Providers' and Patients' Perspectives on Diagnostic Errors in the Acute Care Setting

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic errors (DEs) have been studied extensively in ambulatory care, but less work has been done in the acute care setting. In this study, the authors examined health care providers' and patients' perspectives about the classification of DEs, the main causes and scope of DEs in acute care, the main gaps in current systems, and the need for innovative solutions.

METHODS

A qualitative mixed methods study was conducted, including semistructured interviews with health care providers and focus groups with patient advisors. Using grounded theory approach, thematic categories were derived from the interviews and focus groups.

RESULTS

The research team conducted interviews with 17 providers and two focus groups with seven patient advisors. Both providers and patient advisors struggled to define and describe DEs in acute care settings. Although participants agreed that DEs pose a significant risk to patient safety, their perception of the frequency of DEs was mixed. Most participants identified communication failures, lack of comfort with diagnostic uncertainty, incorrect clinical evaluation, and cognitive load as key causes of DEs. Most respondents believed that non-information technology (IT) tools and processes (for example, communication improvement strategies) could significantly reduce DEs.

CONCLUSION

The study findings represent an important supplement to our understanding of DEs in acute care settings and the advancement of a culture of patient safety in the context of patient-centered care and patient engagement. Health care organizations should consider the key factors identified in this study when trying to create a culture that engages clinicians and patients in reducing DEs.

Implementation of the I-PASS handoff program in diverse clinical environments: A multicenter prospective effectiveness implementation study

BACKGROUND

Handoff miscommunications are a leading source of medical errors. Harmful medical errors decreased in pediatric academic hospitals following implementation of the I-PASS handoff improvement program. However, implementation across specialties has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if I-PASS implementation across diverse settings would be associated with improvements in patient safety and communication.

DESIGN

Prospective Type 2 Hybrid effectiveness implementation study.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Residents from diverse specialties across 32 hospitals (12 community, 20 academic).

INTERVENTION

External teams provided longitudinal coaching over 18 months to facilitate implementation of an enhanced I-PASS program and monthly metric reviews.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Systematic surveillance surveys assessed rates of resident-reported adverse events. Validated direct observation tools measured verbal and written handoff quality.

RESULTS

2735 resident physicians and 760 faculty champions from multiple specialties (16 internal medicine, 13 pediatric, 3 other) participated. 1942 error surveillance reports were collected. Major and minor handoff-related reported adverse events decreased 47% following implementation, from 1.7 to 0.9 major events/person-year (p < .05) and 17.5 to 9.3 minor events/person-year (p < .001). Implementation was associated with increased inclusion of all five key handoff data elements in verbal (20% vs. 66%, p < .001, n = 4812) and written (10% vs. 74%, p < .001, n = 1787) handoffs, as well as increased frequency of handoffs with high quality verbal (39% vs. 81% p < .001) and written (29% vs. 78%, p < .001) patient summaries, verbal (29% vs. 78%, p < .001) and written (24% vs. 73%, p < .001) contingency plans, and verbal receiver syntheses (31% vs. 83%, p < .001). Improvement was similar across provider types (adult vs. pediatric) and settings (community vs. academic).

Comprehensive Pharmacist-led Transitions-of-care Medication Management around Hospital Discharge Adds Modest Cost Relative to Usual Care: Time-and-Motion Cost Analysis

Optimal medication management is important during hospitalization and at discharge because post-discharge adverse drug events (ADEs) are common, often preventable, and contribute to patient harms, healthcare utilization, and costs. Conduct a cost analysis of a comprehensive pharmacist-led transitions-of-care medication management intervention for older adults during and after hospital discharge. Twelve intervention components addressed medication reconciliation, medication review, and medication adherence. Trained, experienced pharmacists delivered the intervention to older adults with chronic comorbidities at 2 large U.S. academic centers. To quantify and categorize time spent on the intervention, we conducted a time-and-motion analysis of study pharmacists over 36 sequential workdays (14 519 min) involving 117 patients. For 40 patients' hospitalizations, we observed all intervention activities. We used the median minutes spent and pharmacist wages nationally to calculate cost per hospitalization (2020 U.S. dollars) from the hospital perspective, relative to usual care. Pharmacists spent a median of 66.9 min per hospitalization (interquartile range 46.1-90.1), equating to $101 ($86 to $116 in sensitivity analyses). In unadjusted analyses, study site was associated with time spent (medians 111 and 51.8 min) while patient primary language, discharge disposition, number of outpatient medications, and patient age were not. In this cost analysis, comprehensive medication management around discharge cost about $101 per hospitalization, with variation across sites. This cost is at least an order of magnitude less than published costs associated with ADEs, hospital readmissions, or other interventions designed to reduce readmissions. Work is ongoing to assess the current intervention's effectiveness.

