Use of Lean and Related Transformational Performance Improvement Systems in Hospitals in the United States: Results From a National Survey.

BACKGROUND: The health care system in the United States is costly with high variance in quality. There is growing interest in transformational performance improvement initiatives, such as the Lean management system, to eliminate waste and inefficiency and improve quality of care for patients. METHODS: A national survey of all 4,500 short-term acute general medical/surgical and pediatric hospitals in the United States was fielded between May and September 2017 by the Survey Data Center of the American Hospital Association. RESULTS: Responses were received from 1,222 hospitals (27.3% response rate). Sixty-nine percent (69.3%) reported use Lean or related Lean plus Six Sigma or Robust Process Improvement approaches. Not-for-profit hospitals, hospitals located in metro/urban areas, those belonging to a system/network, and those with 100-399 beds were most likely to be engaged in these activities and for an average of 5.2 years. However, only 12.6% (n = 102) of hospitals reported being at a mature hospitalwide stage of implementation. The degree of maturity, leadership commitment, daily management system use, and training were each positively associated with reported positive performance outcomes. CONCLUSION: A majority of hospitals have adopted Lean-based transformational performance improvement approaches but with wide variance in the degree of implementation. It takes time for Lean to gain traction. The length of time doing Lean is positively associated with implementation progress and reported positive performance impacts. The extent to which Lean has an organizationwide performance impact awaits further research that links the variables in this study with objective cost and quality measures.

Organizational capacity among hospitals in Medicare and commercial bundled payments.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitals must strategically build organizational capacities to succeed in bundled payment arrangements. Given differences between Medicare and commercial arrangements, capacities may vary between hospitals in Medicare vs both Medicare and commercial bundled payment programs. This study compared organizational capacities between these 2 hospital groups. STUDY DESIGN: National survey of American Hospital Association (AHA) member hospitals with experience in bundled payment programs. METHODS: We analyzed data from October 31, 2017, to April 30, 2018, collected from AHA member hospitals with bundled payment experience in only Medicare (Medicare-only hospitals) or in both Medicare and commercial insurers (multipayer hospitals). Survey questions examined capacity in 4 areas: (1) physician performance feedback, (2) care management, (3) postacute care provider utilization, and (4) health information technology. RESULTS: Our sample included 114 hospitals reporting experience in Medicare or commercial bundled payment programs. Both Medicare-only and multipayer hospitals reported high organizational capacities in performance measurement of physician-level quality and cost feedback and in incorporation of health information technology. More multipayer hospitals reported high capacity for coordinating hospital to postacute care settings (88% vs 52%). Although nearly all hospitals in both groups reported formalized relationships with skilled nursing facilities (98%), fewer hospitals reported such relationships with long-term acute care hospitals (83%) and inpatient rehabilitation facilities (80%). CONCLUSIONS: Although they have similar capacity in a number of areas, Medicare-only and multipayer hospitals differed with respect to other aspects of organizational capacity.

Organizational Capacity of Hospitals Co-Participating in Accountable Care Organizations and Bundled Payments.

Building organizational capacity is critical for hospitals participating in payment models such as bundled payments and accountable care organizations, particularly "co-participant" hospitals with experience in both models. This study used a national survey of American Hospital Association member hospitals with bundled payment experience, with (co-participant hospitals) or without (bundled payment hospitals) accountable care organization experience. Questions examined capacity in 4 domains: performance feedback, postacute care provider utilization, care management, and health information technology. Of 424 hospitals, 38% responded. Both co-participant and bundled payment hospitals reported high capacity for performance feedback and risk stratification and predictive risk assessment using health information technology systems. The hospital groups did not differ in care management capacity, but bundled payment hospitals reported higher postacute care provider utilization capacity. Experience with multiple payment models may prompt hospitals to make different investments or adopt different strategies than hospitals with experience in a single model.

A survey of hospital quality improvement activities.

Five years after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) called for a redesigned U.S. health care system, relatively little was known about the extent to which hospitals had undertaken quality improvement (QI) efforts to address deficiencies in patient care. To examine the state of hospital QI activities in 2006, the authors designed and conducted a survey of short-term, general hospitals with 25 or more beds. In a sample of 470 hospitals, they found that many were actively engaged in improvement efforts but that these activities varied in method and impact. Hospitals with high levels of perceived quality, as reflected in assessments by their quality managers, were more likely to have embraced QI as a strategic priority, employed quality practices and processes consistent with IOM aims, fostered staff training and involvement in QI methods, engaged in an array of QI activities and clinical QI strategies, and maintained staffing levels favoring fewer patients per nurse.

Electronic health record adoption in US hospitals: the emergence of a digital "advanced use" divide.

