Academic hospitalist perspectives on the benefits and challenges of secure messaging: A mixed methods analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals and patients rely on effective clinician communication. Asynchronous electronic secure messaging (SM) systems are a common way for hospitalists to communicate, but few studies have evaluated how hospitalists are navigating the adoption of SM and the benefits and challenges they are encountering. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to assess academic hospitalist perspectives on SM to guide future research and quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: This was a mixed methods study utilizing an embedded REDCap survey and six virtual semistructured focus groups. It took place during a Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network Zoom meeting on October 13, 2023. Rapid qualitative methods were used to define major themes. RESULTS: There were 28 hospitalists and one patient representative across 24 separate academic institutions. There was a 71% survey completion rate (N = 20). SM was felt to be an effective and efficient communication modality but was associated with a large amount of multitasking and interruptions. Perspectives around SM clustered around three main themes: SM has been widely but variably adopted; there is a lack of institutional guidance about how to best engage with SM; and SM is changing the landscape of hospitalist work by increasing ease but decreasing depth of communication, increasing cognitive load, and changing interpersonal relationships. Recommendations for SM improvements included the need for institutions to work with frontline workers to develop and implement clear usage guidelines. CONCLUSION: SM is likely contributing to both positive and negative effects for clinicians and patients. Understanding hospitalist perspectives on SM will help guide future research and quality improvement initiatives.

2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from August 2022 to March 2023 to identify clinical studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery" have been updated with new evidence consolidated to guide clinicians; clinicians should be advised this guideline supersedes the previously published 2014 guideline. In addition, evidence-based management strategies, including pharmacological therapies, perioperative monitoring, and devices, for cardiovascular disease and associated medical conditions, have been developed.

2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The "2024 AHA/ACC/ACS/ASNC/HRS/SCA/SCCT/SCMR/SVM Guideline for Perioperative Cardiovascular Management for Noncardiac Surgery" provides recommendations to guide clinicians in the perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of adult patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from August 2022 to March 2023 to identify clinical studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the "2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery" have been updated with new evidence consolidated to guide clinicians; clinicians should be advised this guideline supersedes the previously published 2014 guideline. In addition, evidence-based management strategies, including pharmacological therapies, perioperative monitoring, and devices, for cardiovascular disease and associated medical conditions, have been developed.

Coronary Disease Risk Prediction, Risk Reduction, and Postoperative Myocardial Injury.

For patients considering surgery, the preoperative evaluation allows physicians to identify and treat acute cardiac conditions before less-urgent surgery, predict the benefits and harms of a proposed surgery, and make temporary management changes to reduce operative risk. Multiple risk prediction tools are reasonable for use in estimating perioperative cardiac risk, but management changes to reduce risk have proven elusive. For all but the most urgent surgical procedures, patients with active coronary syndromes or decompensated heart failure should have surgery postponed.

Simultaneously implementing pathways for improving asthma, pneumonia, and bronchiolitis care for hospitalized children: Protocol for a hybrid effectiveness-implementation, cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Asthma, pneumonia, and bronchiolitis are the top causes of childhood hospitalization in the United States, leading to over 350,000 hospitalizations and ≈$2 billion in costs annually. The majority of these hospitalizations occur in general/community hospitals. Poor guideline adoption by clinicians contributes to poor health outcomes for children hospitalized with these illnesses, including longer recovery time/hospital stay, higher rates of intensive care unit transfer, and increased risk of hospital readmission. A prior single-center study at a children's hospital tested a multicondition clinical pathway intervention (simultaneous implementation of multiple pathways for multiple pediatric conditions) and demonstrated improved clinician guideline adherence and patient health outcomes. This intervention has not yet been studied in community hospitals, which face unique implementation barriers. OBJECTIVE: To study the implementation and effectiveness of a multicondition pathway intervention for children hospitalized with asthma, pneumonia, or bronchiolitis in community hospitals. METHODS: We will conduct a pragmatic, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, cluster-randomized trial in community hospitals around the United States (1:1 randomization to intervention vs. wait-list control). Our primary outcome will be the adoption of 2-3 evidence-based practices for each condition over a sustained period of 2 years. Secondary outcomes include hospital length of stay, ICU transfer, and readmission. DISCUSSION: This hybrid trial will lead to a comprehensive understanding of how to pragmatically and sustainably implement a multicondition pathway intervention in community hospitals and an assessment of its effects. Enrollment began in July 2022 and is projected to be completed in September 2024. Primary analysis completion is anticipated in March 2025, with reporting of results following.

