Kashiwagi, Deanne T.

Background Bedside rounds (BR) have been proposed as an ideal method to promote patient-centred hospital care, but there is substantial variation in their implementation and effects. Our objectives were to describe the implementation of BR in hospital settings and determine their effect on patient-centred outcomes. Methods Data sources included Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus and Ovid Cochrane Central Registry of Clinical Trials from database inception through 28 July 2017. We included experimental studies comparing BR to another form of rounds in a hospital-based setting (ie, medical/surgical unit, intensive care unit (ICU)) and reporting a quantitative patient-reported or objectively measured clinical outcome. We used random effects models to calculate pooled Cohen's d effect size estimates for the patient knowledge and patient experience outcome domains. Results Twenty-nine studies met inclusion criteria, including 20 from adult care (17 non-ICU, 3 ICU), and nine from paediatrics (5 non-ICU, 4 ICU), the majority of which (n=23) were conducted in the USA. Thirteen studies implemented BR with cointerventions as part of a ‘bundle’. Studies most commonly reported outcomes in the domains of patient experience (n=24) and patient knowledge (n=10). We found a small, statistically significant improvement in patient experience with BR (summary Cohen’s d=0.09, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.14, p<0.001, I2=56%), but no significant association between BR and patient knowledge (Cohen’s d=0.21, 95% CI −0.004 to –0.43, p=0.054, I2=92%). Risk of bias was moderate to high, with methodological limitations most often relating to selective reporting, low adherence rates and missing data. Conclusions BR have been implemented in a variety of hospital settings, often ‘bundled’ with cointerventions. However, BR have demonstrated limited effect on patient-centred outcomes.

Members of the Society of Hospital Medicine were surveyed about geographic cohorting (GCh); 369 responses were analyzed, two thirds of which were from GCh participants. Improved collaboration with the bedside nurse, increased nonclinical interactions, decreased paging interruptions, and improved efficiency were perceived by >50%. Narrowed clinical expertise, increased fragmentation, increased face-to-face interruptions, and an adverse impact on camaraderie within the hospitalist group were reported by 25% to 50%. Academic practices were associated with positive perceptions while higher patient loads were associated with negative perceptions. Comments on GCh benefits invoked improvements in (1) interprofessional collaboration, (2) efficiency, (3) patient-centeredness, (4) nursing satisfaction, and (5) GCh mediated facilitation of other interventions. GCh downsides included (1) professional and personal dissatisfaction, (2) concerns about providing suboptimal care, and (3) implementation barriers. GCh is receiving attention. Although it facilitates important benefits, it is perceived to mediate unintended consequences, which should be addressed in redesign efforts.

Background Hospital discharge summaries enable communication between inpatient and outpatient physicians. Despite existing guidelines for discharge summaries, they are frequently suboptimal. Objective The aim of this study was to assess physicians’ perspectives about discharge summaries and the differences between summaries’ authors (hospitalists) and readers (primary care physicians [PCPs]). Methods A national survey of 1600 U.S. physicians was undertaken. Primary measures included physicians’ preferences in discharge summary standardization, content, format, and audience. Results A total of 815 physicians responded (response rate = 51%). Eighty-nine percent agreed that discharge summaries “should have a standardized format.” Most agreed that summaries should “document everything that was done, found, and recommended in the hospital” (64%) yet “only include details that are highly pertinent to the hospitalization” (66%). Although 74% perceived patients as an important audience of discharge summaries, only 43% agreed that summaries “should be written in language that patients…can easily understand,” and 68% agreed that it “should be written solely for provider-to-provider communication.” Compared with hospitalists, PCPs preferred comprehensive summaries (68% versus 59%, P = 0.002). More PCPs agreed that separate summaries should be created for patients and for provider-to-provider communication than hospitalists (60% versus 47%, P < 0.001). Compared with PCPs, more hospitalists believe that “hospitalists are too busy to prepare a high-quality discharge summary” (44% versus 23%, P < 0.001) and “PCPs have insufficient time to read an entire discharge summary” (60% versus 38%, P < 0.001). Conclusions Physicians believe that discharge summaries should have a standardized format but do not agree on how comprehensive or in what format they should be. Efforts are necessary to build consensus toward the ideal discharge summary.

While many hospitalized patients have orders to fast in preparation for interventions, the extent to which these orders are necessary or adhere to evidence‐based durations is unknown. In this study, we analyzed the length, indication, and associated outcomes of nil per os (NPO) orders for general medicine patients at an academic institution in the United States, and compared them to the best available evidence for recommended length of NPO. Of 924 NPO orders assessed, the indicated intervention was not performed for 183 (19.8%) orders, largely due to a change in plan (75/183, 41.0%) or scheduling barriers (43/183, 23.5%). When analyzed by indication, the median duration of NPO orders ranged from 8.3 hours for kidney ultrasound to 13.9 hours for upper endoscopy. For some indications, the literature suggested NPO orders may be unnecessary. Furthermore, in indications for which NPO was deemed necessary in the literature, the duration of most NPO orders was much longer than minimally required. These results suggest the need for establishing more robust practice guidelines or institutional protocols for NPO orders.

Health care information technology (IT) outages pose a threat to patient safety and patient care continuity. Organizations’ downtime plans must be updated regularly and staff at the work area level should have experience with implementing IT outage operations through downtime drills. This article describes the study institution’s IT Outage Toolkit, based on the acronym CLEAR, which guides the development of a downtime plan as well as design, execution, and assessment of work area downtime drills. Self-report and external audits of downtime drills help identify performance gaps and gaps in downtime plans.

Little is known about which variables put patients with cancer at risk for 30-day hospital readmission. Comanagement of this often complex patient population by specialists and hospitalists has become increasingly common. This retrospective study examined inpatients with cancer comanaged by hospitalists, hematologists, and oncologists to determine the rate of readmission and factors associated with readmission. Patients in this cohort had a readmission rate of 23%. Patients who were discharged to a skilled nursing facility (odds ratio [OR] = 0.34) or hospice (OR = 0.11) were less likely to have 30-day readmissions, whereas patients who had surgery (OR = 3.16) during their index admission were more likely. Other factors, including patient demographics, cancer types, and hospitalization interventions and events, did not differ between patients who were readmitted and those who were not. These findings contribute to a growing body of literature identifying risk factors for readmission in medical oncology and hematology patients.