Search

Background: Admitting hospitalized patients to off-service wards ("bedspacing") is common and may affect quality of care and patient outcomes., Objective: To compare in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission to general internal medicine (GIM), and hospital length-of-stay among GIM patients admitted to GIM wards or bedspaced to off-service wards., Design, Participants, and Measures: Retrospective cohort study including all emergency department admissions to GIM between 2015 and 2017 at six hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We compared patients admitted to GIM wards with those who were bedspaced, using multivariable regression models and propensity score matching to control for patient and situational factors., Key Results: Among 40,440 GIM admissions, 10,745 (26.6%) were bedspaced to non-GIM wards and 29,695 (73.4%) were assigned to GIM wards. After multivariable adjustment, bedspacing was associated with no significant difference in mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.86-1.05, p = .304), slightly shorter median hospital length-of-stay (-0.10 days, 95% CI:-0.20 to -0.001, p = .047) and lower 30-day readmission to GIM (adjusted OR 0.89, 95% CI: 0.83-0.95, p = .001). Results were consistent when examining each hospital individually and outcomes did not significantly differ between medical or surgical off-service wards. Sensitivity analyses focused on the highest risk patients did not exclude the possibility of harm associated with bedspacing, although adverse outcomes were not significantly greater., Conclusions: Overall, bedspacing was associated with no significant difference in mortality, slightly shorter hospital length-of-stay, and fewer 30-day readmissions to GIM, although potential harms in high-risk patients remain uncertain. Given that hospital capacity issues are likely to persist, future research should aim to understand how bedspacing can be achieved safely at all hospitals, perhaps by strengthening the selection of low-risk patients., (© 2022 Society of Hospital Medicine.)

Background: Understanding the most common and costly conditions treated by inpatient general medical services is important for implementing quality improvement, developing health policy, conducting research, and designing medical education., Objective: To determine the prevalence and cost of conditions treated on general internal medicine (GIM) inpatient services., Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study involving 7 hospital sites in Toronto, Canada., Participants: All patients discharged between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2015 who were admitted to or discharged from an inpatient GIM service., Main Measures: Hospital administrative data were used to identify diagnoses and costs associated with admissions. The primary discharge diagnosis was identified for each admission and categorized into clinically relevant and mutually exclusive categories using the Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) tool., Key Results: Among 148,442 admissions, the most common primary discharge diagnoses were heart failure (5.1%), pneumonia (5.0%), urinary tract infection (4.6%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.5%), and stroke (4.4%). The prevalence of the 20 most common conditions was significantly correlated across hospitals (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.55 to 0.95, p ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons). No single condition represented more than 5.1% of all admissions or more than 7.9% of admissions at any hospital site. The costliest conditions were stroke (median cost $7122, interquartile range 5587-12,354, total cost $94,199,422, representing 6.0% of all costs) and the group of delirium, dementia, and cognitive disorders (median cost $12,831, IQR 9539-17,509, total cost $77,372,541, representing 4.9% of all costs). The 10 most common conditions accounted for only 36.2% of hospitalizations and 36.8% of total costs. The remaining hospitalizations included 223 different CCS conditions., Conclusions: GIM services care for a markedly heterogeneous population but the most common conditions were similar across 7 hospitals. The diversity of conditions cared for in GIM may be challenging for healthcare delivery and quality improvement. Initiatives that cut across individual diseases to address processes of care, patient experience, and functional outcomes may be more relevant to a greater proportion of the GIM population than disease-specific efforts.

Patients are at high risk for adverse events after discharge from a hospital admission. As a critical and often time-consuming aspect of care for hospitalized patients, the purpose of this study was to describe the physician time, events and workflow in performing a patient discharge. On General Internal Medicine (GIM) wards at two academic medical centers in Toronto, a time-motion study was performed on 11 residents and 2 medical students performing 32 patient discharges. Using a paper data collection tool, a research associate aimed to capture the distribution of activities and the nature and frequency of workflow interruptions during patient discharges from the perspective of resident and medical student housestaff. Thirty-two GIM patient discharges by the 13 housestaff were observed over a period of 116 h. Discharges required 69.2 ± 41.2 min of housestaff-dedicated time to complete, but spanned over a mean 3.7 h from start to finish. On average, 32.8 min (47.3%) of time spent on discharges was dedicated to documentation activities; 13.5 min (19.6%) to direct patient communication; 10.8 min (15.6%) to communication with other clinicians and providers; 6.5 min (9.4%) to arranging outpatient care; 5.7 min (8.2%) to time in transit and waiting. For each discharge, housestaff were interrupted a mean of 5.5 times and switched tasks 8.7 times. During the discharge process, housestaff mainly dedicated themselves to documentation activities and focused minimally on direct patient communication. Clinicians were also found to experience several workflow inefficiencies and interruptions. The present study can be used to identify opportunities to improve and further focus efforts in characterizing this dynamic process.

