What Went Right? A Mixed-Methods Study of Positive Feedback Data in a Hospital-Wide Mortality Review Survey.

BACKGROUND: Toxic work culture contributes to healthcare worker burnout and attrition, but little is known about how healthcare organizations can systematically create and promote a culture of civility and collegiality. OBJECTIVE: To analyze peer-to-peer positive feedback collected as part of a systematized mortality review survey to identify themes and recognition dynamics that can inform positive organizational culture change. DESIGN: Convergent mixed-methods study design. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 388 physicians, 212 registered nurses, 64 advanced practice providers, and 1 respiratory therapist at four non-profit hospitals (2 academic and 2 community). INTERVENTION: Providing optional positive feedback in the mortality review survey. MAIN MEASURES: Key themes and subthemes that emerged from positive feedback data, associations between key themes and positive feedback respondent characteristics, and recognition dynamics between positive feedback respondents and recipients. KEY RESULTS: Approximately 20% of healthcare workers provided positive feedback. Three key themes emerged among responses with free text comments: (1) providing extraordinary patient and family-centered care; (2) demonstrating self-possession and mastery; and (3) exhibiting empathic peer support and effective team collaboration. Compared to other specialties, most positive feedback from medicine (70.2%), neurology (65.2%), hospice and palliative medicine (64.3%), and surgery (58.8%) focused on providing extraordinary patient and family-centered care (p = 0.02), whereas emergency medicine (59.1%) comments predominantly focused on demonstrating self-possession and mastery (p = 0.06). Registered nurses (40.2%) provided multidirectional positive feedback more often than other clinician types in the hospital hierarchy (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of positive feedback from a mortality review survey provided meaningful insights into a health system's culture of teamwork and values related to civility and collegiality when providing end-of-life care. Systematic collection and sharing of positive feedback is feasible and has the potential to promote positive culture change and improve healthcare worker well-being.

Mycobacterium abscessus Cluster in Cardiac Surgery Patients Potentially Attributable to a Commercial Water Purification System.

BACKGROUND: Nontuberculous mycobacteria are water-avid pathogens that are associated with nosocomial infections. OBJECTIVE: To describe the analysis and mitigation of a cluster of Mycobacterium abscessus infections in cardiac surgery patients. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: Four cardiac surgery patients. INTERVENTION: Commonalities among cases were sought, potential sources were cultured, patient and environmental specimens were sequenced, and possible sources were abated. MEASUREMENTS: Description of the cluster, investigation, and mitigation. RESULTS: Whole-genome sequencing confirmed homology among clinical isolates. Patients were admitted during different periods to different rooms but on the same floor. There were no common operating rooms, ventilators, heater-cooler devices, or dialysis machines. Environmental cultures were notable for heavy mycobacterial growth in ice and water machines on the cluster unit but little or no growth in ice and water machines in the hospital's other 2 inpatient towers or in shower and sink faucet water in any of the hospital's 3 inpatient towers. Whole-genome sequencing confirmed the presence of a genetically identical element in ice and water machine and patient specimens. Investigation of the plumbing system revealed a commercial water purifier with charcoal filters and an ultraviolet irradiation unit leading to the ice and water machines in the cluster tower but not the hospital's other inpatient towers. Chlorine was present at normal levels in municipal source water but was undetectable downstream from the purification unit. There were no further cases after high-risk patients were switched to sterile and distilled water, ice and water machine maintenance was intensified, and the commercial purification system was decommissioned. LIMITATION: Transmission pathways were not clearly characterized. CONCLUSION: Well-intentioned efforts to modify water management systems may inadvertently increase infection risk for vulnerable patients. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

