ライフサイエンスコーパス: patient transfer

1 ut microbiota of individual patients (within-patient transfer).

2 th desirable antitumor capabilities prior to patient transfer.

3 tments, however, may be limited by delays in patient transfer.

4 acilities when ties represented at least one patient transfer.

5 y spread among LTACHs and vSNFs connected by patient transfer.

6 pital-community) networks by readmissions or patient transfers.

7 long-term acute care facilities (LTACs) via patient transfers.

8 approach that may necessitate interhospital patient transfers.

9 ons of critically ill patients, 2) premature patient transfers, 3) temporary delivery of critical car

10 Of 985 patients transferred, 450 (45.7%) had a medication error

11 We observed 165 patient transfers (68 pre-, 97 postintervention).

12 proficiency scoring tools when coordinating patient transfers after traumatic digit amputation.

13 works to all 2007 annual adult and pediatric patient transfers among the healthcare facilities in Ora

14 ICU) beds, and referral rates (proportion of patients transferred among patients unable to be dischar

15 lly throughout healthcare facilities through patient transfer and cause difficult-to-treat infections

16 d methodology can design effective plans for patient transfers and allocation of ambulances and mobil

17 long-term care facilities were connected by patient transfers and further added many connections to

18 CPE clones from patient to patient (between-patient transfer), and the transfer of carbapenemase-enc

19 thcare system comprising 18 hospitals, using patient transfer as a marker of unmet clinical need.

20 han ST92, which may be spreading by means of patient transfer between health care facilities within t

21 Direct patient transfers between hospitals had only a limited i

22 oordination and continuity of health care as patients transfer between different locations or differe

23 nomic data with information on interfacility patient transfers can provide insights into locations an

24 o the National Healthcare Safety Network and patient transfer data from the Centers for Medicare and

25 connected most strongly to it as measured by patient transfer data; and prevalence surveys were disco

26 Thus, rapid patient transfer, diagnosis, and treatment are crucial,

27 Death at 180 days occurred in 5.0% of patients transferred directly from the field, and in 11.

28 mized controlled trial enrolled adult trauma patients transferred directly to hospitals, triggering a

29 After multivariable logistic regression, patients transferred directly to the cath lab also had l

30 Mean per-patient transfer distances were calculated by scenario.

31 ls reported paradoxical decreases in overall patient transfers during each high-surge period.

32 n delay were present in 11%, 15%, and 28% of patients transferred first to the emergency department/w

33 Compared with patients transferred first to the emergency department/w

34 aken in stroke centres that are dependent on patient transfer for endovascular reperfusion therapies

35 bility of teleID (pre-teleID), there were 73 patients transferred for ID consults, while 171 patients

36 Patients transferred for PA had a longer mean time to tr

37 reasons for and clinical impact of delays in patients transferred for PCI are unknown.

38 analysis, 30-day clinical outcomes for STEMI patients transferred for PCI were not significantly wors

39 We performed medical chart review for STEMI patients transferred for PPCI during a 6-month period (O

40 Benchmark DIDO times for STEMI patients transferred for PPCI were rarely achieved.

41 Among 4278 patients transferred for primary PCI at 419 hospitals, t

42 s a prospective, observational study of 2034 patients transferred for primary PCI at a single center

43 s was observed in only a small proportion of patients transferred for primary PCI but was associated

44 More than one third of US STEMI patients transferred for primary PCI fail to achieve fir

45 their initial hospital; yet more than 95% of patients transferred for primary PCI in the U.S. exceed

46 ian first door time to balloon time time for patients transferred for primary PCI was 118 minutes (Q1

47 iveness of P2Y(12) inhibitor pretreatment in patients transferred for primary percutaneous coronary i

48 We studied 33,901 STEMI patients transferred for primary percutaneous coronary i

49 Of 30 patients transferred for revascularization, 27 underwent

50 PCI-related delays are extensive among patients transferred for X-PCI and are associated with p

51 We report a patient transferred from Alaska to Washington State with

52 Data from patients transferred from 1 of 30 RHs in our regional st

53 However, few patients transferred from a non-PCI center undergo PCI w

54 sions during the same hospital admission and patients transferred from an external ICU were excluded.

