Attention Among Health Care Professionals : A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The concept of attention can provide insight into the needs of clinicians and how health systems design can impact patient care quality and medical errors. PURPOSE: To conduct a scoping review to 1) identify and characterize literature relevant to clinician attention; 2) compile metrics used to measure attention; and 3) create a framework of key concepts. DATA SOURCES: Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (PubMed), and Embase (Ovid) from 2001 to 26 February 2024. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies addressing health care worker attention in patient care. At least dual review and data abstraction. DATA EXTRACTION: Article information, health care professional studied, practice environment, study design and intent, factor type related to attention, and metrics of attention used. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 6448 screened articles, 585 met inclusion criteria. Most studies were descriptive (n = 469) versus investigational (n = 116). More studies focused on barriers to attention (n = 387; 342 descriptive and 45 investigational) versus facilitators to improving attention (n = 198; 112 descriptive and 86 investigational). We developed a framework, grouping studies into 6 categories: 1) definitions of attention, 2) the clinical environment and its effect on attention, 3) personal factors affecting attention, 4) relationships between interventions or factors that affect attention and patient outcomes, 5) the effect of clinical alarms and alarm fatigue on attention, and 6) health information technology's effect on attention. Eighty-two metrics were used to measure attention. LIMITATIONS: Does not synthesize answers to specific questions. Quality of studies was not assessed. CONCLUSION: This overview may be a resource for researchers, quality improvement experts, and health system leaders to improve clinical environments. Future systematic reviews may synthesize evidence on metrics to measure attention and on the effectiveness of barriers or facilitators related to attention. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Hospital Rating Organizations' Quality and Patient Safety Scores: Analysis of Result Discrepancies.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, multiple organizations rate hospitals based on quality and patient safety data, but few studies have analyzed and compared the rating results. OBJECTIVE: Compare the results of different US hospital-rating organizations. DESIGN: Observational data analysis of US acute care hospital ratings. PARTICIPANTS: Four rating organizations: Hospital Compare® (HC), Healthgrades® (HG), The Leapfrog Group® (Leapfrog), and US News and World Report® (USN). MAIN MEASURES: We analyzed the level of concordance (similar ranking), discordance (difference of 1 or more rankings), and severe discordance (difference of two or more rankings), as well as differences and correlations between the scores. KEY RESULTS: From Feb 1 to Oct 3, 2023, we analyzed data from 2,384 hospitals. In Leapfrog, there were 688 hospitals (29%) with Grade A, 652 (27.3%) with B, 885 (37.1%) with C, 153 (6.4%) with D, and 6 (0.3%) with F. For HC, 333 hospitals (14%) had five stars, 676 (28.4%) four, 695 (29.2%) three, 502 (21.4%) two, and 171 (7.2%) one-star. In ratings between HC and Leapfrog, discordance was 70%, and severe discordance was 25.1%. USN ranked 469 hospitals (19.7%). Within the USN-ranked hospital group, there was a 62% discordance and 19.8% severe discordance between HC and Leapfrog. The analysis of orthopedic procedures from HG and USN showed discordance ranging from 48 to 61.2%. CONCLUSION: The rating organizations' reported metrics were highly discordant. A hospital's ranking by one organization frequently did not correspond to a similar ranking by another. The methodology and included timeline and patient population can help explain the differences. However, the discordant ratings may confuse patients and customers.

Hospitalist Shared Leadership for Safety, Health, and Well-Being at Work: United States, 2022‒2023.

We assessed how hospitalists frame workplace safety, health, and well-being (SHW); their perception of hospital supports for SHW; and whether and how they are sharing leadership responsibility for each other's SHW. Our findings highlight the important role of local support for hospitalist SHW and reveal the systemic, hospital-wide problems that may impede their SHW. We believe that positioning hospitalists as leaders for SHW will result in systems-wide changes in practices to support the SHW of all care team members. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S2):S162-S166. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307573).

