Faculty Bibliography

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.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether high performing hospitals with low 30 day risk standardized readmission rates have a lower proportion of readmissions from specific diagnoses and time periods after admission or instead have a similar distribution of readmission diagnoses and timing to lower performing institutions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 65 and older who were readmitted within 30 days after hospital admission for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, or pneumonia in 2007-09. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Readmission diagnoses were classified with a modified version of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' condition categories, and readmission timing was classified by day (0-30) after hospital discharge. Hospital 30 day risk standardized readmission rates over the three years of study were calculated with public reporting methods of the US federal government, and hospitals were categorized with bootstrap analysis as having high, average, or low readmission performance for each index condition. High and low performing hospitals had >/= 95% probability of having an interval estimate respectively less than or greater than the national 30 day readmission rate over the three year period of study. All remaining hospitals were considered average performers. RESULTS: For readmissions in the 30 days after the index admission, there were 320,003 after 1,291,211 admissions for heart failure (4041 hospitals), 102,536 after 517,827 admissions for acute myocardial infarction (2378 hospitals), and 208,438 after 1,135,932 admissions for pneumonia (4283 hospitals). The distribution of readmissions by diagnosis was similar across categories of hospital performance for all three conditions. High performing hospitals had fewer readmissions for all common diagnoses. Median time to readmission was similar by hospital performance for heart failure and acute myocardial infarction, though was 1.4 days longer among high versus low performing hospitals for pneumonia (P<0.001). Findings were unchanged after adjustment for other hospital characteristics potentially associated with readmission patterns. CONCLUSIONS: High performing hospitals have proportionately fewer 30 day readmissions without differences in readmission diagnoses and timing, suggesting the possible benefit of strategies that lower risk of readmission globally rather than for specific diagnoses or time periods after hospital stay.

BACKGROUND: Reducing hospital readmissions is a national priority, and many hospitals are participating in quality collaboratives or campaigns. OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the current use of hospital strategies to reduce readmissions in 2 prominent quality initiatives-STAAR (State Action on Avoidable Rehospitalization) and H2H (Hospital-to-Home Campaign). DESIGN: Cross-sectional. METHODS: Web-based survey of hospitals that had enrolled in H2H or STAAR from May 2009 through June 2010, conducted from November 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011 (n = 599, response rate of 91%). We used standard frequency analysis and multivariable logistic regression to describe differences between STAAR and H2H hospitals. RESULTS: Many hospitals were not implementing several of the recommended strategies. Although STAAR hospitals tended to be more likely to implement several strategies, differences were attenuated when we adjusted for region and ownership type. In multivariable models, STAAR hospitals compared with H2H hospitals were more likely to ensure outpatient physicians were alerted within 48 hours of patient discharge (63% vs 38%, P < 0.001), and more likely to provide skilled nursing facilities the direct contact number of the inpatient treating physician for patients transferred (53% vs 34%, P = 0.001). H2H hospitals were more likely to assign responsibility for medication reconciliation to nurses usually or always (80% vs 54%, P = 0.001) and more likely to give most or all discharged patients referrals to cardiac rehabilitation services (59% vs 41%, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial opportunity for improvement exists for hospitals engaged in STAAR or H2H quality initiatives.

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.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To gather qualitative data to elucidate the reasons for readmissions in a high-risk population of underserved patients. DESIGN: We created an instrument with 27 open-ended questions based on current interventions. SETTING: Yale-New Haven Hospital. PATIENTS: Patients at the Yale Adult Primary Care Center (PCC). MEASUREMENTS: We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews of patients who had four or more admissions in the previous 6 months and were currently readmitted to the hospital. RESULTS: We completed 17 interviews and identified themes relating to risk of readmission. We found that patients went directly to the emergency department (ED) when they experienced a change in health status without contacting their primary provider. Reasons for this included poor telephone or urgent care access and the belief that the PCC could not treat acute illness. Many patients could not name their primary provider. Conversely, every patient except one reported being able to obtain medications without undue financial burden, and every patient reported receiving adequate home care services. CONCLUSIONS: These high-risk patients were receiving the formal services that they needed, but were making the decision to go to the ED because of inadequate access to care and fragmented primary care relationships. Formal transitional care services are unlikely to be adequate in reducing readmissions without also addressing primary care access and continuity.