The Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN): a learning organization focused on improving hospital care

Academic hospitalist perspectives on the benefits and challenges of secure messaging: A mixed methods analysis

BACKGROUND

Hospitals and patients rely on effective clinician communication. Asynchronous electronic secure messaging (SM) systems are a common way for hospitalists to communicate, but few studies have evaluated how hospitalists are navigating the adoption of SM and the benefits and challenges they are encountering.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess academic hospitalist perspectives on SM to guide future research and quality improvement initiatives.

METHODS

This was a mixed methods study utilizing an embedded REDCap survey and six virtual semistructured focus groups. It took place during a Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network Zoom meeting on October 13, 2023. Rapid qualitative methods were used to define major themes.

RESULTS

There were 28 hospitalists and one patient representative across 24 separate academic institutions. There was a 71% survey completion rate (N = 20). SM was felt to be an effective and efficient communication modality but was associated with a large amount of multitasking and interruptions. Perspectives around SM clustered around three main themes: SM has been widely but variably adopted; there is a lack of institutional guidance about how to best engage with SM; and SM is changing the landscape of hospitalist work by increasing ease but decreasing depth of communication, increasing cognitive load, and changing interpersonal relationships. Recommendations for SM improvements included the need for institutions to work with frontline workers to develop and implement clear usage guidelines.

CONCLUSION

SM is likely contributing to both positive and negative effects for clinicians and patients. Understanding hospitalist perspectives on SM will help guide future research and quality improvement initiatives.

Identifying and Measuring Administrative Harms Experienced by Hospitalists and Administrative Leaders

Importance

Administrative harm (AH), defined as the adverse consequences of administrative decisions within health care that impact work structure, processes, and programs, is pervasive in medicine, yet poorly understood and described.

Objective

To explore common AHs experienced by hospitalist clinicians and administrative leaders, understand the challenges that exist in identifying and measuring AH, and identify potential approaches to mitigate AH.

Design, Setting, and Participants

A qualitative study using a mixed-methods approach with a 12-question survey and semistructured virtual focus groups was held on June 13 and August 11, 2023. Rapid qualitative methods including templated summaries and matrix analysis were applied. The participants included 2 consortiums comprising hospitalist clinicians, researchers, administrative leaders, and members of a patient and family advisory council.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Quantitative data from the survey on specific aspects of experiences related to AH were collected. Focus groups were conducted using a semistructured focus group guide. Themes and subthemes were identified.

Results

Forty-one individuals from 32 different organizations participated in the focus groups, with 32 participants (78%) responding to a brief survey. Survey participants included physicians (91%), administrative professionals (6%), an advanced practice clinician (3%), and those in leadership roles (44%), with participants able to select more than one role. Only 6% of participants were familiar with the term administrative harm to a great extent, 100% felt that collaboration between administrators and clinicians is crucial for reducing AH, and 81% had personally participated in a decision that led to AH to some degree. Three main themes were identified: (1) AH is pervasive and comes from all levels of leadership, and the phenomenon was felt to be widespread and arose from multiple sources within health care systems; (2) organizations lack mechanisms for identification, measurement, and feedback, and these challenges stem from a lack of psychological safety, workplace cultures, and ambiguity in who owns a decision; and (3) organizational pressures were recognized as contributors to AHs. Many ideas were proposed as solutions.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study suggest that AH is widespread with wide-reaching impact, yet organizations do not have mechanisms to identify or address it.

Breaking barriers, building faculty: A qualitative analysis to exploring faculty development in academic hospital medicine

BACKGROUND

Hospital medicine (HM) continues to be primarily composed of junior hospitalists and research has highlighted a paucity of mentors and academic output. Faculty advancement programs have been identified as a means to support junior hospitalists in their career trajectories and to advance the field. The optimal approach to supporting faculty development (FD) efforts is not known.

OBJECTIVE

To understand hospitalist groups' approaches to FD, including efforts that were perceived to be effective, and to identify barriers as well as potential future directions for FD.

DESIGN

Rapid qualitative methods were utilized including templated summaries and matrix analysis to identify major themes.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Virtual focus groups with hospitalists in the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN).

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Qualitative themes.

RESULTS

Nineteen individuals from 17 unique institutions from across the United States in May 2022 participated in seven focus groups. Four key themes emerged from the study and included (1) academic hospitalist programs face multifaceted challenges and barriers to FD in HM, (2) groups have embraced a diversity of structures and frameworks, (3) due to clinical volumes, FD programs have had to adapt and evolve to meet FD needs, and (4) participants identified multiple areas for improvement, including defining tangible outcomes of FD programs and creating a repository of FD material which can be shared widely.

Virtual hospital care development and deployment: A rapid qualitative study of frontline clinicians and leaders

BACKGROUND

Virtual hospitalist programs are rapidly growing in popularity due to worsening clinician shortages and increased pressure for flexible work options. These programs also have the potential to establish sustainable staffing models across multiple hospitals optimizing cost. We aimed to explore the current state of virtual hospitalist services at various health systems, challenges and opportunities that exist in providing virtual care, and future opportunities for these types of services.

OBJECTIVES

To identify perspectives on design and implementation of virtual hospitalist programs from academic hospitalist leaders.

METHODS

We conducted focus groups with United States academic hospitalist leaders. Semistructured interviews explored experiences with virtual hospitalist programs. Using rapid qualitative methods including templated summaries and matrix analysis, focus group recordings were analyzed to identify key themes.

RESULTS

We conducted four focus groups with 13 participants representing nine hospital systems across six geographic regions and range of experience with virtual hospital medicine care. Thematic analysis identified three themes: (1) a broad spectrum of virtual care delivery; (2) adoption and acceptance of virtual care models followed the stages of diffusion of innovation; and (3) sustainability and scalability of programs were affected by unclear finances.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalist leader perspectives revealed complex factors influencing virtual care adoption and implementation. Addressing concerns about care quality, financing, and training may accelerate adoption. Further research should clarify the best practices for sustainable models optimized for access, hospitalist experience, patient safety, and financial viability.

Impact of billing reforms on academic hospitalist physician and advanced practice provider collaboration: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Medicare previously announced plans for new billing reforms for inpatient visits that are shared by physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) whereby the clinician spending the most time on the patient visit would bill for the visit.

OBJECTIVE

To understand how inpatient hospital medicine teams utilize APPs in patient care and how the proposed billing policies might impact future APP utilization.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted focus groups with hospitalist physicians, APPs, and other leaders from 21 academic hospitals across the United States. Utilizing rapid qualitative methods, focus groups were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive method at the semantic level with templated summaries and matrix analysis. Thirty-three individuals (physicians [n = 21], APPs [n = 10], practice manager [n = 1], and patient representative [n = 1]) participated in six focus groups.

