Standardized Transfer Process for a Neurointensive Care Unit and Assessment of Patient Bounceback

Cody L. Nathan*, Laura Stein, Lisa J. George, Bethany Young, Jessica Fuller, Brianna Gravina, Phyllis Dubendorf, Scott E. Kasner, Monisha A. Kumar

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Background: Patients who require readmission to an intensive care unit (ICU) after transfer to a lower level of care (“bounceback”) suffer from increased mortality and longer hospital stays. We aimed to create a multifaceted standardized transfer process for patients moving from the neurointensive care unit (neuro-ICU) to a lower level of care. We hypothesized that this process would lead to improvement in provider-rated safety and a decreased rate of bouncebacks to the neuro-ICU after transfer. Methods: The study took place at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania from October 2018 to October 2020. A standardized five-step transfer process was created and implemented for transferring patients from the neuro-ICU to a lower level of care. Patient care providers completed a survey before and after implementation of the protocol to assess a variety of components related to safety concerns when transferring patients. The rate of bouncebacks pre and post intervention was calculated by using a two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and disposition at discharge was calculated by using Fisher’s exact test. Results: Of the 1176 total patient transfers out of the neuro-ICU, 29 patients bounced back within 48 h. The average age of patients who bounced back was 63.3 years old, with a similar distribution among men and women. The most common reason for bounceback was respiratory distress, followed by cardiac arrhythmia, stroke, and sepsis. Implementation of the standardized process led to a decrease in provider-rated concern of overall safety (5 to 3, p = 0.008). There was improvement in transfer delays due to bed availability (3 to 4.5, p = 0.020), identification of high-risk patients (5 to 6, p = 0.021), patient assignment to the appropriate level of care (5 to 6, p = 0.019), and use of the electronic medical record handoff indicator (5 to 6, p = 0.003). There was no statistically significant difference in terms of patient bounceback rate after implementation of the process (2.4% vs. 2.5%, p = 1.00) or patient disposition at discharge (p = 0.553). Conclusions: Patients who bounceback to the neuro-ICU within 48 h had an increased length of hospital stay, had an increased length of ICU stay, and were more likely to be intubated for more than 96 h. Implementation of a standardized five-step transfer process from the neuro-ICU to a lower level of care resulted in improvement in multiple provider-rated safety outcomes and identification of high-risk patients but led to no difference in the patient bounceback rate or patient disposition at discharge.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)831-839
Number of pages9
JournalNeurocritical Care
Volume36
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2022

Keywords

  • Neurocritical care
  • Patient handoff
  • Patient transfer
  • Quality improvement
  • Readmission

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Clinical Neurology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Standardized Transfer Process for a Neurointensive Care Unit and Assessment of Patient Bounceback'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this