The use of a background infusion with intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (IV-PCA) increases drug consumption without any additional contribution to analgesia. There are no data on the potential advantage of a background infusion administered with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) for labor and delivery. Sixty women were randomized to one of four groups and received either: (a) demand dose PCEA (demand dose = 3 mL; lockout interval = 10 min); (b) continuous infusion plus demand dose PCEA (two separate infusion rates: 3 mL/h and 6 mL/h); or (c) a fixed-rate continuous epidural infusion (CEI) at 12 mL/h. All patients received 0.125% bupivacaine with 2 micrograms/mL of fentanyl. The study protocol was double-blind and placebo-controlled. Visual analog pain scores, motor strength, and bilateral pinprick analgesia were assessed every half hour by a blinded observer. Pain scores, cephalad extent of sensory analgesia, and motor block were no different among the study groups during the first and second stages of labor. Cumulative hourly bupivacaine use was similar among all PCEA study groups. However, use of PCEA (in whatever mode) provided a 35% dose-sparing effect in comparison to CEI. The PCEA groups receiving no background infusion or a 3-mL/h background infusion had a greater need for physician-administered supplemental bupivacaine during the first stage of labor. While not statistically significant, a trend toward increased need for supplementation was seen in these same patient groups over the entire course of labor and delivery.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

No abstract

Background: Prolonged hospital discharge boarding can impact patient flow resulting in upstream Emergency Department crowding. We aim to determine the risks predicting prolonged hospital discharge boarding and their direct and indirect effects on patient flow. Methods: Retrospective review of a single hospital discharge database was conducted. Variables including type of disposition, disposition boarding time, case management consultation, discharge medications prescriptions, severity of illness, and patient homeless status were analyzed in a multivariate logistic regression model. Hospital charges, potential savings of hospital bed hours, and whether detailed discharge instructions provided adequate explanations to patients were also analyzed. Results: A total of 11,527 admissions was entered into final analysis. The median discharge boarding time was approximately 2 h. Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) of patients transferring to other hospitals was 7.45 (95% CI 5.35-10.37), to court or law enforcement custody was 2.51 (95% CI 1.84-3.42), and to a skilled nursing facility was 2.48 (95% CI 2.10-2.93). AOR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.47-0.71) if the disposition order was placed during normal office hours (0800-1700). AOR of early case management consultation was 1.52 (95% CI 1.37-1.68) versus 1.73 (95% CI 1.03-2.89) for late consultation. Eighty-eight percent of patients experiencing discharge boarding times within 2 h of disposition expressed positive responses when questioned about the quality of explanations of discharge instructions and follow-up plans based on satisfaction surveys. Similar results (86% positive response) were noted among patients whose discharge boarding times were prolonged (> 2 h, p = 0.44). An average charge of $6/bed/h was noted in all hospital discharges. Maximizing early discharge boarding (≤ 2 h) would have resulted in 16,376 hospital bed hours saved thereby averting $98,256.00 in unnecessary dwell time charges in this study population alone. Conclusion: Type of disposition, case management timely consultation, and disposition to discharge dwell time affect boarding and patient flow in a tertiary acute care hospital. Efficiency of the discharge process did not affect patient satisfaction relative to the perceived quality of discharge instruction and follow-up plan explanations. Prolonged disposition to discharge intervals result in unnecessary hospital bed occupancy thereby negatively impacting hospital finances while delivering no direct benefit to patients.