RESULTS

Four themes emerged from the analysis of the focus groups, including: (1) staffing models with APPs are rapidly evolving, (2) these changes were felt to be driven by staffing shortages, financial models, and governance with minimal consideration to teamwork and relationships, (3) time-based billing was perceived to value tasks over cognitive workload, and (4) that the proposed billing changes may create unintended consequences impacting collaboration and professional satisfaction.

CONCLUSIONS

Physician and APP collaborative care models are increasingly evolving to independent visits often driven by workloads, financial drivers, and local regulations such as medical staff rules and hospital bylaws. Understanding which staffing models produce optimal patient, clinician, and organizational outcomes should inform billing policies rather than the reverse.

Multi-Institution Survey of Accepting Physicians' Perception of Appropriate Reasons for Interhospital Transfer: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation

OBJECTIVES

There is a lack of evidence-based guidelines to direct best practices in interhospital transfers (IHTs). We aimed to identify frontline physicians' current and ideal reasons for accepting IHT patients to inform future IHT research and guidelines.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of hospitalist physicians across 11 geographically diverse hospitals. The survey asked respondents how frequently they currently consider and should consider various factors when triaging IHT requests. Responses were dichotomized into "highly considered" and "less considered" factors. Frequencies of the "highly considered" factors (current and ideal) were analyzed. Write-in responses were coded into themes within a priori domains in a qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 666 hospitalists surveyed, 238 (36%) responded. Respondents most frequently identified the need for specialty procedural and nonprocedural care and bed capacity as factors that should be considered when triaging IHT patients in current and ideal practice, whereas the least frequently considered factors were COVID-related care, insurance/financial considerations, and patient/family preference. More experienced respondents considered patient/family preference more frequently in current and ideal practice compared with less experienced respondents (33% versus 11% [ P = 0.0001] and 26% versus 9% [ P = 0.01], respectively). Qualitative analysis identified several themes in the domains of Criteria for Acceptance, Threshold for Acceptance, and Indications for Physician-to-Physician Communication.

CONCLUSIONS

This geographically diverse sample of hospitalist physicians responsible for accepting IHT patients showed general agreement between primary factors that are currently and that should be considered for IHT acceptance, with greatest weight placed on patients' need for specialty care.

Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Adults Who Died or Were Transferred to Intensive Care

Importance

Diagnostic errors contribute to patient harm, though few data exist to describe their prevalence or underlying causes among medical inpatients.

Objective

To determine the prevalence, underlying cause, and harms of diagnostic errors among hospitalized adults transferred to an intensive care unit (ICU) or who died.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Retrospective cohort study conducted at 29 academic medical centers in the US in a random sample of adults hospitalized with general medical conditions and who were transferred to an ICU, died, or both from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Each record was reviewed by 2 trained clinicians to determine whether a diagnostic error occurred (ie, missed or delayed diagnosis), identify diagnostic process faults, and classify harms. Multivariable models estimated association between process faults and diagnostic error. Opportunity for diagnostic error reduction associated with each fault was estimated using the adjusted proportion attributable fraction (aPAF). Data analysis was performed from April through September 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Whether or not a diagnostic error took place, the frequency of underlying causes of errors, and harms associated with those errors.

Results

Of 2428 patient records at 29 hospitals that underwent review (mean [SD] patient age, 63.9 [17.0] years; 1107 [45.6%] female and 1321 male individuals [54.4%]), 550 patients (23.0%; 95% CI, 20.9%-25.3%) had experienced a diagnostic error. Errors were judged to have contributed to temporary harm, permanent harm, or death in 436 patients (17.8%; 95% CI, 15.9%-19.8%); among the 1863 patients who died, diagnostic error was judged to have contributed to death in 121 (6.6%; 95% CI, 5.3%-8.2%). In multivariable models examining process faults associated with any diagnostic error, patient assessment problems (aPAF, 21.4%; 95% CI, 16.4%-26.4%) and problems with test ordering and interpretation (aPAF, 19.9%; 95% CI, 14.7%-25.1%) had the highest opportunity to reduce diagnostic errors; similar ranking was seen in multivariable models examining harmful diagnostic errors.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, diagnostic errors in hospitalized adults who died or were transferred to the ICU were common and associated with patient harm. Problems with choosing and interpreting tests and the processes involved with clinician assessment are high-priority areas for improvement efforts.

The Hospitalist Movement 25 Years Later

Hospitalists are generalists who specialize in the care of hospitalized patients. In the 25 years since the term hospitalist was coined, the field of hospital medicine has grown exponentially and established a substantial footprint in the medical community. There are now more hospitalists than practicing physicians in any other internal medicine subspecialty. Several key forces catalyzed the growth in the field of hospital medicine, including the quality, safety, and value movements; residency duty hour restrictions; the emergence of electronic health records; and the COVID-19 pandemic. Looking ahead, we see new opportunities in the realms of technology and telemedicine, and challenges persist in regard to balancing financial considerations with increasing workload and burnout. Hospitalists must remain nimble and seize emerging opportunities to continue supporting the field's prominence and growth.

Advancing health information during interhospital transfer: An interrupted time series

INTRODUCTION

Although the transfer of patients between acute care hospitals (interhospital transfer, IHT) is common, health information exchange (HIE) during IHT remains inadequate, with fragmented communication and unreliable access to clinical information. This study aims to design, implement, and rigorously evaluate the implementation of a HIE platform to improve data access during IHT.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Study subjects include patients aged >18 transferred to the medical, cardiology, oncology, or intensive care unit (ICU) services at an 800-bed quaternary care hospital; and healthcare workers involved in their care. The first aim of this study is to optimize clinician workflow, data visualization, and interoperability through user-centered design sessions for HIE platform development. The second aim is to evaluate the impact of the intervention on clinician-reported medical errors among 500 pre- and 500 postintervention IHT patients using interrupted time series methodology, adjusting for confounding variables and temporal trends. The third aim is to evaluate intervention fidelity, use and perceived usability of the platform, and barriers and facilitators of implementation from interprofessional stakeholder input, using mixed-methods evaluation. The fourth aim is to consolidate key findings to create a toolkit for spread and sustainability.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

We will track patient safety endpoints and clinician workflow burdens and ensure the protection of patient data throughout the study. We will disseminate our findings via the creation of a toolkit for spread and sustainability, partnering with our funder (AHRQ) for dissemination, and communicating our results via abstracts and publications.

