Development of Patient Safety Measures to Identify Inappropriate Diagnosis of Common Infections.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate diagnosis of infections results in antibiotic overuse and may delay diagnosis of underlying conditions. Here we describe the development and characteristics of 2 safety measures of inappropriate diagnosis of urinary tract infection (UTI) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), the most common inpatient infections on general medicine services. METHODS: Measures were developed from guidelines and literature and adapted based on data from patients hospitalized with UTI and CAP in 49 Michigan hospitals and feedback from end-users, a technical expert panel (TEP), and a patient focus group. Each measure was assessed for reliability, validity, feasibility, and usability. RESULTS: Two measures, now endorsed by the National Quality Forum (NQF), were developed. Measure reliability (derived from 24 483 patients) was excellent (0.90 for UTI; 0.91 for CAP). Both measures had strong validity demonstrated through (a) face validity by hospital users, the TEPs, and patient focus group, (b) implicit case review (ĸ 0.72 for UTI; ĸ 0.72 for CAP), and (c) rare case misclassification (4% for UTI; 0% for CAP) due to data errors (<2% for UTI; 6.3% for CAP). Measure implementation through hospital peer comparison in Michigan hospitals (2017 to 2020) demonstrated significant decreases in inappropriate diagnosis of UTI and CAP (37% and 32%, respectively, P < .001), supporting usability. CONCLUSIONS: We developed highly reliable, valid, and usable measures of inappropriate diagnosis of UTI and CAP for hospitalized patients. Hospitals seeking to improve diagnostic safety, antibiotic use, and patient care should consider using these measures to reduce inappropriate diagnosis of CAP and UTI.

Effect of Clinician Posture on Patient Perceptions of Communication in the Inpatient Setting: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Nonverbal communication plays a pivotal role in the provision of effective patient care and has been associated with important patient health outcomes. Clinician posture, a nonverbal form of communication, may influence the patient experience and satisfaction. The relationship between clinician posture (i.e., standing or at the patient's eye level) and patient perceptions of clinician communication in the hospital-a setting with heightened power dynamics between patient and clinician-is currently unknown. METHODS: We conducted searches of Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL Complete, EBSCO PsycInfo, Elsevier Embase/Embase Classic, Elsevier Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection up to May 2023. English language studies were included if they compared clinician posture (eye-level or standing) during adult inpatient (including emergency department) interactions. Two authors independently abstracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias or quality of evidence. A third author arbitrated any disagreements. Studies reported adherence to the posture intervention and/or patient perception outcomes. The latter included encounter duration, preferences for posture type, perceptions of interaction quality and clinician communication and compassion, and standardized assessments of patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (six randomized controlled trials, four quasi-experimental studies, four observational studies) assessed clinician posture at the bedside. Ten noted at least one favorable outcome for clinicians who communicated at the patient's eye level, three revealed no differences in patient perceptions between standing and sitting, and one noted higher patient ratings for standing clinicians. Findings were limited by variation in interventions and outcomes, generally high risk of bias, and relatively low adherence to assigned posture groups. DISCUSSION: Compared to standing, eye-level communication by clinicians appears beneficial. The magnitude and types of benefits clinicians and patients may gain from this behavior remain unclear given heterogeneity and generally high risk of bias in available studies. With its relatively easy implementation and potential for benefit, clinicians should consider communicating with their hospitalized patients at eye level. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42020199817.

Comparison of the Impact of COVID-19 on Veterans Affairs and Non-federal Hospitals: a Survey of Infection Prevention Specialists.

BACKGROUND: As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, it is critical to understand characteristics that have allowed US healthcare systems, including the Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-federal hospitals, to mount an effective response in the setting of limited resources and unpredictable clinical demands generated by this system shock. OBJECTIVE: To compare the impact of and response to resource shortages to both VA and non-federal healthcare systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional national survey administered April 2021 through May 2022. PARTICIPANTS: Lead infection preventionists from VA and non-federal hospitals across the US. MAIN MEASURES: Surveys collected hospital demographic factors along with 11 questions aimed at assessing the effectiveness of the hospital's COVID response. KEY RESULTS: The response rate was 56% (71/127) from VA and 47% (415/881) from non-federal hospitals. Compared to VA hospitals, non-federal hospitals had a larger average number of acute care (214 vs. 103 beds, p<.001) and intensive care unit (24 vs. 16, p<.001) beds. VA hospitals were more likely to report no shortages of personal protective equipment or medical supplies during the pandemic (17% vs. 9%, p=.03) and more frequently opened new units to care specifically for COVID patients (71% vs. 49%, p<.001) compared with non-federal hospitals. Non-federal hospitals more frequently experienced increased loss of staff due to resignations (76% vs. 53%, p=.001) and financial hardships stemming from the pandemic (58% vs. 7%, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In our survey-based national study, lead infection preventionists noted several distinct advantages in VA versus non-federal hospitals in their ability to expand bed capacity, retain staff, mitigate supply shortages, and avoid financial hardship. While these benefits appear to be inherent to the VA's structure, non-federal hospitals can adapt their infrastructure to better weather future system shocks.

