Is Resident-Driven Inpatient Care More Expensive? Challenging a Long-Held Assumption.

PURPOSE: The financial impact of graduate medical education (GME) on teaching hospitals remains poorly understood, while calls for increased federal support continue alongside legislative threats to reduce funding. Despite studies suggesting that residents are more "economical" than alternative providers, GME is widely believed to be an expensive investment. Assumptions that residents increase the cost of patient care have persisted in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, the authors sought to examine resident influence on patient care costs by comparing costs between a resident-driven service (RS) and a nonresident-covered service (NRS), with attention to clinical outcomes and how potential cost differences relate to the utilization of resources, length of stay (LOS), and other factors. METHOD: This prospective study compared costs and clinical outcomes of internal medicine patients admitted to an RS versus an NRS at Massachusetts General Hospital (July 1, 2016-June 30, 2017). Total variable direct costs of inpatient admission was the primary outcome measure. LOS; 30-day readmission rate; utilization related to diagnostic radiology, pharmaceuticals, and clinical labs; and other outcome measures were also compared. Linear regression models quantified the relationship between log-transformed variable direct costs and service. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of 5,448 patients on the 2 services (3,250 on an RS and 2,198 on an NRS) were similar. On an RS, patient care costs were slightly less and LOS was slightly shorter than on an NRS, with no significant differences in hospital mortality or 30-day readmission rate detected. Resource utilization was comparable between the services. CONCLUSIONS: These findings undermine long-held assumptions that residents increase the cost of patient care. Though not generalizable to ambulatory settings or other specialties, this study can help inform hospital decision making around sponsorship of GME programs, especially if federal funding for GME remains capped or is subject to additional reductions.

Improving the discharge process by embedding a discharge facilitator in a resident team.

BACKGROUND: Hospital discharges are vulnerable periods for patient safety, especially in teaching hospitals where discharges are done by residents with competing demands. We sought to assess whether embedding a nurse practitioner on a medical team to help physicians with the discharge process would improve communication, patient follow-up, and hospital reutilization. METHODS: A 5-month randomized controlled trial was conducted on the medical service at an academic tertiary-care hospital. A nurse practitioner was randomly assigned to 1 resident team to complete discharge paperwork, arrange follow-up appointments and prescriptions, communicate discharge plans with nursing and primary care physicians, and answer questions from discharged patients. RESULTS: Intervention patients had more discharge summaries completed within 24 hours (67% vs. 47%, P < 0.001). Similarly, they had more follow-up appointments scheduled by the time of discharge (62% vs. 36%, P < 0.0001) and attended those appointments more often within 2 weeks (36% vs. 23%, P < 0.0002). Intervention patients knew whom to call with questions (95% vs. 85%, P = 0.003) and were more satisfied with the discharge process (97% vs. 76%, P < 0.0001). Attending rounds on the intervention team finished on time (45% vs. 31%, P = 0.058), and residents signed out on average 46 minutes earlier each day. There was no significant difference between the groups in 30-day emergency department visits or readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: Helping resident physicians with the discharge process improves many aspects of discharge communication and patient follow-up, and saves residents' time, but had no effect on hospital reutilization for a general medicine population.

Successful implementation of an alcohol-withdrawal pathway in a general hospital.

BACKGROUND: Although alcohol use and abuse are common among general-hospital inpatients, many patients are inadequately assessed and treated for alcohol withdrawal. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the implementation of a clinical pathway for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal in medical inpatients would result in improvements in clinical practice and patient outcomes. METHOD: Authors retrospectively reviewed 80 patient records (including 40 of those treated before the implementation of a pathway and 40 of those treated after pathway implementation). RESULTS: Assessment procedures and ordering patterns of physicians (medical house staff and staff physicians) shifted in a fashion consistent with the new treatment guidelines. Patient outcomes (e.g., length of stay and the incidence of delirium) improved for those patients who received benzodiazepines within the range of the pathway guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Timely assessment and staff education can shift prescription patterns, increase patient monitoring, and reduce costs associated with alcohol withdrawal.