Improving Appropriate Use of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters Through a Statewide Collaborative Hospital Initiative: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) programs require significant financial investment. The authors evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a physician-led, performance-incentivized, QI intervention that increased appropriate peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) use. METHODS: The authors used an economic evaluation from a health care sector perspective. Implementation costs included incentive payments to hospitals and costs for data abstractors and the coordinating center. Effectiveness was calculated from propensity score-matched observations across two time periods for complications (venous thromboembolism [VTE], central line-associated bloodstream infection [CLABSI], and catheter occlusion): preintervention period (January 2015 through December 2016) and intervention period (January 2017 through December 2021). Cost-effectiveness was presented as the cost-offset per averted complication, reflecting the health care costs avoided due to having lower complication rates. RESULTS: Across 35 hospitals, this study sampled 17,418 PICCs placed preintervention and 26,004 placed during the intervention period. PICC complications decreased significantly following the intervention. CLABSIs decreased from 2.1% to 1.5%, VTEs from 3.2% to 2.3%, and catheter occlusions from 10.8% to 7.0% (all p < 0.01). Estimated number of complications prevented included 871 CLABSIs, 2,535 VTEs, and 8,743 catheter occlusions. Project implementation costs were $31.8 million, and the cost-offset related to avoided complications was $64.4 million. Each participating hospital averaged $932,073 in cost-offset over seven years, and the average cost-offset per complication averted was $2,614 (95% CI [confidence interval] $2,314-$3,003). CONCLUSION: A large-scale, multihospital QI initiative to improve appropriate PICC use yielded substantial return on investment from cost-offset of prevented complications.

Protocol for a parallel cluster randomized trial of a participatory tailored approach to reduce overuse of antibiotics at hospital discharge: the ROAD home trial.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic overuse at hospital discharge is common, costly, and harmful. While discharge-specific antibiotic stewardship interventions are effective, they are resource-intensive and often infeasible for hospitals with resource constraints. This weakness impacts generalizability of stewardship interventions and has health equity implications as not all patients have access to the benefits of stewardship based on where they receive care. There may be different pathways to improve discharge antibiotic prescribing that vary widely in feasibility. Supporting hospitals in selecting interventions tailored to their context may be an effective approach to feasibly reduce antibiotic overuse at discharge across diverse hospitals. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Reducing Overuse of Antibiotics at Discharge Home multicomponent implementation strategy ("ROAD Home") on antibiotic overuse at discharge for community-acquired pneumonia and urinary tract infection. METHODS: This 4-year two-arm parallel cluster-randomized trial will include three phases: baseline (23 months), intervention (12 months), and postintervention (12 months). Forty hospitals recruited from the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium will undergo covariate-constrained randomization with half randomized to the ROAD Home implementation strategy and half to a "stewardship as usual" control. ROAD Home is informed by the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services Framework and includes (1) a baseline needs assessment to create a tailored suite of potential stewardship interventions, (2) supported decision-making in selecting interventions to implement, and (3) external facilitation following an implementation blueprint. The primary outcome is baseline-adjusted days of antibiotic overuse at discharge. Secondary outcomes include 30-day patient outcomes and antibiotic-associated adverse events. A mixed-methods concurrent process evaluation will identify contextual factors influencing the implementation of tailored interventions, and assess implementation outcomes including acceptability, feasibility, fidelity, and sustainment. DISCUSSION: Reducing antibiotic overuse at discharge across hospitals with varied resources requires tailoring of interventions. This trial will assess whether a multicomponent implementation strategy that supports hospitals in selecting evidence-based stewardship interventions tailored to local context leads to reduced overuse of antibiotics at discharge. Knowledge gained during this study could inform future efforts to implement stewardship in diverse hospitals and promote equity in access to the benefits of quality improvement initiatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT06106204 on 10/30/23.

