Interactive Digital Health Tools to Engage Patients and Caregivers in Discharge Preparation: Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Poor discharge preparation during hospitalization may lead to adverse events after discharge. Checklists and videos that systematically engage patients in preparing for discharge have the potential to improve safety, especially when integrated into clinician workflow via the electronic health record (EHR). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the implementation of a suite of digital health tools integrated with the EHR to engage hospitalized patients, caregivers, and their care team in preparing for discharge. METHODS: We used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to identify pertinent research questions related to implementation. We iteratively refined patient and clinician-facing intervention components using a participatory process involving end users and institutional stakeholders. The intervention was implemented at a large academic medical center from December 2017 to July 2018. Patients who agreed to participate were coached to watch a discharge video, complete a checklist assessing discharge readiness, and request postdischarge text messaging with a physician 24 to 48 hours before their expected discharge date, which was displayed via a patient portal and bedside display. Clinicians could view concerns reported by patients based on their checklist responses in real time via a safety dashboard integrated with the EHR and choose to open a secure messaging thread with the patient for up to 7 days after discharge. We used mixed methods to evaluate our implementation experience. RESULTS: Of 752 patient admissions, 510 (67.8%) patients or caregivers participated: 416 (55.3%) watched the video and completed the checklist, and 94 (12.5%) completed the checklist alone. On average, 4.24 concerns were reported per each of the 510 checklist submissions, most commonly about medications (664/2164, 30.7%) and follow-up (656/2164, 30.3%). Of the 510 completed checklists, a member of the care team accessed the safety dashboard to view 210 (41.2%) patient-reported concerns. For 422 patient admissions where postdischarge messaging was available, 141 (33.4%) patients requested this service; of these, a physician initiated secure messaging for 3 (2.1%) discharges. Most patient survey participants perceived that the intervention promoted self-management and communication with their care team. Patient interview participants endorsed gaps in communication with their care team and thought that the video and checklist would be useful closer toward discharge. Clinicians participating in focus groups perceived the value for patients but suggested that low awareness and variable workflow regarding the intervention, lack of technical optimization, and inconsistent clinician leadership limited the use of clinician-facing components. CONCLUSIONS: A suite of EHR-integrated digital health tools to engage patients, caregivers, and clinicians in discharge preparation during hospitalization was feasible, acceptable, and valuable; however, important challenges were identified during implementation. We offer strategies to address implementation barriers and promote adoption of these tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03116074; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03116074.

Design of MARQUIS2: study protocol for a mentored implementation study of an evidence-based toolkit to improve patient safety through medication reconciliation.

BACKGROUND: The first Multi-center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS1) demonstrated that implementation of a medication reconciliation best practices toolkit decreased total unintentional medication discrepancies in five hospitals. We sought to implement the MARQUIS toolkit in more diverse hospitals, incorporating lessons learned from MARQUIS1. METHODS: MARQUIS2 is a pragmatic, mentored implementation QI study which collected clinical and implementation outcomes. Sites implemented a revised toolkit, which included interventions from these domains: 1) best possible medication history (BPMH)-taking; 2) discharge medication reconciliation and patient/caregiver counseling; 3) identifying and defining clinician roles and responsibilities; 4) risk stratification; 5) health information technology improvements; 6) improved access to medication sources; 7) identification and correction of real-time discrepancies; and, 8) stakeholder engagement. Eight hospitalists mentored the sites via one site visit and monthly phone calls over the 18-month intervention period. Each site's local QI team assessed opportunities to improve, implemented at least one of the 17 toolkit components, and accessed a variety of resources (e.g. implementation manual, webinars, and workshops). Outcomes to be assessed will include unintentional medication discrepancies per patient. DISCUSSION: A mentored multi-center medication reconciliation QI initiative using a best practices toolkit was successfully implemented across 18 medical centers. The 18 participating sites varied in size, teaching status, location, and electronic health record (EHR) platform. We introduce barriers to implementation and lessons learned from MARQUIS1, such as the importance of utilizing dedicated, trained medication history takers, simple EHR solutions, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and the input of patients and families when improving medication reconciliation.

Acute Care Patient Portal Intervention: Portal Use and Patient Activation.

