Hospital Medicine

From Titus Family Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (Drs. Chu and Ma and Mimi Lou), and Department of Family Medicine, Keck Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (Dr. Suh).

Objective: The objective of this study is to describe HbA_1c changes in patients who maintained continuous pharmacist care vs patients who had a gap in pharmacist care of 3 months or longer. 

Methods: This retrospective study was conducted from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019. Electronic health record data from an academic-affiliated, safety-net resident physician primary care clinic were collected to observe HbA_1c changes between patients with continuous pharmacist care and patients who had a gap of 3 months or longer in pharmacist care. A total of 189 patients met the inclusion criteria and were divided into 2 groups: those with continuous care and those with gaps in care. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and the χ² (or Fisher exact) test for categorical variables. The differences-in-differences model was used to compare the changes in HbA_1c between the 2 groups.

Results: There was no significant difference in changes in HbA_1c between the continuous care group and the gaps in care group, although the mean magnitude of HbA_1c changes was numerically greater in the continuous care group (-1.48% vs -0.97%). Overall, both groups showed improvement in their HbA_1c levels and had similar numbers of primary care physician visits and acute care utilizations, while the gaps in care group had longer duration with pharmacists and between the adjacent pharmacist visits.

Conclusion: Maintaining continuous, regular visits with a pharmacist at a safety-net resident physician primary care clinic did not show a significant difference in HbA_1c changes compared to having gaps in pharmacist care. Future studies on socioeconomic and behavioral burden on HbA_1c improvement and on pharmacist visits in these populations should be explored.

Keywords: clinical pharmacist; diabetes management; continuous visit; primary care clinic.

Pharmacists have unique skills in identifying and resolving problems related to the safety and efficacy of drug therapy while addressing medication adherence and access for patients. Their expertise is especially important to meet the care needs of a growing population with chronic conditions amidst a primary care physician shortage.¹ As health care systems move toward value-based care, emphasis on improvement in quality and health measures have become central in care delivery. Pharmacists have been integrated into team-based care in primary care settings, but the value-based shift has opened more opportunities for pharmacists to address unmet quality standards.^2-5

Many studies have reported that the integration of pharmacists into team-based care improves health outcomes and reduces overall health care costs.^6-9 Specifically, when pharmacists were added to primary care teams to provide diabetes management, hemoglobin HbA_1c levels were reduced compared to teams without pharmacists.^10-13 Offering pharmacist visits as often as every 2 weeks to 3 months, with each patient having an average of 4.7 visits, resulted in improved therapeutic outcomes.^3,7 During visits, pharmacists address the need for additional drug therapy, deprescribe unnecessary therapy, correct insufficient doses or durations, and switch patients to more cost-efficient drug therapy.⁹ Likewise, patients who visit pharmacists in addition to seeing their primary care physician can have medication-related concerns resolved and improve their therapeutic outcomes.^10,11

Not much is known about the magnitude of HbA_1c change based on the regularity of pharmacist visits. Although pharmacists offer follow-up appointments in reasonable time intervals, patients do not keep every appointment for a variety of reasons, including forgetfulness, personal issues, and a lack of transportation.¹⁴ Such missed appointments can negatively impact health outcomes.^14-16 The purpose of this study is to describe HbA_1c changes in patients who maintained continuous, regular pharmacist visits without a 3-month gap and in patients who had history of inconsistent pharmacist visits with a gap of 3 months or longer. Furthermore, this study describes the frequency of health care utilization for these 2 groups.

Methods

Setting

The Internal Medicine resident physician primary care clinic is 1 of 2 adult primary care clinics at an academic, urban, public medical center. It is in the heart of East Los Angeles, where predominantly Spanish-speaking and minority populations reside. The clinic has approximately 19000 empaneled patients and is the largest resident primary care clinic in the public health system. The clinical pharmacy service addresses unmet quality standards, specifically HbA_1c. The clinical pharmacists are co-located and collaborate with resident physicians, attending physicians, care managers, nurses, social workers, and community health workers at the clinic. They operate under collaborative practice agreements with prescriptive authority, except for controlled substances, specialty drugs, and antipsychotic medications.

Pharmacist visit

Patients are primarily referred by resident physicians to clinical pharmacists when their HbA_1c level is above 8% for an extended period, when poor adherence and low health literacy are evident regardless of HbA_1c level, or when a complex medication regimen requires comprehensive medication review and reconciliation. The referral occurs through warm handoff by resident physicians as well as clinic nurses, and it is embedded in the clinic flow. Patients continue their visits with resident physicians for issues other than their referral to clinical pharmacists. The visits with pharmacists are appointment-based, occur independently from resident physician visits, and continue until the patient’s HbA_1c level or adherence is optimized. Clinical pharmacists continue to follow up with patients who may have reached their target HbA_1c level but still are deemed unstable due to inconsistency in their self-management and medication adherence.

After the desirable HbA_1c target is achieved along with full adherence to medications and self-management, clinical pharmacists will hand off patients back to resident physicians. At each visit, pharmacists perform a comprehensive medication assessment and reconciliation that includes adjusting medication therapy, placing orders for necessary laboratory tests and prescriptions, and assessing medication adherence. They also evaluate patients’ signs and symptoms for hyperglycemic complications, hypoglycemia, and other potential treatment-related adverse events. These are all within the pharmacist’s scope of practice in comprehensive medication management. Patient education is provided with the teach-back method and includes lifestyle modifications and medication counseling (Table 1). Pharmacists offer face-to-face visits as frequently as every 1 to 2 weeks to every 4 to 6 weeks, depending on the level of complexity and the severity of a patient’s conditions and medications. For patients whose HbA_1c has reached the target range but have not been deemed stable, pharmacists continue to check in with them every 2 months. Phone visits are also utilized as an additional care delivery method for patients having difficulty showing up for face-to-face visits or needing quick assessment of medication adherence and responses to changes in drug treatment in between the face-to-face visits. The maximal interval between pharmacist visits is offered no longer than every 8 weeks. Patients are contacted via phone or mail by the nursing staff to reschedule if they miss their appointments with pharmacists. Every pharmacy visit is documented in the patient’s electronic medical record.

Study design

This is a retrospective study describing the HbA_1c changes in a patient group that maintained pharmacist visits, with each interval less than 3 months, and in another group, who had a history of a 3-month or longer gap between pharmacist visits. The data were obtained from patients’ electronic medical records during the study period of October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019, and collected using a HIPAA-compliant, electronic data storage website, REDCap. The institutional review board approval was obtained under HS-19-00929. Patients 18 years and older who were referred by primary care resident physicians for diabetes management, and had 2 or more visits with a pharmacist within the study period, were included. Patients were excluded if they had only 1 HbA_1c drawn during the study period, were referred to a pharmacist for reasons other than diabetes management, were concurrently managed by an endocrinologist, had only 1 visit with a pharmacist, or had no visits with their primary care resident physician for over a year. The patients were then divided into 2 groups: continuous care cohort (CCC) and gap in care cohort (GCC). Both face-to-face and phone visits were counted as pharmacist visits for each group.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the change in HbA_1c from baseline between the 2 groups. Baseline HbA_1c was considered as the HbA_1c value obtained within 3 months prior to, or within 1 month, of the first visit with the pharmacist during the study period. The final HbA_1c was considered the value measured within 1 month of, or 3 months after, the patient’s last visit with the pharmacist during the study period.

Several subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between HbA_1c and each group. Among patients whose baseline HbA_1c was ≥ 8%, we looked at the percentage of patients reaching HbA_1c < 8%, the percentage of patients showing any level of improvement in HbA_1c, and the change in HbA_1c for each group. We also looked at the percentage of patients with baseline HbA_1c < 8% maintaining the level throughout the study period and the change in HbA_1c for each group. Additionally, we looked at health care utilization, which included pharmacist visits, primary care physician visits, emergency room and urgent care visits, and hospitalizations for each group. The latter 3 types of utilization were grouped as acute care utilization and further analyzed for visit reasons, which were subsequently categorized as diabetes related and non-diabetes related. The diabetes related reasons linking to acute care utilization were defined as any episodes related to hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS), foot ulcers, retinopathy, and osteomyelitis infection. All other reasons leading to acute care utilization were categorized as non-diabetes related.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analyses were conducted using the Mann-Whitney test for continuous data and χ² (or Fisher exact) test for categorical data. A basic difference-in-differences (D-I-D) method was used to compare the changes of HbA_1c between the CCC and GCC over 2 time points: baseline and final measurements. The repeated measures ANOVA was used for analyzing D-I-D. P < .05 was considered significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

Baseline data

A total of 1272 patients were identified within the study period, and 189 met the study inclusion criteria. The CCC included 132 patients, the GCC 57. The mean age of patients in both groups was similar at 57 years old (P = .39). Most patients had Medicaid as their primary insurance. About one-third of patients in each group experienced clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and about 12% overall had chronic kidney disease stage 3 and higher. The average number of days that patients were under pharmacist care during the study period was longer in the GCC compared to the CCC, and it was statistically significant (P < .001) (Table 2). The mean ± SD baseline HbA_1c for the CCC and GCC was 10.0% ± 2.0% and 9.9% ± 1.7%, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P = .93). About 86% of patients in the CCC and 90% in the GCC had a baseline HbA_1c of ≥ 8%.

 

 

HbA_1c

The mean change in HbA_1c between the 2 groups was not statistically significant (-1.5% ± 2.0% in the CCC vs -1.0% ± 2.1% in the GCC, P = .36) (Table 3). However, an absolute mean HbA_1c reduction of 1.3% was observed in both groups combined at the end of the study. Figure 1 shows a D-I-D model of the 2 groups. Based on the output, the P value of .11 on the interaction term (time*group) indicates that the D-I-D in HbA_1c change from baseline to final between the CCC and GCC is not statistically different. However, the magnitude of the difference calculated from the LSMEANS results showed a trend. The HbA_1c from baseline to final measurement of patients in the GCC declined by 0.97 percentage points (from 9.94% to 8.97%), while those in the CCC saw their HbA_1c decline by 1.48 percentage points (from 9.96% to 8.48%), for a D-I-D of 0.51. In other words, those in the GCC had an HbA_1c that decreased by 0.51% less than that of patients in the CCC, suggesting that the CCC shows a steeper line declining from baseline to final HbA_1c compared to the GCC, whose line declines less sharply.

In the subgroup analysis of patients whose baseline HbA_1c was ≥ 8%, about 42% in the CCC and 37% in the GCC achieved an HbA_1c < 8% (P = .56) (Table 4). Approximately 83% of patients in the CCC had some degree of HbA_1c improvement—the final HbA_1c was lower than their baseline HbA_1c—whereas this was observed in about 75% of patients in the GCC (P = .19). Of patients whose baseline HbA_1c was < 8%, there was no significant difference in proportion of patients maintaining an HbA_1c < 8% between the groups (P = .57), although some increases in HbA_1c and HbA_1c changes were observed in the GCC (Table 5).

Health care utilization

Patients in the CCC visited pharmacists 5 times on average over 12 months, whereas patients in the GCC had an average of 6 visits (5 ± 2.6 in the CCC vs 6 ± 2.6 in the GCC, P = .01) (Table 6). The mean length between any 2 adjacent visits was significantly different, averaging about 33 days in the CCC compared to 64 days in the GCC (33.2 ± 10 in the CCC vs 63.7 ± 39.4 in the GCC, P < .001). As shown in Figure 2, the GCC shows wider ranges between any adjacent pharmacy visits throughout until the 10th visit. Both groups had a similar number of visits with primary care physicians during the same time period (4.6 ± 1.86 in the CCC vs 4.3 ± 2.51 in the GCC, P = .44). About 30% of patients in the CCC and 47% in the GCC had at least 1 visit to the emergency room or urgent care or had at least 1 hospital admission, for a total of 124 acute care utilizations between the 2 groups combined. Only a small fraction of acute care visits with or without hospitalizations were related to diabetes and its complications (23.1% in the CCC vs 22.0% in the GCC).

Discussion

This is a real-world study that describes HbA_1c changes in patients who maintained pharmacy visits regularly and in those who had a history of a 3-month or longer gap in pharmacy visits. Although the study did not show statistically significant differences in HbA_1c reduction between the 2 groups, pharmacists’ care, overall, provided mean HbA_1c reductions of 1.3%. This result is consistent with those from multiple previous studies.^10-13 It is worth noting that the final HbA_1c was numerically lower in patients who followed up with pharmacists regularly than in patients with gaps in visits, with a difference of about 0.5 percentage points. This difference is considered clinically significant,¹⁷ and potentially could be even greater if the study duration was longer, as depicted by the slope of HbA_1c reductions in the D-I-D model (Figure 1).

Previous studies have shown that pharmacist visits are conducted in shorter intervals than primary care physician visits to provide closer follow-up and to resolve any medication-related problems that may hinder therapeutic outcome improvements.^3-4,7-9 Increasing access via pharmacists is particularly important in this clinic, where resident physician continuity and access is challenging. The pharmacist-driven program described in this study does not deviate from the norm, and this study confirms that pharmacist care, regardless of gaps in pharmacist visits, may still be beneficial.

Another notable finding from this study was that although the average number of pharmacist visits per patient was significantly different, this difference of 1 visit did not result in a statistically significant improvement in HbA_1c. In fact, the average number of pharmacist visits per patient seemed to be within the reported range by Choe et al in a similar setting.⁷ Conversely, patients with a history of a gap in pharmacist visits spent longer durations under pharmacist care compared to those who had continuous follow-up. This could mean that it may take longer times or 1 additional visit to achieve similar HbA_1c results with continuous pharmacist care. Higher number of visits with pharmacists in the group with the history of gaps between pharmacist visits could have been facilitated by resident physicians, as both groups had a similar number of visits with them. Although this is not conclusive, identifying the optimal number of visits with pharmacists in this underserved population could be beneficial in strategizing pharmacist visits. Acute care utilization was not different between the 2 groups, and most cases that led to acute care utilization were not directly related to diabetes or its complications.

The average HbA_1c at the end of the study did not measure < 8%, a target that was reached by less than half of patients from each group; however, this study is a snapshot of a series of ongoing clinical pharmacy services. About 25% of our patients started their first visit with a pharmacist less than 6 months from the study end date, and these patients may not have had enough time with pharmacists for their HbA_1c to reach below the target goal. In addition, most patients in this clinic were enrolled in public health plans and may carry a significant burden of social and behavioral factors that can affect diabetes management.^18,19 These patients may need longer care by pharmacists along with other integrated services, such as behavioral health and social work, to achieve optimal HbA_1c levels.²⁰

There are several limitations to this study, including the lack of a propensity matched control group of patients who only had resident physician visits; thus, it is hard to test the true impact of continuous or intermittent pharmacist visits on the therapeutic outcomes. The study also does not address potential social, economic, and physical environment factors that might have contributed to pharmacist visits and to overall diabetes care. These factors can negatively impact diabetes control and addressing them could help with an individualized diabetes management approach.^17,18 Additionally, by nature of being a descriptive study, the results may be subject to undetermined confounding factors.

Conclusion

Patients maintaining continuous pharmacist visits do not have statistically significant differences in change in HbA_1c compared to patients who had a history of 3-month or longer gaps in pharmacist visits at a resident physician primary care safety-net clinic. However, patients with diabetes will likely derive a benefit in HbA_1c reduction regardless of regularity of pharmacist care. This finding still holds true in collaboration with resident physicians who also regularly meet with patients.

The study highlights that it is important to integrate clinical pharmacists into primary care teams for improved therapeutic outcomes. It is our hope that regular visits to pharmacists can be a gateway for behavioral health and social work referrals, thereby addressing pharmacist-identified social barriers. Furthermore, exploration of socioeconomic and behavioral barriers to pharmacist visits is necessary to address and improve the patient experience, health care delivery, and health outcomes.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Roxanna Perez, PharmD, Amy Li, and Julie Dopheide, PharmD, BCPP, FASHP for their contributions to this project.

Corresponding author: Michelle Koun Lee Chu, PharmD, BCACP, APh, Titus Family Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, 1985 Zonal Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90089-9121; lee118@usc.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

From Titus Family Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (Drs. Chu and Ma and Mimi Lou), and Department of Family Medicine, Keck Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (Dr. Suh).

Objective: The objective of this study is to describe HbA_1c changes in patients who maintained continuous pharmacist care vs patients who had a gap in pharmacist care of 3 months or longer. 

Methods: This retrospective study was conducted from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019. Electronic health record data from an academic-affiliated, safety-net resident physician primary care clinic were collected to observe HbA_1c changes between patients with continuous pharmacist care and patients who had a gap of 3 months or longer in pharmacist care. A total of 189 patients met the inclusion criteria and were divided into 2 groups: those with continuous care and those with gaps in care. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and the χ² (or Fisher exact) test for categorical variables. The differences-in-differences model was used to compare the changes in HbA_1c between the 2 groups.

Results: There was no significant difference in changes in HbA_1c between the continuous care group and the gaps in care group, although the mean magnitude of HbA_1c changes was numerically greater in the continuous care group (-1.48% vs -0.97%). Overall, both groups showed improvement in their HbA_1c levels and had similar numbers of primary care physician visits and acute care utilizations, while the gaps in care group had longer duration with pharmacists and between the adjacent pharmacist visits.

Conclusion: Maintaining continuous, regular visits with a pharmacist at a safety-net resident physician primary care clinic did not show a significant difference in HbA_1c changes compared to having gaps in pharmacist care. Future studies on socioeconomic and behavioral burden on HbA_1c improvement and on pharmacist visits in these populations should be explored.

Keywords: clinical pharmacist; diabetes management; continuous visit; primary care clinic.

Pharmacists have unique skills in identifying and resolving problems related to the safety and efficacy of drug therapy while addressing medication adherence and access for patients. Their expertise is especially important to meet the care needs of a growing population with chronic conditions amidst a primary care physician shortage.¹ As health care systems move toward value-based care, emphasis on improvement in quality and health measures have become central in care delivery. Pharmacists have been integrated into team-based care in primary care settings, but the value-based shift has opened more opportunities for pharmacists to address unmet quality standards.^2-5

Many studies have reported that the integration of pharmacists into team-based care improves health outcomes and reduces overall health care costs.^6-9 Specifically, when pharmacists were added to primary care teams to provide diabetes management, hemoglobin HbA_1c levels were reduced compared to teams without pharmacists.^10-13 Offering pharmacist visits as often as every 2 weeks to 3 months, with each patient having an average of 4.7 visits, resulted in improved therapeutic outcomes.^3,7 During visits, pharmacists address the need for additional drug therapy, deprescribe unnecessary therapy, correct insufficient doses or durations, and switch patients to more cost-efficient drug therapy.⁹ Likewise, patients who visit pharmacists in addition to seeing their primary care physician can have medication-related concerns resolved and improve their therapeutic outcomes.^10,11

Not much is known about the magnitude of HbA_1c change based on the regularity of pharmacist visits. Although pharmacists offer follow-up appointments in reasonable time intervals, patients do not keep every appointment for a variety of reasons, including forgetfulness, personal issues, and a lack of transportation.¹⁴ Such missed appointments can negatively impact health outcomes.^14-16 The purpose of this study is to describe HbA_1c changes in patients who maintained continuous, regular pharmacist visits without a 3-month gap and in patients who had history of inconsistent pharmacist visits with a gap of 3 months or longer. Furthermore, this study describes the frequency of health care utilization for these 2 groups.

Methods

Setting

The Internal Medicine resident physician primary care clinic is 1 of 2 adult primary care clinics at an academic, urban, public medical center. It is in the heart of East Los Angeles, where predominantly Spanish-speaking and minority populations reside. The clinic has approximately 19000 empaneled patients and is the largest resident primary care clinic in the public health system. The clinical pharmacy service addresses unmet quality standards, specifically HbA_1c. The clinical pharmacists are co-located and collaborate with resident physicians, attending physicians, care managers, nurses, social workers, and community health workers at the clinic. They operate under collaborative practice agreements with prescriptive authority, except for controlled substances, specialty drugs, and antipsychotic medications.

Pharmacist visit

Patients are primarily referred by resident physicians to clinical pharmacists when their HbA_1c level is above 8% for an extended period, when poor adherence and low health literacy are evident regardless of HbA_1c level, or when a complex medication regimen requires comprehensive medication review and reconciliation. The referral occurs through warm handoff by resident physicians as well as clinic nurses, and it is embedded in the clinic flow. Patients continue their visits with resident physicians for issues other than their referral to clinical pharmacists. The visits with pharmacists are appointment-based, occur independently from resident physician visits, and continue until the patient’s HbA_1c level or adherence is optimized. Clinical pharmacists continue to follow up with patients who may have reached their target HbA_1c level but still are deemed unstable due to inconsistency in their self-management and medication adherence.

After the desirable HbA_1c target is achieved along with full adherence to medications and self-management, clinical pharmacists will hand off patients back to resident physicians. At each visit, pharmacists perform a comprehensive medication assessment and reconciliation that includes adjusting medication therapy, placing orders for necessary laboratory tests and prescriptions, and assessing medication adherence. They also evaluate patients’ signs and symptoms for hyperglycemic complications, hypoglycemia, and other potential treatment-related adverse events. These are all within the pharmacist’s scope of practice in comprehensive medication management. Patient education is provided with the teach-back method and includes lifestyle modifications and medication counseling (Table 1). Pharmacists offer face-to-face visits as frequently as every 1 to 2 weeks to every 4 to 6 weeks, depending on the level of complexity and the severity of a patient’s conditions and medications. For patients whose HbA_1c has reached the target range but have not been deemed stable, pharmacists continue to check in with them every 2 months. Phone visits are also utilized as an additional care delivery method for patients having difficulty showing up for face-to-face visits or needing quick assessment of medication adherence and responses to changes in drug treatment in between the face-to-face visits. The maximal interval between pharmacist visits is offered no longer than every 8 weeks. Patients are contacted via phone or mail by the nursing staff to reschedule if they miss their appointments with pharmacists. Every pharmacy visit is documented in the patient’s electronic medical record.

Study design

This is a retrospective study describing the HbA_1c changes in a patient group that maintained pharmacist visits, with each interval less than 3 months, and in another group, who had a history of a 3-month or longer gap between pharmacist visits. The data were obtained from patients’ electronic medical records during the study period of October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019, and collected using a HIPAA-compliant, electronic data storage website, REDCap. The institutional review board approval was obtained under HS-19-00929. Patients 18 years and older who were referred by primary care resident physicians for diabetes management, and had 2 or more visits with a pharmacist within the study period, were included. Patients were excluded if they had only 1 HbA_1c drawn during the study period, were referred to a pharmacist for reasons other than diabetes management, were concurrently managed by an endocrinologist, had only 1 visit with a pharmacist, or had no visits with their primary care resident physician for over a year. The patients were then divided into 2 groups: continuous care cohort (CCC) and gap in care cohort (GCC). Both face-to-face and phone visits were counted as pharmacist visits for each group.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the change in HbA_1c from baseline between the 2 groups. Baseline HbA_1c was considered as the HbA_1c value obtained within 3 months prior to, or within 1 month, of the first visit with the pharmacist during the study period. The final HbA_1c was considered the value measured within 1 month of, or 3 months after, the patient’s last visit with the pharmacist during the study period.

Several subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between HbA_1c and each group. Among patients whose baseline HbA_1c was ≥ 8%, we looked at the percentage of patients reaching HbA_1c < 8%, the percentage of patients showing any level of improvement in HbA_1c, and the change in HbA_1c for each group. We also looked at the percentage of patients with baseline HbA_1c < 8% maintaining the level throughout the study period and the change in HbA_1c for each group. Additionally, we looked at health care utilization, which included pharmacist visits, primary care physician visits, emergency room and urgent care visits, and hospitalizations for each group. The latter 3 types of utilization were grouped as acute care utilization and further analyzed for visit reasons, which were subsequently categorized as diabetes related and non-diabetes related. The diabetes related reasons linking to acute care utilization were defined as any episodes related to hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS), foot ulcers, retinopathy, and osteomyelitis infection. All other reasons leading to acute care utilization were categorized as non-diabetes related.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analyses were conducted using the Mann-Whitney test for continuous data and χ² (or Fisher exact) test for categorical data. A basic difference-in-differences (D-I-D) method was used to compare the changes of HbA_1c between the CCC and GCC over 2 time points: baseline and final measurements. The repeated measures ANOVA was used for analyzing D-I-D. P < .05 was considered significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

Baseline data

A total of 1272 patients were identified within the study period, and 189 met the study inclusion criteria. The CCC included 132 patients, the GCC 57. The mean age of patients in both groups was similar at 57 years old (P = .39). Most patients had Medicaid as their primary insurance. About one-third of patients in each group experienced clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and about 12% overall had chronic kidney disease stage 3 and higher. The average number of days that patients were under pharmacist care during the study period was longer in the GCC compared to the CCC, and it was statistically significant (P < .001) (Table 2). The mean ± SD baseline HbA_1c for the CCC and GCC was 10.0% ± 2.0% and 9.9% ± 1.7%, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P = .93). About 86% of patients in the CCC and 90% in the GCC had a baseline HbA_1c of ≥ 8%.

 

 

HbA_1c

The mean change in HbA_1c between the 2 groups was not statistically significant (-1.5% ± 2.0% in the CCC vs -1.0% ± 2.1% in the GCC, P = .36) (Table 3). However, an absolute mean HbA_1c reduction of 1.3% was observed in both groups combined at the end of the study. Figure 1 shows a D-I-D model of the 2 groups. Based on the output, the P value of .11 on the interaction term (time*group) indicates that the D-I-D in HbA_1c change from baseline to final between the CCC and GCC is not statistically different. However, the magnitude of the difference calculated from the LSMEANS results showed a trend. The HbA_1c from baseline to final measurement of patients in the GCC declined by 0.97 percentage points (from 9.94% to 8.97%), while those in the CCC saw their HbA_1c decline by 1.48 percentage points (from 9.96% to 8.48%), for a D-I-D of 0.51. In other words, those in the GCC had an HbA_1c that decreased by 0.51% less than that of patients in the CCC, suggesting that the CCC shows a steeper line declining from baseline to final HbA_1c compared to the GCC, whose line declines less sharply.

In the subgroup analysis of patients whose baseline HbA_1c was ≥ 8%, about 42% in the CCC and 37% in the GCC achieved an HbA_1c < 8% (P = .56) (Table 4). Approximately 83% of patients in the CCC had some degree of HbA_1c improvement—the final HbA_1c was lower than their baseline HbA_1c—whereas this was observed in about 75% of patients in the GCC (P = .19). Of patients whose baseline HbA_1c was < 8%, there was no significant difference in proportion of patients maintaining an HbA_1c < 8% between the groups (P = .57), although some increases in HbA_1c and HbA_1c changes were observed in the GCC (Table 5).

Health care utilization

Patients in the CCC visited pharmacists 5 times on average over 12 months, whereas patients in the GCC had an average of 6 visits (5 ± 2.6 in the CCC vs 6 ± 2.6 in the GCC, P = .01) (Table 6). The mean length between any 2 adjacent visits was significantly different, averaging about 33 days in the CCC compared to 64 days in the GCC (33.2 ± 10 in the CCC vs 63.7 ± 39.4 in the GCC, P < .001). As shown in Figure 2, the GCC shows wider ranges between any adjacent pharmacy visits throughout until the 10th visit. Both groups had a similar number of visits with primary care physicians during the same time period (4.6 ± 1.86 in the CCC vs 4.3 ± 2.51 in the GCC, P = .44). About 30% of patients in the CCC and 47% in the GCC had at least 1 visit to the emergency room or urgent care or had at least 1 hospital admission, for a total of 124 acute care utilizations between the 2 groups combined. Only a small fraction of acute care visits with or without hospitalizations were related to diabetes and its complications (23.1% in the CCC vs 22.0% in the GCC).

Discussion

This is a real-world study that describes HbA_1c changes in patients who maintained pharmacy visits regularly and in those who had a history of a 3-month or longer gap in pharmacy visits. Although the study did not show statistically significant differences in HbA_1c reduction between the 2 groups, pharmacists’ care, overall, provided mean HbA_1c reductions of 1.3%. This result is consistent with those from multiple previous studies.^10-13 It is worth noting that the final HbA_1c was numerically lower in patients who followed up with pharmacists regularly than in patients with gaps in visits, with a difference of about 0.5 percentage points. This difference is considered clinically significant,¹⁷ and potentially could be even greater if the study duration was longer, as depicted by the slope of HbA_1c reductions in the D-I-D model (Figure 1).

Previous studies have shown that pharmacist visits are conducted in shorter intervals than primary care physician visits to provide closer follow-up and to resolve any medication-related problems that may hinder therapeutic outcome improvements.^3-4,7-9 Increasing access via pharmacists is particularly important in this clinic, where resident physician continuity and access is challenging. The pharmacist-driven program described in this study does not deviate from the norm, and this study confirms that pharmacist care, regardless of gaps in pharmacist visits, may still be beneficial.

Another notable finding from this study was that although the average number of pharmacist visits per patient was significantly different, this difference of 1 visit did not result in a statistically significant improvement in HbA_1c. In fact, the average number of pharmacist visits per patient seemed to be within the reported range by Choe et al in a similar setting.⁷ Conversely, patients with a history of a gap in pharmacist visits spent longer durations under pharmacist care compared to those who had continuous follow-up. This could mean that it may take longer times or 1 additional visit to achieve similar HbA_1c results with continuous pharmacist care. Higher number of visits with pharmacists in the group with the history of gaps between pharmacist visits could have been facilitated by resident physicians, as both groups had a similar number of visits with them. Although this is not conclusive, identifying the optimal number of visits with pharmacists in this underserved population could be beneficial in strategizing pharmacist visits. Acute care utilization was not different between the 2 groups, and most cases that led to acute care utilization were not directly related to diabetes or its complications.

The average HbA_1c at the end of the study did not measure < 8%, a target that was reached by less than half of patients from each group; however, this study is a snapshot of a series of ongoing clinical pharmacy services. About 25% of our patients started their first visit with a pharmacist less than 6 months from the study end date, and these patients may not have had enough time with pharmacists for their HbA_1c to reach below the target goal. In addition, most patients in this clinic were enrolled in public health plans and may carry a significant burden of social and behavioral factors that can affect diabetes management.^18,19 These patients may need longer care by pharmacists along with other integrated services, such as behavioral health and social work, to achieve optimal HbA_1c levels.²⁰

There are several limitations to this study, including the lack of a propensity matched control group of patients who only had resident physician visits; thus, it is hard to test the true impact of continuous or intermittent pharmacist visits on the therapeutic outcomes. The study also does not address potential social, economic, and physical environment factors that might have contributed to pharmacist visits and to overall diabetes care. These factors can negatively impact diabetes control and addressing them could help with an individualized diabetes management approach.^17,18 Additionally, by nature of being a descriptive study, the results may be subject to undetermined confounding factors.