A Statewide Collaborative Quality Initiative to Improve Antibiotic Duration and Outcomes in Patients Hospitalized With Uncomplicated Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is a common cause for hospitalization and antibiotic overuse. We aimed to improve antibiotic duration for CAP across 41 hospitals participating in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS). METHODS: This prospective collaborative quality initiative included patients hospitalized with uncomplicated CAP who qualified for a 5-day antibiotic duration. Between 23 February 2017 and 5 February 2020, HMS targeted appropriate 5-day antibiotic treatment through benchmarking, sharing best practices, and pay-for-performance incentives. Changes in outcomes, including appropriate receipt of 5 ± 1-day antibiotic treatment and 30-day postdischarge composite adverse events (ie, deaths, readmissions, urgent visits, and antibiotic-associated adverse events), were assessed over time (per 3-month quarter), using logistic regression and controlling for hospital clustering. RESULTS: A total of 41 hospitals and 6553 patients were included. The percentage of patients treated with an appropriate 5 ±â€…1-day duration increased from 22.1% (predicted probability, 20.9% [95% confidence interval: 17.2%-25.0%]) to 45.9% (predicted probability, 43.9% [36.8%-51.2%]; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] per quarter, 1.10 [1.07-1.14]). Thirty-day composite adverse events occurred in 18.5% of patients (1166 of 6319) and decreased over time (aOR per quarter, 0.98 [95% confidence interval: .96-.99]) owing to a decrease in antibiotic-associated adverse events (aOR per quarter, 0.91 [.87-.95]). CONCLUSIONS: Across diverse hospitals, HMS participation was associated with more appropriate use of short-course therapy and fewer adverse events in hospitalized patients with uncomplicated CAP. Establishment of national or regional collaborative quality initiatives with data collection and benchmarking, sharing of best practices, and pay-for-performance incentives may improve antibiotic use and outcomes for patients hospitalized with uncomplicated CAP.

Assessment of Testing and Treatment of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria Initiated in the Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND: Reducing antibiotic use in patients with asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) has been inpatient focused. However, testing and treatment is often started in the emergency department (ED). Thus, for hospitalized patients with ASB, we sought to identify patterns of testing and treatment initiated by emergency medicine (EM) clinicians and the association of treatment with outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a 43-hospital, cohort study of adults admitted through the ED with ASB (February 2018-February 2020). Using generalized estimating equation models, we assessed for (1) factors associated with antibiotic treatment by EM clinicians and, after inverse probability of treatment weighting, (2) the effect of treatment on outcomes. RESULTS: Of 2461 patients with ASB, 74.4% (N = 1830) received antibiotics. The EM clinicians ordered urine cultures in 80.0% (N = 1970) of patients and initiated treatment in 68.5% (1253 of 1830). Predictors of EM clinician treatment of ASB versus no treatment included dementia, spinal cord injury, incontinence, urinary catheter, altered mental status, leukocytosis, and abnormal urinalysis. Once initiated by EM clinicians, 79% (993 of 1253) of patients remained on antibiotics for at least 3 days. Antibiotic treatment was associated with a longer length of hospitalization (mean 5.1 vs 4.2 days; relative risk = 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.23) and Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) (0.9% [N = 11] vs 0% [N = 0]; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Among hospitalized patients ultimately diagnosed with ASB, EM clinicians commonly initiated testing and treatment; most antibiotics were continued by inpatient clinicians. Antibiotic treatment was not associated with improved outcomes, whereas it was associated with prolonged hospitalization and CDI. For best impact, stewardship interventions must expand to the ED.

Association of Infectious Disease Physician Approval of Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter With Appropriateness and Complications.

Importance: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are frequently used to deliver intravenous antimicrobial therapy. However, inappropriate PICC use may lead to patient harm. Objective: To evaluate whether infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for intravenous antimicrobials is associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of 21 653 PICCs placed for a primary indication of intravenous antimicrobial therapy between January 1, 2015, and July 26, 2019, was conducted in 42 hospitals participating in a quality collaborative across Michigan among hospitalized medical patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appropriateness of PICCs was defined according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters as a composite measure of (1) single-lumen catheter use, (2) avoiding use of PICCs for 5 days or less, and (3) avoiding use of PICCs for patients with chronic kidney disease (defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate <45 mL/min/1.73 m2). Complications related to PICCs included catheter occlusion, deep vein thrombosis, and central line-associated bloodstream infection. The association between infectious disease physician approval, device appropriateness, and catheter complications was assessed using multivariable models, adjusted for patient comorbidities and hospital clustering. Results were expressed as odds ratios with 95% CIs. Results: A total of 21 653 PICCs were placed for intravenous antimicrobials (11 960 PICCs were placed in men [55.2%]; median age, 64.5 years [interquartile range, 53.4-75.4 years]); 10 238 PICCs (47.3%) were approved by an infectious disease physician prior to placement. Compared with PICCs with no documented approval, PICCs with approval by an infectious disease physician were more likely to be appropriately used (72.7% [7446 of 10 238] appropriate with approval vs 45.4% [5180 of 11 415] appropriate without approval; odds ratio, 3.53; 95% CI, 3.29-3.79; P < .001). Furthermore, approval was associated with lower odds of a PICC-related complication (6.5% [665 of 10 238] with approval vs 11.3% [1292 of 11 415] without approval; odds ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.50-0.61). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study suggests that, when PICCs were placed for intravenous antimicrobial therapy, infectious disease physician approval of PICC insertion was associated with more appropriate device use and fewer complications. Policies aimed at ensuring infectious disease physician approval prior to PICC placement for antimicrobials may improve patient safety.

