Increasing Frequency of Hemoglobin A1C Measurements in Hospitalized Patients With Diabetes: A Quality Improvement Project Using Lean Six Sigma.

BACKGROUND: The American Diabetes Association (ADA) recommends measuring A1C in all inpatients with diabetes if not performed in the prior three months. Our objective was to determine the impact of utilizing Lean Six Sigma to increase the frequency of A1C measurements in hospitalized patients. METHODS: We evaluated inpatients with diabetes mellitus consecutively admitted in a community hospital between January 2016 and June 2021, excluding those who had an A1C in the electronic health record (EHR) in the previous three months. Lean Six Sigma was utilized to define the extent of the problem and devise solutions. The intervention bundle delivered between November 2017 and February 2018 included (1) provider education on the utility of A1C, (2) more rapid turnaround of A1C results, and (3) an EHR glucose-management tab and insulin order set that included A1C. Hospital encounter and patient-level data were extracted from the EHR via bulk query. Frequency of A1C measurement was compared before (January 2016-November 2017) and after the intervention (March 2018-June 2021) using χ2 analysis. RESULTS: Demographics did not differ preintervention versus postintervention (mean age [range]: 70.9 [18-104] years, sex: 52.2% male, race: 57.0% white). A1C measurements significantly increased following implementation of the intervention bundle (61.2% vs 74.5%, P < .001). This level was sustained for more than two years following the initial intervention. Patients seen by the diabetes consult service (40.4% vs 51.7%, P < 0.001) and length of stay (mean: 135 hours vs 149 hours, P < 0.001) both increased postintervention. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate a novel approach in improving A1C in hospitalized patients. Lean Six Sigma may represent a valuable methodology for community hospitals to improve inpatient diabetes care.

COVID-19 and telehealth in the intensive care unit setting: a survey.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) has led to changes in how healthcare is delivered. Here, through the administration of surveys, we evaluated telehealth use and views in US intensive care units (ICUs) during the pandemic. METHODS: From June 2020 to July 2021, voluntary, electronic surveys were provided to ICU leaders of Johns Hopkins Medical Institution (JHMI) hospitals, members of the Neurocritical Care Society (NCS) who practice in the US, and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) members practicing adult medicine. RESULTS: Response rates to our survey were as follows: 18 of 22 (81.8%) JHMI-based ICU leaders, 22 of 2218 (1.0%) NCS members practicing in the US, and 136 of 13,047 (1.0%) SCCM members. COVID-19 patients were among those cared for in the ICUs of 77.7, 86.4, and 93.4% of respondents, respectively, in April 2020 (defined as the peak of the pandemic). Telehealth technologies were used by 88.9, 77.3, and 75.6% of respondents, respectively, following the start of COVID-19 while only 22.2, 31.8, and 43.7% utilized them prior. The most common telehealth technologies were virtual meeting software and telephone (with no video component). Provider, nurse, and patient communications with the patient's family constituted the most frequent types of interactions utilizing telehealth. Most common reasons for telehealth use included providing an update on a patient's condition and conducting a goals of care discussion. 93.8-100.0% of respondents found telehealth technologies valuable in managing patients. Technical issues were noted by 66.7, 50.0, and 63.4% of respondents, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth use increased greatly among respondents following the start of COVID-19. In US ICUs, telehealth technologies found diverse uses during the pandemic. Future studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Retrospective Quality Improvement Study of Insulin-Induced Hypoglycemia and Implementation of Hospital-Wide Initiatives.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients who are receiving antihyperglycemic agents are at increased risk for hypoglycemia. Inpatient hypoglycemia may lead to increased risk for morbidity, mortality, prolonged hospitalization, and readmission within 30 days of discharge, which in turn may lead to increased costs. Hospital-wide initiatives targeting hypoglycemia are known to be beneficial; however, their impact on patient care and economic measures in community nonteaching hospitals are unknown. METHODS: This retrospective quality improvement study examined the effects of hospital-wide hypoglycemia initiatives on the rates of insulin-induced hypoglycemia in a community hospital setting from January 1, 2016, until September 30, 2019. The potential cost of care savings has been calculated. RESULTS: Among 49 315 total patient days, 2682 days had an instance of hypoglycemia (5.4%). Mean ± SD hypoglycemic patient days/month was 59.6 ± 16.0. The frequency of hypoglycemia significantly decreased from 7.5% in January 2016 to 3.9% in September 2019 (P = .001). Patients with type 2 diabetes demonstrated a significant decrease in the frequency of hypoglycemia (7.4%-3.8%; P < .0001), while among patients with type 1 diabetes the frequency trended downwards but did not reach statistical significance (18.5%-18.0%; P = 0.08). Based on the reduction of hypoglycemia rates, the hospital had an estimated cost of care savings of $98 635 during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In a community hospital setting, implementation of hospital-wide initiatives targeting hypoglycemia resulted in a significant and sustainable decrease in the rate of insulin-induced hypoglycemia. These high-leverage risk reduction strategies may be translated into considerable cost savings and could be implemented at other community hospitals.

