An analysis of potentially avoidable neurosurgical transfers to a tertiary-care level I trauma center.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies of neurosurgical transfers indicate that substantial numbers of patients may not need to be transferred, suggesting an opportunity to provide more patient-centered care by treating patients in their communities, while probably saving thousands of dollars in transport and duplicative workup. This study of neurosurgical transfers, the largest to date, aimed to better characterize how often transfers were potentially avoidable and which patient factors might affect whether transfer is needed. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of neurosurgical transfers to an urban, tertiary-care, level I trauma center between October 1, 2017, and October 1, 2022. Prior to data analysis, the authors devised criteria to differentiate necessary neurosurgical transfers from potentially avoidable ones. A transfer was considered necessary if 1) the patient went to the operating room within 12 hours of arrival at the emergency department (ED); 2) a neurological MRI study was conducted in the ED; 3) the patient was admitted to the ICU from the ED; or 4) the patient was admitted to either neurology or a surgical service (including neurosurgery). Transfers not meeting any of the above criteria were deemed potentially avoidable. Patient and clinical characteristics, including diagnostic groupings from Clinical Classification Software categories, were collected retrospectively via electronic health record data abstraction and stratified by whether the transfer was necessary or potentially avoidable. Statistical differences were assessed with a chi-square test. RESULTS: A total of 5113 neurosurgical transfers were included in the study, of which 1701 (33.3%) were classified as potentially avoidable. Four percent of all transferred patients went to the operating room within 12 hours of reaching the receiving ED, 23.4% were admitted to the ICU from the ED, 26.6% had a neurological MRI study performed in the ED, and 54.4% were admitted to a surgical service or to neurology. Potentially avoidable transfers had a higher proportion of traumatic brain injury, headache, and syncope (p < 0.0001), as well as of spondylopathies/spondyloarthropathies (p = 0.0402), whereas patients needing transfer had a higher proportion of acute hemorrhagic cerebrovascular disease and cerebral infarction (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that a large number of neurosurgical transfers can probably be treated in their home hospitals and highlights that the vast majority of patients transferred for neurosurgical conditions do not receive emergency neurosurgery. Further research is needed to better guide transferring and receiving facilities in reducing the burden of excessive transfers.

The effect of visitation restrictions on ED error.

EDs restricted visitors during the COVID-19 pandemic on the assumption that the risks of disease spread outweighed the psychological benefits of liberal visitation. But data suggest that beyond providing emotional support, family and caregivers can clarify history, improve patient monitoring, and advocate for patients-actions that can improve quality of care. Our objective was to assess whether removing visitors from the bedside contributed to errors in emergency care. We reviewed a database of medical errors covering visits from 11/15/17 to 7/30/22 at an urban, tertiary-care, academic ED for five types of error amenable to visitor intervention: inadequate history gathering, inadequate monitoring, falls, giving a medication to which a patient is allergic, and inappropriate medication dosing. These records were reviewed by two investigators to determine the likelihood visitor presence could have prevented the error. For those errors judged susceptible to visitor intercession, the number in each category was compared for the period before and after strict restrictions took effect. Our review found 27/781 (3.5%) errors in the pre-pandemic period and 27/568 (4.8%) errors in the pandemic period fell into one of these five categories (p = 0.29). Visitors prevented harm from reaching the patient in three of 27 pre-pandemic errors (11.1%), compared to 0 out of 27 peri-pandemic errors (p = 0.23). On review by two attendings, 17/24 (70.8%) errors that reached the patient in the pre-pandemic period were judged amenable to visitor intervention, compared to 25/27 (92.6%) in the pandemic period (p = 0.09). There were no statistically significant differences in the categories of error between the two groups; monitoring errors came the closest: 1/17 (5.9%) pre-COVID errors amenable to visitor intervention in these categories were monitoring related, whereas 7/25 (28.0%) post-COVID errors were (p = 0.16). While this study did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in error between lenient and restrictive visitation eras, we did find multiple cases in the pre-COVID era in which family presence prevented error, and qualitative review of post-COVID errors suggested many could have been prevented by family presence. Larger trials are needed to determine how frequent and consequential such errors are and how to balance the public health imperative of curbing disease spread with the harm caused by restricting visitation.

Effects of the ACA on Health Care Cost Containment.

This brief reviews the evidence on how key ACA provisions have affected the growth of health care costs. Coverage expansions produced a predictable jump in health care spending, amidst a slowdown that began a decade ago. Although we have not returned to the double-digit increases of the past, the authors find little evidence that ACA cost containment provisions produced changes necessary to "bend the cost curve." Cost control will likely play a prominent role in the next round of health reform and will be critical to sustaining coverage gains in the long term.

Hospital readmissions: measuring for improvement, accountability, and patients.

The Commonwealth Fund and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement convened 15 experts in May 2013 to help address the current controversy over the measurement of hospital readmissions. Experts agreed that Medicare should, through payment and other means, be encouraging greater coordination of care, improvement in care transitions, and mitigation of risks that leave patients vulnerable to readmission. While the current readmissions metric is undoubtedly an imperfect proxy for broader health system failures, it also provides a valuable foundation on which to build a better policy­one that is useful for improvement, fair for accountability, and above all, relevant to patients.

Supporting second victims of patient safety events: shouldn't these communications be covered by legal privilege?

Adverse events that harm patients can also have a harmful impact on health care workers. A few health care organizations have begun to provide psychological support to these Second Victims, but there is uncertainty over whether these discussions are admissible as evidence in malpractice litigation or disciplinary proceedings. We examined the laws governing the admissibility of these communications in 5 states, and address how the laws might affect participation in programs designed to support health care workers involved in adverse events. We found that privilege is uneven from state-to-state, and also unclear. Ambiguity alone could have a chilling effect on Second Victim programs. We propose legislation to protect volunteer and health care worker communications provided by peer counselors, or failing this, updating of statutory provisions to explicitly include these communications within the ambit of existing protections. Enhancing protections could help to foster an environment of healing for both patients and caregivers.