BACKGROUND: Patient-facing health information technology (HIT) tools, such as patient portals, are recognized as a potential mechanism to facilitate patient engagement and patient-centered care, yet the use of these tools remains limited in the hospital setting. Although research in this area is growing, it is unclear how the use of acute care patient portals might affect outcomes, such as patient activation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the use of an acute care patient portal and investigate its association with patient and care partner activation in the hospital setting. METHODS: We implemented an acute care patient portal on 6 acute care units over an 18-month period. We investigated the characteristics of the users (patients and their care partners) of the patient portal, as well as their use of the portal. This included the number of visits to each page, the number of days used, the length of the user's access period, and the average percent of days used during the access period. Patient and care partner activation was assessed using the short form of the patient activation measure (PAM-13) and the caregiver patient activation measure (CG-PAM). Comparisons of the activation scores were performed using propensity weighting and robust weighted linear regression. RESULTS: Of the 2974 randomly sampled patients, 59.01% (1755/2974) agreed to use the acute care patient portal. Acute care patient portal enrollees were younger, less sick, less likely to have Medicare as their insurer, and more likely to use the Partners Healthcare enterprise ambulatory patient portal (Patient Gateway). The most used features of the acute care patient portal were the laboratory test results, care team information, and medication list. Most users accessed the portal between 1 to 4 days during their hospitalization, and the average number of days used (logged in at least once per day) was 1.8 days. On average, users accessed the portal 42.69% of the hospital days during which it was available. There was significant association with patient activation on the neurology service (P<.001) and medicine service (P=.01), after the introduction of HIT tools and the acute care patient portal, but not on the oncology service. CONCLUSIONS: Portal users most often accessed the portal to view their clinical information, though portal usage was limited to only the first few days of enrollment. We found an association between the use of the portal and HIT tools with improved levels of patient activation. These tools may help facilitate patient engagement and improve outcomes when fully utilized by patients and care partners. Future study should leverage usage metrics to describe portal use and assess the impact of HIT tools on specific outcome measures in the hospital setting.

Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program.

BACKGROUND: Miscommunications are a leading cause of serious medical errors. Data from multicenter studies assessing programs designed to improve handoff of information about patient care are lacking. METHODS: We conducted a prospective intervention study of a resident handoff-improvement program in nine hospitals, measuring rates of medical errors, preventable adverse events, and miscommunications, as well as resident workflow. The intervention included a mnemonic to standardize oral and written handoffs, handoff and communication training, a faculty development and observation program, and a sustainability campaign. Error rates were measured through active surveillance. Handoffs were assessed by means of evaluation of printed handoff documents and audio recordings. Workflow was assessed through time-motion observations. The primary outcome had two components: medical errors and preventable adverse events. RESULTS: In 10,740 patient admissions, the medical-error rate decreased by 23% from the preintervention period to the postintervention period (24.5 vs. 18.8 per 100 admissions, P<0.001), and the rate of preventable adverse events decreased by 30% (4.7 vs. 3.3 events per 100 admissions, P<0.001). The rate of nonpreventable adverse events did not change significantly (3.0 and 2.8 events per 100 admissions, P=0.79). Site-level analyses showed significant error reductions at six of nine sites. Across sites, significant increases were observed in the inclusion of all prespecified key elements in written documents and oral communication during handoff (nine written and five oral elements; P<0.001 for all 14 comparisons). There were no significant changes from the preintervention period to the postintervention period in the duration of oral handoffs (2.4 and 2.5 minutes per patient, respectively; P=0.55) or in resident workflow, including patient-family contact and computer time. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the handoff program was associated with reductions in medical errors and in preventable adverse events and with improvements in communication, without a negative effect on workflow. (Funded by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and others.).

Prospective Evaluation of a Multifaceted Intervention to Improve Outcomes in Intensive Care: The Promoting Respect and Ongoing Safety Through Patient Engagement Communication and Technology Study.