Impact of Clinical Demands on the Educational Mission in Hospital Medicine at 17 Academic Medical Centers : A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Clinical growth is outpacing the growth of traditional educational opportunities at academic medical centers (AMCs). OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of clinical growth on the educational mission for academic hospitalists. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews that were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive method at the semantic level. SETTING: Large AMCs across the United States that experienced clinical growth in the past 5 years. PARTICIPANTS: Division heads, section heads, and other hospital medicine (HM) leaders who oversaw and guided academic and clinical efforts of HM programs. MEASUREMENTS: Themes and subthemes. RESULTS: From September 2021 to January 2022, HM leaders from 17 AMCs participated in the interviews, and 3 key themes emerged. First, AMCs' disproportionate clinical growth highlighted the tension between clinical and educational missions. This included a mismatch in supply and demand for traditional teaching time, competing priorities, and clinical growth being seen as both an opportunity and a threat. Second, amid the shifting landscape of high clinical demands and evolving educational opportunities, hospitalists still strongly prefer traditional teaching. To address this mismatch, HM groups have had to alter recruitment strategies and create innovative solutions to help build academic careers. Third, participants noted a need to reimagine the role and identity of an academic hospitalist, emphasizing tailored career pathways and educational roles spanning well beyond traditional house staff teaching teams. LIMITATION: The study focused on large AMCs. CONCLUSION: Although HM groups have implemented many creative strategies to address clinical growth and keep education front and center, challenges remain, particularly heavy clinical workloads and a continued dilution of traditional teaching opportunities. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Society of Hospital Medicine Student Scholar Grant.

Communicating Patient Discharge Readiness: An Implementation Evaluation in an Inpatient Hospital Medicine Setting.

BACKGROUND: The progression of patients through a hospital from admission to discharge can be slowed by delays in patient discharge, increasing pressure on health care staff. We designed and piloted the Discharge Today tool, with the goal of improving the efficiency of patient discharge; however, adoption remained low. PURPOSE: To close this implementation gap, we deployed and evaluated a 4-part implementation strategy bundle. METHODS: We measured the success of implementation by evaluating validated implementation outcomes using both quantitative and qualitative methods, grounded in Normalization Process Theory. RESULTS: The implementation strategies used were effective for increasing use of the Discharge Today tool by hospital medicine physicians and advanced practice providers during both the active and passive implementation periods. CONCLUSIONS: While the implementation strategies used were effective, qualitative findings indicate that limitations in the functionality of the tool, alongside inconsistent use of the tool across clinical staff, continued to inhibit adoption.

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.

Closer to or Farther away from an Ideal Model of Care? Lessons Learned from Geographic Cohorting.

Geographic "cohorting," "co-location," "regionalization," or "localization" refers to the assignation of a hospitalist team to a specific inpatient unit. Its benefits may be related to the formation of a team and the additional interventions like interdisciplinary rounding that the enhanced proximity facilitates. However, cohorting is often adopted in isolation of the bundled approach within which it has proven beneficial. Cohorting may also be associated with unintended consequences such as increased interruptions and increased indirect care time. Institutions may increase patient loads in anticipation of the efficiency gained by cohorting-leading to further increases in interruptions and time away from the bedside. Fragmented attention and increases in indirect care may lead to a perception of increased workload, errors, and burnout. As hospital medicine evolves, there are lessons to be learned by studying cohorting. Institutions and inpatient units should work in synergy to shape the day-to-day work which directly affects patient and clinician outcomes-and ultimately culminates in the success or failure of the parent organization. Such synergy can manifest in workflow design and metric selection. Attention to workloads and adopting the principles of continuous quality improvement are also crucial to developing models of care that deliver excellent care.

The Development and Implementation of a Hospitalist-Directed Addiction Medicine Consultation Service to Address a Treatment Gap.