Analysis of Clinical Criteria for Discharge Among Patients Hospitalized for COVID-19: Development and Validation of a Risk Prediction Model.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized with COVID-19 can clinically deteriorate after a period of initial stability, making optimal timing of discharge a clinical and operational challenge. OBJECTIVE: To determine risks for post-discharge readmission and death among patients hospitalized with COVID-19. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective observational cohort study, 2020-2021, with 30-day follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: Adults admitted for care of COVID-19 respiratory disease between March 2, 2020, and February 11, 2021, to one of 180 US hospitals affiliated with the HCA Healthcare system. MAIN MEASURES: Readmission to or death at an HCA hospital within 30 days of discharge was assessed. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated using an internal validation set (33% of the HCA cohort), and external validation was performed using similar data from six academic centers associated with a hospital medicine research network (HOMERuN). KEY RESULTS: The final HCA cohort included 62,195 patients (mean age 61.9 years, 51.9% male), of whom 4704 (7.6%) were readmitted or died within 30 days of discharge. Independent risk factors for death or readmission included fever within 72 h of discharge; tachypnea, tachycardia, or lack of improvement in oxygen requirement in the last 24 h; lymphopenia or thrombocytopenia at the time of discharge; being ≤ 7 days since first positive test for SARS-CoV-2; HOSPITAL readmission risk score ≥ 5; and several comorbidities. Inpatient treatment with remdesivir or anticoagulation were associated with lower odds. The model's AUC for the internal validation set was 0.73 (95% CI 0.71-0.74) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.67) for the external validation set. CONCLUSIONS: This large retrospective study identified several factors associated with post-discharge readmission or death in models which performed with good discrimination. Patients 7 or fewer days since test positivity and who demonstrate potentially reversible risk factors may benefit from delaying discharge until those risk factors resolve.

Identifying and Measuring Administrative Harms Experienced by Hospitalists and Administrative Leaders.

Importance: Administrative harm (AH), defined as the adverse consequences of administrative decisions within health care that impact work structure, processes, and programs, is pervasive in medicine, yet poorly understood and described. Objective: To explore common AHs experienced by hospitalist clinicians and administrative leaders, understand the challenges that exist in identifying and measuring AH, and identify potential approaches to mitigate AH. Design, Setting, and Participants: A qualitative study using a mixed-methods approach with a 12-question survey and semistructured virtual focus groups was held on June 13 and August 11, 2023. Rapid qualitative methods including templated summaries and matrix analysis were applied. The participants included 2 consortiums comprising hospitalist clinicians, researchers, administrative leaders, and members of a patient and family advisory council. Main Outcomes and Measures: Quantitative data from the survey on specific aspects of experiences related to AH were collected. Focus groups were conducted using a semistructured focus group guide. Themes and subthemes were identified. Results: Forty-one individuals from 32 different organizations participated in the focus groups, with 32 participants (78%) responding to a brief survey. Survey participants included physicians (91%), administrative professionals (6%), an advanced practice clinician (3%), and those in leadership roles (44%), with participants able to select more than one role. Only 6% of participants were familiar with the term administrative harm to a great extent, 100% felt that collaboration between administrators and clinicians is crucial for reducing AH, and 81% had personally participated in a decision that led to AH to some degree. Three main themes were identified: (1) AH is pervasive and comes from all levels of leadership, and the phenomenon was felt to be widespread and arose from multiple sources within health care systems; (2) organizations lack mechanisms for identification, measurement, and feedback, and these challenges stem from a lack of psychological safety, workplace cultures, and ambiguity in who owns a decision; and (3) organizational pressures were recognized as contributors to AHs. Many ideas were proposed as solutions. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that AH is widespread with wide-reaching impact, yet organizations do not have mechanisms to identify or address it.

