Author:
Tsai Chu-Lin,Cheng Ming-Tai,Hsu Shu-Hsien,Lu Tsung-Chien,Huang Chien-Hua,Liu Yueh-Ping,Shih Chung-Liang,Fang Cheng-Chung
Abstract
AbstractTransferring patients between emergency departments (EDs) is a complex but important issue in emergency care regionalization. Social network analysis (SNA) is well-suited to characterize the ED transfer pattern. We aimed to unravel the underlying transfer network structure and to identify key network metrics for monitoring network functions. This was a retrospective cohort study using the National Electronic Referral System (NERS) database in Taiwan. All interhospital ED transfers from 2014 to 2016 were included and transfer characteristics were retrieved. Descriptive statistics and social network analysis were used to analyze the data. There were a total of 218,760 ED transfers during the 3-year study period. In the network analysis, there were a total of 199 EDs with 9516 transfer ties between EDs. The network demonstrated a multiple hub-and-spoke, regionalized pattern, with low global density (0.24), moderate centralization (0.57), and moderately high clustering of EDs (0.63). At the ED level, most transfers were one-way, with low reciprocity (0.21). Sending hospitals had a median of 5 transfer-out partners [interquartile range (IQR) 3–7), while receiving hospitals a median of 2 (IQR 1–6) transfer-in partners. A total of 16 receiving hospitals, all of which were designated base or co-base hospitals, had 15 or more transfer-in partners. Social network analysis of transfer patterns between hospitals confirmed that the network structure largely aligned with the planned regionalized transfer network in Taiwan. Understanding the network metrics helps track the structure and process aspects of regionalized care.
Funder
Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
National Taiwan University Hospital
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference40 articles.
1. Feazel, L. et al. Achieving regionalization through rural interhospital transfer. Am. J. Emerg. Med. 33, 1288–1296 (2015).
2. Institute of M. The future of emergency care in the United States health system. Ann. Emerg. Med. 48, 115–120 (2006).
3. Glickman, S. W. et al. Defining and measuring successful emergency care networks: A research agenda. Acad. Emerg. Med. 17, 1297–1305 (2010).
4. Cairns, C. B. & Glickman, S. W. Time makes a difference to everyone, everywhere: The need for effective regionalization of emergency and critical care. Acad. Emerg. Med. 60, 638–640 (2012).
5. Carr, B. & Martinez, R. Executive summary—2010 consensus conference. Acad. Emerg. Med. 17, 1269–1273 (2010).