Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Single-site studies have demonstrated inadequate quality of discharge summaries in timeliness, transmission, and content, potentially contributing to adverse outcomes. However, degree of hospital-level variation in discharge summary quality for patients hospitalized with heart failure (HF) is uncertain. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed discharge summaries of patients enrolled in the Telemonitoring to Improve Heart Failure Outcomes (Tele-HF) study. We assessed hospital-level performance on timeliness (fraction of summaries completed on the day of discharge), documented transmission to the follow-up physician, and content (presence of components suggested by the Transitions of Care Consensus Conference). We obtained 1501 discharge summaries from 1640 (91.5%) patients discharged alive from 46 hospitals. Among hospitals contributing >/=10 summaries, the median hospital dictated 69.2% of discharge summaries on the day of discharge (range, 0.0%-98.0%; P<0.001); documented transmission of 33.3% of summaries to the follow-up physician (range, 0.0%-75.7%; P<0.001); and included 3.6 of 7 Transitions of Care Consensus Conference elements (range, 2.9-4.5; P<0.001). Hospital course was typically included (97.2%), but summaries were less likely to include discharge condition (30.7%), discharge volume status (16.0%), or discharge weight (15.7%). No discharge summary included all 7 Transitions of Care Consensus Conference-endorsed content elements, was dictated on the day of discharge, and was sent to a follow-up physician. CONCLUSIONS: Even at the highest performing hospital, discharge summary quality is insufficient in terms of timeliness, transmission, and content. Improvements in all aspects of discharge summary quality are necessary to enable the discharge summary to serve as an effective transitional care tool.

BACKGROUND: Existing publicly reported readmission measures are condition-specific, representing less than 20% of adult hospitalizations. An all-condition measure may better measure quality and promote innovation. OBJECTIVE: To develop an all-condition, hospital-wide readmission measure. DESIGN: Measure development study. SETTING: 4821 U.S. hospitals. PATIENTS: Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older. MEASUREMENTS: Hospital-level, risk-standardized unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge. The measure uses Medicare fee-for-service claims and is a composite of 5 specialty-based, risk-standardized rates for medicine, surgery/gynecology, cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, and neurology cohorts. The 2007-2008 admissions were randomly split for development and validation. Models were adjusted for age, principal diagnosis, and comorbid conditions. Calibration in Medicare and all-payer data was examined, and hospital rankings in the development and validation samples were compared. RESULTS: The development data set contained 8 018 949 admissions associated with 1 276 165 unplanned readmissions (15.9%). The median hospital risk-standardized unplanned readmission rate was 15.8 (range, 11.6 to 21.9). The 5 specialty cohort models accurately predicted readmission risk in both Medicare and all-payer data sets for average-risk patients but slightly overestimated readmission risk at the extremes. Overall hospital risk-standardized readmission rates did not differ statistically in the split samples (P = 0.71 for difference in rank), and 76% of hospitals' validation-set rankings were within 2 deciles of the development rank (24% were more than 2 deciles). Of hospitals ranking in the top or bottom deciles, 90% remained within 2 deciles (10% were more than 2 deciles) and 82% remained within 1 decile (18% were more than 1 decile). LIMITATION: Risk adjustment was limited to that available in claims data. CONCLUSION: A claims-based, hospital-wide unplanned readmission measure for profiling hospitals produced reasonably consistent results in different data sets and was similarly calibrated in both Medicare and all-payer data. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.

The objective was to assess use of a physician handoff tool embedded in the electronic medical record by nurses and other non-physicians. We administered a survey to nurses, physical therapists, discharge planners, social workers, and others to assess integration into daily practice, usefulness, and accuracy of the handoff tool. 231 individuals (61% response) participated. 60% used the tool often or usually/always during a shift. Nurses (46%) used the tool for shift transitions and found it helpful for medical history (79%) but not for acquiring medication, allergy, and responsible physician information. Nurses (96%) and others (75%) rated the tool as accurate. Medical nurses rated the tool more useful than surgical nurses, and pediatric nurses rarely used the tool. The tool was integrated into the daily workflow of non-physicians despite being designed for physician use. Non-physicians should be included in the design and implementation of electronic patient handoff systems.

