Delegation: a dynamic process.

Hospital utilization reviews are performed on the basis of lists of explicit criteria, such as the Appropriateness Evaluation Protocol, both concurrently and retrospectively, in an increasing number of settings as part of efforts to improve the performance of hospitals and to reduce health care costs. Retrospective data collection has advantages in terms of expenses and ease of sampling, but relies on the quality of medical records. We report on a comparison between concurrent and retrospective data collection performed simultaneously and independently by two reviewers on the same hospital stays in the regional St-Loup Hospital. Results suggest that retrospective data collection produces higher rates of inappropriate hospital utilization, due to a limited number of criteria that are recorded concurrently, but are not found in the retrospective reading of medical records. These results should encourage a further investigation of the comparability between concurrent and retrospective designs in other settings.

Concurrent Review↗

PubMed1997

Impact of level III verification on trauma admissions and transfer: comparisons of two rural hospitals.

PURPOSE: To study the impact of Level III verification and other changes in rural hospitals on trauma delivery and to examine factors affecting transfer to a Level I trauma center. SETTING: Two rural Kentucky hospitals and a Level I trauma center. METHOD OF REVIEW: Concurrent review of all trauma patients in 1988 and re-review of the same parameters in 1995. FINDINGS: In 1988, both hospitals had similar management practices in trauma care. A significant number of patients were transferred for (a) patient choice, (b) serious and/or multiple trauma, (c) specialty care in non-life threatening situations, and (d) to exclude a potentially serious problem seen on radiologic evaluation (usually questionable cervical spine or widened mediastinum). Both hospitals had major changes in trauma delivery. One hospital received Level III verification, and the other had changes that lessened the general surgeon's involvement with initial evaluation and treatment. A re-review in 1995 disclosed major changes at both institutions. Transfers to exclude radiologic abnormalities had virtually disappeared. The Level III status had increased the surgical involvement in that hospital; there was actually an increase in patients transferred to the Level I hospital and an increase in patient acuity. More operations were performed locally, and the care was more efficiently delivered. The other hospital had a large increase in transfers and decreased admissions locally as general surgical involvement decreased. CONCLUSIONS: The factors related to patient transfer for trauma care are complex and require careful elucidation to improve care. The development of a Level III trauma service appeared to increase the number of seriously injured patients treated in the rural hospital and the efficiency of the care delivered.

Concurrent Review↗