OBJECTIVES: Studies comprehensively assessing interventions to improve team communication and to engage patients and care partners in ICUs are lacking. This study examines the effectiveness of a patient-centered care and engagement program in the medical ICU. DESIGN: Prospective intervention study. SETTING: Medical ICUs at large tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Two thousand one hundred five patient admissions (1,030 before and 1,075 during the intervention) from July 2013 to May 2014 and July 2014 to May 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Structured patient-centered care and engagement training program and web-based technology including ICU safety checklist, tools to develop shared care plan, and messaging platform. Patient and care partner access to online portal to view health information, participate in the care plan, and communicate with providers. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was aggregate adverse event rate. Secondary outcomes included patient and care partner satisfaction, care plan concordance, and resource utilization. We included 2,105 patient admissions, (1,030 baseline and 1,075 during intervention periods). The aggregate rate of adverse events fell 29%, from 59.0 per 1,000 patient days (95% CI, 51.8-67.2) to 41.9 per 1,000 patient days (95% CI, 36.3-48.3; p < 0.001), during the intervention period. Satisfaction improved markedly from an overall hospital rating of 71.8 (95% CI, 61.1-82.6) to 93.3 (95% CI, 88.2-98.4; p < 0.001) for patients and from 84.3 (95% CI, 81.3-87.3) to 90.0 (95% CI, 88.1-91.9; p < 0.001) for care partners. No change in care plan concordance or resource utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a structured team communication and patient engagement program in the ICU was associated with a reduction in adverse events and improved patient and care partner satisfaction.

Randomized Trial of Reducing Ambulatory Malpractice and Safety Risk: Results of the Massachusetts PROMISES Project.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate application of quality improvement approaches to key ambulatory malpractice risk and safety areas. STUDY SETTING: In total, 25 small-to-medium-sized primary care practices (16 intervention; 9 control) in Massachusetts. STUDY DESIGN: Controlled trial of a 15-month intervention including exposure to a learning network, webinars, face-to-face meetings, and coaching by improvement advisors targeting "3+1" high-risk domains: test result, referral, and medication management plus culture/communication issues evaluated by survey and chart review tools. DATA COLLECTION METHODS: Chart reviews conducted at baseline and postintervention for intervention sites. Staff and patient survey data collected at baseline and postintervention for intervention and control sites. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Chart reviews demonstrated significant improvements in documentation of abnormal results, patient notification, documentation of an action or treatment plan, and evidence of a completed plan (all P<0.001). Mean days between laboratory test date and evidence of completed action/treatment plan decreased by 19.4 days (P<0.001). Staff surveys showed modest but nonsignificant improvement for intervention practices relative to controls overall and for the 3 high-risk domains that were the focus of PROMISES. CONCLUSIONS: A consortium of stakeholders, quality improvement tools, coaches, and learning network decreased selected ambulatory safety risks often seen in malpractice claims.

Evaluating ambulatory practice safety: the PROMISES project administrators and practice staff surveys.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory practices deliver most health care services and contribute to malpractice risk. Yet, policymakers and practitioners often lack information about safety and malpractice risk needed to guide improvement. OBJECTIVE: To assess staff and administrator perceptions of safety and malpractice risk in ambulatory settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: We administered surveys in small-sized to medium-sized primary care practices in Massachusetts as part of a randomized controlled trial to reduce ambulatory malpractice risk. SUBJECTS: Twenty-five office practice managers/administrators and 482 staff, including [physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners (MD/PA/NPs)], nurses, other clinicians, managers, and administrators. MEASURES: Surveys included structured questions about 3 high-risk clinical domains: referral, test result, and medication management, plus communication with patients and among staff. The 30-item administrator survey evaluated the presence of organizational safety structures and processes; the 63-item staff survey queried safety and communication concerns. RESULTS: Twenty-two administrators (88%) and 292 staff (61%) responded. Administrators frequently reported important safety systems and processes were absent. Suboptimal or incomplete implementation of referral and test result management systems related to staff perceptions of their quality (P<0.05). Staff perceptions of suboptimal processes correlated with their concern about practice vulnerability to malpractice suits (P<0.05). Staff was least positive about referral management system safety, talking openly about safety problems, willingness to report mistakes, and feeling rushed. MD/PA/NPs viewed high-risk system reliability more negatively (P<0.0001) and teamwork more positively (P<0.03) than others. CONCLUSIONS: Results show opportunities for improvement in closing informational loops and establishing more reliable systems and environments where staff feels respected and safe speaking up. Initiatives to transform primary care should emphasize improving communication among facilities and practitioners.

