Analysing Monday discharges to identify lost opportunities for weekend discharge.

Lower rates of hospital discharge occur on weekends compared with weekdays. The authors performed a retrospective chart review of Monday discharges from the Hospital Medicine service at an academic hospital over a 3-month period to identify reasons for delayed discharge despite medical stability. Of 202 eligible patients, 81 (40%) had documentation indicating stability for earlier discharge. Common causes included bed availability or insurance authorisation at a skilled nursing facility, home care services and patient/family disagreement with discharge.

Severity of illness and the weekend mortality effect: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Weekend admission to the hospital has been found to be associated with higher in-hospital mortality rates, but the cause for this phenomenon remains controversial. US based studies have been limited in their characterization of the weekend patient population, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the implications of this effect. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study, examining de-identified, patient level data from 2015 to 2017 at US academic medical centers submitting data to the Vizient database, comparing demographic and clinical risk profiles, as well as mortality, cost and length of stay, between weekend and weekday patient populations. Between-group differences in mortality were assessed using the chi-square test for categorical measures and Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous measures. Logistic regression models were used to test the multivariate association of weekend admission and other patient-level factors with death, LOS, etc. RESULTS: We analyzed 10,365,605 adult inpatient encounters. Within the weekend patient population, 30.6% of patients were categorized as having either a major or extreme risk of mortality on admission, as compared to 23.7% on weekdays (p < 0.001). We found a significantly increased unadjusted mortality rate associated with weekend admission (OR 1.46; 95% CI 1.45-1.47) which was substantially attenuated after adjusting for disease severity and other demographic covariates, though remained significant (OR 1.05; 95% CI 1.04-1.06). In the subgroup of non-elective admissions, the unadjusted OR for death was 1.14 (95% CI 1.13-1.15), and the adjusted OR was 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05). Weekend admission was associated with a longer median LOS (4 vs 3 days in the weekday group; p < 0.01), but a lower median cost ($8224 vs $9999 dollars in the weekday group; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The patient population admitted on weekends is proportionally higher risk than the population admitted on weekdays, and the observed weekend mortality effect is largely attributable to this risk imbalance.

Adherence to fluid resuscitation guidelines and outcomes in patients with septic shock: Reassessing the "one-size-fits-all" approach.

OBJECTIVE: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) recommend rapid crystalloid infusion (≥30 mL/kg) for patients with sepsis-induced hypoperfusion or septic shock. We aimed to assess compliance with this recommendation, factors associated with non-compliance, and how compliance relates to mortality. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: 1136-bed academic and 235-bed community hospital (January 2015-June 2016). PATIENTS: Patients with septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Crystalloid infusion (≥30 mL/kg) within 6 h of identification of septic shock as required by CMS. MEASUREMENTS: Associations with compliance and how compliance associates with mortality; odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) reported. MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 1027 septic shock patients were included. Of these, 486 (47.3%) met the 6-hour 30 ml/kg fluid requirement. Compliance was lower in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) (40.9%), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (42.3%) or chronic liver disease (38.5%) and among those that were identified in the inpatient setting (35.4%) rather than in the emergency department (51.7%). When adjusting for relevant covariates, compliance (compared to non-compliance) was not associated with in-hospital mortality: OR 1.03 CI 0.76-1.41. CONCLUSIONS: These findings question a "one-size-fits-all" approach to fluid administration and performance measures for patients with sepsis.

Factors influencing health care workers' adherence to work site tuberculosis screening and treatment policies.

BACKGROUND: Despite the known risk of tuberculosis (TB) to health care workers (HCWs), research suggests that many are not fully adherent with local TB infection control policies. The objective of this exploratory study was to identify factors influencing HCWs' adherence to policies for routine tuberculin skin tests (TSTs) and treatment of latent TB infection (LTBI). METHODS: Sixteen focus groups were conducted with clinical and nonclinical staff at 2 hospitals and 2 health departments. Participants were segmented by adherence to TST or LTBI treatment policies. In-depth, qualitative analysis was conducted to identify facilitators and barriers to adherence. RESULTS: Among all focus groups, common themes included the perception that the TST was mandatory, the belief that conducting TSTs at the work site facilitated adherence, and a general misunderstanding about TB epidemiology and pathogenesis. Adherent groups more commonly mentioned facilitators, such as the perception that periodic tuberculin skin testing was protective and the employee health (EH) provision of support services. Barriers, such as the logistic difficulty in obtaining the TST, the perception that LTBI treatment was harmful, and a distrust of EH, emerged consistently in nonadherent groups. CONCLUSIONS: This information may be used to develop more effective interventions for promoting HCW adherence to TB prevention policies. Informed efforts can be implemented in coordination with reevaluations of infection control and EH programs that may be prompted by the publication of the revised TB infection control guidelines issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2005.

Measuring clinicians' expectations prior to EHR implementation.

To measure user expectations and knowledge of the issues involved in the transition from a paper-based system to an EHR, we created an on-line questionnaire, and invited physicians from several specialties at Beth Israel Medical Center (BIMC) to respond to it. As expected, most participants had positive expectations for the EHR and its features, but respondents were more skeptical of electronic clinical decision support systems (CDSS) than we had expected. The responses of this "EHR-naïve" group of physicians underscore the importance of managing expectations with the implementation of the EHR and of the delicate balance involved in preserving physician independence when proposing a clinical decision support system.