Effects of a Dedicated Inpatient Diabetes Management Service on Glycemic Control in a Community Hospital Setting.

BACKGROUND: Community hospitals account for over 84% of all hospitals and over 94% of hospital admissions in the United States. In academic settings, implementation of an Inpatient Diabetes Management Service (IDMS) model of care has been shown to reduce rates of hyper- and hypoglycemia, hospital length of stay (LOS), and associated hospital costs. However, few studies to date have evaluated the implementation of a dedicated IDMS in a community hospital setting. METHODS: This retrospective study examined the effects of changing the model of inpatient diabetes consultations from a local, private endocrine practice to a full-time endocrine hospitalist on glycemic control, LOS, and 30-day readmission rates in a 267-bed community hospital. RESULTS: Overall diabetes patient days for the hospital were similar pre- and post-intervention (20,191 vs 20,262); however, the volume of patients seen by IDMS increased significantly after changing models. Rates of hyperglycemia decreased both among patients seen by IDMS (53.8% to 42.5%, P < .0001) and those not consulted on by IDMS (33.2% to 29.9%; P < .0001). When examined over time, rates of hypoglycemia steadily decreased in the 24 months after dedicated IDMS initiation (P = .02); no such time effect was seen prior to IDMS (P = .34). LOS and 30DRR were not significantly different between IDMS models. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an endocrine hospitalist-based IDMS at a community hospital was associated with significantly decreased hyperglycemia, while avoiding concurrent increases in hypoglycemia. Further studies are needed to investigate whether these effects are associated with improvements in clinical outcomes, patient or staff satisfaction scores, or total cost of care.

Implementing a Health System-wide Patient Blood Management Program with a Clinical Community Approach.

BACKGROUND: Patient blood management programs are gaining popularity as quality improvement and patient safety initiatives, but methods for implementing such programs across multihospital health systems are not well understood. Having recently incorporated a patient blood management program across our health system using a clinical community approach, we describe our methods and results. METHODS: We formed the Johns Hopkins Health System blood management clinical community to reduce transfusion overuse across five hospitals. This physician-led, multidisciplinary, collaborative, quality-improvement team (the clinical community) worked to implement best practices for patient blood management, which we describe in detail. Changes in blood utilization and blood acquisition costs were compared for the pre- and post-patient blood management time periods. RESULTS: Across the health system, multiunit erythrocyte transfusion orders decreased from 39.7 to 20.2% (by 49%; P < 0.0001). The percentage of patients transfused decreased for erythrocytes from 11.3 to 10.4%, for plasma from 2.9 to 2.2%, and for platelets from 3.1 to 2.7%, (P < 0.0001 for all three). The number of units transfused per 1,000 patients decreased for erythrocytes from 455 to 365 (by 19.8%; P < 0.0001), for plasma from 175 to 107 (by 38.9%; P = 0.0002), and for platelets from 167 to 141 (by 15.6%; P = 0.04). Blood acquisition cost savings were $2,120,273/yr, an approximate 400% return on investment for our patient blood management efforts. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a health system-wide patient blood management program by using a clinical community approach substantially reduced blood utilization and blood acquisition costs.

Saccharomyces boulardii probiotic-associated fungemia: questioning the safety of this preventive probiotic's use.

We report a case of fungemia in an immunocompetent patient after administration of probiotic containing Saccharomyces boulardii. We demonstrated the strain relatedness of the yeast from the probiotic capsule and the yeast causing fungal infection using genomic and proteomic typing methods. Our study questions the safety of this preventative biotherapy.

Fostering Clinical Excellence Across an Academic Health System.

