Rapid Deployment of Multiple Tactics to Address Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Vaccine Uptake in Healthcare Employees With a Focus on Those Who Identify as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color.

BACKGROUND: In the third quarter of 2021, government entities enacted vaccine requirements across multiple employment sectors, including healthcare. Experience from previous vaccination campaigns within healthcare emphasize the need to translate community modalities of vaccine outreach and education that partner with Black communities, Indigenous communities, and communities of Color stakeholders to increase vaccine confidence broadly. METHODS: This was an observational feasibility study conducted from August through October 2021 that deployed and measured the effect of a multimodal approach to increasing vaccine uptake in healthcare employees. Vaccine data were acquired through the Center for Disease Control Immunization Information Systems across Oregon and Washington. Rates of complete vaccination before the intervention were compared with rates after as a measure of feasibility of this intervention. These data were subdivided by race/ethnicity, age, gender, and job class. Complete vaccination was defined as completion of a 2-dose mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine series or a 1-dose adenoviral vector SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. RESULTS: Overall preintervention and postintervention complete vaccination rates were 83.7% and 93.5%, respectively. Of those employees who identified as a certain race, black employees demonstrated the greatest percentage difference increase, 18.5% (preintervention, 72.1%; postintervention, 90.6%), followed by Hispanic employees, 14.1% (preintervention, 79.4%; postintervention, 93.5%), and employees who identify as 2 or more races, 13.9% (preintervention, 78.7%; postintervention, 92.6%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that a multimodal approach to improving vaccination uptake in employees was feasible. For organizations addressing vaccine requirements for their workforce, we recommend a multimodal strategy to increase vaccine confidence and uptake.

Opioid Utilization and Perception of Pain Control in Hospitalized Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study of 11 Sites in 8 Countries.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients are frequently treated with opioids for pain control, and receipt of opioids at hospital discharge may increase the risk of future chronic opioid use. OBJECTIVE: To compare inpatient analgesic prescribing patterns and patients' perception of pain control in the United States and non-US hospitals. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: Four hospitals in the US and seven in seven other countries. PARTICIPANTS: Medical inpatients reporting pain. MEASUREMENTS: Opioid analgesics dispensed during the first 24-36 hours of hospitalization and at discharge; assessments and beliefs about pain. RESULTS: We acquired completed surveys for 981 patients, 503 of 719 patients in the US and 478 of 590 patients in other countries. After adjusting for confounding factors, we found that more US patients were given opioids during their hospitalization compared with patients in other countries, regardless of whether they did or did not report taking opioids prior to admission (92% vs 70% and 71% vs 41%, respectively; P < .05), and similar trends were seen for opioids prescribed at discharge. Patient satisfaction, beliefs, and expectations about pain control differed between patients in the US and other sites. LIMITATIONS: Limited number of sites and patients/country. CONCLUSIONS: In the hospitals we sampled, our data suggest that physicians in the US may prescribe opioids more frequently during patients' hospitalizations and at discharge than their colleagues in other countries, and patients have different beliefs and expectations about pain control. Efforts to curb the opioid epidemic likely need to include addressing inpatient analgesic prescribing practices and patients' expectations regarding pain control.

Gender disparities in leadership and scholarly productivity of academic hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: Gender disparities still exist for women in academic medicine but may be less evident in younger cohorts. Hospital medicine is a new field, and the majority of hospitalists are <41 years of age. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether gender disparities exist in leadership and scholarly productivity for academic hospitalists and to compare the findings to academic general internists. DESIGN: Prospective and retrospective observational study. SETTING: University programs in the United States. MEASUREMENTS: Gender distribution of (1) academic hospitalists and general internists, (2) division or section heads for both specialties, (3) speakers at the 2 major national meetings of the 2 specialties, and (4) first and last authors of articles from the specialties' 2 major journals RESULTS: We found equal gender representation of hospitalists and general internists who worked in university hospitals. Divisions or sections of hospital medicine and general internal medicine were led by women at 11/69 (16%) and 28/80 (35%) of university hospitals, respectively (P = 0.008). Women hospitalists and general internists were listed as speakers on 146/557 (26%) and 291/580 (50%) of the presentations at national meetings, respectively (P < 0.0001), first authors on 153/464 (33%) and 423/895 (47%) publications, respectively (P < 0.0001), and senior authors on 63/305 (21%) and 265/769 (34%) articles, respectively (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite hospital medicine being a newer field, gender disparities exist in leadership and scholarly productivity.