Conclusion

Patients maintaining continuous pharmacist visits do not have statistically significant differences in change in HbA_1c compared to patients who had a history of 3-month or longer gaps in pharmacist visits at a resident physician primary care safety-net clinic. However, patients with diabetes will likely derive a benefit in HbA_1c reduction regardless of regularity of pharmacist care. This finding still holds true in collaboration with resident physicians who also regularly meet with patients.

The study highlights that it is important to integrate clinical pharmacists into primary care teams for improved therapeutic outcomes. It is our hope that regular visits to pharmacists can be a gateway for behavioral health and social work referrals, thereby addressing pharmacist-identified social barriers. Furthermore, exploration of socioeconomic and behavioral barriers to pharmacist visits is necessary to address and improve the patient experience, health care delivery, and health outcomes.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Roxanna Perez, PharmD, Amy Li, and Julie Dopheide, PharmD, BCPP, FASHP for their contributions to this project.

Corresponding author: Michelle Koun Lee Chu, PharmD, BCACP, APh, Titus Family Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, 1985 Zonal Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90089-9121; lee118@usc.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

From Titus Family Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (Drs. Chu and Ma and Mimi Lou), and Department of Family Medicine, Keck Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA (Dr. Suh).

Objective: The objective of this study is to describe HbA_1c changes in patients who maintained continuous pharmacist care vs patients who had a gap in pharmacist care of 3 months or longer. 

Methods: This retrospective study was conducted from October 1, 2018, to September 30, 2019. Electronic health record data from an academic-affiliated, safety-net resident physician primary care clinic were collected to observe HbA_1c changes between patients with continuous pharmacist care and patients who had a gap of 3 months or longer in pharmacist care. A total of 189 patients met the inclusion criteria and were divided into 2 groups: those with continuous care and those with gaps in care. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test for continuous variables and the χ² (or Fisher exact) test for categorical variables. The differences-in-differences model was used to compare the changes in HbA_1c between the 2 groups.

Results: There was no significant difference in changes in HbA_1c between the continuous care group and the gaps in care group, although the mean magnitude of HbA_1c changes was numerically greater in the continuous care group (-1.48% vs -0.97%). Overall, both groups showed improvement in their HbA_1c levels and had similar numbers of primary care physician visits and acute care utilizations, while the gaps in care group had longer duration with pharmacists and between the adjacent pharmacist visits.

Conclusion: Maintaining continuous, regular visits with a pharmacist at a safety-net resident physician primary care clinic did not show a significant difference in HbA_1c changes compared to having gaps in pharmacist care. Future studies on socioeconomic and behavioral burden on HbA_1c improvement and on pharmacist visits in these populations should be explored.

Keywords: clinical pharmacist; diabetes management; continuous visit; primary care clinic.

Pharmacists have unique skills in identifying and resolving problems related to the safety and efficacy of drug therapy while addressing medication adherence and access for patients. Their expertise is especially important to meet the care needs of a growing population with chronic conditions amidst a primary care physician shortage.¹ As health care systems move toward value-based care, emphasis on improvement in quality and health measures have become central in care delivery. Pharmacists have been integrated into team-based care in primary care settings, but the value-based shift has opened more opportunities for pharmacists to address unmet quality standards.^2-5

Many studies have reported that the integration of pharmacists into team-based care improves health outcomes and reduces overall health care costs.^6-9 Specifically, when pharmacists were added to primary care teams to provide diabetes management, hemoglobin HbA_1c levels were reduced compared to teams without pharmacists.^10-13 Offering pharmacist visits as often as every 2 weeks to 3 months, with each patient having an average of 4.7 visits, resulted in improved therapeutic outcomes.^3,7 During visits, pharmacists address the need for additional drug therapy, deprescribe unnecessary therapy, correct insufficient doses or durations, and switch patients to more cost-efficient drug therapy.⁹ Likewise, patients who visit pharmacists in addition to seeing their primary care physician can have medication-related concerns resolved and improve their therapeutic outcomes.^10,11

Not much is known about the magnitude of HbA_1c change based on the regularity of pharmacist visits. Although pharmacists offer follow-up appointments in reasonable time intervals, patients do not keep every appointment for a variety of reasons, including forgetfulness, personal issues, and a lack of transportation.¹⁴ Such missed appointments can negatively impact health outcomes.^14-16 The purpose of this study is to describe HbA_1c changes in patients who maintained continuous, regular pharmacist visits without a 3-month gap and in patients who had history of inconsistent pharmacist visits with a gap of 3 months or longer. Furthermore, this study describes the frequency of health care utilization for these 2 groups.

Methods

Setting

The Internal Medicine resident physician primary care clinic is 1 of 2 adult primary care clinics at an academic, urban, public medical center. It is in the heart of East Los Angeles, where predominantly Spanish-speaking and minority populations reside. The clinic has approximately 19000 empaneled patients and is the largest resident primary care clinic in the public health system. The clinical pharmacy service addresses unmet quality standards, specifically HbA_1c. The clinical pharmacists are co-located and collaborate with resident physicians, attending physicians, care managers, nurses, social workers, and community health workers at the clinic. They operate under collaborative practice agreements with prescriptive authority, except for controlled substances, specialty drugs, and antipsychotic medications.

Pharmacist visit

Patients are primarily referred by resident physicians to clinical pharmacists when their HbA_1c level is above 8% for an extended period, when poor adherence and low health literacy are evident regardless of HbA_1c level, or when a complex medication regimen requires comprehensive medication review and reconciliation. The referral occurs through warm handoff by resident physicians as well as clinic nurses, and it is embedded in the clinic flow. Patients continue their visits with resident physicians for issues other than their referral to clinical pharmacists. The visits with pharmacists are appointment-based, occur independently from resident physician visits, and continue until the patient’s HbA_1c level or adherence is optimized. Clinical pharmacists continue to follow up with patients who may have reached their target HbA_1c level but still are deemed unstable due to inconsistency in their self-management and medication adherence.

After the desirable HbA_1c target is achieved along with full adherence to medications and self-management, clinical pharmacists will hand off patients back to resident physicians. At each visit, pharmacists perform a comprehensive medication assessment and reconciliation that includes adjusting medication therapy, placing orders for necessary laboratory tests and prescriptions, and assessing medication adherence. They also evaluate patients’ signs and symptoms for hyperglycemic complications, hypoglycemia, and other potential treatment-related adverse events. These are all within the pharmacist’s scope of practice in comprehensive medication management. Patient education is provided with the teach-back method and includes lifestyle modifications and medication counseling (Table 1). Pharmacists offer face-to-face visits as frequently as every 1 to 2 weeks to every 4 to 6 weeks, depending on the level of complexity and the severity of a patient’s conditions and medications. For patients whose HbA_1c has reached the target range but have not been deemed stable, pharmacists continue to check in with them every 2 months. Phone visits are also utilized as an additional care delivery method for patients having difficulty showing up for face-to-face visits or needing quick assessment of medication adherence and responses to changes in drug treatment in between the face-to-face visits. The maximal interval between pharmacist visits is offered no longer than every 8 weeks. Patients are contacted via phone or mail by the nursing staff to reschedule if they miss their appointments with pharmacists. Every pharmacy visit is documented in the patient’s electronic medical record.

Study design

This is a retrospective study describing the HbA_1c changes in a patient group that maintained pharmacist visits, with each interval less than 3 months, and in another group, who had a history of a 3-month or longer gap between pharmacist visits. The data were obtained from patients’ electronic medical records during the study period of October 1, 2018, and September 30, 2019, and collected using a HIPAA-compliant, electronic data storage website, REDCap. The institutional review board approval was obtained under HS-19-00929. Patients 18 years and older who were referred by primary care resident physicians for diabetes management, and had 2 or more visits with a pharmacist within the study period, were included. Patients were excluded if they had only 1 HbA_1c drawn during the study period, were referred to a pharmacist for reasons other than diabetes management, were concurrently managed by an endocrinologist, had only 1 visit with a pharmacist, or had no visits with their primary care resident physician for over a year. The patients were then divided into 2 groups: continuous care cohort (CCC) and gap in care cohort (GCC). Both face-to-face and phone visits were counted as pharmacist visits for each group.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the change in HbA_1c from baseline between the 2 groups. Baseline HbA_1c was considered as the HbA_1c value obtained within 3 months prior to, or within 1 month, of the first visit with the pharmacist during the study period. The final HbA_1c was considered the value measured within 1 month of, or 3 months after, the patient’s last visit with the pharmacist during the study period.

Several subgroup analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between HbA_1c and each group. Among patients whose baseline HbA_1c was ≥ 8%, we looked at the percentage of patients reaching HbA_1c < 8%, the percentage of patients showing any level of improvement in HbA_1c, and the change in HbA_1c for each group. We also looked at the percentage of patients with baseline HbA_1c < 8% maintaining the level throughout the study period and the change in HbA_1c for each group. Additionally, we looked at health care utilization, which included pharmacist visits, primary care physician visits, emergency room and urgent care visits, and hospitalizations for each group. The latter 3 types of utilization were grouped as acute care utilization and further analyzed for visit reasons, which were subsequently categorized as diabetes related and non-diabetes related. The diabetes related reasons linking to acute care utilization were defined as any episodes related to hypoglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), hyperosmolar hyperglycemic state (HHS), foot ulcers, retinopathy, and osteomyelitis infection. All other reasons leading to acute care utilization were categorized as non-diabetes related.

Statistical analysis

Descriptive analyses were conducted using the Mann-Whitney test for continuous data and χ² (or Fisher exact) test for categorical data. A basic difference-in-differences (D-I-D) method was used to compare the changes of HbA_1c between the CCC and GCC over 2 time points: baseline and final measurements. The repeated measures ANOVA was used for analyzing D-I-D. P < .05 was considered significant. Statistical analyses were performed using SAS version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

Baseline data

A total of 1272 patients were identified within the study period, and 189 met the study inclusion criteria. The CCC included 132 patients, the GCC 57. The mean age of patients in both groups was similar at 57 years old (P = .39). Most patients had Medicaid as their primary insurance. About one-third of patients in each group experienced clinical atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, and about 12% overall had chronic kidney disease stage 3 and higher. The average number of days that patients were under pharmacist care during the study period was longer in the GCC compared to the CCC, and it was statistically significant (P < .001) (Table 2). The mean ± SD baseline HbA_1c for the CCC and GCC was 10.0% ± 2.0% and 9.9% ± 1.7%, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant (P = .93). About 86% of patients in the CCC and 90% in the GCC had a baseline HbA_1c of ≥ 8%.

 

 

HbA_1c

The mean change in HbA_1c between the 2 groups was not statistically significant (-1.5% ± 2.0% in the CCC vs -1.0% ± 2.1% in the GCC, P = .36) (Table 3). However, an absolute mean HbA_1c reduction of 1.3% was observed in both groups combined at the end of the study. Figure 1 shows a D-I-D model of the 2 groups. Based on the output, the P value of .11 on the interaction term (time*group) indicates that the D-I-D in HbA_1c change from baseline to final between the CCC and GCC is not statistically different. However, the magnitude of the difference calculated from the LSMEANS results showed a trend. The HbA_1c from baseline to final measurement of patients in the GCC declined by 0.97 percentage points (from 9.94% to 8.97%), while those in the CCC saw their HbA_1c decline by 1.48 percentage points (from 9.96% to 8.48%), for a D-I-D of 0.51. In other words, those in the GCC had an HbA_1c that decreased by 0.51% less than that of patients in the CCC, suggesting that the CCC shows a steeper line declining from baseline to final HbA_1c compared to the GCC, whose line declines less sharply.

In the subgroup analysis of patients whose baseline HbA_1c was ≥ 8%, about 42% in the CCC and 37% in the GCC achieved an HbA_1c < 8% (P = .56) (Table 4). Approximately 83% of patients in the CCC had some degree of HbA_1c improvement—the final HbA_1c was lower than their baseline HbA_1c—whereas this was observed in about 75% of patients in the GCC (P = .19). Of patients whose baseline HbA_1c was < 8%, there was no significant difference in proportion of patients maintaining an HbA_1c < 8% between the groups (P = .57), although some increases in HbA_1c and HbA_1c changes were observed in the GCC (Table 5).

Health care utilization

Patients in the CCC visited pharmacists 5 times on average over 12 months, whereas patients in the GCC had an average of 6 visits (5 ± 2.6 in the CCC vs 6 ± 2.6 in the GCC, P = .01) (Table 6). The mean length between any 2 adjacent visits was significantly different, averaging about 33 days in the CCC compared to 64 days in the GCC (33.2 ± 10 in the CCC vs 63.7 ± 39.4 in the GCC, P < .001). As shown in Figure 2, the GCC shows wider ranges between any adjacent pharmacy visits throughout until the 10th visit. Both groups had a similar number of visits with primary care physicians during the same time period (4.6 ± 1.86 in the CCC vs 4.3 ± 2.51 in the GCC, P = .44). About 30% of patients in the CCC and 47% in the GCC had at least 1 visit to the emergency room or urgent care or had at least 1 hospital admission, for a total of 124 acute care utilizations between the 2 groups combined. Only a small fraction of acute care visits with or without hospitalizations were related to diabetes and its complications (23.1% in the CCC vs 22.0% in the GCC).

Discussion

This is a real-world study that describes HbA_1c changes in patients who maintained pharmacy visits regularly and in those who had a history of a 3-month or longer gap in pharmacy visits. Although the study did not show statistically significant differences in HbA_1c reduction between the 2 groups, pharmacists’ care, overall, provided mean HbA_1c reductions of 1.3%. This result is consistent with those from multiple previous studies.^10-13 It is worth noting that the final HbA_1c was numerically lower in patients who followed up with pharmacists regularly than in patients with gaps in visits, with a difference of about 0.5 percentage points. This difference is considered clinically significant,¹⁷ and potentially could be even greater if the study duration was longer, as depicted by the slope of HbA_1c reductions in the D-I-D model (Figure 1).

Previous studies have shown that pharmacist visits are conducted in shorter intervals than primary care physician visits to provide closer follow-up and to resolve any medication-related problems that may hinder therapeutic outcome improvements.^3-4,7-9 Increasing access via pharmacists is particularly important in this clinic, where resident physician continuity and access is challenging. The pharmacist-driven program described in this study does not deviate from the norm, and this study confirms that pharmacist care, regardless of gaps in pharmacist visits, may still be beneficial.

Another notable finding from this study was that although the average number of pharmacist visits per patient was significantly different, this difference of 1 visit did not result in a statistically significant improvement in HbA_1c. In fact, the average number of pharmacist visits per patient seemed to be within the reported range by Choe et al in a similar setting.⁷ Conversely, patients with a history of a gap in pharmacist visits spent longer durations under pharmacist care compared to those who had continuous follow-up. This could mean that it may take longer times or 1 additional visit to achieve similar HbA_1c results with continuous pharmacist care. Higher number of visits with pharmacists in the group with the history of gaps between pharmacist visits could have been facilitated by resident physicians, as both groups had a similar number of visits with them. Although this is not conclusive, identifying the optimal number of visits with pharmacists in this underserved population could be beneficial in strategizing pharmacist visits. Acute care utilization was not different between the 2 groups, and most cases that led to acute care utilization were not directly related to diabetes or its complications.

The average HbA_1c at the end of the study did not measure < 8%, a target that was reached by less than half of patients from each group; however, this study is a snapshot of a series of ongoing clinical pharmacy services. About 25% of our patients started their first visit with a pharmacist less than 6 months from the study end date, and these patients may not have had enough time with pharmacists for their HbA_1c to reach below the target goal. In addition, most patients in this clinic were enrolled in public health plans and may carry a significant burden of social and behavioral factors that can affect diabetes management.^18,19 These patients may need longer care by pharmacists along with other integrated services, such as behavioral health and social work, to achieve optimal HbA_1c levels.²⁰

There are several limitations to this study, including the lack of a propensity matched control group of patients who only had resident physician visits; thus, it is hard to test the true impact of continuous or intermittent pharmacist visits on the therapeutic outcomes. The study also does not address potential social, economic, and physical environment factors that might have contributed to pharmacist visits and to overall diabetes care. These factors can negatively impact diabetes control and addressing them could help with an individualized diabetes management approach.^17,18 Additionally, by nature of being a descriptive study, the results may be subject to undetermined confounding factors.

Conclusion

Patients maintaining continuous pharmacist visits do not have statistically significant differences in change in HbA_1c compared to patients who had a history of 3-month or longer gaps in pharmacist visits at a resident physician primary care safety-net clinic. However, patients with diabetes will likely derive a benefit in HbA_1c reduction regardless of regularity of pharmacist care. This finding still holds true in collaboration with resident physicians who also regularly meet with patients.

The study highlights that it is important to integrate clinical pharmacists into primary care teams for improved therapeutic outcomes. It is our hope that regular visits to pharmacists can be a gateway for behavioral health and social work referrals, thereby addressing pharmacist-identified social barriers. Furthermore, exploration of socioeconomic and behavioral barriers to pharmacist visits is necessary to address and improve the patient experience, health care delivery, and health outcomes.

Acknowledgments: The authors thank Roxanna Perez, PharmD, Amy Li, and Julie Dopheide, PharmD, BCPP, FASHP for their contributions to this project.

Corresponding author: Michelle Koun Lee Chu, PharmD, BCACP, APh, Titus Family Department of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, University of Southern California, 1985 Zonal Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90089-9121; lee118@usc.edu.

Financial disclosures: None.

From the Fraser Health Authority, Surrey, BC, Canada (Drs. Yousefi and Paletta), and Catalyst Consulting Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada (Elayne McIvor).

Objective: Despite the ongoing growth in the number of hospitalist programs in Canada, their impact on the quality of interprofessional communication, teamwork, and staff satisfaction is not well known. This study aimed to evaluate perceptions of frontline care providers and hospital managers about the impact of the implementation of 3 new hospitalist services on care quality, teamwork, and interprofessional communication.

Design: We used an online survey and semistructured interviews to evaluate respondents’ views on quality of interprofessional communication and collaboration, impact of the new services on quality of care, and overall staff satisfaction with the new inpatient care model.

Setting: Integrated Regional Health Authority in British Columbia, Canada.

Participants: Participants included hospital administrators, frontline care providers (across a range of professions), and hospital and community-based physicians.

Results: The majority of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with their new hospital medicine services. They identified improvements in interprofessional collaboration and communication between hospitalists and other professionals, which were attributed to enhanced onsite presence of physicians. They also perceived improvements in quality of care and efficiency. On the other hand, they identified a number of challenges with the change process, and raised concerns about the impact of patient handoffs on care quality and efficiency.

Conclusion: Across 3 very different acute care settings, the implementation of a hospitalist service was widely perceived to have resulted in improved teamwork, quality of care, and interprofessional communication.

Keywords: hospital medicine; hospitalist; teamwork; interprofessional collaboration.

Fraser Health Authority (FH) is an integrated regional health system with one of the largest regional Hospital Medicine (HM) networks in Canada.⁹ Over the past 2 decades, FH has implemented a number of HM services in its acute care facilities across a range of small and large community and academic hospitals. More recently, 3 hospitalist services were implemented over a 2-year period: new HM services in a tertiary referral center (Site A, July 2016) and a small community hospital (Site B, December 2016), and reintroduction of a hospitalist service in a medium-sized community hospital (Site C, January 2017). This provided a unique opportunity to assess the impact of the implementation of the hospitalist model across a range of facilities. The main objectives of this evaluation were to understand the level of physician, nursing, allied staff, and hospital administration satisfaction with the new hospitalist model, as well as the perceived impact of the service on efficiency and quality of care. As such, FH engaged an external consultant (EM) to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the introduction of its latest HM services.

Methods

Setting

Hospital medicine services are currently available in 10 of 12 acute care facilities within the FH system. The 3 sites described in this evaluation constitute the most recent sites where a hospitalist service was implemented.

Site A is a 272-bed tertiary referral center situated in a rapidly growing community. At the time of our evaluation, 21 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) hospitalists cared for an average of 126 patients, which constituted the majority of adult medical patients. Each day, 8 individuals rounded on admitted patients (average individual census: 16) with another person providing in-house, evening, and overnight coverage. An additional flexible shift during the early afternoon helped with Emergency Department (ED) admissions.

Site B is small, 45-bed community hospital in a semi-rural community. The hospitalist service began in December 2016, with 4 FTE hospitalists caring for an average of 28 patients daily. This constituted 2 hospitalists rounding daily on admitted patients, with on-call coverage provided from home.

Site C is a 188-bed community hospital with a hospitalist service initially introduced in 2005. In 2016, the program was disbanded and the site moved back to a primarily community-based model, in which family physicians in the community were invited to assume the care of hospitalized patients. However, the hospitalist program had to be reintroduced in January 2017 due to poor uptake among PCPs in the community. At the time of evaluation, 19 FTE hospitalists (with 7 hospitalists working daily) provided most responsible physician care to a daily census of 116 patients (average individual census: 16). The program also covered ED admissions in-house until midnight, with overnight call provided from home.

Approach

We adopted a utilization-focused evaluation approach to guide our investigation. In this approach, the assessment is deliberately planned and conducted in a way that it maximizes the likelihood that findings would be used by the organization to inform learning, adaptations, and decision-making.¹¹ To enable this, the evaluator identified the primary intended recipients and engaged them at the start of the evaluation process to understand the main intended uses of the project. Moreover, the evaluator ensured that these intended uses of the evaluation guided all other decisions made throughout the process.

We collected data using an online survey of the staff at the 3 facilities, complemented by a series of semistructured qualitative interviews with FH administrators and frontline providers.

Online survey

We conducted an open online survey of a broad range of stakeholders who worked in the 3 facilities. To develop the questionnaire, we searched our department’s archives for previous surveys conducted from 2001 to 2005. We also interviewed the regional HM program management team to identify priority areas and reached out to the local leadership of the 3 acute care facilities for their input and support of the project. We refined the survey through several iterations, seeking input from experts in the FH Department of Evaluation and Research. The final questionnaire contained 10 items, including a mix of closed- and open-ended questions (Appendix A).

To reach the target audience, we collaborated with each hospital’s local leadership as well as the Divisions of Family Practice (DFP) that support local community PCPs in each hospital community.¹⁰ Existing email lists were compiled to create a master electronic survey distribution list. The initial invitation and 3 subsequent reminders were disseminated to the following target groups: hospital physicians (both hospitalists and nonhospitalists), PCPs, nursing and other allied professionals, administrators, and DFP leadership.

The survey consent form, background information, questions, and online platform (SimpleSurvey, Montreal, QC) were approved by FH’s Privacy Department. All respondents were required to provide their consent and able to withdraw at any time. Survey responses were kept anonymous and confidential, with results captured automatically into a spreadsheet by the survey platform. As an incentive for participation, respondents had the opportunity to win 1 of 3 $100 Visa gift cards. Personal contact information provided for the prize draw was collected in a separate survey that could not link back to respondents’ answers. The survey was trialed several times by the evaluation team to address any technical challenges before dissemination to the targeted participants.

Qualitative interviews

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of FH administrators and frontline providers (Appendix B). The interview questions broadly mirrored the survey but allowed for more in-depth exploration of constructs. Interviewees were recruited through email invitations to selected senior and mid-level local and regional administrators, asking interviewees to refer our team to other contacts, and inviting survey respondents to voluntarily participate in a follow-up interview. One of the authors (EM), a Credentialed Evaluator, conducted all the one-time interviews either in-person at the individual participant’s workplace or by telephone. She did not have pre-existing relationships with any of the interviewees. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Interviewees were required to consent to participate and understood that they could withdraw at any point. They were not offered incentives to participate. Interviews were carried out until thematic saturation was reached.

Analysis

A content analysis approach was employed for all qualitative data, which included open-ended responses from the online survey and interview transcripts. One of the authors (EM) conducted the analysis. The following steps were followed in the inductive content analysis process: repeated reading of the raw data, generation of initial thematic codes, organizing and sorting codes into categories (ie, main vs subcategories), coding of all data, quantifying codes, and interpreting themes. When responding to open-ended questions, respondents often provided multiple answers per question. Each of the respondents’ answers were coded. In alignment with the inductive nature of the analysis process, themes emerged organically from the data rather than the researchers using preconceived theories and categories to code the text. This was achieved by postponing the review of relevant literature on the topic until after the analysis was complete and using an external evaluation consultant (with no prior relationship to FH and limited theoretical knowledge of the topic matter) to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics were run on quantitative data in SPSS (v.24, IBM, Armonk, NY). For survey responses to be included in the analysis, the respondents needed to indicate which site they worked at and were required to answer at least 1 other survey question. One interviewee was excluded from the analysis since they were not familiar with the hospitalist model at their site.

Ethics approval

The evaluation protocol was reviewed by FH Department of Evaluation and Research and was deemed exempt from formal research ethics review.

 

 

Results

A total of 377 individuals responded to the online survey between January 8 and February 28, 2018 (response rate 14%). The distribution of respondents generally reflected the size of the respective acute care facilities. Compared to the overall sampled population, fewer nurses participated in the survey (45% vs 64%) while the rate of participation for Unit Clerks (14% vs 16%) and allied professionals (12% vs 16%) were similar.

Out of the 45 people approached for an interview, a total of 38 were conducted from January 3 to March 5, 2018 (response rate 84%). The interviews lasted an average of 42 minutes. Interviewees represented a range of administrative and health professional roles (Figure 1). Some interviewees held multiple positions.

Satisfaction with HM service

Across all sites, survey respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with their respective HM services and identified positive impacts on their job satisfaction (Figure 2). Almost all interviewees similarly expressed high satisfaction levels with their HM services (95%; n = 36).

Perceptions of HM service performance

Survey respondents rated the strength of hospitalists’ interprofessional communication and collaboration with other physicians and with care teams. Roughly two-thirds reported that overall hospitalist communication was “good” or “very good.” We also asked participants to rate the frequency at which hospitalists met best practice expectations related to interprofessional teamwork. Across all sites, similar proportions of respondents (23% to 39%) reported that these best practices were met “most of the time” or “always” (Figure 3). Survey questions also assessed perceptions of respondents about the quality and safety of care provided by hospitalists (Figure 4).

Perceptions of the impact of the HM service postimplementation

The majority of survey respondents reported improvements in the quality of communication, professional relationships, and coordination of inpatient care at transition points after the implementation of the HM service (Figure 5). This was also reflected in interviews, where some indicated that it was easier to communicate with hospitalists due to their on-site presence, accessibility, and 24/7 availability (n = 21). They also described improved collaboration within the care teams (n = 7), and easier communication with hospitalists because they were approachable, willing, and receptive (n = 4).

We also asked the survey respondents to assess the impact of the new hospitalist model on different dimensions of care quality, including patient satisfaction, patient experience, efficiency, and overall quality of care (Figure 6). Findings were comparable across these dimensions, with roughly 50-60% of respondents noting positive changes compared to before the implementation of the programs. However, most interviewees identified both positive and negative effects in these areas. Positive impacts included hospitalist on-site presence leading to better accessibility and timeliness of care (n = 5), hospitalists providing continuity to patients/families by working for weeklong rotations (n = 6), hospitalists being particularly skilled at managing complex clinical presentations (n = 2), and hospitalists being able to spend more time with patients (n = 2). On the other hand, some interviewees noted that patients and families did not like seeing multiple doctors due to frequent handoffs between hospitalists (n = 12). They also raised concerns that hospitalists did not know patients’ histories or had relationships with them, potentially leading to longer length of stay and unnecessary investigations (n = 8).

Site-to-site ratings of satisfaction and performance

Survey respondents’ satisfaction and performance ratings varied substantially site-to-site. Across all areas assessed, ratings were consistently highest at Site B (the smallest institution in our evaluation and the most recent addition to the HM network in the health authority). These differences were statistically significant across all survey questions asked.

Discussion

Findings from this study provide insight into the experiences of frontline health care professionals and administrators with the implementation of new HM services across a range of small to large acute care facilities. They indicate that the majority of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with their hospitalist services. Most also indicated that the service had resulted in improvements compared to prior inpatient care models.

Over half of the survey respondents, and the majority of interviewees, reported a positive impact on interprofessional communication and collaboration. This was largely attributed to enhanced accessibility and availability of hospitalists:

• "Being on-site lends itself to better communication because they’re accessible. Hospitalists always answer the phone, but the general practitioners (GP) don’t always since they may be with other patients." (Dietician, Site A)
• "A big strength is that we have physician presence on the unit all day during scheduled hours, which makes us more accessible to nurses and more able to follow up on patients that we have concerns about." (Physician Leader, Site B)

However, the ratings dropped substantially when they were asked to assess adherence to specific best practices of such communication and collaboration, such as participation in daily check-ins or attendance at team care rounds (Figure 3). Interdisciplinary clinical rounds have been identified as a tool to improve the effectiveness of care teams.¹² A number of elements have been identified as key components of effective rounds.¹³ Bedside rounds have also been found to enhance communication and teamwork.^14,15 In our study, the discrepancy between overall high levels of satisfaction with hospitalists’ communication/collaboration despite low scores on participation in more concrete activities may illustrate the importance of informal and ad hoc opportunities for interactions between hospitalists and other care providers that result from the enhanced presence of hospitalists on care units.⁸ Outside of formal rounds, hospitalists have the ability to interact with other care providers throughout their shifts. Prior studies have shown that hospitalists spend a significant portion of their time communicating with other care team members throughout their workdays.¹⁶ At the same time, the amount of time spent on communication should be balanced against the need for provision of direct care at the bedside. Future research should aim to identify the right balance between these competing priorities, and to understand the nature and quality of the communication between various care providers.

We also aimed to understand the perceptions of study participants about the impact of the HM service on quality of care. Survey participants not only expressed reasonable satisfaction with various aspects of hospitalists’ performance, but also described a positive impact on care quality after the implementation of their new services. This was also reflected in the interviews:

• "The clinical knowledge of the new hospitalists is far better. Some are internal medicine trained, so they bring better knowledge and skills. I feel comfortable that they can take patients and manage them. I wasn’t always comfortable with doing that in the past." (Emergency Physician, Site C)
• "Hospitalists are really familiar with acute care and how it works. They’ve become more familiar with the discharge planning system and thus know more about the resources available. And even something as simple as knowing which forms to use." (Dietician, Site A)

It must be noted that these observations should ideally be corroborated through a robust before-after analysis of various quality measures. While such an analysis was beyond the scope of our current project, we have previously demonstrated that across our network (including the 3 sites included in our evaluation) hospitalist care is associated with lower mortality and readmission rates.⁴ Our findings appear to confirm previous suggestions that hospitalists’ dedicated focus on inpatient care may allow them to develop enhanced skills in the management of common conditions in the acute care setting¹⁷ which can be perceived to be of value to other hospital-based care providers.