The Association of Antibiotic Stewardship With Fluoroquinolone Prescribing in Michigan Hospitals: A Multi-hospital Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Fluoroquinolones increase the risk of Clostridioides difficile infection and antibiotic resistance. Hospitals often use pre-prescription approval or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. Whether these strategies impact aggregate fluoroquinolone use is unknown. METHODS: This study is a 48-hospital, retrospective cohort of general-care, medical patients hospitalized with pneumonia or positive urine culture between December 2015-September 2017. Hospitals were surveyed on their use of pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization (fluoroquinolone stewardship). After controlling for hospital clustering and patient factors, aggregate (inpatient and post-discharge) fluoroquinolone (ciprofloxacin, levofloxacin, moxifloxacin) exposure was compared between hospitals with and without fluoroquinolone stewardship. RESULTS: There were 11 748 patients (6820 pneumonia; 4928 positive urine culture) included at 48 hospitals. All hospitals responded to the survey: 29.2% (14/48) reported using pre-prescription approval and/or prospective audit and feedback to target fluoroquinolone prescribing. After adjustment, fluoroquinolone stewardship was associated with fewer patients receiving a fluoroquinolone (37.1% vs 48.2%; P = .01) and fewer fluoroquinolone treatment days per 1000 patients (2282 vs 3096 days/1000 patients; P = .01), driven by lower inpatient prescribing. However, most (66.6%) fluoroquinolone treatment days occurred after discharge, and hospitals with fluoroquinolone stewardship had twice as many new fluoroquinolone starts after discharge as hospitals without (15.6% vs 8.4%; P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-based stewardship interventions targeting fluoroquinolone prescribing were associated with less fluoroquinolone prescribing during hospitalization, but not at discharge. To limit aggregate fluoroquinolone exposure, stewardship programs should target both inpatient and discharge prescribing.

Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters in the ICU: A Retrospective Study of Adult Medical Patients in 52 Hospitals.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify variation in use and complications from peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the general ward. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Fifty-two hospital Michigan quality collaborative. PATIENTS: Twenty-seven-thousand two-hundred eighty-nine patients with peripherally inserted central catheters placed during hospitalization. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient, provider, and device characteristics. Bivariate tests were used to assess differences between peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU versus peripherally inserted central catheters placed on the ward. Multilevel mixed-effects generalized linear models adjusting for patient and device factors with a logit link clustered by hospital were used to examine the association between peripherally inserted central catheter complications and location of peripherally inserted central catheter placement. Variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use, rates of complications, and appropriateness of use across hospitals was also examined. Eight-thousand two-hundred eighty patients (30.3%) received peripherally inserted central catheters in the ICU versus 19,009 (69.7%) on the general ward. The commonest indication for peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU was difficult IV access (35.1%) versus antibiotic therapy (53.3%) on wards. Compared with peripherally inserted central catheters placed in wards, peripherally inserted central catheters placed in the ICU were more often multilumen (59.5% vs 39.3; p < 0.001) and more often associated with a complication (odds ratio, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.18-1.43; p < 0.001). Substantial variation in ICU peripherally inserted central catheter use and outcomes across hospitals was observed, with median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell time ranging from 3 to 38.5 days (p < 0.001) and complications from 0% to 40.2% (p < 0.001). Importantly, 87% (n = 45) of ICUs reported median peripherally inserted central catheter dwell times less than or equal to 14 days, a duration where traditional central venous catheters, not peripherally inserted central catheters, are considered appropriate by published criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Peripherally inserted central catheter use in the ICU is highly variable, associated with complications and often not appropriate. Further study of vascular access decision-making in the ICU appears necessary.