Summary: Background: Liver disease is an increasing burden on population health globally. Aims: To characterise burden of liver disease among general internal medicine inpatients at seven Toronto‐area hospitals and compare it to other common medical conditions. Methods: Data from April 2010 to October 2017 were obtained from hospitals participating in the GEMINI collaborative. Using these cohort data from hospital information systems linked to administrative data, we defined liver disease admissions using most responsible discharge diagnoses categorised according to international classification of diseases, 10th Revision—enhanced Canadian version (ICD‐10‐CA). We identified admissions for heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and pneumonia as comparators. We calculated standardised mortality ratios (SMRs) as the ratio of observed to expected deaths. Results: Among 239 018 discharges, liver disease accounted for 1.7% of most responsible discharge diagnoses. Liver disease was associated with marked premature mortality, with SMR of 8.84 (95% CI 8.06‐9.67) compared to 1.06 (95% CI 0.99‐1.12) for heart failure, 1.05 (95% CI 0.96‐1.15) for COPD and 1.28 (95% CI 1.20‐1.37) for pneumonia. The majority of deaths were among patients younger than 65 years (57.7%) compared to 3.3% in heart failure, 5.6% in COPD and 10.7% in pneumonia. Liver disease patients presented with worse Laboratory‐Based Acute Physiology Scores, were more frequently admitted to the intensive care unit (14.4%), incurred higher average total costs (median $6723 CAD), had higher in‐hospital mortality (11.4%), and were more likely to be a readmission from 30 days prior (19.8%). Non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease admissions increased from 120 in 2011‐2012 to 215 in 2016‐2017 (P < 0.01). Conclusion: In Canada's largest urban centre, liver disease admissions resulted in premature morbidity and mortality with higher resource use compared to common cardio‐respiratory conditions. Re‐evaluation of approaches to caring for inpatients with liver disease is timely and justified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Variations in inpatient medical care are typically attributed to system, hospital or patient factors. Little is known about variations at the physician level within hospitals. We described the physician-level variation in clinical outcomes and resource use in general internal medicine (GIM). Methods This was an observational study of all emergency admissions to GIM at seven hospitals in Ontario, Canada, over a 5-year period between 2010 and 2015. Physician-level variations in inpatient mortality, hospital length of stay, 30-day readmission and use of 'advanced imaging' (CT, MRI or ultrasound scans) were measured. Physicians were categorised into quartiles within each hospital for each outcome and then quartiles were pooled across all hospitals (eg, physicians in the highest quartile at each hospital were grouped together). We report absolute differences between physicians in the highest and lowest quartiles after matching admissions based on propensity scores to account for patient-level variation. Results The sample included 103 085 admissions to 135 attending physicians. After propensity score matching, the difference between physicians in the highest and lowest quartiles for in-hospital mortality was 2.4% (95% CI 0.6% to 4.3%, p<0.01); for readmission was 3.3% (95% CI 0.7% to 5.9%, p<0.01); for advanced imaging was 0.32 tests per admission (95% CI 0.12 to 0.52, p<0.01); and for hospital length of stay was 1.2 additional days per admission (95% CI 0.5 to 1.9, p<0.01). Physician-level differences in length of stay and imaging use were consistent across numerous sensitivity analyses and stable over time. Differences in mortality and readmission were consistent across most sensitivity analyses but were not stable over time and estimates were limited by sample size. Conclusions Patient outcomes and resource use in inpatient medical care varied substantially across physicians in this study. Physician-level variations in length of stay and imaging use were unlikely to be explained by patient factors whereas differences in mortality and readmission should be interpreted with caution and could be explained by unmeasured confounders. Physician-level variations may represent practice differences that highlight quality improvement opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICC) are among the most commonly used medical devices in hospital. This study sought to determine the appropriateness of inpatient PICC use in general medicine at five academic hospitals in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, based on the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC). Methods This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study of general internal medicine patients discharged between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2015 who received a PICC during hospitalisation. The primary outcomes were the proportions of appropriate and inappropriate inpatient PICC use based on MAGIC recommendations. Hospital administrative data and electronic clinical data were used to determine appropriateness of each PICC placement. Multivariable regression models were fit to explore patient predictors of inappropriate use. Results Among 3479 PICC placements, 1848 (53%, 95% CI 51% to 55%) were appropriate, 573 (16%, 95% CI 15% to 18%) were inappropriate and 1058 (30%, 95% CI 29% to 32%) were of uncertain appropriateness. The proportion of appropriate and inappropriate PICCs ranged from 44% to 61% (p<0.001) and 13% to 21% (p<0.001) across hospitals, respectively. The most common reasons for inappropriate PICC use were placement in patients with advanced chronic kidney disease (n=500, 14%) and use for fewer than 15 days in patients who are critically ill (n=53), which represented 14% of all PICC placements in the intensive care unit. Patients who were older, female, had a Charlson Comorbidity Index score greater than 0 and more severe illness based on the Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score were more likely to receive an inappropriate PICC. Conclusions Clinical practice recommendations can be operationalised into measurable domains to estimate the appropriateness of PICC insertions using routinely collected hospital data. Inappropriate PICC use was common and varied substantially across hospitals in this study, suggesting that there are important opportunities to improve care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Understanding