Hospital Capacity Command Centers: A Benchmarking Survey on an Emerging Mechanism to Manage Patient Flow.

BACKGROUND: Delayed hospital and emergency department (ED) patient throughput, which occurs when demand for inpatient care exceeds hospital capacity, is a critical threat to safety, quality, and hospital financial performance. In response, many hospitals are deploying capacity command centers (CCCs), which co-locate key work groups and aggregate real-time data to proactively manage patient flow. Only a narrow body of peer-reviewed articles have characterized CCCs to date. To equip health system leaders with initial insights into this emerging intervention, the authors sought to survey US health systems to benchmark CCC motivations, design, and key performance indicators. METHODS: An online survey on CCC design and performance was administered to members of a hospital capacity management consortium, which included a convenience sample of capacity leaders at US health systems (N = 38). Responses were solicited through a targeted e-mail campaign. Results were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The response rate was 81.6% (31/38). Twenty-five respondents were operating CCCs, varying in scope (hospital, region of a health system, or entire health system) and number of beds managed. The most frequent motivation for CCC implementation was reducing ED boarding (n = 24). The most common functions embedded in CCCs were bed management (n = 25) and interhospital transfers (n = 25). Eighteen CCCs (72.0%) tracked financial return on investment (ROI); all reported positive ROI. CONCLUSION: This survey addresses a gap in the literature by providing initial aggregate data for health system leaders to consider, plan, and benchmark CCCs. The researchers identify motivations for, functions in, and key performance indicators used to assess CCCs. Future research priorities are also proposed.

Inpatient Capacity Management during COVID-19 Pandemic: The Yale New Haven Hospital Capacity Expansion Experience.

The 2019 SARS-CoV2 virus presented a capacity demand scenario for Yale New Haven Hospital. The response was created with a focus on clinical needs, but was also driven by the unique characteristics of the buildings within our institution. These physical characteristics were considered in the response as a safety measure as little was known about the transmissibility risk in the acute hospital setting of SARS-CoV2 at the time of response. The lessons learned in capacity expansion to meet the potentially catastrophic demand for acute care services due to a novel, poorly understood pathogen are discussed here.

Accuracy of Height Measurement in the Inpatient Setting.

Accurate height measurement is critical for accurate dosing of medications, mechanical ventilation, and nutritional calculations. Prior research has identified inaccuracies with self-reported height, and height is notably important to measure accurately in critically ill patients. In this study, conducted in a large tertiary academic medical center, medical records rarely indicated the method of height measurement, and there were statistically significant variations in measured height across admissions.

Conversion of a Conference Room into a Low-Acuity Inpatient Medical Unit: A Creative Response to Influenza-Related Surge.

The 2017-2018 influenza season was associated with high demand for both emergency department (ED) care and inpatient acute care for influenza-like illness (ILI). This high demand resulted in increased numbers of inpatients and ED patients, including prolonged ED length of stay. A large, urban, academic medical center in a cold-weather region was limited in its ability to expand its footprint to create de novo locations of care, such as temporary outbuildings or tents. As such, a large conference room was rapidly converted and placed in service as a temporary inpatient unit for adults requiring inpatient admission. LOGISTICS AND IMPLEMENTATION: The logistical, infection prevention, safety, information technology, staffing, and other concerns of creating a clinical environment during a high demand scenario is challenging. However, the lessons learned in this study are reproducible despite the complexity of this issue. CONCLUSION: This is believed to be the first published account of successful conversion of a nonclinical area to an operational clinical unit in response to a surge in demand for hospital care and admission. This may be a valid option for hospitals of all sizes as part of a surge or disaster plan.

