Robelia, Paul M.

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.

AbstractRationale, aims and objectivesHospital readmission within 30 days of discharge occurs in almost 20% of US Medicare patients and may be a marker of poor quality inpatient care, ineffective hospital to home transitions, or disease severity. Within a patient centered medical home, care transition interventions may only be practical from cost and staffing perspectives if targeted at patients with the greatest risk of readmission. Various scoring algorithms attempt to predict patients at risk for 30‐day readmission, but head‐to‐head comparison of performance is lacking. Compare published scoring algorithms which use generally available electronic medical record data on the same set of hospitalized primary care patients.MethodsThe LACE index, the LACE+ index, the HOSPITAL score, and the readmission risk score were computed on a consecutive cohort of 26,278 hospital admissions. Classifier performance was assessed by plotting receiver operating characteristic curves comparing the computed score with the actual outcome of death or readmission within 30 days. Statistical significance of differences in performance was assessed using bootstrapping techniques.ResultsCorrect readmission classification on this cohort was moderate with the following c‐statistics: Readmission risk score 0.666; LACE 0.680; LACE+ 0.662; and HOSPITAL 0.675. There was no statistically significant difference in performance between classifiers.ConclusionsLogistic regression based classifiers yield only moderate performance when utilized to predict 30‐day readmissions. The task is difficult due to the variety of underlying causes for readmission, nonlinearity, and the arbitrary time period of concern. More sophisticated classification techniques may be necessary to increase performance and allow patient centered medical homes to effectively focus efforts to reduce readmissions.

Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common, growing, and costly medical condition. We aimed to evaluate the impact of a management algorithm for symptomatic AF that used an emergency department observation unit on hospital admission rates and patient outcomes. Methods and Results This retrospective cohort study compared 563 patients who presented consecutively in the year after implementation of the algorithm, from July 2013 through June 2014 (intervention group), with 627 patients in a historical cohort (preintervention group) who presented consecutively from July 2011 through June 2012. All patients who consented to have their records used for chart review were included if they had a primary final emergency department diagnosis of AF . We observed no significant differences in age, sex, vital signs, body mass index, or CHADS 2 (congestive heart failure, hypertension, age, diabetes mellitus, and prior stroke or transient ischemic attack) score between the preintervention and intervention groups. The rate of inpatient admission was significantly lower in the intervention group (from 45% to 36%; P <0.001). The groups were not significantly different with regard to rates of return emergency department visits (19% versus 17%; P =0.48), hospitalization (18% versus 16%; P =0.22), or adverse events (2% versus 2%; P =0.95) within 30 days. Emergency department observation unit admissions were 40% ( P <0.001) less costly than inpatient hospital admissions of ≤1 day's duration. Conclusions Implementation of an emergency department observation unit AF algorithm was associated with significantly decreased hospital admissions without increasing the rates of return emergency department visits, hospitalization, or adverse events within 30 days.

Abstract Atrial fibrillation (AF) is an increasingly common cardiac arrhythmia. Many patients with new onset or recurrent AF present to the emergency department and are subsequently admitted to the hospital and seen by cardiology specialists for follow up. In an attempt to address this high utilization of acute health care resources, reduce costs, and improve patient care, our institution instituted a collaborative project between the departments of emergency medicine, cardiology, family medicine, and primary care internal medicine. The project team oversaw development of a new emergency department AF order set, encouraged utilization of a new oral anticoagulant (dabigatran), improved the primary care follow up connection, and deployed a multimodal education plan for primary care providers. Between 2012 and 2014, these interventions resulted in a 17% reduction in total AF per member per month (PMPM) cost, a 28% reduction in AF PMPM inpatient cost, and a 24% reduction in inpatient admissions for AF.