OBJECTIVE: While most hospitals have adopted electronic health records (EHRs), we know little about whether hospitals use EHRs in advanced ways that are critical to improving outcomes, and whether hospitals with fewer resources - small, rural, safety-net - are keeping up. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using 2008-2015 American Hospital Association Information Technology Supplement survey data, we measured "basic" and "comprehensive" EHR adoption among hospitals to provide the latest national numbers. We then used new supplement questions to assess advanced use of EHRs and EHR data for performance measurement and patient engagement functions. To assess a digital "advanced use" divide, we ran logistic regression models to identify hospital characteristics associated with high adoption in each advanced use domain. RESULTS: We found that 80.5% of hospitals adopted at least a basic EHR system, a 5.3 percentage point increase from 2014. Only 37.5% of hospitals adopted at least 8 (of 10) EHR data for performance measurement functions, and 41.7% of hospitals adopted at least 8 (of 10) patient engagement functions. Critical access hospitals were less likely to have adopted at least 8 performance measurement functions (odds ratio [OR] = 0.58; P < .001) and at least 8 patient engagement functions (OR = 0.68; P = 0.02). DISCUSSION: While the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act resulted in widespread hospital EHR adoption, use of advanced EHR functions lags and a digital divide appears to be emerging, with critical-access hospitals in particular lagging behind. This is concerning, because EHR-enabled performance measurement and patient engagement are key contributors to improving hospital performance. CONCLUSION: Hospital EHR adoption is widespread and many hospitals are using EHRs to support performance measurement and patient engagement. However, this is not happening across all hospitals.

The growth of palliative care programs in United States hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care programs are becoming increasingly common in U.S. hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the growth of hospital based palliative care programs from 2000-2003 and identify hospital characteristics associated with the development of a palliative care program. DESIGN AND MEASUREMENTS: Data were obtained from the 2001-2004 American Hospital Association Annual Surveys which covered calendar years 2000-2003. We identified all programs that self-reported the presence of a hospital-owned palliative care program and acute medical and surgical beds. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify characteristics significantly associated with the presence of a palliative care program in the 2003 survey data. RESULTS: Overall, the number of programs increased linearly from 632 (15% of hospitals) in 2000 to 1027 (25% of hospitals) in 2003. Significant predictors associated with an increased likelihood of having a palliative care program included greater numbers of hospital beds and critical care beds, geographic region, and being an academic medical center. Compared to notfor- profit hospitals, VA hospitals were significantly more likely to have a palliative care program and city, county or state and for-profit hospitals were significantly less likely to have a program. Hospitals operated by the Catholic Church, and hospitals that owned their own hospice program were significantly more likely to have a palliative care program than non- Catholic Church-operated hospitals and hospitals without hospice programs respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that although growth in palliative care programs has occurred throughout the nation's hospitals, larger hospitals, academic medical centers, not-for-profit hospitals, and VA hospitals are significantly more likely to develop a program compared to other hospitals.

Is the system really the solution? Operating costs in hospital systems.

Hospital system formation has recently accelerated. Executives emphasize scale economies that lower operating costs, a claim unsupported in academic research. Do systems achieve lower costs than freestanding facilities, and, if so, which system types? We test hypotheses about the relationship of cost with membership in systems, larger systems, and centralized and local hub-and-spoke systems. We also test whether these relationships have changed over time. Examining 4,000 U.S. hospitals during 1998 to 2010, we find no evidence that system members exhibit lower costs. However, members of smaller systems are lower cost than larger systems, and hospitals in centralized systems are lower cost than everyone else. There is no evidence that the system's spatial configuration is associated with cost, although national system hospitals exhibit higher costs. Finally, these results hold over time. We conclude that while systems in general may not be the solution to lower costs, some types of systems are.

Electronic Health Record Adoption In US Hospitals: Progress Continues, But Challenges Persist.

Achieving nationwide adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) remains an important policy priority. While EHR adoption has increased steadily since 2010, it is unclear how providers that have not yet adopted will fare now that federal incentives have converted to penalties. We used 2008-14 national data, which includes the most recently available, to examine hospital EHR trends. We found large gains in adoption, with 75 percent of US hospitals now having adopted at least a basic EHR system--up from 59 percent in 2013. However, small and rural hospitals continue to lag behind. Among hospitals without a basic EHR system, the function most often not yet adopted (in 61 percent of hospitals) was physician notes. We also saw large increases in the ability to meet core stage 2 meaningful-use criteria (40.5 percent of hospitals, up from 5.8 percent in 2013); much of this progress resulted from increased ability to meet criteria related to exchange of health information with patients and with other physicians during care transitions. Finally, hospitals most often reported up-front and ongoing costs, physician cooperation, and complexity of meeting meaningful-use criteria as challenges. Our findings suggest that nationwide hospital EHR adoption is in reach but will require attention to small and rural hospitals and strategies to address financial challenges, particularly now that penalties for lack of adoption have begun.

