Assessing health care leadership and management for resilience and performance during crisis: The HERO-36.

BACKGROUND: Whereas organizational literature has provided much insight into the conceptual and theoretical underpinnings of organizational leadership and management during emergencies, measures to operationalize related effective practices during crises remain sparse. PURPOSE: To address this need, we developed the Healthcare Emergency Response Optimization survey, which set out to examine the leadership and management practices in health care organizations that support resilience and performance during crisis. METHODOLOGY: We administered an online survey in April to May 2022 to health care administrators and frontline staff intimately involved in their hospital's emergency response during the COVID-19 pandemic, which included a sample of 379 respondents across nine rural and urban hospitals (response rate: 44.4%). We used confirmatory factor analysis and quantile regressions to examine the results. RESULTS: Applying confirmatory factor analysis, we retained 36 items in our survey that comprised eight measures for formal and informal practices to assess crisis leadership and management. To test effectiveness of the specified practices, we regressed self-reported resilience and performance measures on the formality and informality scores. Findings show that informal practices mattered most for resilience, whereas formal practices mattered most for performance. We also identified specific practices (anticipation, transactional and relational interactions, and ad hoc collaborations) for resilience and performance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These validated measures of organizational practices assess emergency response during crisis, with an emphasis on the actions and decisions of leadership as well as the management of organizational structures and processes. Organizations using these measures may subsequently modify preparedness and planning approaches to better manage future crises.

Inpatient Understanding of Their Care Team and Receipt of Mixed Messages: a Two-Site Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient understanding of their care, supported by physician involvement and consistent communication, is key to positive health outcomes. However, patient and care team characteristics can hinder this understanding. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess inpatients' understanding of their care and their perceived receipt of mixed messages, as well as the associated patient, care team, and hospitalization characteristics. DESIGN: We administered a 30-item survey to inpatients between February 2020 and November 2021 and incorporated other hospitalization data from patients' health records. PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected inpatients at two urban academic hospitals in the USA who were (1) admitted to general medicine services and (2) on or past the third day of their hospitalization. MAIN MEASURES: Outcome measures include (1) knowledge of main doctor and (2) frequency of mixed messages. Potential predictors included mean notes per day, number of consultants involved in the patient's care, number of unit transfers, number of attending physicians, length of stay, age, sex, insurance type, and primary race. KEY RESULTS: A total of 172 patients participated in our survey. Most patients were unaware of their main doctor, an issue related to more daily interactions with care team members. Twenty-three percent of patients reported receiving mixed messages at least sometimes, most often between doctors on the primary team and consulting doctors. However, the likelihood of receiving mixed messages decreased with more daily interactions with care team members. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were often unaware of their main doctor, and almost a quarter perceived receiving mixed messages about their care. Future research should examine patients' understanding of different aspects of their care, and the nature of interactions that might improve clarity around who's in charge while simultaneously reducing the receipt of mixed messages.

Physician role differentiation: Patients, practice patterns, and performance.

BACKGROUND: Multispecialty clinical settings are increasingly prevalent because of the growing complexity in health care, revealing challenges with overlaps in expertise. We study hospitalists and inpatient specialists to gain insights on how physicians with shared expertise may differentiate themselves in practice. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to explore how hospitalists differentiate themselves from other inpatient physicians when treating patient cases in areas of shared expertise, focusing on differences in patient populations, practice patterns, and performance on cost and quality metrics. METHODOLOGY: We use mixed-effects multilevel models and mediation models to analyze medical records and disaggregated billing data for admissions to a large urban pediatric hospital from January 1, 2009, to August 31, 2015. RESULTS: In areas of shared physician expertise, patients with more ambiguous diagnoses and multiple chronic conditions are more likely to be assigned to a hospitalist. Controlling for differences in patient populations, hospitalists order laboratory tests and medications at lower rates than specialists. Hospitalists' laboratory testing rate had a significant mediating role in their lower total charges and lower odds of their patients experiencing any nonsurgical adverse events compared to specialists, though hospitalists did not differ from specialists in 30- and 90-day readmission rates. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Physicians with shared expertise, such as hospitalists and inpatient specialists, differentiate their roles through assignment to ambiguous diagnoses and multisystem conditions, and practice patterns such as laboratory and medication orders. Such differentiation can improve care coordination and establish professional identity when roles overlap.