A SARS-CoV-2 Cluster in an Acute Care Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about clusters of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in acute care hospitals. OBJECTIVE: To describe the detection, mitigation, and analysis of a large cluster of SARS-CoV-2 infections in an acute care hospital with mature infection control policies. DESIGN: Descriptive study. SETTING: Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: Patients and staff with cluster-related SARS-CoV-2 infections. INTERVENTION: Close contacts of infected patients and staff were identified and tested every 3 days, patients on affected units were preemptively isolated and repeatedly tested, affected units were cleaned, room ventilation was measured, and specimens were sent for whole-genome sequencing. A case-control study was done to compare clinical interactions, personal protective equipment use, and breakroom and workroom practices in SARS-CoV-2-positive versus negative staff. MEASUREMENTS: Description of the cluster, mitigation activities, and risk factor analysis. RESULTS: Fourteen patients and 38 staff members were included in the cluster per whole-genome sequencing and epidemiologic associations. The index case was a symptomatic patient in whom isolation was discontinued after 2 negative results on nasopharyngeal polymerase chain reaction testing. The patient subsequently infected multiple roommates and staff, who then infected others. Seven of 52 (13%) secondary infections were detected only on second or subsequent tests. Eight of 9 (89%) patients who shared rooms with potentially contagious patients became infected. Potential contributing factors included high viral loads, nebulization, and positive pressure in the index patient's room. Risk factors for transmission to staff included presence during nebulization, caring for patients with dyspnea or cough, lack of eye protection, at least 15 minutes of exposure to case patients, and interactions with SARS-CoV-2-positive staff in clinical areas. Whole-genome sequencing confirmed that 2 staff members were infected despite wearing surgical masks and eye protection. LIMITATION: Findings may not be generalizable. CONCLUSION: SARS-CoV-2 clusters can occur in hospitals despite robust infection control policies. Insights from this cluster may inform additional measures to protect patients and staff. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

The Inpatient Discharge Lounge as a Potential Mechanism to Mitigate Emergency Department Boarding and Crowding.

Delayed access to inpatient beds for admitted patients contributes significantly to emergency department (ED) boarding and crowding, which have been associated with deleterious patient safety effects. To expedite inpatient bed availability, some hospitals have implemented discharge lounges, allowing discharged patients to depart their inpatient rooms while awaiting completion of the discharge process or transportation. This conceptual article synthesizes the evidence related to discharge lounge implementation practices and outcomes. Using a conceptual synthesis approach, we reviewed the medical and gray literature related to discharge lounges by querying PubMed, Google Scholar, and Google and undertaking backward reference searching. We screened for articles either providing detailed accounts of discharge lounge implementations or offering conceptual analysis on the subject. Most of the evidence we identified was in the gray literature, with only 3 peer-reviewed articles focusing on discharge lounge implementations. Articles generally encompassed single-site descriptive case studies or expert opinions. Significant heterogeneity exists in discharge lounge objectives, features, and apparent influence on patient flow. Although common barriers to discharge lounge performance have been documented, including underuse and care team objections, limited generalizable solutions are offered. Overall, discharge lounges are widely endorsed as a mechanism to accelerate access to inpatient beds, yet the limited available evidence indicates wide variation in design and performance. Further rigorous investigation is required to identify the circumstances under which discharge lounges should be deployed, and how discharge lounges should be designed to maximize their effect on hospitalwide patient flow, ED boarding and crowding, and other targeted outcomes.

Optimization of Patient Progression in a New Era: A Comprehensive Framework.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic increased the demand for inpatient services and led to widespread staffing shortages in the acute and post-acute setting, contributing to delayed inpatient throughput and leading to capacity crises. Novel strategies are needed to facilitate the efficient progression of hospitalized patients when medically ready for lower levels of care. The authors have developed a foundational strategic framework for patient progression to ensure capture of patient progression data, enhance efficiency, and optimal utilization of post-acute resources in increasingly complex and resource-constrained acute and post-acute environments. PRIMARY PRACTICE SETTINGS: Interventions were implemented, and metrics of success tracked as part of an overarching framework to test new models of care or optimize existing assets related to barriers to patient progression. Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) and Brigham and Women's Faulkner Hospital (BWFH) comprise an academic medical center and a community hospital, respectively, that are affiliated with Massachusetts General Brigham (MGB), a nonprofit health care system in Massachusetts. Key interventions include (1) screening to prioritize patients needing case management services through a modified early screening for discharge planning tool and process; (2) communicating, documenting, identifying patient progression status, barriers to discharge and post-acute needs through interdisciplinary care optimization rounds, a novel tool in the electronic health record, and an associated dashboard; (3) managing active high-risk patients through a novel complex care team and post-acute strategy development; (4) developing novel transportation and hospice pathways; and (5) establishing community hospital repatriation and a physical therapy "Why Not Home" campaign. FINDINGS: Key metrics of success were (1) modified discharge planning tool resulting in screening out low-risk patients (53%) and impacting length of stay (0.55-day reduction, p = .083) during a 3-month intervention versus control study; (2) documentation adherence in more than 98% of patients 10 months postimplementation; (3) complex care team achieving a 2.5% reduction in Case Mix Index-adjusted length of stay 6 months postimplementation; (4) use of care van offsetting ambulance/chair car in 10% of cases, and earlier discharge time/length of stay in 21% of cases 3 months postimplementation; and (5) implementation of community repatriation impacting delay days to discharge (10-month pilot, 40 patients accounting for 1,000 delay days). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a novel comprehensive framework focusing on optimizing patient progression resulted in increased operational efficiency and positively impacted length of stay at our academic and community hospitals. Additional study is actively ongoing to understand long-term benefit of the innovations that the authors have developed. Further interventions are needed to wholly mitigate evolving capacity challenges in the acute and post-acute settings. IMPLICATIONS FOR CASE MANAGEMENT PRACTICE: The authors' implementation of the Brigham framework for progression demonstrates that innovative approaches to case management can help address the evolving challenges in care transitions planning. Notable opportunities include approaches that empower case managers as multidisciplinary team leaders, improve workflow, utilize patient progression data, prioritize patients with complex care needs support key patient populations, and promote post-acute collaboration.

