Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Serious Illness Conversation Quality during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

CONTEXT: The COVID-19 pandemic disproportionately impacted non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients. However, little is known about the quality of serious illness communication in these communities during this time. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine how racial and ethnic disparities manifested in serious illness conversations during the pandemic. METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational, cohort study of adult patients with a documented serious illness conversation from March 2020 to April 2021. Serious illness conversation documentation quality was assessed by counting the median number (IQR) of conversation domains and their elements included in the documentation. Domains included (1) values and goals, (2) prognosis and illness understanding, (3) end-of-life care planning, and (4) life-sustaining treatment preferences. A multivariable ordinal logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess associations between differences in serious illness documentation quality with patient race and ethnicity. RESULTS: Among 291 patients, 149 (51.2%) were non-Hispanic White; 81 (27.8%) were non-Hispanic Black; and 61 (21.0%) were Hispanic patients. Non-Hispanic Black patients were associated with fewer domains (OR 0.46 [95% CI 0.25, 0.84]; p=.01) included in their serious illness conversation documentation compared to non-Hispanic White patients. Both non-Hispanic Black (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.20, 0.62]; p<.001) and Hispanic patients (OR 0.29 [95% CI 0.14, 0.58]; p<.001) were associated with fewer elements from the values and goals domain compared to non-Hispanic White patients in their serious illness documentation. CONCLUSION: During the COVID-19 pandemic, serious illness conversation documentation among non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients was less comprehensive compared to non-Hispanic White patients.

Limited English Proficiency and Sepsis Mortality by Race and Ethnicity.

Importance: Patients with limited English proficiency (LEP) face multiple barriers and are at risk for worse health outcomes compared with patients with English proficiency (EP). In sepsis, a major cause of mortality in the US, the association of LEP with health outcomes is not widely explored. Objective: To assess the association between LEP and inpatient mortality among patients with sepsis and test the hypothesis that LEP would be associated with higher mortality rates. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study of hospitalized patients with sepsis included those who met the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's sepsis criteria, received antibiotics within 24 hours, and were admitted through the emergency department. Data were collected from the electronic medical records of a large New England tertiary care center from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2019. Data were analyzed from January 8, 2021, to March 2, 2023. Exposures: Limited English proficiency, gathered via self-reported language preference in electronic medical records. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. The analysis used multivariable generalized estimating equation models with propensity score adjustment and analysis of covariance to analyze the association between LEP and inpatient mortality due to sepsis. Results: A total of 2709 patients met the inclusion criteria, with a mean (SD) age of 65.0 (16.2) years; 1523 (56.2%) were men and 327 (12.1%) had LEP. Nine patients (0.3%) were American Indian or Alaska Native, 101 (3.7%) were Asian, 314 (11.6%) were Black, 226 (8.3%) were Hispanic, 38 (1.4%) were Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander or of other race or ethnicity, 1968 (72.6%) were White, and 6 (0.2%) were multiracial. Unadjusted mortality included 466 of 2382 patients with EP (19.6%) and 69 of 327 with LEP (21.1%). No significant difference was found in mortality odds for the LEP compared with EP groups (odds ratio [OR], 1.12 [95% CI, 0.88-1.42]). When stratified by race and ethnicity, odds of inpatient mortality for patients with LEP were significantly higher among the non-Hispanic White subgroup (OR, 1.76 [95% CI, 1.41-2.21]). This significant difference was also present in adjusted analyses (adjusted OR, 1.56 [95% CI, 1.02-2.39]). No significant differences were found in inpatient mortality between LEP and EP in the racial and ethnic minority subgroup (OR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.63-1.58]; adjusted OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]). Conclusions and Relevance: In a large diverse academic medical center, LEP had no significant association overall with sepsis mortality. In a subgroup analysis, LEP was associated with increased mortality among individuals identifying as non-Hispanic White. This finding highlights a potential language-based inequity in sepsis care. Further studies are needed to understand drivers of this inequity, how it may manifest in other diverse health systems, and to inform equitable care models for patients with LEP.

Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN). TARGET POPULATION: Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.

