ABSTRACT
Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic disease that may require extensive medical and, at times, surgical intervention. Patients with UC are encouraged to form a multidisciplinary healthcare team to provide the support needed to cope with this chronic, debilitating illness. In this article, the authors provide the personal perspective of a patient coping with UC, the role of the gastroenterology nurse, and the viewpoints of key members of the healthcare team. Tracing the course of the disease from onset to medical management and then surgery, the authors relate the process by which the patient interacted with the healthcare team to reach the decision for seeking a surgical solution to the disease and how the patient coped with the rare but extended complications of surgery. The patient's decision illustrates the importance of her perspective and the varying roles played by the healthcare team. Medical management of UC and the technical aspects of ileal pouch anal anastomosis surgery are discussed.
Subject(s)
Colitis, Ulcerative/psychology , Colitis, Ulcerative/surgery , Proctocolectomy, Restorative/psychology , Adaptation, Psychological , Adult , Colitis, Ulcerative/nursing , Female , Humans , Patient Care Team , Patient Participation , Proctocolectomy, Restorative/methods , Proctocolectomy, Restorative/nursingABSTRACT
A tertiary care hospital established a transfer center to manage the large number of transfer requests from other hospitals in its catchment region. Motivating factors included occurrence of economic transfers, medically inappropriate transfers, poor interfacility communication, and a bed shortage. An interdisciplinary task force was convened to design and implement the transfer center, requiring two months from conception to implementation. Non-recurring direct costs were $3000. At the time of implementation, written transfer agreements were promoted and signed with many transferring hospitals. A retrospective audit covering 28 weeks of operation indicates that 1141 inpatient days were avoided for an average of 21.5 days per back-transferred patient. (Back-transfer refers to the return of a patient to the original hospital.) An additional 140 admissions were possible as a result of these avoided days. Approximately $550,000 in variable costs were saved on an annualized basis. Moreover, substantial improvements in communications and interfacility cooperation were realized. No cases of inappropriate denials or delays in transfer were identified. We conclude that a transfer center can be a highly cost-effective mechanism to manage the large number of patients transferred to a tertiary care center.