Breaking barriers, building faculty: A qualitative analysis to exploring faculty development in academic hospital medicine.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine (HM) continues to be primarily composed of junior hospitalists and research has highlighted a paucity of mentors and academic output. Faculty advancement programs have been identified as a means to support junior hospitalists in their career trajectories and to advance the field. The optimal approach to supporting faculty development (FD) efforts is not known. OBJECTIVE: To understand hospitalist groups' approaches to FD, including efforts that were perceived to be effective, and to identify barriers as well as potential future directions for FD. DESIGN: Rapid qualitative methods were utilized including templated summaries and matrix analysis to identify major themes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Virtual focus groups with hospitalists in the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Qualitative themes. RESULTS: Nineteen individuals from 17 unique institutions from across the United States in May 2022 participated in seven focus groups. Four key themes emerged from the study and included (1) academic hospitalist programs face multifaceted challenges and barriers to FD in HM, (2) groups have embraced a diversity of structures and frameworks, (3) due to clinical volumes, FD programs have had to adapt and evolve to meet FD needs, and (4) participants identified multiple areas for improvement, including defining tangible outcomes of FD programs and creating a repository of FD material which can be shared widely.

Sex concordance between physicians and patients and discharge opioid prescribing.

Inpatient pain management is challenging for clinicians and inequities are prevalent. We examined sex concordance between physicians and patients to determine if discordance was associated with disparate opioid prescribing on hospital discharge. We examined 15,339 hospitalizations from 2013 to 2021. Adjusting for patient, clinical, and hospitalization-level characteristics, we calculated the odds of a patient receiving an opioid on discharge and the days of opioids prescribed across all hospitalizations and for patients admitted with a common pain diagnosis. We did not find an overall association between physician-patient sex concordance and discharge opioid prescriptions. Compared to concordant sex pairs, patients in discordant pairs were not significantly less likely to receive an opioid prescription (odds ratio: 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95, 1.15) and did not receive significantly fewer days of opioids (2.1 fewer days of opioids; 95% CI: -4.4, 0.4). Better understanding relationships between physician and patient characteristics is essential to achieve more equitable prescribing.

Impact of billing reforms on academic hospitalist physician and advanced practice provider collaboration: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Medicare previously announced plans for new billing reforms for inpatient visits that are shared by physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) whereby the clinician spending the most time on the patient visit would bill for the visit. OBJECTIVE: To understand how inpatient hospital medicine teams utilize APPs in patient care and how the proposed billing policies might impact future APP utilization. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted focus groups with hospitalist physicians, APPs, and other leaders from 21 academic hospitals across the United States. Utilizing rapid qualitative methods, focus groups were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive method at the semantic level with templated summaries and matrix analysis. Thirty-three individuals (physicians [n = 21], APPs [n = 10], practice manager [n = 1], and patient representative [n = 1]) participated in six focus groups. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the analysis of the focus groups, including: (1) staffing models with APPs are rapidly evolving, (2) these changes were felt to be driven by staffing shortages, financial models, and governance with minimal consideration to teamwork and relationships, (3) time-based billing was perceived to value tasks over cognitive workload, and (4) that the proposed billing changes may create unintended consequences impacting collaboration and professional satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Physician and APP collaborative care models are increasingly evolving to independent visits often driven by workloads, financial drivers, and local regulations such as medical staff rules and hospital bylaws. Understanding which staffing models produce optimal patient, clinician, and organizational outcomes should inform billing policies rather than the reverse.

Stigmatizing Language, Patient Demographics, and Errors in the Diagnostic Process.

This cohort study assesses the association between stigmatizing language, demographic characteristics, and errors in the diagnostic process among hospitalized adults.

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).

Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Adults Who Died or Were Transferred to Intensive Care.