Hospital-Level Care at Home for Patients With Acute Respiratory Disease: A Descriptive Analysis

BACKGROUND

Home hospital (HH) care is hospital-level substitutive care delivered at home for acutely ill patients who traditionally would be cared for in the hospital. Despite HH care programs operating successfully for years and scientific evidence of similar or better outcomes compared with bricks-and-mortar care, HH care outcomes in the United States for respiratory disease have not been evaluated.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do outcomes differ between patients admitted to HH care with acute respiratory illness vs those with other acute general medical conditions?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This was a retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data of patients admitted to HH care (2017-2021). We compared patients requiring admission with respiratory disease (asthma exacerbation [26%], acute exacerbation of COPD [33%], and non-COVID-19 pneumonia [41%]) to all other patients admitted to HH care. During HH care, patients received two nurse and one physician visit daily, IV medications, advanced respiratory therapies, and continuous heart and respiratory rate monitoring. Main outcomes were acute and postacute health care use and safety.

RESULTS

We analyzed 1,031 patients; 24% were admitted for respiratory disease. Patients with and without respiratory disease were similar: mean age, 68 ± 17 years, 62% women, and 48% White. Patients with respiratory disease more often were active smokers (21% vs 9%; P < .001). Eighty percent of patients showed an FEV₁ to FVC ratio of ≤ 70; 28% showed a severe or very severe obstructive pattern (n = 118). During HH care, patients with respiratory disease showed less health care use: length of stay (mean, 3.4 vs 4.6 days), laboratory orders (median, 0 vs 2), IV medication (43% vs 73%), and specialist consultation (2% vs 7%; P < .001 for all). Ninety-six percent of patients completed the full admission at home with no mortality in the respiratory group. Within 30 days of discharge, both groups showed similar readmission, ED presentation, and mortality rates.

INTERPRETATION

HH care is as safe and effective for patients with acute respiratory disease as for those with other acute general medical conditions. If scaled, it can generate significant high-value capacity for health systems and communities, with opportunities to advance the complexity of care delivered.

A structured approach to EHR surveillance of diagnostic error in acute care: an exploratory analysis of two institutionally-defined case cohorts

OBJECTIVES

To test a structured electronic health record (EHR) case review process to identify diagnostic errors (DE) and diagnostic process failures (DPFs) in acute care.

METHODS

We adapted validated tools (Safer Dx, Diagnostic Error Evaluation Research [DEER] Taxonomy) to assess the diagnostic process during the hospital encounter and categorized 13 postulated e-triggers. We created two test cohorts of all preventable cases (n=28) and an equal number of randomly sampled non-preventable cases (n=28) from 365 adult general medicine patients who expired and underwent our institution's mortality case review process. After excluding patients with a length of stay of more than one month, each case was reviewed by two blinded clinicians trained in our process and by an expert panel. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. We compared the frequency of DE contributing to death in both cohorts, as well as mean DPFs and e-triggers for DE positive and negative cases within each cohort.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven (96.4%) preventable and 24 (85.7%) non-preventable cases underwent our review process. Inter-rater reliability was moderate between individual reviewers (Cohen's kappa 0.41) and substantial with the expert panel (Cohen's kappa 0.74). The frequency of DE contributing to death was significantly higher for the preventable compared to the non-preventable cohort (56% vs. 17%, OR 6.25 [1.68, 23.27], p<0.01). Mean DPFs and e-triggers were significantly and non-significantly higher for DE positive compared to DE negative cases in each cohort, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed substantial agreement among final consensus and expert panel reviews using our structured EHR case review process. DEs contributing to death associated with DPFs were identified in institutionally designated preventable and non-preventable cases. While e-triggers may be useful for discriminating DE positive from DE negative cases, larger studies are required for validation. Our approach has potential to augment institutional mortality case review processes with respect to DE surveillance.

