Effect of patient-centred bedside rounds on hospitalised patients' decision control, activation and satisfaction with care.

IMPORTANCE: Though interprofessional bedside rounds have been promoted to enhance patient-centred care for hospitalised patients, few studies have been conducted in adult hospital settings and evidence of impact is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of patient-centred bedside rounds (PCBRs) on measures of patient-centred care. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cluster randomised controlled trial involving four similar non-teaching hospitalist service units in a large urban hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalised general medical patients. INTERVENTION: We assembled working groups on two intervention units, consisting of professionals and patient/family members, to determine the optimal timing, duration and format for PCBR. Nurses and hospitalists rounded together in PCBR using a communication tool to provide a framework for discussion and unit leaders joined PCBR to provide coaching during initial weeks of implementation. MAIN OUTCOMES: Using patient interviews, we assessed preferred and experienced roles in medical decision-making using the Control Preferences Scale, activation using the Short Form of the Patient Activation Measure, and satisfaction. We also compared postdischarge patient satisfaction survey items related to teamwork, involvement in decisions and overall care. We assessed nurses', physicians' and advanced practice providers' (APP) perceptions of PCBR using a survey developed for this study. RESULTS: Overall, 650 patients were approached for structured interview during hospitalisation: 284 were excluded because of disorientation, 54 were excluded because of non-English language, 72 declined to participate and 4 withdrew from the study after enrolment. Interview data were available for 236 (122 control and 114 intervention unit) patients, and postdischarge satisfaction survey data were available for 493 (274 control and 219 intervention unit) patients. We found no significant differences in patients' perceptions of shared decision-making, activation or satisfaction with care. Results were similar in analyses based on whether PCBR had been performed (ie, per protocol). We also found no difference in postdischarge patient satisfaction items. Results were similar in multivariate analyses controlling for patient characteristics and clustering of patients within study units. A majority of nurses (78.6%), but only about half of hospitalist physicians and APPs felt that PCBR improved communication with patients (47.4%). A minority of nurses (46.4%) and physicians and APPs (36.8%) agreed that PCBR had improved the efficiency of their workday. CONCLUSIONS: PCBR had no impact on patients' perceptions of shared decision-making, activation or satisfaction with care. Additional research is needed to identify optimal approaches that can be reliably implemented in hospital settings to improve patient-centred care.

Improving teamwork: impact of structured interdisciplinary rounds on a hospitalist unit.

BACKGROUND: Effective collaboration and teamwork is essential in providing safe and effective care. Research reveals deficiencies in teamwork on medical units involving hospitalists. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of an intervention, Structured Inter-Disciplinary Rounds (SIDR), on nurses' ratings of collaboration and teamwork. METHODS: The study was a controlled trial involving an intervention and control hospitalist unit. The intervention, SIDR, combined a structured format for communication with a forum for regular interdisciplinary meetings. We asked nurses to rate the quality of communication and collaboration with hospitalists using a 5-point ordinal scale. We also assessed teamwork and safety climate using a validated instrument. Multivariable regression analyses were used to assess the impact on length of stay (LOS) and cost using both a concurrent and historic control. RESULTS: A total of 49 of 58 (84%) nurses completed surveys. A larger percentage of nurses rated the quality of communication and collaboration with hospitalists as high or very high on the intervention unit compared to the control unit (80% vs. 54%; P = 0.05). Nurses also rated the teamwork and safety climate significantly higher on the intervention unit (P = 0.008 and P = 0.03 for teamwork and safety climate, respectively). Multivariable analyses demonstrated no difference in the adjusted LOS and an inconsistent effect on cost. CONCLUSIONS: SIDR had a positive effect on nurses' ratings of collaboration and teamwork on a hospitalist unit, yet no impact on LOS and cost. Further study is required to assess the impact of SIDR on patient safety measures.

Non-housestaff medicine services in academic centers: models and challenges.

Non-housestaff medicine services are growing rapidly in academic medical centers (AMCs), partly driven by efforts to comply with resident duty hour restrictions. Hospitalists have emerged as a solution to providing these services given their commitment to delivering efficient and high-quality care and the field's rapid growth. However, limited evidence is available on designing these services, including the similarities and differences of existing ones. We describe non-housestaff medicine services at 5 AMCs in order to share our experiences and outline important considerations in service development. We discuss common challenges in building and sustaining these models along with local institutional factors that affect decision making. Keys to success include ensuring an equitable system for scheduling and staffing, fostering opportunities for scholarly activities and academic promotion (defining the "academic hospitalist"), and providing compensation that supports recruitment and retention of hospitalists. With further work hour restrictions expected in the future and increased requests for surgical comanagement, the relationship between AMCs and hospitalists will continue to evolve. To succeed in developing hospitalist faculty who follow long careers in hospital medicine, academic leadership must carefully plan for and evaluate the methods of providing these clinical services while expanding on our academic mission.

Cardiovascular surgical outcomes in patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome--a case-series.

BACKGROUND: Patients with the antiphospholipid syndrome (APLS) have severe involvement of the cardiovascular apparatus and often need surgical interventions to correct these manifestations. Few studies that have looked at the outcomes of cardiothoracic surgeries in APLS patients have reported high rates of perioperative mortality and thromboembolic events. OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to examine the outcomes of adult APLS patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and/or valvular surgery. We also wanted to determine whether aggressive anticoagulation therapy could prevent life threatening thromboembolic complications in these patients. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed medical records of nine patients with primary APLS undergoing cardiothoracic surgery between 1985 and 2005 at our institution. Patient demographics, operative procedures and one-year clinical outcomes were obtained. RESULTS: Forty-five percent of our patients had more than three cardiovascular risk factors other than APLS. There were no mortalities in our case series. However, 89% of our patients developed major complications. Despite aggressive anticoagulation, 37.5% developed thromboembolic events including cerebrovascular accidents, myocardial infarctions and vena caval thrombosis. Other complications included heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, redo of CABG surgery and sepsis. CONCLUSION: Despite aggressive anticoagulation and lack of significant pre-operative co-morbidities, APLS patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery appear to have high rates of post-operative clinical events.