OBJECTIVES: Changes in the US healthcare economic system are requiring academic health centers (AHCs) to restructure in pursuit of their traditional tripartite missions; engaging the individuals focused on clinical care is becoming more important. We conducted this study to guide our institution's transformation by identifying ways to formally recognize clinicians who are excelling in patient care and understand which forms of acknowledgment would be acceptable and motivating. METHODS: A survey was developed by a large committee with representation spanning the AHC and was sent electronically in spring 2014 to stakeholders across the institution. Items assessed perceptions of the importance and present state of valuing clinical excellence, the utility of 14 potential metrics to assess clinical excellence, and the meaningfulness of seven potential rewards for clinical excellence. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models analyzed differences (P < 0.05) by respondent sex, ethnicity, academic rank, primary clinical affiliation, and time spent in patient care and research activities. RESULTS: A total of 1716 of 3168 (54%) stakeholders responded, including 1198 of 2151 (56%) individuals from academic hospitals, 114 of 276 (41%) from the outpatient affiliated practices, and 304 of 741 (54%) from satellite locations. Nearly everyone (96%) agreed that clinical accomplishments should be recognized, although a minority (47%) believed that clinicians were already valued. Most respondents selected 7 or more of 14 metrics as valid and reasonable for assessing clinical excellence. Popular metrics (eg, clinical productivity) were not believed to represent clinical excellence as much as others (eg, professionalism). Multivariate analysis found the least agreement among stakeholders on using published scholarship as evidence for clinical excellence, with the widest differences comparing senior faculty versus nonfaculty (88% vs 27%) and those with >75% of their time spent in patient care versus others (37% vs 73%). Most (six of seven) types of reward were perceived as meaningful by the majority of respondents, with little variation among subgroups across bivariate and multivariate analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This system-wide assessment was successful at identifying new strategies for recognizing clinical excellence. Other AHCs seeking institutional transformation may wish to perform a similar assessment.

Clinical Communities at Johns Hopkins Medicine: An Emerging Approach to Quality Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Clinical communities are an emerging approach to quality improvement (QI) to which several large-scale projects have attributed some success. In 2011 the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality established clinical communities as a core strategy to connect frontline providers from six different hospitals to improve quality of care, patient safety, and value across the health system. CLINICAL COMMUNITIES: Fourteen clinical communities that presented great opportunity for improvement were established. A community could focus on a clinical area, a patient population, a group, a process, a safety-related issue, or nearly any health care issue. The collaborative spirit of the communities embraced interdisciplinary membership and representation from each hospital in each community. Communities engaged in team-building activities and facilitated discussions, met monthly, and were encouraged to meet in person to develop relationships and build trust. After a community was established, patients and families were invited to join and share their perspectives and experiences. ENABLING STRUCTURES: The clinical community structure provided clinicians access to resources, such as technical experts and safety and QI researchers, that were not easily otherwise accessible or available. Communities convened clinicians from each hospital to consider safety problems and their resolution and share learning with workplace peers and local unit safety teams. CONCLUSION: The clinical communities engaged 195 clinicians from across the health system in QI projects and peer learning. Challenges included limited financial support and time for clinicians, timely access to data, limited resources from the health system, and not enough time with improvement experts.

Protocols and Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical protocols may decrease unnecessary variation in care and improve compliance with desirable therapies. We evaluated whether highly protocolized ICUs have superior patient outcomes compared with less highly protocolized ICUs. DESIGN: Observational study in which participating ICUs completed a general assessment and enrolled new patients 1 day each week. PATIENTS: A total of 6,179 critically ill patients. SETTING: Fifty-nine ICUs in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary exposure was the number of ICU protocols; the primary outcome was hospital mortality. A total of 5,809 participants were followed prospectively, and 5,454 patients in 57 ICUs had complete outcome data. The median number of protocols per ICU was 19 (interquartile range, 15-21.5). In single-variable analyses, there were no differences in ICU and hospital mortality, length of stay, use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or continuous sedation among individuals in ICUs with a high versus low number of protocols. The lack of association was confirmed in adjusted multivariable analysis (p = 0.70). Protocol compliance with two ventilator management protocols was moderate and did not differ between ICUs with high versus low numbers of protocols for lung protective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (47% vs 52%; p = 0.28) and for spontaneous breathing trials (55% vs 51%; p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical protocols are highly prevalent in U.S. ICUs. The presence of a greater number of protocols was not associated with protocol compliance or patient mortality.

