Search

BACKGROUND: Interhospital transfer (IHT) is often performed to provide patients with specialized care. Racial/ethnic disparities in IHT have been suggested but are not well-characterized. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between race/ethnicity and IHT. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of 2016 National Inpatient Sample data. PATIENTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years old with common medical diagnoses at transfer, including acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, arrhythmia, stroke, sepsis, pneumonia, and gastrointestinal bleed. MAIN MEASURES: We performed a series of logistic regression models to estimate adjusted odds of transfer by race/ethnicity controlling for patient demographics, clinical variables, and hospital characteristics and to identify potential mediators. In secondary analyses, we estimated adjusted odds of transfer among patients at community hospitals (those more likely to transfer patients) and performed subgroup analyses by region and primary medical diagnosis. KEY RESULTS: Of 5,774,175 weighted hospital admissions, 199,015 (4.5%) underwent IHT, including 4.7% of White patients, compared with 3.9% of Black patients and 3.8% of Hispanic patients. Black (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.78–0.89) and Hispanic (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.75–0.87) patients had lower crude odds of transfer compared with White patients, but this became non-significant after adjusting for hospital-level characteristics. In secondary analyses among patients hospitalized at community hospitals, Hispanic patients had lower adjusted odds of transfer (aOR 0.89, 95% CI 0.79–0.98). Disparities in IHT by race/ethnicity varied by region and medical diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: Black and Hispanic patients had lower odds of IHT, largely explained by a higher likelihood of being hospitalized at urban teaching hospitals. Racial/ethnic disparities in transfer were demonstrated at community hospitals, in certain geographic regions and among patients with specific diseases.

Objective The transfer of patients between acute care hospitals (interhospital transfer [IHT]) is a common but nonstandardized process leading to variable quality and safety. The goal of this study was to survey accepting physicians regarding problems encountered in the transfer process. Methods A cross-sectional survey of residents and inpatient attendings from internal medicine, neurology, and surgery services at a large tertiary care referral hospital was undertaken to identify problematic aspects of the IHT process as perceived by accepting frontline providers. The frequency that specific scenarios were encountered in caring for transferred patients and whether these processes impacted patient safety were determined using 5- and 3-point Likert scales, respectively. The frequency of responses to each question were measured using proportions. Results Approximately 51% of the 284 physicians surveyed responded. Pertinent findings included the following: physician subject surveys found that transferred patients sometimes, frequently, or always arrived without requiring specialized care in 56% of responses, arrived with unrealistic expectations of care in 77.2% of responses, arrived more than 24 hours after accepted for transfer in 80.1% of responses, and arrived without necessary transfer records in 86.9% of responses. Most respondents felt that lack of availability of transfer records and the time of day of arrival frequently posed a risk to transferred patients (57.2% and 53.1%, respectively). Response variation was noted between resident and attending physician respondents. Conclusions Expectations of care, delays and timing of transfer, and information exchange at time of transfer were identified as all too common problems in IHT, which creates a risk for patient safety. These areas are important targets for investigation and the development of interventions to improve patient safety.

BackgroundThe first Multicenter Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement (QI) Study (MARQUIS1) demonstrated that mentored implementation of a medication reconciliation best practices toolkit decreased total unintentional medication discrepancies in five hospitals, but results varied by site. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of a refined toolkit on a larger group of hospitals.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic quality improvement study (MARQUIS2) at 18 North American hospitals or hospital systems from 2016 to 2018. Incorporating lessons learnt from MARQUIS1, we implemented a refined toolkit, offering 17 system-level and 6 patient-level interventions. One of eight physician mentors coached each site via monthly calls and performed one to two site visits. The primary outcome was number of unintentional medication discrepancies in admission or discharge orders per patient. Time series analysis used multivariable Poisson regression.ResultsA total of 4947 patients were sampled, including 1229 patients preimplementation and 3718 patients postimplementation. Both the number of system-level interventions adopted per site and the proportion of patients receiving patient-level interventions increased over time. During the intervention, patients experienced a steady decline in their medication discrepancy rate from 2.85 discrepancies per patient to 0.98 discrepancies per patient. An interrupted time series analysis of the 17 sites with sufficient data for analysis showed the intervention was associated with a 5% relative decrease in discrepancies per month over baseline temporal trends (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.97, pConclusionA multicentre medication reconciliation QI initiative using mentored implementation of a refined best practices toolkit, including patient-level and system-level interventions, was associated with a substantial decrease in unintentional medication discrepancies over time. Future efforts should focus on sustainability and spread.