Preventability of Early Versus Late Hospital Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients.

Background: Many experts believe that hospitals with more frequent readmissions provide lower-quality care, but little is known about how the preventability of readmissions might change over the postdischarge time frame. Objective: To determine whether readmissions within 7 days of discharge differ from those between 8 and 30 days after discharge with respect to preventability. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: 10 academic medical centers in the United States. Patients: 822 adults readmitted to a general medicine service. Measurements: For each readmission, 2 site-specific physician adjudicators used a structured survey instrument to determine whether it was preventable and measured other characteristics. Results: Overall, 36.2% of early readmissions versus 23.0% of late readmissions were preventable (median risk difference, 13.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 5.5 to 26.4 percentage points]). Hospitals were identified as better locations for preventing early readmissions (47.2% vs. 25.5%; median risk difference, 22.8 percentage points [interquartile range, 17.9 to 31.8 percentage points]), whereas outpatient clinics (15.2% vs. 6.6%; median risk difference, 10.0 percentage points [interquartile range, 4.6 to 12.2 percentage points]) and home (19.4% vs. 14.0%; median risk difference, 5.6 percentage points [interquartile range, -6.1 to 17.1 percentage points]) were better for preventing late readmissions. Limitation: Physician adjudicators were not blinded to readmission timing, community hospitals were not included in the study, and readmissions to nonstudy hospitals were not included in the results. Conclusion: Early readmissions were more likely to be preventable and amenable to hospital-based interventions. Late readmissions were less likely to be preventable and were more amenable to ambulatory and home-based interventions. Primary Funding Source: Association of American Medical Colleges.

Limiting the Number of Lumens in Peripherally Inserted Central Catheters to Improve Outcomes and Reduce Cost: A Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND The number of peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) lumens is associated with thrombotic and infectious complications. Because multilumen PICCs are not necessary in all patients, policies that limit their use may improve safety and cost. OBJECTIVE To design a simulation-based analysis to estimate outcomes and cost associated with a policy that encourages single-lumen PICC use. METHODS Model inputs, including risk of complications and costs associated with single- and multilumen PICCs, were obtained from available literature and a multihospital collaborative quality improvement project. Cost savings and reduction in central line-associated bloodstream infection and deep vein thrombosis events from institution of a single-lumen PICC default policy were reported. RESULTS According to our model, a hospital that places 1,000 PICCs per year (25% of which are single-lumen and 75% multilumen) experiences annual PICC-related maintenance and complication costs of $1,228,598 (95% CI, $1,053,175-$1,430,958). In such facilities, every 5% increase in single-lumen PICC use would prevent 0.5 PICC-related central line-associated bloodstream infections and 0.5 PICC-related deep vein thrombosis events, while saving $23,500. Moving from 25% to 50% single-lumen PICC utilization would result in total savings of $119,283 (95% CI, $74,030-$184,170) per year. Regardless of baseline prevalence, a single-lumen default PICC policy would be associated with approximately 10% cost savings. Findings remained robust in multiway sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION Hospital policies that limit the number of PICC lumens may enhance patient safety and reduce healthcare costs. Studies measuring intended and unintended consequences of this approach, followed by rapid adoption, appear necessary. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2016;37:811-817.

Validation of Risk Assessment Models of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Medical Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients hospitalized for acute medical illness are at increased risk for venous thromboembolism. Although risk assessment is recommended and several at-admission risk assessment models have been developed, these have not been adequately derived or externally validated. Therefore, an optimal approach to evaluate venous thromboembolism risk in medical patients is not known. METHODS: We conducted an external validation study of existing venous thromboembolism risk assessment models using data collected on 63,548 hospitalized medical patients as part of the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety (HMS) Consortium. For each patient, cumulative venous thromboembolism risk scores and risk categories were calculated. Cox regression models were used to quantify the association between venous thromboembolism events and assigned risk categories. Model discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C-index. RESULTS: Venous thromboembolism incidence in hospitalized medical patients is low (1%). Although existing risk assessment models demonstrate good calibration (hazard ratios for "at-risk" range 2.97-3.59), model discrimination is generally poor for all risk assessment models (C-index range 0.58-0.64). CONCLUSIONS: The performance of several existing risk assessment models for predicting venous thromboembolism among acutely ill, hospitalized medical patients at admission is limited. Given the low venous thromboembolism incidence in this nonsurgical patient population, careful consideration of how best to utilize existing venous thromboembolism risk assessment models is necessary, and further development and validation of novel venous thromboembolism risk assessment models for this patient population may be warranted.

