Simulation as a Platform for Development of Entrustable Professional Activities: A Modular, Longitudinal Approach.

Background The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) has recently identified a list of integrated activities to be expected of all medical school graduates entering residency: the core Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs). Direct observation and deliberate practice of individual EPA behaviors in the clinical setting has multiple challenges, and there is limited literature describing a comprehensive, longitudinal curriculum dedicated to formative EPA assessment.  Approach We present a model curriculum to develop and provide formative assessment of EPA skills longitudinally throughout the clinical years. Each EPA-focused training session includes a simulation case followed by several small group activities with content related to the clinical vignette in the initial simulation. We have designed this curriculum to be longitudinal and modular, and present the general framework here.  Outcomes Step-wise implementation began in 2013. Over 450 medical students have participated in the third year (MS3) clerkship sessions, 30 in the MS4 sub-internship sessions, and over 300 thus far in the fourth year (MS4) capstone course, including students from 10 different medical schools. MS3 sessions focused on EPAs 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, and MS4 sessions had an additional focus on EPA 8. The capstone course encompassed nearly all 13 EPAs in active simulation-based learning. Opportunities to provide formative assessment through on-the-spot feedback exist throughout the curriculum. Student feedback was overwhelmingly positive. Next steps We found that simulations are an effective method of providing formative assessment of EPAs that are exceptionally well-received by medical students. We have demonstrated that these can be implemented for medical students from multiple educational backgrounds. We believe that deliberate practice and longitudinal formative assessment is of utmost importance in effectively developing core EPAs prior to final entrustment decisions.

Standardising hospitalist practice in sepsis and COPD care.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalist medicine was predicated on the belief that providers dedicated to inpatient care would deliver higher quality and more cost-effective care to acutely hospitalised patients. The literature shows mixed results and has identified care variation as a culprit for suboptimal quality and cost outcomes. Using a scientifically validated engagement and measurement approach such as Clinical Performance and Value (CPV), simulated patient vignettes may provide the impetus to change provider behaviour, improve system cohesion, and improve quality and cost efficiency for hospitalists. METHODS: We engaged 33 hospitalists from four disparate hospitalist groups practising at Penn Medicine Princeton Health. Over 16 months and four engagement rounds, participants cared for two patients per round (with a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD] and sepsis), then received feedback, followed by a group discussion. At project end, we evaluated both simulated and real-world data to measure changes in clinical practice and patient outcomes. RESULTS: Participants significantly improved their evidence-based practice (+13.7% points, p<0.001) while simultaneously reducing their variation (-1.4% points, p=0.018), as measured by the overall CPV score. Correct primary diagnosis increased significantly for both sepsis (+19.1% points, p=0.004) and COPD (+22.7% points, p=0.001), as did adherence to the sepsis 3-hour bundle (+33.7% points, p=0.010) and correct admission levels for COPD (+26.0% points, p=0.042). These CPV changes coincided with real-world improvements in length of stay and mortality, along with a calculated $5 million in system-wide savings for both disease conditions. CONCLUSION: This study shows that an engagement system-using simulated patients, benchmarking and feedback to drive provider behavioural change and group cohesion, using parallel tracking of hospital data-can lead to significant improvements in patient outcomes and health system savings for hospitalists.

Insurance Coverage Predicts Mortality in Patients Transferred Between Hospitals: a Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients transferred between hospitals are at high risk of adverse events and mortality. The relationship between insurance status, transfer practices, and outcomes has not been definitively characterized. OBJECTIVE: To identify the association between insurance coverage and mortality of patients transferred between hospitals. DESIGN: We conducted a single-institution observational study, and validated results using a national administrative database of inter-hospital transfers. SETTING: Three ICUs at an academic tertiary care center validated by a nationally representative sample of inter-hospital transfers. PATIENTS: The single-institution analysis included 652 consecutive patients transferred from 57 hospitals between 2011 and 2012. The administrative database included 353,018 patients transferred between 437 hospitals. MEASUREMENTS: Adjusted inpatient mortality and 24-h mortality, stratified by insurance status. RESULTS: Of 652 consecutive transfers to three ICUs, we observed that uninsured patients had higher adjusted inpatient mortality (OR 2.67, p = 0.021) when controlling for age, race, gender, Apache-II, and whether the patient was transferred from an ED. Uninsured were more likely to be transferred from ED (OR 2.3, p = 0.026), and earlier in their hospital course (3.9 vs 2.0 days, p = 0.002). Using an administrative dataset, we validated these observations, finding that the uninsured had higher adjusted inpatient mortality (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.13-1.36, p < 0.001) and higher mortality within 24 h (OR 1.33 95% CI 1.11-1.60, p < 0.002). The increase in mortality was independent of patient demographics, referral patterns, or diagnoses. LIMITATIONS: This is an observational study where transfer appropriateness cannot be directly assessed. CONCLUSIONS: Uninsured patients are more likely to be transferred from an ED and have higher mortality. These data suggest factors that drive inter-hospital transfer of uninsured patients have the potential to exacerbate outcome disparities.

Information handoff and outcomes of critically ill patients transferred between hospitals.

PURPOSE: Patients transferred between hospitals are at high risk of adverse events and mortality. This study aims to identify which components of the transfer handoff process are important predictors of adverse events and mortality. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational study of 335 consecutive patient transfers to 3 intensive care units at an academic tertiary referral center. We assessed the relationship between handoff documentation completeness and patient outcomes. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, duplication of labor, disposition error, and length of stay. RESULTS: Transfer documentation was frequently absent with overall completeness of 58.3%. Adverse events occurred in 42% of patients within 24 hours of arrival, with an overall in-hospital mortality of 17.3%. Higher documentation completeness was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.38; P = .002), reduced adverse events (coefficient, -2.08; 95% CI, -2.76 to -1.390; P < .001), and reduced duplication of labor (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.88; P = .033) when controlling for severity of illness. CONCLUSIONS: Documentation completeness is associated with improved outcomes and resource utilization in patients transferred between hospitals.

Interhospital transfer handoff practices among US tertiary care centers: A descriptive survey.

BACKGROUND: Interhospital transfer is an understudied area within transitions of care. The process by which hospitals accept and transfer patients is not well described. National trends and best practices are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To describe the demographics of large transfer centers, to identify common handoff practices, and to describe challenges and notable innovations involving the interhospital transfer handoff process. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 32 tertiary care centers in the United States was studied. Respondents were typically transfer center directors surveyed by phone. MAIN MEASURES: Data regarding transfer center demographics, handoff communication practices, electronic infrastructure, and data sharing were obtained. RESULTS: The median number of patients transferred each month per receiving institution was 700 (range, 250-2500); on average, 28% of these patients were transferred to an intensive care unit. Transfer protocols and practices varied by institution. Transfer center coordinators typically had a medical background (78%), and critical care-trained registered nurse was the most prevalent (38%). Common practices included: mandatory recorded 3-way physician-to-physician conversation (84%) and mandatory clinical status updates prior to patient arrival (81%). However, the timeline of clinical status updates was variable. Less frequent transfer practices included: electronic medical record (EMR) cross-talk availability and utilization (23%), real-time transfer center documentation accessibility in the EMR (32%), and referring center clinical documentation available prior to transport (29%). A number of innovative strategies to address challenges involving interhospital handoffs are reported. CONCLUSIONS: Interhospital transfer practices vary widely amongst tertiary care centers. Practices that lead to improved patient handoffs and reduced medical errors need additional prospective evaluation. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:413-417. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.