The Association of Standardized Documentation of Serious Illness Conversations With Healthcare Utilization in Hospitalized Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Cohort Analysis.

Background: Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) conducted during hospitalization can lead to meaningful patient participation in the decision-making process affecting medical management. The aim of this study is to determine if standardized documentation of a SIC within an institutionally approved EHR module during hospitalization is associated with palliative care consultation, change in code status, hospice enrollment prior to discharge, and 90-day readmissions. Methods: We conducted retrospective analyses of hospital encounters of general medicine patients at a community teaching hospital affiliated with an academic medical center from October 2018 to August 2019. Encounters with standardized documentation of a SIC were identified and matched by propensity score to control encounters without a SIC in a ratio of 1:3. We used multivariable, paired logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards modeling to assess key outcomes. Results: Of 6853 encounters (5143 patients), 59 (.86%) encounters (59 patients) had standardized documentation of a SIC, and 58 (.85%) were matched to 167 control encounters (167 patients). Encounters with standardized documentation of a SIC had greater odds of palliative care consultation (odds ratio [OR] 60.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.45-290.08, P < .01), a documented code status change (OR 8.04, 95% CI 1.54-42.05, P = .01), and discharge with hospice services (OR 35.07, 95% CI 5.80-212.08, P < .01) compared to matched controls. There was no significant association with 90-day readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] .88, standard error [SE] .37, P = .73). Conclusions: Standardized documentation of a SIC during hospitalization is associated with palliative care consultation, change in code status, and hospice enrollment.

Comparison of a Voluntary Safety Reporting System to a Global Trigger Tool for Identifying Adverse Events in an Oncology Population.

OBJECTIVE: There is a lack of research on adverse event (AE) detection in oncology patients, despite the propensity for iatrogenic harm. Two common methods include voluntary safety reporting (VSR) and chart review tools, such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Our objective was to compare frequency and type of AEs detected by a modified GTT compared with VSR for identifying AEs in oncology patients in a larger clinical trial. METHODS: Patients across 6 oncology units (from July 1, 2013, through May 29, 2015) were randomly selected. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted by a team of nurses and physicians to identify AEs using the GTT. The VSR system was queried by the department of quality and safety of the hospital. Adverse event frequencies, type, and harm code for both methods were compared. RESULTS: The modified GTT detected 0.90 AEs per patient (79 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.71-1.12] AEs per patient) that were predominantly medication AEs (53/79); more than half of the AEs caused harm to the patients (41/79, 52%), but only one quarter were preventable (21/79; 27%). The VSR detected 0.24 AEs per patient (21 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.15-0.37] AEs per patient), a large plurality of which were medication/intravenous related (8/21); more than half did not cause harm (70%). Only 2% of the AEs (2/100) were detected by both methods. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the modified GTT nor the VSR system alone is sufficient for detecting AEs in oncology patient populations. Further studies exploring methods such as automated AE detection from electronic health records and leveraging patient-reported AEs are needed.

Analyzing diagnostic errors in the acute setting: a process-driven approach.

OBJECTIVES: We describe an approach for analyzing failures in diagnostic processes in a small, enriched cohort of general medicine patients who expired during hospitalization and experienced medical error. Our objective was to delineate a systematic strategy for identifying frequent and significant failures in the diagnostic process to inform strategies for preventing adverse events due to diagnostic error. METHODS: Two clinicians independently reviewed detailed records of purposively sampled cases identified from established institutional case review forums and assessed the likelihood of diagnostic error using the Safer Dx instrument. Each reviewer used the modified Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER) taxonomy, revised for acute care (41 possible failure points across six process dimensions), to characterize the frequency of failure points (FPs) and significant FPs in the diagnostic process. RESULTS: Of 166 cases with medical error, 16 were sampled: 13 (81.3%) had one or more diagnostic error(s), and a total of 113 FPs and 30 significant FPs were identified. A majority of significant FPs (63.3%) occurred in "Diagnostic Information and Patient Follow-up" and "Patient and Provider Encounter and Initial Assessment" process dimensions. Fourteen (87.5%) cases had a significant FP in at least one of these dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Failures in the diagnostic process occurred across multiple dimensions in our purposively sampled cohort. A systematic analytic approach incorporating the modified DEER taxonomy, revised for acute care, offered critical insights into key failures in the diagnostic process that could serve as potential targets for preventative interventions.

