Stigmatizing Language, Patient Demographics, and Errors in the Diagnostic Process.

This cohort study assesses the association between stigmatizing language, demographic characteristics, and errors in the diagnostic process among hospitalized adults.

Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Adults Who Died or Were Transferred to Intensive Care.

Importance: Diagnostic errors contribute to patient harm, though few data exist to describe their prevalence or underlying causes among medical inpatients. Objective: To determine the prevalence, underlying cause, and harms of diagnostic errors among hospitalized adults transferred to an intensive care unit (ICU) or who died. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study conducted at 29 academic medical centers in the US in a random sample of adults hospitalized with general medical conditions and who were transferred to an ICU, died, or both from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Each record was reviewed by 2 trained clinicians to determine whether a diagnostic error occurred (ie, missed or delayed diagnosis), identify diagnostic process faults, and classify harms. Multivariable models estimated association between process faults and diagnostic error. Opportunity for diagnostic error reduction associated with each fault was estimated using the adjusted proportion attributable fraction (aPAF). Data analysis was performed from April through September 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Whether or not a diagnostic error took place, the frequency of underlying causes of errors, and harms associated with those errors. Results: Of 2428 patient records at 29 hospitals that underwent review (mean [SD] patient age, 63.9 [17.0] years; 1107 [45.6%] female and 1321 male individuals [54.4%]), 550 patients (23.0%; 95% CI, 20.9%-25.3%) had experienced a diagnostic error. Errors were judged to have contributed to temporary harm, permanent harm, or death in 436 patients (17.8%; 95% CI, 15.9%-19.8%); among the 1863 patients who died, diagnostic error was judged to have contributed to death in 121 (6.6%; 95% CI, 5.3%-8.2%). In multivariable models examining process faults associated with any diagnostic error, patient assessment problems (aPAF, 21.4%; 95% CI, 16.4%-26.4%) and problems with test ordering and interpretation (aPAF, 19.9%; 95% CI, 14.7%-25.1%) had the highest opportunity to reduce diagnostic errors; similar ranking was seen in multivariable models examining harmful diagnostic errors. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, diagnostic errors in hospitalized adults who died or were transferred to the ICU were common and associated with patient harm. Problems with choosing and interpreting tests and the processes involved with clinician assessment are high-priority areas for improvement efforts.

Achieving diagnostic excellence through prevention and teamwork (ADEPT) study protocol: A multicenter, prospective quality and safety program to improve diagnostic processes in medical inpatients.

BACKGROUND: Few hospitals have built surveillance for diagnostic errors into usual care or used comparative quantitative and qualitative data to understand their diagnostic processes and implement interventions designed to reduce these errors. OBJECTIVES: To build surveillance for diagnostic errors into usual care, benchmark diagnostic performance across sites, pilot test interventions, and evaluate the program's impact on diagnostic error rates. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Achieving diagnostic excellence through prevention and teamwork (ADEPT) is a multicenter, real-world quality and safety program utilizing interrupted time-series techniques to evaluate outcomes. Study subjects will be a randomly sampled population of medical patients hospitalized at 16 US hospitals who died, were transferred to intensive care, or had a rapid response during the hospitalization. Surveillance for diagnostic errors will occur on 10 events per month per site using a previously established two-person adjudication process. Concurrent reviews of patients who had a qualifying event in the previous week will allow for surveys of clinicians to better understand contributors to diagnostic error, or conversely, examples of diagnostic excellence, which cannot be gleaned from medical record review alone. With guidance from national experts in quality and safety, sites will report and benchmark diagnostic error rates, share lessons regarding underlying causes, and design, implement, and pilot test interventions using both Safety I and Safety II approaches aimed at patients, providers, and health systems. Safety II approaches will focus on cases where diagnostic error did not occur, applying theories of how people and systems are able to succeed under varying conditions. The primary outcome will be the number of diagnostic errors per patient, using segmented multivariable regression to evaluate change in y-intercept and change in slope after initiation of the program. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board (IRB), which is serving as the single IRB. Intervention toolkits and study findings will be disseminated through partners including Vizient, The Joint Commission, and Press-Ganey, and through national meetings, scientific journals, and publications aimed at the general public.

Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN). TARGET POPULATION: Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.

