The increasing impact of length of stay "outliers" on length of stay at an urban academic hospital.

BACKGROUND: As healthcare systems strive for efficiency, hospital "length of stay outliers" have the potential to significantly impact a hospital's overall utilization. There is a tendency to exclude such "outlier" stays in local quality improvement and data reporting due to their assumed rare occurrence and disproportionate ability to skew mean and other summary data. This study sought to assess the influence of length of stay (LOS) outliers on inpatient length of stay and hospital capacity over a 5-year period at a large urban academic medical center. METHODS: From January 2014 through December 2019, 169,645 consecutive inpatient cases were analyzed and assigned an expected LOS based on national academic center benchmarks. Cases in the top 1% of national sample LOS by diagnosis were flagged as length of stay outliers. RESULTS: From 2014 to 2019, mean outlier LOS increased (40.98 to 45.11 days), as did inpatient LOS with outliers excluded (5.63 to 6.19 days). Outlier cases increased both in number (from 297 to 412) and as a percent of total discharges (0.98 to 1.56%), and outlier patient days increased from 6.7 to 9.8% of total inpatient plus observation days over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Outlier cases utilize a disproportionate and increasing share of hospital resources and available beds. The current tendency to exclude such outlier stays in data reporting due to assumed rare occurrence may need to be revisited. Outlier stays require distinct and targeted interventions to appropriately reduce length of stay to both improve patient care and maintain hospital capacity.

Implementation of a comprehensive program to improve coordination of care in an urban academic health care system.

Purpose Academic healthcare systems face great challenges in coordinating services across a continuum of care that spans hospital, community providers, home and chronic care facilities. The Johns Hopkins Community Health Partnership (J-CHiP) was created to improve coordination of acute, sub-acute and ambulatory care for patients, and improve the health of high-risk patients in surrounding neighborhoods. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach J-CHiP targeted adults admitted to the Johns Hopkins Hospital and Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, patients discharged to participating skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), and high-risk Medicare and Medicaid patients receiving primary care in eight nearby outpatient sites. The primary drivers of the program were redesigned acute care delivery, seamless transitions of care and deployment of community care teams. Findings Acute care interventions included risk screening, multidisciplinary care planning, pharmacist-driven medication management, patient/family education, communication with next provider and care coordination protocols for common conditions. Transition interventions included post-discharge health plans, hand-offs and follow-up with primary care providers, Transition Guides, a patient access line and collaboration with SNFs. Community interventions involved forming multidisciplinary care coordination teams, integrated behavioral care and new partnerships with community-based organizations. Originality/value This paper offers a detailed description of the design and implementation of a complex program to improve care coordination for high-risk patients in an urban setting. The case studies feature findings from each intervention that promoted patient engagement, strengthened collaboration with community-based organizations and improved coordination of care.

A Concise Tool for Measuring Care Coordination from the Provider's Perspective in the Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND: To support hospital efforts to improve coordination of care, a tool is needed to evaluate care coordination from the perspective of inpatient healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVES: To develop a concise tool for assessing care coordination in hospital units from the perspective of healthcare professionals, and to assess the performance of the tool in measuring dimensions of care coordination in 2 hospitals after implementation of a care coordination initiative. METHODS: We developed a survey consisting of 12 specific items and 1 global item to measure provider perceptions of care coordination across a variety of domains, including teamwork and communication, handoffs, transitions, and patient engagement. The questionnaire was distributed online between October 2015 and January 2016 to nurses, physicians, social workers, case managers, and other professionals in 2 tertiary care hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 841 inpatient care professionals completed the survey (response rate = 56.6%). Among respondents, 590 (75%) were nurses and 37 (4.7%) were physicians. Exploratory factor analysis revealed 4 subscales: (1) Teamwork, (2) Patient Engagement, (3) Handoffs, and (4) Transitions (Cronbach's alpha 0.84-0.90). Scores were fairly consistent for 3 subscales but were lower for patient engagement. There were minor differences in scores by profession, department, and hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The new tool measures 4 important aspects of inpatient care coordination with evidence for internal consistency and construct validity, indicating that the tool can be used in monitoring, evaluating, and planning care coordination activities in hospital settings.