INTRODUCTION: Hospitalizations related to the consequences of substance use are rising yet most hospitalized patients with substance use disorder do not receive evidence-based addiction treatment. Opportunities to leverage the hospitalist workforce could close this treatment gap. AIM: To describe the development, implementation, and evaluation of a hospitalist-directed addiction consultation service (ACS) to provide in-hospital addiction treatment. SETTING: Six hundred fifty-bed university hospital in Aurora, Colorado. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: Hospitalists completed buprenorphine waiver training, participated in a 13-part addiction lecture series, and completed a minimum of 40 hours of online addiction training. Hospitalists participated in shadow shifts with an addiction-trained physician. Dedicated addiction social workers developed relationships with local addiction treatment services. PROGRAM EVALUATION METRICS: Physician-related metrics included education, training, and clinical time spent in addiction practice. Patient and encounter-related metrics included a description of ACS care provision. RESULTS: Eleven hospitalists completed an average of 95 hours of addiction-related didactics. Once addiction training was complete, hospitalists spent an average of 30 days over 12 months staffing a weekday ACS. Between October 2019 and November 2020, the ACS completed 1620 consultations on 1350 unique patients. Alcohol was the most common substance (n = 1279; 79%), followed by tobacco (979; 60.4%), methamphetamines/amphetamines (n = 494; 30.5%), and opioids (n = 400; 24.7%). Naltrexone was the most frequently prescribed medication (n = 350; 21.6%), followed by acamprosate (n = 93; 5.7%), and buprenorphine (n = 77, 4.8%). Trauma was a frequent discharge diagnoses (n = 1564; 96.5%). Leaving prior to treatment completion was commonly noted (n = 120, 7.4%). The ACS completed 47 in-hospital methadone enrollments. DISCUSSION: The hospitalist-directed ACS is a promising clinical initiative that could be implemented to expand hospital-based addiction treatment. Future research is needed to understand challenges to disseminating this model into other hospital settings, and to evaluate intended and unintended effects of broad implementation.

The Impact of Hospital Capacity Strain: a Qualitative Analysis of Experience and Solutions at 13 Academic Medical Centers.

BACKGROUND: Hospital capacity strain impacts quality of care and hospital throughput and may also impact the well being of clinical staff and teams as well as their ability to do their job. Institutions have implemented a wide array of tactics to help manage hospital capacity strain with variable success. OBJECTIVE: Through qualitative interviews, our study explored interventions used to address hospital capacity strain and the perceived impact of these interventions, as well as how hospital capacity strain impacts patients, the workforce, and other institutional priorities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews at 13 large urban academic medical centers across the USA from June 21, 2019, to August 22, 2019 (pre-COVID-19). Interviews were recorded, professionally transcribed verbatim, coded, and then analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive method at the semantic level. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Themes and subthemes of semi-structured interviews were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-nine hospitalist leaders and hospital leaders were interviewed. Across the 13 sites, a multitude of provider, care team, and institutional tactics were implemented with perceived variable success. While there was some agreement between hospitalist leaders and hospital leaders, there was also some disagreement about the perceived successes of the various tactics deployed. We found three main themes: (1) hospital capacity strain is complex and difficult to predict, (2) the interventions that were perceived to have worked the best when facing strain were to ensure appropriate resources; however, less costly solutions were often deployed and this may lead to unanticipated negative consequences, and (3) hospital capacity strain and the tactics deployed may negatively impact the workforce and can lead to conflict. CONCLUSIONS: While institutions have employed many different tactics to manage hospital capacity strain and see this as a priority, tactics seen as having the highest yield are often not the first employed.

Men and Women Pursue Nonlinear Career Paths, but Impacts Differ: a Cross-Sectional Study of Academic Hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: Nonlinear career paths are increasingly common. Women in academia pursuing nonlinear career paths experience negative impacts on career trajectory. No published studies have examined how pursuit of nonlinear career paths might perpetuate gender inequities within academic hospital medicine. OBJECTIVE: (1) Compare the frequency of nonlinear career paths by gender among academic hospitalists; (2) assess the perceived impact of two types of nonlinear career paths-extended leave (EL) and non-traditional work arrangements (NTWA) on hospitalists' personal lives and careers. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional descriptive survey study of adult hospitalist physicians in three academic centers within the USA. INTERVENTION: Electronic survey including closed- and open-ended items assessing respondent utilization of and experiences with nonlinear career paths. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: (1) Associations between EL and demographic variables as well as gender differences in leave length and NTWA strategies using Fisher's exact test; 2) grounded theory qualitative analysis of open-text responses. KEY RESULTS: Compared with men, women reported taking EL more often (p = 0.035) and for longer periods (p = 0.002). Men and women reported taking NTWA at similar rates. Women reported negative impacts of EL within domains of personal life, career, well-being, and work-life integration whereas men only reported negative impacts to career. Men and women described positive impacts of NTWA across all domains. CONCLUSIONS: Women academic hospitalists reported taking EL more often than men and experienced disproportionately more adverse impacts to personal lives and careers. Surprisingly, men reported taking NTWA to address burnout and childbirth at similar rates to women. Our findings lay the groundwork for additional exploration of cultural and policy interventions, particularly improved paid leave policies.