Faculty Development in Academic Hospital Medicine: a Scoping Review.

This scoping review sought to identify and describe the state of academic faculty development programs in hospital medicine and other specialties. We reviewed faculty development content, structure, metrics of success including facilitators, barriers, and sustainability to create a framework and inform hospital medicine leadership and faculty development initiatives. We completed a systematic search of peer-reviewed literature and searched Ovid MEDLINE ALL (1946 to June 17, 2021) and Embase (via Elsevier, 1947 to June 17, 2021). Twenty-two studies were included in the final review, with wide heterogeneity in program design, program description, outcomes, and study design. Program design included a combination of didactics, workshops, and community or networking events; half of the studies included mentorship or coaching for faculty. Thirteen studies included program description and institutional experience without reported outcomes while eight studies included quantitative analysis and mixed methods results. Barriers to program success included limited time and support for faculty attendance, conflicting clinical commitments, and lack of mentor availability. Facilitators included allotted funding and time for faculty participation, formal mentoring and coaching opportunities, and a structured curriculum with focused skill development supporting faculty priorities. We identified heterogeneous historical studies addressing faculty development across highly variable program design, intervention, faculty targeted, and outcomes assessed. Common themes emerged, including the need for program structure and support, aligning areas of skill development with faculty values, and longitudinal mentoring/coaching. Programs require dedicated program leadership, support for faculty time and participation, curricula focused on skills development, and mentoring and sponsorship.

Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

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.

Comparing oral case presentation formats on internal medicine inpatient rounds: a survey study.

BACKGROUND: Oral case presentations - structured verbal reports of clinical cases - are fundamental to patient care and learner education. Despite their continued importance in a modernized medical landscape, their structure has remained largely unchanged since the 1960s, based on the traditional Subjective, Objective, Assessment, Plan (SOAP) format developed for medical records. We developed a problem-based alternative known as Events, Assessment, Plan (EAP) to understand the perceived efficacy of EAP compared to SOAP among learners. METHODS: We surveyed (Qualtrics, via email) all third- and fourth-year medical students and internal medicine residents at a large, academic, tertiary care hospital and associated Veterans Affairs medical center. The primary outcome was trainee preference in oral case presentation format. The secondary outcome was comparing EAP and SOAP on 10 functionality domains assessed via a 5-point Likert scale. We used descriptive statistics (proportion and mean) to describe the results. RESULTS: The response rate was 21% (118/563). Of the 59 respondents with exposure to both the EAP and SOAP formats, 69% (n = 41) preferred the EAP format as compared to 19% (n = 11) who preferred SOAP (p < 0.001). EAP outperformed SOAP in 8 out of 10 of the domains assessed, including advancing patient care, learning from patients, and time efficiency. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that trainees prefer the EAP format over SOAP and that EAP may facilitate clearer and more efficient communication on rounds, which in turn may enhance patient care and learner education. A broader, multi-center study of the EAP oral case presentation will help to better understand preferences, outcomes, and barriers to implementation.

Associated comorbidities, healthcare utilization & mortality in hospitalized patients with haemophilia in the United States: Contemporary nationally representative estimates.