The issue of frequent handover among hospitalists was the most commonly identified challenge by both survey respondents and interviewees:

• "They’re very reluctant to discharge patients if it’s their first day with the patient. Even if the previous hospitalist said they were ready for discharge, the new doc wants to run all of their own tests before they feel comfortable. Maybe it’s a trust issue between hospitalists when they hand patients over. It’s also being personally liable for patients if you discharge them." (Patient Care Coordinator, Site A)
• "Communication is an issue. There’s lots of turnover in hospitalists. Relationships were closer with GPs because we had so much more interaction with particular individuals." (Hospitalist Physician Leader, Site A)

It must be noted that we conducted our evaluation in a relatively short time span (within 2 years) after the 3 services were implemented. Developing trust among a large number of hospitalists newly recruited to these programs can take time and may be a factor that can explain the reluctance of some to discharge patients after handoffs. However, concerns about discontinuity of care inherent in the hospitalist model are not new.^18,19 Better continuity has been associated with higher probability of patient discharges²⁰ and improved outcomes.²¹ To address this challenge, the hospitalist community has focused on defining the core competencies associated with high quality handovers,²² and deliberate efforts to improve the quality of handoffs through quality improvement methodologies.²³ Our study participants similarly identified these measures as potential solutions. Despite this, addressing hospitalist continuity of care remains a pressing challenge for the broader hospitalist community.²⁴

Our evaluation has a number of methodological limitations. First, the survey response rate was only 14%, which raises questions about nonresponse bias and the representativeness of the findings to the larger population of interest. While the distribution of respondents was largely similar to the overall sampled population, a number of factors may have impacted our response rate. For example, we were only able to distribute our survey to health care providers’ institutional email addresses. Moreover, while we provided incentives for participation and sent out a number of reminders, we solely relied on one communication modality (ie, electronic communication) and did not utilize other methods (such as posters, reminder at meetings, in-person invitations). Second, while the survey included a number of open-ended questions, many of these responses were at times brief and difficult to interpret and were not included in the analysis. Third, all data collected were self-reported. For example, we could not corroborate comments about participation in interdisciplinary rounds by objective measures such as attendance records or direct observation. Self-report data is subjective in nature and is vulnerable to a range of biases, such as social desirability bias.²⁵ Finally, patient satisfaction and experience with hospitalist care were not assessed by patients themselves. Ideally, standardized cross-site indicators should validate our patient-related results.

As mentioned above, hospitalist performance ratings varied substantially from site-to-site and were consistently higher at Site B (a small community hospital in a semi-rural area), followed by Site C (a medium-sized community hospital) and Site A (a tertiary referral center). The variability in program ratings and perceived hospitalist impacts between sites could be due to a variety of factors, such as the degree of change between the past and current models at each site, differences in hospitalist hiring processes, hospital size and culture, and differences in service design and operations. It may also be related to the timing of the introduction of the HM service, as Site B was the most recent site where the service was established. As such, there may be an element of recall bias behind the observed discrepancies. This highlights the importance of local context on respondent perceptions and suggests that our results may not be generalizable to other institutions with different attributes and characteristics.

Conclusion

Findings from this study have demonstrated that the recent hospitalist services in our health system have improved overall levels of interprofessional communication and teamwork, as well as perceptions of care quality among the majority of participants who reported high levels of satisfaction with their programs. Our findings further highlight the issue of frequent handovers among hospitalists as a pressing and ongoing challenge.

Corresponding Author: Vandad Yousefi, MD, CCFP, Past Regional Department Head – Hospital Medicine, Fraser Health Authority, Central City Tower, Suite 400, 13450 – 102nd Ave, Surrey, BC V3T 0H1; vandad.yousefi@fraserhealth.ca.

Financial disclosures: This project was funded by the Fraser Health Authority, which provided the funding for hiring of the external consultant to design, implement, and analyze the results of the evaluation program in collaboration with the Regional Hospitalist Program at Fraser Health.

From the Fraser Health Authority, Surrey, BC, Canada (Drs. Yousefi and Paletta), and Catalyst Consulting Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada (Elayne McIvor).

Objective: Despite the ongoing growth in the number of hospitalist programs in Canada, their impact on the quality of interprofessional communication, teamwork, and staff satisfaction is not well known. This study aimed to evaluate perceptions of frontline care providers and hospital managers about the impact of the implementation of 3 new hospitalist services on care quality, teamwork, and interprofessional communication.

Design: We used an online survey and semistructured interviews to evaluate respondents’ views on quality of interprofessional communication and collaboration, impact of the new services on quality of care, and overall staff satisfaction with the new inpatient care model.

Setting: Integrated Regional Health Authority in British Columbia, Canada.

Participants: Participants included hospital administrators, frontline care providers (across a range of professions), and hospital and community-based physicians.

Results: The majority of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with their new hospital medicine services. They identified improvements in interprofessional collaboration and communication between hospitalists and other professionals, which were attributed to enhanced onsite presence of physicians. They also perceived improvements in quality of care and efficiency. On the other hand, they identified a number of challenges with the change process, and raised concerns about the impact of patient handoffs on care quality and efficiency.

Conclusion: Across 3 very different acute care settings, the implementation of a hospitalist service was widely perceived to have resulted in improved teamwork, quality of care, and interprofessional communication.

Keywords: hospital medicine; hospitalist; teamwork; interprofessional collaboration.

Fraser Health Authority (FH) is an integrated regional health system with one of the largest regional Hospital Medicine (HM) networks in Canada.⁹ Over the past 2 decades, FH has implemented a number of HM services in its acute care facilities across a range of small and large community and academic hospitals. More recently, 3 hospitalist services were implemented over a 2-year period: new HM services in a tertiary referral center (Site A, July 2016) and a small community hospital (Site B, December 2016), and reintroduction of a hospitalist service in a medium-sized community hospital (Site C, January 2017). This provided a unique opportunity to assess the impact of the implementation of the hospitalist model across a range of facilities. The main objectives of this evaluation were to understand the level of physician, nursing, allied staff, and hospital administration satisfaction with the new hospitalist model, as well as the perceived impact of the service on efficiency and quality of care. As such, FH engaged an external consultant (EM) to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the introduction of its latest HM services.

Methods

Setting

Hospital medicine services are currently available in 10 of 12 acute care facilities within the FH system. The 3 sites described in this evaluation constitute the most recent sites where a hospitalist service was implemented.

Site A is a 272-bed tertiary referral center situated in a rapidly growing community. At the time of our evaluation, 21 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) hospitalists cared for an average of 126 patients, which constituted the majority of adult medical patients. Each day, 8 individuals rounded on admitted patients (average individual census: 16) with another person providing in-house, evening, and overnight coverage. An additional flexible shift during the early afternoon helped with Emergency Department (ED) admissions.

Site B is small, 45-bed community hospital in a semi-rural community. The hospitalist service began in December 2016, with 4 FTE hospitalists caring for an average of 28 patients daily. This constituted 2 hospitalists rounding daily on admitted patients, with on-call coverage provided from home.

Site C is a 188-bed community hospital with a hospitalist service initially introduced in 2005. In 2016, the program was disbanded and the site moved back to a primarily community-based model, in which family physicians in the community were invited to assume the care of hospitalized patients. However, the hospitalist program had to be reintroduced in January 2017 due to poor uptake among PCPs in the community. At the time of evaluation, 19 FTE hospitalists (with 7 hospitalists working daily) provided most responsible physician care to a daily census of 116 patients (average individual census: 16). The program also covered ED admissions in-house until midnight, with overnight call provided from home.

Approach

We adopted a utilization-focused evaluation approach to guide our investigation. In this approach, the assessment is deliberately planned and conducted in a way that it maximizes the likelihood that findings would be used by the organization to inform learning, adaptations, and decision-making.¹¹ To enable this, the evaluator identified the primary intended recipients and engaged them at the start of the evaluation process to understand the main intended uses of the project. Moreover, the evaluator ensured that these intended uses of the evaluation guided all other decisions made throughout the process.

We collected data using an online survey of the staff at the 3 facilities, complemented by a series of semistructured qualitative interviews with FH administrators and frontline providers.

Online survey

We conducted an open online survey of a broad range of stakeholders who worked in the 3 facilities. To develop the questionnaire, we searched our department’s archives for previous surveys conducted from 2001 to 2005. We also interviewed the regional HM program management team to identify priority areas and reached out to the local leadership of the 3 acute care facilities for their input and support of the project. We refined the survey through several iterations, seeking input from experts in the FH Department of Evaluation and Research. The final questionnaire contained 10 items, including a mix of closed- and open-ended questions (Appendix A).

To reach the target audience, we collaborated with each hospital’s local leadership as well as the Divisions of Family Practice (DFP) that support local community PCPs in each hospital community.¹⁰ Existing email lists were compiled to create a master electronic survey distribution list. The initial invitation and 3 subsequent reminders were disseminated to the following target groups: hospital physicians (both hospitalists and nonhospitalists), PCPs, nursing and other allied professionals, administrators, and DFP leadership.

The survey consent form, background information, questions, and online platform (SimpleSurvey, Montreal, QC) were approved by FH’s Privacy Department. All respondents were required to provide their consent and able to withdraw at any time. Survey responses were kept anonymous and confidential, with results captured automatically into a spreadsheet by the survey platform. As an incentive for participation, respondents had the opportunity to win 1 of 3 $100 Visa gift cards. Personal contact information provided for the prize draw was collected in a separate survey that could not link back to respondents’ answers. The survey was trialed several times by the evaluation team to address any technical challenges before dissemination to the targeted participants.

Qualitative interviews

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of FH administrators and frontline providers (Appendix B). The interview questions broadly mirrored the survey but allowed for more in-depth exploration of constructs. Interviewees were recruited through email invitations to selected senior and mid-level local and regional administrators, asking interviewees to refer our team to other contacts, and inviting survey respondents to voluntarily participate in a follow-up interview. One of the authors (EM), a Credentialed Evaluator, conducted all the one-time interviews either in-person at the individual participant’s workplace or by telephone. She did not have pre-existing relationships with any of the interviewees. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Interviewees were required to consent to participate and understood that they could withdraw at any point. They were not offered incentives to participate. Interviews were carried out until thematic saturation was reached.

Analysis

A content analysis approach was employed for all qualitative data, which included open-ended responses from the online survey and interview transcripts. One of the authors (EM) conducted the analysis. The following steps were followed in the inductive content analysis process: repeated reading of the raw data, generation of initial thematic codes, organizing and sorting codes into categories (ie, main vs subcategories), coding of all data, quantifying codes, and interpreting themes. When responding to open-ended questions, respondents often provided multiple answers per question. Each of the respondents’ answers were coded. In alignment with the inductive nature of the analysis process, themes emerged organically from the data rather than the researchers using preconceived theories and categories to code the text. This was achieved by postponing the review of relevant literature on the topic until after the analysis was complete and using an external evaluation consultant (with no prior relationship to FH and limited theoretical knowledge of the topic matter) to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics were run on quantitative data in SPSS (v.24, IBM, Armonk, NY). For survey responses to be included in the analysis, the respondents needed to indicate which site they worked at and were required to answer at least 1 other survey question. One interviewee was excluded from the analysis since they were not familiar with the hospitalist model at their site.

Ethics approval

The evaluation protocol was reviewed by FH Department of Evaluation and Research and was deemed exempt from formal research ethics review.

 

 

Results

A total of 377 individuals responded to the online survey between January 8 and February 28, 2018 (response rate 14%). The distribution of respondents generally reflected the size of the respective acute care facilities. Compared to the overall sampled population, fewer nurses participated in the survey (45% vs 64%) while the rate of participation for Unit Clerks (14% vs 16%) and allied professionals (12% vs 16%) were similar.

Out of the 45 people approached for an interview, a total of 38 were conducted from January 3 to March 5, 2018 (response rate 84%). The interviews lasted an average of 42 minutes. Interviewees represented a range of administrative and health professional roles (Figure 1). Some interviewees held multiple positions.

Satisfaction with HM service

Across all sites, survey respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with their respective HM services and identified positive impacts on their job satisfaction (Figure 2). Almost all interviewees similarly expressed high satisfaction levels with their HM services (95%; n = 36).

Perceptions of HM service performance

Survey respondents rated the strength of hospitalists’ interprofessional communication and collaboration with other physicians and with care teams. Roughly two-thirds reported that overall hospitalist communication was “good” or “very good.” We also asked participants to rate the frequency at which hospitalists met best practice expectations related to interprofessional teamwork. Across all sites, similar proportions of respondents (23% to 39%) reported that these best practices were met “most of the time” or “always” (Figure 3). Survey questions also assessed perceptions of respondents about the quality and safety of care provided by hospitalists (Figure 4).

Perceptions of the impact of the HM service postimplementation

The majority of survey respondents reported improvements in the quality of communication, professional relationships, and coordination of inpatient care at transition points after the implementation of the HM service (Figure 5). This was also reflected in interviews, where some indicated that it was easier to communicate with hospitalists due to their on-site presence, accessibility, and 24/7 availability (n = 21). They also described improved collaboration within the care teams (n = 7), and easier communication with hospitalists because they were approachable, willing, and receptive (n = 4).

We also asked the survey respondents to assess the impact of the new hospitalist model on different dimensions of care quality, including patient satisfaction, patient experience, efficiency, and overall quality of care (Figure 6). Findings were comparable across these dimensions, with roughly 50-60% of respondents noting positive changes compared to before the implementation of the programs. However, most interviewees identified both positive and negative effects in these areas. Positive impacts included hospitalist on-site presence leading to better accessibility and timeliness of care (n = 5), hospitalists providing continuity to patients/families by working for weeklong rotations (n = 6), hospitalists being particularly skilled at managing complex clinical presentations (n = 2), and hospitalists being able to spend more time with patients (n = 2). On the other hand, some interviewees noted that patients and families did not like seeing multiple doctors due to frequent handoffs between hospitalists (n = 12). They also raised concerns that hospitalists did not know patients’ histories or had relationships with them, potentially leading to longer length of stay and unnecessary investigations (n = 8).

Site-to-site ratings of satisfaction and performance

Survey respondents’ satisfaction and performance ratings varied substantially site-to-site. Across all areas assessed, ratings were consistently highest at Site B (the smallest institution in our evaluation and the most recent addition to the HM network in the health authority). These differences were statistically significant across all survey questions asked.

Discussion

Findings from this study provide insight into the experiences of frontline health care professionals and administrators with the implementation of new HM services across a range of small to large acute care facilities. They indicate that the majority of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with their hospitalist services. Most also indicated that the service had resulted in improvements compared to prior inpatient care models.

Over half of the survey respondents, and the majority of interviewees, reported a positive impact on interprofessional communication and collaboration. This was largely attributed to enhanced accessibility and availability of hospitalists:

• "Being on-site lends itself to better communication because they’re accessible. Hospitalists always answer the phone, but the general practitioners (GP) don’t always since they may be with other patients." (Dietician, Site A)
• "A big strength is that we have physician presence on the unit all day during scheduled hours, which makes us more accessible to nurses and more able to follow up on patients that we have concerns about." (Physician Leader, Site B)

However, the ratings dropped substantially when they were asked to assess adherence to specific best practices of such communication and collaboration, such as participation in daily check-ins or attendance at team care rounds (Figure 3). Interdisciplinary clinical rounds have been identified as a tool to improve the effectiveness of care teams.¹² A number of elements have been identified as key components of effective rounds.¹³ Bedside rounds have also been found to enhance communication and teamwork.^14,15 In our study, the discrepancy between overall high levels of satisfaction with hospitalists’ communication/collaboration despite low scores on participation in more concrete activities may illustrate the importance of informal and ad hoc opportunities for interactions between hospitalists and other care providers that result from the enhanced presence of hospitalists on care units.⁸ Outside of formal rounds, hospitalists have the ability to interact with other care providers throughout their shifts. Prior studies have shown that hospitalists spend a significant portion of their time communicating with other care team members throughout their workdays.¹⁶ At the same time, the amount of time spent on communication should be balanced against the need for provision of direct care at the bedside. Future research should aim to identify the right balance between these competing priorities, and to understand the nature and quality of the communication between various care providers.

We also aimed to understand the perceptions of study participants about the impact of the HM service on quality of care. Survey participants not only expressed reasonable satisfaction with various aspects of hospitalists’ performance, but also described a positive impact on care quality after the implementation of their new services. This was also reflected in the interviews:

• "The clinical knowledge of the new hospitalists is far better. Some are internal medicine trained, so they bring better knowledge and skills. I feel comfortable that they can take patients and manage them. I wasn’t always comfortable with doing that in the past." (Emergency Physician, Site C)
• "Hospitalists are really familiar with acute care and how it works. They’ve become more familiar with the discharge planning system and thus know more about the resources available. And even something as simple as knowing which forms to use." (Dietician, Site A)

It must be noted that these observations should ideally be corroborated through a robust before-after analysis of various quality measures. While such an analysis was beyond the scope of our current project, we have previously demonstrated that across our network (including the 3 sites included in our evaluation) hospitalist care is associated with lower mortality and readmission rates.⁴ Our findings appear to confirm previous suggestions that hospitalists’ dedicated focus on inpatient care may allow them to develop enhanced skills in the management of common conditions in the acute care setting¹⁷ which can be perceived to be of value to other hospital-based care providers.

The issue of frequent handover among hospitalists was the most commonly identified challenge by both survey respondents and interviewees:

• "They’re very reluctant to discharge patients if it’s their first day with the patient. Even if the previous hospitalist said they were ready for discharge, the new doc wants to run all of their own tests before they feel comfortable. Maybe it’s a trust issue between hospitalists when they hand patients over. It’s also being personally liable for patients if you discharge them." (Patient Care Coordinator, Site A)
• "Communication is an issue. There’s lots of turnover in hospitalists. Relationships were closer with GPs because we had so much more interaction with particular individuals." (Hospitalist Physician Leader, Site A)

It must be noted that we conducted our evaluation in a relatively short time span (within 2 years) after the 3 services were implemented. Developing trust among a large number of hospitalists newly recruited to these programs can take time and may be a factor that can explain the reluctance of some to discharge patients after handoffs. However, concerns about discontinuity of care inherent in the hospitalist model are not new.^18,19 Better continuity has been associated with higher probability of patient discharges²⁰ and improved outcomes.²¹ To address this challenge, the hospitalist community has focused on defining the core competencies associated with high quality handovers,²² and deliberate efforts to improve the quality of handoffs through quality improvement methodologies.²³ Our study participants similarly identified these measures as potential solutions. Despite this, addressing hospitalist continuity of care remains a pressing challenge for the broader hospitalist community.²⁴

Our evaluation has a number of methodological limitations. First, the survey response rate was only 14%, which raises questions about nonresponse bias and the representativeness of the findings to the larger population of interest. While the distribution of respondents was largely similar to the overall sampled population, a number of factors may have impacted our response rate. For example, we were only able to distribute our survey to health care providers’ institutional email addresses. Moreover, while we provided incentives for participation and sent out a number of reminders, we solely relied on one communication modality (ie, electronic communication) and did not utilize other methods (such as posters, reminder at meetings, in-person invitations). Second, while the survey included a number of open-ended questions, many of these responses were at times brief and difficult to interpret and were not included in the analysis. Third, all data collected were self-reported. For example, we could not corroborate comments about participation in interdisciplinary rounds by objective measures such as attendance records or direct observation. Self-report data is subjective in nature and is vulnerable to a range of biases, such as social desirability bias.²⁵ Finally, patient satisfaction and experience with hospitalist care were not assessed by patients themselves. Ideally, standardized cross-site indicators should validate our patient-related results.

As mentioned above, hospitalist performance ratings varied substantially from site-to-site and were consistently higher at Site B (a small community hospital in a semi-rural area), followed by Site C (a medium-sized community hospital) and Site A (a tertiary referral center). The variability in program ratings and perceived hospitalist impacts between sites could be due to a variety of factors, such as the degree of change between the past and current models at each site, differences in hospitalist hiring processes, hospital size and culture, and differences in service design and operations. It may also be related to the timing of the introduction of the HM service, as Site B was the most recent site where the service was established. As such, there may be an element of recall bias behind the observed discrepancies. This highlights the importance of local context on respondent perceptions and suggests that our results may not be generalizable to other institutions with different attributes and characteristics.

Conclusion

Findings from this study have demonstrated that the recent hospitalist services in our health system have improved overall levels of interprofessional communication and teamwork, as well as perceptions of care quality among the majority of participants who reported high levels of satisfaction with their programs. Our findings further highlight the issue of frequent handovers among hospitalists as a pressing and ongoing challenge.

Corresponding Author: Vandad Yousefi, MD, CCFP, Past Regional Department Head – Hospital Medicine, Fraser Health Authority, Central City Tower, Suite 400, 13450 – 102nd Ave, Surrey, BC V3T 0H1; vandad.yousefi@fraserhealth.ca.

Financial disclosures: This project was funded by the Fraser Health Authority, which provided the funding for hiring of the external consultant to design, implement, and analyze the results of the evaluation program in collaboration with the Regional Hospitalist Program at Fraser Health.

From the Fraser Health Authority, Surrey, BC, Canada (Drs. Yousefi and Paletta), and Catalyst Consulting Inc., Vancouver, BC, Canada (Elayne McIvor).

Objective: Despite the ongoing growth in the number of hospitalist programs in Canada, their impact on the quality of interprofessional communication, teamwork, and staff satisfaction is not well known. This study aimed to evaluate perceptions of frontline care providers and hospital managers about the impact of the implementation of 3 new hospitalist services on care quality, teamwork, and interprofessional communication.

Design: We used an online survey and semistructured interviews to evaluate respondents’ views on quality of interprofessional communication and collaboration, impact of the new services on quality of care, and overall staff satisfaction with the new inpatient care model.

Setting: Integrated Regional Health Authority in British Columbia, Canada.

Participants: Participants included hospital administrators, frontline care providers (across a range of professions), and hospital and community-based physicians.

Results: The majority of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with their new hospital medicine services. They identified improvements in interprofessional collaboration and communication between hospitalists and other professionals, which were attributed to enhanced onsite presence of physicians. They also perceived improvements in quality of care and efficiency. On the other hand, they identified a number of challenges with the change process, and raised concerns about the impact of patient handoffs on care quality and efficiency.

Conclusion: Across 3 very different acute care settings, the implementation of a hospitalist service was widely perceived to have resulted in improved teamwork, quality of care, and interprofessional communication.

Keywords: hospital medicine; hospitalist; teamwork; interprofessional collaboration.

Fraser Health Authority (FH) is an integrated regional health system with one of the largest regional Hospital Medicine (HM) networks in Canada.⁹ Over the past 2 decades, FH has implemented a number of HM services in its acute care facilities across a range of small and large community and academic hospitals. More recently, 3 hospitalist services were implemented over a 2-year period: new HM services in a tertiary referral center (Site A, July 2016) and a small community hospital (Site B, December 2016), and reintroduction of a hospitalist service in a medium-sized community hospital (Site C, January 2017). This provided a unique opportunity to assess the impact of the implementation of the hospitalist model across a range of facilities. The main objectives of this evaluation were to understand the level of physician, nursing, allied staff, and hospital administration satisfaction with the new hospitalist model, as well as the perceived impact of the service on efficiency and quality of care. As such, FH engaged an external consultant (EM) to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the introduction of its latest HM services.

Methods

Setting

Hospital medicine services are currently available in 10 of 12 acute care facilities within the FH system. The 3 sites described in this evaluation constitute the most recent sites where a hospitalist service was implemented.

Site A is a 272-bed tertiary referral center situated in a rapidly growing community. At the time of our evaluation, 21 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) hospitalists cared for an average of 126 patients, which constituted the majority of adult medical patients. Each day, 8 individuals rounded on admitted patients (average individual census: 16) with another person providing in-house, evening, and overnight coverage. An additional flexible shift during the early afternoon helped with Emergency Department (ED) admissions.

Site B is small, 45-bed community hospital in a semi-rural community. The hospitalist service began in December 2016, with 4 FTE hospitalists caring for an average of 28 patients daily. This constituted 2 hospitalists rounding daily on admitted patients, with on-call coverage provided from home.

Site C is a 188-bed community hospital with a hospitalist service initially introduced in 2005. In 2016, the program was disbanded and the site moved back to a primarily community-based model, in which family physicians in the community were invited to assume the care of hospitalized patients. However, the hospitalist program had to be reintroduced in January 2017 due to poor uptake among PCPs in the community. At the time of evaluation, 19 FTE hospitalists (with 7 hospitalists working daily) provided most responsible physician care to a daily census of 116 patients (average individual census: 16). The program also covered ED admissions in-house until midnight, with overnight call provided from home.

Approach

We adopted a utilization-focused evaluation approach to guide our investigation. In this approach, the assessment is deliberately planned and conducted in a way that it maximizes the likelihood that findings would be used by the organization to inform learning, adaptations, and decision-making.¹¹ To enable this, the evaluator identified the primary intended recipients and engaged them at the start of the evaluation process to understand the main intended uses of the project. Moreover, the evaluator ensured that these intended uses of the evaluation guided all other decisions made throughout the process.

We collected data using an online survey of the staff at the 3 facilities, complemented by a series of semistructured qualitative interviews with FH administrators and frontline providers.

Online survey

We conducted an open online survey of a broad range of stakeholders who worked in the 3 facilities. To develop the questionnaire, we searched our department’s archives for previous surveys conducted from 2001 to 2005. We also interviewed the regional HM program management team to identify priority areas and reached out to the local leadership of the 3 acute care facilities for their input and support of the project. We refined the survey through several iterations, seeking input from experts in the FH Department of Evaluation and Research. The final questionnaire contained 10 items, including a mix of closed- and open-ended questions (Appendix A).

To reach the target audience, we collaborated with each hospital’s local leadership as well as the Divisions of Family Practice (DFP) that support local community PCPs in each hospital community.¹⁰ Existing email lists were compiled to create a master electronic survey distribution list. The initial invitation and 3 subsequent reminders were disseminated to the following target groups: hospital physicians (both hospitalists and nonhospitalists), PCPs, nursing and other allied professionals, administrators, and DFP leadership.

The survey consent form, background information, questions, and online platform (SimpleSurvey, Montreal, QC) were approved by FH’s Privacy Department. All respondents were required to provide their consent and able to withdraw at any time. Survey responses were kept anonymous and confidential, with results captured automatically into a spreadsheet by the survey platform. As an incentive for participation, respondents had the opportunity to win 1 of 3 $100 Visa gift cards. Personal contact information provided for the prize draw was collected in a separate survey that could not link back to respondents’ answers. The survey was trialed several times by the evaluation team to address any technical challenges before dissemination to the targeted participants.

Qualitative interviews

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of FH administrators and frontline providers (Appendix B). The interview questions broadly mirrored the survey but allowed for more in-depth exploration of constructs. Interviewees were recruited through email invitations to selected senior and mid-level local and regional administrators, asking interviewees to refer our team to other contacts, and inviting survey respondents to voluntarily participate in a follow-up interview. One of the authors (EM), a Credentialed Evaluator, conducted all the one-time interviews either in-person at the individual participant’s workplace or by telephone. She did not have pre-existing relationships with any of the interviewees. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for analysis. Interviewees were required to consent to participate and understood that they could withdraw at any point. They were not offered incentives to participate. Interviews were carried out until thematic saturation was reached.

Analysis

A content analysis approach was employed for all qualitative data, which included open-ended responses from the online survey and interview transcripts. One of the authors (EM) conducted the analysis. The following steps were followed in the inductive content analysis process: repeated reading of the raw data, generation of initial thematic codes, organizing and sorting codes into categories (ie, main vs subcategories), coding of all data, quantifying codes, and interpreting themes. When responding to open-ended questions, respondents often provided multiple answers per question. Each of the respondents’ answers were coded. In alignment with the inductive nature of the analysis process, themes emerged organically from the data rather than the researchers using preconceived theories and categories to code the text. This was achieved by postponing the review of relevant literature on the topic until after the analysis was complete and using an external evaluation consultant (with no prior relationship to FH and limited theoretical knowledge of the topic matter) to analyze the data. Descriptive statistics were run on quantitative data in SPSS (v.24, IBM, Armonk, NY). For survey responses to be included in the analysis, the respondents needed to indicate which site they worked at and were required to answer at least 1 other survey question. One interviewee was excluded from the analysis since they were not familiar with the hospitalist model at their site.

Ethics approval

The evaluation protocol was reviewed by FH Department of Evaluation and Research and was deemed exempt from formal research ethics review.

 

 

Results

A total of 377 individuals responded to the online survey between January 8 and February 28, 2018 (response rate 14%). The distribution of respondents generally reflected the size of the respective acute care facilities. Compared to the overall sampled population, fewer nurses participated in the survey (45% vs 64%) while the rate of participation for Unit Clerks (14% vs 16%) and allied professionals (12% vs 16%) were similar.

Out of the 45 people approached for an interview, a total of 38 were conducted from January 3 to March 5, 2018 (response rate 84%). The interviews lasted an average of 42 minutes. Interviewees represented a range of administrative and health professional roles (Figure 1). Some interviewees held multiple positions.

Satisfaction with HM service

Across all sites, survey respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with their respective HM services and identified positive impacts on their job satisfaction (Figure 2). Almost all interviewees similarly expressed high satisfaction levels with their HM services (95%; n = 36).

Perceptions of HM service performance

Survey respondents rated the strength of hospitalists’ interprofessional communication and collaboration with other physicians and with care teams. Roughly two-thirds reported that overall hospitalist communication was “good” or “very good.” We also asked participants to rate the frequency at which hospitalists met best practice expectations related to interprofessional teamwork. Across all sites, similar proportions of respondents (23% to 39%) reported that these best practices were met “most of the time” or “always” (Figure 3). Survey questions also assessed perceptions of respondents about the quality and safety of care provided by hospitalists (Figure 4).

Perceptions of the impact of the HM service postimplementation

The majority of survey respondents reported improvements in the quality of communication, professional relationships, and coordination of inpatient care at transition points after the implementation of the HM service (Figure 5). This was also reflected in interviews, where some indicated that it was easier to communicate with hospitalists due to their on-site presence, accessibility, and 24/7 availability (n = 21). They also described improved collaboration within the care teams (n = 7), and easier communication with hospitalists because they were approachable, willing, and receptive (n = 4).

We also asked the survey respondents to assess the impact of the new hospitalist model on different dimensions of care quality, including patient satisfaction, patient experience, efficiency, and overall quality of care (Figure 6). Findings were comparable across these dimensions, with roughly 50-60% of respondents noting positive changes compared to before the implementation of the programs. However, most interviewees identified both positive and negative effects in these areas. Positive impacts included hospitalist on-site presence leading to better accessibility and timeliness of care (n = 5), hospitalists providing continuity to patients/families by working for weeklong rotations (n = 6), hospitalists being particularly skilled at managing complex clinical presentations (n = 2), and hospitalists being able to spend more time with patients (n = 2). On the other hand, some interviewees noted that patients and families did not like seeing multiple doctors due to frequent handoffs between hospitalists (n = 12). They also raised concerns that hospitalists did not know patients’ histories or had relationships with them, potentially leading to longer length of stay and unnecessary investigations (n = 8).

Site-to-site ratings of satisfaction and performance

Survey respondents’ satisfaction and performance ratings varied substantially site-to-site. Across all areas assessed, ratings were consistently highest at Site B (the smallest institution in our evaluation and the most recent addition to the HM network in the health authority). These differences were statistically significant across all survey questions asked.

