Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 69
Filtrar
1.
J Hosp Med ; 2024 Apr 18.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38634753

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Traditional measures of workload such as wRVUs may not be adequate to understand the impact of workload on key outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a mobile application to assess, in near real time, clinicians' perception of workload and work environment. DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: We developed the GrittyWork™ application (GW App) using the Chokshi and Mann process model for user-centered digital development. Study occured at a single academic medical center with hospitalist clinicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES AND MEASURES: Measures included the System Usability Scale (SUS), use measures from GW App, electronic health record (EHR) event log data and note counts, and qualitative interviews. RESULTS: From October 28, 2022 to November 3, 2022, six hospitalist clinicians provided feedback on the early prototype of the GW App, and from February 28, 2023 to June 8, 2023, 30 hospitalist clinicians participated in the pilot while on clinical service. All 30 clinicians (100%) participated in the pilot submitting data for a total of 122 shifts. Participants reported working 10 ± 1 h per day (mean ± SD) and were responsible for an average of 11 ± 3 patients per day. The postpilot evaluation of the GW App showed a SUS score of 86 ± 11 and a participant preference toward mobile application-based surveys (73% of participants). Regarding workload measures, EHR event log data and notes data correlated with physician-reported workloads. Applying user-centered design techniques, we successfully developed a mobile application with high usability. These data can be paired with EHR event log data and outcomes to provide insights into the impact of workloads and work environments on outcomes.

2.
J Hosp Med ; 2024 Apr 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38598752

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Medicare previously announced plans for new billing reforms for inpatient visits that are shared by physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) whereby the clinician spending the most time on the patient visit would bill for the visit. OBJECTIVE: To understand how inpatient hospital medicine teams utilize APPs in patient care and how the proposed billing policies might impact future APP utilization. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted focus groups with hospitalist physicians, APPs, and other leaders from 21 academic hospitals across the United States. Utilizing rapid qualitative methods, focus groups were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive method at the semantic level with templated summaries and matrix analysis. Thirty-three individuals (physicians [n = 21], APPs [n = 10], practice manager [n = 1], and patient representative [n = 1]) participated in six focus groups. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the analysis of the focus groups, including: (1) staffing models with APPs are rapidly evolving, (2) these changes were felt to be driven by staffing shortages, financial models, and governance with minimal consideration to teamwork and relationships, (3) time-based billing was perceived to value tasks over cognitive workload, and (4) that the proposed billing changes may create unintended consequences impacting collaboration and professional satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Physician and APP collaborative care models are increasingly evolving to independent visits often driven by workloads, financial drivers, and local regulations such as medical staff rules and hospital bylaws. Understanding which staffing models produce optimal patient, clinician, and organizational outcomes should inform billing policies rather than the reverse.

6.
Am J Public Health ; 114(S2): 162-166, 2024 Feb.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38354355

RESUMEN

We assessed how hospitalists frame workplace safety, health, and well-being (SHW); their perception of hospital supports for SHW; and whether and how they are sharing leadership responsibility for each other's SHW. Our findings highlight the important role of local support for hospitalist SHW and reveal the systemic, hospital-wide problems that may impede their SHW. We believe that positioning hospitalists as leaders for SHW will result in systems-wide changes in practices to support the SHW of all care team members. (Am J Public Health. 2024;114(S2):S162-S166. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2024.307573).


Asunto(s)
Médicos Hospitalarios , Estados Unidos , Humanos , Liderazgo , Lugar de Trabajo
7.
J Nurs Care Qual ; 39(2): 151-158, 2024.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37729000

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The progression of patients through a hospital from admission to discharge can be slowed by delays in patient discharge, increasing pressure on health care staff. We designed and piloted the Discharge Today tool, with the goal of improving the efficiency of patient discharge; however, adoption remained low. PURPOSE: To close this implementation gap, we deployed and evaluated a 4-part implementation strategy bundle. METHODS: We measured the success of implementation by evaluating validated implementation outcomes using both quantitative and qualitative methods, grounded in Normalization Process Theory. RESULTS: The implementation strategies used were effective for increasing use of the Discharge Today tool by hospital medicine physicians and advanced practice providers during both the active and passive implementation periods. CONCLUSIONS: While the implementation strategies used were effective, qualitative findings indicate that limitations in the functionality of the tool, alongside inconsistent use of the tool across clinical staff, continued to inhibit adoption.