Using System Inflammatory Response Syndrome as an Easy-to-Implement, Sustainable, and Automated Tool for All-Cause Deterioration Among Medical Inpatients.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical deterioration detection among adult inpatients is known to be suboptimal, and many electronic health record tools have been developed to help identify these patients. Many of these tools are focused on sepsis spectrum disorders, but the evolution of the definition of sepsis is moving toward increased specificity, which may make automated detection of clinical deterioration from nonsepsis-related conditions less likely. The objectives of this study were to develop and to examine the use of a low-cost, highly sustainable deterioration detection tool based on systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) criteria. METHODS: Using existing resources, a SIRS-based electronic health record monitoring and intervention tool was developed with a focus on ease of implementation and high sustainability. This tool was used to monitor 15,739 adult inpatients in real time during their admission. RESULTS: The SIRS-based tool, created with focus on ease of implementation and high sustainability, identified patients with higher risk of clinical deterioration. The project was rapidly deployed for a 4-month period at a 900-bed campus of an academic medical center with minimal additional resources required. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the definition of sepsis moves away from SIRS, SIRS-based criteria may still have clinical benefit as an easy-to-automate detection tool for all-cause clinical deterioration among medical inpatients.

Association of an Opioid Standard of Practice Intervention With Intravenous Opioid Exposure in Hospitalized Patients.

Importance: Opioids are commonly used to treat pain in hospitalized patients; however, intravenous administration carries an increased risk of adverse effects compared with oral administration. The subcutaneous route is an effective method of opioid delivery with favorable pharmacokinetics. Objective: To assess an intervention to reduce intravenous opioid use, total parenteral opioid exposure, and the rate of patients administered parenteral opioids. Design, Setting, and Participants: A pilot study was conducted in an adult general medical unit in an urban academic medical center. Attending physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants who prescribed drugs were the participants. Use of opioids was compared between a 6-month control period and 3 months following education for the prescribers on opioid routes of administration. Interventions: Adoption of a local opioid standard of practice, preferring the oral and subcutaneous routes over intravenous administration, and education for prescribers and nursing staff on awareness of the subcutaneous route was implemented. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a reduction in intravenous doses administered per patient-day. Secondary measures included total parenteral and overall opioid doses per patient-day, parenteral and overall opioid exposure per patient-day, and daily rate of patients receiving parenteral opioids. Pain scores were measured on a standard 0- to 10-point Likert scale over the first 5 days of hospitalization. Results: The control period included 4500 patient-days, and the intervention period included 2459 patient-days. Of 127 patients in the intervention group, 59 (46.5%) were men; mean (SD) age was 57.6 (18.5) years. Intravenous opioid doses were reduced by 84% (0.06 vs 0.39 doses per patient-day, P < .001), and doses of all parenteral opioids were reduced by 55% (0.18 vs 0.39 doses per patient-day, P < .001). In addition, mean (SD) daily parenteral opioid exposure decreased by 49% (2.88 [0.72] vs 5.67 [1.14] morphine-milligram equivalents [MMEs] per patient-day). The daily rate of patients administered any parenteral opioid decreased by 57% (6% vs 14%; P < .001). Doses of opioids given by oral or parenteral route were reduced by 23% (0.73 vs 0.95 doses per patient-day, P = .02), and mean daily overall opioid exposure decreased by 31% (6.30 [4.12] vs 9.11 [7.34] MMEs per patient-day). For hospital days 1 through 3, there were no significant postintervention vs preintervention differences in mean reported pain score for patients receiving opioid therapy: day 1, -0.19 (95% CI, -0.94 to 0.56); day 2, -0.49 (95% CI, -1.01 to 0.03); and day 3, -0.54 (95% CI, -1.18 to 0.09). However, significant improvement was seen in the intervention group on days 4 (-1.07; 95% CI, -1.80 to -0.34) and 5 (-1.06; 95% CI, -1.84 to -0.27). Conclusions and Relevance: An intervention targeting the use of intravenous opioids may be associated with reduced opioid exposure while providing effective pain control to hospitalized adults.

Predictors for patients understanding reason for hospitalization.

OBJECTIVE: To examine predictors for understanding reason for hospitalization. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospective, observational cohort study of patients 65 years or older admitted for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or pneumonia and discharged home. Primary outcome was complete understanding of diagnosis, based on post-discharge patient interview. Predictors assessed were the following: jargon on discharge instructions, type of medical team, whether outpatient provider knew if the patient was admitted, and whether the patient reported more than one day notice before discharge. RESULTS: Among 377 patients, 59.8% of patients completely understood their diagnosis. Bivariate analyses demonstrated that outpatient provider being aware of admission and having more than a day notice prior to discharge were not associated with patient understanding diagnosis. Presence of jargon was not associated with increased likelihood of understanding in a multivariable analysis. Patients on housestaff and cardiology teams were more likely to understand diagnosis compared to non-teaching teams (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.30-4.61, p<0.01 and OR 3.83, 95% CI 1.92-7.63, p<0.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Non-teaching team patients were less likely to understand their diagnosis. Further investigation of how provider-patient interaction differs among teams may aid in development of tools to improve hospital to community transitions.

