Postdischarge Video Visits for Adherence to Hospital Discharge Recommendations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Objective: To determine whether a postdischarge video visit with patients, conducted by hospital medicine advanced practice providers, improves adherence to hospital discharge recommendations. Patients and Methods: We conducted a single-institution 2-site randomized clinical trial with 1:1 assignment to intervention vs control, with enrollment from August 10, 2020, to June 23, 2022. Hospital medicine patients discharged home or to an assisted living facility were randomized to a video visit 2-5 days postdischarge in addition to usual care (intervention) vs usual care (control). During the video visit, advanced practice providers reviewed discharge recommendations. Both intervention and control groups received telephone follow-up 3-6 days postdischarge to ascertain the primary outcome of adherence to all discharge recommendations for new and chronic medication management, self-management and action plan, and home support. Results: Among 1190 participants (594 intervention; 596 control), the primary outcome was ascertained in 768 participants (314 intervention; 454 control). In intervention vs control, there was no difference in the proportion of participants with the primary outcome (76.7% vs 72.5%; P=.19) or in the individual domains of the primary outcome: new and chronic medication management (94.1% vs 92.8%; P=.50), self-management and action plan (76.5% vs 71.5%; P=.18), and home support (94.1% vs 94.3%; P=.94). Women receiving intervention vs control had higher adherence to recommendations (odds ratio, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.08-2.91). Conclusion: In hospital medicine patients, a postdischarge video visit did not improve adherence to discharge recommendations. Potential gender differences in adherence require further investigation.Clinicaltrials.gov number, NCT04547803.

Multisite analysis of patient experience scores and risk of hospital admission: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Routinely collected patient experience scores may inform risk of patient outcomes. The objective of the study was to evaluate the risk of hospital admission within 30-days following third-party receipt of the patient experience survey and guide interventions. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys, January 2016-July 2019, from an institution's 20 hospitals in four U.S. states. Surveys were routinely sent to patients using census sampling. We analyzed surveys received ≤60 days following discharge from patients living ≤60 miles of any of the institution's hospitals. The exposures were 19 survey items. The outcome was hospital admission within 30 days after third-party receipt of the survey. We evaluated the association of favorable (top-box) vs unfavorable (non-top-box) score for survey items with risk of 30-day hospital admission in models including patient and hospitalization characteristics and reported adjusted odds ratios (aOR [95% confidence interval]). RESULTS: Among 40,162 respondents (mean age ± standard deviation: 68.1 ± 14.0 years), 49.8% were women and 4.3% had 30-day hospital admission. Patients with 30-day hospital admission, compared to those not admitted, were more likely to be discharged from a medical service line (62.9% vs 42.3%; P < 0.001) and have a higher Elixhauser index. Favorable vs unfavorable score for hospital rating was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission in the overall cohort (0.88 [0.77-0.99]; P = 0.04), medical service line (0.81 [0.70-0.94]; P = 0.007), and upper tertile of Elixhauser index (0.79 [0.67-0.92]; P = 0.003). Favorable score for recommend hospital was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission in the medical service line (0.83 [0.71-0.97]; P = 0.02) but for others (e.g. cleanliness of hospital environment) showed no association. CONCLUSION: In routinely collected patient experience scores, favorable hospital rating was associated with lower odds of 30-day hospital admission and may inform risk stratification and interventions. Evidence-based survey items linked to patient outcomes may also inform future surveys.

Post-discharge early assessment with remote video link (PEARL) initiative for patients discharged from hospital medicine services.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted the availability and accessibility of outpatient care following hospital discharge. Hospitalists (physicians) and hospital medicine advanced practice providers (HM-APPs) coordinate discharge care of hospitalized patients; however, it is unknown if they can deliver post-discharge virtual care and overcome barriers to outpatient care. The objective was to develop and provide post-discharge virtual care for patients discharged from hospital medicine services. METHODS: We developed the Post-discharge Early Assessment with Remote video Link (PEARL) initiative for HM-APPs to conduct a post-discharge video visit (to review recommendations) and telephone follow-up (to evaluate adherence) with patients 2-6 days following hospital discharge. Participants included patients discharged from hospital medicine services at an institution's hospitals in Rochester (May 2020-August 2020) and Austin (November 2020-February 2021) in Minnesota, US. HM-APPs also interviewed patients about their experience with the video visit and completed a survey on their experience with PEARL. RESULTS: Of 386 eligible patients, 61.4% were enrolled (n = 237/386) including 48.1% women (n = 114/237). In patients with complete video visit and telephone follow-up (n = 141/237), most were prescribed new medications (83.7%) and took them as prescribed (93.2%). Among five classes of chronic medications, patient-reported adherence ranged from 59.2% (narcotics) to 91.5% (anti-hypertensives). Patient-reported self-management of 12 discharge recommendations ranged from 40% (smoking cessation) to 100% (checking rashes). Patients reported benefit from the video visit (agree: 77.3%) with an equivocal preference for video visits over clinic visits. Among HM-APPs who responded to the survey (88.2%; n = 15/17), 73.3% reported benefit from visual contact with patients but were uncertain if video visits would reduce emergency department visits. CONCLUSION: In this novel initiative, HM-APPs used video visits to provide care beyond their hospital role, reinforce discharge recommendations for patients, and reduce barriers to outpatient care. The effect of this initiative is under evaluation in a randomized controlled trial.