Non-Sterile to Sterile Compounding: An Unconventional Response During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The drug supply chain has suffered many interruptions over the past decade. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated an already fragile infrastructure for supplying critical medications to hospitals and health-systems. The purpose of this paper is to provide insight to the history, thought-processes, and response to critical medication shortages during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on hydromorphone infusions and the action steps taken to engage in non-sterile to sterile (NSTS) compounding. Over a period of 6 weeks, we compounded 1,613 NSTS hydromorphone infusion bags. All lots were cleared for sterility, particulate, potency, and endotoxin testing by an outside FDA registered laboratory. We did not have any safety reports filed specific to the NSTS compounded hydromorphone infusion bags. Over a period of 15 weeks, 715 infusions were consumed. The drug supply chain suffers frequent interruptions and critical shortages, particularly in times of a natural disaster or a global pandemic. Non-sterile to sterile compounding is often associated with risks of inaccuracies, impurities, and contamination. There are instances in which non-sterile to sterile compounding is appropriate and should be considered in times of drug shortages to support the care of hospitalized patients.

Hospital-Level Care at Home for Patients With Acute Respiratory Disease: A Descriptive Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Home hospital (HH) care is hospital-level substitutive care delivered at home for acutely ill patients who traditionally would be cared for in the hospital. Despite HH care programs operating successfully for years and scientific evidence of similar or better outcomes compared with bricks-and-mortar care, HH care outcomes in the United States for respiratory disease have not been evaluated. RESEARCH QUESTION: Do outcomes differ between patients admitted to HH care with acute respiratory illness vs those with other acute general medical conditions? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data of patients admitted to HH care (2017-2021). We compared patients requiring admission with respiratory disease (asthma exacerbation [26%], acute exacerbation of COPD [33%], and non-COVID-19 pneumonia [41%]) to all other patients admitted to HH care. During HH care, patients received two nurse and one physician visit daily, IV medications, advanced respiratory therapies, and continuous heart and respiratory rate monitoring. Main outcomes were acute and postacute health care use and safety. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,031 patients; 24% were admitted for respiratory disease. Patients with and without respiratory disease were similar: mean age, 68 ± 17 years, 62% women, and 48% White. Patients with respiratory disease more often were active smokers (21% vs 9%; P < .001). Eighty percent of patients showed an FEV1 to FVC ratio of ≤ 70; 28% showed a severe or very severe obstructive pattern (n = 118). During HH care, patients with respiratory disease showed less health care use: length of stay (mean, 3.4 vs 4.6 days), laboratory orders (median, 0 vs 2), IV medication (43% vs 73%), and specialist consultation (2% vs 7%; P < .001 for all). Ninety-six percent of patients completed the full admission at home with no mortality in the respiratory group. Within 30 days of discharge, both groups showed similar readmission, ED presentation, and mortality rates. INTERPRETATION: HH care is as safe and effective for patients with acute respiratory disease as for those with other acute general medical conditions. If scaled, it can generate significant high-value capacity for health systems and communities, with opportunities to advance the complexity of care delivered.