Unique Patient-Reported Hospital Safety Concerns With Online Tool: MySafeCare.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients and their care partners have valuable and unique perspectives of the medical care they receive. Direct and real-time reporting of patients' safety concerns, though limited in the acute care setting, could provide opportunities to improve patient care. METHODS: We implemented the MySafeCare (MSC) application on six acute care units for 18 months as part of a patient-centered health information technology intervention to promote engagement and safety in the acute care setting. The web-based application allowed hospitalized patients to submit safety concerns anonymously and in real time. We describe characteristics of patient submissions including their categorizations. We evaluated rates of submissions to MSC and compared them with rates of submissions to the Patient Family Relations department at the hospital. In addition, we performed thematic analysis of narrative concerns submitted to the application. RESULTS: We received 46 submissions to MSC and 33% of concerns received were anonymous. The overall rate of submissions was 0.6 submissions per 1000 patient-days and was considerably lower than the rate of submissions to the Patient Family Relations during the same period (4.1 per 1000 patient-days). Identified themes of narrative concerns included unmet care needs and preferences, inadequate communication, and concerns about safety of care. CONCLUSIONS: Although the submission rate to the application was low, MSC captured important content directly from hospitalized patients or their care partners. A web-based patient safety reporting tool for patients should be studied further to understand patient and care partner use and willingness to engage, as well as potential effects on patient safety outcomes.

Development and Validation of WeCares, a Survey Instrument to Assess Hospitalized Patients' and Family Members' "Willingness to Engage in Your Care and Safety".

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement is recognized as a method to improve care quality and safety. A research team developed WeCares (Willingness to Engage in Your Care and Safety), a survey instrument assessing patients' and families' engagement in the safety of their care during their hospital stay. The objective of this study is to establish the preliminary construct validity and internal consistency of WeCares. METHODS: WeCares was distributed to patients and families. With the survey responses, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed to identify the factorial structure of WeCares. The internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Descriptive and comparative analysis was also performed to summarize patients' and families' responses. RESULTS: A total of 247 patients and families responded to the WeCare survey, of which 224 were used for EFA. EFA resulted in a 13-item, four-factor structure, including (1) comfortable sharing concerns, (2) responsibility for preventing errors, (3) perception of care team members' attitude, and (4) patients'/families' role in preventing errors. The Cronbach alphas were 0.716-0.866, indicating acceptable internal consistency. Overall, patients and families were comfortable sharing concerns with clinicians but preferred to remain anonymous. They believed that the care team members hold most responsibility for error prevention, however, and agreed on their ability to help prevent errors. CONCLUSION: WeCares was developed to assess patients' and families' willingness to engage. WeCares can also be used to facilitate conversation about safety concerns and shared responsibility. The study team believes this would lead to patient activation in guarding their own care and ultimately improve patient outcomes and safety.

Use, Perceived Usability, and Barriers to Implementation of a Patient Safety Dashboard Integrated within a Vendor EHR.

BACKGROUND: Preventable adverse events continue to be a threat to hospitalized patients. Clinical decision support in the form of dashboards may improve compliance with evidence-based safety practices. However, limited research describes providers' experiences with dashboards integrated into vendor electronic health record (EHR) systems. OBJECTIVE: This study was aimed to describe providers' use and perceived usability of the Patient Safety Dashboard and discuss barriers and facilitators to implementation. METHODS: The Patient Safety Dashboard was implemented in a cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial on 12 units in neurology, oncology, and general medicine services over an 18-month period. Use of the Dashboard was tracked during the implementation period and analyzed in-depth for two 1-week periods to gather a detailed representation of use. Providers' perceptions of tool usability were measured using the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (rated 1-5). Research assistants conducted field observations throughout the duration of the study to describe use and provide insight into tool adoption. RESULTS: The Dashboard was used 70% of days the tool was available, with use varying by role, service, and time of day. On general medicine units, nurses logged in throughout the day, with many logins occurring during morning rounds, when not rounding with the care team. Prescribers logged in typically before and after morning rounds. On neurology units, physician assistants accounted for most logins, accessing the Dashboard during daily brief interdisciplinary rounding sessions. Use on oncology units was rare. Satisfaction with the tool was highest for perceived ease of use, with attendings giving the highest rating (4.23). The overall lowest rating was for quality of work life, with nurses rating the tool lowest (2.88). CONCLUSION: This mixed methods analysis provides insight into the use and usability of a dashboard tool integrated within a vendor EHR and can guide future improvements and more successful implementation of these types of tools.

Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Real-Time Safety Reporting by Hospitalized Patients and Their Care Partners: The MySafeCare Application.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were to evaluate the amount and content of data patients and care partners reported using a real-time electronic safety tool compared with other reporting mechanisms and to understand their perspectives on safety concerns and reporting in the hospital. METHODS: This study used mixed methods including 20-month preimplementation and postimplementation trial evaluating MySafeCare, a web-based application, which allows hospitalized patients/care partners to report safety concerns in real time. The study compared MySafeCare submission rates for three hospital units (oncology acute care, vascular intermediate care, medical intensive care) with submissions rates of Patient Family Relations (PFR) Department, a hospital service to address patient/family concerns. The study used triangulation of quantitative data with thematic analysis of safety concern submissions and patient/care partner interviews to understand submission content and perspectives on safety reporting. RESULTS: Thirty-two MySafeCare submissions were received with an average rate of 1.7 submissions per 1000 patient-days and a range of 0.3 to 4.8 submissions per 1000 patient-days across all units, indicating notable variation between units. MySafeCare submission rates were significantly higher than PFR submission rates during the postintervention period on the vascular unit (4.3 [95% confidence interval = 2.8-6.5] versus 1.5 [95% confidence interval = 0.7-3.1], Poisson) (P = 0.01). Overall trends indicated a decrease in PFR submissions after MySafeCare implementation. Triangulated data indicated patients preferred to report anonymously and did not want concerns submitted directly to their care team. CONCLUSIONS: MySafeCare evaluation confirmed the potential value of providing an electronic, anonymous reporting tool in the hospital to capture safety concerns in real time. Such applications should be tested further as part of patient safety programs.

Applying User-Centered Design Methods to the Development of an mHealth Application for Use in the Hospital Setting by Patients and Care Partners.

INTRODUCTION: Developing an optimized and user-friendly mHealth application for patients and family members in the hospital environment presents unique challenges given the diverse patient population and patients' various states of well-being. OBJECTIVE: This article describes user-centered design methods and results for developing the patient and family facing user interface and functionality of MySafeCare, a safety reporting tool for hospitalized patients and their family members. METHODS: Individual and group usability sessions were conducted with specific testing scenarios for participants to follow to test the usability and functionality of the tool. Participants included patients, family members, and Patient and Family Advisory Council (PFAC) members. Engagement rounds were also conducted on study units and lessons learned provided additional information to the usability work. Usability results were aligned with Nielsen's Usability Heuristics. RESULTS: Eleven patients and family members and 25 PFAC members participated in usability testing and over 250 patients and family members were engaged during research team rounding. Specific themes resulting from the usability testing sessions influenced the changes made to the user interface design, workflow functionality, and terminology. CONCLUSION: User-centered design should focus on workflow functionality, terminology, and user interface issues for mHealth applications. These themes illustrated issues aligned with four of Nielsen's Usability Heuristics: match between system and the real world, consistency and standards, flexibility and efficiency of use, and aesthetic and minimalist design. We identified workflow and terminology issues that may be specific to the use of an mHealth application focused on safety and used by hospitalized patients and their families.

The Impact of Automated Notification on Follow-up of Actionable Tests Pending at Discharge: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up of tests pending at discharge (TPADs) is poor. We previously demonstrated a twofold increase in awareness of any TPAD by attendings and primary care physicians (PCPs) using an automated email intervention OBJECTIVE: To determine whether automated notification improves documented follow-up for actionable TPADs DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial SUBJECTS: Attendings and PCPs caring for adult patients discharged from general medicine and cardiology services with at least one actionable TPAD between June 2011 and May 2012 INTERVENTION: An automated system that notifies discharging attendings and network PCPs of finalized TPADs by email MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of actionable TPADs with documented action determined by independent physician review of the electronic health record (EHR). Secondary outcomes included documented acknowledgment, 30-day readmissions, and adjusted median days to documented follow-up. KEY RESULTS: Of the 3378 TPADs sampled, 253 (7.5%) were determined to be actionable by physician review. Of these, 150 (123 patients discharged by 53 attendings) and 103 (90 patients discharged by 44 attendings) were assigned to intervention and usual care groups, respectively, and underwent chart review. The proportion of actionable TPADs with documented action was 60.7 vs. 56.3% (p = 0.82) in the intervention vs. usual care groups, similar for documented acknowledgment. The proportion of patients with actionable TPADs readmitted within 30 days was 22.8 vs. 31.1% in the intervention vs. usual care groups (p = 0.24). The adjusted median days [95% CI] to documented action was 9 [6.2, 11.8] vs. 14 [10.2, 17.8] (p = 0.04) in the intervention vs. usual care groups, similar for documented acknowledgment. In sub-group analysis, the intervention had greater impact on documented action for patients with network PCPs compared with usual care (70 vs. 50%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Automated notification of actionable TPADs shortened time to action but did not significantly improve documented follow-up, except for network-affiliated patients. The high proportion of actionable TPADs without any documented follow-up (~ 40%) represents an ongoing safety concern. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER: NCT01153451.