Evaluating a patient safety learning laboratory to create an interdisciplinary ecosystem for health care innovation.

BACKGROUND: In response to the complexity, challenges, and slow pace of innovation, health care organizations are adopting interdisciplinary team approaches. Systems engineering, which is oriented to creating new, scalable processes that perform with higher reliability and lower costs, holds promise for driving innovation in the face of challenges to team performance. A patient safety learning laboratory (lab) can be an essential aspect of fostering interdisciplinary team innovation across multiple projects and organizations by creating an ecosystem focused on deploying systems engineering methods to accomplish process redesign. PURPOSE: We sought to identify the role and activities of a learning ecosystem that support interdisciplinary team innovation through evaluation of a patient safety learning lab. METHODS: Our study included three participating learning lab project teams. We applied a mixed-methods approach using a convergent design that combined data from qualitative interviews of team members conducted as teams neared the completion of their redesign projects, as well as evaluation questionnaires administered throughout the 4-year learning lab. RESULTS: Our results build on learning theories by showing that successful learning ecosystems continually create alignment between interdisciplinary teams' activities, organizational context, and innovation project objectives. The study identified four types of alignment, interpersonal/interprofessional, informational, structural, and processual, and supporting activities for alignment to occur. CONCLUSION: Interdisciplinary learning ecosystems have the potential to foster health care improvement and innovation through alignment of team activities, project goals, and organizational contexts. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study applies to interdisciplinary teams tackling multilevel system challenges in their health care organization and suggests that the work of such teams benefits from the four types of alignment. Alignment on all four dimensions may yield best results.

Patient engagement in system redesign teams: a process of social identity.

PURPOSE: Studies demonstrate how patient roles in system redesign teams reflect a continuum of involvement and influence. This research shows the process by which patients move through this continuum and effectively engage within redesign projects. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The authors studied members of redesign teams, consisting of 5-10 members: clinicians, systems engineers, health system staff and patient(s), from three health systems working on separate projects in a patient safety learning lab. Weekly team meetings were observed, January 2016-April 2018, 17 semi-structured interviews were conducted and findings through a patient focus group were refined. Grounded theory was used to analyze field notes and transcripts. FINDINGS: Results show how the social identity process enables patients to move through stages in a patient engagement continuum (informant, partner and active change agent). Initially, patient and team member perceptions of the patient's role influence their respective behaviors (activating, directing, framing and sharing). Subsequently, patient and team member behaviors influence patient contributions on the team, which can redefine patient and team member perceptions of the patient's role. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: As health systems grow increasingly complex and become more interested in responding to patient expectations, understanding how to effectively engage patients on redesign teams gains importance. This research investigates how and why patient engagement on redesign teams changes over time and what makes different types of patient roles valuable for team objectives. Findings have implications for how redesign teams can better prepare, anticipate and support the changing role of engaged patients.

Moving Forward from COVID-19: Organizational Dimensions of Effective Hospital Emergency Management.

Federal investment in emergency preparedness has increased notably since the 9/11 attacks, yet it is unclear if and how US hospital readiness has changed in the 20 years since then. In particular, understanding effective aspects of hospital emergency management programs is essential to improve healthcare systems' readiness for future disasters. The authors of this article examined the state of US hospital emergency management, focusing on the following question: During the COVID-19 pandemic, what aspects of hospital emergency management, including program components and organizational characteristics, were most effective in supporting and improving emergency preparedness and response? We conducted semistructured interviews of emergency managers and leaders at 12 urban and rural hospitals across the country. Through qualitative analysis of content derived from examination of transcripts from our interviews, we identified 7 dimensions of effective healthcare emergency management: (1) identify capable leaders; (2) assure robust institutional support; (3) design effective, tiered communications systems; (4) embrace the hospital incident command system to delineate roles and responsibilities; (5) actively promote collaboration and team building; (6) appreciate the necessity of training and exercises; and (7) balance structure and flexibility. These dimensions represent the unique and critical intersection of organizational factors and emergency management program characteristics at the core of hospital emergency preparedness and response. Extending these findings, we provide several recommendations for hospitals to better develop and sustain what we call a response culture in supporting effective emergency management.