Asunto(s)
Medicina Hospitalar , Alta del Paciente , Humanos , Pacientes Internos , Hospitalización , Atención a la Salud
8.
Ann Intern Med ; 176(11): 1526-1535, 2023 11.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37956429

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Clinical growth is outpacing the growth of traditional educational opportunities at academic medical centers (AMCs). OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of clinical growth on the educational mission for academic hospitalists. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews that were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive method at the semantic level. SETTING: Large AMCs across the United States that experienced clinical growth in the past 5 years. PARTICIPANTS: Division heads, section heads, and other hospital medicine (HM) leaders who oversaw and guided academic and clinical efforts of HM programs. MEASUREMENTS: Themes and subthemes. RESULTS: From September 2021 to January 2022, HM leaders from 17 AMCs participated in the interviews, and 3 key themes emerged. First, AMCs' disproportionate clinical growth highlighted the tension between clinical and educational missions. This included a mismatch in supply and demand for traditional teaching time, competing priorities, and clinical growth being seen as both an opportunity and a threat. Second, amid the shifting landscape of high clinical demands and evolving educational opportunities, hospitalists still strongly prefer traditional teaching. To address this mismatch, HM groups have had to alter recruitment strategies and create innovative solutions to help build academic careers. Third, participants noted a need to reimagine the role and identity of an academic hospitalist, emphasizing tailored career pathways and educational roles spanning well beyond traditional house staff teaching teams. LIMITATION: The study focused on large AMCs. CONCLUSION: Although HM groups have implemented many creative strategies to address clinical growth and keep education front and center, challenges remain, particularly heavy clinical workloads and a continued dilution of traditional teaching opportunities. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Society of Hospital Medicine Student Scholar Grant.


Asunto(s)
Medicina Hospitalar , Médicos Hospitalarios , Internado y Residencia , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Centros Médicos Académicos
9.
J Hosp Med ; 18(12): 1072-1081, 2023 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37888951

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Hospitales , Pacientes Internos , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Hospitalización , Errores Diagnósticos , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto
12.
J Gen Intern Med ; 38(14): 3180-3187, 2023 Nov.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37653202

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Women physicians have faced persistent challenges, including gender bias, salary inequities, a disproportionate share of caregiving and domestic responsibilities, and limited representation in leadership. Data indicate the COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted and exacerbated these inequities. OBJECTIVE: To understand the pandemic's impact on women physicians and to brainstorm solutions to better support women physicians. DESIGN: Mixed-gender semi-structured focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalists in the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). APPROACH: Six semi-structured virtual focus groups were held with 22 individuals from 13 institutions comprised primarily of academic hospitalist physicians. Rapid qualitative methods including templated summaries and matrix analysis were applied to identify major themes and subthemes. KEY RESULTS: Four key themes emerged: (1) the pandemic exacerbated perceived gender inequities, (2) women's academic productivity and career development were negatively impacted, (3) women held disproportionate roles as caregivers and household managers, and (4) institutional pandemic responses were often misaligned with workforce needs, especially those of women hospitalists. Multiple interventions were proposed including: creating targeted workforce solutions and benefits to address the disproportionate caregiving burden placed on women, addressing hospitalist scheduling and leave practices, ensuring promotion pathways value clinical and COVID-19 contributions, creating transparency around salary and non-clinical time allocation, and ensuring women are better represented in leadership roles. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalists perceived and experienced that women physicians faced negative impacts from the pandemic in multiple domains including leadership opportunities and scholarship, while also shouldering larger caregiving duties than men. There are many opportunities to improve workplace conditions for women; however, current institutional efforts were perceived as misaligned to actual needs. Thus, policy and programmatic changes, such as those proposed by this cohort of hospitalists, are needed to advance equity in the workplace.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Medicina Hospitalar , Médicos Hospitalarios , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , COVID-19/epidemiología , Pandemias , Sexismo
13.
JAMA Netw Open ; 6(8): e2328165, 2023 08 01.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37561462

RESUMEN

Importance: The ideal hospitalist workload and optimal way to measure it are not well understood. Objective: To obtain expert consensus on the salient measures of hospitalist workload. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used a 3-round Delphi technique between April 5 and July 13, 2022, involving national experts within and external to the field. Experts included hospitalist clinicians, leaders, and administrators, as well as researchers with expertise in human factors engineering and cognitive load theory. Main Outcomes and Measures: Three rounds of surveys were conducted, during which participants provided input on the salient measures of hospitalist workload across various domains. In the first round, free-text data collected from the surveys were analyzed using a directed qualitative content approach. In the second and third rounds, participants rated each measure's relevance on a Likert scale, and consensus was evaluated using the IQR. Percentage agreement was also calculated. Results: Seventeen individuals from 14 organizations, encompassing clinicians, leaders, administrators, and researchers, participated in 3 rounds of surveys. In round 1, participants provided 135 unique qualitative comments across 10 domains, with 192 unique measures identified. Of the 192 measures presented in the second round, 6 (3%) were considered highly relevant, and 25 (13%) were considered moderately relevant. In round 3, 161 measures not meeting consensus were evaluated, with 25 (16%) considered highly relevant and 95 (59%) considered moderately relevant. Examples of measures considered highly relevant included a patient complexity score and outcome measures such as savings from hospital days avoided and clinician turnover. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study measuring hospitalist workload, multiple measures, including those quantifying work demands and the association of those demands with outcomes, were considered relevant for measuring and understanding workloads. The findings suggest that relying on traditional measures, such as productivity-related measures and financial measures, may offer an incomplete understanding of workloads and their association with key outcomes. By embracing a broader range of measures, organizations may be able to better capture the complexity and nuances of hospitalist work demands and their outcomes on clinicians, patients, and organizations.


