Self-reflection as a Tool to Increase Hospitalist Participation in Readmission Quality Improvement

Better medical care quality in weekday daytime schedule with gastrointestinal hospitalists than conventional care teams

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to uncover whether having a gastrointestinal (GI) hospitalist available during weekday daytime hours results in higher-quality medical care compared to care provided by a team of residents.

METHODS

Our hospitalist GI team consisted of two gastroenterologists working weekday daytime hours and two physician assistants. The team of conventional care headed by thirteen professors, comprised twelve residents and eight physician assistants. We conducted a retrospective cohort study in South Korea between March 2 and December 9, 2020 The hospitalist team treated 528 patients, while the conventional care team treated 2,335. We assessed the medical parameters of length of stay (LOS), rates of in-hospital mortality, transfer to the intensive care unit, and readmission rate within 30 days. Furthermore, we gathered feedback from nurses working with both teams.

RESULTS

The study found that there was no significant difference in LOS between infections (P = 0.422) and other GI diseases like bleeding (P = 0.226). There was no significant difference in the rates of in-hospital mortality (P = 0.865) and transfer to the intensive care unit (P = 0.486) between the two teams. However, the hospitalist team had notably lower readmission rates than the conventional care team (P = 0.002) as well as a lower unscheduled readmission rate (P = 0.046). Furthermore, the survey results indicated that nurses who worked with the hospitalist team had significantly better responses than those who worked with the conventional care team (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that having GI hospitalists work weekday daytime hours improves patient care, and treatment and reduces readmission rates.

Efficiency of the Japanese Hospitalist System for Patients with Urinary Tract Infection: A Propensity-matched Analysis

Objective The hospitalist system in the United States has been considered successful in terms of the quality of care and cost effectiveness. In Japan, however, its efficacy has not yet been extensively examined. This study examined the impact of the hospitalist system on the quality of care and healthcare economics in a Japanese population using treatment of urinary tract infection as an example. Methods We analyzed 271 patients whose most resource-consuming diagnosis at admission was urinary tract infection between April 2017 and March 2019. Propensity-matched analyses were performed to compare health care economics and the quality of care between the hospitalist system and the conventional system. Results In matched pairs, care by the hospitalist system was associated with a significantly shorter length of stay than that by the conventional system. The quality of care (oral antibiotics switch rate, rate of appropriate antibiotics change based on urine or blood culture results, detection rate of urinary tract infection etiology and the number of laboratory tests) was also considered to be favorably impacted by the hospitalist system. Although not statistically significant, hospital costs tended to be lower with the hospitalist system than with the conventional system. The mortality rate and 30-day readmission were also not significantly different between the groups. Conclusion The hospitalist system had a favorable impact on the quality of care and length of stay without increasing readmission in patients with urinary tract infection. This study is further evidence of the strong potential for the positive impact of an implemented hospitalist system in Japan.