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.

Acute Care Patient Portal Intervention: Portal Use and Patient Activation.

BACKGROUND: Patient-facing health information technology (HIT) tools, such as patient portals, are recognized as a potential mechanism to facilitate patient engagement and patient-centered care, yet the use of these tools remains limited in the hospital setting. Although research in this area is growing, it is unclear how the use of acute care patient portals might affect outcomes, such as patient activation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the use of an acute care patient portal and investigate its association with patient and care partner activation in the hospital setting. METHODS: We implemented an acute care patient portal on 6 acute care units over an 18-month period. We investigated the characteristics of the users (patients and their care partners) of the patient portal, as well as their use of the portal. This included the number of visits to each page, the number of days used, the length of the user's access period, and the average percent of days used during the access period. Patient and care partner activation was assessed using the short form of the patient activation measure (PAM-13) and the caregiver patient activation measure (CG-PAM). Comparisons of the activation scores were performed using propensity weighting and robust weighted linear regression. RESULTS: Of the 2974 randomly sampled patients, 59.01% (1755/2974) agreed to use the acute care patient portal. Acute care patient portal enrollees were younger, less sick, less likely to have Medicare as their insurer, and more likely to use the Partners Healthcare enterprise ambulatory patient portal (Patient Gateway). The most used features of the acute care patient portal were the laboratory test results, care team information, and medication list. Most users accessed the portal between 1 to 4 days during their hospitalization, and the average number of days used (logged in at least once per day) was 1.8 days. On average, users accessed the portal 42.69% of the hospital days during which it was available. There was significant association with patient activation on the neurology service (P<.001) and medicine service (P=.01), after the introduction of HIT tools and the acute care patient portal, but not on the oncology service. CONCLUSIONS: Portal users most often accessed the portal to view their clinical information, though portal usage was limited to only the first few days of enrollment. We found an association between the use of the portal and HIT tools with improved levels of patient activation. These tools may help facilitate patient engagement and improve outcomes when fully utilized by patients and care partners. Future study should leverage usage metrics to describe portal use and assess the impact of HIT tools on specific outcome measures in the hospital setting.

Potential of an Electronic Health Record-Integrated Patient Portal for Improving Care Plan Concordance during Acute Care.

BACKGROUND: Care plan concordance among patients and clinicians during hospitalization is suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: This article determines whether an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated patient portal was associated with increased understanding of the care plan, including the key recovery goal, among patients and clinicians in acute care setting. METHODS: The intervention included (1) a patient portal configured to solicit a single patient-designated recovery goal and display the care plan from the EHR for participating patients; and (2) an electronic care plan for all unit-based nurses that displays patient-inputted information, accessible to all clinicians via the EHR. Patients admitted to an oncology unit, including their nurses and physicians, were enrolled before and after implementation. Main outcomes included mean concordance scores for the overall care plan and individual care plan elements. RESULTS: Of 457 and 283 eligible patients approached during pre- and postintervention periods, 55 and 46 participated in interviews, respectively, including their clinicians. Of 46 postintervention patients, 27 (58.7%) enrolled in the patient portal. The intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated a nonsignificant increase in the mean concordance score for the overall care plan (62.0-67.1, adjusted p = 0.13), and significant increases in mean concordance scores for the recovery goal (30.3-57.7, adjusted p < 0.01) and main reason for hospitalization (58.6-79.2, adjusted p < 0.01). The on-treatment analysis of patient portal enrollees demonstrated significant increases in mean concordance scores for the overall care plan (61.9-70.0, adjusted p < 0.01), the recovery goal (30.4-66.8, adjusted p < 0.01), and main reason for hospitalization (58.3-81.7, adjusted p < 0.01), comparable to the intention-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an EHR-integrated patient portal was associated with increased concordance for key care plan components. Future efforts should be directed at improving concordance for other care plan components and conducting larger, randomized studies to evaluate the impact on key outcomes during transitions of care. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER: NCT02258594.