Discussion

Findings from this study provide insight into the experiences of frontline health care professionals and administrators with the implementation of new HM services across a range of small to large acute care facilities. They indicate that the majority of respondents reported high levels of satisfaction with their hospitalist services. Most also indicated that the service had resulted in improvements compared to prior inpatient care models.

Over half of the survey respondents, and the majority of interviewees, reported a positive impact on interprofessional communication and collaboration. This was largely attributed to enhanced accessibility and availability of hospitalists:

• "Being on-site lends itself to better communication because they’re accessible. Hospitalists always answer the phone, but the general practitioners (GP) don’t always since they may be with other patients." (Dietician, Site A)
• "A big strength is that we have physician presence on the unit all day during scheduled hours, which makes us more accessible to nurses and more able to follow up on patients that we have concerns about." (Physician Leader, Site B)

However, the ratings dropped substantially when they were asked to assess adherence to specific best practices of such communication and collaboration, such as participation in daily check-ins or attendance at team care rounds (Figure 3). Interdisciplinary clinical rounds have been identified as a tool to improve the effectiveness of care teams.¹² A number of elements have been identified as key components of effective rounds.¹³ Bedside rounds have also been found to enhance communication and teamwork.^14,15 In our study, the discrepancy between overall high levels of satisfaction with hospitalists’ communication/collaboration despite low scores on participation in more concrete activities may illustrate the importance of informal and ad hoc opportunities for interactions between hospitalists and other care providers that result from the enhanced presence of hospitalists on care units.⁸ Outside of formal rounds, hospitalists have the ability to interact with other care providers throughout their shifts. Prior studies have shown that hospitalists spend a significant portion of their time communicating with other care team members throughout their workdays.¹⁶ At the same time, the amount of time spent on communication should be balanced against the need for provision of direct care at the bedside. Future research should aim to identify the right balance between these competing priorities, and to understand the nature and quality of the communication between various care providers.

We also aimed to understand the perceptions of study participants about the impact of the HM service on quality of care. Survey participants not only expressed reasonable satisfaction with various aspects of hospitalists’ performance, but also described a positive impact on care quality after the implementation of their new services. This was also reflected in the interviews:

• "The clinical knowledge of the new hospitalists is far better. Some are internal medicine trained, so they bring better knowledge and skills. I feel comfortable that they can take patients and manage them. I wasn’t always comfortable with doing that in the past." (Emergency Physician, Site C)
• "Hospitalists are really familiar with acute care and how it works. They’ve become more familiar with the discharge planning system and thus know more about the resources available. And even something as simple as knowing which forms to use." (Dietician, Site A)

It must be noted that these observations should ideally be corroborated through a robust before-after analysis of various quality measures. While such an analysis was beyond the scope of our current project, we have previously demonstrated that across our network (including the 3 sites included in our evaluation) hospitalist care is associated with lower mortality and readmission rates.⁴ Our findings appear to confirm previous suggestions that hospitalists’ dedicated focus on inpatient care may allow them to develop enhanced skills in the management of common conditions in the acute care setting¹⁷ which can be perceived to be of value to other hospital-based care providers.

The issue of frequent handover among hospitalists was the most commonly identified challenge by both survey respondents and interviewees:

• "They’re very reluctant to discharge patients if it’s their first day with the patient. Even if the previous hospitalist said they were ready for discharge, the new doc wants to run all of their own tests before they feel comfortable. Maybe it’s a trust issue between hospitalists when they hand patients over. It’s also being personally liable for patients if you discharge them." (Patient Care Coordinator, Site A)
• "Communication is an issue. There’s lots of turnover in hospitalists. Relationships were closer with GPs because we had so much more interaction with particular individuals." (Hospitalist Physician Leader, Site A)

It must be noted that we conducted our evaluation in a relatively short time span (within 2 years) after the 3 services were implemented. Developing trust among a large number of hospitalists newly recruited to these programs can take time and may be a factor that can explain the reluctance of some to discharge patients after handoffs. However, concerns about discontinuity of care inherent in the hospitalist model are not new.^18,19 Better continuity has been associated with higher probability of patient discharges²⁰ and improved outcomes.²¹ To address this challenge, the hospitalist community has focused on defining the core competencies associated with high quality handovers,²² and deliberate efforts to improve the quality of handoffs through quality improvement methodologies.²³ Our study participants similarly identified these measures as potential solutions. Despite this, addressing hospitalist continuity of care remains a pressing challenge for the broader hospitalist community.²⁴

Our evaluation has a number of methodological limitations. First, the survey response rate was only 14%, which raises questions about nonresponse bias and the representativeness of the findings to the larger population of interest. While the distribution of respondents was largely similar to the overall sampled population, a number of factors may have impacted our response rate. For example, we were only able to distribute our survey to health care providers’ institutional email addresses. Moreover, while we provided incentives for participation and sent out a number of reminders, we solely relied on one communication modality (ie, electronic communication) and did not utilize other methods (such as posters, reminder at meetings, in-person invitations). Second, while the survey included a number of open-ended questions, many of these responses were at times brief and difficult to interpret and were not included in the analysis. Third, all data collected were self-reported. For example, we could not corroborate comments about participation in interdisciplinary rounds by objective measures such as attendance records or direct observation. Self-report data is subjective in nature and is vulnerable to a range of biases, such as social desirability bias.²⁵ Finally, patient satisfaction and experience with hospitalist care were not assessed by patients themselves. Ideally, standardized cross-site indicators should validate our patient-related results.

As mentioned above, hospitalist performance ratings varied substantially from site-to-site and were consistently higher at Site B (a small community hospital in a semi-rural area), followed by Site C (a medium-sized community hospital) and Site A (a tertiary referral center). The variability in program ratings and perceived hospitalist impacts between sites could be due to a variety of factors, such as the degree of change between the past and current models at each site, differences in hospitalist hiring processes, hospital size and culture, and differences in service design and operations. It may also be related to the timing of the introduction of the HM service, as Site B was the most recent site where the service was established. As such, there may be an element of recall bias behind the observed discrepancies. This highlights the importance of local context on respondent perceptions and suggests that our results may not be generalizable to other institutions with different attributes and characteristics.

Conclusion

Findings from this study have demonstrated that the recent hospitalist services in our health system have improved overall levels of interprofessional communication and teamwork, as well as perceptions of care quality among the majority of participants who reported high levels of satisfaction with their programs. Our findings further highlight the issue of frequent handovers among hospitalists as a pressing and ongoing challenge.

Corresponding Author: Vandad Yousefi, MD, CCFP, Past Regional Department Head – Hospital Medicine, Fraser Health Authority, Central City Tower, Suite 400, 13450 – 102nd Ave, Surrey, BC V3T 0H1; vandad.yousefi@fraserhealth.ca.

Financial disclosures: This project was funded by the Fraser Health Authority, which provided the funding for hiring of the external consultant to design, implement, and analyze the results of the evaluation program in collaboration with the Regional Hospitalist Program at Fraser Health.

From Stamford Hospital, Stamford, CT.

Objective: This single-center, quasi-experimental study of adult patients admitted or transferred to a medical step-down unit with alcohol withdrawal diagnoses sought to determine if symptom–triggered therapy (STT) is more effective than combined fixed-scheduled (FS) and STT in severe alcohol withdrawal.

Methods: In the preintervention group (72 episodes), patients were treated with FS and STT based on physician preference. In the postintervention group (69 episodes), providers were required to utilize only the STT protocol.

Results: Implementation of the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in average (per patient) cumulative benzodiazepine dose, from 250 mg to 96 mg (P < .001) and a decrease in average length of stay from 8.0 days to 5.1 days (P < .001). Secondary safety measures included a reduction in the proportion of patients who experienced delirium tremens from 47.5% to 22.5% (P < .001), and a reduction in intubation rates from 13.8% to 1.3% (P = .003).

Conclusion: The STT protocol proved to be more effective and safer in treating severe alcohol withdrawal patients than usual care employing STT with FS. We believe the successful implementation of a STT protocol in high-acuity patients requires frequent monitoring to assess withdrawal severity combined with appropriate and timely dosing of benzodiazepines.

Keywords: alcohol withdrawal delirium; alcohol withdrawal syndrome; treatment protocol; benzodiazepine; lorazepam.

Management of severe alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens (DT) is challenging and requires significant resources, including close monitoring and intensive treatment, frequently in an intensive care unit (ICU).¹ Early diagnosis and therapeutic intervention are important to limit potential complications associated with DT.² Benzodiazepines are first-line therapeutic agents, but the definition of optimal use and dosing regimens has been limited, due to a lack of randomized controlled trials. In lower acuity patients admitted to a detoxification unit, systematic symptom–triggered benzodiazepine therapy (STT) has been established to be more effective than fixed-schedule (FS) dosing.^3-5 Patients treated using STT require lower total benzodiazepine dosing and achieve shorter treatment durations. However, in higher-acuity patients admitted to general medical services, analyses have not shown an advantage of STT over combined FS and STT.⁶

 

 

Methods

The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of STT is more effective than FS dosing combined with episodic STT in the management of hospitalized high-acuity alcohol withdrawal patients. We conducted a preintervention and postintervention quasi-experimental study in the step-down unit (SDU) of a 305-bed community teaching hospital. The study population consisted of adult inpatients 18 years or older admitted or transferred to the 12-bed SDU with alcohol withdrawal, as defined by primary or secondary International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision diagnoses. SDU admission criteria included patients with prior DT or those who had received multiple doses of benzodiazepines in the emergency department. In-hospital transfer to the SDU was at the physician’s discretion, if the patient required escalating doses of benzodiazepines or the use of increasing resources, such as those for behavioral emergencies. The majority of patients admitted or transferred to the SDU were assigned to medical house staff teams under hospitalist supervision, and, on occasion, under community physicians. The nurse-to-patient ratio in the SDU was 1:3.

Study groups

The preintervention group consisted of 80 successive treatment episodes involving patients admitted or transferred to the SDU from December 2, 2015, to July 1, 2017. Patients were treated based upon physician preference, consisting of a scheduled dosing regimen with additional doses as needed. The postintervention group included 80 successive treatment episodes involving patients admitted or transferred to the SDU from October 1, 2017, to March 23, 2019. The STT protocol was used in all patients in the postintervention group.

In the preintervention group, fixed, scheduled doses of lorazepam or chlordiazepoxide and as-needed lorazepam were prescribed and adjusted based upon physician judgment. Monitoring of symptom severity was scored using the revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar). Benzodiazepine dosing occurred if the CIWA-Ar score had increased 2 or more points from the last score.

In the postintervention group, the STT protocol included the creation of a standardized physician order set for benzodiazepine “sliding scale” administration. The STT protocol allowed for escalating doses for higher withdrawal scores. Symptom severity was scored using MINDS (Minnesota Detoxification Scale) criteria.¹ Lorazepam as-needed dosing was based upon MINDS scores. A MINDS score less than 10 resulted in no medication, MINDS 10-12 required 2 mg, MINDS 13-16 required 4 mg, MINDS 17-19 required 6 mg, and MINDS 20 required 8 mg and a call to the physician. Transfer to the ICU was recommended if the MINDS score was ≥ 20 for 3 consecutive hours. Monitoring intervals occurred more frequently at 30 minutes unless the MINDS score was less than 10. After 7 days, the MINDS protocol was recommended to be discontinued, as the patient might have had iatrogenic delirium.

The STT protocol was introduced during a didactic session for the hospitalists and a separate session for internal medicine and family residents. Each registered nurse working in the SDU was trained in the use of the STT protocol and MINDS during nursing huddles.

Patients were excluded from evaluation if they were transferred to the SDU after 7 or more days in the hospital, if they had stayed in the hospital more than 30 days, were chronically on benzodiazepine therapy (to avoid confounding withdrawal symptoms), or if they left the hospital against medical advice (AMA). To avoid bias in the results, the patients with early discontinuation of treatment were included in analyses of secondary outcomes, thus resulting in all 80 episodes analyzed.

Measures and data

The primary outcome measure was benzodiazepine dose intensity, expressed in total lorazepam-equivalents. Secondary measures included average length of stay (including general medical, surgical, and ICU days), seizure incidence, DT incidence, sitter use, behavioral emergency responses, rates of leaving AMA, intubation, transfer to the ICU, and death.

Benzodiazepine dosing and length of stay were obtained from the data warehouse of the hospital’s electronic health record (EHR; Meditech). Benzodiazepine dosing was expressed in total lorazepam-equivalents, with conversion as follows: lorazepam orally and intravenously 1 mg = chlordiazepoxide 25 mg = diazepam 5 mg. All other measures were obtained from chart review of the patients’ EMR entries. The Stamford Hospital Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Analysis

Data analyses for this study were performed using SPSS version 25.0 (IBM). Categorical data were reported as frequency (count) and percent within category. Continuous data were reported as mean (SD). Categorical data were analyzed using χ² analysis; continuous data were analyzed using t-tests. A P value of .05 was considered significant for each analysis.

Results

During the preintervention period, 72 episodes (58 patients) met inclusion criteria, and 69 episodes (55 patients) met inclusion criteria during the postintervention period. Ten patients were represented in both groups. Eight preintervention episodes were excluded from the primary analysis because the patient left AMA. Eleven postintervention episodes were excluded: 9 due to patients leaving AMA, 1 due to chronic benzodiazepine usage, and 1 due to transfer to the SDU unit after 7 days. Baseline characteristics and medication use profiles of the preintervention and postintervention groups are summarized in Table 1.

Implementation of the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in average (per patient) cumulative benzodiazepine dose, from 250 mg to 96 mg (P < .001), as shown in Table 2. Average length of stay decreased from 8.0 days to 5.1 days (P < .001). Secondary safety measures were notable for a reduction in DT incidence, from 47.5% to 22.5% (P < .001), and lower rates of intubation, from 13.8% to 1.3% (P = .003). Seven-day readmission rates were 0% preintervention and 1.4% postintervention.

Discussion

We found that hospitalized patients with severe alcohol withdrawal treated with STT required fewer benzodiazepines and had a lower length of stay than patients treated with a conventional combined STT and FS regimen. Implementation of the change from the STT and FS approach to the STT approach in the SDU resulted in concerns that waiting for symptoms to appear could result in more severe withdrawal and prolonged treatment.³ To address this, the intervention included monitoring and dosing every 30 minutes, as compared to monitoring and dosing every 1 hour preintervention. In addition, a sliding-scale approach to match alcohol withdrawal score with dosage was employed in postintervention patients.

Employment of the STT protocol also resulted in decreased complications, including lower rates of DT and transfer to the ICU. This new intervention resulted in significantly decreased time required to control severe symptoms. In the preintervention phase, if a patient’s symptoms escalated despite administration of the as-needed dose of benzodiazepine, there was often a delay in administration of additional doses due to the time needed for nurses to reach a physician and subsequent placement of a new order. In the postintervention phase, the STT protocol allowed nursing staff to give benzodiazepines without delay when needed. We believe this reduced the number of calls by nursing staff to physicians requesting additional medications, and that this improved teamwork when managing these patients.

As part of the intervention, a decision was made to use the MINDS scale rather than the CIWA-Ar scale to assess withdrawal severity. This was because the CIWA-Ar has only been validated in patients with uncomplicated alcohol withdrawal syndrome and has not been researched extensively in patients requiring ICU-level care.¹ MINDS assessment has proven to be reliable and reflects severity of withdrawal. Furthermore, MINDS requires less time to administer—3 to 5 minutes vs 5 to 15 minutes for the CIWA-Ar scale. CIWA-Ar, unlike MINDS, requires subjective input from the patient, which is less reliable for higher acuity patients. Our study is unique in that it focused on high-acuity patients and it showed both a significant reduction in quantity of benzodiazepines prescribed and length of stay. Previous studies on lower acuity patients in detoxification units have confirmed that STT is more effective than a FS approach.^3-5 In patients of higher acuity, STT has not proven to be superior.

A key lesson learned was the need for proper education of nursing staff. Concurrent nursing audits were necessary to ensure that scoring was performed in an accurate and timely manner. In addition, it was challenging to predict which patients might develop DTs versus those requiring a brief inpatient stay. While there was initial concern that an STT protocol could result in underdosing, we found that patients had fewer DT episodes and fewer ICU transfers.

This study had several limitations. These include a relatively small sample size and the data being less recent. As there has been no intervening change to the therapeutic paradigm of DT treatment, the findings remain pertinent to the present time. The study employed a simple pre/post design and was conducted in a single setting. We are not aware of any temporal or local trends likely to influence these results. Admissions and transfers to the SDU for severe alcohol withdrawal were based on physician discretion. However, patient characteristics in both groups were similar (Table 1). We note that the postintervention STT protocol allowed for more frequent benzodiazepine dosing, though benzodiazepine use did decrease. Different alcohol withdrawal scores (MINDS vs. CIWA-Ar) were used for postintervention and preintervention, although previous research has shown that MINDS and CIWA-Ar scores correlate well.⁷ Finally, some patients of higher acuity and complexity were excluded, potentially limiting the generalizability of our results.

Conclusion

Our STT protocol proved to be more effective and safer in treating severe alcohol withdrawal patients than usual care employing STT with FS. We believe the successful implementation of a STT protocol in high-acuity patients also requires frequent monitoring using the MINDS scale, integrated with benzodiazepine sliding-scale dosing to match symptom severity. This bundled approach resulted in a significant reduction of benzodiazepine usage and reduced length of stay. Timely treatment of these patients also reduced the percent of patients developing DTs, and reduced intubation rates and transfers to the ICU. Further studies may be warranted at other sites to confirm the effectiveness of this STT protocol.

Corresponding author: Paul W. Huang, MD, Stamford Hospital, One Hospital Plaza, PO Box 9317, Stamford, CT 06904; phuang@stamhealth.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

From Stamford Hospital, Stamford, CT.

Objective: This single-center, quasi-experimental study of adult patients admitted or transferred to a medical step-down unit with alcohol withdrawal diagnoses sought to determine if symptom–triggered therapy (STT) is more effective than combined fixed-scheduled (FS) and STT in severe alcohol withdrawal.

Methods: In the preintervention group (72 episodes), patients were treated with FS and STT based on physician preference. In the postintervention group (69 episodes), providers were required to utilize only the STT protocol.

Results: Implementation of the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in average (per patient) cumulative benzodiazepine dose, from 250 mg to 96 mg (P < .001) and a decrease in average length of stay from 8.0 days to 5.1 days (P < .001). Secondary safety measures included a reduction in the proportion of patients who experienced delirium tremens from 47.5% to 22.5% (P < .001), and a reduction in intubation rates from 13.8% to 1.3% (P = .003).

Conclusion: The STT protocol proved to be more effective and safer in treating severe alcohol withdrawal patients than usual care employing STT with FS. We believe the successful implementation of a STT protocol in high-acuity patients requires frequent monitoring to assess withdrawal severity combined with appropriate and timely dosing of benzodiazepines.

Keywords: alcohol withdrawal delirium; alcohol withdrawal syndrome; treatment protocol; benzodiazepine; lorazepam.

Management of severe alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens (DT) is challenging and requires significant resources, including close monitoring and intensive treatment, frequently in an intensive care unit (ICU).¹ Early diagnosis and therapeutic intervention are important to limit potential complications associated with DT.² Benzodiazepines are first-line therapeutic agents, but the definition of optimal use and dosing regimens has been limited, due to a lack of randomized controlled trials. In lower acuity patients admitted to a detoxification unit, systematic symptom–triggered benzodiazepine therapy (STT) has been established to be more effective than fixed-schedule (FS) dosing.^3-5 Patients treated using STT require lower total benzodiazepine dosing and achieve shorter treatment durations. However, in higher-acuity patients admitted to general medical services, analyses have not shown an advantage of STT over combined FS and STT.⁶

 

 

Methods

The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of STT is more effective than FS dosing combined with episodic STT in the management of hospitalized high-acuity alcohol withdrawal patients. We conducted a preintervention and postintervention quasi-experimental study in the step-down unit (SDU) of a 305-bed community teaching hospital. The study population consisted of adult inpatients 18 years or older admitted or transferred to the 12-bed SDU with alcohol withdrawal, as defined by primary or secondary International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision diagnoses. SDU admission criteria included patients with prior DT or those who had received multiple doses of benzodiazepines in the emergency department. In-hospital transfer to the SDU was at the physician’s discretion, if the patient required escalating doses of benzodiazepines or the use of increasing resources, such as those for behavioral emergencies. The majority of patients admitted or transferred to the SDU were assigned to medical house staff teams under hospitalist supervision, and, on occasion, under community physicians. The nurse-to-patient ratio in the SDU was 1:3.

Study groups

The preintervention group consisted of 80 successive treatment episodes involving patients admitted or transferred to the SDU from December 2, 2015, to July 1, 2017. Patients were treated based upon physician preference, consisting of a scheduled dosing regimen with additional doses as needed. The postintervention group included 80 successive treatment episodes involving patients admitted or transferred to the SDU from October 1, 2017, to March 23, 2019. The STT protocol was used in all patients in the postintervention group.

In the preintervention group, fixed, scheduled doses of lorazepam or chlordiazepoxide and as-needed lorazepam were prescribed and adjusted based upon physician judgment. Monitoring of symptom severity was scored using the revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar). Benzodiazepine dosing occurred if the CIWA-Ar score had increased 2 or more points from the last score.

In the postintervention group, the STT protocol included the creation of a standardized physician order set for benzodiazepine “sliding scale” administration. The STT protocol allowed for escalating doses for higher withdrawal scores. Symptom severity was scored using MINDS (Minnesota Detoxification Scale) criteria.¹ Lorazepam as-needed dosing was based upon MINDS scores. A MINDS score less than 10 resulted in no medication, MINDS 10-12 required 2 mg, MINDS 13-16 required 4 mg, MINDS 17-19 required 6 mg, and MINDS 20 required 8 mg and a call to the physician. Transfer to the ICU was recommended if the MINDS score was ≥ 20 for 3 consecutive hours. Monitoring intervals occurred more frequently at 30 minutes unless the MINDS score was less than 10. After 7 days, the MINDS protocol was recommended to be discontinued, as the patient might have had iatrogenic delirium.

The STT protocol was introduced during a didactic session for the hospitalists and a separate session for internal medicine and family residents. Each registered nurse working in the SDU was trained in the use of the STT protocol and MINDS during nursing huddles.

Patients were excluded from evaluation if they were transferred to the SDU after 7 or more days in the hospital, if they had stayed in the hospital more than 30 days, were chronically on benzodiazepine therapy (to avoid confounding withdrawal symptoms), or if they left the hospital against medical advice (AMA). To avoid bias in the results, the patients with early discontinuation of treatment were included in analyses of secondary outcomes, thus resulting in all 80 episodes analyzed.

Measures and data

The primary outcome measure was benzodiazepine dose intensity, expressed in total lorazepam-equivalents. Secondary measures included average length of stay (including general medical, surgical, and ICU days), seizure incidence, DT incidence, sitter use, behavioral emergency responses, rates of leaving AMA, intubation, transfer to the ICU, and death.

Benzodiazepine dosing and length of stay were obtained from the data warehouse of the hospital’s electronic health record (EHR; Meditech). Benzodiazepine dosing was expressed in total lorazepam-equivalents, with conversion as follows: lorazepam orally and intravenously 1 mg = chlordiazepoxide 25 mg = diazepam 5 mg. All other measures were obtained from chart review of the patients’ EMR entries. The Stamford Hospital Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Analysis

Data analyses for this study were performed using SPSS version 25.0 (IBM). Categorical data were reported as frequency (count) and percent within category. Continuous data were reported as mean (SD). Categorical data were analyzed using χ² analysis; continuous data were analyzed using t-tests. A P value of .05 was considered significant for each analysis.

Results

During the preintervention period, 72 episodes (58 patients) met inclusion criteria, and 69 episodes (55 patients) met inclusion criteria during the postintervention period. Ten patients were represented in both groups. Eight preintervention episodes were excluded from the primary analysis because the patient left AMA. Eleven postintervention episodes were excluded: 9 due to patients leaving AMA, 1 due to chronic benzodiazepine usage, and 1 due to transfer to the SDU unit after 7 days. Baseline characteristics and medication use profiles of the preintervention and postintervention groups are summarized in Table 1.

Implementation of the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in average (per patient) cumulative benzodiazepine dose, from 250 mg to 96 mg (P < .001), as shown in Table 2. Average length of stay decreased from 8.0 days to 5.1 days (P < .001). Secondary safety measures were notable for a reduction in DT incidence, from 47.5% to 22.5% (P < .001), and lower rates of intubation, from 13.8% to 1.3% (P = .003). Seven-day readmission rates were 0% preintervention and 1.4% postintervention.

Discussion

We found that hospitalized patients with severe alcohol withdrawal treated with STT required fewer benzodiazepines and had a lower length of stay than patients treated with a conventional combined STT and FS regimen. Implementation of the change from the STT and FS approach to the STT approach in the SDU resulted in concerns that waiting for symptoms to appear could result in more severe withdrawal and prolonged treatment.³ To address this, the intervention included monitoring and dosing every 30 minutes, as compared to monitoring and dosing every 1 hour preintervention. In addition, a sliding-scale approach to match alcohol withdrawal score with dosage was employed in postintervention patients.

Employment of the STT protocol also resulted in decreased complications, including lower rates of DT and transfer to the ICU. This new intervention resulted in significantly decreased time required to control severe symptoms. In the preintervention phase, if a patient’s symptoms escalated despite administration of the as-needed dose of benzodiazepine, there was often a delay in administration of additional doses due to the time needed for nurses to reach a physician and subsequent placement of a new order. In the postintervention phase, the STT protocol allowed nursing staff to give benzodiazepines without delay when needed. We believe this reduced the number of calls by nursing staff to physicians requesting additional medications, and that this improved teamwork when managing these patients.

As part of the intervention, a decision was made to use the MINDS scale rather than the CIWA-Ar scale to assess withdrawal severity. This was because the CIWA-Ar has only been validated in patients with uncomplicated alcohol withdrawal syndrome and has not been researched extensively in patients requiring ICU-level care.¹ MINDS assessment has proven to be reliable and reflects severity of withdrawal. Furthermore, MINDS requires less time to administer—3 to 5 minutes vs 5 to 15 minutes for the CIWA-Ar scale. CIWA-Ar, unlike MINDS, requires subjective input from the patient, which is less reliable for higher acuity patients. Our study is unique in that it focused on high-acuity patients and it showed both a significant reduction in quantity of benzodiazepines prescribed and length of stay. Previous studies on lower acuity patients in detoxification units have confirmed that STT is more effective than a FS approach.^3-5 In patients of higher acuity, STT has not proven to be superior.

A key lesson learned was the need for proper education of nursing staff. Concurrent nursing audits were necessary to ensure that scoring was performed in an accurate and timely manner. In addition, it was challenging to predict which patients might develop DTs versus those requiring a brief inpatient stay. While there was initial concern that an STT protocol could result in underdosing, we found that patients had fewer DT episodes and fewer ICU transfers.

This study had several limitations. These include a relatively small sample size and the data being less recent. As there has been no intervening change to the therapeutic paradigm of DT treatment, the findings remain pertinent to the present time. The study employed a simple pre/post design and was conducted in a single setting. We are not aware of any temporal or local trends likely to influence these results. Admissions and transfers to the SDU for severe alcohol withdrawal were based on physician discretion. However, patient characteristics in both groups were similar (Table 1). We note that the postintervention STT protocol allowed for more frequent benzodiazepine dosing, though benzodiazepine use did decrease. Different alcohol withdrawal scores (MINDS vs. CIWA-Ar) were used for postintervention and preintervention, although previous research has shown that MINDS and CIWA-Ar scores correlate well.⁷ Finally, some patients of higher acuity and complexity were excluded, potentially limiting the generalizability of our results.

Conclusion

Our STT protocol proved to be more effective and safer in treating severe alcohol withdrawal patients than usual care employing STT with FS. We believe the successful implementation of a STT protocol in high-acuity patients also requires frequent monitoring using the MINDS scale, integrated with benzodiazepine sliding-scale dosing to match symptom severity. This bundled approach resulted in a significant reduction of benzodiazepine usage and reduced length of stay. Timely treatment of these patients also reduced the percent of patients developing DTs, and reduced intubation rates and transfers to the ICU. Further studies may be warranted at other sites to confirm the effectiveness of this STT protocol.

Corresponding author: Paul W. Huang, MD, Stamford Hospital, One Hospital Plaza, PO Box 9317, Stamford, CT 06904; phuang@stamhealth.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

From Stamford Hospital, Stamford, CT.

Objective: This single-center, quasi-experimental study of adult patients admitted or transferred to a medical step-down unit with alcohol withdrawal diagnoses sought to determine if symptom–triggered therapy (STT) is more effective than combined fixed-scheduled (FS) and STT in severe alcohol withdrawal.

Methods: In the preintervention group (72 episodes), patients were treated with FS and STT based on physician preference. In the postintervention group (69 episodes), providers were required to utilize only the STT protocol.

Results: Implementation of the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in average (per patient) cumulative benzodiazepine dose, from 250 mg to 96 mg (P < .001) and a decrease in average length of stay from 8.0 days to 5.1 days (P < .001). Secondary safety measures included a reduction in the proportion of patients who experienced delirium tremens from 47.5% to 22.5% (P < .001), and a reduction in intubation rates from 13.8% to 1.3% (P = .003).

Conclusion: The STT protocol proved to be more effective and safer in treating severe alcohol withdrawal patients than usual care employing STT with FS. We believe the successful implementation of a STT protocol in high-acuity patients requires frequent monitoring to assess withdrawal severity combined with appropriate and timely dosing of benzodiazepines.

Keywords: alcohol withdrawal delirium; alcohol withdrawal syndrome; treatment protocol; benzodiazepine; lorazepam.

Management of severe alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens (DT) is challenging and requires significant resources, including close monitoring and intensive treatment, frequently in an intensive care unit (ICU).¹ Early diagnosis and therapeutic intervention are important to limit potential complications associated with DT.² Benzodiazepines are first-line therapeutic agents, but the definition of optimal use and dosing regimens has been limited, due to a lack of randomized controlled trials. In lower acuity patients admitted to a detoxification unit, systematic symptom–triggered benzodiazepine therapy (STT) has been established to be more effective than fixed-schedule (FS) dosing.^3-5 Patients treated using STT require lower total benzodiazepine dosing and achieve shorter treatment durations. However, in higher-acuity patients admitted to general medical services, analyses have not shown an advantage of STT over combined FS and STT.⁶

 

 

Methods

The purpose of this study was to determine whether implementation of STT is more effective than FS dosing combined with episodic STT in the management of hospitalized high-acuity alcohol withdrawal patients. We conducted a preintervention and postintervention quasi-experimental study in the step-down unit (SDU) of a 305-bed community teaching hospital. The study population consisted of adult inpatients 18 years or older admitted or transferred to the 12-bed SDU with alcohol withdrawal, as defined by primary or secondary International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision diagnoses. SDU admission criteria included patients with prior DT or those who had received multiple doses of benzodiazepines in the emergency department. In-hospital transfer to the SDU was at the physician’s discretion, if the patient required escalating doses of benzodiazepines or the use of increasing resources, such as those for behavioral emergencies. The majority of patients admitted or transferred to the SDU were assigned to medical house staff teams under hospitalist supervision, and, on occasion, under community physicians. The nurse-to-patient ratio in the SDU was 1:3.

