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.

What Should Leaders Do When Inefficiency Is Perceived as a Cost of Inclusivity in Strategic Planning Processes in Health Care?

During the development of new health care policies, quality improvement teams can face the challenge of weighing differing opinions within the group that can hinder progress. It is essential in such cases to refer to the four keys principles of quality improvement (QI) as a guide to enhance group cooperation and promote development of the mutual objective. Co-production is a model that emphasizes the participation of the patient-a service receiver-in the production of services being rendered by the health care professional. By putting into practice the QI principles and using the model of co-production, quality improvement teams can improve efficiency of health systems and clinical outcomes.