Choosing Wisely in Adult Hospital Medicine: Co-creation of New Recommendations for Improved Healthcare Value by Clinicians and Patient Advocates.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation's Choosing Wisely campaign has resulted in a vast number of recommendations to reduce low-value care. Implementation of these recommendations, in conjunction with patient input, remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: To create updated Society of Hospital Medicine Adult Hospitalist Choosing Wisely recommendations that incorporate patient input from inception. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a multi-phase study conducted by the Society of Hospital Medicine's High Value Care Committee from July 2017 to January 2020 involving clinicians and patient advocates. APPROACH: Phase 1 involved gathering low-value care recommendations from patients and clinicians across the USA. Recommendations were reviewed by the committee in phase 2. Phase 3 involved a modified Delphi scoring in which 7 committee members and 7 patient advocates voted on recommendations based on strength of evidence, potential for patient harm, and relevance to either hospital medicine or patients. A patient-friendly script was developed to allow advocates to better understand the clinical recommendations. KEY RESULTS: A total of 1265 recommendations were submitted by clinicians and patients. After accounting for similar suggestions, 283 recommendations were categorized. Recommendations with more than 10 mentions were advanced to phase 3, leaving 22 recommendations for the committee and patient advocates to vote upon. Utilizing a 1-5 Likert scale, the top combined recommendations were reducing use of opioids (4.57), improving sleep (4.52), minimizing overuse of oxygen (4.52), reducing CK-MB use (4.50), appropriate venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (4.43), and decreasing daily chest x-rays (4.43). CONCLUSIONS: Specific voting categories, along with the use of patient-friendly language, allowed for the successful co-creation of recommendations.

Creation of a medical procedure service in a tertiary medical center: Blueprint and procedural outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Medical Procedure Services (MPS) may represent a solution to the educational gap in procedural training among internal medicine residents and the unmet need for the clinical provision of non-urgent inpatient procedures. However, there is little guidance available to help launch an MPS. Furthermore, procedural outcomes from a newly initiated MPS, including those comparing trainees versus attending physicians, are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To describe the blueprint used in the design, implementation, and ongoing oversight of an MPS and to report its procedural outcomes. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), Nashville, Tennessee. INTERVENTION: The launch of an MPS at a large tertiary academic hospital. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: 6,152 procedural consultations resulting in 5,320 attempted procedures over a four-and-a-half year period. RESULTS: The primary proceduralist was a supervised resident in 58.7% (3124 /5,320) and an attending in 41.3% (2,196/5,320) of procedures. The overall success rate was 91.1% (95% CI: 90.3-91.9%) and the major complication rate was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.5-1.0%). There was no difference in the mean number of attempts required to complete a procedure (1.6 vs 1.5 attempts, p=0.68) and the complication rates between supervised residents and attending proceduralists, respectively (20/3,124 vs 20/2,196, p=0.26). CONCLUSION: At a tertiary academic medical center, the implementation and maintenance of MPS is feasible, safe, and results in high rates of successful procedures performed by supervised residents. Procedures performed by supervised residents require comparable number of attempts for completion and carry similar risks as those performed alone by attendings.

The Rural VA Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (R-VA-MARQUIS).

PURPOSE: High-quality medication reconciliation reduces medication discrepancies, but smaller hospitals serving rural patients may have difficulty implementing this because of limited resources. We sought to adapt and implement an evidence-based toolkit of best practices for medication reconciliation in smaller hospitals, evaluate the effect on unintentional medication discrepancies, and assess facilitators and barriers to implementation. METHODS: We conducted a 2-year mentored-implementation quality improvement feasibility study in 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals serving rural patients. The primary outcome was unintentional medication discrepancies per medication per patient, determined by comparing the "gold standard" preadmission medication history to the documented preadmission medication list and admission and discharge orders. RESULTS: In total, 797 patients were included; their average age was 68.7 years, 94.4% were male, and they were prescribed an average of 9.6 medications. Sites 2 and 3 implemented toolkit interventions, including clarifying roles among clinical personnel, educating providers on taking a best possible medication history, and hiring pharmacy professionals to obtain a best possible medication history and perform discharge medication reconciliation. Site 1 did not implement an intervention. Discrepancies improved in intervention patients compared with controls at Site 3 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.67) but increased in intervention patients compared with controls at Site 2 (adjusted IRR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based toolkit for medication reconciliation adapted to the VA setting was adopted in 2 of 3 small, rural, resource-limited hospitals, resulting in both reduced and increased unintentional medication discrepancies. We highlight facilitators and barriers to implementing evidence-based medication reconciliation in smaller hospitals.

Interventions to Improve Follow-Up of Laboratory Test Results Pending at Discharge: A Systematic Review.

Failure to follow up test results pending at discharge (TPAD) from hospitals or emergency departments is a major patient safety concern. The purpose of this review is to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to improve follow-up of laboratory TPAD. We conducted literature searches in PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane, and EMBASE using search terms for relevant health care settings, transition of patient care, laboratory tests, communication, and pending or missed tests. We solicited unpublished studies from the clinical laboratory community and excluded articles that did not address transitions between settings, did not include an intervention, or were not related to laboratory TPAD. We also excluded letters, editorials, commentaries, abstracts, case reports, and case series. Of the 9,592 abstracts retrieved, eight met the inclusion criteria and reported the successful communication of TPAD. A team member abstracted predetermined data elements from each study, and a senior scientist reviewed the abstraction. Two experienced reviewers independently appraised the quality of each study using published Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP™) A-6 scoring criteria. We assessed the body of evidence using the A-6 methodology, and the evidence suggested that electronic tools or one-on-one education increased documentation of pending tests in discharge summaries. We also found that automated notifications improved awareness of TPAD. The interventions were supported by suggestive evidence; this type of evidence is below the level of evidence required for LMBP™ recommendations. We encourage additional research into the impact of these interventions on key processes and health outcomes.

Refractory primary medication nonadherence: Prevalence and predictors after pharmacist counseling at hospital discharge.

Successful secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease relies on medication therapy; thus, minimizing nonadherence is a focus for improving patient outcomes. Receipt of discharge medication counseling has been associated with improved drug knowledge and adherence. We evaluated the prevalence and predictors of postdischarge primary nonadherence (not filling new prescriptions) in patients who received discharge medication counseling by a pharmacist (ie, refractory to intervention) as part of a randomized controlled trial. Of 341 patients, 9.4% of patients did not fill all prescriptions after discharge. Patients who were living alone were more likely to not fill their medications compared to those who were married or cohabitating (odds ratio [OR]: 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-4.8, P = 0.047). Patients who were discharged with greater than 10 medications were also more likely to demonstrate primary nonadherence (OR: 2.3, 95% CI: 1.05-4.98, P = 0.036). Patients with lower income were less likely to fill prescriptions in univariate analysis (P = 0.04) but not multivariable analysis. Our study demonstrates that among patients hospitalized for acute cardiovascular events, primary medication nonadherence persisted despite discharge medication counseling. Targeted or multimodal approaches that address patient-specific barriers, such as cost, social isolation, and polypharmacy, in addition to discharge counseling, may further facilitate adherence.