Medically ready for discharge: A multisite "point-in-time" assessment of hospitalized patients.

BACKGROUND: Time spent awaiting discharge after the acute need for hospitalization has resolved is an important potential contributor to hospital length of stay (LOS). OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence, impact, and context of patients who remain hospitalized for prolonged periods after completion of acute care needs. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional "point-in-time" survey at each of 15 academic US hospitals using a structured data collection tool with on-service acute care medicine attending physicians in fall 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were number and percentage of patients considered "medically ready for discharge" with emphasis on those who had experienced a "major barrier to discharge" (medically ready for discharge for ≥1 week). Estimated LOS attributable to major discharge barriers, contributory discharge needs, and associated hospital characteristics were measured. RESULTS: Of 1928 patients sampled, 35.0% (n = 674) were medically ready for discharge including 9.8% (n = 189) with major discharge barriers. Many patients with major discharge barriers (44.4%; 84/189) had spent a month or longer medically ready for discharge and commonly (84.1%; 159/189) required some form of skilled therapy or daily living support services for discharge. Higher proportions of patients experiencing major discharge barriers were found in public versus private, nonprofit hospitals (12.0% vs. 7.2%; p = .001) and county versus noncounty hospitals (14.5% vs. 8.8%; p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Patients experience major discharge barriers in many US hospitals and spend prolonged time awaiting discharge, often for support needs that may be outside of clinician control.

Long-Term Assessment of the Effects of COVID-19 and Isolation Care on Survivor Disability and Anxiety.

We conducted an assessment of disability, anxiety, and other life impacts of COVID-19 and isolation care in a unique cohort of individuals. These included both community admissions to a university hospital as well as some of the earliest international aeromedical evacuees. Among an initial 16 COVID-19 survivors that were interviewed 6-12 months following their admission into isolation care, perception of their isolation care experience was related to their reporting of long-term consequences. However, anxiety and disability assessed with standard scores had no relationship with each other. Both capture of the isolation care experience and caution relying on single scoring systems for assessing long-term consequences in survivors are important considerations for on-going and future COVID-19 and other pandemic survivor research.

Model for prioritization of Graduate Medical Education funding at a university setting - Engagement of GME committee with the Clinical Enterprise.

BACKGROUND: Funding for graduate medical education (GME) is becoming scarce and is likely to worsen. There is a higher degree of accountability and return on investment demanded from public funds dedicated to GME. Academic centers (AC) partnered with clinical enterprises (CE) are finding it increasingly difficult to retain sustainable funding streams for GME activities. METHODS: To develop and implement a novel algorithmic funding model at one AC in symbiotic partnership with the CE for all 50 GME programs with nearly 500 residents. RESULTS: A new GME Finance and Workforce Committee was convened which was tasked with developing the novel algorithmic financial model to prioritize GME funding. Early outcomes measures that were monitored consisted of: satisfaction of all stakeholders and financial savings. CONCLUSIONS: The model was presented to all the stakeholders and was well received and approved. Early signs, demonstrated AC and CE satisfaction with the model, financial savings and increased efficiency. This GME funding model may serve as a template for other academic centers with tailored modifications to suit their local needs, demands and constraints.