Timing of antibiotic treatment identifies distinct clinical presentations among patients presenting with suspected septic shock.

Objective: Recent clinical guidelines for sepsis management emphasize immediate antibiotic initiation for suspected septic shock. Though hypotension is a high-risk marker of sepsis severity, prior studies have not considered the precise timing of hypotension in relation to antibiotic initiation and how clinical characteristics and outcomes may differ. Our objective was to evaluate antibiotic initiation in relation to hypotension to characterize differences in sepsis presentation and outcomes in patients with suspected septic shock. Methods: Adults presenting to the emergency department (ED) June 2012-December 2018 diagnosed with sepsis (Sepsis-III electronic health record [EHR] criteria) and hypotension (non-resolving for ≥30 min, systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg) within 24 h. We categorized patients who received antibiotics before hypotension ("early"), 0-60 min after ("immediate"), and >60 min after ("late") treatment. Results: Among 2219 patients, 55% received early treatment, 13% immediate, and 32% late. The late subgroup often presented to the ED with hypotension (median 0 min) but received antibiotics a median of 191 min post-ED presentation. Clinical characteristics notable for this subgroup included higher prevalence of heart failure and liver disease (p < 0.05) and later onset of systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria compared to early/immediate treatment subgroups (median 87 vs. 35 vs. 20 min, p < 0.0001). After adjustment, there was no difference in clinical outcomes among treatment subgroups. Conclusions: There was significant heterogeneity in presentation and timing of antibiotic initiation for suspected septic shock. Patients with later treatment commonly had hypotension on presentation, had more hypotension-associated comorbidities, and developed overt markers of infection (eg, SIRS) later. While these factors likely contribute to delays in clinician recognition of suspected septic shock, it may not impact sepsis outcomes.

Stigmatizing Language, Patient Demographics, and Errors in the Diagnostic Process.

This cohort study assesses the association between stigmatizing language, demographic characteristics, and errors in the diagnostic process among hospitalized adults.

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.

Prevalence of homelessness among hospitalized patients: A point-in-time survey.

Although homelessness is associated with increased acute healthcare utilization and poorer health outcomes, the prevalence of homelessness and housing insecurity in hospitalized patients is poorly characterized. We conducted an in-person survey to determine the prevalence of housing insecurity and homelessness among hospitalized patients at two hospitals in metropolitan Denver in conjunction with the Housing and Urban Development point-in-time count on January 24, 2022. Of the 271 surveyed patients, 79 (29.2%) reported experiencing either housing insecurity (17.3%) or homelessness (11.8%). Of those experiencing housing insecurity or homelessness, 69.6% reported chronic health conditions, 55.7% reported multiple hospitalizations in the preceding year, 38% reported mental health concerns and 39.2% reported substance use. The prevalence of homelessness among a hospitalized patient population was over 20-fold higher than community prevalence estimates. Housing insecurity also impacted a substantial proportion of hospitalized patients and was associated with high rates of co-morbid conditions.

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.

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.

Discharge in the a.m.: A randomized controlled trial of physician rounding styles to improve hospital throughput and length of stay.

BACKGROUND: To relieve hospital capacity strain, hospitals often encourage clinicians to prioritize early morning discharges which may have unintended consequences. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to test the effects of hospitalist physicians prioritizing discharging patients first compared to usual rounding style. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, multi-center randomized controlled trial. Three large academic hospitals. Participants were Hospital Medicine attending-level physicians and patients the physicians cared for during the study who were at least 18 years of age, admitted to a Medicine service, and assigned by standard practice to a hospitalist team. INTERVENTION: Physicians were randomized to: (1) prioritizing discharging patients first as care allowed or (2) usual practice. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Main outcome measure was discharge order time. Secondary outcomes were actual discharge time, length of stay (LOS), and order times for procedures, consults, and imaging. RESULTS: From February 9, 2021, to July 31, 2021, 4437 patients were discharged by 59 physicians randomized to prioritize discharging patients first or round per usual practice. In primary adjusted analyses (intention-to-treat), findings showed no significant difference for discharge order time (13:03 ± 2 h:31 min vs. 13:11 ± 2 h:33 min, p = .11) or discharge time (15:22 ± 2 h:50 min vs. 15:21 ± 2 h:50 min, p = .45), for physicians randomized to prioritize discharging patients first compared to physicians using usual rounding style, respectively, and there was no significant change in LOS or on order times of other physician orders. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing discharging patients first did not result in significantly earlier discharges or reduced LOS.