Achieving diagnostic excellence through prevention and teamwork (ADEPT) study protocol: A multicenter, prospective quality and safety program to improve diagnostic processes in medical inpatients

BACKGROUND

Few hospitals have built surveillance for diagnostic errors into usual care or used comparative quantitative and qualitative data to understand their diagnostic processes and implement interventions designed to reduce these errors.

OBJECTIVES

To build surveillance for diagnostic errors into usual care, benchmark diagnostic performance across sites, pilot test interventions, and evaluate the program's impact on diagnostic error rates.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Achieving diagnostic excellence through prevention and teamwork (ADEPT) is a multicenter, real-world quality and safety program utilizing interrupted time-series techniques to evaluate outcomes. Study subjects will be a randomly sampled population of medical patients hospitalized at 16 US hospitals who died, were transferred to intensive care, or had a rapid response during the hospitalization. Surveillance for diagnostic errors will occur on 10 events per month per site using a previously established two-person adjudication process. Concurrent reviews of patients who had a qualifying event in the previous week will allow for surveys of clinicians to better understand contributors to diagnostic error, or conversely, examples of diagnostic excellence, which cannot be gleaned from medical record review alone. With guidance from national experts in quality and safety, sites will report and benchmark diagnostic error rates, share lessons regarding underlying causes, and design, implement, and pilot test interventions using both Safety I and Safety II approaches aimed at patients, providers, and health systems. Safety II approaches will focus on cases where diagnostic error did not occur, applying theories of how people and systems are able to succeed under varying conditions. The primary outcome will be the number of diagnostic errors per patient, using segmented multivariable regression to evaluate change in y-intercept and change in slope after initiation of the program.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is serving as the single IRB. Intervention toolkits and study findings will be disseminated through partners including Vizient, The Joint Commission, and Press-Ganey, and through national meetings, scientific journals, and publications aimed at the general public.

Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on Women Hospitalists: A Mixed-Gender Qualitative Analysis

BACKGROUND

Women physicians have faced persistent challenges, including gender bias, salary inequities, a disproportionate share of caregiving and domestic responsibilities, and limited representation in leadership. Data indicate the COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted and exacerbated these inequities.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the pandemic's impact on women physicians and to brainstorm solutions to better support women physicians.

DESIGN

Mixed-gender semi-structured focus groups.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalists in the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN).

APPROACH

Six semi-structured virtual focus groups were held with 22 individuals from 13 institutions comprised primarily of academic hospitalist physicians. Rapid qualitative methods including templated summaries and matrix analysis were applied to identify major themes and subthemes.

KEY RESULTS

Four key themes emerged: (1) the pandemic exacerbated perceived gender inequities, (2) women's academic productivity and career development were negatively impacted, (3) women held disproportionate roles as caregivers and household managers, and (4) institutional pandemic responses were often misaligned with workforce needs, especially those of women hospitalists. Multiple interventions were proposed including: creating targeted workforce solutions and benefits to address the disproportionate caregiving burden placed on women, addressing hospitalist scheduling and leave practices, ensuring promotion pathways value clinical and COVID-19 contributions, creating transparency around salary and non-clinical time allocation, and ensuring women are better represented in leadership roles.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitalists perceived and experienced that women physicians faced negative impacts from the pandemic in multiple domains including leadership opportunities and scholarship, while also shouldering larger caregiving duties than men. There are many opportunities to improve workplace conditions for women; however, current institutional efforts were perceived as misaligned to actual needs. Thus, policy and programmatic changes, such as those proposed by this cohort of hospitalists, are needed to advance equity in the workplace.

Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs).

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN).

TARGET POPULATION

Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020.

MEASUREMENTS

We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error.

LIMITATIONS

Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients.

CONCLUSION

Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.

Building a thriving academic hospitalist workforce: A rapid qualitative analysis identifying key areas of focus in the field

BACKGROUND

The hospitalist workforce has been at the forefront of the pandemic and has been stretched in both clinical and nonclinical domains. We aimed to understand current and future workforce concerns, as well as strategies to cultivate a thriving hospital medicine workforce.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

We conducted qualitative, semistructured focus groups with practicing hospitalists via video conferencing (Zoom). Utilizing components from the Brainwriting Premortem Approach, attendees were split into small focus groups and listed their thoughts about workforce issues that hospitalists may encounter in the next 3 years, identifying the highest priority workforce issues for the hospital medicine community. Each small group discussed the most pressing workforce issues. These ideas were then shared across the entire group and ranked. We used rapid qualitative analysis to guide a structured exploration of themes and subthemes.

RESULTS

Five focus groups were held with 18 participants from 13 academic institutions. We identified five key areas: (1) support for workforce wellness; (2) staffing and pipeline development to maintain an adequate workforce to match clinical growth; (3) scope of work, including how hospitalist work is defined and whether the clinical skillset should be expanded; (4) commitment to the academic mission in the setting of rapid and unpredictable clinical growth; and (5) alignment between the duties of hospitalists and resources of hospitals. Hospitalists voiced numerous concerns about the future of our workforce. Several domains were identified as high-priority areas of focus to address current and future challenges.

Practical Applications of Rapid Qualitative Analysis for Operations, Quality Improvement, and Research in Dynamically Changing Hospital Environments

BACKGROUND

Health care systems are in a constant state of change. As such, methods to quickly acquire and analyze data are essential to effectively evaluate current processes and improvement projects. Rapid qualitative analysis offers an expeditious approach to evaluate complex, dynamic, and time-sensitive issues.

METHODS

We used rapid data acquisition and qualitative methods to assess six real-world problems the hospitalist field faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. We iteratively modified and applied a six-step framework for conducting rapid qualitative analysis, including determining if rapid methods are appropriate, creating a team, selecting a data collection approach, data analysis, and synthesis and dissemination. Virtual platforms were used for focus groups and interviews; templated summaries and matrix analyses were then applied to allow for rapid qualitative analyses.

RESULTS

We conducted six projects using rapid data acquisition and rapid qualitative analysis from December 4, 2020, to January 14, 2022, each of which included 23 to 33 participants. One project involved participants from a single institution; the remainder included participants from 15 to 24 institutions. These projects led to the refinement of an adapted rapid qualitative method for evaluation of hospitalist-driven operational, research, and quality improvement efforts. We describe how we used these methods and disseminated our results. We also discuss situations for which rapid qualitative methods are well-suited and strengths and weaknesses of the methods.

