Post-hospitalization dialysis facility processes of care and hospital readmissions among hemodialysis patients: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Both dialysis facilities and hospitals are accountable for 30-day hospital readmissions among U.S. hemodialysis patients. We examined the association of post-hospitalization processes of care at hemodialysis facilities with pulmonary edema-related and other readmissions. METHODS: In a retrospective cohort comprised of electronic medical record (EMR) data linked with national registry data, we identified unique patient index admissions (n = 1056; 2/1/10-7/31/15) that were followed by ≥3 in-center hemodialysis sessions within 10 days, among patients treated at 19 Southeastern dialysis facilities. Indicators of processes of care were defined as present vs. absent in the dialysis facility EMR. Readmissions were defined as admissions within 30 days of the index discharge; pulmonary edema-related vs. other readmissions defined by discharge codes for pulmonary edema, fluid overload, and/or congestive heart failure. Multinomial logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for pulmonary edema-related and other vs. no readmissions. RESULTS: Overall, 17.7% of patients were readmitted, and 8.0% had pulmonary edema-related readmissions (44.9% of all readmissions). Documentation of the index admission (OR = 2.03, 95% CI 1.07-3.85), congestive heart failure (OR = 1.87, 95% CI 1.07-3.27), and home medications stopped (OR = 1.81, 95% CI 1.08-3.05) or changed (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.06-2.70) in the EMR post-hospitalization were all associated with higher risk of pulmonary edema-related vs. no readmission; lower post-dialysis weight (by ≥0.5 kg) after vs. before hospitalization was associated with 40% lower risk (OR = 0.60, 95% CI 0.37-0.96). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that some interventions performed at the dialysis facility in the post-hospitalization period may be associated with reduced readmission risk, while others may provide a potential existing means of identifying patients at higher risk for readmissions, to whom such interventions could be efficiently targeted.

A failure to communicate: a qualitative exploration of care coordination between hospitalists and primary care providers around patient hospitalizations.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination between adult hospitalists and primary care providers (PCPs) is a critical component of successful transitions of care from hospital to home, yet one that is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to understand the challenges in coordination of care, as well as potential solutions, from the perspective of hospitalists and PCPs in North Carolina. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study with 58 clinicians in four hospitalist focus groups (n = 32), three PCP focus groups (n = 19), and one hybrid group with both hospitalists and PCPs (n = 7). APPROACH: Interview guides included questions about care coordination, information exchange, follow-up care, accountability, and medication management. Focus group sessions were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed in ATLAS.ti. The constant comparative method was used to evaluate differences between hospitalists and PCPs. KEY RESULTS: Hospitalists and PCPs were found to encounter similar care coordination challenges, including (1) lack of time, (2) difficulty reaching other clinicians, (3) lack of personal relationships with other clinicians, (4) lack of information feedback loops, (5) medication list discrepancies, and (6) lack of clarity regarding accountability for pending tests and home health. Hospitalists additionally noted difficulty obtaining timely follow-up appointments for after-hours or weekend discharges. PCPs additionally noted (1) not knowing when patients were hospitalized, (2) not having hospital records for post-hospitalization appointments, (3) difficulty locating important information in discharge summaries, and (4) feeling undervalued when hospitalists made medication changes without involving PCPs. Hospitalists and PCPs identified common themes of successful care coordination as (1) greater efforts to coordinate care for "high-risk" patients, (2) improved direct telephone access to each other, (3) improved information exchange through shared electronic medical records, (4) enhanced interpersonal relationships, and (5) clearly defined accountability. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalists and PCPs encounter similar challenges in care coordination, yet have important experiential differences related to sending and receiving roles for hospital discharges. Efforts to improve coordination of care between hospitalists and PCPs should aim to understand perspectives of clinicians in each setting.

