Differences in Primary Care Follow-up After Acute Care Discharge Within and Across Health Systems: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Timely primary care follow-up after acute care discharge may improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether post-discharge follow-up rates differ among patients discharged from hospitals directly affiliated with their primary care clinic (same-site), other hospitals within their health system (same-system), and hospitals outside their health system (outside-system). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Adult patients of five primary care clinics within a 14-hospital health system who were discharged home after a hospitalization or emergency department (ED) stay. MAIN MEASURES: Primary care visit within 14 days of discharge. A multivariable Poisson regression model was used to estimate adjusted rate ratios (aRRs) and risk differences (aRDs), controlling for sociodemographics, acute visit characteristics, and clinic characteristics. KEY RESULTS: The study included 14,310 discharges (mean age 58.4 [SD 19.0], 59.5% female, 59.5% White, 30.3% Black), of which 57.7% were from the same-site, 14.3% same-system, and 27.9% outside-system. By 14 days, 34.5% of patients discharged from the same-site hospital received primary care follow-up compared to 27.7% of same-system discharges (aRR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98; aRD - 6.5 percentage points (pp), 95% CI - 11.6 to - 1.5) and 20.9% of outside-system discharges (aRR 0.77, 95% CI [0.70 to 0.85]; aRD - 11.9 pp, 95% CI - 16.2 to - 7.7). Differences were greater for hospital discharges than ED discharges (e.g., aRD between same-site and outside-system - 13.5 pp [95% CI, - 20.8 to - 8.3] for hospital discharges and - 10.1 pp [95% CI, - 15.2 to - 5.0] for ED discharges). CONCLUSIONS: Patients discharged from a hospital closely affiliated with their primary care clinic were more likely to receive timely follow-up than those discharged from other hospitals within and outside their health system. Improving care transitions requires coordination across both care settings and health systems.

Associations of Internal Medicine Residency Milestone Ratings and Certification Examination Scores With Patient Outcomes.

Importance: Despite its importance to medical education and competency assessment for internal medicine trainees, evidence about the relationship between physicians' milestone residency ratings or the American Board of Internal Medicine's initial certification examination and their hospitalized patients' outcomes is sparse. Objective: To examine the association between physicians' milestone ratings and certification examination scores and hospital outcomes for their patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort analyses of 6898 hospitalists completing training in 2016 to 2018 and caring for Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries during hospitalizations in 2017 to 2019 at US hospitals. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome measures included 7-day mortality and readmission rates. Thirty-day mortality and readmission rates, length of stay, and subspecialist consultation frequency were also assessed. Analyses accounted for hospital fixed effects and adjusted for patient characteristics, physician years of experience, and year. Exposures: Certification examination score quartile and milestone ratings, including an overall core competency rating measure equaling the mean of the end of residency milestone subcompetency ratings categorized as low, medium, or high, and a knowledge core competency measure categorized similarly. Results: Among 455 120 hospitalizations, median patient age was 79 years (IQR, 73-86 years), 56.5% of patients were female, 1.9% were Asian, 9.8% were Black, 4.6% were Hispanic, and 81.9% were White. The 7-day mortality and readmission rates were 3.5% (95% CI, 3.4%-3.6%) and 5.6% (95% CI, 5.5%-5.6%), respectively, and were 8.8% (95% CI, 8.7%-8.9%) and 16.6% (95% CI, 16.5%-16.7%) for mortality and readmission at 30 days. Mean length of stay and number of specialty consultations were 3.6 days (95% CI, 3.6-3.6 days) and 1.01 (95% CI, 1.00-1.03), respectively. A high vs low overall or knowledge milestone core competency rating was associated with none of the outcome measures assessed. For example, a high vs low overall core competency rating was associated with a nonsignificant 2.7% increase in 7-day mortality rates (95% CI, -5.2% to 10.6%; P = .51). In contrast, top vs bottom examination score quartile was associated with a significant 8.0% reduction in 7-day mortality rates (95% CI, -13.0% to -3.1%; P = .002) and a 9.3% reduction in 7-day readmission rates (95% CI, -13.0% to -5.7%; P < .001). For 30-day mortality, this association was -3.5% (95% CI, -6.7% to -0.4%; P = .03). Top vs bottom examination score quartile was associated with 2.4% more consultations (95% CI, 0.8%-3.9%; P < .003) but was not associated with length of stay or 30-day readmission rates. Conclusions and Relevance: Among newly trained hospitalists, certification examination score, but not residency milestone ratings, was associated with improved outcomes among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.