CONCLUSION

Rapid qualitative methods paired with rapid data acquisition can be employed for prompt turnaround assessments of quality, operational, and research projects in complex health care environments. Although rapid qualitative analysis is not meant to replace more traditional qualitative methods, it may be appropriate in certain situations. Application of a framework to guide projects using a rapid qualitative approach can help provide structure to the analysis and instill confidence in the findings.

Adaptability on Shifting Ground: a Rapid Qualitative Assessment of Multi-institutional Inpatient Surge Planning and Workforce Deployment During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

During the initial wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations, care delivery and workforce adaptations were rapidly implemented. In response to subsequent surges of patients, institutions have deployed, modified, and/or discontinued their workforce plans.

OBJECTIVE

Using rapid qualitative methods, we sought to explore hospitalists' experiences with workforce deployment, types of clinicians deployed, and challenges encountered with subsequent iterations of surge planning during the COVID-19 pandemic across a collaborative of hospital medicine groups.

APPROACH

Using rapid qualitative methods, focus groups were conducted in partnership with the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). We interviewed physicians, advanced practice providers (APP), and physician researchers about (1) ongoing adaptations to the workforce as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) current struggles with workforce planning, and (3) evolution of workforce planning.

KEY RESULTS

We conducted five focus groups with 33 individuals from 24 institutions, representing 52% of HOMERuN sites. A variety of adaptations was described by participants, some common across institutions and others specific to the institution's location and context. Adaptations implemented shifted from the first waves of COVID patients to subsequent waves. Three global themes also emerged: (1) adaptability and comfort with dynamic change, (2) the importance of the unique hospitalist skillset for effective surge planning and redeployment, and (3) the lack of universal solutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospital workforce adaptations to the COVID pandemic continued to evolve. While few approaches were universally effective in managing surges of patients, and successful adaptations were highly context dependent, the ability to navigate a complex system, adaptability, and comfort in a chaotic, dynamic environment were themes considered most critical to successful surge management. However, resource constraints and sustained high workload levels raised issues of burnout.

Driving Efficiency Improvement (EI): Exploratory Analysis of a Centralised Model in New South Wales

Introduction

Public healthcare systems face rising demand coupled with reducing funding growth rates, necessitating ongoing approaches to efficiency improvement (EI). Centrally coordinated EI approaches l may support EI leaders, yet few such approaches exist internationally. This study provides evidence to inform system-wide EI by harnessing understanding of the perceptions, role demands and support requirements of key EI stakeholders in the centralised EI model implemented in New South Wales.

Methods

A purposive sample of key informants within NSW Health with responsibility for EI in their organisation were invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded and transcribed. A thematic analysis was undertaken using a theoretical deductive approach.

Results

Seventeen respondents participated who occupied EI leadership roles in metro (8) and rural (6) health services as well as non-clinical support (3) services. Four primary themes emerged on the perceptions and experiences of participants in 1. holding a unique skillset which enables them to undertake EI; 2. inheriting EI accountabilities as additional duties rather than holding dedicated EI roles; 3. the importance of senior support for EI success; and 4. feelings of isolation in undertaking EI. An additional underpinning theme that EI is not well conceptualized in public health systems also emerged, whereby EI planners felt that frontline staff generally do not consider efficiency as a component of their duties.

Conclusion

EI leaders provide points of authority, experience and influence across organisations within public health systems. This study finds that EI planners possess a unique skillset, can feel isolated both within their health organisation and within the broader public health system and believe that EI is poorly conceptualized amongst health staff. Centralised support for EI stakeholders across a public health system can promote knowledge sharing and capability development. Addressing the role and support requirements of key EI stakeholders is essential.

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.

Supporting efficiency improvement in public health systems: a rapid evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Public health systems internationally are under pressure to meet increasing demand for healthcare in the context of increasing financial resource constraint. There is therefore a need to maximise health outcomes achieved with public healthcare expenditure. This paper aims to establish and synthesize the contemporary evidence base for approaches taken at a system management level to improve efficiency.

METHODS

Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) methodology was employed. A search strategy was developed and applied (PUBMED, MEDLINE) returning 5,377 unique titles. 172 full-text articles were screened to determine relevance with 82 publications included in the final review. Data regarding country, study design, key findings and approaches to efficiency improvement were extracted and a narrative synthesis produced. Publications covering health systems from developed countries were included.

RESULTS

Identified study designs included policy reviews, qualitative reviews, mixed methods reviews, systematic reviews, literature reviews, retrospective analyses, scoping reviews, narrative papers, regression analyses and opinion papers. While findings revealed no comprehensive frameworks for system-wide efficiency improvement, a range of specific centrally led improvement approaches were identified. Elements associated with success in current approaches included dedicated central functions to drive system-wide efficiency improvement, managing efficiency in tandem with quality and value, and inclusive stakeholder engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The requirement for public health systems to improve efficiency is likely to continue to increase. Reactive cost-cutting measures and short-term initiatives aimed only at reducing expenditure are unlikely to deliver sustainable efficiency improvement. By providing dedicated central system-wide efficiency improvement support, public health system management entities can deliver improved financial, health service and stakeholder outcomes.

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.

Bracing for the Wave: a Multi-Institutional Survey Analysis of Inpatient Workforce Adaptations in the First Phase of COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Medical centers across the country have had to rapidly adapt clinician staffing strategies to accommodate large influxes of patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand the adaptations and staffing strategies that US academic medical centers employed in the inpatient setting early in the spread of COVID-19, and to assess whether those changes were sustained during the first phase of the pandemic.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey assessing organization-level, team-level, and clinician-level inpatient workforce adaptations.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospital medicine leadership at 27 academic medical centers in the USA.

KEY RESULTS

Twenty-seven of 36 centers responded to the survey (75%). Widespread practices included frequent staffing reassessment, organization-level changes such as geographic cohorting and redeployment of non-hospitalists, and exempting high-risk healthcare workers from direct care of patients with COVID-19. Several practices were implemented but discontinued, such as reduction of non-essential services, indicating that they were less sustainable for large centers.

CONCLUSION

These findings provide guidance for inpatient leaders seeking to identify sustainable practices for COVID-19 inpatient workforce planning.

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.

Gaps in Hospital and Skilled Nursing Facility Responsibilities During Transitions of Care: a Comparison of Hospital and SNF Clinicians' Perspectives

BACKGROUND

Adverse outcomes are common in transitions from hospital to skilled nursing facilities (SNFs). Gaps in transitional care processes contribute to these outcomes, but it is unclear whether hospital and SNF clinicians have the same perception about who is responsible for filling these gaps in care transitions.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand the perspectives of hospital and SNF clinicians on their roles and responsibilities in transitional care processes, to identify areas of congruence and gaps that could be addressed to improve transitions.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews with interdisciplinary hospital and SNF providers.