INTRODUCTION: Current in-hospital burden and healthcare utilization patterns for persons with haemophilia (PWH) A and B, including both children (ages < 18 years) and adults (ages ≥ 18 years), in the United States (US) are lacking. AIM: To evaluate healthcare utilization, the prevalence of comorbidities, and mortality in hospitalized paediatric and adult PWH using a contemporary nationally representative cohort. METHODS: Hospitalizations of PWH either as the primary reason for admission (principal diagnosis) or one of all listed diagnoses were identified using ICD-10 codes from the 2017 Nationwide Inpatient Sample (NIS), the largest publicly available all-payer inpatient discharge database in the US. Sampling weights were applied to generate nationally representative estimates. RESULTS: The contemporary cohort included 10,555 hospitalizations (paediatrics, 18.3%; adults, 81.7%) among PWH as one-of-all listed diagnoses (n = 1465 as principal diagnosis). Median age (interquartile range) was 46 (24-66) years overall; adults, 54 (35-70) years and paediatric, 4 (1-11). The most common comorbidities in adults were hypertension (33.4%), hyperlipidaemia (23.6%), and diabetes (21.1%). In children, hemarthrosis (11.4%), contusions (9.6%), and central line infections (9.3%) were the most common. The overall mortality rate was 2.3%. Median hospital charges per haemophilia admission were $52,616 ($24,303-$135,814) compared to $26,841 ($12,969-$54,568) for all-cause admissions in NIS. CONCLUSION: Bleeding and catheter-related infections are the significant reasons for paediatric haemophilia admissions. Adult haemophilia admissions tend to be associated with age-related comorbidities. Costs for haemophilia-related hospitalizations are higher than the national average for all-cause hospitalizations.

Improving Interdisciplinary Provider Communication Through a Unified Paging System.

OBJECTIVES: Interdisciplinary communication at a Veterans Affairs (VA) academic teaching hospital is largely dependent on alphanumeric paging, which has limitations as a result of one-way communication and lack of reliable physician identification. Adverse patient outcomes related to difficulty contacting the correct consulting provider in a timely manner have been reported. METHODS: House officers were surveyed on the level of satisfaction with the current VA communication system and the rate of perceived adverse patient outcomes caused by potential delays within this system. Respondents were then asked to identify the ideal paging system. These results were used to develop and deploy a new Web site. A postimplementation survey was repeated 1 year later. This study was conducted as a quality improvement project. RESULTS: House officer satisfaction with the preintervention system was 3%. The majority used more than four modalities to identify consultants, with 59% stating that word of mouth was a typical source. The preferred mode of paging was the university hospital paging system, a Web-based program that is used at the partnering academic institution. Following integration of VA consulting services within the university hospital paging system, the level of satisfaction improved to 87%. Significant decreases were seen in perceived adverse patient outcomes (from 16% to 2%), delays in patient care (from 90% to 16%), and extended hospitalizations (from 46% to 4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates significant improvement in physician satisfaction with a newly implemented paging system that was associated with a decreased perceived number of adverse patient events and delays in care.

Japanese Internists' Most Memorable Diagnostic Error Cases: A Self-reflection Survey.

Objective The etiologies of diagnostic errors among internal medicine physicians are unclear. To understand the causes and characteristics of diagnostic errors through reflection by those involved in them. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study using a web-based questionnaire in Japan in January 2019. Over a 10-day period, a total of 2,220 participants agreed to participate in the study, of whom 687 internists were included in the final analysis. Participants were asked about their most memorable diagnostic error cases, in which the time course, situational factors, and psychosocial context could be most vividly recalled and where the participant provided care. We categorized diagnostic errors and identified contributing factors (i.e., situational factors, data collection/interpretation factors, and cognitive biases). Results Two-thirds of the identified diagnostic errors occurred in the clinic or emergency department. Errors were most frequently categorized as wrong diagnoses, followed by delayed and missed diagnoses. Errors most often involved diagnoses related to malignancy, circulatory system disorders, or infectious diseases. Situational factors were the most cited error cause, followed by data collection factors and cognitive bias. Common situational factors included limited consultation during office hours and weekends and barriers that prevented consultation with a supervisor or another department. Conclusion Internists reported situational factors as a significant cause of diagnostic errors. Other factors, such as cognitive biases, were also evident, although the difference in clinical settings may have influenced the proportions of the etiologies of the errors that were observed. Furthermore, wrong, delayed, and missed diagnoses may have distinctive associated cognitive biases.

The Big Three diagnostic errors through reflections of Japanese internists.

