Going From an Academic Medical Center to a Community Hospital: Patient Experiences with TransfersGoing from an academic medical center to a community hospital: Patient experiences with transfers

Academic medical centers (AMCs) often operate at or near full capacity, which leads to delays in care while smaller community hospitals may have excess capacity. To address this issue and to match patient needs to care acuity, patients may be transferred from an AMC emergency department for direct admission to a community hospital. We aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of patients who were transferred. We randomly selected patients transferred between February 2019 and February 2020. We conducted structured thirty-minute interviews containing fixed response and open-ended questions focusing on the transfer rationale and experience, care quality, and patient financial outcomes. We used descriptive statistics to summarize questions with fixed responses and thematic analysis for open-ended questions. We interviewed a total of 40 patients. While most (88%) understood the rationale for transfer, many (60%) did not feel they had agency in the decision despite the voluntary nature of the program. Patients generally had a positive experience with the transfer (65%) and valued the expedited admission. However, some highlighted issues with transfer-related billing and the mismatch between the expectations of presenting to an academic hospital and the reality of being admitted to a community one. We conclude that patients are amenable to transfers for an expedited admission and understand the rationale for such transfers. However, participants should receive a clear explanation of benefits to them, guidance that the program is voluntary, and protection from financial risk Experience Framework This article is associated with the Patient, Family & Community Engagement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens

Spine Surgeon Treatment Variability: The Impact on Costs

Cross-sectional analysis. Given the lack of strong evidence/guidelines on appropriate treatment for lumbar spine disease, substantial variability exists among surgical treatments utilized, which is associated with differences in costs to treat a given pathology. Our goal was to investigate the variability in costs among spine surgeons nationally for the same pathology in similar patients. Four hundred forty-five spine surgeons completed a survey of clinical and radiographic case scenarios on patients with recurrent lumbar disc herniation, low back pain, and spondylolisthesis. Those surveyed were asked to provide various details including their geographical location, specialty, and fellowship training. Treatment options included no surgery, anterior lumbar interbody fusion, posterolateral fusion, and transforaminal/posterior lumbar interbody fusion. Costs were estimated via Medicare national payment amounts. For recurrent lumbar disc herniation, no difference in costs existed for patients undergoing their first revision microdiscectomy. However, for patients undergoing another microdiscectomy, surgeons who operated 200 times/year ( 15 years ( < .001). For the treatment of low back pain, academic surgeons kept costs about 55% lower than private practice surgeons ( < .001). In the treatment of spondylolisthesis, there was significant treatment variability without significant differences in costs. Significant variability in surgical treatment paradigms exists for different pathologies. Understanding why variability in treatment selection exists in similar clinical contexts across practices is important to ensure the most cost-effective delivery of care among spine surgeons