Use of Hospital Capacity Command Centers to Improve Patient Flow and Safety: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVES: Delayed emergency department (ED) and hospital patient throughput is recognized as a critical threat to patient safety. Increasingly, hospitals are investing significantly in deploying command centers, long used in airlines and the military, to proactively manage hospital-wide patient flow. This scoping review characterizes the evidence related to hospital capacity command centers (CCCs) and synthesizes current data regarding their implementation. METHODS: As no consensus definition exists for CCCs, we characterized them as units (i) involving interdisciplinary, permanently colocated teams, (ii) using real-time data, and (iii) managing 2 or more patient flow functions (e.g., bed management, transfers, discharge planning, etc.), to distinguish CCCs from transfer centers. We undertook a scoping review of the medical and gray literature published through April 2019 related to CCCs meeting these criteria. RESULTS: We identified 8 eligible articles (including 4 peer-reviewed studies) describing 7 CCCs of varying designs. The most common CCC outcome measures related to transfer volume (n = 5) and ED boarding (n = 4). Several CCCs also monitored patient-level clinical parameters. Although all articles reported performance improvements, heterogeneity in CCC design and evidence quality currently restricts generalizability of findings. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous anecdotal accounts suggest that CCCs are being widely deployed in an effort to improve hospital patient flow and safety, yet peer-reviewed evidence regarding their design and effectiveness is in its earliest stages. The costs, objectives, and growing deployment of CCCs merit an investment in rigorous research to better measure their processes and outcomes. We propose a standard definition, conceptual framework, research priorities, and reporting standards to guide future investigation of CCCs.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) screening system utilizing daily symptom attestation helps identify hospital employees who should be tested to protect patients and coworkers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a daily attestation system used by employees of a multi-institutional academic medical center, which comprised of symptom-screening, self-referrals to the Occupational Health Services team, and/or a severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) test. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all employee attestations and SARS-CoV-2 tests performed between March and June 2020. SETTING: A large multi-institutional academic medical center, including both inpatient and ambulatory settings. PARTICIPANTS: All employees who worked at the study site. METHODS: Data were combined from the attestation system (COVIDPass), the employee database, and the electronic health records and were analyzed using descriptive statistics including χ2, Wilcoxon, and Kruskal-Wallis tests. We investigated whether an association existed between symptomatic attestations by the employees and the employee testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: After data linkage and cleaning, there were 2,117,298 attestations submitted by 65,422 employees between March and June 2020. Most attestations were asymptomatic (99.9%). The most commonly reported symptoms were sore throat (n = 910), runny nose (n = 637), and cough (n = 570). Among the 2,026 employees who ever attested that they were symptomatic, 905 employees were tested within 14 days of a symptomatic attestation, and 114 (13%) of these tests were positive. The most common symptoms associated with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test were anosmia (23% vs 4%) and fever (46% vs 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Daily symptom attestations among healthcare workers identified a handful of employees with COVID-19. Although the number of positive tests was low, attestations may help keep unwell employees off campus to prevent transmissions.

Remote vs In-home Physician Visits for Hospital-Level Care at Home: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Home hospital care is the substitutive provision of home-based acute care services usually associated with a traditional inpatient hospital. Many home hospital models require a physician to see patients at home daily, which may hinder scalability. Whether remote physician visits can safely substitute for most in-home visits is unknown. Objective: To compare remote and in-home physician care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial assessed 172 adult patients at an academic medical center and community hospital who required hospital-level care for select acute conditions, including infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma, between August 3, 2019, and March 26, 2020; follow-up ended April 26, 2020. Interventions: All patients received acute care at home, including in-home nurse or paramedic visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, and point-of-care testing. Patients were randomized to receive physician care remotely (initial in-home visit followed by daily video visit facilitated by the home hospital nurse) vs in-home care (daily in-home physician visit). In the remote care group, the physician could choose to see the patient at home beyond the first visit if it was felt to be medically necessary. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of adverse events, compared using multivariable Poisson regression at a noninferiority threshold of 10 events per 100 patients. Adverse events included a fall, pressure injury, and delirium. Secondary outcomes included the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score (scale of 0-15, with 0 indicating worst patient experience and 15 indicating best patient experience) and 30-day readmission rates. Results: A total of 172 patients (84 receiving remote care and 88 receiving in-home physician care [control group]) were randomized; enrollment was terminated early because of COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 69.3 (18.0) years, 97 patients (56.4%) were female, 77 (45.0%) were White, and 42 (24.4%) lived alone. Mean adjusted adverse event count was 6.8 per 100 patients for remote care patients vs 3.9 per 100 patients for control patients, for a difference of 2.8 (95% CI, -3.3 to 8.9), supporting noninferiority. For remote care vs control patients, the mean adjusted Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score difference was -0.22 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.56), supporting noninferiority. The mean adjusted 30-day readmission absolute rate difference was 2.28% (95% CI, -3.23% to 7.79%), which was inconclusive. Of patients in the remote group, 16 (19.0%) required in-home visits beyond the first visit. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, remote physician visits were noninferior to in-home physician visits during home hospital care for adverse events and patient experience, although in-home physician care was necessary to support many patients receiving remote care. Our findings may allow for a more efficient, scalable home hospital approach but require further research. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04080570.