Asunto(s)
Médicos Hospitalarios , Carga de Trabajo , Humanos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud , Consenso , Técnica Delfos
14.
J Gen Intern Med ; 38(8): 1902-1910, 2023 06.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36952085

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , COVID-19/epidemiología , Estudios Retrospectivos , Pandemias , Prevalencia , Errores Diagnósticos , Prueba de COVID-19
15.
J Hosp Med ; 18(4): 329-336, 2023 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36876949

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The hospitalist workforce has been at the forefront of the pandemic and has been stretched in both clinical and nonclinical domains. We aimed to understand current and future workforce concerns, as well as strategies to cultivate a thriving hospital medicine workforce. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted qualitative, semistructured focus groups with practicing hospitalists via video conferencing (Zoom). Utilizing components from the Brainwriting Premortem Approach, attendees were split into small focus groups and listed their thoughts about workforce issues that hospitalists may encounter in the next 3 years, identifying the highest priority workforce issues for the hospital medicine community. Each small group discussed the most pressing workforce issues. These ideas were then shared across the entire group and ranked. We used rapid qualitative analysis to guide a structured exploration of themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Five focus groups were held with 18 participants from 13 academic institutions. We identified five key areas: (1) support for workforce wellness; (2) staffing and pipeline development to maintain an adequate workforce to match clinical growth; (3) scope of work, including how hospitalist work is defined and whether the clinical skillset should be expanded; (4) commitment to the academic mission in the setting of rapid and unpredictable clinical growth; and (5) alignment between the duties of hospitalists and resources of hospitals. Hospitalists voiced numerous concerns about the future of our workforce. Several domains were identified as high-priority areas of focus to address current and future challenges.


Asunto(s)
Medicina Hospitalar , Médicos Hospitalarios , Humanos , Recursos Humanos , Personal de Hospital , Hospitales Comunitarios
16.
J Hosp Med ; 18(4): 302-315, 2023 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36797598

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To relieve hospital capacity strain, hospitals often encourage clinicians to prioritize early morning discharges which may have unintended consequences. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to test the effects of hospitalist physicians prioritizing discharging patients first compared to usual rounding style. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective, multi-center randomized controlled trial. Three large academic hospitals. Participants were Hospital Medicine attending-level physicians and patients the physicians cared for during the study who were at least 18 years of age, admitted to a Medicine service, and assigned by standard practice to a hospitalist team. INTERVENTION: Physicians were randomized to: (1) prioritizing discharging patients first as care allowed or (2) usual practice. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Main outcome measure was discharge order time. Secondary outcomes were actual discharge time, length of stay (LOS), and order times for procedures, consults, and imaging. RESULTS: From February 9, 2021, to July 31, 2021, 4437 patients were discharged by 59 physicians randomized to prioritize discharging patients first or round per usual practice. In primary adjusted analyses (intention-to-treat), findings showed no significant difference for discharge order time (13:03 ± 2 h:31 min vs. 13:11 ± 2 h:33 min, p = .11) or discharge time (15:22 ± 2 h:50 min vs. 15:21 ± 2 h:50 min, p = .45), for physicians randomized to prioritize discharging patients first compared to physicians using usual rounding style, respectively, and there was no significant change in LOS or on order times of other physician orders. CONCLUSIONS: Prioritizing discharging patients first did not result in significantly earlier discharges or reduced LOS.