Characterizing patients hospitalized without an acute care indication: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalizations by patients who do not meet acute inpatient criteria are common and overburden healthcare systems. Studies have characterized these alternate levels of care (ALC) but have not delineated prolonged (pALC) versus short ALC (sALC) stays. OBJECTIVE: To descriptively compare pALC and sALC hospitalizations-groups we hypothesize have unique needs. DESIGNS, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective study of hospitalizations from March-April 2018 at an academic safety-net hospital. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Levels of care for pALC (>3 days) and sALC (1-3 days) were determined using InterQual©, an industry standard utilization review tool for determining the clinical appropriateness of hospitalization. We examined sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: Of 2365 hospitalizations, 215 (9.1%) were pALC, 277 (11.7%) were sALC, and 1873 (79.2%) had no ALC days. There were 17,683 hospital days included, and 28.3% (n = 5006) were considered ALC. Compared to patients with sALC, those with pALC were older and more likely to be publicly insured, experience homelessness, and have substance use or psychiatric comorbidities. Patients with pALC were more likely to be admitted for care meeting inpatient criteria (89.3% vs. 66.8%, p < .001), had significantly more ALC days (median 8 vs. 1 day, p < .001), and were less likely to be discharged to the community (p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with prolonged ALC stays were more likely to be admitted for acute care, had greater psychosocial complexity, significantly longer lengths of stay, and unique discharge needs. Given the complexity and needs for hospitalizations with pALC days, intensive interdisciplinary coordination and resource mobilization are necessary.

Time to ACT: launching an Addiction Care Team (ACT) in an urban safety-net health system.

Across the USA, morbidity and mortality from substance use are rising as reflected by increases in acute care hospitalisations for substance use complications and substance-related deaths. Patients with substance use disorders (SUD) have long and costly hospitalisations and higher readmission rates compared to those without SUD. Hospitalisation presents an opportunity to diagnose and treat individuals with SUD and connect them to ongoing care. However, SUD care often remains unaddressed by hospital providers due to lack of a systems approach and addiction medicine knowledge, and is compounded by stigma. We present a blueprint to launching an interprofessional inpatient addiction care team embedded in the hospital medicine division of an urban, safety-net integrated health system. We describe key factors for successful implementation including: (1) demonstrating the scope and impact of SUD in our health system via a needs assessment; (2) aligning improvement areas with health system leadership priorities; (3) involving executive leadership to create goal and initiative alignment; and (4) obtaining seed funding for a pilot programme from our Medicaid health plan partner. We also present challenges and lessons learnt.

Prevalence and characterisation of diagnostic error among 7-day all-cause hospital medicine readmissions: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence and aetiology of diagnostic error among hospitalised adults is unknown, though likely contributes to patient morbidity and mortality. We aim to identify and characterise the prevalence and types of diagnostic error among patients readmitted within 7 days of hospital discharge. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study at a single urban academic hospital examining adult patients discharged from the medical service and readmitted to the same hospital within 7 days between January and December 2018. The primary outcome was diagnostic error presence, identified through two-physician adjudication using validated tools. Secondary outcomes included severity of error impact and characterisation of diagnostic process failures contributing to error. RESULTS: There were 391 cases of unplanned 7-day readmission (5.2% of 7507 discharges), of which 376 (96.2%) were reviewed. Twenty-one (5.6%) admissions were found to contain at least one diagnostic error during the index admission. The most common problem areas in the diagnostic process included failure to order needed test(s) (n=11, 52.4%), erroneous clinician interpretation of test(s) (n=10, 47.6%) and failure to consider the correct diagnosis (n=8, 38.1%). Nineteen (90.5%) of the diagnostic errors resulted in moderate clinical impact, primarily due to short-term morbidity or contribution to the readmission. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of diagnostic error among 7-day medical readmissions was 5.6%. The most common drivers of diagnostic error were related to clinician diagnostic reasoning. Efforts to reduce diagnostic error should include strategies to augment diagnostic reasoning and improve clinician decision-making around diagnostic studies.

Jump-Starting Faculty Development in Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Education: A Team-Based Approach.