Who Gets (and Who Should Get) a Serious Illness Conversation in the Hospital? An Analysis of Readmission Risk Score in an Electronic Health Record

Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) explore patients' prognostic awareness, hopes, and worries, and can help establish priorities for their care during and after hospitalization. While identifying patients who benefit from an SIC remains a challenge, this task may be facilitated by use of validated prediction scores available in most commercial electronic health records (EHRs), such as Epic's Readmission Risk Score (RRS). We identified the RRS on admission for all hospital encounters from October 2018 to August 2019 and measured the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve to determine whether RRS could accurately discriminate post discharge 6-month mortality. For encounters with standardized SIC documentation matched in a 1:3 ratio to controls by sex and age (±5 years), we constructed a multivariable, paired logistic regression model and measured the odds of SIC documentation per every 10% absolute increase in RRS. RRS was predictive of 6-month mortality with acceptable discrimination (AUROC .71) and was significantly associated with SIC documentation (adjusted OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.24-1.63). An RRS >28% used to identify patients with post discharge 6-month mortality had a high specificity (89.0%) and negative predictive value (NPV) (97.0%), but low sensitivity (25.2%) and positive predictive value (PPV) (7.9%). RRS may serve as a practical EHR-based screen to exclude patients not requiring an SIC, thereby leaving a smaller cohort to be further evaluated for SIC needs using other validated tools and clinical assessment.

Remote vs In-home Physician Visits for Hospital-Level Care at Home: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Home hospital care is the substitutive provision of home-based acute care services usually associated with a traditional inpatient hospital. Many home hospital models require a physician to see patients at home daily, which may hinder scalability. Whether remote physician visits can safely substitute for most in-home visits is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To compare remote and in-home physician care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This randomized clinical trial assessed 172 adult patients at an academic medical center and community hospital who required hospital-level care for select acute conditions, including infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma, between August 3, 2019, and March 26, 2020; follow-up ended April 26, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

All patients received acute care at home, including in-home nurse or paramedic visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, and point-of-care testing. Patients were randomized to receive physician care remotely (initial in-home visit followed by daily video visit facilitated by the home hospital nurse) vs in-home care (daily in-home physician visit). In the remote care group, the physician could choose to see the patient at home beyond the first visit if it was felt to be medically necessary.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of adverse events, compared using multivariable Poisson regression at a noninferiority threshold of 10 events per 100 patients. Adverse events included a fall, pressure injury, and delirium. Secondary outcomes included the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score (scale of 0-15, with 0 indicating worst patient experience and 15 indicating best patient experience) and 30-day readmission rates.

RESULTS

A total of 172 patients (84 receiving remote care and 88 receiving in-home physician care [control group]) were randomized; enrollment was terminated early because of COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 69.3 (18.0) years, 97 patients (56.4%) were female, 77 (45.0%) were White, and 42 (24.4%) lived alone. Mean adjusted adverse event count was 6.8 per 100 patients for remote care patients vs 3.9 per 100 patients for control patients, for a difference of 2.8 (95% CI, -3.3 to 8.9), supporting noninferiority. For remote care vs control patients, the mean adjusted Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score difference was -0.22 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.56), supporting noninferiority. The mean adjusted 30-day readmission absolute rate difference was 2.28% (95% CI, -3.23% to 7.79%), which was inconclusive. Of patients in the remote group, 16 (19.0%) required in-home visits beyond the first visit.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, remote physician visits were noninferior to in-home physician visits during home hospital care for adverse events and patient experience, although in-home physician care was necessary to support many patients receiving remote care. Our findings may allow for a more efficient, scalable home hospital approach but require further research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04080570.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and diagnosis in COVID-19: Practice patterns and outcomes at 33 hospitals

Background

Early reports of increased thrombosis risk with SARS-CoV-2 infection led to changes in venous thromboembolism (VTE) management. Real-world data on the prevalence, efficacy and harms of these changes informs best practices.

Objective

Define practice patterns and clinical outcomes related to VTE diagnosis, prevention, and management in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) using a multi-hospital US sample.

Methods

In this retrospective cross-sectional study of 1121 patients admitted to 33 hospitals, exposure was dose of anticoagulant prescribed for VTE prophylaxis (standard, intensified, therapeutic), and primary outcome was VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]); secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and bleeding events. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering by site and adjusted for risk factors were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for confounding by indication.