PARTICIPANTS

Forty-one clinicians across 3 hospitals and 3 SNFs including nurses (8), social workers (7), physicians (8), physical and occupational therapists (12), and other staff (6).

APPROACH

Using team-based approach to deductive analysis, we mapped responses to the 10 domains of the Ideal Transitions of Care Framework (ITCF) to identify areas of agreement and gaps between hospitals and SNFs.

KEY RESULTS

Although both clinician groups had similar conceptions of an ideal transitions of care, their perspectives included significant gaps in responsibilities in 8 of the 10 domains of ITCF, including Discharge Planning; Complete Communication of Information; Availability, Timeliness, Clarity and Organization of Information; Medication Safety; Educating Patients to Promote Self-Management; Enlisting Help of Social and Community Supports; Coordinating Care Among Team Members; and Managing Symptoms After Discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

As hospitals and SNFs increasingly are held jointly responsible for the outcomes of patients transitioning between them, clarity in roles and responsibilities between hospital and SNF staff are needed. Improving transitions of care may require site-level efforts, joint hospital-SNF initiatives, and national financial, regulatory, and technological fixes. In the meantime, building effective hospital-SNF partnerships is increasingly important to delivering high-quality care to a vulnerable older adult population.

Discharge Practices for COVID-19 Patients: Rapid Review of Published Guidance and Synthesis of Documents and Practices at 22 US Academic Medical Centers

BACKGROUND

There are currently no evidence-based guidelines that provide standardized criteria for the discharge of COVID-19 patients from the hospital.

OBJECTIVE

To address this gap in practice guidance, we reviewed published guidance and collected discharge protocols and procedures to identify and synthesize common practices.

DESIGN

Rapid review of existing guidance from US and non-US public health organizations and professional societies and qualitative review using content analysis of discharge documents collected from a national sample of US academic medical centers with follow-up survey of hospital leaders SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 65 websites for major professional societies and public health organizations and collected documents from 22 Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) in the US participating in the HOspital MEdicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN).

RESULTS

We synthesized data regarding common practices around 5 major domains: (1) isolation and transmission mitigation; (2) criteria for discharge to non-home settings including skilled nursing, assisted living, or homeless; (3) clinical criteria for discharge including oxygenation levels, fever, and symptom improvement; (4) social support and ability to perform activities of daily living; (5) post-discharge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up.

LIMITATIONS

We used streamlined methods for rapid review of published guidance and collected discharge documents only in a focused sample of US academic medical centers.

CONCLUSION

AMCs studied showed strong consensus on discharge practices for COVID-19 patients related to post-discharge isolation and transmission mitigation for home and non-home settings. There was high concordance among AMCs that discharge practices should address COVID-19-specific factors in clinical, functional, and post-discharge monitoring domains although definitions and details varied.

Development and Implementation of a Complex Health System Intervention Targeting Transitions of Care from Hospital to Post-acute Care

BACKGROUND

Failure of effective transitions of care following hospitalization can lead to excess days in the hospital, readmissions, and adverse events. Evidence identifies both patient and system factors that influence poor care transitions, yet health systems struggle to translate evidence into complex interventions that have a meaningful impact on care transitions.

OBJECTIVE

We report on our experience developing, pilot testing, and evaluating a complex intervention (Addressing Complex Transitions program, or ACT program) that aims to improve care transitions for complex patients.

DESIGN

Following the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework, we engaged in iterative, stakeholder-driven work to develop a complex care intervention, assess feasibility and pilot methods, evaluate the intervention in practice, and facilitate ongoing implementation monitoring and dissemination.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients receiving care from UW Medicine's health system including 4 hospitals and 20-site Post-Acute Care network.

INTERVENTION

Literature review and prospective data collection activities informed ACT program design. ACT program components include a tailored risk calculator that provides real-time scoring of transitions of care risk factors, a multidisciplinary team with the capacity to address complex barriers to safe transitions, and enhanced discharge workflows to improve care transitions for complex patients.

KEY MEASURES

Program evaluation metrics included estimated hospital days saved and program acceptance by care team members.

KEY RESULTS

During the 6-month pilot, 565 patients were screened and 97 enrolled in the ACT program. An estimated 664 hospital days were saved for the index admission of ACT program participants. Analysis of pre/post-hospital utilization for ACT program participants showed an estimated 3227 fewer hospital days after ACT program enrollment.

CONCLUSIONS

Health systems need to address increasingly difficult challenges in care delivery. The use of evidence-based frameworks, such as the MRC framework, can guide systems to design complex interventions that respond to their local context and stakeholder needs.

COVID-19 coagulopathy and thrombosis: Analysis of hospital protocols in response to the rapidly evolving pandemic

As the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread to the US, so too did descriptions of an associated coagulopathy and thrombotic complications. Hospitals created institutional protocols for inpatient management of COVID-19 coagulopathy and thrombosis in response to this developing data. We collected and analyzed protocols from 21 US academic medical centers developed between January and May 2020. We found greatest consensus on recommendations for heparin-based pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients without contraindications. Protocols differed regarding incorporation of D-dimer tests, dosing of VTE prophylaxis, indications for post-discharge pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, how to evaluate for VTE, and the use of empiric therapeutic anticoagulation. These findings support ongoing efforts to establish international, evidence-based guidelines.

Hospital Ward Adaptation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey of Academic Medical Centers

IMPORTANCE

Although intensive care unit (ICU) adaptations to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have received substantial attention , most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have been in general medical units.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize inpatient adaptations to care for non-ICU COVID-19 patients.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

A network of 72 hospital medicine groups at US academic centers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

COVID-19 testing, approaches to personal protective equipment (PPE), and features of respiratory isolation units (RIUs).

RESULTS

Fifty-one of 72 sites responded (71%) between April 3 and April 5, 2020. At the time of our survey, only 15 (30%) reported COVID-19 test results being available in less than 6 hours. Half of sites with PPE data available reported PPE stockpiles of 2 weeks or less. Nearly all sites (90%) reported implementation of RIUs. RIUs primarily utilized attending physicians, with few incorporating residents and none incorporating students. Isolation and room-entry policies focused on grouping care activities and utilizing technology (such as video visits) to communicate with and evaluate patients. The vast majority of sites reported decreases in frequency of in-room encounters across provider or team types. Forty-six percent of respondents reported initially unrecognized non-COVID-19 diagnoses in patients admitted for COVID-19 evaluation; a similar number reported delayed identification of COVID-19 in patients admitted for other reasons.

