Faculty Bibliography

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.

INTRODUCTION: Imperfect sign-out of patient information between providers has been shown to contribute to medical error, but there are no standardized curricula to teach sign-out skills. At our institution, we identified several deficiencies in skills and a lack of any existing training. AIM: To develop a sign-out curriculum for medical house staff. SETTING: Internal medicine residency program. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: We developed a 1-h curriculum and implemented it in August of 2006 at three hospital sites. Teaching strategies included facilitated discussion, modeling, and observed individual practice with feedback. We emphasized interactive communication, a structured sign-out format summarized by an easy-to-remember mnemonic ("SIGNOUT"), consistent inclusion of key content items such as anticipatory guidance, and use of concrete language. PROGRAM EVALUATION: We received 34 evaluations. The mean score for the course was 4.44 +/- 0.61 on a 1-5 scale. Perceived usefulness of the structured oral communication format was 4.46 +/- 0.78. Participants rated their comfort with providing oral sign-out significantly higher after the session than before (3.27 +/- 1.0 before vs. 3.94 +/- 0.90 after; p < .001). DISCUSSION: We developed an oral sign-out curriculum that was brief, structured, and well received by participants. Further study is necessary to determine the long-term impact of the curriculum.

BACKGROUND: Limits on resident work hours are intended to reduce fatigue-related errors, but may raise risk by increasing transfers of responsibility for patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine changes in outcomes for internal medicine patients after the implementation of work-hour regulations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Urban, academic medical center. PATIENTS: 14,260 consecutive patients discharged from the teaching (housestaff) service and 6664 consecutive patients discharged from the nonteaching (hospitalist) service between 1 July 2002 and 30 June 2004. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included intensive care unit utilization, length of stay, discharge disposition, 30-day readmission rate to the study institution, pharmacist interventions to prevent error, drug-drug interactions and in-hospital death. RESULTS: The teaching service had net improvements in 3 outcomes. Relative to changes experienced by the nonteaching service, the rate of intensive care unit utilization decreased by 2.1% (95% CI, -3.3% to -0.7%; P = 0.002), the rate of discharge to home or rehabilitation facility versus elsewhere improved by 5.3% (CI, 2.6% to 7.6%; P < 0.001), and pharmacist interventions to prevent error were reduced by 1.92 interventions per 100 patient-days (CI, -2.74 to -1.03 interventions per 100 patient-days; P < 0.001). Teaching and nonteaching services had similar changes over time in length of stay, 30-day readmission rate, and adverse drug-drug interactions. In-hospital death was uncommon in both groups, and change over time was similar in the 2 groups. LIMITATIONS: The study was a retrospective, nonrandomized design that assessed a limited number of outcomes. Teaching and nonteaching cohorts may not have been affected similarly by secular trends in patient care. CONCLUSIONS: After the implementation of work-hour regulations, 3 of 7 outcomes improved for patients in the teaching service relative to those in the nonteaching service. The authors found no evidence of adverse unintended consequences after the institution of work-hour regulations.

BACKGROUND: Failure to rescue (FTR), the rate of death in patients suffering 1 of 6 in-hospital complications, is an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicator calculated from administrative data. OBJECTIVE: : We sought to assess the accuracy of the AHRQ FTR algorithm. METHODS: We undertook a retrospective chart review of 60 denominator cases of FTR identified by the algorithm at each of 40 University HealthSystem Consortium institutions. The primary outcome was the overall accuracy of the algorithm compared with chart review. We also assessed accuracy by complication type, patient characteristics, institution, service assignment, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 2354 cases, 1193 (50.7%) were accurately identified by the algorithm as having had at least one of the FTR-qualifying complications during hospitalization. Of the 3073 complications identified in these patients, 1497 (48.7%) were correctly flagged by the algorithm, 907 (29.5%) were present on admission, 419 (13.6%) were not confirmed by chart review, and 250 (8.1%) met a predefined complication-specific criterion for exclusion. The case accuracy rate varied significantly by institution (mean, 50.7%; range, 18.3-100%; P < 0.001), service assignment (surgical service, 62.9% vs. nonsurgical service, 42.9%; P < 0.001), and mortality (alive, 43.9% vs. dead, 67.5%; P < 0.001) but was not affected by patients' age, gender, race, or insurance status. CONCLUSIONS: As currently calculated from administrative data, the FTR algorithm misidentifies half of the cases on average, is least accurate for nonsurgical cases, and is widely variable across institutions. This indicator may be useful internally to flag possible cases of quality failure but has limitations for external institutional comparisons. Improvements in coding quality and consistency across institutions are needed.