Quality Performance of a Transfer Center Reduces Interhospital Transfer and Direct Admission-Related ED Evaluations.

Transfer centers play a vital role in the efficient triage of hospital admission requests that generate outside the emergency department (ED) of the given facility. This cohort study includes all the calls processed through the transfer center requesting an admission to Mayo Clinic, Rochester, from January 2016 to December 2018. More than 116,000 transfer request calls were processed. Of these, about 65% (75,000) were accepted for ED evaluation or direct admission. Of the 75,000 patients, >50% were accepted as direct admits. Among patients accepted for direct admission, a trend toward reduced utilization of ED reevaluation at the receiving facility was noted from 2016 to 2018. A temporal trend of overall reduced ED utilization reflects the adeptness of the transfer center. An effective transfer center promotes value-based care, optimizes the workflow in a hospital, and augments hospital administrative decisions to allocate resources.

Successful recruitment and retention of academic physicians: hiring for longevity, productivity, and leadership in hospital medicine.

BACKGROUND: Considerable resources are expended by hospitals to recruit and retain physicians that will be successful. Healthcare managers lack data to guide these decisions. In that vacuum, suppositions regarding what attributes contribute to physician success predominate. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between candidate factors known at the time of hiring and subsequent longevity and success of physicians in an academic division of hospital internal medicine. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective review of all physicians hired in an academic hospital internal medicine division. Measures of longevity, research productivity, academic promotion and division leadership roles were compared to personal and professional characteristics at the time of hiring. Success was quantified in those four domains and associations explored for between success and hiring factors. RESULTS: Female physicians had greater longevity at the institution. Physicians from the hospital region were no more likely to stay long-term as compared to those from other regions. United States medical graduates were more likely to attain leadership positions than international graduates. There was an inverse relationship between research productivity and administrative leadership. CONCLUSIONS: Factors commonly sought by academic healthcare institutions were not associated with long term success in academic hospital medicine. Less research productivity was associated with greater divisional leadership involvement, suggesting that scholarship and administrative leadership may represent separate tracks for physicians at academic institutions.

A Taxonomic Review of Patient Complaints in Adult Hospital Medicine.

Previous studies show that patient complaints can identify gaps in quality of care, but it is difficult to identify trends without categorization. We conducted a review of complaints relating to admissions on hospital internal medicine (HIM) services over a 26-month period. Data were collected on person characteristics and key features of the complaint. The complaints were also categorized into a previously published taxonomy. Seventy-six unsolicited complaints were identified, (3.5 per 1000 hospital admissions). Complaints were more likely on resident services. The mean duration between encounter and complaint was 18 days, and it took an average of 12 days to resolve the complaint. Most patients (59%) had a complaint in the Relationship domain. Thirty-nine percent of complaints mentioned a specific clinician. When a clinician was mentioned, complaints regarding communication and humaneness predominated (68%). The results indicate that the efforts to reduce patient complaints in HIM should focus on the Relationships domain.

Hospitalist perspectives on barriers to recommend and potential benefit of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Background: Hospitalists, comprised of nurse practitioners and physician assistants (collectively, advanced practice providers [APPs]) and physicians, have opportunities to counsel patients and reduce SARS-CoV-2 related coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine hesitancy. However, hospitalist perspectives on the COVID-19 vaccine and potential differences between APPs and physicians are unknown. Understanding hospitalist perspectives could help to address vaccine hesitancy among patients.Methods: We conducted an online survey of hospitalists at Mayo Clinic sites in Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin from 14 December 2020 through 4 January 2021. We collected demographic information and assessed perspectives on the COVID-19 vaccine and, for comparison, on the influenza vaccine. Descriptive statistics were used to compare responses between APPs and physicians.Results: The overall response rate was 42.7% (n = 128/300) and comprised of 53.9% women (n = 69/128) and 41.4% APPs (n = 53/128). Most hospitalists reported receiving or planning to receive vaccination against COVID-19 (93.7%; n = 119/128) and influenza (97.7%; n = 125/128). Most hospitalists reported they would advise 100% of patients to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (66% for APPs; 74.7% for physicians) and influenza vaccine (83% for APPs; 80% for physicians). Barriers to recommending the COVID-19 vaccine included patient health status and vaccine safety profile. Hospitalists reported that patients and coworkers receiving the COVID-19 vaccine would reduce their anxiety (~80% of hospitalists), social isolation (~64% of hospitalists), and improve their emotional support (~40% of hospitalists). APP and physician responses were similar. The possible reduction in social isolation was associated with higher odds of hospitalists advising all patients to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (adjusted odds ratio 2.95 [95% confidence interval, 1.32-6.59]; P< .008), whereas hospitalist age, gender, and profession showed no association.Conclusion: Most hospitalists would reportedly advise patients to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Barriers to this recommendation included patient health status and vaccine safety. Hospitalists are an important resource to provide patient education and reduce COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.