A Web-Based, Provider-Driven Mobile App to Enhance Patient Care Coordination Between Dialysis Facilities and Hospitals: Development and Pilot Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: We piloted a web-based, provider-driven mobile app (DialysisConnect) to fill the communication and care coordination gap between hospitals and dialysis facilities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe the development and pilot implementation of DialysisConnect. METHODS: DialysisConnect was developed iteratively with focus group and user testing feedback and was made available to 120 potential users at 1 hospital (hospitalists, advanced practice providers [APPs], and care coordinators) and 4 affiliated dialysis facilities (nephrologists, APPs, nurses and nurse managers, social workers, and administrative personnel) before the start of the pilot (November 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021). Midpilot and end-of-pilot web-based surveys of potential users were also conducted. Descriptive statistics were used to describe system use patterns, ratings of multiple satisfaction items (1=not at all; 3=to a great extent), and provider-selected motivators of and barriers to using DialysisConnect. RESULTS: The pilot version of DialysisConnect included clinical information that was automatically uploaded from dialysis facilities, forms for entering critical admission and discharge information, and a direct communication channel. Although physicians comprised most of the potential users of DialysisConnect, APPs and dialysis nurses were the most active users. Activities were unevenly distributed; for example, 1 hospital-based APP recorded most of the admissions (280/309, 90.6%) among patients treated at the pilot dialysis facilities. End-of-pilot ratings of DialysisConnect were generally higher for users versus nonusers (eg, "I can see the potential value of DialysisConnect for my work with dialysis patients": mean 2.8, SD 0.4, vs mean 2.3, SD 0.6; P=.02). Providers most commonly selected reduced time and energy spent gathering information as a motivator (11/26, 42%) and a lack of time to use the system as a barrier (8/26, 31%) at the end of the pilot. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study found that APPs and nurses were most likely to engage with the system. Survey participants generally viewed the system favorably while identifying substantial barriers to its use. These results inform how best to motivate providers to use this system and similar systems and inform future pragmatic research in care coordination among this and other populations.

Effectiveness of a Web-Based Provider Communications Platform in Reducing Hospital Readmissions Among Patients Receiving Dialysis: A Pilot Pre-Post Study.

Rationale & Objective: Suboptimal care coordination between dialysis facilities and hospitals is an important driver of 30-day hospital readmissions among patients receiving dialysis. We examined whether the introduction of web-based communications platform ("DialysisConnect") was associated with reduced hospital readmissions. Study Design: Pilot pre-post study. Setting & Participants: A total of 4,994 index admissions at a single hospital (representing 2,419 patients receiving dialysis) during the study period (January 1, 2019-May 31, 2021). Intervention: DialysisConnect was available to providers at the hospital and 4 affiliated dialysis facilities (=intervention facilities) during the pilot period (November 1, 2020-May 31, 2021). Outcomes: The primary outcome was 30-day readmission; secondary outcomes included 30-day emergency department visits and observation stays. Interrupted time series and linear models with generalized estimating equations were used to assess pilot versus prepilot differences in outcomes; difference-in-difference analyses were performed to compare these differences between intervention versus control facilities. Sensitivity analyses included a third, prepilot/COVID-19 period (March 1, 2020-October 31, 2020). Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the monthly trends in the 30-day readmissions pilot versus prepilot periods (-0.60 vs -0.13, P = 0.85) for intervention facility admissions; the difference-in-difference estimate was also not statistically significant (0.54 percentage points, P = 0.83). Similar analyses including the prepilot/COVID-19 period showed that, despite a substantial drop in admissions at the start of the pandemic, there were no statistically significant differences across the 3 periods. The age-, sex-, race-, and comorbid condition-adjusted, absolute pilot versus prepilot difference in readmissions rate was 1.8% (-3.7% to 7.3%); similar results were found for other outcomes. Limitations: Potential loss to follow-up and pandemic effects. Conclusions: In this pilot, the introduction of DialysisConnect was not associated with reduced hospital readmissions. Tailored care coordination solutions should be further explored in future, multisite studies to improve the communications gap between dialysis facilities and hospitals.

Incorporating Continuity in a 7-On 7-Off Hospitalist Model and the Correlation With Patient Handoffs and Length of Stay.

Little research in hospital medicine examines the effects of hospitalist continuity on patient outcomes. This study implemented a novel staffing model with approximately half of rounding teams starting their 7-day workweek on Monday and the others on Friday. Teams admitted their own patients on their first 4 days with additional nighttime admissions handed off to those teams. No admissions were given to teams on their last 3 days. Length of stay was significantly reduced from 6.34 days in 2015 to 5.7 days in 2016 (P < .002) with a significant decrease in handoffs. There was an increase in odds ratio of death (1.37, SE = .128) with each additional hospitalist involved in a patient's care while adjusting for year and number of patient diagnoses (P < .001). There was no statistical difference in charges, 30-day readmissions, or mortality between years.