Patient safety after implementation of a coproduced family centered communication programme: multicenter before and after intervention study

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medical errors, family experience, and communication processes improved after implementation of an intervention to standardize the structure of healthcare provider-family communication on family centered rounds. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter before and after intervention study. SETTING: Pediatric inpatient units in seven North American hospitals, 17 December 2014 to 3 January 2017. PARTICIPANTS: All patients admitted to study units (3106 admissions, 13171 patient days); 2148 parents or caregivers, 435 nurses, 203 medical students, and 586 residents. INTERVENTION: Families, nurses, and physicians coproduced an intervention to standardize healthcare provider-family communication on ward rounds ("family centered rounds"), which included structured, high reliability communication on bedside rounds emphasizing health literacy, family engagement, and bidirectional communication; structured, written real-time summaries of rounds; a formal training programme for healthcare providers; and strategies to support teamwork, implementation, and process improvement. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical errors (primary outcome), including harmful errors (preventable adverse events) and non-harmful errors, modeled using Poisson regression and generalized estimating equations clustered by site; family experience; and communication processes (eg, family engagement on rounds). Errors were measured via an established systematic surveillance methodology including family safety reporting. RESULTS: The overall rate of medical errors (per 1000 patient days) was unchanged (41.2 (95% confidence interval 31.2 to 54.5) pre-intervention v 35.8 (26.9 to 47.7) post-intervention, P=0.21), but harmful errors (preventable adverse events) decreased by 37.9% (20.7 (15.3 to 28.1) v 12.9 (8.9 to 18.6), P=0.01) post-intervention. Non-preventable adverse events also decreased (12.6 (8.9 to 17.9) v 5.2 (3.1 to 8.8), P=0.003). Top box (eg, "excellent") ratings for six of 25 components of family reported experience improved; none worsened. Family centered rounds occurred more frequently (72.2% (53.5% to 85.4%) v 82.8% (64.9% to 92.6%), P=0.02). Family engagement 55.6% (32.9% to 76.2%) v 66.7% (43.0% to 84.1%), P=0.04) and nurse engagement (20.4% (7.0% to 46.6%) v 35.5% (17.0% to 59.6%), P=0.03) on rounds improved. Families expressing concerns at the start of rounds (18.2% (5.6% to 45.3%) v 37.7% (17.6% to 63.3%), P=0.03) and reading back plans (4.7% (0.7% to 25.2%) v 26.5% (12.7% to 7.3%), P=0.02) increased. Trainee teaching and the duration of rounds did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Although overall errors were unchanged, harmful medical errors decreased and family experience and communication processes improved after implementation of a structured communication intervention for family centered rounds coproduced by families, nurses, and physicians. Family centered care processes may improve safety and quality of care without negatively impacting teaching or duration of rounds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02320175.

Semiautomated System for Nonurgent, Clinically Significant Pathology Results.

BACKGROUND: Failure of timely test result follow-up has consequences including delayed diagnosis and treatment, added costs, and potential patient harm. Closed-loop communication is key to ensure clinically significant test results (CSTRs) are acknowledged and acted upon appropriately. A previous implementation of the Alert Notification of Critical Results (ANCR) system to facilitate closed-loop communication of imaging CSTRs yielded improved communication of critical radiology results and enhanced adherence to institutional CSTR policies. OBJECTIVE: This article extends the ANCR application to pathology and evaluates its impact on closed-loop communication of new malignancies, a common and important type of pathology CSTR. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Institutional Review Board-approved study was performed at a 150-bed community, academically affiliated hospital. ANCR was adapted for pathology CSTRs. Natural language processing was used on 30,774 pathology reports 13 months pre- and 13 months postintervention, identifying 5,595 reports with malignancies. Electronic health records were reviewed for documented acknowledgment for a random sample of reports. Percent of reports with documented acknowledgment within 15 days assessed institutional policy adherence. Time to acknowledgment was compared pre- versus postintervention and postintervention with and without ANCR alerts. Pathologists were surveyed regarding ANCR use and satisfaction. RESULTS: Acknowledgment within 15 days was documented for 98 of 107 (91.6%) pre- and 89 of 103 (86.4%) postintervention reports (p = 0.2294). Median time to acknowledgment was 7 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3, 11) preintervention and 6 days (IQR, 2, 10) postintervention (p = 0.5083). Postintervention, median time to acknowledgment was 2 days (IQR, 1, 6) for reports with ANCR alerts versus 6 days (IQR, 2.75, 9) for reports without alerts (p = 0.0351). ANCR alerts were sent on 15 of 103 (15%) postintervention reports. All pathologists reported that the ANCR system positively impacted their workflow; 75% (three-fourths) felt that the ANCR system improved efficiency of communicating CSTRs. CONCLUSION: ANCR expansion to facilitate closed-loop communication of pathology CSTRs was favorably perceived and associated with significant improved time to documented acknowledgment for new malignancies. The rate of adherence to institutional policy did not improve.