Objectives Although existing data suggest marked variability in interhospital transfer (IHT), little is known about specific factors that may impact the quality and safety of this care transition. We aimed to explore transferred patients' and involved physicians' experience with IHT to better understand the components of the transfer continuum and identify potential targets for improvement. Methods We performed a qualitative study using individual interviews of adult patients recently transferred to cardiology, general medicine, and oncology services at a tertiary care academic medical center, as well as their transferring physician, accepting attending physician, and accepting/admitting resident physician. We conducted a thematic analysis, using an inductive approach and an a priori framework from pre-established domains. Results Participants included 10 hospitalized adults (6 cardiology, 2 general medicine, and 2 oncology), 9 accepting attending physicians, 12 accepting and/or admitting resident physicians, and 5 transferring physicians (N = 36). Emergent themes demonstrated that participants held a shared understanding of the reason for transfer (most commonly access to more specialized care), and relayed a general dissatisfaction regarding the timing and lack of advanced notification of transfer. We also found distinct differences in IHT experience by stakeholder group: physician participants relayed discontent with intrahospital chains of communication and interhospital information exchange, and patient participants focused more readily on the physical aspects of IHT. Conclusions This study offers insight into IHT from the perspective of those most affected by this process, thereby identifying potential targets in addressing the quality and safety of this transition.

Importance Interhospital transfer (IHT) remains a largely unstudied process of care. Objective To determine the nationwide frequency of, patient and hospital-level predictors of, and hospital variability in IHT. Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files merged with 2013 American Hospital Association data. Patients Beneficiaries ≥65 years and older enrolled in Medicare A and B, with an acute care hospitalization claim in 2013. Exposures Patient and hospital characteristics of transferred and nontransferred patients. Measurements Frequency of interhospital transfers (IHT); adjusted odds of transfer of each patient and each hospital characteristic; and variability in hospital transfer rates. Results Of 6.6 million eligible beneficiaries with an acute care hospitalization, 101,507 (1.5%) underwent IHT. Selected characteristics associated with greater adjusted odds of transfer included: patient age 74-85 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.38 compared with 65-74 years; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 2.33-2.43); nonblack race (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.13-1.20); higher comorbidity (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.36-1.37); lower diagnosis-related group-weight (OR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.95-2.09); fewer recent hospitalizations (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.79-1.95); and hospitalization in the Northeast (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.27-1.55). Higher case mix index of the hospital was associated with a lower adjusted odds of transfer (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.30-0.45). Variability in hospital transfer rates remained significant after adjustment for patient and hospital characteristics (variance 0.28, P = 0.01). Conclusions In this nationally representative evaluation, we found that a sizable number of patients undergo IHT. We identified both expected and unexpected patient and hospital-level predictors of IHT, as well as unexplained variability in hospital transfer rates, suggesting lack of standardization of this complex care transition. Our study highlights further investigative avenues to help guide best practices in IHT. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2017;12:435-442.

It is unclear which medication reconciliation interventions are most effective at reducing inpatient medication discrepancies. Five United States hospitals’ interdisciplinary quality improvement (QI) teams were virtually mentored by QI-trained physicians. Sites implemented one to seven evidence-based interventions in 791 patients during the 25-month implementation period. Three interventions were associated with significant decreases in potentially harmful discrepancy rates: (1) defining clinical roles and responsibilities, (2) training, and (3) hiring staff to perform discharge medication reconciliation. Two interventions were associated with significant increases in potentially harmful discrepancy rates: training staff to take medication histories and implementing a new electronic health record (EHR). Hospitals should focus first on hiring and training pharmacy staff to assist with medication reconciliation at discharge and delineating roles and responsibilities of clinical staff. We caution hospitals implementing a large vendor EHR, as medication discrepancies may increase. Finally, the effect of medication history training on discrepancies needs further study.

BackgroundThe first Multi-center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS1) demonstrated that implementation of a medication reconciliation best practices toolkit decreased total unintentional medication discrepancies in five hospitals. We sought to implement the MARQUIS toolkit in more diverse hospitals, incorporating lessons learned from MARQUIS1.MethodsMARQUIS2 is a pragmatic, mentored implementation QI study which collected clinical and implementation outcomes. Sites implemented a revised toolkit, which included interventions from these domains: 1) best possible medication history (BPMH)-taking; 2) discharge medication reconciliation and patient/caregiver counseling; 3) identifying and defining clinician roles and responsibilities; 4) risk stratification; 5) health information technology improvements; 6) improved access to medication sources; 7) identification and correction of real-time discrepancies; and, 8) stakeholder engagement. Eight hospitalists mentored the sites via one site visit and monthly phone calls over the 18-month intervention period. Each site’s local QI team assessed opportunities to improve, implemented at least one of the 17 toolkit components, and accessed a variety of resources (e.g. implementation manual, webinars, and workshops). Outcomes to be assessed will include unintentional medication discrepancies per patient.DiscussionA mentored multi-center medication reconciliation QI initiative using a best practices toolkit was successfully implemented across 18 medical centers. The 18 participating sites varied in size, teaching status, location, and electronic health record (EHR) platform.We introduce barriers to implementation and lessons learned from MARQUIS1, such as the importance of utilizing dedicated, trained medication history takers, simple EHR solutions, clarifying roles and responsibilities, and the input of patients and families when improving medication reconciliation.