Managing Organizational Constraints in Innovation Teams: A Qualitative Study Across Four Health Systems.

Though increasingly useful for developing complex healthcare innovations, interdisciplinary teams are prone to resistance and other organizational challenges. However, how teams are affected by and manage external constraints over the lifecycle of their innovation project is not well understood. We used a multimethod qualitative approach consisting of over 3 years of participant observation data to analyze how four interdisciplinary teams across different health systems experienced and managed constraints as they pursued process innovations. Specifically, we derived the constraint management process, which demonstrates how teams address constraints at different stages of innovation by applying various tactics. Our findings point to several practical implications concerning innovation processes in healthcare: (a) how conditions in the organizational context, or constraints, can impede team progress at different stages of innovation; and (2) the collective efforts, or tactics, teams use to manage or work around these constraints to further progress on their innovations.

Adverse Events and Patient Outcomes Among Hospitalized Children Cared for by General Pediatricians vs Hospitalists.

Importance: Pediatric hospital medicine is a relatively new and growing specialty. However, research remains inconclusive on outcomes for inpatients cared for by pediatric hospitalists compared with those cared for by general pediatricians. Objective: To analyze outcomes, adverse events (AEs), and types of AEs associated with care provided for pediatric patients by hospitalists vs general pediatricians. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data from the medical records of a US urban academic children's hospital comprising 1423 hospitalizations between January 1, 2009, and August 31, 2015, for 57 diagnoses of patients cared for by either a hospitalist or general pediatrician. General pediatricians worked primarily in the hospital's outpatient clinic, serving a few inpatient weeks per year, and were not the patients' primary care physician. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2017, to October 10, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes were length of stay, total costs, 30-day readmission rates, and AEs. Adverse events were documented by International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes determined by review of medical records. Adverse event categories were drug events, infections, and device-related AEs. Generalized linear models were used to analyze patient outcomes, with standard errors clustered by physician. Models were adjusted for patient characteristics, including Chronic Condition Indicators. Models were estimated with and without adjustment for physician characteristics. Results: The data set contained 1423 hospitalizations among 726 female patients and 697 male patients (mean [SD] age, 6.1 [6.3] years). Hospitalists cared for 870 patients, and general pediatricians cared for 553 patients. Among the physicians, there were 57 women and 38 men; physicians were a mean (SD) 11.1 (8.1) years out of medical school. Patients cared for by general pediatricians were younger than those cared for by hospitalists (mean [SD] age, 5.4 [6.0] vs 6.5 [6.4] years; P = .001) but had similar mean (SD) Chronic Condition Indicator scores (1.5 [1.0] vs 1.5 [1.0]). A total of 33 of 56 general pediatricians (58.9%) and 24 of 39 hospitalists (61.5%) were women (P = .006), and general pediatricians were in practice twice as long as hospitalists on average (mean [SD], 16.0 [10.3] vs 7.9 [3.8] years out of medical school; P < .001). In multivariate models adjusting for patient-level features, there were no significant differences between general pediatricians and hospitalists for mean length of stay (4.7 vs 4.6 days), total costs ($14 490 vs $15 200), and estimated 30-day readmission rate (8.9% vs 6.4%), and results were similar with adjustments for physician characteristics. Device-related AEs were higher among hospitalists (3.0% vs 1.1%; odds ratio, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-1.00); this association became nonsignificant after adjusting for physician experience. Conclusions and Relevance: General pediatrician and hospitalist inpatient care had similar length of stay, total costs, and readmission rates. However, AEs differed between hospitalists and general pediatricians, with device-related AEs more common among hospitalists, which may be associated with hospitalists' fewer years in practice. Such findings can inform hospitals in planning their inpatient staffing and patient safety oversight.