Study groups

The preintervention group consisted of 80 successive treatment episodes involving patients admitted or transferred to the SDU from December 2, 2015, to July 1, 2017. Patients were treated based upon physician preference, consisting of a scheduled dosing regimen with additional doses as needed. The postintervention group included 80 successive treatment episodes involving patients admitted or transferred to the SDU from October 1, 2017, to March 23, 2019. The STT protocol was used in all patients in the postintervention group.

In the preintervention group, fixed, scheduled doses of lorazepam or chlordiazepoxide and as-needed lorazepam were prescribed and adjusted based upon physician judgment. Monitoring of symptom severity was scored using the revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar). Benzodiazepine dosing occurred if the CIWA-Ar score had increased 2 or more points from the last score.

In the postintervention group, the STT protocol included the creation of a standardized physician order set for benzodiazepine “sliding scale” administration. The STT protocol allowed for escalating doses for higher withdrawal scores. Symptom severity was scored using MINDS (Minnesota Detoxification Scale) criteria.¹ Lorazepam as-needed dosing was based upon MINDS scores. A MINDS score less than 10 resulted in no medication, MINDS 10-12 required 2 mg, MINDS 13-16 required 4 mg, MINDS 17-19 required 6 mg, and MINDS 20 required 8 mg and a call to the physician. Transfer to the ICU was recommended if the MINDS score was ≥ 20 for 3 consecutive hours. Monitoring intervals occurred more frequently at 30 minutes unless the MINDS score was less than 10. After 7 days, the MINDS protocol was recommended to be discontinued, as the patient might have had iatrogenic delirium.

The STT protocol was introduced during a didactic session for the hospitalists and a separate session for internal medicine and family residents. Each registered nurse working in the SDU was trained in the use of the STT protocol and MINDS during nursing huddles.

Patients were excluded from evaluation if they were transferred to the SDU after 7 or more days in the hospital, if they had stayed in the hospital more than 30 days, were chronically on benzodiazepine therapy (to avoid confounding withdrawal symptoms), or if they left the hospital against medical advice (AMA). To avoid bias in the results, the patients with early discontinuation of treatment were included in analyses of secondary outcomes, thus resulting in all 80 episodes analyzed.

Measures and data

The primary outcome measure was benzodiazepine dose intensity, expressed in total lorazepam-equivalents. Secondary measures included average length of stay (including general medical, surgical, and ICU days), seizure incidence, DT incidence, sitter use, behavioral emergency responses, rates of leaving AMA, intubation, transfer to the ICU, and death.

Benzodiazepine dosing and length of stay were obtained from the data warehouse of the hospital’s electronic health record (EHR; Meditech). Benzodiazepine dosing was expressed in total lorazepam-equivalents, with conversion as follows: lorazepam orally and intravenously 1 mg = chlordiazepoxide 25 mg = diazepam 5 mg. All other measures were obtained from chart review of the patients’ EMR entries. The Stamford Hospital Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Analysis

Data analyses for this study were performed using SPSS version 25.0 (IBM). Categorical data were reported as frequency (count) and percent within category. Continuous data were reported as mean (SD). Categorical data were analyzed using χ² analysis; continuous data were analyzed using t-tests. A P value of .05 was considered significant for each analysis.

Results

During the preintervention period, 72 episodes (58 patients) met inclusion criteria, and 69 episodes (55 patients) met inclusion criteria during the postintervention period. Ten patients were represented in both groups. Eight preintervention episodes were excluded from the primary analysis because the patient left AMA. Eleven postintervention episodes were excluded: 9 due to patients leaving AMA, 1 due to chronic benzodiazepine usage, and 1 due to transfer to the SDU unit after 7 days. Baseline characteristics and medication use profiles of the preintervention and postintervention groups are summarized in Table 1.

Implementation of the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in average (per patient) cumulative benzodiazepine dose, from 250 mg to 96 mg (P < .001), as shown in Table 2. Average length of stay decreased from 8.0 days to 5.1 days (P < .001). Secondary safety measures were notable for a reduction in DT incidence, from 47.5% to 22.5% (P < .001), and lower rates of intubation, from 13.8% to 1.3% (P = .003). Seven-day readmission rates were 0% preintervention and 1.4% postintervention.

Discussion

We found that hospitalized patients with severe alcohol withdrawal treated with STT required fewer benzodiazepines and had a lower length of stay than patients treated with a conventional combined STT and FS regimen. Implementation of the change from the STT and FS approach to the STT approach in the SDU resulted in concerns that waiting for symptoms to appear could result in more severe withdrawal and prolonged treatment.³ To address this, the intervention included monitoring and dosing every 30 minutes, as compared to monitoring and dosing every 1 hour preintervention. In addition, a sliding-scale approach to match alcohol withdrawal score with dosage was employed in postintervention patients.

Employment of the STT protocol also resulted in decreased complications, including lower rates of DT and transfer to the ICU. This new intervention resulted in significantly decreased time required to control severe symptoms. In the preintervention phase, if a patient’s symptoms escalated despite administration of the as-needed dose of benzodiazepine, there was often a delay in administration of additional doses due to the time needed for nurses to reach a physician and subsequent placement of a new order. In the postintervention phase, the STT protocol allowed nursing staff to give benzodiazepines without delay when needed. We believe this reduced the number of calls by nursing staff to physicians requesting additional medications, and that this improved teamwork when managing these patients.

As part of the intervention, a decision was made to use the MINDS scale rather than the CIWA-Ar scale to assess withdrawal severity. This was because the CIWA-Ar has only been validated in patients with uncomplicated alcohol withdrawal syndrome and has not been researched extensively in patients requiring ICU-level care.¹ MINDS assessment has proven to be reliable and reflects severity of withdrawal. Furthermore, MINDS requires less time to administer—3 to 5 minutes vs 5 to 15 minutes for the CIWA-Ar scale. CIWA-Ar, unlike MINDS, requires subjective input from the patient, which is less reliable for higher acuity patients. Our study is unique in that it focused on high-acuity patients and it showed both a significant reduction in quantity of benzodiazepines prescribed and length of stay. Previous studies on lower acuity patients in detoxification units have confirmed that STT is more effective than a FS approach.^3-5 In patients of higher acuity, STT has not proven to be superior.

A key lesson learned was the need for proper education of nursing staff. Concurrent nursing audits were necessary to ensure that scoring was performed in an accurate and timely manner. In addition, it was challenging to predict which patients might develop DTs versus those requiring a brief inpatient stay. While there was initial concern that an STT protocol could result in underdosing, we found that patients had fewer DT episodes and fewer ICU transfers.

This study had several limitations. These include a relatively small sample size and the data being less recent. As there has been no intervening change to the therapeutic paradigm of DT treatment, the findings remain pertinent to the present time. The study employed a simple pre/post design and was conducted in a single setting. We are not aware of any temporal or local trends likely to influence these results. Admissions and transfers to the SDU for severe alcohol withdrawal were based on physician discretion. However, patient characteristics in both groups were similar (Table 1). We note that the postintervention STT protocol allowed for more frequent benzodiazepine dosing, though benzodiazepine use did decrease. Different alcohol withdrawal scores (MINDS vs. CIWA-Ar) were used for postintervention and preintervention, although previous research has shown that MINDS and CIWA-Ar scores correlate well.⁷ Finally, some patients of higher acuity and complexity were excluded, potentially limiting the generalizability of our results.

Conclusion

Our STT protocol proved to be more effective and safer in treating severe alcohol withdrawal patients than usual care employing STT with FS. We believe the successful implementation of a STT protocol in high-acuity patients also requires frequent monitoring using the MINDS scale, integrated with benzodiazepine sliding-scale dosing to match symptom severity. This bundled approach resulted in a significant reduction of benzodiazepine usage and reduced length of stay. Timely treatment of these patients also reduced the percent of patients developing DTs, and reduced intubation rates and transfers to the ICU. Further studies may be warranted at other sites to confirm the effectiveness of this STT protocol.

Corresponding author: Paul W. Huang, MD, Stamford Hospital, One Hospital Plaza, PO Box 9317, Stamford, CT 06904; phuang@stamhealth.org.

Financial disclosures: None.

From Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Physiotherapy Department, Chichester, UK (Richard J. Holmes), and Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Occupational Therapy, Chichester, UK (Sophie Stratford).

Objective: Despite the benefits of early and frequent input from a neurologist, there is wide variation in the availability of this service, especially in district general hospitals, with many patients managed on clinically inappropriate wards. The purpose of this service evaluation was to explore the impact this had on patient care.

Methods: A retrospective service evaluation was undertaken at a National Health Service hospital by reviewing patient records over a 6-month period. Data related to demographics, processes within the patient’s care, and secondary complications were recorded. Findings were compared with those of stroke patients managed on a specialist stroke ward.

Results: A total of 63 patients were identified, with a mean age of 72 years. The mean length of stay was 25.9 days, with a readmission rate of 16.7%. Only 15.9% of patients were reviewed by a neurologist. There was a high rate of secondary complications, with a number of patients experiencing falls (11.1%), pressure ulcers (14.3%), and health care–acquired infections (33.3%) during their admission.

Conclusions: The lack of specialist input from a neurologist and the management of patients on clinically inappropriate wards may have negatively impacted length of stay, readmission rates, and the frequency of secondary complications.

Keywords: evaluation; clinical safety; neurology; patient-centered care; clinical outcomes; length of stay.

It is estimated that 10% of acute admissions to district general hospitals (DGHs) of the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom are due to a neurological problem other than stroke.¹ In 2011, a joint report from the Royal College of Physicians and the Association of British Neurologists (ABN) recommended that all of these patients should be admitted under the care of a neurologist and be regularly reviewed by a neurologist during their admission.² The rationale for this recommendation is clear. The involvement of a neurologist has been shown to improve accuracy of the diagnosis³ and significantly reduce length of stay.^4,5 Studies have also shown that the involvement of a neurologist has led to a change in the management plan in as high as 79%⁶ to 89%³ of cases, suggesting that a high proportion of neurological patients not seen by a neurologist are being managed suboptimally.

Despite this, a recent ABN survey of acute neurology services found ongoing wide variations in the availability of this specialist care, with a large proportion of DGHs having limited or no access to a neurologist and very few having dedicated neurology beds.⁷ While it is recognized that services have been structured in response to the reduced numbers of neurologists within the United Kingdom,⁸ it is prudent to assess the impact that such services have on patient care.

With this in mind, we planned to evaluate the current provision of care provided to neurological patients in a real-world setting. This was conducted in the context of a neurology liaison service at a DGH with no dedicated neurology beds.

Methods

A retrospective service evaluation was undertaken at a DGH in the southeast of England. The NHS hospital has neurologists on site who provide diagnostic and therapeutic consultations on the wards, but there are no dedicated beds for patients with neurological conditions. Patients requiring neurosurgical input are referred to a tertiary neurosciences center.

Patients were selected from the neurotherapy database if they were referred into the service between August 1, 2019, and January 31, 2020. The neurotherapy database was used as this was the only source that held thorough data on this patient group and allowed for the identification of patients who were not referred into the neurologist’s service. Patients were included if they had a new neurological condition as their primary diagnosis or if they had an exacerbation of an already established neurological condition. If a patient was admitted with more than 1 neurological diagnosis then the primary diagnosis for the admission was to be used in the analysis, though this did not occur during this evaluation. Patients with a primary diagnosis of a stroke were included if they were not managed on the acute stroke ward. Those managed on the stroke ward were excluded so that an analysis of patients managed on wards that were deemed clinically inappropriate could be undertaken. Patients were not included if they had a pre-existing neurological condition (ie, dementia, multiple sclerosis) but were admitted due to a non-neurological cause such as a fall or infection. All patients who met the criteria were included.

A team member independently reviewed each set of patient notes. Demographic data extracted from the medical notes included the patient’s age (on admission), gender, and diagnosis. Medical, nursing, and therapy notes were reviewed to identify secondary complications that arose during the patient’s admission. The secondary complications reviewed were falls (defined as the patient unexpectedly coming to the ground or other lower level), health care–acquired infections (HAIs) (defined as any infection acquired during the hospital admission), and pressure ulcers (defined as injuries to the skin or underlying tissue during the hospital admission). Other details, obtained from the patient administration system, included the length of stay (days), the number of ward moves the patient experienced, the speciality of the consultant responsible for the patient’s care, the discharge destination, and whether the patient was readmitted for any cause within 30 days. All data collected were stored on a password-protected computer and no patient-identifiable data were included.

The results were collated using descriptive statistics. The χ² test was used to compare categorical data between those patients who were and were not reviewed by a neurologist, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences in the length of stay between these 2 groups.

No national data relating to this specific patient group were available within the literature. Therefore, to provide a comparator of neurological patients within the same hospital, data were collected on stroke patients managed on the stroke ward. This group was deemed most appropriate for comparison as they present with similar neurological symptoms but are cared for on a specialist ward. During the evaluation period, 284 stroke patients were admitted to the stroke ward. A sample of 75 patients was randomly selected using a random number generator, and the procedure for data collection was repeated. It was not appropriate to make direct comparative analysis on these 2 groups due to the inherent differences, but it was felt important to provide context with regards to what usual care was like on a specialist ward within the same hospital.

Ethical approval was not required as this was a service evaluation of routinely collected data within a single hospital site.

Results

In total, 63 patients were identified: 26 females and 37 males. The median age of patients was 74 years (range, 39-92 years). These demographic details and comparisons to stroke patients managed on a specialist ward can be seen in Table 1. To quantify the range of diagnoses, the condition groups defined by GIRFT Neurology Methodology⁹ were used. The most common diagnoses were tumors of the nervous system (25.4%) and traumatic brain and spine injury (23.8%). The other conditions included in the analysis can be seen in Table 2.

Despite having a neurological condition as their primary diagnosis, only 15.9% of patients were reviewed by a neurologist during their hospital admission. Patients were most commonly under the care of a geriatrician (60.3%), but they were also managed by orthopedics (12.6%), acute medicine (7.9%), respiratory (6.3%), cardiology (4.8%), gastroenterology (3.2%), and surgery (3.2%). One patient (1.6%) was managed by intensivists.

The average length of stay was 25.9 days (range, 2-78 days). This was more than double the average length of stay on the stroke ward (11.4 days) (Table 1) and the national average for patients with neurological conditions (9.78 days).¹⁰ During their stay, 33% had 2 or more ward moves, with 1 patient moving wards a total of 6 times. Just over half (52.4%) of the patients returned to their usual residence on discharge. The remainder were discharged to rehabilitation units (15.9%), nursing homes (14.3%), residential homes (6.3%), tertiary centers (4.8%), and hospice (1.6%). Unfortunately, 3 patients (4.8%) passed away. Of those still alive (n = 60), 16.7% were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, compared to a readmission rate of 11% on the stroke ward. None of the patients who were readmitted were seen by a neurologist during their initial admission.

The frequency of secondary complications was reviewed as a measure of the multidisciplinary management of this patient group. It was noted that 11.1% had a fall on the ward, which was similar to a rate of 10.7% on the stroke ward. More striking was the fact that 14.3% of patients developed a pressure ulcer and 33.3% developed an HAI during their admission, compared with rates of 1.3% and 10.7%, respectively, on the stroke ward (Table 1).

There were no significant differences found in length of stay between those who were and were not reviewed by a neurologist (P = .73). This was also true for categorical data, whereby readmission rate (P = .13), frequency of falls (P = .22), frequency of pressure ulcers (P = .67), and HAIs (P = .81) all failed to show a significant difference between groups.

Discussion

The findings of this service evaluation show markedly poorer outcomes for neurological patients compared to stroke patients managed on a specialist stroke ward. It is suggested that these results are in part due to the lack of specialist input from a neurologist in the majority of cases and the fact that all were managed on clinically inappropriate wards. Only 15.9% of neurological patients were seen by a neurologist. This is a slight improvement compared to previous studies in DGHs that showed rates of 10%¹ and 11%,¹¹ but it is still a far cry from the goal of 100% set out in recommendations.² In addition, the increased readmission rate may be suggestive of suboptimal management, especially given that none of those readmitted had been reviewed by a neurologist. There are undoubtedly other factors that may influence readmissions, such as comorbidities, the severity/complexity of the condition, and the strength of community services. However, the impact of a lack of input from a specialist should not be underestimated, and further evaluation of this factor (with confounding factors controlled) would be beneficial.

The result of an extended length of stay was also a predictable outcome based on previous evidence.^4,5 With the potential for suboptimal management plans and inaccurate diagnoses, it is inevitable that the patient’s movement through the hospital system will be impeded. In our example, it is possible that the extended length of stay was influenced by the fact that patients included in the evaluation were managed on nonspecialist wards and a large proportion had multiple ward changes.

Given that the evidence clearly shows that stroke patients are most effectively managed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) with specialist skills,¹² it is likely that other neurological patients, who have similar multifactorial needs, would also benefit. The patients in our evaluation were cared for by nursing staff who lacked specific skills and experience in neurology. The allied health professionals involved were specialists in neurotherapy but were not based on the ward and not directly linked to the ward MDT. A review by Epstein found that the benefits of having a MDT, in any speciality, working together on a ward included improved communication, reduced adverse events, and a reduced length of stay.¹³ This lack of an effective MDT approach may provide some explanation as to why the average length of stay and the rates of some secondary complications were at such elevated levels.

A systematic review exploring the impact of patients admitted to clinically inappropriate wards in a range of specialities found that these patients were associated with worse outcomes.¹⁴ This is supported by our findings, in which a higher rate of pressure ulcers and HAIs were observed when compared to rates in the specialist stroke ward. Again, a potential explanation for this is the impact of patients being managed by clinicians who lack the specialist knowledge of the patient group and the risks they face. Another explanation could be due to the high number of ward moves the patients experienced. Blay et al found that ward moves increased length of stay and carried an associated clinical risk, with the odds of falls and HAIs increasing with each move.¹⁵ A case example of this is apparent within our analysis in that the patient who experienced 6 ward moves not only had the longest length of stay (78 days), but also developed a pressure ulcer and 2 HAIs during their admission.

This service evaluation had a number of limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, despite including all patients who met the criteria within the stipulated time frame, the sample size was relatively small, making it difficult to identify consistent patterns of behavior within the data.

Furthermore, caution should be applied when interpreting the comparators used, as the patient groups are not equivalent. The use of comparison against a standard is not a prerequisite in a service evaluation of this nature, but comparators were included to help frame the context for the reader. As such, they should only be used in this way rather than to make any firm conclusions.

Finally, as the evaluation was limited to the use of routinely collected data, there are several variables, other than those reported, which may have influenced the results. For example, it was not possible to ascertain certain demographic details, such as body mass index and socioeconomic factors, nor lifestyle factors such as smoking status, alcohol consumption, and exercise levels, all of which could impact negatively on the outcomes of interest. Furthermore, data were not collected on follow-up services after discharge to evaluate whether these had any impact on readmission rates.

Conclusion

This service evaluation highlights the potential impact of managing neurological patients on clinically inappropriate wards with limited input from a neurologist. There is the potential to ameliorate these impacts by cohorting these patients in neurologist-led beds with a specialist MDT. While there are limitations in the design of our study, including the lack of a controlled comparison, the small sample size, and the fact that this is an evaluation of a single service, the negative impacts to patients are concerning and warrant further investigation.

Corresponding author: Richard J. Holmes, MSc, Physiotherapy Department, St. Richard’s Hospital, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 6SE; richard.holmes8@nhs.net.

Financial disclosures: None.

From Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Physiotherapy Department, Chichester, UK (Richard J. Holmes), and Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Occupational Therapy, Chichester, UK (Sophie Stratford).

Objective: Despite the benefits of early and frequent input from a neurologist, there is wide variation in the availability of this service, especially in district general hospitals, with many patients managed on clinically inappropriate wards. The purpose of this service evaluation was to explore the impact this had on patient care.

Methods: A retrospective service evaluation was undertaken at a National Health Service hospital by reviewing patient records over a 6-month period. Data related to demographics, processes within the patient’s care, and secondary complications were recorded. Findings were compared with those of stroke patients managed on a specialist stroke ward.

Results: A total of 63 patients were identified, with a mean age of 72 years. The mean length of stay was 25.9 days, with a readmission rate of 16.7%. Only 15.9% of patients were reviewed by a neurologist. There was a high rate of secondary complications, with a number of patients experiencing falls (11.1%), pressure ulcers (14.3%), and health care–acquired infections (33.3%) during their admission.

Conclusions: The lack of specialist input from a neurologist and the management of patients on clinically inappropriate wards may have negatively impacted length of stay, readmission rates, and the frequency of secondary complications.

Keywords: evaluation; clinical safety; neurology; patient-centered care; clinical outcomes; length of stay.

It is estimated that 10% of acute admissions to district general hospitals (DGHs) of the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom are due to a neurological problem other than stroke.¹ In 2011, a joint report from the Royal College of Physicians and the Association of British Neurologists (ABN) recommended that all of these patients should be admitted under the care of a neurologist and be regularly reviewed by a neurologist during their admission.² The rationale for this recommendation is clear. The involvement of a neurologist has been shown to improve accuracy of the diagnosis³ and significantly reduce length of stay.^4,5 Studies have also shown that the involvement of a neurologist has led to a change in the management plan in as high as 79%⁶ to 89%³ of cases, suggesting that a high proportion of neurological patients not seen by a neurologist are being managed suboptimally.

Despite this, a recent ABN survey of acute neurology services found ongoing wide variations in the availability of this specialist care, with a large proportion of DGHs having limited or no access to a neurologist and very few having dedicated neurology beds.⁷ While it is recognized that services have been structured in response to the reduced numbers of neurologists within the United Kingdom,⁸ it is prudent to assess the impact that such services have on patient care.

With this in mind, we planned to evaluate the current provision of care provided to neurological patients in a real-world setting. This was conducted in the context of a neurology liaison service at a DGH with no dedicated neurology beds.

Methods

A retrospective service evaluation was undertaken at a DGH in the southeast of England. The NHS hospital has neurologists on site who provide diagnostic and therapeutic consultations on the wards, but there are no dedicated beds for patients with neurological conditions. Patients requiring neurosurgical input are referred to a tertiary neurosciences center.

Patients were selected from the neurotherapy database if they were referred into the service between August 1, 2019, and January 31, 2020. The neurotherapy database was used as this was the only source that held thorough data on this patient group and allowed for the identification of patients who were not referred into the neurologist’s service. Patients were included if they had a new neurological condition as their primary diagnosis or if they had an exacerbation of an already established neurological condition. If a patient was admitted with more than 1 neurological diagnosis then the primary diagnosis for the admission was to be used in the analysis, though this did not occur during this evaluation. Patients with a primary diagnosis of a stroke were included if they were not managed on the acute stroke ward. Those managed on the stroke ward were excluded so that an analysis of patients managed on wards that were deemed clinically inappropriate could be undertaken. Patients were not included if they had a pre-existing neurological condition (ie, dementia, multiple sclerosis) but were admitted due to a non-neurological cause such as a fall or infection. All patients who met the criteria were included.

A team member independently reviewed each set of patient notes. Demographic data extracted from the medical notes included the patient’s age (on admission), gender, and diagnosis. Medical, nursing, and therapy notes were reviewed to identify secondary complications that arose during the patient’s admission. The secondary complications reviewed were falls (defined as the patient unexpectedly coming to the ground or other lower level), health care–acquired infections (HAIs) (defined as any infection acquired during the hospital admission), and pressure ulcers (defined as injuries to the skin or underlying tissue during the hospital admission). Other details, obtained from the patient administration system, included the length of stay (days), the number of ward moves the patient experienced, the speciality of the consultant responsible for the patient’s care, the discharge destination, and whether the patient was readmitted for any cause within 30 days. All data collected were stored on a password-protected computer and no patient-identifiable data were included.

The results were collated using descriptive statistics. The χ² test was used to compare categorical data between those patients who were and were not reviewed by a neurologist, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences in the length of stay between these 2 groups.

No national data relating to this specific patient group were available within the literature. Therefore, to provide a comparator of neurological patients within the same hospital, data were collected on stroke patients managed on the stroke ward. This group was deemed most appropriate for comparison as they present with similar neurological symptoms but are cared for on a specialist ward. During the evaluation period, 284 stroke patients were admitted to the stroke ward. A sample of 75 patients was randomly selected using a random number generator, and the procedure for data collection was repeated. It was not appropriate to make direct comparative analysis on these 2 groups due to the inherent differences, but it was felt important to provide context with regards to what usual care was like on a specialist ward within the same hospital.

Ethical approval was not required as this was a service evaluation of routinely collected data within a single hospital site.

Results

In total, 63 patients were identified: 26 females and 37 males. The median age of patients was 74 years (range, 39-92 years). These demographic details and comparisons to stroke patients managed on a specialist ward can be seen in Table 1. To quantify the range of diagnoses, the condition groups defined by GIRFT Neurology Methodology⁹ were used. The most common diagnoses were tumors of the nervous system (25.4%) and traumatic brain and spine injury (23.8%). The other conditions included in the analysis can be seen in Table 2.

Despite having a neurological condition as their primary diagnosis, only 15.9% of patients were reviewed by a neurologist during their hospital admission. Patients were most commonly under the care of a geriatrician (60.3%), but they were also managed by orthopedics (12.6%), acute medicine (7.9%), respiratory (6.3%), cardiology (4.8%), gastroenterology (3.2%), and surgery (3.2%). One patient (1.6%) was managed by intensivists.

The average length of stay was 25.9 days (range, 2-78 days). This was more than double the average length of stay on the stroke ward (11.4 days) (Table 1) and the national average for patients with neurological conditions (9.78 days).¹⁰ During their stay, 33% had 2 or more ward moves, with 1 patient moving wards a total of 6 times. Just over half (52.4%) of the patients returned to their usual residence on discharge. The remainder were discharged to rehabilitation units (15.9%), nursing homes (14.3%), residential homes (6.3%), tertiary centers (4.8%), and hospice (1.6%). Unfortunately, 3 patients (4.8%) passed away. Of those still alive (n = 60), 16.7% were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, compared to a readmission rate of 11% on the stroke ward. None of the patients who were readmitted were seen by a neurologist during their initial admission.

The frequency of secondary complications was reviewed as a measure of the multidisciplinary management of this patient group. It was noted that 11.1% had a fall on the ward, which was similar to a rate of 10.7% on the stroke ward. More striking was the fact that 14.3% of patients developed a pressure ulcer and 33.3% developed an HAI during their admission, compared with rates of 1.3% and 10.7%, respectively, on the stroke ward (Table 1).

There were no significant differences found in length of stay between those who were and were not reviewed by a neurologist (P = .73). This was also true for categorical data, whereby readmission rate (P = .13), frequency of falls (P = .22), frequency of pressure ulcers (P = .67), and HAIs (P = .81) all failed to show a significant difference between groups.

Discussion

The findings of this service evaluation show markedly poorer outcomes for neurological patients compared to stroke patients managed on a specialist stroke ward. It is suggested that these results are in part due to the lack of specialist input from a neurologist in the majority of cases and the fact that all were managed on clinically inappropriate wards. Only 15.9% of neurological patients were seen by a neurologist. This is a slight improvement compared to previous studies in DGHs that showed rates of 10%¹ and 11%,¹¹ but it is still a far cry from the goal of 100% set out in recommendations.² In addition, the increased readmission rate may be suggestive of suboptimal management, especially given that none of those readmitted had been reviewed by a neurologist. There are undoubtedly other factors that may influence readmissions, such as comorbidities, the severity/complexity of the condition, and the strength of community services. However, the impact of a lack of input from a specialist should not be underestimated, and further evaluation of this factor (with confounding factors controlled) would be beneficial.

The result of an extended length of stay was also a predictable outcome based on previous evidence.^4,5 With the potential for suboptimal management plans and inaccurate diagnoses, it is inevitable that the patient’s movement through the hospital system will be impeded. In our example, it is possible that the extended length of stay was influenced by the fact that patients included in the evaluation were managed on nonspecialist wards and a large proportion had multiple ward changes.

Given that the evidence clearly shows that stroke patients are most effectively managed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) with specialist skills,¹² it is likely that other neurological patients, who have similar multifactorial needs, would also benefit. The patients in our evaluation were cared for by nursing staff who lacked specific skills and experience in neurology. The allied health professionals involved were specialists in neurotherapy but were not based on the ward and not directly linked to the ward MDT. A review by Epstein found that the benefits of having a MDT, in any speciality, working together on a ward included improved communication, reduced adverse events, and a reduced length of stay.¹³ This lack of an effective MDT approach may provide some explanation as to why the average length of stay and the rates of some secondary complications were at such elevated levels.

A systematic review exploring the impact of patients admitted to clinically inappropriate wards in a range of specialities found that these patients were associated with worse outcomes.¹⁴ This is supported by our findings, in which a higher rate of pressure ulcers and HAIs were observed when compared to rates in the specialist stroke ward. Again, a potential explanation for this is the impact of patients being managed by clinicians who lack the specialist knowledge of the patient group and the risks they face. Another explanation could be due to the high number of ward moves the patients experienced. Blay et al found that ward moves increased length of stay and carried an associated clinical risk, with the odds of falls and HAIs increasing with each move.¹⁵ A case example of this is apparent within our analysis in that the patient who experienced 6 ward moves not only had the longest length of stay (78 days), but also developed a pressure ulcer and 2 HAIs during their admission.

This service evaluation had a number of limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, despite including all patients who met the criteria within the stipulated time frame, the sample size was relatively small, making it difficult to identify consistent patterns of behavior within the data.

Furthermore, caution should be applied when interpreting the comparators used, as the patient groups are not equivalent. The use of comparison against a standard is not a prerequisite in a service evaluation of this nature, but comparators were included to help frame the context for the reader. As such, they should only be used in this way rather than to make any firm conclusions.

Finally, as the evaluation was limited to the use of routinely collected data, there are several variables, other than those reported, which may have influenced the results. For example, it was not possible to ascertain certain demographic details, such as body mass index and socioeconomic factors, nor lifestyle factors such as smoking status, alcohol consumption, and exercise levels, all of which could impact negatively on the outcomes of interest. Furthermore, data were not collected on follow-up services after discharge to evaluate whether these had any impact on readmission rates.

Conclusion

This service evaluation highlights the potential impact of managing neurological patients on clinically inappropriate wards with limited input from a neurologist. There is the potential to ameliorate these impacts by cohorting these patients in neurologist-led beds with a specialist MDT. While there are limitations in the design of our study, including the lack of a controlled comparison, the small sample size, and the fact that this is an evaluation of a single service, the negative impacts to patients are concerning and warrant further investigation.