The Association of Standardized Documentation of Serious Illness Conversations With Healthcare Utilization in Hospitalized Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Cohort Analysis.

Background: Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) conducted during hospitalization can lead to meaningful patient participation in the decision-making process affecting medical management. The aim of this study is to determine if standardized documentation of a SIC within an institutionally approved EHR module during hospitalization is associated with palliative care consultation, change in code status, hospice enrollment prior to discharge, and 90-day readmissions. Methods: We conducted retrospective analyses of hospital encounters of general medicine patients at a community teaching hospital affiliated with an academic medical center from October 2018 to August 2019. Encounters with standardized documentation of a SIC were identified and matched by propensity score to control encounters without a SIC in a ratio of 1:3. We used multivariable, paired logistic regression and Cox proportional-hazards modeling to assess key outcomes. Results: Of 6853 encounters (5143 patients), 59 (.86%) encounters (59 patients) had standardized documentation of a SIC, and 58 (.85%) were matched to 167 control encounters (167 patients). Encounters with standardized documentation of a SIC had greater odds of palliative care consultation (odds ratio [OR] 60.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 12.45-290.08, P < .01), a documented code status change (OR 8.04, 95% CI 1.54-42.05, P = .01), and discharge with hospice services (OR 35.07, 95% CI 5.80-212.08, P < .01) compared to matched controls. There was no significant association with 90-day readmissions (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] .88, standard error [SE] .37, P = .73). Conclusions: Standardized documentation of a SIC during hospitalization is associated with palliative care consultation, change in code status, and hospice enrollment.

Intravenous Medication Administration Safety with Smart Infusion Pumps in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: An Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Infants in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) are among the most vulnerable patient populations and medication errors are a significant source of risk and harm to neonates. Smart infusion pumps have been implemented to support the safe medication administration process; however, the effect of using smart infusion pumps on medication safety in the NICU is still unclear. METHODS: We conducted an observational study with a prospective point-prevalence approach to investigate intravenous (IV) medication administration errors in the NICU at one academic medical center in the USA. Observations were conducted in 48 days in a 3-month data collection period in 2019. RESULTS: We observed a total of 441 patients with 905 IV medication administrations during the data collection period. The total number of errors was 130 (14.4 per 100 administrations). Of these, the most frequent errors were selecting the wrong drug library entry (5.3 per 100 administrations), unauthorized medication (0.7 per 100 administrations), and wrong dose (0.6 per 100 administrations). Sixty-eight errors (7.5 per 100 administrations) were unlikely to cause harm despite reaching the patient (category C errors), while the rest did not reach the patient. CONCLUSION: We identified the medication errors, which was unique to NICU populations, but no harm to the patients were identified. Most errors occurred due to a lack of compliance of using smart pump technology; therefore, potential exists to maximize safety related to medication administration practices in the NICU through hospital policy change and increasing adherence to appropriate use of smart pump technology.

A Mixed Methods Analysis of Standardized Documentation of Serious Illness Conversations Within an Electronic Health Record Module During Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of documented Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) in the inpatient setting can help clinicians align management to address patient and caregiver needs. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods analysis of the first instance of standardized documentation of a SIC within a structured module among hospitalized general medicine patients from 2018 to 2019. Percentage of documentations that included a description of patient or family understanding of the patient's medical condition and use of radio buttons to answer the "prognostic information shared," "hopes," and "worries" modules are reported. Using grounded theory approach, physicians analyzed free text entries to: "What is important to the patient/family?" and "Recommendations or next steps planned." RESULTS: Out of 5142 patients, 59 patients had a documented SIC. Patient or family understanding of the medical condition(s) was reported in 56 (95%). For "prognostic information shared," the most frequently selected radio buttons were: 49 (83%) incurable disease and 28 (48%) prognosis of weeks to months while those for "hopes" were: 52 (88%) be comfortable and 27 (46%) be at home and for "worries" were: 49 (83%) other physical suffering and 36 (61%) pain. Themes generated from entries to "What's important to patient/family?" included being with loved ones; comfort; mentally and physically present; and reliable care while those for "Recommendations" were coordinating support services; symptom management; and support and communication. CONCLUSIONS: SIC content indicated concern about pain and reliable care suggesting the complex, intensive nature of caring for seriously ill patients and the need to consider SICs earlier in the life course of patients.

