Effect of Complementary Interventions to Redesign Care on Teamwork and Quality for Hospitalized Medical Patients : A Pragmatic Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple challenges impede interprofessional teamwork and the provision of high-quality care to hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of interventions to redesign hospital care delivery on teamwork and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Pragmatic controlled trial. Hospitals selected 1 unit for implementation of interventions and a second to serve as a control. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03745677). SETTING: Medical units at 4 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Health care professionals and hospitalized medical patients. INTERVENTION: Mentored implementation of unit-based physician teams, unit nurse-physician coleadership, enhanced interprofessional rounds, unit-level performance reports, and patient engagement activities. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were teamwork climate among health care professionals and adverse events experienced by patients. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmissions, and patient experience. Difference-in-differences (DID) analyses of patient outcomes compared intervention versus control units before and after implementation of interventions. RESULTS: Among 155 professionals who completed pre- and postintervention surveys, the median teamwork climate score was higher after than before the intervention only for nurses (n = 77) (median score, 88.0 [IQR, 77.0 to 91.0] vs. 80.0 [IQR, 70.0 to 89.0]; P = 0.022). Among 3773 patients, a greater percentage had at least 1 adverse event after compared with before the intervention on control units (change, 1.61 percentage points [95% CI, 0.01 to 3.22 percentage points]). A similar percentage of patients had at least 1 adverse event after compared with before the intervention on intervention units (change, 0.43 percentage point [CI, -1.25 to 2.12 percentage points]). A DID analysis of adverse events did not show a significant difference in change (adjusted DID, -0.92 percentage point [CI, -2.49 to 0.64 percentage point]; P = 0.25). Similarly, there were no differences in LOS, readmissions, or patient experience. LIMITATION: Adverse events occurred less frequently than anticipated, limiting statistical power. CONCLUSION: Despite improved teamwork climate among nurses, interventions to redesign care for hospitalized patients were not associated with improved patient outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

A Multisite Study of Interprofessional Teamwork and Collaboration on General Medical Services.

BACKGROUND: Teamwork and collaboration are essential to providing high-quality care. Prior research has found discrepancies between nurses' and physicians' perceptions in operating rooms, ICUs, and labor and delivery units. Less is known about health care professionals' perceptions of teamwork and collaboration on general medical services. METHODS: This cross-sectional study included nurses, nurse assistants, and physicians working on general medical services in four mid-sized hospitals. Researchers assessed teamwork climate using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire and asked respondents to rate the quality of collaboration experienced with their own and other professional categories. RESULTS: Data for 380 participants (80 hospitalists, 13 resident physicians, 193 nurses, and 94 nurse assistants) were analyzed. Hospitalists had the highest median teamwork climate score (83.3, interquartile range [IQR] = 72.3-91.1), and nurses had the lowest (78.6, IQR = 69.6-87.5), but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.42). Median teamwork climate scores were significantly different across the four sites (highest = 83.3, IQR = 75.0-91.1; lowest = 76.8, IQR = 66.7-88.4; p = 0.003). Ratings of the quality of collaboration differed significantly based on professional category. Specifically, 63.3% (50/79) of hospitalists rated the quality of collaboration with nurses as high or very high, while 48.7% (94/193) of nurses rated the quality of collaboration with hospitalists as high or very high. CONCLUSION: This study found significant differences in perceptions of teamwork climate across sites and in collaboration across professional categories on general medical services. Given the importance in providing high-quality care, leaders should consider conducting similar assessments to characterize teamwork and collaboration on general medical services within their own hospitals.

Impact of universal gowning and gloving on health care worker clothing contamination.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether gowning and gloving for all patient care reduces contamination of healthcare worker (HCW) clothing, compared to usual practice. DESIGN: Cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: Five study sites were recruited from intensive care units (ICUs) randomized to the intervention arm of the Benefits of Universal Gown and Glove (BUGG) study. PARTICIPANTS: All HCWs performing direct patient care in the study ICUs were eligible to participate. METHODS: Surveys were performed first during the BUGG intervention study period (July-September 2012) with universal gowning/gloving and again after BUGG study conclusion (October-December 2012), with resumption of usual care. During each phase, HCW clothing was sampled at the beginning and near the end of each shift. Cultures were performed using broth enrichment followed by selective media. Acquisition was defined as having a negative clothing culture for samples taken at the beginning of a shift and positive clothing culture at for samples taken at the end of the shift. RESULTS: A total of 348 HCWs participated (21-92 per site), including 179 (51%) during the universal gowning/gloving phase. Overall, 51 (15%) HCWs acquired commonly pathogenic bacteria on their clothing: 13 (7.1%) HCWs acquired bacteria during universal gowning/gloving, and 38 (23%) HCWs acquired bacteria during usual care (odds ratio [OR], 0.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-0.6). Pathogens identified included S. aureus (25 species, including 7 methicillin-resistant S. aureus [MRSA]), Enterococcus spp. (25, including 1 vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus [VRE]), Pseudomonas spp. (4), Acinetobacter spp. (4), and Klebsiella (2). CONCLUSION: Nearly 25% of HCWs practicing usual care (gowning and gloving only for patients with known resistant bacteria) contaminate their clothing during their shift. This contamination was reduced by 70% by gowning and gloving for all patient interactions.