Though often undertaken to provide patients with specialized care, interhospital transfer (IHT) is associated with worse outcomes for select patients. Certain aspects of the transfer process have been suggested as contributors to these outcomes. We performed a retrospective cohort study including patients ≥ 18 years who underwent IHT to a tertiary care hospital between January 2005 and September 2013. We examined the association between “weekend” transfer, “nighttime” transfer, “time delay” between transfer acceptance and arrival, and admission team “busyness” on the day of transfer, and patient outcomes, including transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU) within 48 hours and 30-day mortality. We utilized multivariable logistic regression models, adjusting for patient characteristics. Secondary analyses examined detailed timing of transfer and evaluated 30-day mortality stratified by service of transfer. Among the 24,352 patients who underwent IHT, the nighttime transfer was associated with increased adjusted odds of ICU transfer (odds ratio [OR] 1.54; 95% CI 1.38, 1.72) and 30-day mortality (OR 1.16; 95% CI 1.01, 1.35). Secondary analyses confirmed the association between nighttime transfer and ICU transfer throughout the week and demonstrated that Sunday (and trend towards Friday) night transfers had increased 30-day mortality, as compared with Monday daytime transfer. Stratified analyses demonstrated a significant association between transfer characteristics and adjusted odds of 30-day mortality among cardiothoracic and gastrointestinal surgical service transfers. Our findings suggest high acuity patients have worse outcomes during off-peak times of transfer and during times of high care team workload. Further study is needed to identify underlying reasons to explain these associations and devise potential solutions.

Poor communication during inter-hospital transfer (IHT, the transfer of patients between acute care hospitals) is common. Clinicians often report feeling unprepared to care for IHT patients due to inadequate advance notification. The aim of this project was to improve advance notification of general medicine service patient transfers to a tertiary care referral hospital. We used quality improvement principles to design and implement two interventions: (1) Use of a checklist; (2) Redesign role/responsibilities within the Access Center and Bed Control Department. Data on frequency of advance notification was collected over 9 months and plotted on a statistical process control chart with evaluation for special cause variation. We also evaluated barriers/facilitators to implementation and surveyed clinicians on information received with the advance notification. 103 patients underwent IHT during the study. Frequency of advance notification increased from a baseline of 63.6%-85.4% post-intervention. Several contributors to successful implementation were identified, including ensuring key stakeholder input and leveraging existing systems structure, among others. Survey results highlighted potential targets for future IHT improvements such as improved clinical information available to admitting clinicians in advance of patient transfer. In conclusion, we successfully improved advance notification of IHT, an essential step to improve communication. Next steps include sustainment and automation of these efforts and ongoing targeted process improvement efforts with an ultimate goal of improving patient outcomes during IHT.

BackgroundInter-hospital transfer (IHT, the transfer of patients between hospitals) occurs regularly and exposes patients to risks of discontinuity of care, though outcomes of transferred patients remains largely understudied.ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between IHT and healthcare utilisation and clinical outcomes.DesignRetrospective cohort.SettingCMS 2013 100 % Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files merged with 2013 American Hospital Association data.ParticipantsBeneficiaries≥age 65 enrolled in Medicare A and B, with an acute care hospitalisation claim in 2013 and 1 of 15 top disease categories.Main outcome measuresCost of hospitalisation, length of stay (LOS) (of entire hospitalisation), discharge home, 3 -day and 30- day mortality, in transferred vs non-transferred patients.ResultsThe final cohort consisted of 53 420 transferred patients and 53 420 propensity-score matched non-transferred patients. Across all 15 disease categories, IHT was associated with significantly higher costs, longer LOS and lower odds of discharge home. Additionally, IHT was associated with lower propensity-matched odds of 3-day and/or 30- day mortality for some disease categories (acute myocardial infarction, stroke, sepsis, respiratory disease) and higher propensity-matched odds of mortality for other disease categories (oesophageal/gastrointestinal disease, renal failure, congestive heart failure, pneumonia, renal failure, chronic obstructivepulmonary disease, hip fracture/dislocation, urinary tract infection and metabolic disease).ConclusionsIn this nationally representative study of Medicare beneficiaries, IHT was associated with higher costs, longer LOS and lower odds of discharge home, but was differentially associated with odds of early death and 30 -day mortality depending on patients’ disease category. These findings demonstrate heterogeneity among transferred patients depending on the diagnosis, presenting a nuanced assessment of this complex care transition.