Effect of therapeutic interchange on medication reconciliation during hospitalization and upon discharge in a geriatric population.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic interchange of a same class medication for an outpatient medication is a widespread practice during hospitalization in response to limited hospital formularies. However, therapeutic interchange may increase risk of medication errors. The objective was to characterize the prevalence and safety of therapeutic interchange. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Secondary analysis of a transitions of care study. We included patients over age 64 admitted to a tertiary care hospital between 2009-2010 with heart failure, pneumonia, or acute coronary syndrome who were taking a medication in any of six commonly-interchanged classes on admission: proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine H2-receptor antagonists (H2 blockers), hydroxymethylglutaryl CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). There was limited electronic medication reconciliation support available. Main measures were presence and accuracy of therapeutic interchange during hospitalization, and rate of medication reconciliation errors on discharge. We examined charts of 303 patients taking 555 medications at time of admission in the six medication classes of interest. A total of 244 (44.0%) of medications were therapeutically interchanged to an approved formulary drug at admission, affecting 64% of the study patients. Among the therapeutically interchanged drugs, we identified 78 (32.0%) suspected medication conversion errors. The discharge medication reconciliation error rate was 11.5% among the 244 therapeutically interchanged medications, compared with 4.2% among the 311 unchanged medications (relative risk [RR] 2.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.45-5.19). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic interchange was prevalent among hospitalized patients in this study and elevates the risk for potential medication errors during and after hospitalization. Improved electronic systems for managing therapeutic interchange and medication reconciliation may be valuable.

The Growth of Hospitalists and the Future of the Society of General Internal Medicine: Results from the 2014 Membership Survey.

According to the most recent annual membership surveys, hospitalists are a rapidly growing component of the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM). Should this trend continue, hospitalists could increase from 22% of SGIM membership in 2014 to nearly 33% by 2020. Only 34% of hospitalists who responded to the survey, however, consider SGIM their academic home, compared to 54% of non-hospitalist respondents. Based on these survey findings, it is clear that the landscape of general internal medicine is changing with the growth of hospitalists, and SGIM will need to strategize to keep these hospitalist members actively engaged in the organization.

Sepsis as 2 problems: Identifying sepsis at admission and predicting onset in the hospital using an electronic medical record-based acuity score.

PURPOSE: Early identification and treatment improve outcomes for patients with sepsis. Current screening tools are limited. We present a new approach, recognizing that sepsis patients comprise 2 distinct and unequal populations: patients with sepsis present on admission (85%) and patients who develop sepsis in the hospital (15%) with mortality rates of 12% and 35%, respectively. METHODS: Models are developed and tested based on 258 836 adult inpatient records from 4 hospitals. A "present on admission" model identifies patients admitted to a hospital with sepsis, and a "not present on admission" model predicts postadmission onset. Inputs include common clinical measurements and the Rothman Index. Sepsis was determined using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, codes. RESULTS: For sepsis present on admission, area under the curves ranged from 0.87 to 0.91. Operating points chosen to yield 75% and 50% sensitivity achieve positive predictive values of 17% to 25% and 29% to 40%, respectively. For sepsis not present on admission, at 65% sensitivity, positive predictive values ranged from 10% to 20% across hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This approach yields good to excellent discriminatory performance among adult inpatients for predicting sepsis present on admission or developed within the hospital and may aid in the timely delivery of care.

Exit Survey of Senior Residents: Cost Conscious but Uninformed.