Corresponding author: Richard J. Holmes, MSc, Physiotherapy Department, St. Richard’s Hospital, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 6SE; richard.holmes8@nhs.net.

Financial disclosures: None.

From Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Physiotherapy Department, Chichester, UK (Richard J. Holmes), and Western Sussex Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Occupational Therapy, Chichester, UK (Sophie Stratford).

Objective: Despite the benefits of early and frequent input from a neurologist, there is wide variation in the availability of this service, especially in district general hospitals, with many patients managed on clinically inappropriate wards. The purpose of this service evaluation was to explore the impact this had on patient care.

Methods: A retrospective service evaluation was undertaken at a National Health Service hospital by reviewing patient records over a 6-month period. Data related to demographics, processes within the patient’s care, and secondary complications were recorded. Findings were compared with those of stroke patients managed on a specialist stroke ward.

Results: A total of 63 patients were identified, with a mean age of 72 years. The mean length of stay was 25.9 days, with a readmission rate of 16.7%. Only 15.9% of patients were reviewed by a neurologist. There was a high rate of secondary complications, with a number of patients experiencing falls (11.1%), pressure ulcers (14.3%), and health care–acquired infections (33.3%) during their admission.

Conclusions: The lack of specialist input from a neurologist and the management of patients on clinically inappropriate wards may have negatively impacted length of stay, readmission rates, and the frequency of secondary complications.

Keywords: evaluation; clinical safety; neurology; patient-centered care; clinical outcomes; length of stay.

It is estimated that 10% of acute admissions to district general hospitals (DGHs) of the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom are due to a neurological problem other than stroke.¹ In 2011, a joint report from the Royal College of Physicians and the Association of British Neurologists (ABN) recommended that all of these patients should be admitted under the care of a neurologist and be regularly reviewed by a neurologist during their admission.² The rationale for this recommendation is clear. The involvement of a neurologist has been shown to improve accuracy of the diagnosis³ and significantly reduce length of stay.^4,5 Studies have also shown that the involvement of a neurologist has led to a change in the management plan in as high as 79%⁶ to 89%³ of cases, suggesting that a high proportion of neurological patients not seen by a neurologist are being managed suboptimally.

Despite this, a recent ABN survey of acute neurology services found ongoing wide variations in the availability of this specialist care, with a large proportion of DGHs having limited or no access to a neurologist and very few having dedicated neurology beds.⁷ While it is recognized that services have been structured in response to the reduced numbers of neurologists within the United Kingdom,⁸ it is prudent to assess the impact that such services have on patient care.

With this in mind, we planned to evaluate the current provision of care provided to neurological patients in a real-world setting. This was conducted in the context of a neurology liaison service at a DGH with no dedicated neurology beds.

Methods

A retrospective service evaluation was undertaken at a DGH in the southeast of England. The NHS hospital has neurologists on site who provide diagnostic and therapeutic consultations on the wards, but there are no dedicated beds for patients with neurological conditions. Patients requiring neurosurgical input are referred to a tertiary neurosciences center.

Patients were selected from the neurotherapy database if they were referred into the service between August 1, 2019, and January 31, 2020. The neurotherapy database was used as this was the only source that held thorough data on this patient group and allowed for the identification of patients who were not referred into the neurologist’s service. Patients were included if they had a new neurological condition as their primary diagnosis or if they had an exacerbation of an already established neurological condition. If a patient was admitted with more than 1 neurological diagnosis then the primary diagnosis for the admission was to be used in the analysis, though this did not occur during this evaluation. Patients with a primary diagnosis of a stroke were included if they were not managed on the acute stroke ward. Those managed on the stroke ward were excluded so that an analysis of patients managed on wards that were deemed clinically inappropriate could be undertaken. Patients were not included if they had a pre-existing neurological condition (ie, dementia, multiple sclerosis) but were admitted due to a non-neurological cause such as a fall or infection. All patients who met the criteria were included.

A team member independently reviewed each set of patient notes. Demographic data extracted from the medical notes included the patient’s age (on admission), gender, and diagnosis. Medical, nursing, and therapy notes were reviewed to identify secondary complications that arose during the patient’s admission. The secondary complications reviewed were falls (defined as the patient unexpectedly coming to the ground or other lower level), health care–acquired infections (HAIs) (defined as any infection acquired during the hospital admission), and pressure ulcers (defined as injuries to the skin or underlying tissue during the hospital admission). Other details, obtained from the patient administration system, included the length of stay (days), the number of ward moves the patient experienced, the speciality of the consultant responsible for the patient’s care, the discharge destination, and whether the patient was readmitted for any cause within 30 days. All data collected were stored on a password-protected computer and no patient-identifiable data were included.

The results were collated using descriptive statistics. The χ² test was used to compare categorical data between those patients who were and were not reviewed by a neurologist, and the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare differences in the length of stay between these 2 groups.

No national data relating to this specific patient group were available within the literature. Therefore, to provide a comparator of neurological patients within the same hospital, data were collected on stroke patients managed on the stroke ward. This group was deemed most appropriate for comparison as they present with similar neurological symptoms but are cared for on a specialist ward. During the evaluation period, 284 stroke patients were admitted to the stroke ward. A sample of 75 patients was randomly selected using a random number generator, and the procedure for data collection was repeated. It was not appropriate to make direct comparative analysis on these 2 groups due to the inherent differences, but it was felt important to provide context with regards to what usual care was like on a specialist ward within the same hospital.

Ethical approval was not required as this was a service evaluation of routinely collected data within a single hospital site.

Results

In total, 63 patients were identified: 26 females and 37 males. The median age of patients was 74 years (range, 39-92 years). These demographic details and comparisons to stroke patients managed on a specialist ward can be seen in Table 1. To quantify the range of diagnoses, the condition groups defined by GIRFT Neurology Methodology⁹ were used. The most common diagnoses were tumors of the nervous system (25.4%) and traumatic brain and spine injury (23.8%). The other conditions included in the analysis can be seen in Table 2.

Despite having a neurological condition as their primary diagnosis, only 15.9% of patients were reviewed by a neurologist during their hospital admission. Patients were most commonly under the care of a geriatrician (60.3%), but they were also managed by orthopedics (12.6%), acute medicine (7.9%), respiratory (6.3%), cardiology (4.8%), gastroenterology (3.2%), and surgery (3.2%). One patient (1.6%) was managed by intensivists.

The average length of stay was 25.9 days (range, 2-78 days). This was more than double the average length of stay on the stroke ward (11.4 days) (Table 1) and the national average for patients with neurological conditions (9.78 days).¹⁰ During their stay, 33% had 2 or more ward moves, with 1 patient moving wards a total of 6 times. Just over half (52.4%) of the patients returned to their usual residence on discharge. The remainder were discharged to rehabilitation units (15.9%), nursing homes (14.3%), residential homes (6.3%), tertiary centers (4.8%), and hospice (1.6%). Unfortunately, 3 patients (4.8%) passed away. Of those still alive (n = 60), 16.7% were readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, compared to a readmission rate of 11% on the stroke ward. None of the patients who were readmitted were seen by a neurologist during their initial admission.

The frequency of secondary complications was reviewed as a measure of the multidisciplinary management of this patient group. It was noted that 11.1% had a fall on the ward, which was similar to a rate of 10.7% on the stroke ward. More striking was the fact that 14.3% of patients developed a pressure ulcer and 33.3% developed an HAI during their admission, compared with rates of 1.3% and 10.7%, respectively, on the stroke ward (Table 1).

There were no significant differences found in length of stay between those who were and were not reviewed by a neurologist (P = .73). This was also true for categorical data, whereby readmission rate (P = .13), frequency of falls (P = .22), frequency of pressure ulcers (P = .67), and HAIs (P = .81) all failed to show a significant difference between groups.

Discussion

The findings of this service evaluation show markedly poorer outcomes for neurological patients compared to stroke patients managed on a specialist stroke ward. It is suggested that these results are in part due to the lack of specialist input from a neurologist in the majority of cases and the fact that all were managed on clinically inappropriate wards. Only 15.9% of neurological patients were seen by a neurologist. This is a slight improvement compared to previous studies in DGHs that showed rates of 10%¹ and 11%,¹¹ but it is still a far cry from the goal of 100% set out in recommendations.² In addition, the increased readmission rate may be suggestive of suboptimal management, especially given that none of those readmitted had been reviewed by a neurologist. There are undoubtedly other factors that may influence readmissions, such as comorbidities, the severity/complexity of the condition, and the strength of community services. However, the impact of a lack of input from a specialist should not be underestimated, and further evaluation of this factor (with confounding factors controlled) would be beneficial.

The result of an extended length of stay was also a predictable outcome based on previous evidence.^4,5 With the potential for suboptimal management plans and inaccurate diagnoses, it is inevitable that the patient’s movement through the hospital system will be impeded. In our example, it is possible that the extended length of stay was influenced by the fact that patients included in the evaluation were managed on nonspecialist wards and a large proportion had multiple ward changes.

Given that the evidence clearly shows that stroke patients are most effectively managed by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) with specialist skills,¹² it is likely that other neurological patients, who have similar multifactorial needs, would also benefit. The patients in our evaluation were cared for by nursing staff who lacked specific skills and experience in neurology. The allied health professionals involved were specialists in neurotherapy but were not based on the ward and not directly linked to the ward MDT. A review by Epstein found that the benefits of having a MDT, in any speciality, working together on a ward included improved communication, reduced adverse events, and a reduced length of stay.¹³ This lack of an effective MDT approach may provide some explanation as to why the average length of stay and the rates of some secondary complications were at such elevated levels.

A systematic review exploring the impact of patients admitted to clinically inappropriate wards in a range of specialities found that these patients were associated with worse outcomes.¹⁴ This is supported by our findings, in which a higher rate of pressure ulcers and HAIs were observed when compared to rates in the specialist stroke ward. Again, a potential explanation for this is the impact of patients being managed by clinicians who lack the specialist knowledge of the patient group and the risks they face. Another explanation could be due to the high number of ward moves the patients experienced. Blay et al found that ward moves increased length of stay and carried an associated clinical risk, with the odds of falls and HAIs increasing with each move.¹⁵ A case example of this is apparent within our analysis in that the patient who experienced 6 ward moves not only had the longest length of stay (78 days), but also developed a pressure ulcer and 2 HAIs during their admission.

This service evaluation had a number of limitations that should be considered when interpreting the results. First, despite including all patients who met the criteria within the stipulated time frame, the sample size was relatively small, making it difficult to identify consistent patterns of behavior within the data.

Furthermore, caution should be applied when interpreting the comparators used, as the patient groups are not equivalent. The use of comparison against a standard is not a prerequisite in a service evaluation of this nature, but comparators were included to help frame the context for the reader. As such, they should only be used in this way rather than to make any firm conclusions.

Finally, as the evaluation was limited to the use of routinely collected data, there are several variables, other than those reported, which may have influenced the results. For example, it was not possible to ascertain certain demographic details, such as body mass index and socioeconomic factors, nor lifestyle factors such as smoking status, alcohol consumption, and exercise levels, all of which could impact negatively on the outcomes of interest. Furthermore, data were not collected on follow-up services after discharge to evaluate whether these had any impact on readmission rates.

Conclusion

This service evaluation highlights the potential impact of managing neurological patients on clinically inappropriate wards with limited input from a neurologist. There is the potential to ameliorate these impacts by cohorting these patients in neurologist-led beds with a specialist MDT. While there are limitations in the design of our study, including the lack of a controlled comparison, the small sample size, and the fact that this is an evaluation of a single service, the negative impacts to patients are concerning and warrant further investigation.

Corresponding author: Richard J. Holmes, MSc, Physiotherapy Department, St. Richard’s Hospital, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 6SE; richard.holmes8@nhs.net.

Financial disclosures: None.

Targeting “discharge before noon” (DBN) for hospitalized patients has been proposed as a way to improve hospital throughput and patient safety by reducing emergency department (ED) boarding and crowding. In this issue, Kirubarajan et al¹ report no association between morning discharge and length of stay (LOS) for either the ED or hospitalization.¹ This large (189,781 patients) 7-year study from seven quite different Canadian hospitals adds important data to a literature that remains divided about whether DBN helps or hurts hospital LOS and ED boarding.

Unlike trials reporting interventions to encourage DBN, this observational study was unique in that it took each day as the unit of observation. This method cleverly allowed the authors to examine whether days with more discharges before noon conferred a lower mean ED and inpatient LOS among patients admitted on those days. Their approach appropriately reframes the central issue as one of patient flow.

Kirubarajan et al’s most notable, and perhaps surprising, finding is the lack of association between morning discharge and ED LOS. Computer modeling supports the hypothesis that ED throughput will improve on days with earlier inpatient bed availability.² Several studies have also noted earlier ED departure times and decreased ED wait times after implementing interventions to promote DBN.³ Why might the authors’ findings contradict previous studies? Their outcomes may in part be due to high ED LOS (>14 hours), exceeding Canadian published targets and reports from the United States.^4,5 Problems relating to ED resources, practice, and hospital census may have overwhelmed DBN as factors in boarding. The interpretation of their findings is limited by the authors’ decision to report only ED LOS, rather than including the time between a decision to admit and ED departure (boarding time).

While early studies that focused on interventions to promote DBN noted decreased inpatient LOS after their implementation, later studies found no effect or even an increase in LOS for general internal medicine patients. Concerns have been raised about the confounding effect of concurrent initiatives aimed at improving LOS as well as misaligned incentives to delay discharge to the following morning. As the number of conflicting studies mounts, and with the current report in hand, it is tempting to conclude that for the DBN evidence base as a whole, we are observing random variation around no effect.

With growing doubt about benefits of morning discharge, perhaps we should turn our attention away from the question of how to increase DBN and consider instead why and at what cost. Hospitals are delicate organisms; a singular focus on one metric will undoubtedly impact others. Does the effort to discharge before noon consume valuable morning hours and detract from the care of other patients? Are patients held overnight unnecessarily to comply with DBN? Are there consequences in patient, nursing, or trainee satisfaction? Is bedside teaching affected?

And as concepts of patient-centered care are increasingly valued, we may ask whether DBN is such a concept, or is it rather an increasingly dubious strategy aimed at regularizing hospital operations? The need for a more holistic assessment of “discharge quality” is apparent. Instead of focusing on a particular hour, initiatives should determine the “best, earliest discharge time” for each patient and align multidisciplinary efforts toward this patient-centered goal. Such efforts are already underway in pediatric hospitals, where fixed discharge times are being replaced by discharge milestones embedded into the electronic medical record.⁶ An instrument to track “discharge readiness” such as this one, paired with ongoing analysis of the barriers to timely discharge, might better facilitate throughput by targeting the entire admission, rather than concentrating pressure on its final hours.

Targeting “discharge before noon” (DBN) for hospitalized patients has been proposed as a way to improve hospital throughput and patient safety by reducing emergency department (ED) boarding and crowding. In this issue, Kirubarajan et al¹ report no association between morning discharge and length of stay (LOS) for either the ED or hospitalization.¹ This large (189,781 patients) 7-year study from seven quite different Canadian hospitals adds important data to a literature that remains divided about whether DBN helps or hurts hospital LOS and ED boarding.

Unlike trials reporting interventions to encourage DBN, this observational study was unique in that it took each day as the unit of observation. This method cleverly allowed the authors to examine whether days with more discharges before noon conferred a lower mean ED and inpatient LOS among patients admitted on those days. Their approach appropriately reframes the central issue as one of patient flow.

Kirubarajan et al’s most notable, and perhaps surprising, finding is the lack of association between morning discharge and ED LOS. Computer modeling supports the hypothesis that ED throughput will improve on days with earlier inpatient bed availability.² Several studies have also noted earlier ED departure times and decreased ED wait times after implementing interventions to promote DBN.³ Why might the authors’ findings contradict previous studies? Their outcomes may in part be due to high ED LOS (>14 hours), exceeding Canadian published targets and reports from the United States.^4,5 Problems relating to ED resources, practice, and hospital census may have overwhelmed DBN as factors in boarding. The interpretation of their findings is limited by the authors’ decision to report only ED LOS, rather than including the time between a decision to admit and ED departure (boarding time).

While early studies that focused on interventions to promote DBN noted decreased inpatient LOS after their implementation, later studies found no effect or even an increase in LOS for general internal medicine patients. Concerns have been raised about the confounding effect of concurrent initiatives aimed at improving LOS as well as misaligned incentives to delay discharge to the following morning. As the number of conflicting studies mounts, and with the current report in hand, it is tempting to conclude that for the DBN evidence base as a whole, we are observing random variation around no effect.

With growing doubt about benefits of morning discharge, perhaps we should turn our attention away from the question of how to increase DBN and consider instead why and at what cost. Hospitals are delicate organisms; a singular focus on one metric will undoubtedly impact others. Does the effort to discharge before noon consume valuable morning hours and detract from the care of other patients? Are patients held overnight unnecessarily to comply with DBN? Are there consequences in patient, nursing, or trainee satisfaction? Is bedside teaching affected?

And as concepts of patient-centered care are increasingly valued, we may ask whether DBN is such a concept, or is it rather an increasingly dubious strategy aimed at regularizing hospital operations? The need for a more holistic assessment of “discharge quality” is apparent. Instead of focusing on a particular hour, initiatives should determine the “best, earliest discharge time” for each patient and align multidisciplinary efforts toward this patient-centered goal. Such efforts are already underway in pediatric hospitals, where fixed discharge times are being replaced by discharge milestones embedded into the electronic medical record.⁶ An instrument to track “discharge readiness” such as this one, paired with ongoing analysis of the barriers to timely discharge, might better facilitate throughput by targeting the entire admission, rather than concentrating pressure on its final hours.

Targeting “discharge before noon” (DBN) for hospitalized patients has been proposed as a way to improve hospital throughput and patient safety by reducing emergency department (ED) boarding and crowding. In this issue, Kirubarajan et al¹ report no association between morning discharge and length of stay (LOS) for either the ED or hospitalization.¹ This large (189,781 patients) 7-year study from seven quite different Canadian hospitals adds important data to a literature that remains divided about whether DBN helps or hurts hospital LOS and ED boarding.

Unlike trials reporting interventions to encourage DBN, this observational study was unique in that it took each day as the unit of observation. This method cleverly allowed the authors to examine whether days with more discharges before noon conferred a lower mean ED and inpatient LOS among patients admitted on those days. Their approach appropriately reframes the central issue as one of patient flow.

Kirubarajan et al’s most notable, and perhaps surprising, finding is the lack of association between morning discharge and ED LOS. Computer modeling supports the hypothesis that ED throughput will improve on days with earlier inpatient bed availability.² Several studies have also noted earlier ED departure times and decreased ED wait times after implementing interventions to promote DBN.³ Why might the authors’ findings contradict previous studies? Their outcomes may in part be due to high ED LOS (>14 hours), exceeding Canadian published targets and reports from the United States.^4,5 Problems relating to ED resources, practice, and hospital census may have overwhelmed DBN as factors in boarding. The interpretation of their findings is limited by the authors’ decision to report only ED LOS, rather than including the time between a decision to admit and ED departure (boarding time).

While early studies that focused on interventions to promote DBN noted decreased inpatient LOS after their implementation, later studies found no effect or even an increase in LOS for general internal medicine patients. Concerns have been raised about the confounding effect of concurrent initiatives aimed at improving LOS as well as misaligned incentives to delay discharge to the following morning. As the number of conflicting studies mounts, and with the current report in hand, it is tempting to conclude that for the DBN evidence base as a whole, we are observing random variation around no effect.

With growing doubt about benefits of morning discharge, perhaps we should turn our attention away from the question of how to increase DBN and consider instead why and at what cost. Hospitals are delicate organisms; a singular focus on one metric will undoubtedly impact others. Does the effort to discharge before noon consume valuable morning hours and detract from the care of other patients? Are patients held overnight unnecessarily to comply with DBN? Are there consequences in patient, nursing, or trainee satisfaction? Is bedside teaching affected?

And as concepts of patient-centered care are increasingly valued, we may ask whether DBN is such a concept, or is it rather an increasingly dubious strategy aimed at regularizing hospital operations? The need for a more holistic assessment of “discharge quality” is apparent. Instead of focusing on a particular hour, initiatives should determine the “best, earliest discharge time” for each patient and align multidisciplinary efforts toward this patient-centered goal. Such efforts are already underway in pediatric hospitals, where fixed discharge times are being replaced by discharge milestones embedded into the electronic medical record.⁶ An instrument to track “discharge readiness” such as this one, paired with ongoing analysis of the barriers to timely discharge, might better facilitate throughput by targeting the entire admission, rather than concentrating pressure on its final hours.

Hospital discharge is a complex, multi-stakeholder event, and evidence suggests that the quality of that transition directly relates to mortality, readmissions, and postdischarge quality of life and functional status.¹ The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services call for team-based and patient-centered discharge planning,² yet the process for achieving this is poorly defined.

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Manges et al³ use shared mental models (SMM) as a conceptual framework to describe differences in how care team members and patients perceive hospital discharge readiness. While our understanding of factors associated with safe and patient-centered hospital discharges is still growing, the authors focus on one critical component: lack of agreement between patients and interprofessional teams regarding discharge readiness.

Manges et al³ measured whether interprofessional team members agree, or converge, on their assessment of a patient’s discharge readiness (team-SMM convergence) and whether that assessment converges with the patient’s self-assessment (team-patient SMM convergence). They found good team-SMM convergence regarding the patient’s discharge readiness, yet teams overestimated readiness compared with the patient’s self-assessment nearly half (48.4%) of the time. A clinical trial found that clinician assessments of discharge readiness were poorly predictive of readmissions unless they were combined with a patient’s self-assessment.⁴ Manges et al’s study findings, while of limited generalizability, enhance our understanding of a potential gap in achieving patient-centered care as outlined in the Institute of Medicine’s Crossing the Quality Chasm,⁵ which urges clinicians to see patients and families as partners in improving care.

The authors also found that higher team-patient convergence was associated with teams that reported high-quality teamwork and those having more baccalaureate degree−educated nurses (BSN). While Manges et al³ did not elucidate the mechanism by which this occurs, their findings align with existing literature showing that patients receiving care from a higher proportion of BSN-prepared nurses experience an 18.7% reduction in odds of readmission.⁶ Further research investigating the link between team communication, registered nurse education, and discharge outcomes may reveal additional opportunities for interventions to improve discharge quality.

The lack of patient outcomes and the limited diversity of the patient population are substantial limitations of the study. The authors did not assess the relationship between SMMs and important outcomes like readmission or adverse events. Furthermore, most of the patients were White and English-speaking, precluding assessment of factors that disproportionately impact patient populations that already experience disparities in a multitude of health outcomes.

In summary, Manges et al³ highlight challenges and opportunities in optimizing clinician communication and ensuring that the team’s and the patient’s self-assessments align and inform discharge planning. Their findings suggest the theoretical framework of SMM holds promise in identifying and evaluating some of the complex determinants involved in high-quality, patient-centered hospital discharges.

Hospital discharge is a complex, multi-stakeholder event, and evidence suggests that the quality of that transition directly relates to mortality, readmissions, and postdischarge quality of life and functional status.¹ The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services call for team-based and patient-centered discharge planning,² yet the process for achieving this is poorly defined.

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Manges et al³ use shared mental models (SMM) as a conceptual framework to describe differences in how care team members and patients perceive hospital discharge readiness. While our understanding of factors associated with safe and patient-centered hospital discharges is still growing, the authors focus on one critical component: lack of agreement between patients and interprofessional teams regarding discharge readiness.

Manges et al³ measured whether interprofessional team members agree, or converge, on their assessment of a patient’s discharge readiness (team-SMM convergence) and whether that assessment converges with the patient’s self-assessment (team-patient SMM convergence). They found good team-SMM convergence regarding the patient’s discharge readiness, yet teams overestimated readiness compared with the patient’s self-assessment nearly half (48.4%) of the time. A clinical trial found that clinician assessments of discharge readiness were poorly predictive of readmissions unless they were combined with a patient’s self-assessment.⁴ Manges et al’s study findings, while of limited generalizability, enhance our understanding of a potential gap in achieving patient-centered care as outlined in the Institute of Medicine’s Crossing the Quality Chasm,⁵ which urges clinicians to see patients and families as partners in improving care.

The authors also found that higher team-patient convergence was associated with teams that reported high-quality teamwork and those having more baccalaureate degree−educated nurses (BSN). While Manges et al³ did not elucidate the mechanism by which this occurs, their findings align with existing literature showing that patients receiving care from a higher proportion of BSN-prepared nurses experience an 18.7% reduction in odds of readmission.⁶ Further research investigating the link between team communication, registered nurse education, and discharge outcomes may reveal additional opportunities for interventions to improve discharge quality.

The lack of patient outcomes and the limited diversity of the patient population are substantial limitations of the study. The authors did not assess the relationship between SMMs and important outcomes like readmission or adverse events. Furthermore, most of the patients were White and English-speaking, precluding assessment of factors that disproportionately impact patient populations that already experience disparities in a multitude of health outcomes.

In summary, Manges et al³ highlight challenges and opportunities in optimizing clinician communication and ensuring that the team’s and the patient’s self-assessments align and inform discharge planning. Their findings suggest the theoretical framework of SMM holds promise in identifying and evaluating some of the complex determinants involved in high-quality, patient-centered hospital discharges.

Hospital discharge is a complex, multi-stakeholder event, and evidence suggests that the quality of that transition directly relates to mortality, readmissions, and postdischarge quality of life and functional status.¹ The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services call for team-based and patient-centered discharge planning,² yet the process for achieving this is poorly defined.

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, Manges et al³ use shared mental models (SMM) as a conceptual framework to describe differences in how care team members and patients perceive hospital discharge readiness. While our understanding of factors associated with safe and patient-centered hospital discharges is still growing, the authors focus on one critical component: lack of agreement between patients and interprofessional teams regarding discharge readiness.

Manges et al³ measured whether interprofessional team members agree, or converge, on their assessment of a patient’s discharge readiness (team-SMM convergence) and whether that assessment converges with the patient’s self-assessment (team-patient SMM convergence). They found good team-SMM convergence regarding the patient’s discharge readiness, yet teams overestimated readiness compared with the patient’s self-assessment nearly half (48.4%) of the time. A clinical trial found that clinician assessments of discharge readiness were poorly predictive of readmissions unless they were combined with a patient’s self-assessment.⁴ Manges et al’s study findings, while of limited generalizability, enhance our understanding of a potential gap in achieving patient-centered care as outlined in the Institute of Medicine’s Crossing the Quality Chasm,⁵ which urges clinicians to see patients and families as partners in improving care.

The authors also found that higher team-patient convergence was associated with teams that reported high-quality teamwork and those having more baccalaureate degree−educated nurses (BSN). While Manges et al³ did not elucidate the mechanism by which this occurs, their findings align with existing literature showing that patients receiving care from a higher proportion of BSN-prepared nurses experience an 18.7% reduction in odds of readmission.⁶ Further research investigating the link between team communication, registered nurse education, and discharge outcomes may reveal additional opportunities for interventions to improve discharge quality.

The lack of patient outcomes and the limited diversity of the patient population are substantial limitations of the study. The authors did not assess the relationship between SMMs and important outcomes like readmission or adverse events. Furthermore, most of the patients were White and English-speaking, precluding assessment of factors that disproportionately impact patient populations that already experience disparities in a multitude of health outcomes.

In summary, Manges et al³ highlight challenges and opportunities in optimizing clinician communication and ensuring that the team’s and the patient’s self-assessments align and inform discharge planning. Their findings suggest the theoretical framework of SMM holds promise in identifying and evaluating some of the complex determinants involved in high-quality, patient-centered hospital discharges.

A functioning healthcare system requires trust on many levels. In its simplest form, this is the trust between an individual patient and their physician that allows for candor, autonomy, informed decisions, and compassionate care. Trust is a central component of medical education, as trainees gradually earn the trust of their supervisors to achieve autonomy. And, on a much larger scale, societal trust in science, the facts, and the medical system influences individual and group decisions that can have far-reaching consequences.

Defining trust is challenging. Trust is relational, an often subconscious decision “by one individual to depend on another,” but it can also be as broad as trust in an institution or a national system.¹ Trust also requires vulnerability—trusting another person or system means ceding some level of personal control and accepting risk. Thus, to ask patients and society to trust in physicians, the healthcare system, or public health institutions, though essential, is no small request.

Physicians and the medical system at large have not always behaved in ways that warrant trust. Medical research on vulnerable populations (historically marginalized communities, prisoners, residents of institutions) has occurred within living memory. Systemic racism within medicine has led to marked disparities in access and outcomes between White and minoritized communities.² These disparities have been accentuated by the pandemic. Black and Brown patients have higher infection rates and higher mortality rates but less access to healthcare.³ Vaccine distribution, which has been complicated by historic earned distrust from Black and Brown communities, revealed systemic racism. For example, many early mass vaccination sites, such as Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, could only be easily reached by car. Online appointment scheduling platforms were opaque and required access to technology.⁴

Public trust in institutions has been eroding over the past several decades, but healthcare has unfortunately seen the largest decline.⁵ Individual healthcare decisions have also been increasingly politicized; the net result is the creation of laws, such as those limiting discussions of firearm safety or banning gender-affirming treatments for transgender children, that influence patient-physician interactions. This combination of erosion of trust and politicization of medical decisions has been harshly highlighted by the global pandemic, complicating public health policy and doctor-patient discussions. Public health measures such as masking and vaccination have become polarized.⁶ Further, there is diminishing trust in medical recommendations, brought about by the current media landscape and by frequent modifications to public health recommendations. Science and medicine are constantly changing, and knowledge in these fields is ultimately provisional. Unfortunately, when new data are published that contradict prior information or report new or dramatic findings, it can appear that the medical system was somehow obscuring the truth in the past, rather than simply advancing its knowledge in the present.

How do we build trust? How do we function in a healthcare system where trust has been eroded? Trust is ultimately a fragile thing. The process of earning it is not swift or straightforward, but it can be lost in a moment.

In partnership with the ABIM Foundation, the Journal of Hospital Medicine will explore the concept of trust in all facets of healthcare and medical education, including understanding the drivers of trust in a multitude of settings and in different relationships (patient-clinician, clinician-trainee, clinician- or trainee-organization, health system-community), interventions to build trust, and the enablers of those interventions. To this end, we are seeking articles that explore or evaluate trust. These include original research, brief reports, perspectives, and Leadership & Professional Development articles. Articles focusing on trust should be submitted by December 31, 2021.

A functioning healthcare system requires trust on many levels. In its simplest form, this is the trust between an individual patient and their physician that allows for candor, autonomy, informed decisions, and compassionate care. Trust is a central component of medical education, as trainees gradually earn the trust of their supervisors to achieve autonomy. And, on a much larger scale, societal trust in science, the facts, and the medical system influences individual and group decisions that can have far-reaching consequences.

Defining trust is challenging. Trust is relational, an often subconscious decision “by one individual to depend on another,” but it can also be as broad as trust in an institution or a national system.¹ Trust also requires vulnerability—trusting another person or system means ceding some level of personal control and accepting risk. Thus, to ask patients and society to trust in physicians, the healthcare system, or public health institutions, though essential, is no small request.