OBJECTIVES: To analyze the Big Three diagnostic errors (malignant neoplasms, cardiovascular diseases, and infectious diseases) through internists' self-reflection on their most memorable diagnostic errors. METHODS: This secondary analysis study, based on a web-based cross-sectional survey, recruited participants from January 21 to 31, 2019. The participants were asked to recall the most memorable diagnostic error cases in which they were primarily involved. We gathered data on internists' demographics, time to error recognition, and error location. Factors causing diagnostic errors included environmental conditions, information processing, and cognitive bias. Participants scored the significance of each contributing factor on a Likert scale (0, unimportant; 10, extremely important). RESULTS: The Big Three comprised 54.1 % (n=372) of the 687 cases reviewed. The median physician age was 51.5 years (interquartile range, 42-58 years); 65.6 % of physicians worked in hospital settings. Delayed diagnoses were the most common among malignancies (n=64, 46 %). Diagnostic errors related to malignancy were frequent in general outpatient settings on weekdays and in the mornings and were not identified for several months following the event. Environmental factors often contributed to cardiovascular disease-related errors, which were typically identified within days in emergency departments, during night shifts, and on holidays. Information gathering and interpretation significantly impacted infectious disease diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: The Big Three accounted for the majority of cases recalled by Japanese internists. The most relevant contributing factors were different for each of the three categories. Addressing these errors may require a unique approach based on the disease associations.

Implementation of a bundle to improve diagnosis in hospitalized patients: lessons learned.

OBJECTIVES: The inpatient setting is a challenging clinical environment where systems and situational factors predispose clinicians to making diagnostic errors. Environmental complexities limit trialing of interventions to improve diagnostic error in active inpatient clinical settings. Informed by prior work, we piloted a multi-component intervention designed to reduce diagnostic error to understand its feasibility and uptake. METHODS: From September 2018 to June 2019, we conducted a prospective, pre-test/post-test pilot study of hospital medicine physicians during admitting shifts at a tertiary-care, academic medical center. Optional intervention components included use of dedicated workspaces, privacy barriers, noise cancelling headphones, application-based breathing exercises, a differential diagnosis expander application, and a checklist to enable a diagnostic pause. Participants rated their confidence in patient diagnoses and completed a survey on intervention component use. Data on provider resource utilization and patient diagnoses were collected, and qualitative interviews were held with a subset of participants in order to better understand experience with the intervention. RESULTS: Data from 37 physicians and 160 patients were included. No intervention component was utilized by more than 50 % of providers, and no differences were noted in diagnostic confidence or number of diagnoses documented pre-vs. post-intervention. Lab utilization increased, but there were no other differences in resource utilization during the intervention. Qualitative feedback highlighted workflow integration challenges, among others, for poor intervention uptake. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot study demonstrated poor feasibility and uptake of an intervention designed to reduce diagnostic error. This study highlights the unique challenges of implementing solutions within busy clinical environments.

A protocol-driven approach to reduce lengths of stay for pediatric blunt liver and spleen injury patients.

BACKGROUND: Our institution updated blunt liver and spleen injury (BLSI) protocols in 2019 in adherence to updated American Pediatric Surgery Association recommendations. This retrospective study compares resource utilization for pediatric BLSI patients treated under old and updated guidelines. METHODS: Blunt liver and spleen injury patients without severe non-abdomen injuries younger than 18 years treated with prior (April 2015 to June 2019) and updated (June 2019 to December 2022) guidelines were retrospectively reviewed and compared. Each patient received an adjusted Injury Severity Score (ISS) to control for non-BLSI injuries. Multivariate analysis examined protocol group differences while controlling for adjusted ISS and BLSI grades. Primary outcomes were intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS (analyzed using Cox regression), and patient costs (linear regression). Secondary outcomes include readmission in 2 weeks and death rates (logistic regression). RESULTS: A total of 176 and 170 BLSI patients were treated with old and updated protocols, respectively. Patient demographics, average BLSI grade, and adjusted ISS were similar in both groups. Patients treated with old protocols indicate decreased hazard, showing significantly more days before ICU discharge (coefficient, -0.3868; p < 0.0009) and hospital discharge (coefficient, -0.5507; p < 0.0001). Patient costs (coefficient, 0.0921; p = 0.1874) trend toward being lower in the new protocol. Readmission rates were significantly higher in the new protocol (coefficient, -1.1731; p = 0.0465), and death rates (coefficient, 0.0519; p = 0.9710) were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: Blunt liver and spleen injury patients treated under new American Pediatric Surgery Association guidelines compared with old guidelines had significant decreases in ICU and hospital LOS, a decreasing trend in costs, and comparable death rates but higher readmission rates. Future studies with larger sample sizes and detailed cost analysis would explore whether updated guidelines reduce patient costs and help elucidate the veracity or potential cause of the increased readmission rates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Inappropriate Diagnosis of Pneumonia Among Hospitalized Adults.