Investigating racial and ethnic disparities in interhospital transfer within an academic integrated healthcare system: A matched cohort study.

The presence of racial and ethnic disparities in interhospital transfer (IHT) within integrated healthcare systems has not been fully explored. We matched Black and Latinx patients admitted to community hospitals in our integrated healthcare system between June 2015 and December 2019 to White patients by origin hospital, age, time of year, and disease severity. We performed conditional logistic regression models to determine if race or ethnicity was associated with IHT in one of the tertiary academic medical centers in the system, adjusting for covariates. The sample contained 107,895 admissions (82.6% White, 7.8% Black, and 9.6% Latinx). Transfer rates were 2.2% versus 2.2% after the Black/White match and 1.8% versus 1.8% after the Latinx/White match. After adjusting for covariates, there was no association between race or ethnicity and IHT (Black vs. White odds ratio [OR]: 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-1.07; Latinx vs. White OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 0.79-1.40). This may be due to reduced barriers to transfer with an integrated healthcare system.

Effect of bar-code technology on the safety of medication administration.

BACKGROUND: Serious medication errors are common in hospitals and often occur during order transcription or administration of medication. To help prevent such errors, technology has been developed to verify medications by incorporating bar-code verification technology within an electronic medication-administration system (bar-code eMAR). METHODS: We conducted a before-and-after, quasi-experimental study in an academic medical center that was implementing the bar-code eMAR. We assessed rates of errors in order transcription and medication administration on units before and after implementation of the bar-code eMAR. Errors that involved early or late administration of medications were classified as timing errors and all others as nontiming errors. Two clinicians reviewed the errors to determine their potential to harm patients and classified those that could be harmful as potential adverse drug events. RESULTS: We observed 14,041 medication administrations and reviewed 3082 order transcriptions. Observers noted 776 nontiming errors in medication administration on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR (an 11.5% error rate) versus 495 such errors on units that did use it (a 6.8% error rate)--a 41.4% relative reduction in errors (P<0.001). The rate of potential adverse drug events (other than those associated with timing errors) fell from 3.1% without the use of the bar-code eMAR to 1.6% with its use, representing a 50.8% relative reduction (P<0.001). The rate of timing errors in medication administration fell by 27.3% (P<0.001), but the rate of potential adverse drug events associated with timing errors did not change significantly. Transcription errors occurred at a rate of 6.1% on units that did not use the bar-code eMAR but were completely eliminated on units that did use it. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the bar-code eMAR substantially reduced the rate of errors in order transcription and in medication administration as well as potential adverse drug events, although it did not eliminate such errors. Our data show that the bar-code eMAR is an important intervention to improve medication safety. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00243373.)

Return on investment for vendor computerized physician order entry in four community hospitals: the importance of decision support.

BACKGROUND: In-hospital adverse events are a major cause of morbidity and mortality and represent a major cost burden to health care systems. A study was conducted to evaluate the return on investment (ROI) for the adoption of vendor-developed computerized physician oder entry (CPOE) systems in four community hospitals in Massachusetts. METHODS: Of the four hospitals, two were under one management structure and implemented the same vendor-developed CPOE system (Hospital Group A), while the other two were under a second management structure and implemented another vendor-developed CPOE system (Hospital Group B). Cost savings were calculated on the basis of reduction in preventable adverse drug event (ADE) rates as measured previously. ROI, net cash flow, and the breakeven point during a 10-year cost-and-benefit model were calculated. At the time of the study, none of the participating hospitals had implemented more than a rudimentary decision support system together with CPOE. RESULTS: Implementation costs were lower for Hospital Group A than B ($7,130,894 total or $83/admission versus $19,293,379 total or $113/admission, respectively), as were preventable ADE-related avoided costs ($7,937,651 and $16,557,056, respectively). A cost-benefit analysis demonstrated that Hospital Group A had an ROI of 11.3%, breaking even on the investment eight years following implementation. Hospital Group B showed a negative return, with an ROI of -3.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of vendor CPOE systems in community hospitals was associated with a modest ROI at best when applying cost savings attributable to prevention of ADEs only. The modest financial returns can beattributed to the lack of clinical decision support tools.

Rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events among hospitalized children following implementation of a resident handoff bundle.

IMPORTANCE: Handoff miscommunications are a leading cause of medical errors. Studies comprehensively assessing handoff improvement programs are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether introduction of a multifaceted handoff program was associated with reduced rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events, fewer omissions of key data in written handoffs, improved verbal handoffs, and changes in resident-physician workflow. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective intervention study of 1255 patient admissions (642 before and 613 after the intervention) involving 84 resident physicians (42 before and 42 after the intervention) from July-September 2009 and November 2009-January 2010 on 2 inpatient units at Boston Children's Hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Resident handoff bundle, consisting of standardized communication and handoff training, a verbal mnemonic, and a new team handoff structure. On one unit, a computerized handoff tool linked to the electronic medical record was introduced. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were the rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events measured by daily systematic surveillance. The secondary outcomes were omissions in the printed handoff document and resident time-motion activity. RESULTS: Medical errors decreased from 33.8 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 27.3-40.3) to 18.3 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 14.7-21.9; P < .001), and preventable adverse events decreased from 3.3 per 100 admissions (95% CI, 1.7-4.8) to 1.5 (95% CI, 0.51-2.4) per 100 admissions (P = .04) following the intervention. There were fewer omissions of key handoff elements on printed handoff documents, especially on the unit that received the computerized handoff tool (significant reductions of omissions in 11 of 14 categories with computerized tool; significant reductions in 2 of 14 categories without computerized tool). Physicians spent a greater percentage of time in a 24-hour period at the patient bedside after the intervention (8.3%; 95% CI 7.1%-9.8%) vs 10.6% (95% CI, 9.2%-12.2%; P = .03). The average duration of verbal handoffs per patient did not change. Verbal handoffs were more likely to occur in a quiet location (33.3%; 95% CI, 14.5%-52.2% vs 67.9%; 95% CI, 50.6%-85.2%; P = .03) and private location (50.0%; 95% CI, 30%-70% vs 85.7%; 95% CI, 72.8%-98.7%; P = .007) after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Implementation of a handoff bundle was associated with a significant reduction in medical errors and preventable adverse events among hospitalized children. Improvements in verbal and written handoff processes occurred, and resident workflow did not change adversely.

Who Gets (and Who Should Get) a Serious Illness Conversation in the Hospital? An Analysis of Readmission Risk Score in an Electronic Health Record.

Serious Illness Conversations (SICs) explore patients' prognostic awareness, hopes, and worries, and can help establish priorities for their care during and after hospitalization. While identifying patients who benefit from an SIC remains a challenge, this task may be facilitated by use of validated prediction scores available in most commercial electronic health records (EHRs), such as Epic's Readmission Risk Score (RRS). We identified the RRS on admission for all hospital encounters from October 2018 to August 2019 and measured the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve to determine whether RRS could accurately discriminate post discharge 6-month mortality. For encounters with standardized SIC documentation matched in a 1:3 ratio to controls by sex and age (±5 years), we constructed a multivariable, paired logistic regression model and measured the odds of SIC documentation per every 10% absolute increase in RRS. RRS was predictive of 6-month mortality with acceptable discrimination (AUROC .71) and was significantly associated with SIC documentation (adjusted OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.24-1.63). An RRS >28% used to identify patients with post discharge 6-month mortality had a high specificity (89.0%) and negative predictive value (NPV) (97.0%), but low sensitivity (25.2%) and positive predictive value (PPV) (7.9%). RRS may serve as a practical EHR-based screen to exclude patients not requiring an SIC, thereby leaving a smaller cohort to be further evaluated for SIC needs using other validated tools and clinical assessment.

What works in medication reconciliation: an on-treatment and site analysis of the MARQUIS2 study.