User-Centered Collaborative Design and Development of an Inpatient Safety Dashboard.

Patient safety remains a key concern in hospital care. This article summarizes the iterative participatory development, features, functions, and preliminary evaluation of a patient safety dashboard for interdisciplinary rounding teams on inpatient medical services. This electronic health record (EHR)-embedded dashboard collects real-time data covering 13 safety domains through web services and applies logic to generate stratified alerts with an interactive check-box function. The technological infrastructure is adaptable to other EHR environments. Surveyed users perceived the tool as highly usable and useful. Integration of the dashboard into clinical care is intended to promote communication about patient safety and facilitate identification and management of safety concerns.

Brain MRS glutamine as a biomarker to guide therapy of hyperammonemic coma.

Acute idiopathic hyperammonemia in an adult patient is a life-threatening condition often resulting in a rapid progression to irreversible cerebral edema and death. While ammonia-scavenging therapies lower blood ammonia levels, in comparison, clearance of waste nitrogen from the brain may be delayed. Therefore, we used magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MRS) to monitor cerebral glutamine levels, the major reservoir of ammonia, in a gastric bypass patient with hyperammonemic coma undergoing therapy with N-carbamoyl glutamate and the ammonia-scavenging agents, sodium phenylacetate and sodium benzoate. Improvement in mental status mirrored brain glutamine levels, as coma persisted for 48h after plasma ammonia normalized. We hypothesize that the slower clearance for brain glutamine levels accounts for the delay in improvement following initiation of treatment in cases of chronic hyperammonemia. We propose MRS to monitor brain glutamine as a noninvasive approach to be utilized for diagnostic and therapeutic monitoring purposes in adult patients presenting with idiopathic hyperammonemia.

Towards Analytics of the Patient and Family Perspective: A Case Study and Recommendations for Data Capture of Safety and Quality Concerns.

Safety reporting systems are improving our current understanding of safety in hospital settings, although mostly from the clinician perspective. Patient Family Relations (PFR) programs provide the opportunity to capture patient/family concerns in the hospital. Descriptive statistics were completed of PFR concern submissions over a 20 month period, as well as a comparison of structured data fields to those of the AHRQ Common Format. We identified statistically significant differences in rates of concern submissions, methods of submission, and role of submitter across patient populations. Overall, the most frequent concerns submitted to PFR were care/treatment and communication concerns. There was very little overlap of the PFR data elements with those of the AHRQ Common Format (overall rate of mismatch approached 80%). These results emphasize both the unique information that PFR data provides, as well as the need for enhancement and continuity of reporting systems for more effective analysis of safety data.

Effect of Evidence-based Clinical Decision Support on the Use and Yield of CT Pulmonary Angiographic Imaging in Hospitalized Patients.

PURPOSE: To determine the effect of clinical decision support (CDS) on the use and yield of inpatient computed tomographic (CT) pulmonary angiography for acute pulmonary embolism (PE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant, institutional review board-approved study with waiver of informed consent included all adults admitted to a 793-bed teaching hospital from April 1, 2007, to June 30, 2012. The CDS intervention, implemented after a baseline observation period, informed providers who placed an order for CT pulmonary angiographic imaging about the pretest probability of the study based on a validated decision rule. Use of CT pulmonary angiographic and admission data from administrative databases was obtained for this study. By using a validated natural language processing algorithm on radiology reports, each CT pulmonary angiographic examination was classified as positive or negative for acute PE. Primary outcome measure was monthly use of CT pulmonary angiography per 1000 admissions. Secondary outcome was CT pulmonary angiography yield (percentage of CT pulmonary angiographic examinations that were positive for acute PE). Linear trend analysis was used to assess for effect and trend differences in use and yield of CT pulmonary angiographic imaging before and after CDS. RESULTS: In 272 374 admissions over the study period, 5287 patients underwent 5892 CT pulmonary angiographic examinations. A 12.3% decrease in monthly use of CT pulmonary angiography (26.0 to 22.8 CT pulmonary angiographic examinations per 1000 admissions before and after CDS, respectively; P = .008) observed 1 month after CDS implementation was sustained over the ensuing 32-month period. There was a nonsignificant 16.3% increase in monthly yield of CT pulmonary angiography or percentage of CT pulmonary angiographic examinations positive for acute PE after CDS (P = .65). CONCLUSION: Implementation of evidence-based CDS for inpatients was associated with a 12.3% immediate and sustained decrease in use of CT pulmonary angiographic examinations in the evaluation of inpatients for acute PE. for this article.

