Patient isolation for infection control and patient experience.

OBJECTIVE: Hospitalized patients placed in isolation due to a carrier state or infection with resistant or highly communicable organisms report higher rates of anxiety and loneliness and have fewer physician encounters, room entries, and vital sign records. We hypothesized that isolation status might adversely impact patient experience as reported through Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) surveys, particularly regarding communication. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of HCAHPS survey results over 5 years. SETTING: A 1,165-bed, tertiary-care, academic medical center. PATIENTS: Patients on any type of isolation for at least 50% of their stay were the exposure group. Those never in isolation served as controls. METHODS: Multivariable logistic regression, adjusting for age, race, gender, payer, severity of illness, length of stay and clinical service were used to examine associations between isolation status and "top-box" experience scores. Dose response to increasing percentage of days in isolation was also analyzed. RESULTS: Patients in isolation reported worse experience, primarily with staff responsiveness (help toileting 63% vs 51%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.77; P = .0009) and overall care (rate hospital 80% vs 73%; aOR, 0.78; P < .0001), but they reported similar experience in other domains. No dose-response effect was observed. CONCLUSION: Isolated patients do not report adverse experience for most aspects of provider communication regarded to be among the most important elements for safety and quality of care. However, patients in isolation had worse experiences with staff responsiveness for time-sensitive needs. The absence of a dose-response effect suggests that isolation status may be a marker for other factors, such as illness severity. Regardless, hospitals should emphasize timely staff response for this population.

Building a Medicaid Ambulatory Complex Care Program Within an Urban Medical Home.

Five percent of Medicaid patients account for 50% of total costs. Preventable costs are often incurred by patients with complex medical, behavioral, and social needs who disproportionately utilize acute care services. Evidence for design, implementation, and evaluation of complex care programs in the urban Medicaid population is lacking. The article provides a description of a complex care program (CCP), challenges, and early outcomes based on a pre-post evaluation. The CCP was located within an existing urban medical home. Patients were eligible if they lived within 10 miles of the clinic and had at least 2 inpatient visits and/or 3 emergency room visits within the prior 6 months. Ambulatory Care Groups® were used to predict estimated total costs of patients, who were included if potential cost savings exceeded $5000. Patient experience and quality of care were assessed using validated measures and costs. Return on investment was calculated based on investment and cost savings. Costs include visits (clinic, specialty, and emergency room), hospital admissions, medications, tests and services, as well as salary and benefits of clinical staff. Eighty-six of 211 eligible patients (41%) were enrolled during the first 18 months of the pilot program. There were positive trends in quality metrics and patient satisfaction. The pre-post evaluation demonstrated a reduction in emergency room visits and hospitalizations (67% and 65%, respectively), which resulted in a 2.2:1 return on investment. This article offers lessons learned to colleagues considering population health approaches in the care of high-risk Medicaid patients.