Results

1121 patients (mean age 60 ± 18, 47% female) admitted with COVID-19 between February 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020 to 33 US hospitals were included. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was prescribed in 86%. Forty-seven patients (4.2%) had PE, 51 (4.6%) had DVT, and 23 (2.1%) had ATE. Forty-six patients (4.1%) had major bleeding and 46 (4.1%) had clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Compared to standard prophylaxis, adjusted odds of VTE were 0.67 (95% CI 0.21–2.1) with no prophylaxis, 1.0 (95% CI 0.06–17) with intensified, and 3.0 (95% CI 0.89–10) with therapeutic. Adjusted odds of bleeding with no prophylaxis were 5.6 (95% CI 3.0–11) and 5.3 (95% CI 3.0–10) with therapeutic (no events on intensified dosing).

Conclusions

Therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a 3-fold increased odds of VTE and 5-fold increased odds of bleeding. While higher bleeding rates with high-intensity prophylaxis were likely due to full-dose anticoagulation, we conclude that high thrombosis rates were due to clinical concern for thrombosis before formal diagnosis.

Effects of a refined evidence-based toolkit and mentored implementation on medication reconciliation at 18 hospitals: results of the MARQUIS2 study

BACKGROUND

The first Multicenter Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement (QI) Study (MARQUIS1) demonstrated that mentored implementation of a medication reconciliation best practices toolkit decreased total unintentional medication discrepancies in five hospitals, but results varied by site. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of a refined toolkit on a larger group of hospitals.

METHODS

We conducted a pragmatic quality improvement study (MARQUIS2) at 18 North American hospitals or hospital systems from 2016 to 2018. Incorporating lessons learnt from MARQUIS1, we implemented a refined toolkit, offering 17 system-level and 6 patient-level interventions. One of eight physician mentors coached each site via monthly calls and performed one to two site visits. The primary outcome was number of unintentional medication discrepancies in admission or discharge orders per patient. Time series analysis used multivariable Poisson regression.

RESULTS

A total of 4947 patients were sampled, including 1229 patients preimplementation and 3718 patients postimplementation. Both the number of system-level interventions adopted per site and the proportion of patients receiving patient-level interventions increased over time. During the intervention, patients experienced a steady decline in their medication discrepancy rate from 2.85 discrepancies per patient to 0.98 discrepancies per patient. An interrupted time series analysis of the 17 sites with sufficient data for analysis showed the intervention was associated with a 5% relative decrease in discrepancies per month over baseline temporal trends (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.97, p<0.001). Receipt of patient-level interventions was associated with decreased discrepancy rates, and these associations increased over time as sites adopted more system-level interventions.

CONCLUSION

A multicentre medication reconciliation QI initiative using mentored implementation of a refined best practices toolkit, including patient-level and system-level interventions, was associated with a substantial decrease in unintentional medication discrepancies over time. Future efforts should focus on sustainability and spread.

Skilled Nursing Facility Care at Home for Adults Discharged From the Hospital: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

The ability to deliver SNF-level care at home is unclear. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility of rehabilitation at home (RAH) via a pilot randomized controlled trial.

METHODS

Daily care from a home health aide, certified nursing assistant, nurse, and physician. Core technologies included remote PT, automated medication dispensing, and continuous monitoring. Primary outcome: episode cost.

RESULTS

We randomized 10 patients. Home patients' episode cost a median $8404 (IQR, $2697) versus $9215 (IQR, $5702). LOS for both was 14 days. Home patients' ADLs improved between admission and 30-days post-discharge by median 4 (IQR, 5) versus 1 (IQR, 2). Home patients' median Picker patient experience score was 12/14 (IQR, 2) versus 7/14 (IQR, 3).

DISCUSSION

A RAH pilot compared favorably to traditional SNF, with trends toward lower cost, greater functional status improvement, and better patient experience. This delivery innovation could reimagine how we deliver post-acute care but requires replication.

CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATION

NCT04048590.

Patterns of utilization and evaluation of advanced practice providers on academic hospital medicine teams: A national survey

This survey study aimed to provide a contemporary appraisal of advanced practice provider (APP) practice and to summarize perceptions of the benefits and challenges of integrating APPs into adult academic hospital medicine (HM) groups. We surveyed leaders of academic HM groups. We received responses from 43 of 86 groups (50%) surveyed. Thirty-four (79%) reported that they employed APPs. In most groups (85%), APPs were reported to perform daily tasks of patient care, including rounding and documentation. Less than half of the groups reported that APPs had completed HM-specific postgraduate training. The reported benefits of APPs included improved perceived quality of care and greater volume of patients that could be seen. Reported challenges included training requirements and support for new hires. Further investigation is needed to determine which APP team structures deliver the highest quality care. There may be a role for expanding standardized competency-based postgraduate training for APPs planning to practice HM.