BACKGROUND: The second Multicenter Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study demonstrated a marked reduction in medication discrepancies per patient. The aim of the current analysis was to determine the association of patient exposure to each system-level intervention and receipt of each patient-level intervention on these results. METHODS: This study was conducted at 17 North American Hospitals, the study period was 18 months per site, and sites typically adopted interventions after 2-5 months of preintervention data collection. We conducted an on-treatment analysis (ie, an evaluation of outcomes based on patient exposure) of system-level interventions, both at the category level and at the individual component level, based on monthly surveys of implementation site leads at each site (response rate 65%). We then conducted a similar analysis of patient-level interventions, as determined by study pharmacist review of documented activities in the medical record. We analysed the association of each intervention on the adjusted number of medication discrepancies per patient in admission and discharge orders, based on a random sample of up to 22 patients per month per site, using mixed-effects Poisson regression with hospital site as a random effect. We then used a generalised linear mixed-effects model (GLMM) decision tree to determine which patient-level interventions explained the most variance in discrepancy rates. RESULTS: Among 4947 patients, patient exposure to seven of the eight system-level component categories was associated with modest but significant reductions in discrepancy rates (adjusted rate ratios (ARR) 0.75-0.97), as were 15 of the 17 individual system-level intervention components, including hiring, reallocating and training personnel to take a best possible medication history (BPMH) and training personnel to perform discharge medication reconciliation and patient counselling. Receipt of five of seven patient-level interventions was independently associated with large reductions in discrepancy rates, including receipt of a BPMH in the emergency department (ED) by a trained clinician (ARR 0.40, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.43), admission medication reconciliation by a trained clinician (ARR 0.57, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.64) and discharge medication reconciliation by a trained clinician (ARR 0.64, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.73). In GLMM decision tree analyses, patients who received both a BPMH in the ED and discharge medication reconciliation by a trained clinician experienced the lowest discrepancy rates (0.08 per medication per patient). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Patient-level interventions most associated with reductions in discrepancies were receipt of a BPMH of admitted patients in the ED and admission and discharge medication reconciliation by a trained clinician. System-level interventions were associated with modest reduction in discrepancies for the average patient but are likely important to support patient-level interventions and may reach more patients. These findings can be used to help hospitals and health systems prioritise interventions to improve medication safety during care transitions.

Impact of vendor computerized physician order entry in community hospitals.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain if computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems are effective at reducing adverse drug event (ADE) rates in community hospitals, where mainly vendor-developed applications are used. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of vendor CPOE systems on the frequency of ADEs. DESIGN AND PATIENTS: Prospective before-and-after study conducted from January 2005 to September 2010 at five Massachusetts community hospitals. Participants were adults admitted during the study period. A total of 2,000 charts were reviewed for orders, medication lists, laboratory reports, admission histories, notes, discharge summaries, and flow sheets. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the rate of preventable ADEs. Rates of potential ADEs and overall ADEs were secondary outcomes. KEY RESULTS: The rate of preventable ADEs decreased following implementation (10.6/100 vs. 7.0/100 admissions; p = 0.007) with a similar effect observed at each site. However, the associated decrease in preventable ADEs was balanced against an increase in potential ADEs (44.4/100 vs. 57.5/100 admissions; p < 0.001). We observed a reduction of 34.0% for preventable ADEs, but an increase of 29.5% in potential ADEs following implementation. The overall rate of ADEs increased (14.6/100 vs. 18.7/100 admissions; p = 0.03), which was driven by non-preventable events (4.0/100 vs. 11.7/100 admissions; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of vendor CPOE systems was associated with a decrease in the preventable ADE rate by a third, although the rates of potential ADEs and overall ADEs increased. Our findings support the use of vendor CPOE systems as a means to reduce drug-related injury and harm. The potential ADE rate could be reduced by making refinements to the vendor applications and their associated decision support.