the most common and costly conditions treated by inpatient general medical services is important for implementing quality improvement, developing health policy, conducting research, and designing medical education.Objective: To determine the prevalence and cost of conditions treated on general internal medicine (GIM) inpatient services.Design: Retrospective cross-sectional study involving 7 hospital sites in Toronto, Canada.Participants: All patients discharged between April 1, 2010 and March 31, 2015 who were admitted to or discharged from an inpatient GIM service.Main Measures: Hospital administrative data were used to identify diagnoses and costs associated with admissions. The primary discharge diagnosis was identified for each admission and categorized into clinically relevant and mutually exclusive categories using the Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) tool.Key Results: Among 148,442 admissions, the most common primary discharge diagnoses were heart failure (5.1%), pneumonia (5.0%), urinary tract infection (4.6%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.5%), and stroke (4.4%). The prevalence of the 20 most common conditions was significantly correlated across hospitals (correlation coefficients ranging from 0.55 to 0.95, p ≤ 0.01 for all comparisons). No single condition represented more than 5.1% of all admissions or more than 7.9% of admissions at any hospital site. The costliest conditions were stroke (median cost $7122, interquartile range 5587-12,354, total cost $94,199,422, representing 6.0% of all costs) and the group of delirium, dementia, and cognitive disorders (median cost $12,831, IQR 9539-17,509, total cost $77,372,541, representing 4.9% of all costs). The 10 most common conditions accounted for only 36.2% of hospitalizations and 36.8% of total costs. The remaining hospitalizations included 223 different CCS conditions.Conclusions: GIM services care for a markedly heterogeneous population but the most common conditions were similar across 7 hospitals. The diversity of conditions cared for in GIM may be challenging for healthcare delivery and quality improvement. Initiatives that cut across individual diseases to address processes of care, patient experience, and functional outcomes may be more relevant to a greater proportion of the GIM population than disease-specific efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The precise scope of hospital care delivered under general internal medicine services remains poorly quantified. The purpose of this study was to describe the demographic characteristics, medical conditions, health outcomes and resource use of patients admitted to general internal medicine at 7 hospital sites in the Greater Toronto Area. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study involving all patients who were admitted to or discharged from general internal medicine at the study sites between Apr. 1, 2010, and Mar. 31, 2015. Clinical data from hospital electronic information systems were linked to administrative data from each hospital. We examined trends in resource use and patient characteristics over the study period. Results: There were 136 208 admissions to general internal medicine involving 88 121 unique patients over the study period. General internal medicine admissions accounted for 38.8% of all admissions from the emergency department and 23.7% of all hospital bed-days. Over the study period, the number of admissions to general internal medicine increased by 32.4%; there was no meaningful change in the median length of stay or cost per hospital stay. The median patient age was 73 (interquartile range [IQR] 57-84) years, and the median number of coexisting conditions was 6 (IQR 3-9). The median acute length of stay was 4.6 (IQR 2.5-8.6) days, and the median total cost per hospital stay was $5850 (IQR $3915-$10 061). Patients received at least 1 computed tomography scan in 52.2% of admissions. The most common primary discharge diagnoses were pneumonia (5.0% of admissions), heart failure (4.7%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (4.1%), urinary tract infection (4.0%) and stroke (3.6%). Interpretation: Patients admitted to general internal medicine services represent a large, heterogeneous, resource-intensive and growing population. Understanding and improving general internal medicine care is essential to promote a high-quality, sustainable health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communication skills are important when discussing goals of care and resuscitation. Few studies have evaluated the effectiveness of standardized patients for teaching medical trainees to communicate about goals of care. Objective: To determine whether standardized patient simulation offers benefit over didactic sessions alone for improving skill and comfort discussing goals of care. Design and intervention: Single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of didactic teaching plus standardized patient simulation versus didactic teaching alone. Participants: First-year internal medicine residents. Main measures: Changes in communication comfort and skill between baseline and 2 months post-training assessed using the Consultation and Relational Empathy measure. Key results: We enrolled 94 residents over a 2-year period. Both groups reported a significant improvement in comfort when discussing goals of care with patients. There was no difference in Consultation and Relational Empathy scores following the workshop (p = 0.79). The intervention group showed a significant increase in Consultation and Relational Empathy scores postworkshop compared with pre-workshop (35.0 vs 31.7, respectively; p = 0.048), whereas there was no improvement in Consultation and Relational Empathy scores in the control group (35.6 vs 36.0; p = 0.4). However, when the results were adjusted for baseline differences in Consultation and Relational Empathy scores in a multivariable regression analysis, group assignment was not associated with an improvement in Consultation and Relational Empathy score. Improvement in comfort scores and perception of benefit were not associated with improvements in Consultation and Relational Empathy scores. Conclusion: Simulation training may improve communication skill and comfort more than didactic training alone, but there were important confounders in this study and further studies are needed to determine whether simulation is better than didactic training for this purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]