Importance: Little is known about incidence of, risk factors for, and harms associated with inappropriate diagnosis of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Objective: To characterize inappropriate diagnosis of CAP in hospitalized patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study, including medical record review and patient telephone calls, took place across 48 Michigan hospitals. Trained abstractors retrospectively assessed hospitalized patients treated for CAP between July 1, 2017, and March 31, 2020. Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were adults admitted to general care with a discharge diagnostic code of pneumonia who received antibiotics on day 1 or 2 of hospitalization. Data were analyzed from February to December 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Inappropriate diagnosis of CAP was defined using a National Quality Forum-endorsed metric as CAP-directed antibiotic therapy in patients with fewer than 2 signs or symptoms of CAP or negative chest imaging. Risk factors for inappropriate diagnosis were assessed and, for those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes (mortality, readmission, emergency department visit, Clostridioides difficile infection, and antibiotic-associated adverse events) were documented and stratified by full course (>3 days) vs brief (≤3 days) antibiotic treatment using generalized estimating equation models adjusting for confounders and propensity for treatment. Results: Of the 17 290 hospitalized patients treated for CAP, 2079 (12.0%) met criteria for inappropriate diagnosis (median [IQR] age, 71.8 [60.1-82.8] years; 1045 [50.3%] female), of whom 1821 (87.6%) received full antibiotic courses. Compared with patients with CAP, patients inappropriately diagnosed were older (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 1.05-1.11 per decade) and more likely to have dementia (AOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.55-2.08) or altered mental status on presentation (AOR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.39-2.19). Among those inappropriately diagnosed, 30-day composite outcomes for full vs brief treatment did not differ (25.8% vs 25.6%; AOR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.23). Full vs brief duration of antibiotic treatment among patients was associated with antibiotic-associated adverse events (31 of 1821 [2.1%] vs 1 of 258 [0.4%]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, inappropriate diagnosis of CAP among hospitalized adults was common, particularly among older adults, those with dementia, and those presenting with altered mental status. Full-course antibiotic treatment of those inappropriately diagnosed with CAP may be harmful.

Bispecific VEGF-A and Angiopoietin-2 Antagonist RO-101 Preclinical Efficacy in Model of Neovascular Eye Disease.

Objective: To investigate preclinical data regarding the efficacy and biocompatibility of a bispecific protein, RO-101, with effects on VEGF-A and angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) for use in retinal diseases. Design: Experimental study. Subjects: Brown Norway rats and New Zealand White Cross rabbits. Methods: Preclinical study data of RO-101 in terms of target-specific enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay binding affinity to VEGF-A and Ang-2, vitreous half-life, inhibition of target-receptor interaction, laser choroidal neovascular membrane animal model, human umbilical vein endothelial cell migration, and biocompatibility was obtained. Where applicable, study data were compared with other anti-VEGF agents. Main Outcome Measures: Binding affinity, half-life, biocompatibility, and efficacy of RO-101. Neovascularization prevention by RO-101. Results: RO-101 demonstrated a strong binding affinity for VEGF-A and Ang-2 and in vitro was able to inhibit binding to the receptor with higher affinity than faricimab. The half-life of RO-101 is comparable to or longer than current VEGF inhibitors used in retinal disease. RO-101 was found to be biocompatible with retinal tissue in Brown Norway rats. RO-101 was as effective or more effective than current anti-VEGF therapeutics in causing regression of neovascular growth in vivo. Conclusions: RO-101 is a promising candidate for use in retinal diseases. In preclinical models, RO-101 demonstrated similar or higher regression of neovascular growth to current anti-VEGF therapeutics with comparable or longer half-life. It also demonstrates a strong binding affinity for VEGF-A and Ang-2. It also was shown to be biocompatible with retinal tissue in animal studies, indicating potential compatibility for use in humans. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.

Comparing Japanese University Hospitals' and Community Healthcare Facilities' Research Contributions on PubMed.