Assessing the Caprini Score for Risk Assessment of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Medical Patients.

BACKGROUND: The optimal approach to assess risk of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients is unknown. We examined how well the Caprini risk assessment model predicts venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. METHODS: Between January 2011 and March 2014, venous thromboembolism events and risk factors were collected from non-intensive care unit medical patients hospitalized in facilities across Michigan. After calculation of the Caprini score for each patient, mixed logistic spline regression was used to determine the predicted probabilities of 90-day venous thromboembolism by receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis across the Caprini risk continuum. RESULTS: A total of 670 (1.05%) of 63,548 eligible patients experienced a venous thromboembolism event within 90 days of hospital admission. The mean Caprini risk score was 4.94 (range, 0-28). Predictive modeling revealed a consistent linear increase in venous thromboembolism for Caprini scores between 1 and 10; estimates beyond a score of 10 were unstable. Receipt of pharmacologic prophylaxis resulted in a modest decrease in venous thromboembolism risk (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.72-0.99; P = .04). However, the low overall incidence of venous thromboembolism led to large estimates of numbers needed to treat to prevent a single venous thromboembolism event. A Caprini cut-point demonstrating clear benefit of prophylaxis was not detected. CONCLUSIONS: Although a linear association between the Caprini risk assessment model and the risk of venous thromboembolism was noted, an extremely low incidence of venous thromboembolism events in non-intensive care unit medical patients was observed. The Caprini risk assessment model was unable to identify a subset of medical patients who benefit from pharmacologic prophylaxis.

Triggers of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: The rate of hospitalization for venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increasing in the United States. Although predictors of hospital-acquired VTE are well-known, triggers of VTE before hospitalization are not as clearly defined. The objective of this study was to evaluate triggers of hospitalization for VTE. METHODS AND RESULTS: A case-crossover study was conducted. Subjects were participants in the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative sample of older Americans. Data were linked to Medicare files for hospital and nursing home stays, emergency department visits, outpatient visits including physician visits, and home health visits from years 1991 to 2007 (n=16 781). The outcome was hospitalization for venous thromboembolism (n=399). Exposures during the 90-day period before hospitalization for VTE were compared with exposures occurring in 4 comparison periods. Infection was the most common trigger of hospitalization for VTE, occurring in 52.4% of the risk periods before hospitalization. The adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs; 95% confidence interval) were 2.90 (2.13, 3.94) for all infection, 2.63 (1.90, 3.63) for infection without a previous hospital or skilled nursing facility stay, and 6.92 (4.46, 10.72) for infection with a previous hospital or skilled nursing facility stay. Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and blood transfusion were also associated with VTE hospitalization (IRR=9.33, 95% confidence interval: 1.19, 73.42; IRR=2.57, 95% confidence interval: 1.17, 5.64; respectively). Other predictors included major surgeries, fractures (IRR=2.81), immobility (IRR=4.23), and chemotherapy (IRR=5.70). These predictors, combined, accounted for a large proportion (69.7%) of exposures before VTE hospitalization as opposed to 35.3% in the comparison periods. CONCLUSIONS: Risk prediction algorithms for VTE should be reevaluated to include infection, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and blood transfusion.

Venous thromboembolism: a collaborative quality improvement model for practitioners, hospitals, and insurers.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) carries significant morbidity and mortality and affects a large portion of hospitalized patients. VTE prophylaxis is rated by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality as the most effective of 79 patient safety practices it assessed in 2001. Since 1997, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan/Blue Care Network (BCBSM/BCN) have partnered with Michigan hospitals and providers in statewide registry-based collaborative quality improvement initiatives (CQI) aimed at improving the safety and quality of surgical and medical care; many of these collaborative have a particular focus on VTE prevention. The CQIs are uniquely structured to catalyze hospitals and practitioners to become self-optimizing. In this review, we describe the model BCBSM/BCN and participating Michigan hospitals have developed to improve the prevention and diagnosis of VTE for patients in the state of Michigan.

