Email this article 
Hide
Show all
Original Research
The impact of a bundled intrahospital transfer protocol on the safety of critically ill patients in a South African Metropolitan Hospital System
Southern African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia | Vol 26, No 3 | a914 |
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36303/SAJAA.2020.26.3.2343
| © 2020 L. Geldenhuys, R. Wise, R. Rodseth
| This work is licensed under Other
Submitted: 11 November 2025 | Published: 30 June 2020
Submitted: 11 November 2025 | Published: 30 June 2020
About the author(s)
L. Geldenhuys, Discipline of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South AfricaR. Wise, Discipline of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa; and, John Radcliffe Hospital, Intensive Care Department, Oxford University Trust Hospitals, United Kingdom
R. Rodseth, Discipline of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa; and, Drs Jones, Bhagwan and Partners, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
Full Text:
PDF (121KB)Abstract
Background: Intrahospital transfer (IHT) of critically ill patients is associated with a high incidence of adverse events (AEs). This study aimed to determine whether the introduction of an intervention bundle could decrease AEs during, and immediately after IHT to the intensive care unit (ICU), as compared to event rates prior to the bundle’s introduction.
Methods: This was a prospective, pre- and post-intervention trial, conducted in both a regional and tertiary hospital in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. The intervention bundle consisted of an IHT protocol, a transport backpack, emergency drug container and simulation training. Primary outcomes were: 1) composite outcome of serious AEs, and 2) composite outcome of AEs contributing directly to morbidity or mortality. Secondary outcomes were miscellaneous complications, equipment-related AEs, total number of AEs, total number of IHTs complicated by AEs and the subjective measure of IHTs needing intervention within the first 30 minutes after arrival in ICU.
Results: There were 381 pre-intervention IHTs and 264 post-intervention IHTs with one documented serious AE. Adverse events directly contributing to morbidity or mortality showed a reduction from 58.3% (CI 0.53–0.63) pre-intervention, to 56.1% (CI 0.50–0.62) post-intervention (p = 0.6). Miscellaneous complications yielded a reduction of 12.9% (CI 10.3–14.7%) pre-intervention to 9.5% (CI 8.3–11.1%) post-intervention (p = 0.2). Equipment-related AE reduced from 5.2% (CI 3.4–8%) to 1.9% (CI 0.8–4.5%) (p = 0.03). The total number of AEs reduced from 5% (CI 3.6–7.4%) to 4.1% (CI 2.4–6.8%) (p = 0.03), while the total number of transfers complicated by AEs reduced from 63.3% (CI 61.9–65.1%) to 60.6% (CI 58.8–63.1%) (p = 0.5). There was a reduction in IHTs requiring intervention within the first 30 minutes of arrival in ICU (34.6% to 22.7%; p = 0.001).
Conclusion: These results support the use of an intervention bundle to decrease the incidence of AEs during IHT.
Methods: This was a prospective, pre- and post-intervention trial, conducted in both a regional and tertiary hospital in Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. The intervention bundle consisted of an IHT protocol, a transport backpack, emergency drug container and simulation training. Primary outcomes were: 1) composite outcome of serious AEs, and 2) composite outcome of AEs contributing directly to morbidity or mortality. Secondary outcomes were miscellaneous complications, equipment-related AEs, total number of AEs, total number of IHTs complicated by AEs and the subjective measure of IHTs needing intervention within the first 30 minutes after arrival in ICU.
Results: There were 381 pre-intervention IHTs and 264 post-intervention IHTs with one documented serious AE. Adverse events directly contributing to morbidity or mortality showed a reduction from 58.3% (CI 0.53–0.63) pre-intervention, to 56.1% (CI 0.50–0.62) post-intervention (p = 0.6). Miscellaneous complications yielded a reduction of 12.9% (CI 10.3–14.7%) pre-intervention to 9.5% (CI 8.3–11.1%) post-intervention (p = 0.2). Equipment-related AE reduced from 5.2% (CI 3.4–8%) to 1.9% (CI 0.8–4.5%) (p = 0.03). The total number of AEs reduced from 5% (CI 3.6–7.4%) to 4.1% (CI 2.4–6.8%) (p = 0.03), while the total number of transfers complicated by AEs reduced from 63.3% (CI 61.9–65.1%) to 60.6% (CI 58.8–63.1%) (p = 0.5). There was a reduction in IHTs requiring intervention within the first 30 minutes of arrival in ICU (34.6% to 22.7%; p = 0.001).
Conclusion: These results support the use of an intervention bundle to decrease the incidence of AEs during IHT.
Keywords
intrahospital transfer; bundle; critical care; safety; South Africa
Metrics
Total abstract views: 175Total article views: 34
Crossref Citations
1. Carbon dioxide levels of ventilated adult critically ill post-operative patients on arrival to the intensive care unit
M Slave, J Scribante, H Perrie, F Lambat
Southern African Journal of Critical Care first page: 13 year: 2023
doi: 10.7196/SAJCC.2023.v39i1.655
2. Adverse events during intra-hospital transport of critically ill patients: an observational study
Kuswantoro Rusca Putra, Isti Wulandari, Tony Suharsono, Alfrina Hany
Central European Journal of Nursing and Midwifery vol: 13 issue: 3 first page: 699 year: 2022
doi: 10.15452/cejnm.2022.13.0012