PROBLEM: Quality improvement (QI) and patient safety (PS) are cornerstones of health care delivery. Accreditation organizations increasingly require that learners engage in QIPS. For many faculty, these are new domains. Additional faculty development is needed for them to teach and mentor trainees. Existing programs, such as the Association of American Medical Colleges Teaching for Quality (Te4Q) program, target individual faculty and thus accommodate only limited participants at a time, which is problematic for institutions that need to train many faculty to support their learners. APPROACH: The authors invited diverse stakeholders from across the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) School of Medicine and related health systems to participate in a team-based adaptation of the Te4Q program. The teams completed 5 projects based on previously identified priority areas to increase local capacity for QIPS teaching: (1) online modules for faculty new to QIPS, (2) a tool kit for graduate medical education programs, (3) a module for medical school clerkship directors, (4) guidelines for faculty to integrate early learners into QI projects, and (5) a "Teach-for-UCSF" certificate program in teaching QIPS. OUTCOMES: Thirty-five faculty members participated in the initial Te4Q workshop in January 2015, and by fall 2016, all projects were implemented. These projects led to additional faculty development initiatives and a rapidly expanding number of faculty across campus with expertise in teaching QIPS. NEXT STEPS: Further collaborations between faculty focused on QIPS in care delivery and those focused on QIPS education to promote QIPS teaching have resulted from these initial projects.

Acute Care for Patients Who Are Incarcerated: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: The United States has the world's highest rate of incarceration. Clinicians practicing outside of correctional facilities receive little dedicated training in the care of patients who are incarcerated, are unaware of guidelines for the treatment of patients in custody, and practice in health care systems with varying policies toward these patients. This review considers legal precedents for care of individuals who are incarcerated, frequently encountered terminology, characteristics of hospitalized incarcerated patients, considerations for clinical management, and challenges during transitions of care. OBSERVATIONS: The Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution mandates basic health care for incarcerated individuals within or outside of dedicated correctional facilities. Incarcerated patients in the acute hospital setting are predominantly young men who have received trauma-related admitting diagnoses. Hospital practices pertaining to privacy, physical restraint, discharge counseling, and surrogate decision-making are affected by a patient's incarcerated status under state or federal law, institutional policy, and individual health care professional practice. Transitions of care necessitate consideration of the disparate medical resources of correctional facilities as well as awareness of transitions unique to incarcerated individuals, such as compassionate release. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients who are incarcerated have a protected right to health care but may experience exceptions to physical comfort, health privacy, and informed decision-making in the acute care setting. Research on the management of issues associated with hospitalized incarcerated patients is limited and primarily focuses on the care of pregnant women, a small portion of all hospitalized incarcerated individuals. Clinicians and health care facilities should work toward creating evidence-based and legally supported guidelines for the care of incarcerated individuals in the acute care setting that balance the rights of the patient, responsibilities of the clinician, and safety mandates of the institution and law enforcement.

A Discharge Time-Out: A Case Study on Physician-Nurse Discharge Communication and the Challenge of Sustainability in Resident-Led Quality Improvement.

Resident-led quality improvement (QI) is an important component of resident education yet sustainability of improvement and impact on resident education have rarely been explored. This study describes a resident-led intervention to improve nursing (RN)-provider (MD) communication at discharge-the Discharge Time-Out (DTO)- and explores its uptake and sustainability. One year later, residents were surveyed regarding QI self-efficacy and planned QI involvement. Baseline verbal RN-MD communication at discharge was rare. During DTO implementation, rates of structured communication averaged 56% (341/608) with several months >70%. During the monitoring phase, this fell to 45% and did not recover (833/1852). Participating residents reported increased QI self-efficacy (P < .05) and increased likelihood of participating in future QI (P < .05). The DTO increased RN-MD communication but was not sustained. Resident-led QI should explicitly address sustainability to achieve improvement and educational objectives. To foster resident education and avoid short-lived, low-impact projects, increased attention should be given to sustainability of resident-led QI.

