During the past few decades the numbers of ICUs and beds has increased significantly, but so too has the demand for intensive care. Currently large, and increasing, numbers of critically ill patients require transfer between critical care units. Inter-unit transfer poses significant risks to critically ill patients, particularly those requiring multiple organ support. While the safety and quality of inter-unit and hospital transfers appear to have improved over the years, the effectiveness of specific measures to improve safety have not been confirmed by randomized controlled trials. It is generally accepted that critically ill patients should be transferred by specialized retrieval teams, but the composition, training and assessment of these teams is still a matter of debate. Since it is likely that the numbers and complexity of these transfers will increase in the near future, further studies are warranted.

IntroductionIn order to minimize the additional risk of interhospital transport of critically ill patients, we started a mobile intensive care unit (MICU) with a specialized retrieval team, reaching out from our university hospital-based intensive care unit to our adherence region in March 2009. To evaluate the effects of this implementation, we performed a prospective audit comparing adverse events and patient stability during MICU transfers with our previous data on transfers performed by standard ambulance.MethodsAll transfers performed by MICU from March 2009 until December 2009 were included. Data on 14 vital variables were collected at the moment of departure, arrival and 24 hours after admission. Variables before and after transfer were compared using the paired-sample T-test. Major deterioration was expressed as a variable beyond a predefined critical threshold and was analyzed using the McNemar test and the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. Results were compared to the data of our previous prospective study on interhospital transfer performed by ambulance.ResultsA total of 74 interhospital transfers of ICU patients over a 10-month period were evaluated. An increase of total number of variables beyond critical threshold at arrival, indicating a worsening of condition, was found in 38 percent of patients. Thirty-two percent exhibited a decrease of one or more variables beyond critical threshold and 30% showed no difference. There was no correlation between patient status at arrival and the duration of transfer or severity of disease. ICU mortality was 28%. Systolic blood pressure, glucose and haemoglobin were significantly different at arrival compared to departure, although significant values for major deterioration were never reached. Compared to standard ambulance transfers of ICU patients, there were less adverse events: 12.5% vs. 34%, which in the current study were merely caused by technical (and not medical) problems. Although mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score was significantly higher, patients transferred by MICU showed less deterioration in pulmonary parameters during transfer than patients transferred by standard ambulance.ConclusionsTransfer by MICU imposes less risk to critically ill patients compared to transfer performed by standard ambulance and has, therefore, resulted in an improved quality of interhospital transport of ICU patients in the north-eastern part of the Netherlands.

IntroductionInter-hospital transport of critically ill patients is increasing. When performed by specialized retrieval teams there are less adverse events compared to transport by ambulance. These transports are performed with technical equipment also used in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). As a consequence technical problems may arise and have to be dealt with on the road. In this study, all technical problems encountered while transporting patients with our mobile intensive care unit service (MICU) were evaluated.MethodsFrom March 2009 until August 2011 all transports were reviewed for technical problems. The cause, solution and, where relevant, its influence on protocol were stated.ResultsIn this period of 30 months, 353 patients were transported. In total 55 technical problems were encountered. We provide examples of how they influenced transport and how they may be resolved.ConclusionThe use of technical equipment is part of intensive care medicine. Wherever this kind of equipment is used, technical problems will occur. During inter-hospital transports, without extra personnel or technical assistance, the transport team is dependent on its own ability to resolve these problems. Therefore, we emphasize the importance of having some technical understanding of the equipment used and the importance of training to anticipate, prevent and resolve technical problems. Being an outstanding intensivist on the ICU does not necessarily mean being qualified for transporting the critically ill as well. Although these are lessons derived from inter-hospital transport, they may also apply to intra-hospital transport.