The costs of adverse drug events in community hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Adverse drug events (ADEs) occur often in hospitals, causing high morbidity and a longer length of stay (LOS), and are costly. However, most studies on the impact of ADEs have been conducted in tertiary referral centers, which are systematically different than community hospitals, where the bulk of care is delivered, and most available data about ADE costs in any setting are dated. Costs in community settings are generally lower than in academic hospitals, and the costs of ADEs might be as well. To assess the additional costs and LOS associated with patients with ADEs, a multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted in six community hospitals with 100 to 300 beds in Massachusetts during a 20-month observation period (January 2005-August 2006). METHODS: A random sample of 2,100 patients (350 patients per study site) was drawn from a pool of 109,641 patients treated within the 20-month observation period. Unadjusted and adjusted cost of ADEs as well as LOS were calculated. RESULTS: ADEs were associated with an increased adjusted cost of $3,420 and an adjusted increase in length of stay (LOS) of 3.15 days. For preventable ADEs, the respective figures were +$3,511 and +3.37 days. The severity of the ADE was also associated with higher costs--the costs were +$2,852 for significant ADEs (LOS +2.77 days), +$3,650 for serious ADEs (LOS +3.47 days), and +$8,116 for life-threatening ADEs (LOS +5.54 days, all p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: ADEs in community hospitals cost more than $3,000 dollars on average and an average increase of LOS of 3.1 days--increments that were similar to previous estimates from academic institutions. The LOS increase was actually greater. A number of approaches, including computerized provider order entry and bar coding, have the potential to improve medication safety.

The Impact of Smart Pump Interoperability on Errors in Intravenous Infusion Administrations: A Multihospital Before and After Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the frequency, type, and severity of errors associated with intravenous medication administration before and after smart pump interoperability. METHODS: We conducted an observational study at a community healthcare system before and after implementing smart pump interoperability. Point prevalence methodology was used to collect data on medication administration and errors in adult inpatient settings. RESULTS: Observations were completed for 350 infusions preintervention (178 patients) and 367 postintervention (200 patients). Total errors significantly decreased from 401 (114.6 per 100 infusions) to 354 (96.5 per 100 infusions, P = 0.02). Administration errors decreased from 144 (41.1 per 100 infusions) to 119 (32.4 per 100 infusions, P = 0.12). Expired medication errors significantly reduced from 11 (3.1 per 100 infusions) to 2 (0.5 per 100 infusions, P = 0.02). Errors involving high-risk medications significantly reduced from 45 (12.8 per 100 infusions) to 25 (6.8 per 100 infusions, P = 0.01). Errors involving continuous medications significantly reduced from 44 (12.6 per 100 infusions) to 22 (6.0 per 100 infusions, P = 0.005). When comparing programming type, manual programming resulted in 115 (77.2%) of administration and user documentation errors compared with 34 errors (22.8%) that occurred when autoprogramming was used. Of these, errors involving high-risk medications reduced from 21 (84.0%) to 4 (16.0%) after using autoprogramming. CONCLUSIONS: Smart pump interoperability resulted in a 16% reduction in medication administration errors. Despite using dose error reduction software and autoprogramming, some types of errors persisted. Further studies are needed to understand how technology use can be optimized.

Reducing ICU Utilization, Length of Stay, and Cost by Optimizing the Clinical Use of Continuous Monitoring System Technology in the Hospital.

BACKGROUND: Continuous monitoring system technology (CMST) aids in earlier detection of deterioration of hospitalized patients, but whether improved outcomes are sustainable is unknown. METHODS: This interrupted time series evaluation explored whether optimized clinical use of CMST was associated with sustained improvement in intensive care unit (ICU) utilization, hospital length of stay, cardiac arrest rates, code blue events, mortality, and cost across multiple adult acute care units. RESULTS: A total of 20,320 patients in the postoptimized use cohort compared with 16,781 patients in the preoptimized use cohort had a significantly reduced ICU transfer rate (1.73% vs 2.25%, P = .026) corresponding to 367.11 ICU days saved over a 2-year period, generating an estimated cost savings of more than $2.3 million. Among patients who transferred to the ICU, hospital length of stay was decreased (8.37 vs 9.64 days, P = .004). Cardiac arrest, code blue, and mortality rates did not differ significantly. CONCLUSION: Opportunities exist to promote optimized adoption and use of CMST at acute care facilities to sustainably improve clinical outcomes and reduce cost.