Background Cost awareness, to ensure physician stewardship of limited resources, is increasingly recognized as an important skill for physicians. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education has made cost awareness part of systems-based practice, a core competency of resident education. However, little is known about resident cost awareness. Objective We sought to assess senior resident self-perceived cost awareness and cost knowledge. Methods In March 2014, we conducted a cross-sectional survey of all emergency medicine, internal medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopaedic surgery pediatrics, and medicine-pediatrics residents in their final year at Yale-New Haven Hospital. The survey examined attitudes toward health care costs and residents' estimates of order prices. We considered resident price estimates to be accurate if they were between 50% and 200% of the Connecticut-specific Medicare price. Results We sent the survey to 84 residents and received 47 completed surveys (56% response rate). Although more than 95% (45 of 47) felt that containing costs is the responsibility of every clinician, and 49% (23 of 47) agreed that cost influenced their decision when ordering, only 4% (2 of 47) agreed that they knew the cost of tests being ordered. No residents accurately estimated the price of a complete blood count with differential, and only 2.1% (1 of 47) were accurate for a basic metabolic panel. The overall accuracy of all resident responses was 25%. Conclusions In our study, many trainees exit residency with self-identified deficiencies in knowledge about costs. The findings show the need for educational approaches to improve cost awareness among trainees.

Impact of laboratory cost display on resident attitudes and knowledge about costs.

AIM: Cost awareness has been proposed as a strategy for curbing the continued rise of healthcare costs. However, most physicians are unaware of the cost of diagnostic tests, and interventions have had mixed results. We sought to assess resident physician cost awareness following sustained visual display of costs into electronic health record (EHR) order entry screens. STUDY DESIGN: We completed a preintervention and postintervention web-based survey. Participants were physicians in internal medicine, paediatrics, combined medicine and paediatrics, obstetrics and gynaecology, emergency medicine, and orthopaedic surgery at one tertiary co are academic medical centre. Costs were displayed in the EHR for 1032 unique laboratory orders. We measured attitudes towards costs and estimates of Medicare reimbursement rates for 11 common laboratory and imaging tests. RESULTS: We received 209 survey responses during the preintervention period (response rate 71.1%) and 194 responses during the postintervention period (response rate 66.0%). The proportion of residents that agreed/strongly agreed that they knew the costs of tests they ordered increased after the cost display (8.6% vs 38.2%; p<0.001). Cost estimation accuracy among residents increased after the cost display from 24.0% to 52.4% for laboratory orders (p<0.001) and from 37.7% to 49.6% for imaging orders (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Resident cost awareness and ability to accurately estimate laboratory order costs improved significantly after implementation of a comprehensive EHR cost display for all laboratory orders. The improvement in cost estimation accuracy for imaging orders, which did not have costs displayed, suggested a possible spillover effect generated by providing a cost context for residents.

Novel integration of systems-based practice into internal medicine residency programs: the Interactive Cost-Awareness Resident Exercise (I-CARE).

BACKGROUND: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and American Board of Internal Medicine have identified cost-awareness as an important component to residency training. Cost-awareness is generally not emphasized in current, traditional residency curricula despite the recognized importance of this topic. DESCRIPTION: Using a traditional Morning Report structure and actual charge data from our institution, the charges associated with trainee-directed workup of clinical cases are compared in a friendly competition among medical students, interns, residents, and faculty. EVALUATION: Anonymous, voluntary survey of all participants and comparison of expenditures by training level were used to assess this pilot program. The educational quality of the I-CARE was rated higher than the prior format of Morning Report by participants (10-point Likert scale; 8.57, 6.81 respectively; p < .001). Open-ended comments were overwhelmingly supportive from faculty and trainees. Cost was lower for attending physicians than for trainees ($1,027.45 vs. $4,264.00, p = .02) and diagnostic accuracy was also highest for attending physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The I-CARE is easy and quick to implement, and the preliminary results show a popular cost-awareness educational experience for internal medicine trainees. Further study is needed to determine change in practice habits.

