David O Meltzer, MD, PhD

As our understanding of SARS-CoV-2 has progressed, researchers, clinicians, and patients have learned that recovery from COVID-19 can last well beyond the acute phase of the illness. As we see fewer fatal cases and more survivors, studies that characterize the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) are increasingly important for understanding how to help patients return to their normal lives, especially after hospitalization. Critical to investigating this is knowing patients’ burden of symptoms and disabilities prior to infection. In this issue, a study by Iwashyna et al¹ helps us understand patients’ lives after COVID compared to their lives before COVID.

The study analyzed patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted during the third wave of the pandemic to assess for new cardiopulmonary symptoms, new disability, and financial toxicity of hospitalization 1 month after discharge.¹ Many patients had new cardiopulmonary symptoms and oxygen use, and a much larger number had new limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) or instrumental activities of daily living (iADLs). The majority were discharged home without home care services, and new limitations in ADLs or iADLs were common in these cases. Most patients reported not having returned to their cardiopulmonary or functional baseline; however, new cough, shortness of breath, or oxygen use usually did not explain their new disabilities. Financial toxicity was also common, reflecting the effects of COVID-19 on both employment and family finances.

These results complement those of Chopra et al,² who examined 60-day outcomes for patients hospitalized during the first wave of the pandemic. At 2 months from discharge, many patients had ongoing cough, shortness of breath, oxygen use, and disability, but at lower rates. This likely reflects continuing recovery during the extra 30 days, but other potential explanations deserve consideration. One possibility is improving survival over the course of the pandemic. Many patients who may have passed away earlier in the pandemic now survive to return home, albeit with a heavy burden of symptomatology. This raises the possibility that symptoms among survivors may continue to increase as survival of COVID-19 improves. However, it should be noted that neither study is representative of the national patterns of hospitalization by race or ethnicity.³ Iwashyna et al¹ underrepresented Black patients, while Chopra et al² underrepresented Hispanic patients. Given what we know about outcomes for these populations and their underrepresentation in PASC literature, the impact of COVID-19 for them is likely underestimated. As data from 3, 6, or 12 months become available, we may also see the effect sizes described in this early literature become even larger.

Consistent with the findings of Chopra et al,² financial toxicity after COVID-19 hospitalization was high. The longer-term financial burden of COVID-19 will likely exceed what is described here, particularly for Black and Hispanic patients, who experienced a disproportionate drain on their savings. These populations are also more likely to be negatively impacted by the COVID economy⁴ and thus may suffer a “double hit” financially if hospitalized.

Iwashyna et al¹ underscore the urgent need for progress in understanding COVID “long-haulers”⁵ and helping patients with physical and financial recovery. Whether the spectacular innovations identified by the medical community in COVID-19 prevention and treatment of acute illness can be found for long COVID remains to be seen. The fact that so many patients studied by Iwashyna et al did not receive home care services and experienced financial toxicity shows the importance of broader implementation of systems and services to support survivors of COVID-19 hospitalization. Developers of this support must emphasize the importance of physical and cardiopulmonary rehabilitation as well as financial relief, particularly for minorities. For our patients and their families, this may be the best strategy to get “back to normal.”

The authors thank Dr Vineet Arora for reviewing and advising on this manuscript.

As our understanding of SARS-CoV-2 has progressed, researchers, clinicians, and patients have learned that recovery from COVID-19 can last well beyond the acute phase of the illness. As we see fewer fatal cases and more survivors, studies that characterize the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) are increasingly important for understanding how to help patients return to their normal lives, especially after hospitalization. Critical to investigating this is knowing patients’ burden of symptoms and disabilities prior to infection. In this issue, a study by Iwashyna et al¹ helps us understand patients’ lives after COVID compared to their lives before COVID.

The study analyzed patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted during the third wave of the pandemic to assess for new cardiopulmonary symptoms, new disability, and financial toxicity of hospitalization 1 month after discharge.¹ Many patients had new cardiopulmonary symptoms and oxygen use, and a much larger number had new limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) or instrumental activities of daily living (iADLs). The majority were discharged home without home care services, and new limitations in ADLs or iADLs were common in these cases. Most patients reported not having returned to their cardiopulmonary or functional baseline; however, new cough, shortness of breath, or oxygen use usually did not explain their new disabilities. Financial toxicity was also common, reflecting the effects of COVID-19 on both employment and family finances.