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.

The Experience of Women in Hospital Medicine Leadership: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Since 2017, women have made up over 50% of medical school matriculants; however, only 16% of department chairs are women-a number that has remained stagnant and demonstrates the underrepresentation of women in leadership positions in medicine. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the challenges women face in leadership positions and to inform how best to advance women leaders in Hospital Medicine. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Using hermeneutical phenomenological methods, we performed semi-structured qualitative interviews of ten female division heads from hospital medicine groups in the USA, transcribed verbatim, and coded for thematic saturation using Atlas.ti software. MEASUREMENTS: Qualitative themes and subthemes. KEY RESULTS: Ten women hospitalist leaders were interviewed from September through November 2019. Participants identified four key challenges in their leadership journeys: lack of support to pursue leadership training, bullying, a sense of sacrifice in order to achieve balance, and the need for internal and external validation. Participants also suggested key interventions in order to support women leaders in the future: recommending a platform to share experiences, combat bullying, advocate for themselves, and bolster each other in sponsorship and mentorship roles. Finally, participants identified how they have unique strengths as women in leadership, and are transforming the culture of medicine with a focus on diversity and flexibility. CONCLUSION: Women in leadership positions face unique challenges, but also have a unique perspective as to how to support the next generation of leaders.

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.

COVID-19's impact on faculty and staff at a School of Medicine in the US: what is the blueprint for the future?

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused unprecedented challenges within medical centers, revealing inequities embedded in the medical community and exposing fragile social support systems. While faculty and staff faced extraordinary demands in workplace duties, personal responsibilities also increased. The goal of this study was to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on personal and professional activities of faculty and staff in order to illuminate current challenges and explore solutions. METHODS: Qualitative, semi-structured group interviews involved faculty and staff at four affiliate sites within the Department of Medicine at the University of Colorado, School of Medicine. Focus groups addressed the impact of COVID-19 on (1) Changes to roles and responsibilities at work and at home, (2) Resources utilized to manage these changes and, (3) Potential strategies for how the Department could assist faculty and staff. Thematic analysis was conducted using an inductive method at the semantic level to form themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts revealed themes of: (1) Challenges and disparities experienced during the pandemic, (2) Disproportionate impact on women personally and professionally, (3) Institutional factors that contributed to wellness and burnout, and (4) Solutions and strategies to support faculty and staff. Within each of these themes were multiple subthemes including increased professional and personal demands, concern for personal safety, a sense of internal guilt, financial uncertainty, missed professional opportunities, and a negative impact on mentoring. Solutions were offered and included an emphasis on addressing preexisting inequities, the importance of community, and workplace flexibility. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic created burdens for already challenged faculty and staff in both their personal and professional lives. Swift action and advocacy by academic institutions is needed to support the lives and careers of our colleagues now and in the future.

Harnessing the Power of Hospitalists in Operational Disaster Planning: COVID-19.

Hospitalists are well poised to serve in key leadership roles and in frontline care in particular when facing a pandemic such as the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) infection. Much of the disaster planning in hospitals around the country addresses overcrowded emergency departments and decompressing these locations; however, in the case of COVID-19, intensive care units, emergency departments, and medical wards ran the risk of being overwhelmed by a large influx of patients needing high-level medical care. In a matter of days, our Division of Hospital Medicine, in partnership with our hospital, health system, and academic institution, was able to modify and deploy existing disaster plans to quickly care for an influx of medically complex patients. We describe a scaled approach to managing hospitalist clinical operations during the COVID-19 pandemic.