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.

Redesigning systems to improve teamwork and quality for hospitalized patients (RESET): study protocol evaluating the effect of mentored implementation to redesign clinical microsystems.

BACKGROUND: A number of challenges impede our ability to consistently provide high quality care to patients hospitalized with medical conditions. Teams are large, team membership continually evolves, and physicians are often spread across multiple units and floors. Moreover, patients and family members are generally poorly informed and lack opportunities to partner in decision making. Prior studies have tested interventions to redesign aspects of the care delivery system for hospitalized medical patients, but the majority have evaluated the effect of a single intervention. We believe these interventions represent complementary and mutually reinforcing components of a redesigned clinical microsystem. Our specific objective for this study is to implement a set of evidence-based complementary interventions across a range of clinical microsystems, identify factors and strategies associated with successful implementation, and evaluate the impact on quality. METHODS: The RESET project uses the Advanced and Integrated MicroSystems (AIMS) interventions. The AIMS interventions consist of 1) Unit-based Physician Teams, 2) Unit Nurse-Physician Co-leadership, 3) Enhanced Interprofessional Rounds, 4) Unit-level Performance Reports, and 5) Patient Engagement Activities. Four hospital sites were chosen to receive guidance and resources as they implement the AIMS interventions. Each study site has assembled a local leadership team, consisting of a physician and nurse, and receives mentorship from a physician and nurse with experience in leading similar interventions. Primary outcomes include teamwork climate, assessed using the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire, and adverse events using the Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System (MPSMS). RESET uses a parallel group study design and two group pretest-posttest analyses for primary outcomes. We use a multi-method approach to collect and triangulate qualitative data collected during 3 visits to study sites. We will use cross-case comparisons to consider how site-specific contextual factors interact with the variation in the intensity and fidelity of implementation to affect teamwork and patient outcomes. DISCUSSION: The RESET study provides mentorship and resources to assist hospitals as they implement complementary and mutually reinforcing components to redesign the clinical microsystems caring for medical patients. Our findings will be of interest and directly applicable to all hospitals providing care to patients with medical conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03745677 . Retrospectively registered on November 19, 2018.

National Survey of Hospitalists' Experiences with Incidental Pulmonary Nodules.

Incidental pulmonary nodules (IPNs) are common and often require follow-up. The Fleischner Society guidelines were created to support IPN management. We developed a 14-item survey to examine hospitalists' exposure to and management of IPNs. The survey targeted attendees of the 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) annual conference. We recruited 174 attendees. In total, 82% were identified as hospitalist physicians and 7% as advanced practice providers; 63% practiced for >5 years and 62% supervised trainees. All reported seeing ≥1 IPN case in the past six months, with 39% seeing three to five cases and 39% seeing six or more cases. Notwithstanding, 42% were unfamiliar with the Fleischner Society guidelines. When determining the IPN follow-up, 83% used radiology report recommendations, 64% consulted national or international guidelines, and 34% contacted radiologists; 34% agreed that determining the follow-up was challenging; only 15% reported availability of automated tracking systems. In conclusion, despite frequent IPN exposure, hospitalists are frequently unaware of the Fleischner Society guidelines and rely on radiologists' recommendations.