Implementing the Comprehensive Unit-Based Safety Program (CUSP) to Improve Patient Safety in an Academic Primary Care Practice.

BACKGROUND: While there is growing awareness of the risk of harm in ambulatory health care, most patient safety efforts have focused on the inpatient setting. The Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) has been an integral part of highly successful safety efforts in inpatient settings. In 2014 CUSP was implemented in an academic primary care practice. METHODS: As part of CUSP implementation, staff and clinicians underwent training on the science of safety and completed a two-question safety assessment survey to identify safety concerns in the practice. The concerns identified by team members were used to select two initial safety priorities. The impact of CUSP on safety climate and teamwork was assessed through a pre-post comparison of results on the validated Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of staff completed science of safety training as part of CUSP implementation, and 100% of staff completed the two-question safety assessment. The most frequently identified safety concerns were related to medications (n = 11, 28.2), diagnostic testing (n = 9, 25), and communication (n = 5, 14). The CUSP team initially prioritized communication and infection control, which led to standardization of work flows within the practice. Six months following CUSP implementation, large but nonstatistically significant increases were found for the percentage of survey respondents who reported knowledge of the proper channels for questions about patient safety, felt encouraged to report safety concerns, and believed that the work setting made it easy to learn from the errors of others. CONCLUSION: CUSP is a promising tool to improve safety climate and to identify and address safety concerns within ambulatory health care.

Provider-to-Provider Communication during Transitions of Care from Outpatient to Acute Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Most research on transitions of care has focused on the transition from acute to outpatient care. Little is known about the transition from outpatient to acute care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on the transition from outpatient to acute care, focusing on provider-to-provider communication and its impact on quality of care. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases for English-language articles describing direct communication between outpatient providers and acute care providers around patients presenting to the emergency department or admitted to the hospital. We conducted double, independent review of titles, abstracts, and full text articles. Conflicts were resolved by consensus. Included articles were abstracted using standardized forms. We maintained search results via Refworks (ProQuest, Bethesda, MD). Risk of bias was assessed using a modified version of the Downs' and Black's tool. RESULTS: Of 4009 citations, twenty articles evaluated direct provider-to-provider communication around the outpatient to acute care transition. Most studies were cross-sectional (65%), conducted in the US (55%), and studied communication between primary care and inpatient providers (62%). Of three studies reporting on the association between communication and 30-day readmissions, none found a significant association; of these studies, only one reported a measure of association (adjusted OR for communication vs. no communication, 1.08; 95% CI 0.92-1.26). DISCUSSION: The literature on provider-to-provider communication at the transition from outpatient to acute care is sparse and heterogeneous. Given the known importance of communication for other transitions of care, future studies are needed on provider-to-provider communication during this transition. Studies evaluating ideal methods for communication to reduce medical errors, utilization, and optimize patient satisfaction at this transition are especially needed.

Increasing Advance Care Planning Completion at an Academic Internal Medicine Outpatient Clinic.

BACKGROUND: We sought to increase advance care planning (ACP) completion at an academic internal medicine clinic through an electronic health record. MEASURES: Number of eligible patients who completed a form of ACP. INTERVENTION: Multidisciplinary team approach with engagement from providers and clinic staff; implemented informational letter and appropriate forms to eligible patients before appointment; informational video and provider reminders at time of appointment. OUTCOMES: Of 480 eligible patients, 327 (68%) completed one or more forms of ACP or had a discussion with their provider. Discussed but not completed was highest (53%). The three types of ACP completed were 1) a state-formatted advance directive form (47%), 2) Medical Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (45%), and 3) power of attorney designation (8%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a multi-disciplinary approach can facilitate ACP. However, challenges still arise because in more than half of the cases, advance care efforts led only to a discussion.

The Value of Continuity between Primary Care and Surgical Care in Colon Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Improving continuity between primary care and cancer care is critical for improving cancer outcomes and curbing cancer costs. A dimension of continuity, we investigated how regularly patients receive their primary care and surgical care for colon cancer from the same hospital and whether this affects mortality and costs. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program Registry (SEER)-Medicare data, we performed a retrospective cohort study of stage I-III colon cancer patients diagnosed between 2000 and 2009. There were 23,305 stage I-III colon cancer patients who received primary care in the year prior to diagnosis and underwent operative care for colon cancer. Patients were assigned to the hospital where they had their surgery and to their primary care provider's main hospital, and then classified according to whether these two hospitals were same or different. Outcomes examined were hazards for all-cause mortality, subhazard for colon cancer specific mortality, and generalized linear estimate for costs at 12 months, from propensity score matched models. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent of stage I-III colon patients received primary care and surgical care from the same hospital. Primary care and surgical care from the same hospital was not associated with reduced all-cause or colon cancer specific mortality, but was associated with lower inpatient, outpatient, and total costs of care. Total cost difference was $8,836 (95% CI $2,746-$14,577), a 20% reduction in total median cost of care at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving primary care and surgical care at the same hospital, compared to different hospitals, was associated with lower costs but still similar survival among stage I-III colon cancer patients. Nonetheless, health care policy which encourages further integration between primary care and cancer care in order to improve outcomes and decrease costs will need to address the significant proportion of patients receiving health care across more than one hospital.

Readmissions After Colon Cancer Surgery: Does It Matter Where Patients Are Readmitted?

PURPOSE: Readmissions to a different hospital may place patients at increased risk for poor outcomes and may increase their overall costs of care. We evaluated whether mortality and costs differ for patients with colon cancer on the basis of whether patients are readmitted to the index hospital or to a different hospital within 30 days of discharge. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis using SEER-Medicare linked claims data for patients with stage I to III colon cancer diagnosed between 2000 and2009 who were readmitted within 30 days (N = 3,399). Our primary outcome was all-cause mortality, which was modeled by using Cox proportional hazards. Secondary outcomes included colon cancer-specific mortality, 90-day mortality, and costs of care. We used subhazard ratios for colon cancer- specific mortality and generalized linear models for costs. For each model, we used a propensity score-weighted doubly robust approach to adjust for patient, physician, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Approximately 23% (n = 769) of readmitted patients were readmitted to a different hospital than where they were initially discharged. After adjustment, there was no difference in all-cause mortality, colon cancer-specific mortality, or cost of care for patients readmitted to a different hospital. Patient readmitted to a different hospital did have a higher risk of short-term mortality (90-day all-cause mortality; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.38). CONCLUSION: Readmission to a different hospital after colon cancer surgery is associated with short-term mortality but not with long-term mortality nor with post-discharge costs of care. Additional investigation is needed to determine how to improve short-term mortality among patients readmitted to different hospitals.