Perioperative practice: time to throttle back.

The United States spends more on health care than other nations, yet our health outcomes remain inferior to those of many countries. Change is therefore necessary. One approach to health care reform is to identify and eliminate practices associated with high cost and limited benefit. Recent research has shown that many perioperative practices meet this definition. An opportunity thus exists for rational reduction of perioperative expenditure. Perioperative tests and treatments improve outcomes only when targeted at specific patient subsets. For example, routine perioperative stress testing provides no incremental diagnostic yield in patients at low risk for cardiac events, and indiscriminate perioperative therapy with beta-blockers can increase mortality in otherwise stable patients. Thus, many "accepted" perioperative practices conflict with the evidence and can be safely discontinued while preserving outcomes and reducing costs. Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association perioperative guidelines ensures cost-effective management and promises the greatest benefit for our patients. Our society demands better care at lower cost; in perioperative medicine, it is time for us to throttle back.

Impact of a pharmacist-facilitated hospital discharge program: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies are common at hospital discharge and can result in adverse events, hospital readmissions, and emergency department visits. Our objectives were to characterize medication discrepancies at hospital discharge and test the effects of a pharmacist intervention on health care utilization following discharge. METHODS: We used a prospective, alternating month quasi-experimental design to compare outcomes of patients receiving the intervention (n = 358) with controls (n = 366). All patients were discharged to home and were at high risk for medication-related problems following discharge because of the number or types of medications they were prescribed, multiple medication changes during hospitalization, or problems managing medications. The intervention consisted of medication therapy assessment, medication reconciliation, screening for adherence concerns, patient counseling and education, and postdischarge telephone follow-up. The primary outcomes were 14-day and 30-day readmission rates and emergency department visits within 72 hours of discharge. Medication discrepancies occurring at discharge were also characterized. RESULTS: Medication discrepancies at discharge were identified in 33.5% of intervention patients and 59.6% of control patients (P < .001). Although all discrepancies were resolved in the intervention group prior to discharge, readmission rates did not differ significantly between groups at 14 days (12.6% vs 11.5%; P = .65) and 30 days (22.1% vs 18%; P = .17), nor did emergency department visits (2.8% vs 2.2%, respectively; P = .60). CONCLUSION: While our intervention improved the quality of patient discharge by identifying and reconciling medication discrepancies at discharge, there was no effect on postdischarge health care resource utilization.

The University of Michigan Specialist-Hospitalist Allied Research Program: jumpstarting hospital medicine research.

BACKGROUND: Clinical research has developed slowly in most academic hospitalist programs, possibly because of a failure to recognize the important role of specialists in the diagnosis and management of complex medical patients as well as their expertise in clinical research. Ideally, a successful hospital-based clinical research program will need to partner hospitalists with specialists. PURPOSE: The University of Michigan's Specialist-Hospitalist Allied Research Program (SHARP) was designed to jumpstart hospital-based clinical and translational research at a major academic medical center by pairing specialists and hospitalists to ask and answer novel research questions. DESCRIPTION: SHARP is codirected by a hospitalist and a subspecialist and includes key personnel such as a hospitalist investigator, a clinical research nurse, a research associate, and a clinical epidemiologist. The program is guided by an oversight committee that includes institutional research leadership. Two initial projects have already been supported. The first, a collaboration between infectious disease specialists and hospitalists, is a prospective trial of antiseptic agents and techniques to reduce false-positive blood cultures. The second pairs geriatricians and clinical pharmacists with hospitalists to prospectively study techniques to reduce medication errors around the time of hospital discharge. Although initial pilot projects are single-institution studies, SHARP's goal is to expand its clinical research to include multicenter investigation. Metrics to evaluate SHARP include the number of successfully completed projects, extramural grants submitted and funded, and peer-reviewed publications. CONCLUSION: A successful hospital-based clinical research program combines hospitalists and specialists in a collaborative environment to identify optimal strategies for delivering inpatient care.