A Case of Disseminated Histoplasmosis in a Patient with Rheumatoid Arthritis on Abatacept.

Biologic agents are effective treatments for rheumatoid arthritis but are associated with important risks, including severe infections. Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) α inhibitors are known to increase the risk of systemic fungal infections such as disseminated histoplasmosis. Abatacept is a biologic agent with a mechanism different from that of TNFα inhibitors: It suppresses cellular immunity by competing for the costimulatory signal on antigen-presenting cells. The risk of disseminated histoplasmosis for patients on abatacept is not known. We report a case of abatacept-associated disseminated histoplasmosis and review the known infectious complications of abatacept. While the safety of resuming biologic agents following treatment for disseminated histoplasmosis is also not known, abatacept is recommended over TNFα inhibitors for rheumatoid arthritis patients with a prior serious infection. We discuss the evidence supporting this recommendation and discuss alternative treatments for rheumatoid arthritis patients with a history of a serious infection.

Families as Partners in Hospital Error and Adverse Event Surveillance.

Importance: Medical errors and adverse events (AEs) are common among hospitalized children. While clinician reports are the foundation of operational hospital safety surveillance and a key component of multifaceted research surveillance, patient and family reports are not routinely gathered. We hypothesized that a novel family-reporting mechanism would improve incident detection. Objective: To compare error and AE rates (1) gathered systematically with vs without family reporting, (2) reported by families vs clinicians, and (3) reported by families vs hospital incident reports. Design, Setting, and Participants: We conducted a prospective cohort study including the parents/caregivers of 989 hospitalized patients 17 years and younger (total 3902 patient-days) and their clinicians from December 2014 to July 2015 in 4 US pediatric centers. Clinician abstractors identified potential errors and AEs by reviewing medical records, hospital incident reports, and clinician reports as well as weekly and discharge Family Safety Interviews (FSIs). Two physicians reviewed and independently categorized all incidents, rating severity and preventability (agreement, 68%-90%; κ, 0.50-0.68). Discordant categorizations were reconciled. Rates were generated using Poisson regression estimated via generalized estimating equations to account for repeated measures on the same patient. Main Outcomes and Measures: Error and AE rates. Results: Overall, 746 parents/caregivers consented for the study. Of these, 717 completed FSIs. Their median (interquartile range) age was 32.5 (26-40) years; 380 (53.0%) were nonwhite, 566 (78.9%) were female, 603 (84.1%) were English speaking, and 380 (53.0%) had attended college. Of 717 parents/caregivers completing FSIs, 185 (25.8%) reported a total of 255 incidents, which were classified as 132 safety concerns (51.8%), 102 nonsafety-related quality concerns (40.0%), and 21 other concerns (8.2%). These included 22 preventable AEs (8.6%), 17 nonharmful medical errors (6.7%), and 11 nonpreventable AEs (4.3%) on the study unit. In total, 179 errors and 113 AEs were identified from all sources. Family reports included 8 otherwise unidentified AEs, including 7 preventable AEs. Error rates with family reporting (45.9 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.2-fold (95% CI, 1.1-1.2) higher than rates without family reporting (39.7 per 1000 patient-days). Adverse event rates with family reporting (28.7 per 1000 patient-days) were 1.1-fold (95% CI, 1.0-1.2; P = .006) higher than rates without (26.1 per 1000 patient-days). Families and clinicians reported similar rates of errors (10.0 vs 12.8 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 0.8; 95% CI, .5-1.2) and AEs (8.5 vs 6.2 per 1000 patient-days; relative rate, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2). Family-reported error rates were 5.0-fold (95% CI, 1.9-13.0) higher and AE rates 2.9-fold (95% CI, 1.2-6.7) higher than hospital incident report rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Families provide unique information about hospital safety and should be included in hospital safety surveillance in order to facilitate better design and assessment of interventions to improve safety.