Transfers of care have been associated with adverse events. High quality sign-out may help mitigate this risk. The authors sought to characterize the clinical questions asked of physicians covering patients overnight and to determine the adequacy of current sign-out practice to anticipate inquiries. The authors conducted a prospective, self-report study of interns' overnight experience at two hospitals. We collected data from novice interns (July 7-August 3, 2010) and experienced interns (March 2-March 29, 2011) in an Internal Medicine residency program. Interns recorded information about overnight inquiries regarding cross-covered patients. For each inquiry about a patient, the intern was asked to record what the situation was about, who initiated the contact, where the intern found the desired information, whether all required data was located, whether the call could have been anticipated by the primary team, if so, whether the call was anticipated, whether the sign-out was sufficient, the time required to address the question, and whether the patient was physically visited. Twenty-one interns (13 novice, 8 experienced) reported 167 overnight inquiries. Most were from nursing staff (87%) about a wide range of topics, with orders (25%) and plan of care (20%) being most common. Trainees used the oral or written sign-out to answer 56% of inquiries. The proportion of inquiries successfully anticipated (47% overall) significantly decreased as the academic year progressed (AOR = 0.4, 95% CI 0.2, 0.8). Trainees rely on sign-out to answer nearly half of overnight inquiries, but the quality of sign-out may decrease over the course of the academic year. The deterioration of sign-out quality from novice to experienced interns and the common use of sign-out as a reference by covering interns suggest continued education, support and oversight by supervising physicians may be beneficial.

BACKGROUND: The most recent iteration of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty-hour regulations includes language mandating handoff education for trainees and assessments of handoff quality by residency training programs. However, there is a lack of validated tools for the assessment of handoff quality and for use in trainee education. METHODS: Faculty at 2 sites (University of Chicago and Yale University) were recruited to participate in a workshop on handoff education. Video-based scenarios were developed to represent varying levels of performance in the domains of communication, professionalism, and setting. Videos were shown in a random order, and faculty were instructed to use the Handoff Mini-Clinical Examination Exercise (CEX), a paper-based instrument with qualitative anchors defining each level of performance, to rate the handoffs. RESULTS: Forty-seven faculty members (14 at site 1; 33 at site 2) participated in the validation workshops, providing a total of 172 observations (of a possible 191 [96%]). Reliability testing revealed a Cronbach alpha of 0.81 and Kendall coefficient of concordance of 0.59 (>0.6 = high reliability). Faculty were able to reliably distinguish the different levels of performance in each domain in a statistically significant fashion (ie, unsatisfactory professionalism mean 2.42 vs satisfactory professionalism 4.81 vs superior professionalism 6.01, P < 0.001 trend test). Two-way analysis of variance revealed no evidence of rater bias. CONCLUSIONS: Using standardized video-based scenarios highlighting differing levels of performance, we were able to demonstrate evidence that the Handoff Mini-CEX can draw reliable and valid conclusions regarding handoff performance. Future work to validate the tool in clinical settings is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Sign-out is the process (written, verbal or both) by which one clinical team transmits information about patients to another team. Poor quality sign-outs are associated with adverse events and delayed treatment. How different specialties approach written sign-outs is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare written sign-out practices across specialties and to determine consistency of content, format and timeliness. METHODS: The authors evaluated all non-Intensive Care Unit written sign-outs from five inpatient specialties on 18 January 2012, at Yale-New Haven Hospital, focusing on content elements, format style and whether the sign-outs had been updated within 24 h. In our institution, all specialties used a single standardised sign-out template, which was built into the electronic medical record. RESULTS: The final cohort included 457 sign-outs: 313 medicine, 64 general surgery, 36 paediatrics, 30 obstetrics, and 14 gynaecology. Though nearly all sign-outs (96%) had been updated within 24 h, they frequently lacked key information. Hospital course prevalence ranged from 57% (gynaecology) to 100% (paediatrics) (p<0.001). Clinical condition prevalence ranged from 34% (surgery) to 72% (paediatrics) (p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Specialties have varied sign-out practices, and thus structured templates alone do not guarantee inclusion of critical content. Sign-outs across specialties often lacked complex clinical information such as clinical condition, anticipatory guidance and overnight tasks.