Newman, James S.

We believe this is the first documented case of a critically ill patient managed by telepharmacy in a remote, rural critical access hospital. We outline the case and the benefits of telepharmacy in under-resourced, rural critical access emergency departments.

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.

BACKGROUNDThere is little research regarding characteristics of effective continuing medical education (CME) presentations in hospital medicine (HM). Therefore, we sought to identify associations between validated CME teaching effectiveness scores and characteristics of CME presentations in the field of HM.DESIGN/SETTINGThis was a cross‐sectional study of participants and didactic presentations from a national HM CME course in 2014.MEASUREMENTSParticipants provided CME teaching effectiveness (CMETE) ratings using an instrument with known validity evidence. Overall CMETE scores (5‐point scale: 1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree) were averaged for each presentation, and associations between scores and presentation characteristics were determined using the Kruskal‐Wallis test. The threshold for statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.RESULTSA total of 277 out of 368 participants (75.3%) completed evaluations for the 32 presentations. CMETE scores (mean [standard deviation]) were significantly associated with the use of audience response (4.64 [0.16]) versus no audience response (4.49 [0.16]; P = 0.01), longer presentations (≥30 minutes: 4.67 [0.13] vs <30 minutes: 4.51 [0.18]; P = 0.02), and larger number of slides (≥50: 4.66 [0.17] vs <50: 4.55 [0.17]; P = 0.04). There were no significant associations between CMETE scores and use of clinical cases, defined goals, or summary slides.CONCLUSIONSTo our knowledge, this is the first study regarding associations between validated teaching effectiveness scores and characteristics of effective CME presentations in HM. Our findings, which support previous research in other fields, indicate that CME presentations may be improved by increasing interactivity through the use of audience response systems and allowing longer presentations. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015;10:569–573. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine

BACKGROUNDFailures in communication at the time of patient handoff have been implicated as contributing factors to preventable adverse events.OBJECTIVEExamine the relationship between face‐to‐face handoffs and the rate of patient outcomes, including adverse events.DESIGNRetrospective cohort.SETTINGA 1157‐bed academic tertiary referral hospital.PATIENTSThere were 805 adult patients admitted to general internal medicine services.INTERVENTIONRetrospective comparison of clinical outcomes, including the rate of adverse events, of patients whose care was transitioned with and without face‐to‐face handoffs.MEASUREMENTSRapid response team calls, code team calls, transfers to a higher level of care, death in hospital, 30‐day readmission rate, length of stay, and adverse events (as identified using the Global Trigger Tool).RESULTSThere was no significant difference with respect to the frequency of rapid response team calls, code team calls, transfers to a higher level of care, deaths in hospital, length of stay, 30‐day readmission rate, or adverse events between patients whose care was transitioned with or without a face‐to‐face handoff.CONCLUSIONSFace‐to‐face handoff of patients admitted to general medical services at a large academic tertiary referral hospital was not associated with a significant difference in measured patient outcomes, including the rate of adverse events, compared to a non–face‐to‐face handoff. Additional study is needed to determine the qualities of patient handoff that optimize efficiency and safety. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2015;10:137–141. © 2015 Society of Hospital Medicine