Physicians and the medical system at large have not always behaved in ways that warrant trust. Medical research on vulnerable populations (historically marginalized communities, prisoners, residents of institutions) has occurred within living memory. Systemic racism within medicine has led to marked disparities in access and outcomes between White and minoritized communities.² These disparities have been accentuated by the pandemic. Black and Brown patients have higher infection rates and higher mortality rates but less access to healthcare.³ Vaccine distribution, which has been complicated by historic earned distrust from Black and Brown communities, revealed systemic racism. For example, many early mass vaccination sites, such as Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, could only be easily reached by car. Online appointment scheduling platforms were opaque and required access to technology.⁴

Public trust in institutions has been eroding over the past several decades, but healthcare has unfortunately seen the largest decline.⁵ Individual healthcare decisions have also been increasingly politicized; the net result is the creation of laws, such as those limiting discussions of firearm safety or banning gender-affirming treatments for transgender children, that influence patient-physician interactions. This combination of erosion of trust and politicization of medical decisions has been harshly highlighted by the global pandemic, complicating public health policy and doctor-patient discussions. Public health measures such as masking and vaccination have become polarized.⁶ Further, there is diminishing trust in medical recommendations, brought about by the current media landscape and by frequent modifications to public health recommendations. Science and medicine are constantly changing, and knowledge in these fields is ultimately provisional. Unfortunately, when new data are published that contradict prior information or report new or dramatic findings, it can appear that the medical system was somehow obscuring the truth in the past, rather than simply advancing its knowledge in the present.

How do we build trust? How do we function in a healthcare system where trust has been eroded? Trust is ultimately a fragile thing. The process of earning it is not swift or straightforward, but it can be lost in a moment.

In partnership with the ABIM Foundation, the Journal of Hospital Medicine will explore the concept of trust in all facets of healthcare and medical education, including understanding the drivers of trust in a multitude of settings and in different relationships (patient-clinician, clinician-trainee, clinician- or trainee-organization, health system-community), interventions to build trust, and the enablers of those interventions. To this end, we are seeking articles that explore or evaluate trust. These include original research, brief reports, perspectives, and Leadership & Professional Development articles. Articles focusing on trust should be submitted by December 31, 2021.

A functioning healthcare system requires trust on many levels. In its simplest form, this is the trust between an individual patient and their physician that allows for candor, autonomy, informed decisions, and compassionate care. Trust is a central component of medical education, as trainees gradually earn the trust of their supervisors to achieve autonomy. And, on a much larger scale, societal trust in science, the facts, and the medical system influences individual and group decisions that can have far-reaching consequences.

Defining trust is challenging. Trust is relational, an often subconscious decision “by one individual to depend on another,” but it can also be as broad as trust in an institution or a national system.¹ Trust also requires vulnerability—trusting another person or system means ceding some level of personal control and accepting risk. Thus, to ask patients and society to trust in physicians, the healthcare system, or public health institutions, though essential, is no small request.

Physicians and the medical system at large have not always behaved in ways that warrant trust. Medical research on vulnerable populations (historically marginalized communities, prisoners, residents of institutions) has occurred within living memory. Systemic racism within medicine has led to marked disparities in access and outcomes between White and minoritized communities.² These disparities have been accentuated by the pandemic. Black and Brown patients have higher infection rates and higher mortality rates but less access to healthcare.³ Vaccine distribution, which has been complicated by historic earned distrust from Black and Brown communities, revealed systemic racism. For example, many early mass vaccination sites, such as Dodger Stadium in Los Angeles, could only be easily reached by car. Online appointment scheduling platforms were opaque and required access to technology.⁴

Public trust in institutions has been eroding over the past several decades, but healthcare has unfortunately seen the largest decline.⁵ Individual healthcare decisions have also been increasingly politicized; the net result is the creation of laws, such as those limiting discussions of firearm safety or banning gender-affirming treatments for transgender children, that influence patient-physician interactions. This combination of erosion of trust and politicization of medical decisions has been harshly highlighted by the global pandemic, complicating public health policy and doctor-patient discussions. Public health measures such as masking and vaccination have become polarized.⁶ Further, there is diminishing trust in medical recommendations, brought about by the current media landscape and by frequent modifications to public health recommendations. Science and medicine are constantly changing, and knowledge in these fields is ultimately provisional. Unfortunately, when new data are published that contradict prior information or report new or dramatic findings, it can appear that the medical system was somehow obscuring the truth in the past, rather than simply advancing its knowledge in the present.

How do we build trust? How do we function in a healthcare system where trust has been eroded? Trust is ultimately a fragile thing. The process of earning it is not swift or straightforward, but it can be lost in a moment.

In partnership with the ABIM Foundation, the Journal of Hospital Medicine will explore the concept of trust in all facets of healthcare and medical education, including understanding the drivers of trust in a multitude of settings and in different relationships (patient-clinician, clinician-trainee, clinician- or trainee-organization, health system-community), interventions to build trust, and the enablers of those interventions. To this end, we are seeking articles that explore or evaluate trust. These include original research, brief reports, perspectives, and Leadership & Professional Development articles. Articles focusing on trust should be submitted by December 31, 2021.

We recently published an article in our Leadership & Professional Development series titled “Tribalism: The Good, the Bad, and the Future.” Despite pre- and post-acceptance manuscript review and discussion by a diverse and thoughtful team of editors, we did not appreciate how particular language in this article would be hurtful to some communities. We also promoted the article using the hashtag “tribalism” in a journal tweet. Shortly after we posted the tweet, several readers on social media reached out with constructive feedback on the prejudicial nature of this terminology. Within hours of receiving this feedback, our editorial team met to better understand our error, and we made the decision to immediately retract the manuscript. We also deleted the tweet and issued an apology referencing a screenshot of the original tweet.^1,2 We have republished the original article with appropriate language.³ Tweets promoting the new article will incorporate this new language.

From this experience, we learned that the words “tribe” and “tribalism” have no consistent meaning, are associated with negative historical and cultural assumptions, and can promote misleading stereotypes.⁴ The term “tribe” became popular as a colonial construct to describe forms of social organization considered ”uncivilized” or ”primitive.“⁵ In using the term “tribe” to describe members of medical communities, we ignored the complex and dynamic identities of Native American, African, and other Indigenous Peoples and the history of their oppression.

The intent of the original article was to highlight how being part of a distinct medical discipline, such as hospital medicine or emergency medicine, conferred benefits, such as shared identity and social support structure, and caution how this group identity could also lead to nonconstructive partisan behaviors that might not best serve our patients. We recognize that other words more accurately convey our intent and do not cause harm. We used “tribe” when we meant “group,” “discipline,” or “specialty.” We used “tribalism” when we meant “siloed” or “factional.”

This misstep underscores how, even with the best intentions and diverse teams, microaggressions can happen. We accept responsibility for this mistake, and we will continue to do the work of respecting and advocating for all members of our community. To minimize the likelihood of future errors, we are developing a systematic process to identify language within manuscripts accepted for publication that may be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or otherwise harmful. As we embrace a growth mindset, we vow to remain transparent, responsive, and welcoming of feedback. We are grateful to our readers for helping us learn.

We recently published an article in our Leadership & Professional Development series titled “Tribalism: The Good, the Bad, and the Future.” Despite pre- and post-acceptance manuscript review and discussion by a diverse and thoughtful team of editors, we did not appreciate how particular language in this article would be hurtful to some communities. We also promoted the article using the hashtag “tribalism” in a journal tweet. Shortly after we posted the tweet, several readers on social media reached out with constructive feedback on the prejudicial nature of this terminology. Within hours of receiving this feedback, our editorial team met to better understand our error, and we made the decision to immediately retract the manuscript. We also deleted the tweet and issued an apology referencing a screenshot of the original tweet.^1,2 We have republished the original article with appropriate language.³ Tweets promoting the new article will incorporate this new language.

From this experience, we learned that the words “tribe” and “tribalism” have no consistent meaning, are associated with negative historical and cultural assumptions, and can promote misleading stereotypes.⁴ The term “tribe” became popular as a colonial construct to describe forms of social organization considered ”uncivilized” or ”primitive.“⁵ In using the term “tribe” to describe members of medical communities, we ignored the complex and dynamic identities of Native American, African, and other Indigenous Peoples and the history of their oppression.

The intent of the original article was to highlight how being part of a distinct medical discipline, such as hospital medicine or emergency medicine, conferred benefits, such as shared identity and social support structure, and caution how this group identity could also lead to nonconstructive partisan behaviors that might not best serve our patients. We recognize that other words more accurately convey our intent and do not cause harm. We used “tribe” when we meant “group,” “discipline,” or “specialty.” We used “tribalism” when we meant “siloed” or “factional.”

This misstep underscores how, even with the best intentions and diverse teams, microaggressions can happen. We accept responsibility for this mistake, and we will continue to do the work of respecting and advocating for all members of our community. To minimize the likelihood of future errors, we are developing a systematic process to identify language within manuscripts accepted for publication that may be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or otherwise harmful. As we embrace a growth mindset, we vow to remain transparent, responsive, and welcoming of feedback. We are grateful to our readers for helping us learn.

We recently published an article in our Leadership & Professional Development series titled “Tribalism: The Good, the Bad, and the Future.” Despite pre- and post-acceptance manuscript review and discussion by a diverse and thoughtful team of editors, we did not appreciate how particular language in this article would be hurtful to some communities. We also promoted the article using the hashtag “tribalism” in a journal tweet. Shortly after we posted the tweet, several readers on social media reached out with constructive feedback on the prejudicial nature of this terminology. Within hours of receiving this feedback, our editorial team met to better understand our error, and we made the decision to immediately retract the manuscript. We also deleted the tweet and issued an apology referencing a screenshot of the original tweet.^1,2 We have republished the original article with appropriate language.³ Tweets promoting the new article will incorporate this new language.

From this experience, we learned that the words “tribe” and “tribalism” have no consistent meaning, are associated with negative historical and cultural assumptions, and can promote misleading stereotypes.⁴ The term “tribe” became popular as a colonial construct to describe forms of social organization considered ”uncivilized” or ”primitive.“⁵ In using the term “tribe” to describe members of medical communities, we ignored the complex and dynamic identities of Native American, African, and other Indigenous Peoples and the history of their oppression.

The intent of the original article was to highlight how being part of a distinct medical discipline, such as hospital medicine or emergency medicine, conferred benefits, such as shared identity and social support structure, and caution how this group identity could also lead to nonconstructive partisan behaviors that might not best serve our patients. We recognize that other words more accurately convey our intent and do not cause harm. We used “tribe” when we meant “group,” “discipline,” or “specialty.” We used “tribalism” when we meant “siloed” or “factional.”

This misstep underscores how, even with the best intentions and diverse teams, microaggressions can happen. We accept responsibility for this mistake, and we will continue to do the work of respecting and advocating for all members of our community. To minimize the likelihood of future errors, we are developing a systematic process to identify language within manuscripts accepted for publication that may be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or otherwise harmful. As we embrace a growth mindset, we vow to remain transparent, responsive, and welcoming of feedback. We are grateful to our readers for helping us learn.

Siloed, adj.:

Kept in isolation in a way that hinders communication and cooperation . . .

—Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary

Humans naturally separate into groups, and the medical field is no exception. Being a member of a likeminded group, such as one’s specialty, can improve self-esteem and provide social organization: it feels good to identify with people we admire. Through culture, these specialty-based groups implicitly and explicitly guide and encourage positive attributes or behaviors like a hospitalist’s thoroughness or an emergency medicine physician’s steady management of unstable patients. Our specialties also provide support and understanding in challenging times. 

Despite these positive aspects, such divisions can negatively affect interprofessional relationships when our specialties become siloed. A potential side-effect of building up ourselves and our own groups is that we can implicitly put others down. For example, a hospitalist who spends extra time on the phone regularly updating each patient’s family will appropriately take pride in their practice, but over time this can also lead to an unreasonable assumption that physicians in other departments with different routines are not as committed to outstanding communication.

These rigid separations facilitate the fundamental attribution error, the tendency to ascribe a problem or disagreement to a colleague’s substandard character or ability. Imagine that the aforementioned hospitalist’s phone call delays a response to an admission page from the emergency room. The emergency medicine physician, who is waiting to sign out the admission while simultaneously managing many sick and complex patients, could assume the hospitalist is being disrespectful, rather than also working hard to provide the best care. Our siloed specialty identities can lead us to imagine the worst in each other and exacerbate intergroup conflict.¹

Silos in medicine also adversely affect patients. Poor communication and lack of information-sharing across disciplines can lead to medical error² and stifle dissemination of safer practices.³ Further, the unintentional disparaging of other medical specialties undermines the confidence our patients have in all of us; a patient within earshot of the hospitalist expressing annoyance at the “impatient” emergency medicine physician who “won’t stop paging,” or the emergency medicine physician complaining about the hospitalist who “refuses to call back,” will lose trust in each of their providers. 

We suggest three steps to reduce the negative impact of specialty silos in medicine: 

1. Get to know each other personally. Friendly conversation during work hours and social interaction outside the hospital can inoculate against interspecialty conflict by putting a human face on our colleagues. The resultant relationships make it easier to work together and see things from another’s perspective. 
2. Emphasize our shared affiliations.⁴ The greater the salience of a mutual identity as “healthcare providers,” the more likely we are to recognize each other’s unique contributions and question the stereotypes we imagine about one another. 
3. Consider projects across specialties. Interdepartmental data-sharing and joint meetings, including educational conferences, can facilitate situational awareness, synergy, and efficient problem-solving. 

Our medical specialties will continue to group together. While these groups can be a source of strength and meaning, silos can interfere with professional alliances and effective patient care. Mitigating the harmful effects of silos can benefit all of us and our patients.

Authors’ note: This article was previously published using the term “tribalism,” which we have since learned is derogatory to Indigenous Americans and others. We apologize for any harm. We have retracted and republished the article without this language. We appreciate readers teaching us how to choose better words so all people feel respected and valued.

Siloed, adj.:

Kept in isolation in a way that hinders communication and cooperation . . .

—Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary

Humans naturally separate into groups, and the medical field is no exception. Being a member of a likeminded group, such as one’s specialty, can improve self-esteem and provide social organization: it feels good to identify with people we admire. Through culture, these specialty-based groups implicitly and explicitly guide and encourage positive attributes or behaviors like a hospitalist’s thoroughness or an emergency medicine physician’s steady management of unstable patients. Our specialties also provide support and understanding in challenging times. 

Despite these positive aspects, such divisions can negatively affect interprofessional relationships when our specialties become siloed. A potential side-effect of building up ourselves and our own groups is that we can implicitly put others down. For example, a hospitalist who spends extra time on the phone regularly updating each patient’s family will appropriately take pride in their practice, but over time this can also lead to an unreasonable assumption that physicians in other departments with different routines are not as committed to outstanding communication.

These rigid separations facilitate the fundamental attribution error, the tendency to ascribe a problem or disagreement to a colleague’s substandard character or ability. Imagine that the aforementioned hospitalist’s phone call delays a response to an admission page from the emergency room. The emergency medicine physician, who is waiting to sign out the admission while simultaneously managing many sick and complex patients, could assume the hospitalist is being disrespectful, rather than also working hard to provide the best care. Our siloed specialty identities can lead us to imagine the worst in each other and exacerbate intergroup conflict.¹

Silos in medicine also adversely affect patients. Poor communication and lack of information-sharing across disciplines can lead to medical error² and stifle dissemination of safer practices.³ Further, the unintentional disparaging of other medical specialties undermines the confidence our patients have in all of us; a patient within earshot of the hospitalist expressing annoyance at the “impatient” emergency medicine physician who “won’t stop paging,” or the emergency medicine physician complaining about the hospitalist who “refuses to call back,” will lose trust in each of their providers. 

We suggest three steps to reduce the negative impact of specialty silos in medicine: 

1. Get to know each other personally. Friendly conversation during work hours and social interaction outside the hospital can inoculate against interspecialty conflict by putting a human face on our colleagues. The resultant relationships make it easier to work together and see things from another’s perspective. 
2. Emphasize our shared affiliations.⁴ The greater the salience of a mutual identity as “healthcare providers,” the more likely we are to recognize each other’s unique contributions and question the stereotypes we imagine about one another. 
3. Consider projects across specialties. Interdepartmental data-sharing and joint meetings, including educational conferences, can facilitate situational awareness, synergy, and efficient problem-solving. 

Our medical specialties will continue to group together. While these groups can be a source of strength and meaning, silos can interfere with professional alliances and effective patient care. Mitigating the harmful effects of silos can benefit all of us and our patients.

Authors’ note: This article was previously published using the term “tribalism,” which we have since learned is derogatory to Indigenous Americans and others. We apologize for any harm. We have retracted and republished the article without this language. We appreciate readers teaching us how to choose better words so all people feel respected and valued.

Siloed, adj.:

Kept in isolation in a way that hinders communication and cooperation . . .

—Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary

Humans naturally separate into groups, and the medical field is no exception. Being a member of a likeminded group, such as one’s specialty, can improve self-esteem and provide social organization: it feels good to identify with people we admire. Through culture, these specialty-based groups implicitly and explicitly guide and encourage positive attributes or behaviors like a hospitalist’s thoroughness or an emergency medicine physician’s steady management of unstable patients. Our specialties also provide support and understanding in challenging times. 

Despite these positive aspects, such divisions can negatively affect interprofessional relationships when our specialties become siloed. A potential side-effect of building up ourselves and our own groups is that we can implicitly put others down. For example, a hospitalist who spends extra time on the phone regularly updating each patient’s family will appropriately take pride in their practice, but over time this can also lead to an unreasonable assumption that physicians in other departments with different routines are not as committed to outstanding communication.

These rigid separations facilitate the fundamental attribution error, the tendency to ascribe a problem or disagreement to a colleague’s substandard character or ability. Imagine that the aforementioned hospitalist’s phone call delays a response to an admission page from the emergency room. The emergency medicine physician, who is waiting to sign out the admission while simultaneously managing many sick and complex patients, could assume the hospitalist is being disrespectful, rather than also working hard to provide the best care. Our siloed specialty identities can lead us to imagine the worst in each other and exacerbate intergroup conflict.¹

Silos in medicine also adversely affect patients. Poor communication and lack of information-sharing across disciplines can lead to medical error² and stifle dissemination of safer practices.³ Further, the unintentional disparaging of other medical specialties undermines the confidence our patients have in all of us; a patient within earshot of the hospitalist expressing annoyance at the “impatient” emergency medicine physician who “won’t stop paging,” or the emergency medicine physician complaining about the hospitalist who “refuses to call back,” will lose trust in each of their providers. 

We suggest three steps to reduce the negative impact of specialty silos in medicine: 

1. Get to know each other personally. Friendly conversation during work hours and social interaction outside the hospital can inoculate against interspecialty conflict by putting a human face on our colleagues. The resultant relationships make it easier to work together and see things from another’s perspective. 
2. Emphasize our shared affiliations.⁴ The greater the salience of a mutual identity as “healthcare providers,” the more likely we are to recognize each other’s unique contributions and question the stereotypes we imagine about one another. 
3. Consider projects across specialties. Interdepartmental data-sharing and joint meetings, including educational conferences, can facilitate situational awareness, synergy, and efficient problem-solving. 

Our medical specialties will continue to group together. While these groups can be a source of strength and meaning, silos can interfere with professional alliances and effective patient care. Mitigating the harmful effects of silos can benefit all of us and our patients.

Authors’ note: This article was previously published using the term “tribalism,” which we have since learned is derogatory to Indigenous Americans and others. We apologize for any harm. We have retracted and republished the article without this language. We appreciate readers teaching us how to choose better words so all people feel respected and valued.

There is substantial interest in improving patient flow and reducing hospital length of stay (LOS).^1-4 Impaired hospital flow may negatively impact both patient satisfaction and safety through, for example, emergency department (ED) overcrowding.^5,6 Impaired hospital flow is associated with downstream effects on patient care, hospital costs, and availability of beds.^7-9

A number of quality-improvement interventions aim to improve patient flow, including efforts to increase the number of discharges that occur before noon.^10,11 Morning discharges have been hypothesized to free hospital beds earlier, thus reducing ED wait times for incoming patients and increasing beds for elective surgeries.¹¹ Morning discharges may also be more predictable for staff and patients. However, it is unclear whether efforts to increase the number of morning discharges have a negative impact on inpatient LOS by incentivizing physicians to keep patients in the hospital for an extra night to facilitate discharge in the early morning rather than the late afternoon. Morning discharges have been associated with both increased¹² and decreased LOS.^10,11,13-15

The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between morning discharges and ED LOS and hospital LOS in general internal medicine (GIM) at seven hospitals. GIM patients represent nearly 40% of ED admissions to a hospital,¹⁶ and thus are an important determinant of patient flow through the ED and hospital. We hypothesized that patients who were admitted to GIM on days with more morning discharges would have shorter ED LOS and hospital LOS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI) clinical dataset.¹⁶ The dataset includes all GIM admissions at seven large hospital sites in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. These include five academic hospitals and two community-based teaching hospitals. Each hospital is publicly funded and provides tertiary and/or quaternary care to diverse multiethnic populations. Research ethics board approval was obtained from all participating sites.

GIM care is delivered by several interdisciplinary clinical teams functioning in parallel. Attending physicians are predominantly internists who practice as hospitalists in discrete service blocks, typically lasting 2 weeks at a time. Although GIM patients are preferentially admitted to GIM wards, participating hospitals did not have strict policies regarding cohorting GIM patients to specific wards (ie, holding patients in ED until a specific bed becomes available) that would confound the association between morning discharge and ED wait times. Approximately 75% of GIM patients are cared for on dedicated GIM wards at participating hospitals, with the remainder cared for on other medical or surgical wards.

We included all hospitalized patients who were admitted to hospital and discharged from GIM between April 1, 2010, and October 31, 2017, from the seven GEMINI hospitals. We included only patients admitted through the ED. As such, we did not include elective admissions or interfacility transfers who would not experience ED wait times. We excluded patients who were discharged without a provincial health insurance number (N = 2,169; 1.1% of total sample) because they could not be linked across visits to measure readmissions.

Data Source

The GEMINI dataset has been rigorously validated and previously described in detail.¹⁶ GEMINI collects both administrative health data reported to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (including data about patient demographics, comorbidities, and discharge destination) as well as electronic clinical data extracted from hospital computer systems (including attending physicians, in-hospital patient room transfers, and laboratory test results). Data are collected for each individual hospital encounter, and the provincial health insurance number is used to link patients across encounters.

Exposures and Outcomes

The primary exposure was the number of GIM patients discharged alive between 8:00 am and 12:00 pm (ie, morning GIM discharges) on the day of admission for each hospital encounter. This time window to define morning discharges was selected based on previous literature.^10-13 To report admission characteristics and unadjusted outcomes, hospital days were categorized into quartiles within each hospital based on the number of morning GIM discharges. Hospital days with the lowest number of morning discharges were classified into Q1 and the highest number of morning discharges into Q4, and quartiles were pooled across hospitals.

The two primary outcomes were ED LOS and hospital LOS. ED LOS was calculated as the difference between the time from triage by nursing staff to a patient’s exit from the ED, measured in hours. We also examined 30-day readmission to GIM at any participating hospital as a balancing measure against premature discharges and inpatient mortality because it could modify hospital LOS.

Patient Characteristics

Baseline patient characteristics were measured, including age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index score,¹⁷ day of admission (categorized as weekend/holiday or weekday), time of admission to hospital (categorized as daytime, 8:00 am to 4:59 pm, or nighttime, 5:00 pm to 07:59 am), study month, hospital site, and whether patients had been admitted to GIM in the prior 30 days. We used laboratory data to calculate the baseline Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score (LAPS), which is a validated predictor of inpatient mortality when combined with age and Charlson Comorbidity Index score.^18,19 GIM census on day of admission was calculated in order to include overall patient volumes as an important adjustment variable that could confound the association between morning discharges and patient flow.

Statistical Analysis

The study population and physician characteristics were summarized with descriptive statistics. The balance of baseline patient characteristics across morning discharge quartiles was assessed using standardized differences. A standardized difference of less than 0.1 reflects good balance.²⁰

Unadjusted estimates of patient outcomes were reported across morning discharge quartiles. To model the overall association between morning discharge and outcomes, the number of morning GIM discharges on the day of admission was subtracted from the mean number of morning discharges at each hospital and considered as a continuous exposure. We used generalized linear mixed models to estimate the effect of morning discharges on patient outcomes. We fit negative binomial regression models with log link to examine the association between the number of morning discharges (centered by subtracting the hospital mean) and the two main outcomes, ED LOS and hospital LOS. Given the overdispersion of the study population due to the unequal mean and variance, a negative binomial model was preferred over a Poisson regression, as the mean and variance were not equal.²¹ For our secondary outcomes of binary measures (30-day readmission and morality), we fit logistic regression models. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not performed.

Multivariable analysis was conducted to adjust for the baseline characteristics described above as well as the total number of GIM discharges on the day of admission and GIM census on the day of admission. Hospital and study month (to account for secular time trends) were included as fixed effects, and patients and admitting physicians were included as crossed random effects to account for the nested structure of admissions within patients and admissions within physicians within hospitals.

A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess for nonlinear associations between morning discharges and the four outcomes (hospital LOS, ED LOS, in-hospital mortality, and readmission) by inputting the term as a restricted cubic spline, with up to five knots, in multivariable regression models. We compared the Akaike information criteria (AIC), computed using the log-likelihood, to determine the goodness-of-fit from the negative binomial models.²² We replicated models for each individual hospital to examine whether any hospital-specific associations existed. Two additional sensitivity analyses were performed to examine heterogeneity in hospital-specific effects. Regression models were fit, including interaction terms between morning discharge and hospital, as well as interaction terms between hospital and the total number of GIM discharges and GIM census. The findings of these models (data not presented) were qualitatively similar to the overall results.

Study Population and Patient Characteristics

The study population consisted of 189,781 hospitalizations involving 115,630 unique patients. The median patient age was 73 years (interquartile range [IQR], 57-84), 50.3% were female, 43.8% had a high Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and 11.1% were admitted to GIM in the prior 30 days (Table 1). The median ED LOS was 14.5 hours (IQR, 10.0-23.1), and the mean was 18.1 hours (SD, 12.2). The median hospital LOS was 4.6 days (IQR, 2.4-9.0), and the mean was 8.6 days (SD, 18.7).

In total, 36,043 (19.0%) discharges occurred between 8:00 am and 12:00 pm. The average number of total daily discharges per hospital was 8.4 (SD, 4.6), and the average number of morning discharges was 1.7 (SD, 1.4). Morning discharges varied across hospitals, ranging from 0.9 per day (SD, 1.1) to 2.1 (SD, 1.6) (Appendix Table 1). The average number of morning discharges in the lowest quartile (Q1) was 0.3 (SD, 0.5) and was 3.3 (SD, 1.2) in the highest quartile (Q4). Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced across the quartiles, with standardized differences less than 0.1 (Table 1), except day of admission and GIM census. Days with a greater number of morning discharges were more likely to be weekdays rather than weekends/holidays (89.2% weekday admissions in Q4 compared with 53.9% in Q1). The median GIM census was 93 patients (IQR, 79-109).

Outcomes

Unadjusted clinical outcomes by number of morning discharges are presented in Table 2. The median unadjusted ED LOS was 14.4 (SD, 14.1), 14.3 (SD, 13.2), 14.5 (SD, 13.0), and 14.8 (SD, 13.0) hours for the first to fourth quartiles (fewest to largest number of morning discharges), respectively. The median unadjusted hospital LOS was 4.6 (SD, 6.5), 4.6 (SD, 6.9), 4.7 (SD, 6.4), and 4.6 (SD, 6.4) days for the first to fourth quartiles, respectively.

Unadjusted inpatient mortality was 6.1%, 5.5%, 5.5%, and 5.2% across the first to fourth quartiles, respectively. Unadjusted 30-day readmission to GIM was 12.2%, 12.6%, 12.6%, and 12.5% across the first to fourth quartiles, respectively.

After multivariable adjustment, there was no significant association between morning discharge and hospital LOS (aRR, 1.000; 95% CI, 0.996-1.000; P = .997), ED LOS (aRR, 0.999; 95% CI, 0.997-1.000; P = .307), in-hospital mortality (aRR, 0.967; 95% CI, 0.920-1.020; P =.183), or 30-day readmission (aRR, 1.010; 95% CI, 0.991-1.020; P = .471) (Table 3, Appendix Table 2, Appendix Table 3, Appendix Table 4, Appendix Table 5). When examining each hospital separately, we found that morning discharge was significantly associated with hospital LOS at only one hospital (Hospital D; aRR, 0.981; 95% CI, 0.966-0.996; P = .013). Morning discharge was statistically significantly associated with ED LOS at three hospitals (A, B, and C), but the aRR was at least 0.99 in all three cases (Table 4).

In sensitivity analyses, we found no improvements in model fit when adding spline terms to the model, suggesting no significant nonlinear associations between morning discharges and the outcomes of interest.

DISCUSSION

This large multicenter cohort study found no significant overall association between the number of morning discharges and ED or hospital LOS in GIM. At one hospital, there was a 1.9% reduction in adjusted ED LOS for every additional morning discharge, but no difference in hospital LOS. We also did not observe differences in readmission or inpatient mortality associated with the number of morning discharges. Our observational findings suggest that there is unlikely to be a strong association between morning discharge and patient throughput in GIM. Given that there may be other downstream benefits of morning discharge, such as freeing beds for daytime surgeries,²³ further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of specific interventions.

Several studies have posited morning discharge as a method of improving both patient care and hospital flow metrics.^{10,11,13-15,23} Quality improvement initiatives targeting morning discharges have included stakeholder meetings, incentives programs, discharge-centered breakfast programs, and creating deadlines for discharge orders.^24-29 Although these initiatives have gained support, critics have suggested that their supporting evidence is not robust. Werthemier et al¹⁰ found a 9.0% reduction of observed to expected LOS associated with increasing the number of early discharges. However, a response article suggested that their findings were confounded by other hospital initiatives, such as allocation of medical and social services to weekends.³⁰ Other observational studies have concluded that hospital LOS is not affected by the number of morning discharges, but this research has been limited by single-center analysis and relatively smaller sample sizes.¹² Our study further calls into question the association between morning discharge and patient throughput.

An additional reason for the controversy is that physicians may actively work to discharge patients late in the day to avoid an additional night in hospital. A qualitative study by Minichiello et al³¹ evaluated staff perceptions regarding afternoon discharges. Physicians and medical students believed that afternoon discharges were a result of waiting for test results and procedures, with staff aiming to discharge patients immediately after obtaining results or finishing necessary procedures. As such, there are concerns that incentivizing morning discharge may lead physicians in the opposite direction, to consciously or unconsciously keep patients overnight in order to facilitate an early morning discharge.³⁰

Our study’s greatest strength was the large sample size over 7 years at seven hospitals in two cities, including both academic and community hospitals with different models of care. To our knowledge, this is the first cohort study that has analyzed the association between early discharge and LOS using multiple centers. To avoid the confounding and reverse causality that may exist when examining the relationship between LOS and morning discharge at the patient level (eg, patients who stay in hospital longer may have more “planned” discharges and leave in the morning), we examined the association based on variation across different days within the GIM service of each hospital. Further, we included robust risk adjustment using clinical and laboratory data. Finally, since our study included a diverse patient population served by participating centers in a system with universal insurance for hospital care, our findings are likely generalizable to other urban and suburban hospitals.