Structure, process, and annual ICU mortality across 69 centers: United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital-level variations in structure and process may affect clinical outcomes in ICUs. We sought to characterize the organizational structure, processes of care, use of protocols, and standardized outcomes in a large sample of U.S. ICUs. DESIGN: We surveyed 69 ICUs about organization, size, volume, staffing, processes of care, use of protocols, and annual ICU mortality. SETTING: ICUs participating in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study. SUBJECTS: Sixty-nine intensivists completed the survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We characterized structure and process variables across ICUs, investigated relationships between these variables and annual ICU mortality, and adjusted for illness severity using Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II. Ninety-four ICU directors were invited to participate in the study and 69 ICUs (73%) were enrolled, of which 25 (36%) were medical, 24 (35%) were surgical, and 20 (29%) were of mixed type, and 64 (93%) were located in teaching hospitals with a median number of five trainees per ICU. Average annual ICU mortality was 10.8%, average Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 19.3, 58% were closed units, and 41% had a 24-hour in-house intensivist. In multivariable linear regression adjusted for Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and multiple ICU structure and process factors, annual ICU mortality was lower in surgical ICUs than in medical ICUs (5.6% lower [95% CI, 2.4-8.8%]) or mixed ICUs (4.5% lower [95% CI, 0.4-8.7%]). We also found a lower annual ICU mortality among ICUs that had a daily plan of care review (5.8% lower [95% CI, 1.6-10.0%]) and a lower bed-to-nurse ratio (1.8% lower when the ratio decreased from 2:1 to 1.5:1 [95% CI, 0.25-3.4%]). In contrast, 24-hour intensivist coverage (p = 0.89) and closed ICU status (p = 0.16) were not associated with a lower annual ICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of 69 ICUs, a daily plan of care review and a lower bed-to-nurse ratio were both associated with a lower annual ICU mortality. In contrast to 24-hour intensivist staffing, improvement in team communication is a low-cost, process-targeted intervention strategy that may improve clinical outcomes in ICU patients.

Compensatory increased enteral feeding goal rates: a way to achieve optimal nutrition.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, enteral nutrition (EN) goal rates have been calculated based on an intended continuous 24-hour infusion rate. Many factors in the care of critically ill patients result in interruption of EN infusions, often for several hours daily, which may lead to significant underfeeding. The objective of this study was to evaluate the difference of daily EN volume deficits between a traditionally calculated infusion rate and a compensatory, higher calculated infusion rate in which the 24-hour volume was delivered over a 20-hour infusion period. METHODS: Data collection consisted of daily EN volume deficit (intended volume - actual volume infused), based on intensive care unit nursing flow sheets. The primary outcome was daily EN volume deficit from a standard 24-hour calculated goal rate, compared with volume deficit from delivery of the same volume over 20 hours. For the 20-hour group, the calculated daily requirement of EN was divided by 20 rather than 24 for the higher hourly rate but still delivered for 24 hours. RESULTS: One hundred ten baseline (24-hour) EN days were evaluated with a mean infusion volume deficit of (±)247 mL/d. This compared with 158 patients in the 20-hour infusion group, in which the mean volume deficit was (±)45 mL/d (P < .001). Enteral nutrition was most often held for extubation or procedures. A higher level of overfeeding was noted in the 20-hour infusion group. CONCLUSION: Calculating and prescribing higher EN infusion rates, assuming 20 hours of actual infusion daily, promoted delivery of optimal nutrient provisions and avoidance of unintended malnutrition by significantly reducing caloric deficit from frequent EN holding.

Guidelines for the inter- and intrahospital transport of critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: The development of practice guidelines for the conduct of intra- and interhospital transport of the critically ill patient. DATA SOURCE: Expert opinion and a search of Index Medicus from January 1986 through October 2001 provided the basis for these guidelines. A task force of experts in the field of patient transport provided personal experience and expert opinion. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Several prospective and clinical outcome studies were found. However, much of the published data comes from retrospective reviews and anecdotal reports. Experience and consensus opinion form the basis of much of these guidelines. RESULTS OF DATA SYNTHESIS: Each hospital should have a formalized plan for intra- and interhospital transport that addresses a) pretransport coordination and communication; b) transport personnel; c) transport equipment; d) monitoring during transport; and e) documentation. The transport plan should be developed by a multidisciplinary team and should be evaluated and refined regularly using a standard quality improvement process. CONCLUSION: The transport of critically ill patients carries inherent risks. These guidelines promote measures to ensure safe patient transport. Although both intra- and interhospital transport must comply with regulations, we believe that patient safety is enhanced during transport by establishing an organized, efficient process supported by appropriate equipment and personnel.