A qualitative dual-site analysis of the pharmacist discharge care (PHARM-DC) intervention using the CFIR framework

Introduction

Older adults face several challenges when transitioning from acute hospitals to community-based care. The PHARMacist Discharge Care (PHARM-DC) intervention is a pharmacist-led Transitions of Care (TOC) program intended to reduce 30-day hospital readmissions and emergency department visits at two large hospitals. This study used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) framework to evaluate pharmacist perceptions of the PHARM-DC intervention.

Methods

Intervention pharmacists and pharmacy administrators were purposively recruited by study team members located within each participating institution. Study team members located within each institution coordinated with two study authors unaffiliated with the institutions implementing the intervention to conduct interviews and focus groups remotely via telecommunication software. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, with transcriptions imported into NVivo for qualitative analysis. Qualitative analysis was performed using an iterative process to identify “a priori” constructs based on CFIR domains (intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of the individuals involved, and the process of implementation) and to create overarching themes as identified during coding.

Results

In total, ten semi-structured interviews and one focus group were completed across both hospitals. At Site A, six interviews were conducted with intervention pharmacists and pharmacists in administrative roles. Also at Site A, one focus group comprised of five intervention pharmacists was conducted. At Site B, interviews were conducted with four intervention pharmacists and pharmacists in administrative roles. Three overarching themes were identified: PHARM-DC and Institutional Context, Importance of PHARM-DC Adaptability, and Recommendations for PHARM-DC Improvement and Sustainability. Increasing pharmacist support for technical tasks and navigating pharmacist-patient language barriers were important to intervention implementation and delivery. Identifying cost-savings and quantifying outcomes as a result of the intervention were particularly important when considering how to sustain and expand the PHARM-DC intervention.

Conclusion

The PHARM-DC intervention can successfully be implemented at two institutions with considerable variations in TOC initiatives, resources, and staffing. Future implementation of PHARM-DC interventions should consider the themes identified, including an examination of institution-specific contextual factors such as the roles that pharmacy technicians may play in TOC interventions, the importance of intervention adaptability to account for patient needs and institutional resources, and pharmacist recommendations for intervention improvement and sustainability.

Trial registration

NCT04071951.

Predictors and Reasons Why Patients Decline to Participate in Home Hospital: a Mixed Methods Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Acute care at home ("home hospital") compared to traditional hospital care has been shown to lower cost, utilization, and readmission and improve patient experience and physical activity. Despite these benefits, many patients decline to enroll in home hospital.

OBJECTIVE

Describe predictors and reasons why patients decline home hospital.

DESIGN

Mixed methods evaluation of a randomized controlled trial.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients in the emergency department who required admission and were accepted for home hospital by the home hospital attending, but ultimately declined to enroll.

INTERVENTION

Home hospital care, including nurse and physician home visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, video communication, and point-of-care testing.

APPROACH

We conducted a thematic content analysis of verbatim reasons for decline. We performed bivariate comparisons then multivariable logistic regression to identify patient characteristics associated with declining participation.

KEY RESULTS

Two hundred forty-eight patients were eligible to enroll, and 157 (63%) declined enrollment. Patients who declined and enrolled were of similar age (median age, 74 vs 75 years old; p = 0.27), sex (32% vs 36% female; p = 0.49), and race/ethnicity (p = 0.26). In multivariable analysis, patients were significantly more likely to decline if they initially presented at the community hospital compared to the academic medical center (53% vs 42%; adjusted OR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.2 to 4.2]) and if single (37% v 24%; adjusted OR, 2.5 [95% CI, 1.2 to 5.1]). We formulated 10 qualitative categories describing reasons patients ultimately declined. Many patients declined because they felt it was easier to remain in the hospital (20%) or felt safer in the hospital than in their home (20%).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who declined to enroll in a home hospital intervention had similar sociodemographic characteristics as enrollees except partner status and declined most often for perceptions surrounding safety at home and the ease of remaining in the hospital.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03203759.

Clinicians' Attitudes and System Capacity Regarding Transitional Care Practices Within a Health System: Survey Results From the Partners-PCORI Transitions Study

OBJECTIVES

Successful efforts to improve transitional care depend in part on local attitudes, workload, and training. Before implementing a multifaceted transitions intervention within an Accountable Care Organization, an understanding of contextual factors among providers involved in care transitions in inpatient and outpatient settings was needed.

