Using Lean Performance Improvement for Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation at an Academic Public Hospital.

Although Lean performance improvement (PI) has been used in health care for more than 15 years, little is known about how Lean has been used in Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) transformation. We describe our experience implementing Lean in our safety-net, primary care teaching clinic. To advance high value care, a culture of systematic, sustainable PI methods needed to be integrated into primary care and taught to resident physicians. Clinic leadership were trained in Lean methods, protected time was dedicated to PI for a stable, interdisciplinary team, then visual management was introduced, and resident physicians were integrated into the clinic's PI initiatives. Self-assessment using the PCMH Assessment tool demonstrated improvement in core features of the PCMH model. Process outcomes also revealed successful, sustainable integration of Lean into our primary care clinic and resident training, and early findings show improvements in clinical quality outcomes. Patient survey outcomes demonstrate improvement in patient experience. Lean can be used successfully to promote PCMH transformation and create a culture of continuous PI in an academic, safety-net primary care setting.

Impact of hospital variables on case mix index as a marker of disease severity.

Case mix index (CMI) has become a standard indicator of hospital disease severity in the United States and internationally. However, CMI was designed to calculate hospital payments, not to track disease severity, and is highly dependent on documentation and coding accuracy. The authors evaluated whether CMI varied by characteristics affecting hospitals' disease severity (eg, trauma center or not). The authors also evaluated whether CMI was lower at public hospitals than private hospitals, given the diminished financial resources to support documentation enhancement at public hospitals. CMI data for a 14-year period from a large public database were analyzed longitudinally and cross-sectionally to define the impact of hospital variables on average CMI within and across hospital groups. Between 1996 and 2007, average CMI declined by 0.4% for public hospitals, while rising significantly for private for-profit (14%) and nonprofit (6%) hospitals. After the introduction of the Medicare Severity Diagnosis Related Group (MS-DRG) system in 2007, average CMI increased for all 3 hospital types but remained lowest in public vs. private for-profit or nonprofit hospitals (1.05 vs. 1.25 vs. 1.20; P<0.0001). By multivariate analysis, teaching hospitals, level 1 trauma centers, and larger hospitals had higher average CMI, consistent with a marker of disease severity, but only for private hospitals. Public hospitals had lower CMI across all subgroups. Although CMI had some characteristics of a disease severity marker, it was lower across all strata for public hospitals. Hence, caution is warranted when using CMI to adjust for disease severity across public vs. private hospitals.

Improving transitions of care for patients with thromboembolic disease.

Patients with or at risk for thromboembolic disease have many transitional interactions within the healthcare system. Transitions of care--when patients move between or within sites of care, or transition from inpatient to outpatient status--create repeated and diverse opportunities for medication errors, rehospitalization, and other adverse events that may increase costs. Although effective antithrombotic therapies are available, these therapies are complex, underprescribed, and frequently suboptimally managed, a situation further exacerbated by poor patient adherence to therapy. Physician and patient education may help address knowledge gaps related to antithrombotic therapy to help ensure that patients receive appropriate therapy and adhere to the therapeutic regimen. Due to the complexities of antithrombotic therapy it is not surprising that when these patients experience transitions of care, the potential for errors and suboptimal outcomes becomes compounded. Efforts are under way to improve the process of transitional care, including the development of protocols for medication reconciliation, improved communication between clinicians at hand-off, the use of electronic medical records, and the introduction of a collaborative approach among different types of healthcare providers, including pharmacists, nurses, and care managers, so that transitional care is provided smoothly and safely.

Choosing the right heparin prophylaxis strategy in medical patients at risk for developing VTE: an evidence-based approach.

Many acutely ill medical patients are at significant risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE) during hospitalization. Venous thromboembolism risk arises from both the presenting clinical condition as well as predisposing risk factors, such as advanced age. Thromboprophylaxis is underprescribed in these patients. Thrombotic risk assessment could encourage the prescribing of thromboprophylaxis and, therefore, improve patient protection against VTE. Current guidelines from the American College of Chest Physicians and the International Union of Angiology (IUA) recommend thromboprophylaxis with low-dose unfractionated heparin (UFH), a low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or fondaparinux for acutely ill medical patients with VTE risk factors. However, the optimal dose regimen for UFH is unclear. The 2006 evidence-based guidelines from the IUA recommend a 3-times-daily dose regimen for UFH. However, UFH is usually administered twice daily despite a lack of evidence for the superiority of this regimen. Both heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and bleeding are associated with UFH, and to a lesser degree with alternative anticoagulants, such as the LMWHs. If utilized, an appropriate prophylaxis regimen in medical patients can reduce the risk of VTE and its burden.

Peripheral vascular surgery using targeted beta blockade reduces perioperative cardiac event rate.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies suggest that preoperative cardiac stress testing is unnecessary in low to intermediate cardiac risk patients undergoing operations, and that targeted beta blockade is cardiac protective. STUDY DESIGN: A cohort study of patients undergoing vascular surgery or major amputation, with low to intermediate cardiac risk, but without cardiac stress testing, was performed. Targeted beta blockade was initiated preoperatively. The primary end point was a composite of adverse cardiac outcomes. A comparison was made with historical controls who received selective stress testing and selective nontargeted beta blockade. RESULTS: One hundred consecutive patients were prospectively enrolled, and 80 retrospective controls were identified. There were no differences between groups with respect to median revised cardiac index (RCI; 0 versus 1). In the retrospective group, 14% underwent preoperative cardiac stress testing versus none in the prospective group (p=0.0002). Nontargeted beta blockade was given in 61% of the retrospective group. The median heart rate for the prospective group was significantly lower (66 versus 77 beats/minute; p=0.0007). The composite cardiac complication rate was 2% in the prospective group versus 10% in the retrospective group (p=0.02). There were no deaths. On multivariate analysis, after adjusting for revised cardiac index score, there was a lower cardiac complication rate in the prospective group (odds ratio, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.5; p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing vascular surgery or major amputation, with low to intermediate cardiac risk, preoperative targeted beta blockade alone is more effective than selective cardiac stress testing and nontargeted beta blockade in preventing cardiac morbidity.