Next-generation audit and feedback for inpatient quality improvement using electronic health record data: a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback improves clinical care by highlighting the gap between current and ideal practice. We combined best practices of audit and feedback with continuously generated electronic health record data to improve performance on quality metrics in an inpatient setting. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomised control trial comparing intensive audit and feedback with usual audit and feedback from February 2016 to June 2016. The study subjects were internal medicine teams on the teaching service at an urban tertiary care hospital. Teams in the intensive feedback arm received access to a daily-updated team-based data dashboard as well as weekly inperson review of performance data ('STAT rounds'). The usual feedback arm received ongoing twice-monthly emails with graphical depictions of team performance on selected quality metrics. The primary outcome was performance on a composite discharge metric (Discharge Mix Index, 'DMI'). A washout period occurred at the end of the trial (from May through June 2016) during which STAT rounds were removed from the intensive feedback arm. RESULTS: A total of 40 medicine teams participated in the trial. During the intervention period, the primary outcome of completion of the DMI was achieved on 79.3% (426/537) of patients in the intervention group compared with 63.2% (326/516) in the control group (P<0.0001). During the washout period, there was no significant difference in performance between the intensive and usual feedback groups. CONCLUSION: Intensive audit and feedback using timely data and STAT rounds significantly increased performance on a composite discharge metric compared with usual feedback. With the cessation of STAT rounds, performance between the intensive and usual feedback groups did not differ significantly, highlighting the importance of feedback delivery on effecting change. CLINICAL TRIAL: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02593253).

Training Residents in Hospital Medicine: The Hospitalist Elective National Survey.

As the field of hospital medicine expands, internal medicine residency programs can play a role in preparing future hospitalists. To date, little is known of the prevalence and characteristics of hospitalist-focused resident rotations. We surveyed the largest 100 Internal Medicine Residency Programs to better understand the prevalence, objectives, and structure of hospitalist-focused rotations in the United States. Residency leaders from 82 programs responded (82%). The prevalence of hospitalist-focused rotations was 50% (41/82) with an additional 9 programs (11%) planning to start one. Of these 41 rotations, 85% were elective rotations and 15% were mandatory rotations. Rotations involved clinical responsibilities, and most programs incorporated nonclinical curricular activities such as teaching, research, and work on quality improvement and patient safety. Respondents noted that their programs promoted autonomy, mentorship, and "real-world" hospitalist experience. Hospitalist-focused rotations may supplement traditional inpatient rotations and teach skills that facilitate the transition from residency to a career in hospital medicine.

A Comparison of Laboratory Testing in Teaching vs Nonteaching Hospitals for 2 Common Medical Conditions.

Importance: Robust laboratory use data are lacking to support the general assumption that teaching hospitals with trainees routinely order more laboratory tests for inpatients than do nonteaching hospitals. Objective: To quantify differences in the use of laboratory tests between teaching and nonteaching hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study was performed using a statewide database to identify hospitalizations with a primary diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia or cellulitis from January 1, 2014, to June 30, 2015, at teaching and nonteaching hospitals with 100 or more hospitalizations of each condition. Patients included were adult inpatients with a primary diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia (n = 24 118) or cellulitis (n = 19 211); patients excluded were those with an intensive care unit stay, transfer from another hospital, or a length of stay that was 2 SDs or more of the condition's mean length of stay. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mean laboratory tests per day stratified by illness severity, as well as factors associated with laboratory use rates. Results: A total of 43 329 hospitalized patients (20493 women and 22836 men) had a principal diagnosis of bacterial pneumonia or cellulitis across 11 major teaching hospitals, 12 minor teaching hospitals, and 73 nonteaching hospitals in Texas. Mean number of laboratory tests per day varied significantly by hospital type and was highest for major teaching hospitals for both conditions (bacterial pneumonia: major teaching hospitals, 13.21; 95% CI, 12.91-13.51; nonteaching hospitals, 8.92; 95% CI, 8.84-9.00; P < .001; cellulitis: major teaching hospitals, 10.43; 95% CI, 10.16-10.70; nonteaching hospitals, 7.29; 95% CI, 7.22-7.36; P < .001). This association held for all levels of illness severity for both conditions, except for patients with cellulitis with the highest illness severity level. In generalized mixed linear regression models, controlling for additional patient and encounter covariates, there was a significant difference in the marginal effect of hospital teaching status on mean number of laboratory tests per day between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals (difference in marginal mean laboratory tests per day for bacterial pneumonia, 3.58; 95% CI, 2.61-4.55; P < .001; for cellulitis, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.76-3.47; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with nonteaching hospitals, patients in Texas admitted to major teaching hospitals with bacterial pneumonia or cellulitis received significantly more laboratory tests after controlling for illness severity, length of stay, and patient demographics. These results support the need to examine how the culture of training environments may contribute to increased use of laboratory tests.