Asunto(s)
Médicos Hospitalarios , Alta del Paciente , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Estudios Prospectivos , Hospitales
17.
J Hosp Med ; 18(4): 287-293, 2023 04.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36779314

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Hospitalists who seek academic careers are interested in developing skills in research, education, and quality improvement (QI). Since these are not major foci of residency programs, hospitalists may pursue a hospital medicine fellowship to acquire these skill sets. OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize the current state of hospital medicine fellowships in the United States, including demographics, clinical requirements, curricular focus, financial structure, and scholarly outputs. DESIGNS, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cross-sectional study of 32 hospital medicine fellowship programs across the United States in 2020-2021. An electronic survey was emailed to program leaders. RESULTS: Out of 32 eligible programs contacted, 19 (59.4%) programs responded, representing 22 fellowship tracks. Most (63.2%) programs have been in existence for 5 years or less. Fourteen (63.6%) of the tracks had multiple focus areas, while 8 (36.4%) had a single focus. Of the 14 fellowship tracks with multiple focus areas, 6 (42.8%) reported research, QI and medical education as curricular elements. All 14 reported research as one of the curricular elements. The majority (68.4%) of programs offered opportunities to obtain a master's degree, though the field of degree varied widely. A median of 50% (IQR 0) of fellows' time was spent in clinical activities. Considerable heterogeneity exists among adult hospital medicine fellowship programs. The majority focus on research, QI, and/or medical education. Hospital medicine fellowships offer opportunities for intesive faculty development and unique career pathways.


Asunto(s)
Medicina Hospitalar , Internado y Residencia , Humanos , Adulto , Estados Unidos , Estudios Transversales , Educación de Postgrado en Medicina , Becas , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
19.
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf ; 49(2): 98-104, 2023 02.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36585315

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Health care systems are in a constant state of change. As such, methods to quickly acquire and analyze data are essential to effectively evaluate current processes and improvement projects. Rapid qualitative analysis offers an expeditious approach to evaluate complex, dynamic, and time-sensitive issues. METHODS: We used rapid data acquisition and qualitative methods to assess six real-world problems the hospitalist field faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. We iteratively modified and applied a six-step framework for conducting rapid qualitative analysis, including determining if rapid methods are appropriate, creating a team, selecting a data collection approach, data analysis, and synthesis and dissemination. Virtual platforms were used for focus groups and interviews; templated summaries and matrix analyses were then applied to allow for rapid qualitative analyses. RESULTS: We conducted six projects using rapid data acquisition and rapid qualitative analysis from December 4, 2020, to January 14, 2022, each of which included 23 to 33 participants. One project involved participants from a single institution; the remainder included participants from 15 to 24 institutions. These projects led to the refinement of an adapted rapid qualitative method for evaluation of hospitalist-driven operational, research, and quality improvement efforts. We describe how we used these methods and disseminated our results. We also discuss situations for which rapid qualitative methods are well-suited and strengths and weaknesses of the methods. CONCLUSION: Rapid qualitative methods paired with rapid data acquisition can be employed for prompt turnaround assessments of quality, operational, and research projects in complex health care environments. Although rapid qualitative analysis is not meant to replace more traditional qualitative methods, it may be appropriate in certain situations. Application of a framework to guide projects using a rapid qualitative approach can help provide structure to the analysis and instill confidence in the findings.


Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Pandemias , Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Grupos Focales , Hospitales , Investigación Cualitativa
20.
BMJ Open ; 12(12): e062878, 2022 12 12.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36523243

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Clinicians that care for hospitalised patients face unprecedented work conditions with exposure to highly infectious disease, exceedingly high patient numbers, and unpredictable work demands, all of which have resulted in increases in stress and burnout. Preliminary studies suggest that increasing workloads negatively affect inpatient clinician well-being and may negatively affect job performance; yet high workloads may be prioritised secondary to financial drivers or from workforce shortages. Despite this, the correlation between workload and these negative outcomes has not been fully quantified. Additionally, there are no clear measures for inpatient clinician workload and no standards to define ideal workloads. Using the protocol described here, we will perform a scoping review of the literature to generate a comprehensive understanding of how clinician workload of medical patients is currently defined, measured in clinical settings and its impact on the workforce, patients and institutional outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the methodology outlined by Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey and O'Malley to conduct a comprehensive search of major electronic databases including Ovid Medline (PubMed), Embase (Embase.com), PsycINFO, ProQuest Dissertations and Google Scholar. All relevant published peer-reviewed and dissertaion grey literature will be included. Data will be extracted using a standardised form to capture key article information. Results will be presented in a descriptive narrative format. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethics approval though all included studies will be screened to ensure appropriate approval. The synthesis of this literature will provide a better understanding of the current state of work for inpatient clinicians, associated outcomes, and will identify gaps in the literature. These findings will be used in conjunction with an expert Delphi panel to identify measures of inpatient clinician workload to then guide the development of a novel workforce mobile application to actively track clinician work. We aim to lay the groundwork for future workforce studies to understand the optimal workloads that drive key outcomes for clinicians, patients and institutions.


Asunto(s)
Pacientes Internos , Carga de Trabajo , Humanos , Proyectos de Investigación , Recursos Humanos , Revisión por Pares , Literatura de Revisión como Asunto
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA
...