Capturing what matters: A retrospective observational study of advance care planning documentation at an academic medical center during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Advance care planning allows patients to share their preferences for medical care with the aim of ensuring goal-concordant care in times of serious illness. The morbidity and mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the importance and public visibility of advance care planning. However, little is known about the frequency and quality of advance care planning documentation during the pandemic. AIM: This study examined the frequency, quality, and predictors of advance care planning documentation among hospitalized medical patients with and without COVID-19. DESIGN: This retrospective cohort analysis used multivariate logistic regression to identify factors associated with advance care planning documentation. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: This study included all adult patients tested for COVID-19 and admitted to a tertiary medical center in San Francisco, CA during March 2020. RESULTS: Among 262 patients, 31 (11.8%) tested positive and 231 (88.2%) tested negative for SARS-CoV-2. The rate of advance care planning documentation was 38.7% in patients with COVID-19 and 46.8% in patients without COVID-19 (p = 0.45). Documentation consistently addressed code status (100% and 94.4% for COVID-positive and COVID-negative, respectively), but less often named a surrogate decision maker, discussed prognosis, or elaborated on other wishes for care. Palliative care consultation was associated with increased advance care planning documentation (OR: 6.93, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This study found low rates of advance care planning documentation for patients both with and without COVID-19 during an evolving global pandemic. Advance care planning documentation was associated with palliative care consultation, highlighting the importance of such consultation to ensure timely, patient-centered advance care planning.

Ask About What Matters: An Intervention to Improve Accessible Advance Care Planning Documentation.

CONTEXT: Advance care planning (ACP) informs future medical decision-making, especially for patients with advanced age or serious illness. For clinicians to act on these preferences, or continue the ACP conversation as illness progresses, documentation of ACP discussions must be readily accessible within the electronic health record (EHR). OBJECTIVES: Develop an intervention to improve accessible ACP documentation for hospitalized patients and assess its impact on viewing and documentation of ACP conversations within a specific EHR location. METHODS: Adult patients age 75 or older or with serious illness discharged during a two-year period were included. The EHR's ACP Navigator was targeted as the intended location for documenting ACP-related activities. We implemented a hospital-wide, multipronged intervention that included increased ACP Navigator visibility and a process for workflow-congruent ACP documentation. Accessible ACP documentation was measured by documentation within the ACP Navigator and was analyzed by interrupted time-series analysis. ACP Navigator access was measured by user audit logs. RESULTS: After the intervention, 6703 of 16,117 (41.6%) patient encounters had accessible ACP documentation, compared to 3689 of 13,143 (28.1%) preintervention (P < .001). In the intervention's first month, accessible ACP documentation increased 5.3% (P < .001, CI 2.9%-7.6%), followed by a 1.3% monthly increase relative to the preintervention period (P < .001, CI 1.0%-1.6%). ACP Navigator access for patients with ACP documentation increased in the intervention period (52.2% vs. 39.8%, P < .001). CONCLUSION: An institution-wide intervention significantly increased accessible ACP documentation within a centralized location of the EHR. EHR usability changes improved rates of accessible ACP documentation and subsequent views of this documentation.

Decisions in the Dark: An Educational Intervention to Promote Reflection and Feedback on Night Float Rotations.

BACKGROUND: Night float rotations, where residents admit patients to the hospital, are opportunities for practice-based learning. However, night float residents receive little feedback on their diagnostic and management reasoning, which limits learning. AIM: Improve night float residents' practice-based learning skills through feedback solicitation and chart review with guided reflection. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Second- and third-year internal medicine residents on a 1-month night float rotation between January and August 2017. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Residents performed chart review of a subset of patients they admitted during a night float rotation and completed reflection worksheets detailing patients' clinical courses. Residents solicited feedback regarding their initial management from day team attending physicians and senior residents. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Sixty-eight of 82 (83%) eligible residents participated in this intervention. We evaluated 248 reflection worksheets using content analysis. Major themes that emerged from chart review included residents' identification of future clinical practice changes, evolution of differential diagnoses, recognition of clinical reasoning gaps, and evaluation of resident-provider interactions. DISCUSSION: Structured reflection and feedback during night float rotations is an opportunity to improve practice-based learning through lessons on disease progression, clinical reasoning, and communication.

