Interhospital Transfer and Receipt of Specialty Procedures

Among transferred patients with primary diagnoses that have clearly associated specialized procedural services, we found that patients received these procedures at varying frequency and locations across the transfer continuum. Across 4 diagnoses, receipt of associated procedures was more common at the receiving than the transferring hospital, with the exception being patients with GI bleed. We additionally found that many transferred patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital. These findings suggest the strong likelihood of more diverse underlying reasons for transfer rather than solely receipt of specialized procedural care.

Despite the frequency with which AMI patients are transferred,⁶ and American Heart Association guidelines directing hospitals to transfer AMI patients to institutions able to provide necessary invasive treatments,⁴ prior studies suggest these patients inconsistently receive specialty intervention following transfer, including stress testing, cardiac catheterization, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.^10,11 Our findings add to these data, demonstrating that only 47.3% of patients transferred with AMI received any cardiac-related procedure at the receiving hospital. Additionally, we found that 38.1% of AMI patients do not receive any specialty procedures at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. Taken together, these data suggest possible discrepancies in the perceived need for these procedures between transferring and receiving hospitals, reasons for transfer related to these conditions that don’t involve an associated procedure, or reasons for transfer unrelated to specialty care of the primary diagnosis (such as care of comorbidities, hospital location, prior relationships with that hospital, or desire for a second opinion). Although some of these alternate reasons for transfer likely still benefit the patient, some of these reasons may not justify the increased risks of discontinuity of care created by IHT.

Given limited data looking at IHT practices for patients with other diagnoses, the varying patterns of specialty procedural interventions we observed among transferred patients with GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation are novel contributions to this topic. Notably, we found that among patients transferred with a primary diagnosis of renal failure, the vast majority (84.1%) did not receive any associated procedure at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. It is possible that although these patients carried the diagnosis of renal failure, their clinical phenotype is more heterogeneous, and they could still be managed conservatively without receipt of invasive procedures such as hemodialysis.

Conversely, patients transferred with primary diagnosis of hip fracture/dislocation were far more likely to receive associated specialty procedural intervention at the receiving hospital, presumably reflective of the evidence demonstrating improved outcomes with early surgical intervention.¹² However, these data do not explain the reasoning behind the substantial minority of patients who received specialty intervention at the transferring hospital prior to transfer or those that did not receive any specialty intervention at either the transferring or receiving hospital. Our secondary analysis demonstrating great variety in receipt and type of nonassociated procedures provided at the receiving hospital did not help to elucidate potential underlying reasons for transfer.

Notably, among patients transferred with primary diagnosis of GI bleed, receipt of specialty procedures was more common at the transferring (77.7%) than receiving (63.2%) hospital, with nearly half (49.3%) undergoing specialty procedures at both hospitals. It is possible that these findings are reflective of the broad array of specialty procedures examined within this diagnosis. For example, it is reasonable to consider that a patient may be stabilized with receipt of a blood transfusion at the transferring hospital, then transferred to undergo a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure (ie, endoscopy/colonoscopy) at the receiving hospital, as is suggested by our results.

Our study is subject to several limitations. First, given the criteria we used to define transfer, it is possible that we included nontransferred patients within our transferred cohort if they were discharged from one hospital and admitted to a different hospital within 1 day, although quality assurance analyses we conducted in prior studies on these data support the validity of the criteria used.² Second, we cannot exclude the possibility that patients received nonprocedural specialty care (ie, expert opinion, specialized imaging, medical management, management of secondary diagnoses, etc.) not available at the transferring hospital, although, arguably, in select patients, such input could be obtained without physical transfer of the patient (ie, tele-consult). And even in patients transferred with intent to receive procedural care who did not ultimately receive that care, there is likely an appropriate “nonprocedure” rate, where patients who might benefit from a procedure receive a timely evaluation to reduce the risk of missing the opportunity to receive it. This would be analogous to transferring a patient to an ICU even if they do not end up requiring intubation or pressor therapy. However, given the likelihood of higher risks of IHT compared with intrahospital transfers, one could argue that the threshold of perceived benefit might be different in patients being considered for IHT. Additionally, we limited our analyses to only 4 diagnoses; thus, our findings may not be generalizable to other diagnoses of transferred patients. However, because the diagnoses we examined were ones considered most effectively treated with specialty procedural interventions, it is reasonable to presume that the variability in receipt of specialty procedures observed within these diagnoses is also present, if not greater, across other diagnoses. Third, although we intentionally included a broad array of specialty procedures associated with each diagnosis, it is possible that we overlooked particular specialty interventions. For example, in assuming that patients are most likely to be transferred to receive procedural services associated with their primary diagnosis, we may have missed alternate indications for transfer, including need for procedural care related to secondary or subsequent diagnoses (ie, a patient may have presented with GI bleed in the context of profound anemia that requires a bone marrow biopsy for diagnosis, and thus was transferred for the biopsy). Our further examination of unrelated procedures received by hip fracture/dislocation patients at receiving hospitals argues against a select or subset of procedures driving transfers that are not associated with the primary diagnosis but does not fully rule out this possibility (ie, if there are a large variety of secondary diagnoses with distinct associated specialty procedures that are required for each). Lastly, although our examination provides novel information regarding variability in receipt of specialty procedures of transferred patients, we were not able to identify exact reasons for transfer. Instead, our results are hypothesis generating and require further investigation to better understand these reasons.