Importance: Diagnostic errors contribute to patient harm, though few data exist to describe their prevalence or underlying causes among medical inpatients. Objective: To determine the prevalence, underlying cause, and harms of diagnostic errors among hospitalized adults transferred to an intensive care unit (ICU) or who died. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study conducted at 29 academic medical centers in the US in a random sample of adults hospitalized with general medical conditions and who were transferred to an ICU, died, or both from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Each record was reviewed by 2 trained clinicians to determine whether a diagnostic error occurred (ie, missed or delayed diagnosis), identify diagnostic process faults, and classify harms. Multivariable models estimated association between process faults and diagnostic error. Opportunity for diagnostic error reduction associated with each fault was estimated using the adjusted proportion attributable fraction (aPAF). Data analysis was performed from April through September 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Whether or not a diagnostic error took place, the frequency of underlying causes of errors, and harms associated with those errors. Results: Of 2428 patient records at 29 hospitals that underwent review (mean [SD] patient age, 63.9 [17.0] years; 1107 [45.6%] female and 1321 male individuals [54.4%]), 550 patients (23.0%; 95% CI, 20.9%-25.3%) had experienced a diagnostic error. Errors were judged to have contributed to temporary harm, permanent harm, or death in 436 patients (17.8%; 95% CI, 15.9%-19.8%); among the 1863 patients who died, diagnostic error was judged to have contributed to death in 121 (6.6%; 95% CI, 5.3%-8.2%). In multivariable models examining process faults associated with any diagnostic error, patient assessment problems (aPAF, 21.4%; 95% CI, 16.4%-26.4%) and problems with test ordering and interpretation (aPAF, 19.9%; 95% CI, 14.7%-25.1%) had the highest opportunity to reduce diagnostic errors; similar ranking was seen in multivariable models examining harmful diagnostic errors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, diagnostic errors in hospitalized adults who died or were transferred to the ICU were common and associated with patient harm. Problems with choosing and interpreting tests and the processes involved with clinician assessment are high-priority areas for improvement efforts.

National Survey of Patient Safety Experiences in Hospital Medicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, hospitals were caring for increasing numbers of patients with a novel and highly contagious respiratory illness, forcing adaptations in care delivery. The objective of this study was to understand the impact of these adaptations on patient safety in hospital medicine. METHODS: The authors conducted a nationwide survey to understand patient safety challenges experienced by hospital medicine clinicians during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey was distributed to members of the Society of Hospital Medicine via an e-mail listserv. It consisted of closed- and open-ended questions to elicit respondents' experience in five domains: error reporting and communication, staffing, equipment, personal protective equipment (PPE) and isolation practices, and infrastructure. Quantitative questions were reported as counts and percentages; qualitative responses were coded and analyzed for relevant themes. RESULTS: Of 196 total responses, 167 respondents (85.2%) were attending physicians and 85 (43.8%) practiced at teaching hospitals. Safety concerns commonly identified included nursing shortages (71.0%), limiting patient interactions to conserve PPE (61.9%), and feeling that one was practicing in a more hazardous environment (61.4%). In free-text responses, clinicians described poor outcomes and patient decompensation due to provider and equipment shortages, as well as communication lapses and diagnostic errors resulting from decreased patient contact and the need to follow isolation protocols. CONCLUSION: Efforts made to accommodate shortages in staff and equipment, adapt to limited PPE, and enforce isolation policies had unintended consequences that affected patient safety and created a more hazardous environment characterized by less efficient care, respiratory decompensations, diagnostic errors, and poor communication with patients.

Post-Hospitalization Home Monitoring Programs During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Survey Results from the Hospital Medicine Re-engineering Network (HOMERuN).

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, hospitals and healthcare systems launched innovative responses to emerging needs. The creation and use of programs to remotely follow patient clinical status and recovery after COVID-19 hospitalization has not been thoroughly described. OBJECTIVE: To characterize deployment of remote post-hospital discharge monitoring programs during the COVID-19 pandemic METHODS: Electronic surveys were administered to leaders of 83 US academic hospitals in the Hospital Medicine Re-engineering Network (HOMERuN). An initial survey was completed in March 2021 with follow-up survey completed in July 2022. RESULTS: There were 35 responses to the initial survey (42%) and 15 responses to the follow-up survey (43%). Twenty-two (63%) sites reported a post-discharge monitoring program, 16 of which were newly developed for COVID-19. Physiologic monitoring devices such as pulse oximeters were often provided. Communication with medical teams was often via telephone, with moderate use of apps or electronic medical record integration. Programs launched most commonly between January and June 2020. Only three programs were still active at the time of follow-up survey. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate rapid, ad hoc development of post-hospital discharge monitoring programs during the COVID-19 pandemic but with little standardization or evaluation. Additional study could identify the benefits of these programs, instruct their potential application to other disease processes, and inform further development as part of emergency preparedness for upcoming crises.