There are several important limitations of our analysis. First, we could only include GIM patients, who represent nearly 40% of ED admissions to hospital at participating centers. A more holistic analysis across all hospital services could be justified; however, given that many quality improvement initiatives occur at the level of a single hospital service, we felt our approach would be informative for future research and improvement efforts. Approximately 75% of GIM patients at participating hospitals were cared for on a GIM ward, with 25% cared for on off-service units. We were unable to include the total hospital census in our models, and this could affect LOS and waiting times for GIM patients, particularly those admitted to off-service units. GIM census is likely highly correlated with hospital census, and we were able to adjust for this. Nevertheless, this remains an important potential source of unmeasured confounding. Second, we did not model the effects of morning discharges from GIM on patient-flow measures for non-GIM patients. Given the lack of effects for GIM patients, who would be more likely to be directly affected, it is unlikely that large effects would be seen for other hospital patients, but we did not measure effects on surgical delays or cancellations, for example.²³ Third, we report 30-day readmission to GIM at participating hospitals only, rather than all readmissions. However, prior research in our region demonstrated that 82% of hospital readmissions occur to the same site.³² Thus, our measure, which includes admission to any participating hospital, likely captures more than 80% of all readmissions, and this was a secondary outcome in our analysis. Finally, qualitative metrics, such as patient or provider satisfaction, were not measured in our study. Earlier discharge may impact patient care in other ways by being more predictable for staff, improving bed allocation for daytime procedures, making medication pick-ups easier to arrange, or making consultations with allied health services more convenient.^11,28,33 Conversely, if pressured to discharge before noon, providers may feel rushed to complete tasks and may face disruptions to typical workflow.²⁴ As such, future research is needed to provide a more complete understanding of the impact of early-morning discharge beyond hospital flow. Given the lack of a strong association observed between morning discharge and patient throughput in our study, further research should also consider the opportunity costs of interventions designed to improve morning discharge.

CONCLUSION

The number of morning discharges was not significantly associated with shorter ED LOS or hospital LOS for GIM patients. Our observational findings suggest that increasing morning discharges alone may not substantially improve patient flow in GIM. Further research is needed to evaluate specific morning discharge interventions and assess hospital-wide effects.

There is substantial interest in improving patient flow and reducing hospital length of stay (LOS).^1-4 Impaired hospital flow may negatively impact both patient satisfaction and safety through, for example, emergency department (ED) overcrowding.^5,6 Impaired hospital flow is associated with downstream effects on patient care, hospital costs, and availability of beds.^7-9

A number of quality-improvement interventions aim to improve patient flow, including efforts to increase the number of discharges that occur before noon.^10,11 Morning discharges have been hypothesized to free hospital beds earlier, thus reducing ED wait times for incoming patients and increasing beds for elective surgeries.¹¹ Morning discharges may also be more predictable for staff and patients. However, it is unclear whether efforts to increase the number of morning discharges have a negative impact on inpatient LOS by incentivizing physicians to keep patients in the hospital for an extra night to facilitate discharge in the early morning rather than the late afternoon. Morning discharges have been associated with both increased¹² and decreased LOS.^10,11,13-15

The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between morning discharges and ED LOS and hospital LOS in general internal medicine (GIM) at seven hospitals. GIM patients represent nearly 40% of ED admissions to a hospital,¹⁶ and thus are an important determinant of patient flow through the ED and hospital. We hypothesized that patients who were admitted to GIM on days with more morning discharges would have shorter ED LOS and hospital LOS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI) clinical dataset.¹⁶ The dataset includes all GIM admissions at seven large hospital sites in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. These include five academic hospitals and two community-based teaching hospitals. Each hospital is publicly funded and provides tertiary and/or quaternary care to diverse multiethnic populations. Research ethics board approval was obtained from all participating sites.

GIM care is delivered by several interdisciplinary clinical teams functioning in parallel. Attending physicians are predominantly internists who practice as hospitalists in discrete service blocks, typically lasting 2 weeks at a time. Although GIM patients are preferentially admitted to GIM wards, participating hospitals did not have strict policies regarding cohorting GIM patients to specific wards (ie, holding patients in ED until a specific bed becomes available) that would confound the association between morning discharge and ED wait times. Approximately 75% of GIM patients are cared for on dedicated GIM wards at participating hospitals, with the remainder cared for on other medical or surgical wards.

We included all hospitalized patients who were admitted to hospital and discharged from GIM between April 1, 2010, and October 31, 2017, from the seven GEMINI hospitals. We included only patients admitted through the ED. As such, we did not include elective admissions or interfacility transfers who would not experience ED wait times. We excluded patients who were discharged without a provincial health insurance number (N = 2,169; 1.1% of total sample) because they could not be linked across visits to measure readmissions.

Data Source

The GEMINI dataset has been rigorously validated and previously described in detail.¹⁶ GEMINI collects both administrative health data reported to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (including data about patient demographics, comorbidities, and discharge destination) as well as electronic clinical data extracted from hospital computer systems (including attending physicians, in-hospital patient room transfers, and laboratory test results). Data are collected for each individual hospital encounter, and the provincial health insurance number is used to link patients across encounters.

Exposures and Outcomes

The primary exposure was the number of GIM patients discharged alive between 8:00 am and 12:00 pm (ie, morning GIM discharges) on the day of admission for each hospital encounter. This time window to define morning discharges was selected based on previous literature.^10-13 To report admission characteristics and unadjusted outcomes, hospital days were categorized into quartiles within each hospital based on the number of morning GIM discharges. Hospital days with the lowest number of morning discharges were classified into Q1 and the highest number of morning discharges into Q4, and quartiles were pooled across hospitals.

The two primary outcomes were ED LOS and hospital LOS. ED LOS was calculated as the difference between the time from triage by nursing staff to a patient’s exit from the ED, measured in hours. We also examined 30-day readmission to GIM at any participating hospital as a balancing measure against premature discharges and inpatient mortality because it could modify hospital LOS.

Patient Characteristics

Baseline patient characteristics were measured, including age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index score,¹⁷ day of admission (categorized as weekend/holiday or weekday), time of admission to hospital (categorized as daytime, 8:00 am to 4:59 pm, or nighttime, 5:00 pm to 07:59 am), study month, hospital site, and whether patients had been admitted to GIM in the prior 30 days. We used laboratory data to calculate the baseline Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score (LAPS), which is a validated predictor of inpatient mortality when combined with age and Charlson Comorbidity Index score.^18,19 GIM census on day of admission was calculated in order to include overall patient volumes as an important adjustment variable that could confound the association between morning discharges and patient flow.

Statistical Analysis

The study population and physician characteristics were summarized with descriptive statistics. The balance of baseline patient characteristics across morning discharge quartiles was assessed using standardized differences. A standardized difference of less than 0.1 reflects good balance.²⁰

Unadjusted estimates of patient outcomes were reported across morning discharge quartiles. To model the overall association between morning discharge and outcomes, the number of morning GIM discharges on the day of admission was subtracted from the mean number of morning discharges at each hospital and considered as a continuous exposure. We used generalized linear mixed models to estimate the effect of morning discharges on patient outcomes. We fit negative binomial regression models with log link to examine the association between the number of morning discharges (centered by subtracting the hospital mean) and the two main outcomes, ED LOS and hospital LOS. Given the overdispersion of the study population due to the unequal mean and variance, a negative binomial model was preferred over a Poisson regression, as the mean and variance were not equal.²¹ For our secondary outcomes of binary measures (30-day readmission and morality), we fit logistic regression models. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not performed.

Multivariable analysis was conducted to adjust for the baseline characteristics described above as well as the total number of GIM discharges on the day of admission and GIM census on the day of admission. Hospital and study month (to account for secular time trends) were included as fixed effects, and patients and admitting physicians were included as crossed random effects to account for the nested structure of admissions within patients and admissions within physicians within hospitals.

A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess for nonlinear associations between morning discharges and the four outcomes (hospital LOS, ED LOS, in-hospital mortality, and readmission) by inputting the term as a restricted cubic spline, with up to five knots, in multivariable regression models. We compared the Akaike information criteria (AIC), computed using the log-likelihood, to determine the goodness-of-fit from the negative binomial models.²² We replicated models for each individual hospital to examine whether any hospital-specific associations existed. Two additional sensitivity analyses were performed to examine heterogeneity in hospital-specific effects. Regression models were fit, including interaction terms between morning discharge and hospital, as well as interaction terms between hospital and the total number of GIM discharges and GIM census. The findings of these models (data not presented) were qualitatively similar to the overall results.

Study Population and Patient Characteristics

The study population consisted of 189,781 hospitalizations involving 115,630 unique patients. The median patient age was 73 years (interquartile range [IQR], 57-84), 50.3% were female, 43.8% had a high Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and 11.1% were admitted to GIM in the prior 30 days (Table 1). The median ED LOS was 14.5 hours (IQR, 10.0-23.1), and the mean was 18.1 hours (SD, 12.2). The median hospital LOS was 4.6 days (IQR, 2.4-9.0), and the mean was 8.6 days (SD, 18.7).

In total, 36,043 (19.0%) discharges occurred between 8:00 am and 12:00 pm. The average number of total daily discharges per hospital was 8.4 (SD, 4.6), and the average number of morning discharges was 1.7 (SD, 1.4). Morning discharges varied across hospitals, ranging from 0.9 per day (SD, 1.1) to 2.1 (SD, 1.6) (Appendix Table 1). The average number of morning discharges in the lowest quartile (Q1) was 0.3 (SD, 0.5) and was 3.3 (SD, 1.2) in the highest quartile (Q4). Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced across the quartiles, with standardized differences less than 0.1 (Table 1), except day of admission and GIM census. Days with a greater number of morning discharges were more likely to be weekdays rather than weekends/holidays (89.2% weekday admissions in Q4 compared with 53.9% in Q1). The median GIM census was 93 patients (IQR, 79-109).

Outcomes

Unadjusted clinical outcomes by number of morning discharges are presented in Table 2. The median unadjusted ED LOS was 14.4 (SD, 14.1), 14.3 (SD, 13.2), 14.5 (SD, 13.0), and 14.8 (SD, 13.0) hours for the first to fourth quartiles (fewest to largest number of morning discharges), respectively. The median unadjusted hospital LOS was 4.6 (SD, 6.5), 4.6 (SD, 6.9), 4.7 (SD, 6.4), and 4.6 (SD, 6.4) days for the first to fourth quartiles, respectively.

Unadjusted inpatient mortality was 6.1%, 5.5%, 5.5%, and 5.2% across the first to fourth quartiles, respectively. Unadjusted 30-day readmission to GIM was 12.2%, 12.6%, 12.6%, and 12.5% across the first to fourth quartiles, respectively.

After multivariable adjustment, there was no significant association between morning discharge and hospital LOS (aRR, 1.000; 95% CI, 0.996-1.000; P = .997), ED LOS (aRR, 0.999; 95% CI, 0.997-1.000; P = .307), in-hospital mortality (aRR, 0.967; 95% CI, 0.920-1.020; P =.183), or 30-day readmission (aRR, 1.010; 95% CI, 0.991-1.020; P = .471) (Table 3, Appendix Table 2, Appendix Table 3, Appendix Table 4, Appendix Table 5). When examining each hospital separately, we found that morning discharge was significantly associated with hospital LOS at only one hospital (Hospital D; aRR, 0.981; 95% CI, 0.966-0.996; P = .013). Morning discharge was statistically significantly associated with ED LOS at three hospitals (A, B, and C), but the aRR was at least 0.99 in all three cases (Table 4).

In sensitivity analyses, we found no improvements in model fit when adding spline terms to the model, suggesting no significant nonlinear associations between morning discharges and the outcomes of interest.

DISCUSSION

This large multicenter cohort study found no significant overall association between the number of morning discharges and ED or hospital LOS in GIM. At one hospital, there was a 1.9% reduction in adjusted ED LOS for every additional morning discharge, but no difference in hospital LOS. We also did not observe differences in readmission or inpatient mortality associated with the number of morning discharges. Our observational findings suggest that there is unlikely to be a strong association between morning discharge and patient throughput in GIM. Given that there may be other downstream benefits of morning discharge, such as freeing beds for daytime surgeries,²³ further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of specific interventions.

Several studies have posited morning discharge as a method of improving both patient care and hospital flow metrics.^{10,11,13-15,23} Quality improvement initiatives targeting morning discharges have included stakeholder meetings, incentives programs, discharge-centered breakfast programs, and creating deadlines for discharge orders.^24-29 Although these initiatives have gained support, critics have suggested that their supporting evidence is not robust. Werthemier et al¹⁰ found a 9.0% reduction of observed to expected LOS associated with increasing the number of early discharges. However, a response article suggested that their findings were confounded by other hospital initiatives, such as allocation of medical and social services to weekends.³⁰ Other observational studies have concluded that hospital LOS is not affected by the number of morning discharges, but this research has been limited by single-center analysis and relatively smaller sample sizes.¹² Our study further calls into question the association between morning discharge and patient throughput.

An additional reason for the controversy is that physicians may actively work to discharge patients late in the day to avoid an additional night in hospital. A qualitative study by Minichiello et al³¹ evaluated staff perceptions regarding afternoon discharges. Physicians and medical students believed that afternoon discharges were a result of waiting for test results and procedures, with staff aiming to discharge patients immediately after obtaining results or finishing necessary procedures. As such, there are concerns that incentivizing morning discharge may lead physicians in the opposite direction, to consciously or unconsciously keep patients overnight in order to facilitate an early morning discharge.³⁰

Our study’s greatest strength was the large sample size over 7 years at seven hospitals in two cities, including both academic and community hospitals with different models of care. To our knowledge, this is the first cohort study that has analyzed the association between early discharge and LOS using multiple centers. To avoid the confounding and reverse causality that may exist when examining the relationship between LOS and morning discharge at the patient level (eg, patients who stay in hospital longer may have more “planned” discharges and leave in the morning), we examined the association based on variation across different days within the GIM service of each hospital. Further, we included robust risk adjustment using clinical and laboratory data. Finally, since our study included a diverse patient population served by participating centers in a system with universal insurance for hospital care, our findings are likely generalizable to other urban and suburban hospitals.

There are several important limitations of our analysis. First, we could only include GIM patients, who represent nearly 40% of ED admissions to hospital at participating centers. A more holistic analysis across all hospital services could be justified; however, given that many quality improvement initiatives occur at the level of a single hospital service, we felt our approach would be informative for future research and improvement efforts. Approximately 75% of GIM patients at participating hospitals were cared for on a GIM ward, with 25% cared for on off-service units. We were unable to include the total hospital census in our models, and this could affect LOS and waiting times for GIM patients, particularly those admitted to off-service units. GIM census is likely highly correlated with hospital census, and we were able to adjust for this. Nevertheless, this remains an important potential source of unmeasured confounding. Second, we did not model the effects of morning discharges from GIM on patient-flow measures for non-GIM patients. Given the lack of effects for GIM patients, who would be more likely to be directly affected, it is unlikely that large effects would be seen for other hospital patients, but we did not measure effects on surgical delays or cancellations, for example.²³ Third, we report 30-day readmission to GIM at participating hospitals only, rather than all readmissions. However, prior research in our region demonstrated that 82% of hospital readmissions occur to the same site.³² Thus, our measure, which includes admission to any participating hospital, likely captures more than 80% of all readmissions, and this was a secondary outcome in our analysis. Finally, qualitative metrics, such as patient or provider satisfaction, were not measured in our study. Earlier discharge may impact patient care in other ways by being more predictable for staff, improving bed allocation for daytime procedures, making medication pick-ups easier to arrange, or making consultations with allied health services more convenient.^11,28,33 Conversely, if pressured to discharge before noon, providers may feel rushed to complete tasks and may face disruptions to typical workflow.²⁴ As such, future research is needed to provide a more complete understanding of the impact of early-morning discharge beyond hospital flow. Given the lack of a strong association observed between morning discharge and patient throughput in our study, further research should also consider the opportunity costs of interventions designed to improve morning discharge.

CONCLUSION

The number of morning discharges was not significantly associated with shorter ED LOS or hospital LOS for GIM patients. Our observational findings suggest that increasing morning discharges alone may not substantially improve patient flow in GIM. Further research is needed to evaluate specific morning discharge interventions and assess hospital-wide effects.

There is substantial interest in improving patient flow and reducing hospital length of stay (LOS).^1-4 Impaired hospital flow may negatively impact both patient satisfaction and safety through, for example, emergency department (ED) overcrowding.^5,6 Impaired hospital flow is associated with downstream effects on patient care, hospital costs, and availability of beds.^7-9

A number of quality-improvement interventions aim to improve patient flow, including efforts to increase the number of discharges that occur before noon.^10,11 Morning discharges have been hypothesized to free hospital beds earlier, thus reducing ED wait times for incoming patients and increasing beds for elective surgeries.¹¹ Morning discharges may also be more predictable for staff and patients. However, it is unclear whether efforts to increase the number of morning discharges have a negative impact on inpatient LOS by incentivizing physicians to keep patients in the hospital for an extra night to facilitate discharge in the early morning rather than the late afternoon. Morning discharges have been associated with both increased¹² and decreased LOS.^10,11,13-15

The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between morning discharges and ED LOS and hospital LOS in general internal medicine (GIM) at seven hospitals. GIM patients represent nearly 40% of ED admissions to a hospital,¹⁶ and thus are an important determinant of patient flow through the ED and hospital. We hypothesized that patients who were admitted to GIM on days with more morning discharges would have shorter ED LOS and hospital LOS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted using the General Medicine Inpatient Initiative (GEMINI) clinical dataset.¹⁶ The dataset includes all GIM admissions at seven large hospital sites in Toronto and Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. These include five academic hospitals and two community-based teaching hospitals. Each hospital is publicly funded and provides tertiary and/or quaternary care to diverse multiethnic populations. Research ethics board approval was obtained from all participating sites.

GIM care is delivered by several interdisciplinary clinical teams functioning in parallel. Attending physicians are predominantly internists who practice as hospitalists in discrete service blocks, typically lasting 2 weeks at a time. Although GIM patients are preferentially admitted to GIM wards, participating hospitals did not have strict policies regarding cohorting GIM patients to specific wards (ie, holding patients in ED until a specific bed becomes available) that would confound the association between morning discharge and ED wait times. Approximately 75% of GIM patients are cared for on dedicated GIM wards at participating hospitals, with the remainder cared for on other medical or surgical wards.

We included all hospitalized patients who were admitted to hospital and discharged from GIM between April 1, 2010, and October 31, 2017, from the seven GEMINI hospitals. We included only patients admitted through the ED. As such, we did not include elective admissions or interfacility transfers who would not experience ED wait times. We excluded patients who were discharged without a provincial health insurance number (N = 2,169; 1.1% of total sample) because they could not be linked across visits to measure readmissions.

Data Source

The GEMINI dataset has been rigorously validated and previously described in detail.¹⁶ GEMINI collects both administrative health data reported to the Canadian Institute for Health Information (including data about patient demographics, comorbidities, and discharge destination) as well as electronic clinical data extracted from hospital computer systems (including attending physicians, in-hospital patient room transfers, and laboratory test results). Data are collected for each individual hospital encounter, and the provincial health insurance number is used to link patients across encounters.

Exposures and Outcomes

The primary exposure was the number of GIM patients discharged alive between 8:00 am and 12:00 pm (ie, morning GIM discharges) on the day of admission for each hospital encounter. This time window to define morning discharges was selected based on previous literature.^10-13 To report admission characteristics and unadjusted outcomes, hospital days were categorized into quartiles within each hospital based on the number of morning GIM discharges. Hospital days with the lowest number of morning discharges were classified into Q1 and the highest number of morning discharges into Q4, and quartiles were pooled across hospitals.

The two primary outcomes were ED LOS and hospital LOS. ED LOS was calculated as the difference between the time from triage by nursing staff to a patient’s exit from the ED, measured in hours. We also examined 30-day readmission to GIM at any participating hospital as a balancing measure against premature discharges and inpatient mortality because it could modify hospital LOS.

Patient Characteristics

Baseline patient characteristics were measured, including age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index score,¹⁷ day of admission (categorized as weekend/holiday or weekday), time of admission to hospital (categorized as daytime, 8:00 am to 4:59 pm, or nighttime, 5:00 pm to 07:59 am), study month, hospital site, and whether patients had been admitted to GIM in the prior 30 days. We used laboratory data to calculate the baseline Laboratory-based Acute Physiology Score (LAPS), which is a validated predictor of inpatient mortality when combined with age and Charlson Comorbidity Index score.^18,19 GIM census on day of admission was calculated in order to include overall patient volumes as an important adjustment variable that could confound the association between morning discharges and patient flow.

Statistical Analysis

The study population and physician characteristics were summarized with descriptive statistics. The balance of baseline patient characteristics across morning discharge quartiles was assessed using standardized differences. A standardized difference of less than 0.1 reflects good balance.²⁰

Unadjusted estimates of patient outcomes were reported across morning discharge quartiles. To model the overall association between morning discharge and outcomes, the number of morning GIM discharges on the day of admission was subtracted from the mean number of morning discharges at each hospital and considered as a continuous exposure. We used generalized linear mixed models to estimate the effect of morning discharges on patient outcomes. We fit negative binomial regression models with log link to examine the association between the number of morning discharges (centered by subtracting the hospital mean) and the two main outcomes, ED LOS and hospital LOS. Given the overdispersion of the study population due to the unequal mean and variance, a negative binomial model was preferred over a Poisson regression, as the mean and variance were not equal.²¹ For our secondary outcomes of binary measures (30-day readmission and morality), we fit logistic regression models. Adjustment for multiple comparisons was not performed.

Multivariable analysis was conducted to adjust for the baseline characteristics described above as well as the total number of GIM discharges on the day of admission and GIM census on the day of admission. Hospital and study month (to account for secular time trends) were included as fixed effects, and patients and admitting physicians were included as crossed random effects to account for the nested structure of admissions within patients and admissions within physicians within hospitals.

A sensitivity analysis was performed to assess for nonlinear associations between morning discharges and the four outcomes (hospital LOS, ED LOS, in-hospital mortality, and readmission) by inputting the term as a restricted cubic spline, with up to five knots, in multivariable regression models. We compared the Akaike information criteria (AIC), computed using the log-likelihood, to determine the goodness-of-fit from the negative binomial models.²² We replicated models for each individual hospital to examine whether any hospital-specific associations existed. Two additional sensitivity analyses were performed to examine heterogeneity in hospital-specific effects. Regression models were fit, including interaction terms between morning discharge and hospital, as well as interaction terms between hospital and the total number of GIM discharges and GIM census. The findings of these models (data not presented) were qualitatively similar to the overall results.

Study Population and Patient Characteristics

The study population consisted of 189,781 hospitalizations involving 115,630 unique patients. The median patient age was 73 years (interquartile range [IQR], 57-84), 50.3% were female, 43.8% had a high Charlson Comorbidity Index score, and 11.1% were admitted to GIM in the prior 30 days (Table 1). The median ED LOS was 14.5 hours (IQR, 10.0-23.1), and the mean was 18.1 hours (SD, 12.2). The median hospital LOS was 4.6 days (IQR, 2.4-9.0), and the mean was 8.6 days (SD, 18.7).

In total, 36,043 (19.0%) discharges occurred between 8:00 am and 12:00 pm. The average number of total daily discharges per hospital was 8.4 (SD, 4.6), and the average number of morning discharges was 1.7 (SD, 1.4). Morning discharges varied across hospitals, ranging from 0.9 per day (SD, 1.1) to 2.1 (SD, 1.6) (Appendix Table 1). The average number of morning discharges in the lowest quartile (Q1) was 0.3 (SD, 0.5) and was 3.3 (SD, 1.2) in the highest quartile (Q4). Baseline patient characteristics were well balanced across the quartiles, with standardized differences less than 0.1 (Table 1), except day of admission and GIM census. Days with a greater number of morning discharges were more likely to be weekdays rather than weekends/holidays (89.2% weekday admissions in Q4 compared with 53.9% in Q1). The median GIM census was 93 patients (IQR, 79-109).

Outcomes

Unadjusted clinical outcomes by number of morning discharges are presented in Table 2. The median unadjusted ED LOS was 14.4 (SD, 14.1), 14.3 (SD, 13.2), 14.5 (SD, 13.0), and 14.8 (SD, 13.0) hours for the first to fourth quartiles (fewest to largest number of morning discharges), respectively. The median unadjusted hospital LOS was 4.6 (SD, 6.5), 4.6 (SD, 6.9), 4.7 (SD, 6.4), and 4.6 (SD, 6.4) days for the first to fourth quartiles, respectively.

Unadjusted inpatient mortality was 6.1%, 5.5%, 5.5%, and 5.2% across the first to fourth quartiles, respectively. Unadjusted 30-day readmission to GIM was 12.2%, 12.6%, 12.6%, and 12.5% across the first to fourth quartiles, respectively.

After multivariable adjustment, there was no significant association between morning discharge and hospital LOS (aRR, 1.000; 95% CI, 0.996-1.000; P = .997), ED LOS (aRR, 0.999; 95% CI, 0.997-1.000; P = .307), in-hospital mortality (aRR, 0.967; 95% CI, 0.920-1.020; P =.183), or 30-day readmission (aRR, 1.010; 95% CI, 0.991-1.020; P = .471) (Table 3, Appendix Table 2, Appendix Table 3, Appendix Table 4, Appendix Table 5). When examining each hospital separately, we found that morning discharge was significantly associated with hospital LOS at only one hospital (Hospital D; aRR, 0.981; 95% CI, 0.966-0.996; P = .013). Morning discharge was statistically significantly associated with ED LOS at three hospitals (A, B, and C), but the aRR was at least 0.99 in all three cases (Table 4).

In sensitivity analyses, we found no improvements in model fit when adding spline terms to the model, suggesting no significant nonlinear associations between morning discharges and the outcomes of interest.

DISCUSSION

This large multicenter cohort study found no significant overall association between the number of morning discharges and ED or hospital LOS in GIM. At one hospital, there was a 1.9% reduction in adjusted ED LOS for every additional morning discharge, but no difference in hospital LOS. We also did not observe differences in readmission or inpatient mortality associated with the number of morning discharges. Our observational findings suggest that there is unlikely to be a strong association between morning discharge and patient throughput in GIM. Given that there may be other downstream benefits of morning discharge, such as freeing beds for daytime surgeries,²³ further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of specific interventions.

Several studies have posited morning discharge as a method of improving both patient care and hospital flow metrics.^{10,11,13-15,23} Quality improvement initiatives targeting morning discharges have included stakeholder meetings, incentives programs, discharge-centered breakfast programs, and creating deadlines for discharge orders.^24-29 Although these initiatives have gained support, critics have suggested that their supporting evidence is not robust. Werthemier et al¹⁰ found a 9.0% reduction of observed to expected LOS associated with increasing the number of early discharges. However, a response article suggested that their findings were confounded by other hospital initiatives, such as allocation of medical and social services to weekends.³⁰ Other observational studies have concluded that hospital LOS is not affected by the number of morning discharges, but this research has been limited by single-center analysis and relatively smaller sample sizes.¹² Our study further calls into question the association between morning discharge and patient throughput.

An additional reason for the controversy is that physicians may actively work to discharge patients late in the day to avoid an additional night in hospital. A qualitative study by Minichiello et al³¹ evaluated staff perceptions regarding afternoon discharges. Physicians and medical students believed that afternoon discharges were a result of waiting for test results and procedures, with staff aiming to discharge patients immediately after obtaining results or finishing necessary procedures. As such, there are concerns that incentivizing morning discharge may lead physicians in the opposite direction, to consciously or unconsciously keep patients overnight in order to facilitate an early morning discharge.³⁰

Our study’s greatest strength was the large sample size over 7 years at seven hospitals in two cities, including both academic and community hospitals with different models of care. To our knowledge, this is the first cohort study that has analyzed the association between early discharge and LOS using multiple centers. To avoid the confounding and reverse causality that may exist when examining the relationship between LOS and morning discharge at the patient level (eg, patients who stay in hospital longer may have more “planned” discharges and leave in the morning), we examined the association based on variation across different days within the GIM service of each hospital. Further, we included robust risk adjustment using clinical and laboratory data. Finally, since our study included a diverse patient population served by participating centers in a system with universal insurance for hospital care, our findings are likely generalizable to other urban and suburban hospitals.

There are several important limitations of our analysis. First, we could only include GIM patients, who represent nearly 40% of ED admissions to hospital at participating centers. A more holistic analysis across all hospital services could be justified; however, given that many quality improvement initiatives occur at the level of a single hospital service, we felt our approach would be informative for future research and improvement efforts. Approximately 75% of GIM patients at participating hospitals were cared for on a GIM ward, with 25% cared for on off-service units. We were unable to include the total hospital census in our models, and this could affect LOS and waiting times for GIM patients, particularly those admitted to off-service units. GIM census is likely highly correlated with hospital census, and we were able to adjust for this. Nevertheless, this remains an important potential source of unmeasured confounding. Second, we did not model the effects of morning discharges from GIM on patient-flow measures for non-GIM patients. Given the lack of effects for GIM patients, who would be more likely to be directly affected, it is unlikely that large effects would be seen for other hospital patients, but we did not measure effects on surgical delays or cancellations, for example.²³ Third, we report 30-day readmission to GIM at participating hospitals only, rather than all readmissions. However, prior research in our region demonstrated that 82% of hospital readmissions occur to the same site.³² Thus, our measure, which includes admission to any participating hospital, likely captures more than 80% of all readmissions, and this was a secondary outcome in our analysis. Finally, qualitative metrics, such as patient or provider satisfaction, were not measured in our study. Earlier discharge may impact patient care in other ways by being more predictable for staff, improving bed allocation for daytime procedures, making medication pick-ups easier to arrange, or making consultations with allied health services more convenient.^11,28,33 Conversely, if pressured to discharge before noon, providers may feel rushed to complete tasks and may face disruptions to typical workflow.²⁴ As such, future research is needed to provide a more complete understanding of the impact of early-morning discharge beyond hospital flow. Given the lack of a strong association observed between morning discharge and patient throughput in our study, further research should also consider the opportunity costs of interventions designed to improve morning discharge.

CONCLUSION

The number of morning discharges was not significantly associated with shorter ED LOS or hospital LOS for GIM patients. Our observational findings suggest that increasing morning discharges alone may not substantially improve patient flow in GIM. Further research is needed to evaluate specific morning discharge interventions and assess hospital-wide effects.