Associations Between Organizational Communication and Patients' Experience of Prolonged Emotional Impact Following Medical Errors.

BACKGROUND: The emotional impact of medical errors on patients may be long-lasting. Factors associated with prolonged emotional impacts are poorly understood. METHODS: The authors conducted a subanalysis of a 2017 survey (response rate 36.8% [2,536/6,891]) of US adults to assess emotional impact of medical error. Patients reporting a medical error were included if the error occurred ≥ 1 year prior. Duration of emotional impact was categorized into no/short-term impact (impact lasting < 1 month), prolonged impact (> 1 month), and especially prolonged impact (> 1 year). Based on their reported experience with communication about the error, patients' experience was categorized as consistent with national disclosure guidelines, contrary to guidelines, mixed, or neither. Multinomial regression was used to examine associations between patient factors, event characteristics, and organizational communication with prolonged emotional impact (> 1 month, > 1 year). RESULTS: Of all survey respondents, 17.8% (451/2,536) reported an error occurring ≥ 1 year prior. Of these, 51.2% (231/451) reported prolonged/especially prolonged emotional impact (30.8% prolonged, 20.4% especially prolonged). Factors associated with prolonged emotional impact included female gender (adjusted odds ratio 2.1 [95% confidence interval 1.5-2.9]); low socioeconomic status (SES; 1.7 [1.1-2.7]); physical impact (7.3 [4.3-12.3]); no organizational disclosure and no patient/family error reporting (1.5 [1.03-2.3]); communication contrary to guidelines (4.0 [2.1-7.5]); and mixed communication (2.2 [1.3-3.7]). The same factors were significantly associated with especially prolonged emotional impact (female, 1.7 [1.2-2.5]; low SES, 2.2 [1.3-3.6]; physical impact, 6.8 [3.8-12.5]; no disclosure/reporting, 1.9 [1.2-3.2]; communication contrary to guidelines, 4.6 [2.2-9.4]; mixed communication, 2.1 [1.1-3.9]). CONCLUSION: Prolonged emotional impact affected more than half of Americans self-reporting a medical error. Organizational failure to communicate according to disclosure guidelines after patient-perceived errors may exacerbate harm, particularly for patients at risk of health care disparities.

Opioid Administration Practice Patterns in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure Who Undergo Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

IMPORTANCE: The opioid crisis is impacting people across the country and deserves attention to be able to curb the rise in opioid-related deaths. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate practice patterns in opioid infusion administration and dosing for patients with acute respiratory failure receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients from 21 hospitals in Kaiser Permanente Northern California and 96 hospitals in Philips electronic ICU Research Institute. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: We assessed whether patients received opioid infusion and the dose of said opioid infusion. RESULTS: We identified patients with a diagnosis of acute respiratory failure who were initiated on invasive mechanical ventilation. From each patient, we determined if opioid infusions were administered and, among those who received an opioid infusion, the median daily dose of fentanyl infusion. We used hierarchical regression models to quantify variation in opioid infusion use and the median daily dose of fentanyl equivalents across hospitals. We included 13,140 patients in the KPNC cohort and 52,033 patients in the eRI cohort. A total of 7,023 (53.4%) and 16,311 (31.1%) patients received an opioid infusion in the first 21 days of mechanical ventilation in the KPNC and eRI cohorts, respectively. After accounting for patient- and hospital-level fixed effects, the hospital that a patient was admitted to explained 7% (95% CI, 3-11%) and 39% (95% CI, 28-49%) of the variation in opioid infusion use in the KPNC and eRI cohorts, respectively. Among patients who received an opioid infusion, the median daily fentanyl equivalent dose was 692 µg (interquartile range [IQR], 129-1341 µg) in the KPNC cohort and 200 µg (IQR, 0-1050 µg) in the eRI cohort. Hospital explained 4% (95% CI, 1-7%) and 20% (95% CI, 15-26%) of the variation in median daily fentanyl equivalent dose in the KPNC and eRI cohorts, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the context of efforts to limit healthcare-associated opioid exposure, our findings highlight the considerable opioid exposure that accompanies mechanical ventilation and suggest potential under and over-treatment with analgesia. Our results facilitate benchmarking of hospitals' analgesia practices against risk-adjusted averages and can be used to inform usual care control arms of analgesia and sedation clinical trials.