CONCLUSION

The COVID-19 pandemic has required medical wards to rapidly adapt with expanding use of RIUs and use of technology emerging as critical approaches. Reports of unrecognized or delayed diagnoses highlight how such adaptations may produce potential adverse effects on care.

Inter-hospital transfer and patient outcomes: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Inter-hospital transfer (IHT, the transfer of patients between hospitals) occurs regularly and exposes patients to risks of discontinuity of care, though outcomes of transferred patients remains largely understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between IHT and healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

CMS 2013 100 % Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files merged with 2013 American Hospital Association data.

PARTICIPANTS

Beneficiaries≥age 65 enrolled in Medicare A and B, with an acute care hospitalisation claim in 2013 and 1 of 15 top disease categories.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Cost of hospitalisation, length of stay (LOS) (of entire hospitalisation), discharge home, 3 -day and 30- day mortality, in transferred vs non-transferred patients.

RESULTS

The final cohort consisted of 53 420 transferred patients and 53 420 propensity-score matched non-transferred patients. Across all 15 disease categories, IHT was associated with significantly higher costs, longer LOS and lower odds of discharge home. Additionally, IHT was associated with lower propensity-matched odds of 3-day and/or 30- day mortality for some disease categories (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, sepsis, respiratory disease) and higher propensity-matched odds of mortality for other disease categories (oesophageal/gastrointestinal disease, renal failure, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, renal failure, chronic obstructivepulmonary disease, hip fracture/dislocation, urinary tract infection and metabolic disease).

CONCLUSIONS

In this nationally representative study of Medicare beneficiaries, IHT was associated with higher costs, longer LOS and lower odds of discharge home, but was differentially associated with odds of early death and 30 -day mortality depending on patients' disease category. These findings demonstrate heterogeneity among transferred patients depending on the diagnosis, presenting a nuanced assessment of this complex care transition.

Patient and Family Advisory Councils for Research: Recruiting and Supporting Members From Diverse and Hard-to-Reach Communities

OBJECTIVE

To describe strategies to recruit and support members from hard-to-reach groups on research-focused Patient and Family Advisory Councils (PFACs).

BACKGROUND

Ensuring diverse representation of members of research PFACs is challenging, and few studies have given attention to addressing this problem.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using 8 focus groups and 19 interviews with 80 PFAC members and leaders, hospital leaders, and researchers.

RESULTS

Recruitment recommendations were: 1) utilizing existing networks; 2) going out to the community; 3) accessing outpatient clinics; and 4) using social media. Strategies to support inclusion were: 1) culturally appropriate communication methods; 2) building a sense of community between PFAC members; 3) equalizing roles between community members/leaders; 4) having a diverse PFAC leadership team; and 5) setting transparent expectations for PFAC membership.

CONCLUSION

Increasing the diversity of research PFACs is a priority, and it is important to determine how best to engage groups that have been traditionally underrepresented.

Organizational Health Literacy: Quality Improvement Measures with Expert Consensus

BACKGROUND

Organizational health literacy (OHL) is the degree to which health care organizations implement strategies to make it easier for patients to understand health information, navigate the health care system, engage in the health care process, and manage their health. Although resources exist to guide OHL-related quality improvement (QI) initiatives, little work has been done to establish measures that organizations can use to monitor their improvement efforts.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to identify and evaluate existing OHL-related QI measures. To complement prior efforts to develop measures based on patient-reported data, we sought to identify measures computed from clinical, administrative, QI, or staff-reported data. Our goal was to develop a set of measures that experts agree are valuable for informing OHL-related QI activities.

METHODS

We used four methods to identify relevant measures computed from clinical, administrative, QI, or staff-reported data. We convened a Technical Expert Panel, published a request for measures, conducted a literature review, and interviewed 20 organizations working to improve OHL. From the comprehensive list of measures identified, we selected a set of high-priority measures for review by a second expert panel. Using a modified Delphi review process, panelists rated measures on four evaluation criteria, participated in a teleconference to discuss areas of disagreement among panelists, and rerated all measures.

KEY RESULTS

Across all methods, we identified 233 measures. Seventy measures underwent Delphi Panel review. For 22 measures, there was consensus among panelists that the measures were useful, meaningful, feasible, and had face validity. Five additional measures received strong ratings for usefulness, meaningfulness, and face validity, but failed to show consensus among panelists regarding feasibility.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified OHL-related QI measures that have the support of experts in the field. Although additional measure development and testing is recommended, the Consensus OHL QI Measures are appropriate for immediate use. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2019;3(2):e127-e146.].

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY

The health care system is complex. Health care organizations can make things easier for patients by making changes to improve communication and to help patients find their way around, become engaged in the health care process, and manage their health. We identify 22 measures that organizations can use to monitor their efforts to improve communication with and support for patients.

Patient and Family Advisory Councils (PFACs): Identifying Challenges and Solutions to Support Engagement in Research

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to describe barriers to patient and family advisory council (PFAC) member engagement in research and strategies to support engagement in this context.

METHODS

We formed a study team comprising patient advisors, researchers, physicians, and nurses. We then undertook a qualitative study using focus groups and interviews. We invited PFAC members, PFAC leaders, hospital leaders, and researchers from nine academic medical centers that are part of a hospital medicine research network to participate. All participants were asked a standard set of questions exploring the study question. We used content analysis to analyze data.

RESULTS

Eighty PFAC members and other stakeholders (45 patient/caregiver members of PFACs, 12 PFAC leaders, 12 hospital leaders, 11 researchers) participated in eight focus and 19 individual interviews. We identified ten barriers to PFAC member engagement in research. Codes were organized into three categories: (1) individual PFAC member reluctance; (2) lack of skills and training; and (3) problems connecting with the right person at the right time. We identified ten strategies to support engagement. These were organized into four categories: (1) creating an environment where the PFAC members are making a genuine and unique contribution; (2) building community between PFAC members and researchers; (3) best practice activities for researchers to facilitate engagement; and (4) tools and training.

CONCLUSION

Barriers to engaging PFAC members in research include patients' negative perceptions of research and researchers' lack of training. Building community between PFAC members and researchers is a foundation for partnerships. There are shared training opportunities for PFAC members and researchers to build skills about research and research engagement.

Implementation of Home Hospitalization and Early Discharge as an Integrated Care Service: A Ten Years Pragmatic Assessment

Home Hospitalization has proven efficacy, but its effectiveness and potential as an Integrated Care Service in a real world setting deserves to be explored.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate implementation and 10 years follow-up of Home Hospitalization and Early Discharge as an Integrated Care Service in an urban healthcare district in Barcelona.