BACKGROUND Dispersion of inpatient care teams across different medical units impedes effective team communication, potentially leading to adverse events (AEs). OBJECTIVE To regionalize 3 inpatient general medical teams to nursing units and examine the association with communication and preventable AEs. DESIGN Pre-post cohort analysis. SETTING A 700-bed academic medical center. PATIENTS General medicine patients on any of the participating nursing units before and after implementation of regionalized care. INTERVENTION Regionalizing 3 general medical physician teams to 3 corresponding nursing units. MEASUREMENTS Concordance of patient care plan between nurse and intern, and adjusted odds of preventable AEs. RESULTS Of the 414 included nurse and intern paired surveys, there were no significant differences pre- versus postregionalization in total mean concordance scores (0.65 vs 0.67, P = 0.26), but there was significant improvement in agreement on expected discharge date (0.56 vs 0.68, P = 0.003), knowledge of the other provider's name (0.56 vs 0.86,P < 0.001), and daily care plan discussions (0.73 vs 0.88, P < 0.001). Of the 392 reviewed patient medical records, there was no significant difference in the adjusted odds of preventable AEs pre- versus postregionalization (adjusted odds ratio: 1.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.69, 2.69). CONCLUSIONS We found that regionalization of care teams improved recognition of care team members, discussion of daily care plan, and agreement on estimated discharge date, but did not significantly improve nurse and physician concordance of the care plan or reduce the odds of preventable AEs. Our findings suggest that regionalization alone may be insufficient to effectively promote communication and lead to patient safety improvements. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine

The practice of transferring patients between acute care hospitals is variable and largely nonstandardized. Although often-cited reasons for transfer include providing patients access to specialty services only available at the receiving institution, little is known about whether and when patients receive such specialty care during the transfer continuum. We performed a retrospective analysis using 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files from Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Beneficiaries were included if they were aged =65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, with an acute care hospitalization claim, and transferred to another acute care hospital with a primary diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction, gastrointestinal bleed, renal failure, or hip fracture/dislocation. Associated specialty procedure codes (International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification) were identified for each diagnosis. We performed descriptive analyses to compare receipt of specialty procedural services between transferring and receiving hospitals, stratified by diagnosis. Across the 19,613 included beneficiaries, receipt of associated specialty procedures was more common at the receiving than the transferring hospital, with the exception of patients with a diagnosis of gastrointestinal bleed. Depending on primary diagnosis, between 32.4% and 89.1% of patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital. Our results demonstrate variable receipt of specialty procedural care across the transfer continuum, implying the likelihood of alternate drivers of interhospital transfer other than solely receipt of specialty procedural care.

BACKGROUND Little is currently known regarding physicians' opinions on the relative appropriateness of inpatient management of medical conditions unrelated to the reason for admission. OBJECTIVE Investigate physician attitudes on the appropriateness of inpatient medication interventions, based on the interventions' relatedness to the reason for admission. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Case-based survey of hospitalists and hospital-based primary care physicians at 3 academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts. METHODS Physicians were emailed a survey consisting of 6 pairs of clinical cases. Each pair included 1 case with an inpatient management decision related to the reason for admission, followed by a case involving the same management decision but unrelated to the reason for admission. Respondents rated the appropriateness of the interventions, and results were compared based on the relatedness to the reason for admission and based on the respondents' primary role. RESULTS Overall, 162 out of 295 providers (55%) responded to the survey. Physicians were significantly more likely to rate inpatient interventions as appropriate when they were related, compared to unrelated, to the reason for admission (78.9% vs 38.8%; P

Background Unresolved medication discrepancies during hospitalization can contribute to adverse drug events, resulting in patient harm. Discrepancies can be reduced by performing medication reconciliation; however, effective implementation of medication reconciliation has proven to be challenging. The goals of the Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (MARQUIS) are to operationalize best practices for inpatient medication reconciliation, test their effect on potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies, and understand barriers and facilitators of successful implementation. Methods Six U.S. hospitals are participating in this quality improvement mentored implementation study. Each hospital has collected baseline data on the primary outcome: the number of potentially harmful unintentional medication discrepancies per patient, as determined by a trained on-site pharmacist taking a “gold standard” medication history. With the guidance of their mentors, each site has also begun to implement one or more of 11 best practices to improve medication reconciliation. To understand the effect of the implemented interventions on hospital staff and culture, we are performing mixed methods program evaluation including surveys, interviews, and focus groups of front line staff and hospital leaders. Discussion At baseline the number of unintentional medication discrepancies in admission and discharge orders per patient varies by site from 2.35 to 4.67 (mean=3.35). Most discrepancies are due to history errors (mean 2.12 per patient) as opposed to reconciliation errors (mean 1.23 per patient). Potentially harmful medication discrepancies averages 0.45 per patient and varies by site from 0.13 to 0.82 per patient. We discuss several barriers to implementation encountered thus far. In the end, we anticipate that MARQUIS tools and lessons learned have the potential to decrease medication discrepancies and improve patient outcomes. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01337063