Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction is typically measured by quantitative surveys using predetermined domains. However, dissatisfaction may be an entity distinct from satisfaction, may have different determinants, and may better reflect problems in healthcare delivery. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe domains of dissatisfaction experienced by patients during hospitalization. SETTING: The setting was a U.S. urban academic medical center. PATIENTS: The patients were adults discharged between July 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008 INTERVENTION: The intervention was a postdischarge telephone interview: "If there was one thing we could have done to improve your experience in the hospital, what would it have been?" MEASUREMENTS: The measurements were standard qualitative analysis of suggestions for improvement. RESULTS: We randomly selected 976 of 9,764 interviews. A total of 439/976 (45.0%) included at least one suggestion for improvement. We identified six major domains of dissatisfaction: ineptitude (7.7%), disrespect (6.1%), waits (15.8%), ineffective communication (7.4%), lack of environmental control (15.6%), and substandard amenities (6.9%). These domains corresponded to six implicit expectations for quality hospital care: safety, treatment with respect and dignity, minimized wait times, effective communication, control over physical surroundings, and high-quality amenities. Some of these expectations, such as for safe care, effective communication between providers, and lack of disrespect, may not be adequately captured in existing patient satisfaction assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The results represent patient-generated priorities for quality improvement in healthcare. These priorities are not all consistently represented in standard patient satisfaction surveys and quality improvement initiatives. Patient input is critical to assessing the quality of hospital care and to identifying areas for improvement.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Prolonged emergency department (ED) wait time and length of visit reduce quality of care and increase adverse events. Previous studies have not examined hospital-level performance on ED wait time and visit length in the United States. The purpose of this study is to describe hospital-level performance on ED wait time and visit length. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of a stratified random sampling of 35,849 patient visits to 364 nonfederal US hospital EDs in 2006, weighted to represent 119,191,528 visits to 4,654 EDs. Measures included EDs' median wait times and visit lengths, EDs' median proportion of patients treated by a physician within the time recommended at triage, and EDs' median proportion of patients dispositioned within 4 or 6 hours. RESULTS: In the median ED, 78% (interquartile range [IQR], 63% to 90%) of all patients and 67% (IQR, 52% to 82%) of patients who were triaged to be treated within 1 hour were treated by a physician within the target triage time. A total of 31% of EDs achieved the triage target for more than 90% of their patients; 14% of EDs achieved the triage target for 90% or more of patients triaged to be treated within an hour. In the median ED, 76% (IQR 54% to 94%) of patients were admitted within 6 hours. A total of 48% of EDs admitted more than 90% of their patients within 6 hours, but only 25% of EDs admitted more than 90% of their patients within 4 hours. CONCLUSION: A minority of hospitals consistently achieved recommended wait times for all ED patients, and fewer than half of hospitals consistently admitted their ED patients within 6 hours.

AIM: The Observed Simulated Hand-off Experience (OSHE) was created to evaluate medical students' sign-out skills using a real-time assessment tool, the Hand-off CEX. SETTING: Thirty-two 4th year medical students participated as part of an elective course. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: One week following an interactive workshop where students learned effective hand-off strategies, students participated in an experience in which they performed a hand-off of a mock patient using simulated history and physical examination data and a brief video. PROGRAM EVALUATION: Internal medicine residents served as standardized hand-off receivers and were trained on expectations. Students were provided feedback using a newly developed Hand-off CEX, based on the "Mini-CEX," which rates overall hand-off performance and its components on a 9-point Likert-type scale. Outcomes included performance ratings and pre- and post-student self-assessments of hand-off preparedness. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests and descriptive statistics. Resident receivers rated overall student performance with a mean score of 6.75 (range 4-9, maximum 9). Statistically significant improvement was observed in self-perceived preparedness for performing an effective hand-off (67% post- vs. 27% pre-reporting 'well-prepared,' p<0.009). DISCUSSION: This brief, standardized hand-off training exercise improved students' confidence and was rated highly by trained observers. Future work focuses on formal validation of the Hand-off CEX instrument. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-009-1170-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BACKGROUND: The wait time to see a physician in US emergency departments (EDs) is increasing and may differentially affect patients with varied insurance status and racial/ethnic backgrounds. METHODS: Using a stratified random sampling of 151 999 visits, representing 539 million ED visits from 1997 to 2006, we examined trends in the percentage of patients seen within the triage target time by triage category (emergent, urgent, semiurgent, and nonurgent), payer type, and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: The percentage of patients seen within the triage target time declined a mean of 0.8% per year, from 80.0% in 1997 to 75.9% in 2006 (P < .001). The percentage of patients seen within the triage target time declined 2.3% per year for emergent patients (59.2% to 48.0%; P < .001) compared with 0.7% per year for semiurgent patients (90.6% to 84.7%; P < .001). In 2006, the adjusted odds of being seen within the triage target time were 30% lower than in 1997 (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-0.89). The adjusted odds of being seen within the triage target time were 87% lower (odds ratio, 0.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.11-0.15) for emergent patients compared with semiurgent patients. Patients of each payment type experienced similar decreases in the percentage seen within the triage target over time (P for interaction = .24), as did patients of each racial/ethnic group (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients in the ED who are seen by a physician within the time recommended at triage has been steadily declining and is at its lowest point in at least 10 years. Of all patients in the ED, the most emergent are the least likely to be seen within the triage target time. Patients of all racial/ethnic backgrounds and payer types have been similarly affected.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Communication failures contribute to errors in the transfer of patients from the emergency department (ED) to inpatient medicine units. Oral (synchronous) communication has numerous benefits but is costly and time consuming. Taped (asynchronous) communication may be more reliable and efficient but lacks interaction. We evaluate a new asynchronous physician-physician sign-out compared with the traditional synchronous sign-out. METHODS: A voicemail-based, semistructured sign-out for routine ED admissions to internal medicine was implemented in October 2007 at an urban, academic medical center. Outcomes were obtained by pre- and postintervention surveys of ED and internal medicine house staff, physician assistants, and hospitalist attending physicians and by examination of access logs and administrative data. Outcome measures included utilization; physician perceptions of ease, accuracy, content, interaction, and errors; and rate of transfers to the ICU from the floor within 24 hours of ED admission. Results were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively with standard qualitative analytic techniques. RESULTS: During September to October 2008 (1 year postintervention), voicemails were recorded about 90.3% of medicine admissions; 69.7% of these were accessed at least once by admitting physicians. The median length of each sign-out was 2.6 minutes (interquartile range 1.9 to 3.5). We received 117 of 197 responses (59%) to the preintervention survey and 113 of 206 responses (55%) to the postintervention survey. A total of 73 of 101 (72%) respondents reported dictated sign-out was easier than oral sign-out and 43 of 101 (43%) reported it was more accurate. However, 70 of 101 (69%) reported that interaction among participants was worse. There was no change in the rate of ICU transfer within 24 hours of admission from the ED in April to June 2007 (65/6,147; 1.1%) versus April to June 2008 (70/6,263; 1.1%); difference of 0%, 95% confidence interval -0.4% to 0.3%. The proportion of internists reporting at least 1 perceived adverse event relating to transfer from the ED decreased a nonsignificant 10% after the intervention (95% confidence interval -27% to 6%), from 44% preintervention (32/72) to 34% postintervention (23/67). CONCLUSION: Voicemail sign-out for ED-internal medicine communication was easier than oral sign-out without any change in early ICU transfers or the perception of major adverse events. However, interaction among participants was reduced. Voicemail sign-out may be an efficient means of improving sign-out communication for stable ED admissions.

