Goldfarb Charles A, Borrelli Joseph, Lu Michael, Ricci William M
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, and Barnes-Jewish Hospital, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
J Orthop Trauma. 2006 Oct;20(9):613-7. doi: 10.1097/01.bot.0000249415.47871.e5.
To assess the indications for, the demographics of, and the appropriateness of patient transfers for orthopedic injuries to a level I trauma center.
All patients with isolated orthopedic trauma transferred to our level I trauma center (N = 128) by means of a physician-to-physician referral line during the call period of two surgeons were prospectively evaluated between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2004. The specific indication for transfer, the specialty of the referring physician, the patient diagnosis, the perceived need for tertiary care referral (as assessed by a visual analog scale [VAS] based on the phone conversation with the transferring physician), and patient insurance status were obtained before the transfer. On patient arrival, each of these factors was reassessed for later comparison.
The transferring physician was an emergency department physician in 88 cases (69%), an orthopedic surgeon in 32 cases (25%), and an internist in the other eight cases (6%). In the 77 cases in which we could confirm the presence of an on-call orthopedist, the patient was examined by the orthopedic surgeon before being transferred in only 32 (42%) cases. In 98 cases (76%), the stated indication for transfer was that the case was too complex for care at the referring hospital or that there was a need for a subspecialist. There was no significant difference in pre- versus post-transfer case complexity as assessed by the VAS (P > 0.05). Although the reported insurance data before transfer was inaccurate in 34 patients (27%), the overall payer mixes reported before and after transfers were similar (23% Medicare, 20% HMO/PPO, 14% workers' compensation, 12% uninsured, 5% Medicaid). The insurance type for the transferred patients as a whole was not significantly different from the non-transferred patients treated by our orthopedic trauma service during the same time period (P > 0.05). Twenty transferred patients had a low VAS complexity score (<5), suggesting that their injuries did not necessarily require tertiary care. Fifteen of these 20 had Medicaid, Medicare, or no insurance. This was a significantly different (worse) payer mix than for the typical transferred patient (P < 0.05).
The need for an increased level of care was the predominant stated reason for patient transfer to our level I trauma center. Nonetheless, the orthopedic surgeon on call did not always examine the patient before transfer. Additionally, patients transferred who had a low level of complexity (those believed not to necessarily require tertiary care) had an insurance status that was worse than that of the typical transferred patient.
评估将骨科损伤患者转至一级创伤中心的指征、患者特征及合理性。
在2004年1月1日至2004年12月31日期间,对通过两位外科医生之间的医生转诊热线转至我们一级创伤中心的所有单纯骨科创伤患者(N = 128例)进行前瞻性评估。在转诊前获取转诊的具体指征、转诊医生的专业、患者诊断、对三级医疗转诊的感知需求(通过基于与转诊医生电话交谈的视觉模拟量表[VAS]评估)以及患者保险状况。患者到达后,对这些因素中的每一项进行重新评估以便后续比较。
转诊医生为急诊科医生的有88例(69%),骨科医生的有32例(25%),内科医生的有8例(6%)。在我们能够确认有骨科值班医生的77例中,只有32例(42%)患者在转诊前由骨科医生进行了检查。98例(76%)中转诊的明确指征是该病例在转诊医院治疗过于复杂或需要专科医生。通过VAS评估,转诊前后病例复杂性无显著差异(P > 0.05)。虽然34例患者(27%)转诊前报告的保险数据不准确,但转诊前后报告的总体支付方构成相似(医疗保险23%,健康维护组织/优先提供者组织20%,工伤赔偿14%,无保险12%,医疗补助5%)。转诊患者总体的保险类型与同期我们骨科创伤服务治疗的未转诊患者无显著差异(P > 0.05)。20例转诊患者的VAS复杂性评分较低(<5),表明他们的损伤不一定需要三级医疗。这20例中有15例有医疗补助、医疗保险或无保险。这一支付方构成与典型转诊患者相比有显著差异(更差)(P < 0.05)。
需要更高水平的治疗是患者转至我们一级创伤中心的主要既定原因。尽管如此,骨科值班医生并非总是在转诊前对患者进行检查。此外,转诊的复杂性水平较低(那些被认为不一定需要三级医疗的患者)的患者保险状况比典型转诊患者更差。