METHODS

Prospective study with pragmatic assessment. Patients: Surgical and medical acute and exacerbated chronic patients requiring admission into a highly specialized hospital, from 2006 to 2015. Intervention: Home-based individualized care plan, administered as a hospital-based outreach service, aiming at substituting hospitalization and implementing a transitional care strategy for optimal discharge. Main measurements: Emergency Department, readmissions and mortality. Patients' and professionals' perspectives, technologies and costs were evaluated.

RESULTS

4,165 admissions (71 ± 15 yrs; Charlson Index 4 ± 3). In-hospital stay was 1 (0-3) days and the length of home-based stay was 6 (5-7) days. The 30-day readmission rate was 11% and mortality was 2%. Patients, careers and health professionals expressed high levels of satisfaction (98%). At the start, the service was reimbursed at a flat rate of 918€ per patient discharged, significantly lower than conventional hospitalization (2,879€) but still allowing the hospital to keep a balanced budget. At present, there is no difference in the payment schemes for both types of services.

CONCLUSIONS

The service freed an average of 6 in-hospital days per patient. The program showed health value generation, as well as potential for synergies with community-based Integrated Care Services.

Evaluation of the Yale New Haven Readmission Risk Score for Pneumonia in a General Hospital Population

BACKGROUND

The Yale New Haven Readmission Risk Score (YNHRRS) for pneumonia is a clinical prediction tool developed to assess risk for 30-day readmission. This tool was validated in a cohort of Medicare patients; generalizability to a broader patient population has not been evaluated. In addition, it lacks indicators of functional status or social support, which have been shown in other studies to be predictors of readmission. The objective of this study was to evaluate the generalizability of the YNHRRS for pneumonia in a general population of hospitalized patients, and assess the impact of incorporating measures of functional status and social support on its predictive value.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review comprised all patients admitted to a 563-bed academic medical center with a primary diagnosis of pneumonia between March 2014 and March 2015. Abstraction of clinical variables allowed calculation of the YNHRRS and additional indicators of functional status and social support. The primary outcome was 30-day readmission rate. We created a logistic regression model to predict readmission using the YNHRRS, functional status, and social support as covariates.

RESULTS

Among 270 discharges with pneumonia, the observed readmission rate was 23%. The YNHRRS was a significant predictor of readmission in our multivariate model, with an odds ratio of 2.20 (95% confidence interval, 1.29-3.73) for each 10% increase in calculated risk. Indicators of functional status and social support were not significant predictors of readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

The YNHRRS can be applied to an unselected population as a tool to predict patients with pneumonia at risk for readmission.

Perceived Safety and Value of Inpatient "Very Important Person" Services

Providing care to "very important person" (VIP) patients can pose unique moral and value-based challenges for providers. No studies have examined VIP services in the inpatient setting. Through a multi-institutional survey of hospitalists, we assessed physician viewpoints and behavior surrounding the care of VIP patients. A significant proportion of respondents reported feeling pressured by patients, family members, and hospital representatives to provide unnecessary care to VIP patients. Based on self-reported perceptions, as well as case-based questions, we also found that the VIP status of a patient may impact physician clinical decision-making related to unnecessary medical care. Additional studies to quantify the use of VIP services and its effect on cost, resource availability, and patient-specific outcomes are needed. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:177-179.

Potentially Avoidable Readmissions of Patients Discharged to Post-Acute Care: Perspectives of Hospital and Skilled Nursing Facility Staff

BACKGROUND

Hospital readmissions from skilled nursing facilities (SNFs) are common. Previous research has not examined how assessments of avoidable readmissions differ between hospital and SNF perspectives.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the percentage of readmissions from post-acute care that are considered potentially avoidable from hospital and SNF perspectives.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

One academic medical center and 23 SNFs.

PARTICIPANTS

We included patients from a quality improvement trial aimed at reducing hospital readmissions among patients discharged to SNFs. We included Medicare patients who were discharged to one of 23 regional SNFs between January 2013 and January 2015, and readmitted to the hospital within 30 days.

MEASUREMENTS

Hospital-based physicians and SNF-based staff performed structured root-cause analyses (RCA) on a sample of readmissions from a participating SNF to the index hospital. RCAs reported avoidability and factors contributing to readmissions.

RESULTS

The 30-day unplanned readmission rate to the index hospital from SNFs was 14.5% (262 hospital readmissions of 1,808 discharges). Of the readmissions, 120 had RCA from both the hospital and SNF. The percentage of readmissions rated as potentially avoidable was 30.0% and 13.3% according to hospital and SNF staff, respectively. Hospital and SNF ratings of potential avoidability agreed for 73.3% (88 of the 120 readmissions), but readmission factors varied between settings. Diagnostic problems and improved management of changes in conditions were the most common avoidable readmission factors by hospitals and SNFs, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A substantial percentage of hospital readmissions from SNFs are rated as potentially avoidable. The ratings and factors underlying avoidability differ between hospital and SNF staff. These data support the need for joint accountability and collaboration for future readmission reduction efforts between hospitals and their SNF partners.

Understanding patient-centred readmission factors: a multi-site, mixed-methods study

IMPORTANCE

Patient concerns at or before discharge inform many transitional care interventions; few studies examine patients' perceptions of self-care and other factors related to readmission.

OBJECTIVES

To characterise patient-reported or caregiver-reported factors contributing to readmission.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Cross-sectional, national study of general medicine patients readmitted within 30 days at 12 US hospitals. Interviews included multiple-choice survey and open-ended survey questions of patients or their caregivers.

MEASUREMENTS

Multiple-choice survey quantified post-discharge difficulty in seven domains of self-care: medication use, contacting providers, transportation, basic needs (eg, food and shelter), diet, social support and substance abuse. Open-ended responses were coded into themes that added depth to the domains above or captured additional patient-centred concerns.

RESULTS

We interviewed 1066 readmitted patients. 91% reported understanding their discharge plan; however, only 37% reported that providers asked about barriers to carrying out the plan. 52% reported experiencing difficulty in ≥1 self-care domains ranging in frequency from 22% (diet) to 7% (substance use); 26% experienced difficulty in two or more domains. Among 508 patients (48% overall) who reported no difficulties in these domains, two-thirds either could not attribute their readmission to any specific difficulty (34%) or attributed their readmission to progression or persistence of their disease despite following their discharge plan (31%). Only 20% attributed their readmission to early discharge (8%), poor-quality hospital care (6%) or issues such as inadequate discharge instructions or follow-up care (6%).