55 We excluded patients transferred from another hospital and those adm

56 mpared with directly admitted patients, MICU patients transferred from another hospital had significa

57 Patients transferred from another hospital to Dartmouth

58 lking in, and 240 minutes (IQR, 166-402) for patients transferred from another hospital.

59 The proportion of patients transferred from another institution increased

60 utes, P = .002), and door-in to door-out for patients transferred from non-PCI hospitals (120 to 71 m

61 STEMI patients were treated, including 1048 patients transferred from non-PCI hospitals.

62 We studied 14,518 patients transferred from non-PCI-capable hospitals for

63 Nearly half the patients transferred from nontrauma centers to trauma ce

64 We compared patients transferred from outside hospitals with locally

65 Patients transferred from outside institutions or with m

66 Thirteen of the 346 patients transferred from the county hospital (4%) were

67 the severity-of-illness-adjusted outcome of patients transferred from the ward.

68 For each patient, transfer functions (TFs) between aortic and rad

69 or effective and adaptable prehospital care, patient transfer, in-hospital care and rehabilitation sy

70 This method decomposes a series of patient transfers into a sequence of decisions character

71 f interrelated data from 336 prostate cancer patients transferred into 19 TMA blocks with 5451 TMA bi

72 In an urban area with unconstrained patient transfer mechanisms and high overall cardiac pro

73 ntify ARO spread between NFs and compared to patient-transfer networks.

74 Inter-patient transfer of antimicrobial resistant pathogens is

75 analysis, we uncovered the pervasive within-patient transfer of pOXA-48, suggesting that horizontal

76 However, patients transferred on the weekend experienced higher a

77 nding of how antibiotic use and between-ward patient transfers (or connectivity) impact population-le

78 The proportion of patients transferred out to other facilities was 51.0%,

79 els are currently in use because the optimal patient transfer paradigm is highly dependent on local g

80 ted population, compared with nontransferred patients, transferred patients were on average younger (

81 ng population, hospital characteristics, and patient transfer patterns.

82 ation, admission rate, thrombolytic therapy, patient transfer rate, and diagnosis accuracy.

83 ts suggest that it is prudent to account for patient transfer status when comparing hospital outcomes

84 creation and ongoing evaluation of dedicated patient transfer strategies and better early invasive ca

85 eral obstacles have hindered the adoption of patient-transfer strategies in the U.S., including great

86 Betweenness of Medicare patient transfers strongly correlated with betweenness o

87 However, for such patient transfers, there were no significant differences

88 factors for higher mortality and benefits of patient transfer to higher volume centers is warranted.

89 Patient transfers to hub hospital decreased by 31%.

90 rize and determine the extent and pattern of patient transfers to, from, and between long-term care f

91 In a cohort of patients transferred to a regional severe respiratory fa

92 Patients transferred to a tertiary care ICU are generall

93 The number of patients transferred to an ICU was significantly lower f

94 th any of the 5 diagnoses, the percentage of patients transferred to another acute care hospital vari

95 Patients transferred to highest volume hospitals had hig

96 he lowest-volume category, the proportion of patients transferred to larger hospitals was 81% for hos

97 but spend time in a critical care unit, and patients transferred to our intensive care units from ot

98 Sex disparities are more pronounced among patients transferred to percutaneous coronary interventi

99 irst to the emergency department/ward, STEMI patients transferred to the cath lab had significantly l

100 ecord variables from a convenience sample of patients transferred to the Comprehensive Supportive Car

101 with an increased risk of hospital death in patients transferred to the ICU from the regular ward, o

102 rgin of dollar 7 million per year related to patients transferred to the institution primarily for cr

103 conflicts that arise in the care of oncology patients transferred to the intensive care unit.

104 tocol to all consecutive respiratory failure patients transferred to the respiratory intensive care u

105 For every 10 extra patients transferred to the treatment group at 5 years,

106 ecialist and specialist retrieval teams; and patients transferred to their nearest PICU and those who

107 ities, facility exposures, and interfacility patient transfer were extracted.

108 ss rate was not statistically different from patients transferred with Blastocystis sp. negative dono

109 Patients transferred with Blastocystis sp. positive dono

110 ss rate was not statistically different from patients transferred with Blastocystis sp.-negative dono

111 Patients transferred with Blastocystis sp.-positive dono

112 storical control group of 254 consecutive ED patients transferred with outside hospital CDs between A