Display options
Share it on

Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013 Mar 14;21:17. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-21-17.

Hospital out-lying through lack of beds and its impact on care and patient outcome.

Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine

Andrew Stowell, Pierre-Geraud Claret, Mustapha Sebbane, Xavier Bobbia, Charlotte Boyard, Romain Genre Grandpierre, Alexandre Moreau, Jean-Emmanuel de La Coussaye

Affiliations

  1. Structure des urgences, CHU de Nîmes, place du Professeur Debré, Nîmes, 30029, France. [email protected]

PMID: 23497699 PMCID: PMC3616843 DOI: 10.1186/1757-7241-21-17

Abstract

BACKGROUND: When medical wards become saturated, the common practice is to resort to outlying patients in another ward until a bed becomes free.

OBJECTIVES: Compare the quality of care provided for inpatients who are outlying (O) in inappropriate wards because of lack of vacant beds in appropriate specialty wards to the care given to non outlying (NO) patients.

METHODS: We propose a matched-pair cluster study. The exposed group consisted of inpatients that were outliers in inappropriate wards because of lack of available beds. Non-exposed subjects (the control group) were those patients who were hospitalized in the ward that corresponded to the reason for their admission. Each patient of the exposed group was matched to a specific control subject. The principal objective was to prospectively measure differences in the length of hospital stays, the secondary objectives were to assess mortality, rate of re-admission at 28 days, and rate of transfer into intensive care.

RESULTS: 238 were included in the NO group, 245 in the O group. More patients in the O group (86% vs 76%) were transferred into a ward with prescription completed. O patients remained in hospital for 8 days [4-15] vs 7 days [4-13] for NO patients (p = 0.04). 124 (52%) of the NO patients received heparin-based thromboembolic prevention during their stay in hospital vs 104 (42%) of the O patient group (p = 0.03). 66 (27%) O patients were re-admitted to hospital within 28 days vs 40 (17%) NO patients (p = 0.008).

CONCLUSION: O patients had a worse prognosis than NO patients.

References

  1. Emerg Med J. 2003 Sep;20(5):402-5 - PubMed
  2. Acad Emerg Med. 2008 Dec;15(12):1248-55 - PubMed
  3. Med J Aust. 2002 Nov 4;177(9):492-5 - PubMed
  4. J Card Fail. 2006 Oct;12(8):621-7 - PubMed
  5. Emerg Med J. 2004 Sep;21(5):575-6 - PubMed
  6. Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Jun;53(6):767-76.e3 - PubMed
  7. Ann Emerg Med. 2009 Oct;54(4):487-91 - PubMed
  8. Med J Aust. 2003 Nov 17;179(10):524-6 - PubMed
  9. Eur J Emerg Med. 1999 Jun;6(2):105-7 - PubMed
  10. Emerg Med J. 2003 Sep;20(5):406-9 - PubMed
  11. J Hosp Med. 2007 Sep;2(5):297-304 - PubMed
  12. Med J Aust. 2006 Mar 6;184(5):213-6 - PubMed
  13. Am J Med. 1999 Jul;107(1):13-7 - PubMed
  14. Crit Care Med. 2009 Oct;37(10):2753-8 - PubMed
  15. Emerg Med J. 2008 May;25(5):265-9 - PubMed
  16. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003 Apr;51(4):451-8 - PubMed
  17. Injury. 2005 Jan;36(1):86-7 - PubMed
  18. J Crit Care. 2010 Jun;25(2):184-9 - PubMed
  19. Med J Aust. 2006 Mar 6;184(5):208-12 - PubMed
  20. Qual Saf Health Care. 2009 Dec;18(6):441-5 - PubMed
  21. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2011 Feb;31(2):196-208 - PubMed
  22. J Emerg Med. 2006 Apr;30(3):351-6 - PubMed
  23. Hosp Pract (1995). 2010 Feb;38(1):97-108 - PubMed
  24. Injury. 2005 Jun;36(6):710-3 - PubMed
  25. Lancet. 2008 Feb 2;371(9610):387-94 - PubMed
  26. Eur J Intern Med. 2009 Dec;20(8):764-7 - PubMed
  27. Gerontology. 1999 Jul-Aug;45(4):220-6 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types