METHODS

As part of the Partners-Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Transitions Study, we purposefully sampled inpatient and outpatient providers within the Accountable Care Organization. Survey questions focused on training and feedback on transitional tasks and opinions on the quality of care transitions. We also surveyed unit- and practice-level leadership on current transitional care practices. Results are presented using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Among 387 providers surveyed, 220 responded (response rate = 57%) from 15 outpatient practices and 26 inpatient units. A large proportion of respondents reported to have never received training (50%) or feedback (68%) on key transitional care activities, and most (58%) reported insufficient time to complete these tasks. Respondents on average reported transitions processes led to positive outcomes some to most of the time (mean scores = 4.70-5.16 on a 1-7 scale). Surveys of leadership showed tremendous variation by unit and by practice in the performance of various transitional care activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Many respondents felt that training, feedback, and time allotted to key transitional care activities were inadequate. Satisfaction with the quality of the transitions process was middling. Understanding these results, especially variation by location, was important to customizing implementation of the intervention and will be key to understanding variation in the success of the intervention across locations.

Patient and Physician Experience with Interhospital Transfer: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES

Although existing data suggest marked variability in interhospital transfer (IHT), little is known about specific factors that may impact the quality and safety of this care transition. We aimed to explore transferred patients' and involved physicians' experience with IHT to better understand the components of the transfer continuum and identify potential targets for improvement.

METHODS

We performed a qualitative study using individual interviews of adult patients recently transferred to cardiology, general medicine, and oncology services at a tertiary care academic medical center, as well as their transferring physician, accepting attending physician, and accepting/admitting resident physician. We conducted a thematic analysis, using an inductive approach and an a priori framework from pre-established domains.

RESULTS

Participants included 10 hospitalized adults (6 cardiology, 2 general medicine, and 2 oncology), 9 accepting attending physicians, 12 accepting and/or admitting resident physicians, and 5 transferring physicians (N = 36). Emergent themes demonstrated that participants held a shared understanding of the reason for transfer (most commonly access to more specialized care), and relayed a general dissatisfaction regarding the timing and lack of advanced notification of transfer. We also found distinct differences in IHT experience by stakeholder group: physician participants relayed discontent with intrahospital chains of communication and interhospital information exchange, and patient participants focused more readily on the physical aspects of IHT.

CONCLUSIONS

This study offers insight into IHT from the perspective of those most affected by this process, thereby identifying potential targets in addressing the quality and safety of this transition.

A Patient-Centered Environmental Scan of Inpatient Visitor Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Researchers and patients conducted an environmental scan of policy documents and public-facing websites and abstracted data to describe COVID-19 adult inpatient visitor restrictions at 70 academic medical centers. We identified variations in how centers described and operationalized visitor policies. Then, we used the nominal group technique process to identify patient-centered information gaps in visitor policies and provide key recommendations for improvement. Recommendations were categorized into the following domains: 1) provision of comprehensive, consistent, and clear information; 2) accessible information for patients with limited English proficiency and health literacy; 3) COVID-19 related considerations; and 4) care team member methods of communication.

nalyzing diagnostic errors in the acute setting: a process-driven approach

OBJECTIVES

We describe an approach for analyzing failures in diagnostic processes in a small, enriched cohort of general medicine patients who expired during hospitalization and experienced medical error. Our objective was to delineate a systematic strategy for identifying frequent and significant failures in the diagnostic process to inform strategies for preventing adverse events due to diagnostic error.

METHODS

Two clinicians independently reviewed detailed records of purposively sampled cases identified from established institutional case review forums and assessed the likelihood of diagnostic error using the Safer Dx instrument. Each reviewer used the modified Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy, revised for acute care (41 possible failure points across six process dimensions), to characterize the frequency of failure points (FPs) and significant FPs in the diagnostic process.

RESULTS

Of 166 cases with medical error, 16 were sampled: 13 (81.3%) had one or more diagnostic error(s), and a total of 113 FPs and 30 significant FPs were identified. A majority of significant FPs (63.3%) occurred in "Diagnostic Information and Patient Follow-up" and "Patient and Provider Encounter and Initial Assessment" process dimensions. Fourteen (87.5%) cases had a significant FP in at least one of these dimensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Failures in the diagnostic process occurred across multiple dimensions in our purposively sampled cohort. A systematic analytic approach incorporating the modified DEER taxonomy, revised for acute care, offered critical insights into key failures in the diagnostic process that could serve as potential targets for preventative interventions.