Evaluating hematuria: impact of guideline adherence on urologic cancer diagnosis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess physician adherence to 2001 American Urological Association (AUA) guidelines for evaluating patients with asymptomatic hematuria and its impact on the diagnosis of urologic cancer. METHODS: In this institutional review board-approved retrospective study of patients with asymptomatic hematuria evaluated in a large academic health center in 2004 (allowing for long-term follow-up), we randomly selected 100 of 1771 patients with asymptomatic hematuria (52 men; mean age 54 years; 58 microscopic, 39 macroscopic, three unknown-type hematuria; median follow-up 89 months, interquartile range 33-97 months). Multivariate logistic regression assessed effects of age, sex, hematuria type, and physician specialty on guideline adherence, the primary outcome. Secondary outcome measures were variability in evaluation among physician specialists, and the proportion of patients developing urologic cancer. RESULTS: Only 36 of 100 patients had a guideline-adherent evaluation, of which 5 were diagnosed with urologic cancer (median 1 month, range 0-11). No urologic cancers were diagnosed in 64 patients with nonadherent evaluations. Only evaluation by a urologist significantly predicted guideline adherence (P <.0001). Patients with gross hematuria more often underwent intravenous or computed tomography urography (P = .009); urologist evaluation more often led to intravenous or computed tomography urography (P <.0001), cystoscopy (P <.0001), cytology (P = .009), and guideline-adherent evaluation (P <.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Although most physicians did not adhere to 2001 AUA guidelines when evaluating patients with asymptomatic hematuria, no urologic cancers were diagnosed in patients without guideline-adherent evaluation, barring the possibility of occult cancers. Evaluation by a urologist was the only predictor of a guideline-adherent evaluation. Future studies are needed to determine the optimal evaluation of patients with asymptomatic hematuria.

Impact of IT-enabled intervention on MRI use for back pain.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of a multifaceted, clinical decision support (CDS)-enabled intervention on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) use in adult primary care patients with low back pain. METHODS: After a baseline observation period, we implemented a CDS targeting lumbar-spine MRI use in primary care patients with low back pain through our computerized physician order entry, as well as 2 accountability tools: mandatory peer-to-peer consultation when test utility was uncertain and quarterly practice pattern variation reports to providers. Our primary outcome measure was rate of lumbar-spine MRI use. Secondary measures included utilization of MRI of any body part, comparing it with that of a concurrent national comparison, as well as proportion of lumbar-spine MRI performed in the study cohort that was adherent to evidence-based guideline. Chi-squared, t-tests, and logistic regression were used to assess pre- and postintervention differences. RESULTS: In the study cohort preintervention, 5.3% of low back pain-related primary care visits resulted in lumbar-spine MRI, compared with 3.7% of visits postintervention (P <.0001, adjusted odds ratio 0.68). There was a 30.8% relative decrease (6.5% vs 4.5%, P <.0001, adjusted odds ratio 0.67) in the use of MRI of any body part by the primary care providers in the study cohort. This difference was not detected in the control cohort (5.6% vs 5.3%, P = .712). In the study cohort, adherence to evidence-based guideline in the use of lumbar-spine MRI increased from 78% to 96% (P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: CDS and associated accountability tools may reduce potentially inappropriate imaging in patients with low back pain.

Critical finding capture in the impression section of radiology reports.

INTRODUCTION: Radiology reports communicate imaging findings to ordering physicians. The substantial information in these reports often causes physicians to focus on the summarized "impression" section. This study evaluated how often a critical finding is documented in the report's "impression" section and describes how an automated application can improve documentation. METHODS: A retrospective review of all chest CT scan reports finalized between October, 2009 and September, 2010 at an academic institution was performed. A natural language processing application was utilized to evaluate the frequency of reporting a pulmonary nodule in the "impression" section, versus the "findings" section of a report. RESULTS: Results showed 3,401 reports with documented pulmonary nodules in the "findings" section, compared to 2,162 in the "impression" section - a 36.4% difference. CONCLUSION: The study revealed significant discrepant documentation in the "findings" versus "impression" sections. Automated systems could improve such critical findings documentation and communication between ordering physicians and radiologists.