Prospective comparison of curbside versus formal consultations.

BACKGROUND: Curbside consultations are commonly requested during the care of hospitalized patients, but physicians perceive that the recommendations provided may be based on inaccurate or incomplete information. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and completeness of the information received from providers requesting a curbside consultation of hospitalists with that obtained in a formal consultation on the same patients, and to examine whether the recommendations offered in the 2 consultations differed. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: University-affiliated, urban safety net hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of curbside consultations with inaccurate or incomplete information; frequency with which recommendations in the formal consultation differed from those in the curbside consultation. RESULTS: Curbside consultations were requested for 50 patients, 47 of which were also evaluated in a formal consultation performed on the same day by a hospitalist other than the one performing the curbside consultation. Based on information collected in the formal consultation, information was either inaccurate or incomplete in 24/47 (51%) of the curbside consultations. Management advice after formal consultation differed from that given in the curbside consultation for 28/47 patients (60%). When inaccurate or incomplete information was received, the advice provided in the formal versus the curbside consultation differed in 22/24 patients (92%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Information presented during inpatient curbside consultations of hospitalists is often inaccurate or incomplete, and this often results in inaccurate management advice.

Hospitalist-led medicine emergency department team: associations with throughput, timeliness of patient care, and satisfaction.

BACKGROUND: Admitted patients boarding in the emergency department (ED) leads to hospital diversion. Active bed management and care for boarded patients can improve throughput. We developed a hospital medicine ED (HMED) team to participate in active bed management, and to care for boarded patients, to decrease diversion and improve throughput. METHODS: An HMED team was created to participate in active bed management and to care for boarded patients. The HMED team worked with the ED, nursing supervisors, and medical floors to manage inpatient beds. The primary outcome was percentage of hours of diversion attributed to lack of bed capacity. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients discharged within 8 hours of transfer to a medical floor, and the proportion of patients discharged from the ED. Promptness of clinical care was measured by rounding times. Satisfaction was obtained via survey. RESULTS: There was a relative reduction of diversion due to medicine bed capacity of 27% (4.5%-3.3%; P < 0.01), a relative reduction in the percentage of patients transferred to a medicine floor and discharged within 8 hours of 67% (1.5%-0.5%; P < 0.01), and a relative increase in the number of discharges from the ED of admitted medicine patients of 61% (4.9%-7.9%; P < 0.001). Boarded admitted patients were rounded upon 2 hours earlier (P < 0.0001) by the HMED team. Satisfaction with the HMED team was high. CONCLUSION: An HMED team can improve patient flow and decrease ED diversion while providing more timely care to patients boarded in the ED.

Evolving practice of hospital medicine and its impact on hospital throughput and efficiencies.

Hospitalists are uniquely positioned to implement strategies to improve patient flow and efficiency. Hospital leaders have stated they expect hospitalists to comanage surgical patients, participate in observation units, and screen medical admissions, in addition to providing inpatient care for medical patients. We review how the hospitalists' role in acute inpatient care, surgical comanagement, short stay units, chest pain units, and active bed management has improved throughput and patient flow.

Correlation between self-reported resident duty hours and time-stamped parking data.

BACKGROUND: Failure to comply with Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-mandated resident work hour limitations can result in citations and shortened accreditation cycles. Many programs assess compliance by collecting self-reports of work hours from each resident. OBJECTIVES: To examine residents' self-reported assessment of work hours recorded on a daily basis using a Web-based product with electronically recorded times collected as residents entered and exited the parking garage. METHODS: Study participants consisted of 62 University of Colorado Denver internal medicine residents rotating at Denver Health Medical Center on a monthly basis over a 4-month period. Self-reported data submitted by 60 residents were compared with the times these residents entered and exited from the parking garage at Denver Health Medical Center, as assessed by an electronic badge reader. RESULTS: A high level of agreement was found between these two data sets. No significant difference was found between the time-stamped parking data and self-reported Web-based data for resident work hours. CONCLUSIONS: Residents accurately self-reported their work hours, using a daily Web-based duty hours log when compared to an independent, objective and blinded assessment of work hours.