A web-based, patient-centered toolkit to engage patients and caregivers in the acute care setting: a preliminary evaluation.

We implemented a web-based, patient-centered toolkit that engages patients/caregivers in the hospital plan of care by facilitating education and patient-provider communication. Of the 585 eligible patients approached on medical intensive care and oncology units, 239 were enrolled (119 patients, 120 caregivers). The most common reason for not approaching the patient was our inability to identify a health care proxy when a patient was incapacitated. Significantly more caregivers were enrolled in medical intensive care units compared with oncology units (75% vs 32%; P < .01). Of the 239 patient/caregivers, 158 (66%) and 97 (41%) inputted a daily and overall goal, respectively. Use of educational content was highest for medications and test results and infrequent for problems. The most common clinical theme identified in 291 messages sent by 158 patients/caregivers was health concerns, needs, preferences, or questions (19%, 55 of 291). The average system usability scores and satisfaction ratings of a sample of surveyed enrollees were favorable. From analysis of feedback, we identified barriers to adoption and outlined strategies to promote use.

Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program.

BACKGROUND: Miscommunications are a leading cause of serious medical errors. Data from multicenter studies assessing programs designed to improve handoff of information about patient care are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective intervention study of a resident handoff-improvement program in nine hospitals, measuring rates of medical errors, preventable adverse events, and miscommunications, as well as resident workflow. The intervention included a mnemonic to standardize oral and written handoffs, handoff and communication training, a faculty development and observation program, and a sustainability campaign. Error rates were measured through active surveillance. Handoffs were assessed by means of evaluation of printed handoff documents and audio recordings. Workflow was assessed through time-motion observations. The primary outcome had two components: medical errors and preventable adverse events. RESULTS: In 10,740 patient admissions, the medical-error rate decreased by 23% from the preintervention period to the postintervention period (24.5 vs. 18.8 per 100 admissions, P<0.001), and the rate of preventable adverse events decreased by 30% (4.7 vs. 3.3 events per 100 admissions, P<0.001). The rate of nonpreventable adverse events did not change significantly (3.0 and 2.8 events per 100 admissions, P=0.79). Site-level analyses showed significant error reductions at six of nine sites. Across sites, significant increases were observed in the inclusion of all prespecified key elements in written documents and oral communication during handoff (nine written and five oral elements; P<0.001 for all 14 comparisons). There were no significant changes from the preintervention period to the postintervention period in the duration of oral handoffs (2.4 and 2.5 minutes per patient, respectively; P=0.55) or in resident workflow, including patient-family contact and computer time. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the handoff program was associated with reductions in medical errors and in preventable adverse events and with improvements in communication, without a negative effect on workflow. (Funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and others.).

Acquired long QT syndrome and monomorphic ventricular tachycardia after alternative treatment with cesium chloride for brain cancer.

Individuals searching for symptomatic relief or a potential cure are increasingly seeking and using nontraditional therapies for their various diseases. Little is known about the potential adverse effects that patients may encounter while undergoing these alternative treatments. Cesium chloride is an unregulated agent that has been reported to have antineoplastic properties. Cesium chloride is advertised as an alternative agent for many different types of cancers and can be purchased easily on the Internet. Recently, QT prolongation and polymorphic ventricular tachycardia were reported in several patients taking cesium chloride as alternative treatment for cancer. We report acquired QT prolongation and sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia in a patient who self-initiated and completed a course of cesium chloride as adjunctive treatment for brain cancer.