How Do Care Transitions Work?: Unraveling the Working Mechanisms of Care Transition Interventions

BACKGROUND

Failure of safe care transitions after hospital discharge results in unnecessary worsening of symptoms, extended period of illness or readmission to the hospital.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to add to the understanding of the working of care transition interventions between hospital and home through unraveling the contextual elements and mechanisms that may have played a role in the success of these interventions, and by developing a conceptual model of how these components relate to each other.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This was a qualitative study using in-person, semi-structured interviews, based on realist evaluation methods.

SUBJECTS

A total of 26 researchers, designers, administrators, and/or practitioners of both current "leading" care transitions interventions and of less successful care transition intervention studies or practices.

MEASURES

The contextual elements and working mechanisms of the different care transition intervention studies or practices.

RESULTS

Three main contextual factors (internal environment, external environment, and patient population) and 7 working mechanisms (simplifiying, verifiying, connecting, translating, coaching, monitoring, and anticipating) were found to be relevant to the outcome of care transition interventions. Context, Intervention, Mechanism, and Outcome (CIMO) configurations revealed that, in response to these contextual factors, care transition interventions triggered one or several of the mechanisms, in turn generating outcomes, including a safer care transition.

CONCLUSION

We developed a conceptual model which explains the working of care transition interventions within different contexts, and believe it can help support future successful implementation of care transition interventions.

30-Day Potentially Avoidable Readmissions Due to Adverse Drug Events

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the patterns of potentially avoidable readmissions due to adverse drug events (ADEs) to identify the most appropriate risk reduction interventions.

METHODS

In this observational study, we analyzed a random sample of 534 potentially avoidable 30-day readmissions from 10,275 consecutive discharges from the medical department of an academic hospital. Readmissions due to ADEs were reviewed to identify the causative drugs and the severity and interventions to prevent them.

RESULTS

Seventy cases (13.1%) of readmission were partially or predominantly due to ADEs, of which, 58 (82.9%) were serious ADEs. Overall, 65 (92.9%) of the ADEs have been confirmed to be preventable. Inappropriate prescribing was identified as the cause of ADE in 34 cases (48.6%) mainly involving diuretics, analgesics, or antithrombotics: misprescribing n = 19 (27.1%), underprescribing n = 8 (11.4%), and overprescribing n = 7 (10.0%). The remaining half of preventable ADEs (n = 36; 51.4%) were related to suboptimal patient monitoring/education, such as adherence issues (n = 6; 8.6%) or lack of monitoring (n = 31; 44.3%). In 64 cases (91.4%), the readmission could have been potentially prevented by better monitoring for drug efficacy/disease control, or for predictable side effect. Thirty-three (97.1%) of the 34 ADEs due to inappropriate prescribing could have also been prevented by better monitoring.

CONCLUSIONS

Adverse drug events accounted for approximately 13% of 30-day preventable readmissions. A half were due to prescription errors involving mainly diuretics, analgesics, or antithrombotics, and the other half were due to suboptimal patient monitoring/education, most frequently with antineoplastics. Both these avoidable causes may represent opportunities to reduce the total drug-related adverse events.

Implementation of Complex Interventions: Lessons Learned From the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Transitional Care Portfolio

BACKGROUND

Despite the well-documented risks to patient safety associated with transitions from one care setting to another, health care organizations struggle to identify which interventions to implement. Multiple strategies are often needed, and studying the effectiveness of these complex interventions is challenging.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to present lessons learned in implementing and evaluating complex transitional care interventions in routine clinical care.

RESEARCH DESIGN

Nine transitional care study teams share important common lessons in designing complex interventions with stakeholder engagement, implementation, and evaluation under pragmatic conditions (ie, using only existing resources), and disseminating findings in outlets that reach policy makers and the people who could ultimately benefit from the research.

RESULTS

Lessons learned serve as a guide for future studies in 3 areas: (1) Delineating the function (intended purpose) versus form (prespecified modes of delivery of the intervention); (2) Evaluating both the processes supporting implementation and the impact of adaptations; and (3) Engaging stakeholders in the design and delivery of the intervention and dissemination of study results.

CONCLUSION

These lessons can help guide future pragmatic studies of care transitions.