Miller, Donna M

Hospital medicine ward rounds are often conducted away from patients’ bedsides, but it is unknown if more time-at-bedside is associated with improved patient outcomes. Our objective is to measure the association between “time-at-bedside,” patient experience, and patient–clinician care agreement during ward rounds. Research assistants directly observed medicine services to quantify the amount of time spent discussing each patient’s care inside versus outside the patient’s room. “Time-at-bedside” was defined as the proportion of time spent discussing a patient’s care in his or her room. Patient experience and patient–clinician care agreement both were measured immediately after ward rounds. Results demonstrated that the majority of patient and physicians completely agreement on planned tests (66.3%), planned procedures (79.7%), medication changes (50.6%), and discharge location (66.9%), but had no agreement on the patient’s main concern (74.4%) and discharge date (50.6%). Time-at-bedside was not correlated with care agreement or patient experience ( P > .05 for all comparisons). This study demonstrates that spending more time at the bedside during ward rounds, alone, is insufficient to improve patient experience.

Background As the population with cardiovascular disease ages, geriatric conditions are of increasing relevance. A possible geriatric prognostic indicator may be a fall risk score, which is mandated by The Joint Commission to be measured on all hospitalized patients. The prognostic value of a fall risk score on outcomes after dismissal is not well known. Thus, we aimed to determine whether a fall risk score is associated with death and hospital readmissions in patients with a recent incident cardiovascular disease event. Methods and Results In this retrospective cohort study, Olmsted County, MN patients with incident heart failure, myocardial infarction, or atrial fibrillation between August 1, 2005, and December 31, 2011, who were hospitalized within 180 days after the event were studied. Fall risk was measured by the Hendrich II fall risk model. Patients were followed for death or readmission within 30 days or 1 year. Among 2456 hospitalized patients with recent incident cardiovascular disease (549 heart failure, 784 myocardial infarction, 1123 atrial fibrillation; mean [SD] age, 71 [15] years; 55% men), the fall risk score was high in 22% of patients and moderate in 38%. The risk of death was increased if the fall risk score was increased, independent of age and comorbidities (moderate hazard ratio, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.09–2.08; high hazard ratio, 3.49; 95% CI, 2.52–4.85). Similarly, the risk of 30-day readmissions was substantially increased with a greater fall risk score (moderate hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03–1.62; high hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.23–2.15). Results were similar for readmissions within 1 year. Conclusions More than half of hospitalized patients with recent incident cardiovascular disease have an elevated fall risk score, which is associated with an increased risk in readmissions and death. These results delineate an approach for risk stratification and management that may prevent readmissions and improve survival.

Objective The aim of the study was to determine how frequently mental status and mental status changes are documented in the written patient summary (“sign-out”) provided to covering physicians. Patients and Methods This was a retrospective cohort study of general medical patients hospitalized between March 16, 2009, and March 15, 2010, conducted at 2 teaching hospitals. Participants included patients with mental status change adverse events (MSAEs) and their providers. Chart review was performed to identify patients with MSAEs and details about these events. Sign-outs were reviewed for documentation of mental status. Main outcome measures were (1) proportion of patients with MSAEs who had mental status ever recorded in sign-out entries and (2) the proportion of patients with MSAEs whose change in mental status was recorded in the sign-out. Results Sixty-eight patients had MSAEs and were included in the sample. Fifty percent of MSAEs were attributed to medications; 75% of these events were first detected by nurses. Only 25% of patients with MSAEs had their change in mental status recorded in sign-outs. Conclusions Recording mental status in written sign-outs is uncommon. Particularly concerning is that patients with MSAEs identified by chart review seldom had sign-outs that reflected those events. Interventions should be designed to increase the recording of this information in sign-outs.

BACKGROUNDInaccurate or incomplete information in the written portion of the patient handoff, or sign‐out, may be associated with adverse events in hospitalized patients. Little is known about what information providers actually include in written sign‐out documents and how sign‐outs change over time.OBJECTIVES(1) Provide a descriptive analysis of initial and subsequent hospital day‐written sign‐out content, and (2) evaluate the relationship between team workload and sign‐out composition.DESIGNRetrospective review of sign‐out documents from a larger observational study of general medicine patients admitted to housestaff and hospitalist teams at 3 hospitals.MAIN MEASURESThe presence of 13 components of a high‐quality sign‐out. We performed descriptive analyses and compared initial and subsequent day sign‐outs for content.KEY RESULTSWe reviewed 200 patient hospitalizations (200 initial handoffs, 580 subsequent day handoffs). Initial sign‐out entries contained a mean of 7.54 (standard deviation: 2.27) key sign‐out components. Subsequent day sign‐outs contained a higher percentage of certain key elements but had more vague language. The number of elements present in the sign‐out was reduced as patient census increased (r = −0.295, P < 0.01).CONCLUSIONSSign‐out composition changes over time, and is associated with workload. Future interventions to improve quality should take these factors into consideration. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015;10:534–536. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine.