Improving patient satisfaction with the transfer of care. A randomized controlled trial.
(57/556)
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether educational sessions with medical residents, with or without letters to their patients, improve patient satisfaction with transfer of their care from a departing to a new resident in an internal medicine clinic. DESIGN: Observational study in Year 1 to establish a historical control, with a randomized intervention in Year 2. SETTING: An internal medicine clinic in a teaching hospital. PATIENTS/PARTICIPANTS: Patients of departing residents completed questionnaires in the waiting room at their first visit with a new resident, with mail-administered questionnaires for patients not presenting to the clinic within 3 months after transfer of their care. In Year 1, 376 patients completed questionnaires without intervention. The following spring, we conducted interactive seminars with 12 senior residents to improve their transfer of care skills (first intervention). Half of their patients were then randomized to receive a letter from the new doctor informing them of the change (second intervention). We assessed the efficacy of the interventions by administering questionnaires to 437 patients in the months following the interventions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Multivariate analysis of Year 1 results identified doctors personally informing patients prior to leaving as the single strongest predictor of patient satisfaction (partial R2=.41). In Year 2, our first intervention increased the percentage of patients informed by their doctors from 71% in 1991 to 79% in 1992 (P <.001). Mean satisfaction dramatically improved, with the fraction of fully satisfied patients increasing from 47% at baseline, to 61% with the first intervention alone, and 72% with both interventions (P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Simple methods such as resident education and direct mailings to patients significantly ease the difficult process of transferring patients from one physician to another. This has implications not only for residency programs, but for managed care networks competing to attract and retain patients. (+info)
Geriatric trauma: resource use and patient outcomes.
(58/556)
INTRODUCTION: Elderly patients who suffer trauma have a higher mortality and use disproportionately more trauma resources than younger patients. To compare these 2 groups and determine the outcomes and characteristics of elderly patients, we reviewed patients in these 2 groups admitted and treated in our tertiary care provincial trauma centre. METHODS: From the provincial trauma registry we selected a cohort of 40 geriatric patients (group 1) (> or = 65 yr of age) with an ISS of 16 or more who were admitted to and spent time in our trauma service for more than 48 hours and compared them with a similar randomly selected cohort of 44 patients (group 2) aged 20-30 years. Family physicians were contacted for follow-up of these patients 2 years after discharge. We considered length of hospital stay, complications, disposition of the patients and use of consultation services. RESULTS: Patients in group 1 had a mean age of 72.1 years (range from 65-98 yr) and a mean ISS of 27.3 (range from 17-50). Patients in group 2 had a mean age of 26.3 years (range from 22-29 yr) and a mean ISS of 26.3 (range from 17-54). Hospital stay was significantly longer in the group 1: 34.5 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 24-44 d) versus 21.6 days (95% CI: 15-28 d). More elderly patients experienced complications (35 v. 13, p < 0.001) and required medical consultations (35 v. 26, p < 0.001). In-hospital death rates were 8% (3 of 40) and 4% (2 of 44) respectively (p = 0.3). Fewer geriatric patients could be discharged home (35% [14 of 40] v. 27% [22 of 44], p = 0.056) or to rehabilitation facilities (28% [11 of 40] v. 34% [15 of 44], p = 0.3). Five geriatric patients were discharged to nursing homes (p = 0.007). Of the geriatric patients discharged to rehabilitation facilities or home, 75% were independent 2 years after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Aggressive care for geriatric trauma patients is warranted, and resources should be directed toward rehabilitation. Based on our findings, we expect that creating a directed care pathway for these patients, targetting complications and earlier discharge, will further improve their outcomes. (+info)
Inter-hospital transport for primary angioplasty does not compromise left ventricular function: six-month echocardiographic follow-up of the PRAGUE 1 Study.
(59/556)
The main aim of the present study was to investigate whether long distance interhospital transport for primary angioplasty (delayed mechanical reperfusion) influences the resulting left ventricular function after myocardial infarction as compared with thrombolysis at the nearest hospital (immediate pharmacological reperfusion). Primary coronary angioplasty is more effective than thrombolysis in restoring coronary flow in patients with acute myocardial infarction. It is not known whether a delay in reperfusion due to transport to an angioplasty centre compromises left ventricular function, and whether combination therapy (ie, thrombolysis during transport to an angioplasty centre) would help preserve ejection fraction. The "PRAGUE-1" Study randomised 300 patients with myocardial infarction admitted to community hospitals without a cath-lab into 3 groups: group A (thrombolysis, no transport, n = 99), group B (thrombolysis during transport to an angioplasty centre, n = 100), and group C (transport for primary angioplasty, n = 101). Transport distances were below 75 kilometres, and mean transport time was 38 minutes. This paper presents for the first time the echocardiographic data from the early (discharge, day 30) and mid-term (6 months) follow-up. Only patients who survived until discharge (A: 85, B: 88, C: 94) could be analysed. Ejection fraction improved between discharge and 6 months (P < 0.01) in all three groups: from 47% to 51% in group A, from 47% to 52% in group B, and from 48% to 52% in group C. The differences between the groups were not significant. The same differences were found for the wall motion score index. Left ventricular end-diastolic diameter did not differ between the groups/examinations. Greater improvement was documented in the period between hospital discharge and day 30, compared to the period between day 30 and 6 months. The time delay associated with an inter-hospital transport strategy for primary angioplasty did not compromise left ventricular function. The strategy of thrombolysis during transport did not further improve left ventricular function compared to transport for primary angioplasty alone. (+info)
The mortality experience of people admitted to nursing homes.
(60/556)
BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to use routinely collected data to compare the mortality experience of people admitted to nursing homes from hospital and the community; and to describe changes in mortality over a 5 year period. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study and survival analysis were carried out. The subjects were 841 people admitted as Local Authority funded long-stay residents to Wakefield nursing homes between April 1993 and December 1997. Of these, 535 were admitted from hospital and 306 from the community. Subjects were divided into five admission year cohorts for analysis. The main outcome measures were comparison of survival curves for admissions from hospital and the community within each admission year cohort, comparison of survival curves for different admission year cohorts, and standardized mortality ratios (SMR) for all admissions (comparison with the population aged 65 years and over in England and Wales in 1995). RESULTS: Survival curves for admissions from hospital and the community were statistically significantly different for the 1993 admission cohort only. From 1993 to 1997, survival curves for all admissions demonstrate a steady improvement in mortality experience. SMR for all admissions from hospital was 606 per cent (95 per cent confidence interval (CI) 535.5-676.4 per cent). The difference between this and the SMR of 546.3 per cent (95 per cent CI: 457.7-634.9 per cent) for admissions from the community is not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the mortality experience of nursing home admissions from hospital was no worse than that of admissions from the community. Survival of people admitted to nursing homes in Wakefield has improved over the last 5 years. Possible reasons for these findings are discussed. (+info)
Reduced delays in A&E for elderly patients with hip fractures.
(61/556)
Published guidelines recommend early transfer of patients with hip fractures to hospital wards and avoidance of unnecessary delays in A&E. We describe a protocol whereby the liaison of an orthopaedic trauma co-ordinator with A&E reduced A&E-to-ward transfer times by 43%. Following introduction of the new protocol, 39% of hip fracture patients were in a ward bed within 3 h of admission to A&E compared to 4% previously. The new protocol also reduces administrative workload for the on-call orthopaedic SHOs. (+info)
A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction.
(62/556)
BACKGROUND: For the treatment of myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation, primary angioplasty is considered superior to fibrinolysis for patients who are admitted to hospitals with angioplasty facilities. Whether this benefit is maintained for patients who require transportation from a community hospital to a center where invasive treatment is available is uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 1572 patients with acute myocardial infarction to treatment with angioplasty or accelerated treatment with intravenous alteplase; 1129 patients were enrolled at 24 referral hospitals and 443 patients at 5 invasive-treatment centers. The primary study end point was a composite of death, clinical evidence of reinfarction, or disabling stroke at 30 days. RESULTS: Among patients who underwent randomization at referral hospitals, the primary end point was reached in 8.5 percent of the patients in the angioplasty group, as compared with 14.2 percent of those in the fibrinolysis group (P=0.002). The results were similar among patients who were enrolled at invasive-treatment centers: 6.7 percent of the patients in the angioplasty group reached the primary end point, as compared with 12.3 percent in the fibrinolysis group (P=0.05). Among all patients, the better outcome after angioplasty was driven primarily by a reduction in the rate of reinfarction (1.6 percent in the angioplasty group vs. 6.3 percent in the fibrinolysis group, P<0.001); no significant differences were observed in the rate of death (6.6 percent vs. 7.8 percent, P=0.35) or the rate of stroke (1.1 percent vs. 2.0 percent, P=0.15). Ninety-six percent of patients were transferred from referral hospitals to an invasive-treatment center within two hours. CONCLUSIONS: A strategy for reperfusion involving the transfer of patients to an invasive-treatment center for primary angioplasty is superior to on-site fibrinolysis, provided that the transfer takes two hours or less. (+info)
Entry overload, emergency department overcrowding, and ambulance bypass.
(63/556)
OBJECTIVES: To describe an experience of emergency department (ED) overcrowding and ambulance bypass. METHODS: A prospective observational study at Royal Perth Hospital, a major teaching hospital. Episodes of ambulance bypass and their characteristics were recorded. RESULTS: From 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2001, there were 141 episodes of ambulance bypass (mean duration 187 min, range 35-995). Monday was the most common day with 39 (28%) episodes. Entry block alone was the most common reason bypass was activated (n=38, 30.4%). The mean number of patients in ED at these times was 40 (occupancy 174%), including nine in the corridor, seven awaiting admission, and 14 waiting to be seen. Episodes attributable to entry block were typically preceded by a presentation rate of >/=10 patients per hour for >/=2 hours (OR 6.2, 95% CI 4.3 to 8.5). Mid-afternoon to early evening was the most common time for activation. Ambulance bypass is increasing in frequency and duration. CONCLUSIONS: Entry overload resulting in entry block results from overwhelming numbers of patients presenting to the ED in a short space of time. Entry block impairs access to emergency care. Unless something is done in the near future, the general public may no longer be able to rely on EDs for quality and timely emergency care. A "whole of system" approach is necessary to tackle the problem. (+info)
Variations in hospitalization rates among nursing home residents: the role of discretionary hospitalizations.
(64/556)
OBJECTIVE: To examine variations in hospitalization rates among nursing home residents associated with discretionary hospitalization practices. DATA SOURCES: Quarterly Medicaid case-mix reimbursement data from the state of Massachusetts served as the core data source for this study, which was linked with data from the Medicare Provider Analysis and Review file (MEDPAR) to specify hospitalization status, nursing facility attribute data from the state of Massachusetts to specify facility-level organizational and structural attributes, and data from the Area Resource File (ARF) to specify area market-level attributes. Data spans three years (1991-1993) to produce a longitudinal analytical file containing 72,319 person-quarter-level observations. STUDY DESIGN: Two-step, multivariate logistic regression models were estimated for highly discretionary hospitalizations versus those containing less discretion, and low discretionary hospitalizations versus those containing greater amounts of physician discretion. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Findings indicate that facility case-mix levels and area hospital bed supply levels contribute to variations in hospitalization rates among nursing home residents. Highly discretionary hospitalizations appear to be most sensitive to patient diagnoses best described as chronic, ambulatory care sensitive conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that defining hospitalizations simply in terms of whether an event occurs versus otherwise may obscure valuable information regarding the contribution of various risk factors to highly discretionary versus low discretionary hospitalization rates. (+info)