5 Close to Home: Implementation of a transfer process for paediatric inpatients from tertiary to community care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Patients presenting to the emergency department who require inpatient care are either admitted to our tertiary care inpatient units or transferred directly to a community hospital. When patients appropriate for community care cannot be transferred due to a lack of community beds and instead remain in a tertiary care bed, there are palpable downstream effects on patient flow. A pre-study audit confirmed that, once admitted, transfers from the inpatient unit to a community bed are rare. This project aimed to improve access to tertiary care beds by increasing inpatient transfers to community hospitals. Objectives The project aimed to transfer 25% of all eligible patients from the Paediatric Medicine inpatient units to community hospitals over a 4-month period by identifying eligible patients and streamlining the transfer process. Design/Methods An Ishikawa diagram with input from inpatient physicians and nurses and community hospital colleagues identified 4 modifiable barriers. A process map was created along with a simplified transfer process. Medical teams and nurse leaders were provided with the charts of contact numbers, geographic locations and levels of care for community hospitals. Intake nurses tracked eligible patients. Encrypted text messages were sent to inpatient physicians on their mobile devices every morning reminding them to assess specific patients for transfer. The outcomes of all identified patients including process and balancing measures were tracked. Results Multiple PDSA cycles focused on improving the success of identifying eligible patients at multiple points in the process. The study’s outcome measure was the rate of successful inpatient transfers for all eligible patients. From November 2018 to March 2019, 120 patients were identified as eligible for transfer at the time of admission: 45 (37.5%) were discharged within 24 hours, 42 (35%) were not considered clinically appropriate for transfer by the attending physician and 33 were considered appropriate for transfer. Twenty-four were approached for transfer (72.7%); 9 were not approached for non-clinical reasons. Six (18.2%) refused transfer and 10 (30%) were successfully transferred. These rates were sustained over the study period. Conclusion A streamlined transfer process can improve patient flow, optimize utilization of tertiary care beds and provide care closer to home. A more robust method of tracking patients that could flag patients and send physicians electronic reminders is needed. Most importantly, optimal use of tertiary care beds requires a culture shift to ensure every patient is considered for transfer to the community when medically appropriate.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,033 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».