The Utilization of 15-Minute Multidisciplinary Rounds to Reduce Length of Stay in Patients under Observation Status.

With the recent change to value-based care, institutions have struggled with the appropriate management of patients under observation. Observation status can have a huge impact on hospital and patient expenses. Institutions have implemented specialized observation units to provide better care for these patients. Starting in January 2020, coinciding with the initiation of daily multidisciplinary rounds, our study focused on patients aged 18 and older admitted to our hospital under observation status. Efforts were built upon prior initiatives at Jersey Shore University Medical Center (JSUMC) to optimize patient care and length of stay (LOS) reduction. The central intervention revolved around the establishment of daily "Observation Huddles"-succinct rounds led by hospital leaders to harmonize care for patients under observation. The primary aim was to assess the impact of daily multidisciplinary rounds (MDR) on LOS, while our secondary aim involved identifying specific barriers and interventions that contributed to the observed reduction. Our study revealed a 9-h reduction in observation time, resulting in approximately USD 187.50 saved per patient. When accounting for the period spanning 2020 to 2022, potential savings totaled USD 828,187.50 in 2020, USD 1,046,062.50 in 2021, and USD 1,243,562.50 in 2022. MDR for observation patients led to a reduction in LOS from 29 h to 20 h (p < 0.001).

Improving Hospital Length of Stay: Results of a Retrospective Cohort Study.

(1) Background: Jersey Shore University Medical Center (JSUMC) is a 646-bed tertiary medical center located in central New Jersey. Over the past several years, development and maturation of tertiary services at JSUMC has resulted in tremendous growth, with the inpatient volume increasing by 17% between 2016 and 2018. As hospital floors functioned at maximum capacity, the medical center was frequently forced into crisis mode with substantial increases in emergency department (ED) waiting times and a paradoxical increase in-hospital length of stay (hLOS). Prolonged hLOS can contribute to worse patient outcomes and satisfaction, as well as increased medical costs. (2) Methods: A root cause analysis was conducted to identify the factors leading to delays in providing in-hospital services. Four main bottlenecks were identified by the in-hospital phase sub-committee: incomplete orders, delays in placement to rehabilitation facilities, delays due to testing (mainly imaging), and delays in entering the discharge order. Similarly, the discharge process itself was analyzed, and obstacles were identified. Specific interventions to address each obstacle were implemented. Mean CMI-adjusted hospital LOS (CMI-hLOS) was the primary outcome measure. (3) Results: After interventions, CMI-hLOS decreased from 2.99 in 2017 to 2.84 and 2.76 days in 2018 and 2019, respectively. To correct for aberrations due to the COVID pandemic, we compared June-August 2019 to June-August 2020 and found a further decrease to 2.42 days after full implementation of all interventions. We estimate that the intervention led to an absolute reduction in costs of USD 3 million in the second half of 2019 and more than USD 7 million in 2020. On the other hand, the total expenses, represented by salaries for additional staffing, were USD 2,103,274, resulting in an estimated net saving for 2020 of USD 5,400,000. (4) Conclusions: At JSUMC, hLOS was found to be a complex and costly issue. A comprehensive approach, starting with the identification of all correctable delays followed by interventions to mitigate delays, led to a significant reduction in hLOS along with significant cost savings.

A survey of drug information references emergency medicine clinicians utilize for prescribing in pregnant patients.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians practicing in Emergency Departments (EDs) using outdated pocket guides and other non-pregnancy-specific references when prescribing in pregnancy may place the pregnancy or fetus at risk. OBJECTIVE: To identify the references that emergency medicine (EM) clinicians use for prescribing in pregnant patients, the prescribing trends when clinicians are given the pregnancy category information, and clinician awareness of access to drug information references. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was administered to EM clinicians. In part I, clinicians listed the top 3 drug information references that they routinely use in clinical practice. In part II, clinicians ranked their willingness to prescribe a Category A, B, C, D, or X drug using a 5-point Likert scale. In part III, clinicians selected from a list of electronic and print resources those that they consider available to them in the ED to find pregnancy-related drug prescribing information. Statistical analyses included frequency distribution and bivariate analysis. RESULTS: Fifty-five clinicians with an average of 5.71 +/- 7.95 years (+/- SD) in the profession completed the survey. The most commonly used references included Micromedex, Tarascon Pocket Pharmacopoeia, and Epocrates (29%, 18%, and 14%, respectively). Ten (18%) respondents stated that they would be willing to prescribe Category C drugs. Among the 5 pregnancy-specific drug information references that are available in our ED, only 20% of EM clinicians stated that these references were available to them. CONCLUSIONS: EM clinicians rely on general references to make prescribing decisions for pregnant patients and are willing to prescribe medications that have data to support safe use in pregnancy. A minority of EM clinicians acknowledged the availability of pregnancy-specific references in the ED. Increased awareness of references that incorporate human data into their pharmacotherapy recommendations is warranted to assist EM clinicians in achieving their goal of prescribing safely in the pregnant patient.

Where's the beef? The promise and the reality of clinical documentation.

Physician-generated emergency department clinical documentation (information obtained from clinician observations and summarized decision processes inclusive of all manner of electronic systems capturing, storing, and presenting clinical documentation) serves four purposes: recording of medical care and communication among providers; payment for hospital and physician; legal defense from medical negligence allegations; and symptom/disease surveillance, public health, and research functions. In the consensus development process described by Handler, these objectives were balanced with the consideration of efficiency, often evaluated as physician time and clinical documentation system costs, in recording the information necessary for their accomplishment. The consensus panel session participants and authors recommend that 1) clinical documentation be electronically retrievable; 2) selection and implementation be evidence-based and grounded on valid metrics (research is needed to identify these metrics); 3) the user interface be crafted to promote clinical excellence through high-quality information collection and efficient charting techniques; 4) the priorities for integration of clinical information be standardized and implemented within enterprises and across health and information systems; 5) systems use accepted standards for bidirectional, real-time clinical data exchange, without limiting the location or number of simultaneous users; 6) systems fully utilize existing electronic sources of specific patient information and general medical knowledge; 7) systems automatically and reliably capture appropriate data that support electronic billing for emergency department services; and 8) systems promote bedside documentation and mobile access.