Reexamining organizational configurations: an update, validation, and expansion of the taxonomy of health networks and systems.

OBJECTIVES: To (a) assess how the original cluster categories of hospital-led health networks and systems have changed over time; (b) identify any new patterns of cluster configurations; and (c) demonstrate how additional data can be used to refine and enhance the taxonomy measures. DATA SOURCES; 1994 and 1998 American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey of Hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: As in the original taxonomy, separate cluster solutions are identified for health networks and health systems by applying three strategic/structural dimensions (differentiation, integration, and centralization) to three components of the health service/product continuum (hospital services, physician arrangements, and provider-based insurance activities). DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: Factor, cluster, and discriminant analyses are used to analyze the 1998 data. Descriptive and comparative methods are used to analyze the updated 1998 taxonomy relative to the original 1994 version. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The 1998 cluster categories are similar to the original taxonomy, however, they reveal some new organizational configurations. For the health networks, centralization of product/service lines is occurring more selectively than in the past. For the health systems, participation has grown in and dispersed across a more diverse set of decentralized organizational forms. For both networks and systems, the definition of centralization has changed over time. CONCLUSIONS: In its updated form, the taxonomy continues to provide policymakers and practitioners with a descriptive and contextual framework against which to assess organizational programs and policies. There is a need to continue to revisit the taxonomy from time to time because of the persistent evolution of the U.S. health care industry and the consequent shifting of organizational configurations in this arena. There is also value in continuing to move the taxonomy in the direction of refinement/expansion as new opportunities become available.

More than half of US hospitals have at least a basic EHR, but stage 2 criteria remain challenging for most.

The national effort to promote the adoption and meaningful use of electronic health records (EHRs) is well under way. However, 2014 marks an important transition: For many hospitals, penalties will be assessed in fiscal year 2015 for failing to meet federal meaningful-use criteria by the end of fiscal year 2014. We used recent data from the American Hospital Association Annual Survey of Hospitals--IT Supplement to assess progress and challenges. EHR adoption among US hospitals continues to rise steeply: 59 percent now have at least a basic EHR. Small and rural hospitals continue to lag behind their better resourced counterparts. Most hospitals are able to meet many of the stage 2 meaningful-use criteria, but only 5.8 percent of hospitals are able to meet them all. Several criteria, including sharing care summaries with other providers and providing patients with online access to their data, will require attention from EHR vendors to ensure that the necessary functions are available and additional effort from many hospitals to make certain that these functionalities are used. Policy makers may want to consider new targeted strategies to ensure that all hospitals move toward meaningful use of EHRs.

Adoption of electronic health records grows rapidly, but fewer than half of US hospitals had at least a basic system in 2012.

The US health care system is in the midst of an enormous change in the way health care providers and hospitals document, monitor, and share information about health and care delivery. Part of this transition involves a wholesale, but currently uneven, shift from paper-based records to electronic health record (EHR) systems. We used the most recent longitudinal survey of US hospitals to track how they are adopting and using EHR systems. Only 44 percent of hospitals report having and using what we define as at least a basic EHR system. And although 42.2 percent meet all of the federal stage 1 "meaningful-use" criteria, only 5.1 percent could meet the broader set of stage 2 criteria. Large urban hospitals continue to outpace rural and nonteaching hospitals in adopting EHR systems. The increase in adoption overall suggests that the positive and negative financial incentives currently in place across the US health care system are working as intended. However, achieving a nationwide health information technology infrastructure may require efforts targeted at smaller and rural hospitals.

Small, nonteaching, and rural hospitals continue to be slow in adopting electronic health record systems.

To achieve the goal of comprehensive health information record keeping and exchange among providers and patients, hospitals must have functioning electronic health record systems that contain patient demographics, care histories, lab results, and more. Using national survey data on US hospitals from 2011, the year federal incentives for the meaningful use of electronic health records began, we found that the share of hospitals with any electronic health record system increased from 15.1 percent in 2010 to 26.6 percent in 2011, and the share with a comprehensive system rose from 3.6 percent to 8.7 percent. The proportion able to meet our proxy criteria for meaningful use also rose; in 2011, 18.4 percent of hospitals had these functions in place in at least one unit and 11.2 percent had them across all clinical units. However, gaps in rates of adoption of at least a basic record system have increased substantially over the past four years based on hospital size, teaching status, and location. Small, nonteaching, and rural hospitals continue to adopt electronic health record systems more slowly than other types of hospitals. In sum, this is mixed news for policy makers, who should redouble their efforts among hospitals that appear to be moving slowly and ensure that policies do not further widen gaps in adoption. A more robust infrastructure for information exchange needs to be developed, and possibly a special program for the sizable minority of hospitals that have almost no health information technology at all.

The changing configuration of hospital systems: centralization, federalization, or fragmentation?

