinsonAlison Hutchinson, Helen Rawson, Ana HutchinsonAna Hutchinson, Mari BottiMari Botti, Maxine DukeMaxine Duke, Mohammadreza MohebbiMohammadreza Mohebbi, Julie ConsidineJulie ConsidineAims and objectives
To examine the relationship between resuscitation status and (i) patient characteristics; (ii) transfer characteristics; and (iii) patient outcomes following an emergency inter‐hospital transfer from a subacute to an acute care hospital.
Background
Patients who experience emergency inter‐hospital transfers from subacute to acute care hospitals have high rates of acute care readmission (81%) and in‐hospital mortality (15%).
Design
This prospective, exploratory cohort study was a subanalysis of data from a larger case–time–control study in five Health Services in Victoria, Australia. There were 603 transfers in 557 patients between August 2015 and October 2016. The study was conducted in accordance with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology guidelines.
Methods
Data were extracted by medical record audit. Three resuscitation categories (full resuscitation; limitation of medical treatment (LOMT) orders; or not‐for‐cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) orders) were compared using chi‐square or Kruskal–Wallis tests. Stratified multivariable proportional hazard Cox regression models were used to account for health service clustering effect.
Findings.
Resuscitation status was 63.5% full resuscitation; 23.1% LOMT order; and 13.4% not‐for‐CPR. Compared to patients for full resuscitation, patients with not‐for‐CPR or LOMT orders were more likely to have rapid response team calls during acute care readmission or to die during hospitalisation. Patients who were not‐for‐CPR were less likely to be readmitted to acute care and more likely to return to subacute care.
Conclusions
Two‐thirds of patients in subacute care who experienced an emergency inter‐hospital transfer were for full resuscitation. Although the proportion of patients with LOMT and not‐for‐CPR orders increased after transfer, there were deficiencies in the documentation of resuscitation status and planning for clinical deterioration for subacute care patients.
Relevance to Clinical Practice
As many subacute care patients experience clinical deterioration, patient preferences for care need to be discussed and documented early in the subacute care admission.
To examine the relationship between resuscitation status and (i) patient characteristics; (ii) transfer characteristics; and (iii) patient outcomes following an emergency inter‐hospital transfer from a subacute to an acute care hospital.
Background
Patients who experience emergency inter‐hospital transfers from subacute to acute care hospitals have high rates of acute care readmission (81%) and in‐hospital mortality (15%).
Design
This prospective, exploratory cohort study was a subanalysis of data from a larger case–time–control study in five Health Services in Victoria, Australia. There were 603 transfers in 557 patients between August 2015 and October 2016. The study was conducted in accordance with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology guidelines.
Methods
Data were extracted by medical record audit. Three resuscitation categories (full resuscitation; limitation of medical treatment (LOMT) orders; or not‐for‐cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) orders) were compared using chi‐square or Kruskal–Wallis tests. Stratified multivariable proportional hazard Cox regression models were used to account for health service clustering effect.
Findings.
Resuscitation status was 63.5% full resuscitation; 23.1% LOMT order; and 13.4% not‐for‐CPR. Compared to patients for full resuscitation, patients with not‐for‐CPR or LOMT orders were more likely to have rapid response team calls during acute care readmission or to die during hospitalisation. Patients who were not‐for‐CPR were less likely to be readmitted to acute care and more likely to return to subacute care.
Conclusions
Two‐thirds of patients in subacute care who experienced an emergency inter‐hospital transfer were for full resuscitation. Although the proportion of patients with LOMT and not‐for‐CPR orders increased after transfer, there were deficiencies in the documentation of resuscitation status and planning for clinical deterioration for subacute care patients.
Relevance to Clinical Practice
As many subacute care patients experience clinical deterioration, patient preferences for care need to be discussed and documented early in the subacute care admission.
History
Journal
Journal of clinical nursingVolume
29Issue
7-8Pagination
1302 - 1311Publisher
WileyLocation
Chichester, Eng.Publisher DOI
ISSN
0962-1067eISSN
1365-2702Language
engPublication classification
C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journalUsage metrics
Categories
No categories selectedKeywords
Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationClinical deteriorationDo-Not-Resuscitate OrdersGoals of careRehabilitationResuscitation DecisionsResuscitation PoliciesSubacute CareWithholding ResuscitationScience & TechnologyLife Sciences & BiomedicineNursingOF-LIFE CAREINTENSIVE-CARERISK-FACTORSREADMISSIONGOALSCardiopulmonary ResuscitationDo-Not-Resuscitate OrdersResuscitation DecisionsResuscitation PoliciesWithholding Resuscitation
Licence
Exports
RefWorks
BibTeX
Ref. manager
Endnote
DataCite
NLM
DC