Incidence of Nosocomial COVID-19 in Patients Hospitalized at a Large US Academic Medical Center.

Importance: Some patients are avoiding essential care for fear of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hospitals. There are few data, however, on the risk of acquiring COVID-19 in US hospitals. Objective: To assess the incidence of COVID-19 among patients hospitalized at a large US academic medical center in the 12 weeks after the first inpatient case was identified. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included all patients admitted to Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts) between March 7 and May 30, 2020. Follow-up occurred through June 17, 2020. Medical records for all patients who first tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) by reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on hospital day 3 or later or within 14 days of discharge were reviewed. Exposures: A comprehensive infection control program was implemented that included dedicated COVID-19 units with airborne infection isolation rooms, personal protective equipment in accordance with US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations, personal protective equipment donning and doffing monitors, universal masking, restriction of visitors, and liberal RT-PCR testing of symptomatic and asymptomatic patients. Main Outcomes and Measures: Whether infection was community or hospital acquired based on timing of tests, clinical course, and exposures. Results: Over the 12-week period, 9149 patients (mean [SD] age, 46.1 [26.4] years; median [IQR] age, 51 years [30-67 years]; 5243 female [57.3%]) were admitted to the hospital, for whom 7394 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests were performed; 697 COVID-19 cases were confirmed, translating into 8656 days of COVID-19-related care. Twelve of the 697 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 (1.7%) first tested positive on hospital day 3 or later (median, 4 days; range, 3-15 days). Of these, only 1 case was deemed to be hospital acquired, most likely from a presymptomatic spouse who was visiting daily and diagnosed with COVID-19 before visitor restrictions and masking were implemented. Among 8370 patients with non-COVID-19-related hospitalizations discharged through June 17, 11 (0.1%) tested positive within 14 days (median time to diagnosis, 6 days; range, 1-14 days). Only 1 case was deemed likely to be hospital acquired, albeit with no known exposures. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of patients in a large academic medical center with rigorous infection control measures, nosocomial COVID-19 was rare during the height of the pandemic in the region. These findings may inform practices in other institutions and provide reassurance to patients concerned about contracting COVID-19 in hospitals.

Impact of multidisciplinary team huddles on patient safety: a systematic review and proposed taxonomy.

BACKGROUND: Despite significant advances, patient safety remains a critical public health concern. Daily huddles-discussions to identify and respond to safety risks-have been credited with enhancing safety culture in operationally complex industries including aviation and nuclear power. More recently, huddles have been endorsed as a mechanism to improve patient safety in healthcare. This review synthesises the literature related to the impact of hospital-based safety huddles. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature related to scheduled, multidisciplinary, hospital-based safety huddles through December 2019. We screened for studies (1) in which huddles were the primary intervention being assessed and (2) that measured the huddle programme's apparent impact using at least one quantitative metric. RESULTS: We identified 1034 articles; 24 met our criteria for review, of which 19 reflected unit-based huddles and 5 reflected hospital-wide or multiunit huddles. Of the 24 included articles, uncontrolled pre-post comparison was the prevailing study design; we identified only two controlled studies. Among the 12 unit-based studies that provided complete measures of statistical significance for reported outcomes, 11 reported statistically significant improvement among some or all outcomes. The objectives of huddle programmes and the language used to describe them varied widely across the studies we reviewed. CONCLUSION: While anecdotal accounts of successful huddle programmes abound and the evidence we reviewed appears favourable overall, high-quality peer-reviewed evidence regarding the effectiveness of hospital-based safety huddles, particularly at the hospital-wide level, is in its earliest stages. Additional rigorous research-especially focused on huddle programme design and implementation fidelity-would enhance the collective understanding of how huddles impact patient safety and other targeted outcomes. We propose a taxonomy and standardised reporting measures for future huddle-related studies to enhance comparability and evidence quality.