OBJECTIVES: To characterise and assess sign-out practices among internal medicine house staff, and to identify contributing factors to sign-out quality. DESIGN: Prospective audiotape study. SETTING: Medical wards of an acute teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eight internal medicine house staff teams. MEASUREMENTS: Quantitative and qualitative assessments of sign-out content, clarity of language, environment, and factors affecting quality and comprehensiveness of oral sign-out. RESULTS: Sign-out sessions (n = 88) contained 503 patient sign-outs. Complete written sign-outs accompanying 50/88 sign-out sessions (57%) were collected. The median duration of sign-out was 35 s (IQR 19-62) per patient. The combined oral and written sign-outs described clinical condition, hospital course and whether or not there was a task to be completed for 184/298 (62%) of patients. The least commonly conveyed was the patient's current clinical condition, described in 249/503 (50%) of oral sign-outs and 117/306 (38%) of written sign-outs. Most patient sign-outs (298/503, 59%) included no questions from the sign-out recipient (median 0, IQR 0-1). Five factors were associated with a higher rate of oral content inclusion: familiarity with the patient, sense of responsibility for the patient, only one sign-out per day, presence of a senior resident and a comprehensive written sign-out. Omissions and mischaracterisations of data were present in 22% of sign-outs repeated in a single day. CONCLUSIONS: Sign-outs are not uniformly comprehensive and include few questions. The findings suggest that several changes may be required to improve sign-out quality, including standardising key content, minimising sign-outs that do not involve the primary team, templating written sign-outs, emphasising the role of sign-out in maintaining patient safety and fostering a sense of direct responsibility for patients among covering staff.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We identify, describe, and categorize vulnerabilities in emergency department (ED) to internal medicine patient transfers. METHODS: We surveyed all emergency medicine house staff, emergency physician assistants, internal medicine house staff and hospitalists at an urban, academic medical center. Respondents were asked to describe any adverse events occurring because of inadequate communication between emergency medicine and the admitting physician. We analyzed the open-ended responses with standard qualitative analysis techniques. RESULTS: Of 139 of 264 survey respondents (53%), 40 (29%) reported that a patient of theirs had experienced an adverse event or near miss after ED to inpatient transfer. These 40 respondents described 36 specific incidents of errors in diagnosis (N=13), treatment (N=14), and disposition (N=13), after which patients experienced harm or a near miss event. Six patients required an upgrade in care from the floor to the ICU. Although we asked respondents to describe communication failures, analysis of responses identified numerous contributors to error: inaccurate or incomplete information, particularly of vital signs; cultural and professional conflicts; crowding; high workload; difficulty in accessing key information such as vital signs, pending data, ED notes, ED orders, and identity of responsible physician; nonlinear patient flow; "boarding" in the ED; and ambiguous responsibility for sign-out or follow-up. CONCLUSION: The transfer of a patient from the ED to internal medicine can be associated with adverse events. Specific vulnerable areas include communication, environment, workload, information technology, patient flow, and assignment of responsibility. Systems-based interventions could ameliorate many of these and potentially improve patient safety.

BACKGROUND: In case reports, transfers in the care of patients among health care providers have been linked to adverse events. However, little is known about the nature and frequency of these transfer-related problems. METHODS: We conducted a prospective audiotape study of 12 days of "sign-out" of clinical information among 8 internal medicine house-staff teams. Each day, postcall and night-float interns were asked to identify any sign-out-related problems occurring during the coverage period and to identify the associated sign-out inadequacies. We verified reported sign-out inadequacies by reviewing each corresponding oral and written sign-out. We then developed a taxonomy of types of errors and their consequences through an iterative coding process. RESULTS: Sign-out sessions (N = 88) included 503 patient sign-outs. A total of 184 patients were signed out twice in the same night. Thus, there were 319 unique patient-days in the data set. We interviewed intern recipients of 84 of 88 sign-out sessions (95%) about sign-out-related problems. Postcall interns identified 24 sign-out-related problems for which we could verify sign-out inadequacies. Five patients suffered delays in diagnosis or treatment, resulting in 1 intensive care unit transfer, and 4 patients had near misses. In addition, house staff experienced 15 inefficiencies or redundancies in work. Sign-outs omitted key information, such as the patient's clinical condition, recent or scheduled events, tasks to complete, anticipatory guidance, and a specific plan of action and rationale for assigned tasks. CONCLUSION: Omission of key information during sign-out can have important adverse consequences for patients and health care providers.