Effectiveness of written hospitalist sign-outs in answering overnight inquiries.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalists are key providers of care to medical inpatients, and sign-out is an integral part of providing safe, high-quality inpatient care. There is little known about hospitalist-to-hospitalist sign-out. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of hospitalist/physician-extender sign-outs by assessing how well the sign-out prepares the night team for overnight events and to determine attributes of effective sign-out. DESIGN: Analysis of a written-only sign-out protocol on a nonteaching hospitalist service using prospective data collected by an attending physician survey during overnight shifts. SETTING: Yale-New Haven Hospital, a 966-bed, urban, academic medical center in New Haven, Connecticut with approximately 13,700 hospitalist discharges annually. RESULTS: We recorded 124 inquiries about 96 patients during 6 days of data collection in 2012. Hospitalists referenced the sign-out for 89 (74%) inquiries, and the sign-out was considered sufficient in isolation to respond to 27 (30%) of these inquiries. Hospitalists physically saw the patient for 14 (12%) of inquiries. Nurses were the originator for most inquiries (102 [82%]). The most common inquiry topics were medications (55 [45%]), plan of care (26 [21%]), and clinical changes (26 [21%]). Ninety-five (77%) inquiries were considered to be "somewhat" or "very" clinically important by the hospitalist. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found that attending hospitalists rely heavily on written sign-out to address overnight inquiries, but that those sign-outs are not reliably effective. Future work to better understand the roles of written and verbal components in sign-out is needed to help improve the safety of overnight care.

Quality of discharge practices and patient understanding at an academic medical center.

IMPORTANCE: With growing national focus on reducing readmissions, there is a need to comprehensively assess the quality of transitional care, including discharge practices, patient perspectives, and patient understanding. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a multifaceted evaluation of transitional care from a patient-centered perspective. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort study, May 2009 through April 2010. SETTING: Urban, academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Patients 65 years and older discharged home after hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or pneumonia. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Discharge practices, including presence of follow-up appointment and patient-friendly discharge instructions; patient understanding of diagnosis and follow-up appointment; and patient perceptions of and satisfaction with discharge care. RESULTS: The 395 enrolled patients (66.7% of those eligible) had a mean age of 77.2 years. Although 349 patients (95.6%) reported understanding the reason they had been in the hospital, only 218 patients (59.6%) were able to accurately describe their diagnosis in postdischarge interviews. Discharge instructions routinely included symptoms to watch out for (98.4%), activity instructions (97.3%), and diet advice (89.7%) in lay language; however, 99 written reasons for hospitalization (26.3%) did not use language likely to be intelligible to patients. Of the 123 patients (32.6%) discharged with a scheduled primary care or cardiology appointment, 54 (43.9%) accurately recalled details of either appointment. During postdischarge interviews, 118 patients (30.0%) reported receiving less than 1 day's advance notice of discharge, and 246 (66.1%) reported that staff asked whether they would have the support they needed at home before discharge. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patient perceptions of discharge care quality and self-rated understanding were high, and written discharge instructions were generally comprehensive although not consistently clear. However, follow-up appointments and advance discharge planning were deficient, and patient understanding of key aspects of postdischarge care was poor. Patient perceptions and written documentation do not adequately reflect patient understanding of discharge care.

Comprehensive quality of discharge summaries at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: Discharge summaries are essential for safe transitions from hospital to home. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a comprehensive quality assessment of discharge summaries. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: Three hundred seventy-seven patients discharged home after hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or pneumonia. MEASURES: Discharge summaries were assessed for timeliness of dictation, transmission of the summary to appropriate outpatient clinicians, and presence of key content including elements required by The Joint Commission and elements endorsed by 6 medical societies in the Transitions of Care Consensus Conference (TOCCC). RESULTS: A total of 376 of 377 patients had completed discharge summaries. A total of 174 (46.3%) summaries were dictated on the day of discharge; 93 (24.7%) were completed more than a week after discharge. A total of 144 (38.3%) discharge summaries were not sent to any outpatient physician. On average, summaries included 5.6 of 6 The Joint Commission elements and 4.0 of 7 TOCCC elements. Summaries dictated by hospitalists were more likely to be timely and to include key content than summaries dictated by housestaff or advanced practice nurses. Summaries dictated on the day of discharge were more likely to be sent to outside physicians and to include key content. No summary met all 3 quality criteria of timeliness, transmission, and content. CONCLUSIONS: Discharge summary quality is inadequate in many domains. This may explain why individual aspects of summary quality such as timeliness or content have not been associated with improved patient outcomes. However, improving discharge summary timeliness may also improve content and transmission.