Prevalence and characterisation of diagnostic error among 7-day all-cause hospital medicine readmissions: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and aetiology of diagnostic error among hospitalised adults is unknown, though likely contributes to patient morbidity and mortality. We aim to identify and characterise the prevalence and types of diagnostic error among patients readmitted within 7 days of hospital discharge. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study at a single urban academic hospital examining adult patients discharged from the medical service and readmitted to the same hospital within 7 days between January and December 2018. The primary outcome was diagnostic error presence, identified through two-physician adjudication using validated tools. Secondary outcomes included severity of error impact and characterisation of diagnostic process failures contributing to error. RESULTS: There were 391 cases of unplanned 7-day readmission (5.2% of 7507 discharges), of which 376 (96.2%) were reviewed. Twenty-one (5.6%) admissions were found to contain at least one diagnostic error during the index admission. The most common problem areas in the diagnostic process included failure to order needed test(s) (n=11, 52.4%), erroneous clinician interpretation of test(s) (n=10, 47.6%) and failure to consider the correct diagnosis (n=8, 38.1%). Nineteen (90.5%) of the diagnostic errors resulted in moderate clinical impact, primarily due to short-term morbidity or contribution to the readmission. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of diagnostic error among 7-day medical readmissions was 5.6%. The most common drivers of diagnostic error were related to clinician diagnostic reasoning. Efforts to reduce diagnostic error should include strategies to augment diagnostic reasoning and improve clinician decision-making around diagnostic studies.

A Discharge Time-Out: A Case Study on Physician-Nurse Discharge Communication and the Challenge of Sustainability in Resident-Led Quality Improvement.

Resident-led quality improvement (QI) is an important component of resident education yet sustainability of improvement and impact on resident education have rarely been explored. This study describes a resident-led intervention to improve nursing (RN)-provider (MD) communication at discharge-the Discharge Time-Out (DTO)- and explores its uptake and sustainability. One year later, residents were surveyed regarding QI self-efficacy and planned QI involvement. Baseline verbal RN-MD communication at discharge was rare. During DTO implementation, rates of structured communication averaged 56% (341/608) with several months >70%. During the monitoring phase, this fell to 45% and did not recover (833/1852). Participating residents reported increased QI self-efficacy (P < .05) and increased likelihood of participating in future QI (P < .05). The DTO increased RN-MD communication but was not sustained. Resident-led QI should explicitly address sustainability to achieve improvement and educational objectives. To foster resident education and avoid short-lived, low-impact projects, increased attention should be given to sustainability of resident-led QI.

Naloxone Distribution and Training for Patients with High-Risk Opioid Use in a Veterans Affairs Community-Based Primary Care Clinic.

CONTEXT: Naloxone distribution has historically been implemented in a community-based, expanded public health model; however, there is now a need to further explore primary care clinic-based naloxone delivery to effectively address the nationwide opioid epidemic. OBJECTIVE: To create a general medicine infrastructure to identify patients with high-risk opioid use and provide 25% of this population with naloxone autoinjector prescription and training within a 6-month period. DESIGN: The quality improvement study was conducted at an outpatient clinic serving 1238 marginally housed veterans with high rates of comorbid substance use and mental health disorders. Patients at high risk of opioid-related adverse events were identified using the Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Management and were contacted to participate in a one-on-one, 15-minute, hands-on naloxone training led by nursing staff. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number of patients identified at high risk and rates of naloxone training/distribution. RESULTS: There were 67 patients identified as having high-risk opioid use. None of these patients had been prescribed naloxone at baseline. At the end of the intervention, 61 patients (91%) had been trained in the use of naloxone. Naloxone was primarily distributed by licensed vocational nurses (42/61, 69%). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of high-risk patient identification and of a primary care-based and nursing-championed naloxone distribution model. This delivery model has the potential to provide access to naloxone to a population of patients with opioid use who may not be engaged in mental health or specialty care.