Purpose: Although research in general medicine is important, the contributions and characteristics of general medicine physicians (GMPs) in university hospitals (UH) and community healthcare facilities (CHF) remains unclear. Therefore, this study examines the popularity of research by affiliation, characteristics of journal publication, annual trends, and differences in impact factors (IFs) of journal publications. Methods: This study is a secondary bibliometric analysis of articles in international journals published in PubMed over the past six years (2015-2020). The analysis compared English articles published by either UH- or CHF-affiliated GMPs in Japan in terms of, among other things, article type, research field, and IF. Results: Of the 2372 articles analyzed, 1688 (71.2%) were published by physicians affiliated with UHs, 62.6% of which were original. Basic research, international collaboration, and ratio of IFs were significantly higher for such papers. In contrast, the number of CHF articles were significantly higher in the areas of clinical research and practice, with a greater proportion of case reports. There was no significant difference in IF between the disciplines within each affiliation, but the IF was the highest in experimental basic research and the lowest in medical and clinical education. In the six-year time series, the number of original papers by UHs and CHFs increased roughly twofold between 2015 and 2020, but the number of articles in the areas of medical education and healthcare quality and safety remained mostly unchanged. Conclusion: The number of international papers published by Japanese GMPs has increased since 2015, particularly in terms of original papers and clinical research from UHs. However, there was no significant difference in the IF between UH and CHF publications. Our findings can guide the development of indicators, research, and education strategies regarding Japanese GMPs' research performance.

Assessment of Patient Retention of Inpatient Care Information Post-Hospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Patient understanding of medical care improves readmission rates and patient satisfaction, yet the literature suggests patients often have poor retention of care information post-hospitalization. Although multiple interventions have been implemented to facilitate this process, the cumulative durability of their benefit remains unclear. The authors conducted this study to more objectively understand how well patients retain care information after hospital discharge and to assess patient perspectives on facilitators of this process (for example, whiteboards and patient portals). METHODS: Semistructured phone interviews of patients admitted to general medicine resident teaching services were performed within 24 to 48 hours post-hospitalization. Recall of four key domains of care (diagnoses addressed, inpatient treatment, postdischarge treatment plans, and medication changes) was elicited. Chart review was performed to verify patient responses. Responses were then categorized by independent reviewers as correct, partially correct, or incorrect. Patient perspectives on facilitators to help with information retention were also assessed. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients participated. The vast majority (> 90%) were confident in their knowledge of their diagnoses and treatment, yet independent review revealed only 58.5%, 64.2%, 50.9%, and 43.4% of patients correctly recalled each respective key domain. Whiteboards were the most frequently used facilitator (96.2%), yet their content was rated least helpful for retaining care information. Patients suggested several areas for improvement, including prioritizing bedside pen and paper along with updating whiteboards with diagnostic and therapeutic information. CONCLUSION: Patient recall of their inpatient care after discharge, despite modern facilitators, remains poor. Further efforts are needed to enhance or implement facilitators based on patient feedback.

Associations Between Hospitalist Shift Busyness, Diagnostic Confidence, and Resource Utilization: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized patients are at risk for diagnostic errors. Hospitalists caring for these patients are often multitasking when overseeing patient care. We aimed to measure hospitalist workload and understand its influences on diagnostic performance in a real-world clinical setting. METHODS: We conducted a single-center, prospective, pilot observational study of hospitalists admitting new patients to the hospital. Hospitalists completed an abridged Mindful Attention Awareness Tool and a survey about diagnostic confidence at shift completion. Data on differential diagnoses and resource utilization (e.g., laboratory, imaging tests ordered, and consultations) were collected from the medical record. The number of admissions and paging volume per shift were used as separate proxies for shift busyness. Data were analyzed using linear mixed effects models (continuous outcomes) or mixed effects logistic regression (dichotomous outcomes). RESULTS: Of the 53 hospitalists approached, 47 (89%) agreed to participate; complete data were available for 37 unique hospitalists who admitted 160 unique patients. Increases in admissions (odds ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 3.82; P = 0.04) and pages (odds ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02 to 1.21; P = 0.01) were associated with increased odds of hospitalists finding it "difficult to focus on what is happening in the present." Increased pages was associated with a decrease in the number of listed differential diagnoses (coefficient, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.003; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of hospitalist busyness and its associations with factors that may influence diagnosis in a real-world environment was feasible and demonstrated important implications on physician focus and differential diagnosis.