PURPOSE: Research on hospital system organization is dated and cross-sectional. We analyze trends in system structure during 2000-2010 to ascertain whether they have become more centralized or decentralized. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: We test hypotheses drawn from organization theory and estimate empirical models to study the structural transitions that systems make between different "clusters" defined by the American Hospital Association. FINDINGS: There is a clear trend toward system fragmentation during most of this period, with a small recent shift to centralization in some systems. Systems decentralize as they increase their members and geographic dispersion. This is particularly true for systems that span multiple states; it is less true for smaller regional systems and local systems that adopt a hub-and-spoke configuration around a teaching hospital. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS: Our time series ends in 2010 just as health care reform was implemented. We also rely on a single measure of system centralization. RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS: Systems that appear to be able to centrally coordinate their services are those that operate in local or regional markets. Larger systems that span several states are likely to decentralize or fragment. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: System fragmentation may thwart policy aims pursued in health care reform. The potential of Accountable Care Organizations rests on their ability to coordinate multiple providers via centralized governance. Hospitals systems are likely to be central players in many ACOs, but may lack the necessary coherence to effectively play this governance role. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Not all hospital systems act in a systemic manner. Those systems that are centralized (and presumably capable of acting in concerted fashion) are in the minority and have declined in prevalence over most of the past decade.

Progress toward meaningful use: hospitals' adoption of electronic health records.

OBJECTIVES: To update the status of electronic health record (EHR) adoption in US hospitals and assess their readiness for "Meaningful Use" (MU). STUDY DESIGN: We used data from the 2010 American Hospital Association Annual Information Technology Survey. The survey was first conducted in 2007 and is made available both online and through the mail to all non-federal acute-care hospitals in the United States. METHODS: We measure the percentages of applicable hospitals that have adopted "basic" and "comprehensive" EHRs as defined in previous literature. Additionally, we report the percentage of hospitals planning to apply for MU in the near term, and assess hospitals' readiness for the program and how readiness varies by key characteristics. RESULTS: We received responses from 2902 hospitals (64% of all non-federal acute-care hospitals). More than 15% have adopted at least a "basic" EHR, representing nearly 75% growth since 2008. Approximately two-thirds plan to apply for MU before 2013; however, only 4.4% had implemented each of the "core" MU functionalities we measured. Hospitals closer to achieving MU are more likely to be larger non-profits (P <.001) and vary by other key characteristics. Certain functionalities included in MU, such as computerized provider order entry, electronic generation of quality measures, and electronic access to records for patients are proving more challenging to implement for all hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Broad enthusiasm exists among hospitals for participation in MU. However, adoption will have to accelerate above its current pace for readiness to match intention. Gaps in adoption show bringing all hospitals along is the key policy challenge.

A progress report on electronic health records in U.S. hospitals.

Given the substantial federal financial incentives soon to be available to providers who make "meaningful use" of electronic health records, tracking the progress of this health care technology conversion is a policy priority. Using a recent survey of U.S. hospitals, we found that the share of hospitals that had adopted either basic or comprehensive electronic records has risen modestly, from 8.7 percent in 2008 to 11.9 percent in 2009. Small, public, and rural hospitals were less likely to embrace electronic records than their larger, private, and urban counterparts. Only 2 percent of U.S. hospitals reported having electronic health records that would allow them to meet the federal government's "meaningful use" criteria. These findings underscore the fact that the transition to a digital health care system is likely to be a long one.

The status of hospital medicine groups in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalists, defined as hospital-based physicians who take responsibility for managing the medical needs of inpatients, represent a significant trend in physician specialization. However, only limited anecdotal data quantifying the status of hospital medicine groups around the country is available. OBJECTIVE: To better understand the extent and nature of the hospitalist movement, utilizing data from the 2003 Annual Survey of the American Hospital Association (AHA). STUDY POPULATION: 4895 acute care hospitals in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Number and percentage of hospitals with hospital medicine groups; mean number of hospitalists per group; hospitalists per average daily census (ADC) of 100 patients; distribution of groups by employment model. DESCRIPTIVE VARIABLES: Census region; rural/urban status; number of beds; organizational control; teaching status. RESULTS: There are approximately 1415 hospital medicine groups and 11,159 hospitalists in the United States. The overall penetration of hospital medicine groups at hospitals is 29% (55% at hospitals with 200 or more beds), and the in-hospital impact at hospitals with hospital medicine groups is 3.93 hospitalists per 100 ADC. The average hospital medicine group has 7.9 hospitalists. There is a fairly equal distribution among the 3 major employment models for hospital medicine groups: hospital employees, independent provider groups, and physician groups. All these measures can vary substantially, depending on the characteristics of individual hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital medicine appears to have become part of the mainstream delivery of health care in the United States. No employment model of hospital medicine group appears to dominate this specialty. We expect there will continue to be growth and diversity in the implementation of hospital medicine groups.