LIMITATIONS

The study population included only patients readmitted at academic medical centres and may not be representative of community-based care.

CONCLUSION

Patients readmitted within 30 days reported understanding their discharge plans, but frequent difficulties in self-care and low anticipatory guidance for resolving these issues after discharge.

Physician Perspectives on Factors Contributing to Readmissions and Potential Prevention Strategies: A Multicenter Survey

BACKGROUND

The transition out of the hospital is a vulnerable time for patients, relying heavily on communication and coordination of resources across care settings. Understanding the perspectives of inpatient and outpatient physicians regarding factors contributing to readmission and potential preventive strategies is crucial in designing appropriately targeted readmission prevention efforts.

OBJECTIVE

To examine and compare inpatient and outpatient physician opinions regarding reasons for readmission and interventions that might have prevented readmission.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional multicenter study.

PARTICIPANTS

We identified patients readmitted to general medicine services within 30 days of discharge at 12 US academic medical centers, and surveyed the primary care physician (PCP), discharging physician from the index admission, and admitting physician from the readmission regarding their endorsement of pre-specified factors contributing to the readmission and potential preventive strategies.

MAIN MEASURES

We calculated kappa statistics to gauge agreement between physician dyads (PCP-discharging physician, PCP-admitting physician, and admitting-discharging physician).

KEY RESULTS

We evaluated 993 readmission events, which generated responses from 356 PCPs (36 % of readmissions), 675 discharging physicians (68 % of readmissions), and 737 admitting physicians (74 % of readmissions). The most commonly endorsed contributing factors by both PCPs and inpatient physicians related to patient understanding and ability to self-manage. The most commonly endorsed preventive strategies involved providing patients with enhanced post-discharge instructions and/or support. Although PCPs and inpatient physicians endorsed contributing factors and potential preventive strategies with similar frequencies, agreement among the three physicians on the specific factors and/or strategies that applied to individual readmission events was poor (maximum kappa 0.30).

CONCLUSIONS

Differing opinions among physicians on factors contributing to individual readmissions highlights the importance of communication between inpatient and outpatient providers at discharge to share their different perspectives, and suggests that multi-faceted, broadly applied interventions may be more successful than those that rely on individual providers choosing specific services based on perceived risk factors.

Variability in Implementation of Interventions Aimed at Reducing Readmissions Among Patients With Heart Failure: A Survey of Teaching Hospitals

PURPOSE

To highlight teaching hospitals' efforts to reduce readmissions by describing interventions implemented to improve care transitions for heart failure (HF) patients and the variability in implemented HF-specific and care transition interventions.

METHOD

In 2012, the authors surveyed a network of 17 teaching hospitals to capture information about the number, type, stage of implementation, and structure of 4 HF-specific and 21 care transition (predischarge, bridging, and postdischarge) interventions implemented to reduce readmissions among patients with HF. The authors summarized data using descriptive statistics, including the mean number of interventions implemented and the frequency and stage of specific interventions, and descriptive plots of the structure of two common interventions (multidisciplinary rounds and follow-up telephone calls).

RESULTS

Sixteen hospitals (94%) responded. The number and stage of implementation of the HF-specific and care transition interventions implemented varied across institutions. The mean number of interventions at an advanced stage of implementation (i.e., implemented for ≥ 75% of HF patients on the cardiology service or on all services) was 10.9 (standard deviation = 4.3). Overall, predischarge interventions were more common than bridging or postdischarge interventions. There was variability in the personnel involved in multidisciplinary rounds and in the processes/content of follow-up telephone calls.

CONCLUSIONS

Teaching hospitals have implemented a wide range of interventions aimed at reducing hospital readmissions, but there is substantial variability in the types, stages, and structure of their interventions. This heterogeneity highlights the need for collaborative efforts to improve understanding of intervention effectiveness.

Preventability and Causes of Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients

IMPORTANCE

Readmission penalties have catalyzed efforts to improve care transitions, but few programs have incorporated viewpoints of patients and health care professionals to determine readmission preventability or to prioritize opportunities for care improvement.

OBJECTIVES

To determine preventability of readmissions and to use these estimates to prioritize areas for improvement.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

An observational study was conducted of 1000 general medicine patients readmitted within 30 days of discharge to 12 US academic medical centers between April 1, 2012, and March 31, 2013. We surveyed patients and physicians, reviewed documentation, and performed 2-physician case review to determine preventability of and factors contributing to readmission. We used bivariable statistics to compare preventable and nonpreventable readmissions, multivariable models to identify factors associated with potential preventability, and baseline risk factor prevalence and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) to determine the proportion of readmissions affected by individual risk factors.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE

Likelihood that a readmission could have been prevented.

RESULTS

The study cohort comprised 1000 patients (median age was 55 years). Of these, 269 (26.9%) were considered potentially preventable. In multivariable models, factors most strongly associated with potential preventability included emergency department decision making regarding the readmission (aOR, 9.13; 95% CI, 5.23-15.95), failure to relay important information to outpatient health care professionals (aOR, 4.19; 95% CI, 2.17-8.09), discharge of patients too soon (aOR, 3.88; 95% CI, 2.44-6.17), and lack of discussions about care goals among patients with serious illnesses (aOR, 3.84; 95% CI, 1.39-10.64). The most common factors associated with potentially preventable readmissions included emergency department decision making (affecting 9.0%; 95% CI, 7.1%-10.3%), inability to keep appointments after discharge (affecting 8.3%; 95% CI, 4.1%-12.0%), premature discharge from the hospital (affecting 8.7%; 95% CI, 5.8%-11.3%), and patient lack of awareness of whom to contact after discharge (affecting 6.2%; 95% CI, 3.5%-8.7%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Approximately one-quarter of readmissions are potentially preventable when assessed using multiple perspectives. High-priority areas for improvement efforts include improved communication among health care teams and between health care professionals and patients, greater attention to patients' readiness for discharge, enhanced disease monitoring, and better support for patient self-management.

Assessing preventability in the quest to reduce hospital readmissions

Hospitals devote significant human and capital resources to eliminate hospital readmissions, prompted most recently by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) financial penalties for higher-than-expected readmission rates. Implicit in these efforts are assumptions that a significant proportion of readmissions are preventable, and preventable readmissions can be identified. Yet, no consensus exists in the literature regarding methods to determine which readmissions are reasonably preventable. In this article, we examine strengths and limitations of the CMS readmission metric, explore how preventable readmissions have been defined and measured, and discuss implications for readmission reduction efforts. Drawing on our clinical, research and operational experiences, we offer suggestions to address the key challenges in moving forward to measure and reduce preventable readmissions.