These results complement those of Chopra et al,² who examined 60-day outcomes for patients hospitalized during the first wave of the pandemic. At 2 months from discharge, many patients had ongoing cough, shortness of breath, oxygen use, and disability, but at lower rates. This likely reflects continuing recovery during the extra 30 days, but other potential explanations deserve consideration. One possibility is improving survival over the course of the pandemic. Many patients who may have passed away earlier in the pandemic now survive to return home, albeit with a heavy burden of symptomatology. This raises the possibility that symptoms among survivors may continue to increase as survival of COVID-19 improves. However, it should be noted that neither study is representative of the national patterns of hospitalization by race or ethnicity.³ Iwashyna et al¹ underrepresented Black patients, while Chopra et al² underrepresented Hispanic patients. Given what we know about outcomes for these populations and their underrepresentation in PASC literature, the impact of COVID-19 for them is likely underestimated. As data from 3, 6, or 12 months become available, we may also see the effect sizes described in this early literature become even larger.

Consistent with the findings of Chopra et al,² financial toxicity after COVID-19 hospitalization was high. The longer-term financial burden of COVID-19 will likely exceed what is described here, particularly for Black and Hispanic patients, who experienced a disproportionate drain on their savings. These populations are also more likely to be negatively impacted by the COVID economy⁴ and thus may suffer a “double hit” financially if hospitalized.

Iwashyna et al¹ underscore the urgent need for progress in understanding COVID “long-haulers”⁵ and helping patients with physical and financial recovery. Whether the spectacular innovations identified by the medical community in COVID-19 prevention and treatment of acute illness can be found for long COVID remains to be seen. The fact that so many patients studied by Iwashyna et al did not receive home care services and experienced financial toxicity shows the importance of broader implementation of systems and services to support survivors of COVID-19 hospitalization. Developers of this support must emphasize the importance of physical and cardiopulmonary rehabilitation as well as financial relief, particularly for minorities. For our patients and their families, this may be the best strategy to get “back to normal.”

The authors thank Dr Vineet Arora for reviewing and advising on this manuscript.

As our understanding of SARS-CoV-2 has progressed, researchers, clinicians, and patients have learned that recovery from COVID-19 can last well beyond the acute phase of the illness. As we see fewer fatal cases and more survivors, studies that characterize the postacute sequelae of COVID-19 (PASC) are increasingly important for understanding how to help patients return to their normal lives, especially after hospitalization. Critical to investigating this is knowing patients’ burden of symptoms and disabilities prior to infection. In this issue, a study by Iwashyna et al¹ helps us understand patients’ lives after COVID compared to their lives before COVID.

The study analyzed patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted during the third wave of the pandemic to assess for new cardiopulmonary symptoms, new disability, and financial toxicity of hospitalization 1 month after discharge.¹ Many patients had new cardiopulmonary symptoms and oxygen use, and a much larger number had new limitations in activities of daily living (ADLs) or instrumental activities of daily living (iADLs). The majority were discharged home without home care services, and new limitations in ADLs or iADLs were common in these cases. Most patients reported not having returned to their cardiopulmonary or functional baseline; however, new cough, shortness of breath, or oxygen use usually did not explain their new disabilities. Financial toxicity was also common, reflecting the effects of COVID-19 on both employment and family finances.

These results complement those of Chopra et al,² who examined 60-day outcomes for patients hospitalized during the first wave of the pandemic. At 2 months from discharge, many patients had ongoing cough, shortness of breath, oxygen use, and disability, but at lower rates. This likely reflects continuing recovery during the extra 30 days, but other potential explanations deserve consideration. One possibility is improving survival over the course of the pandemic. Many patients who may have passed away earlier in the pandemic now survive to return home, albeit with a heavy burden of symptomatology. This raises the possibility that symptoms among survivors may continue to increase as survival of COVID-19 improves. However, it should be noted that neither study is representative of the national patterns of hospitalization by race or ethnicity.³ Iwashyna et al¹ underrepresented Black patients, while Chopra et al² underrepresented Hispanic patients. Given what we know about outcomes for these populations and their underrepresentation in PASC literature, the impact of COVID-19 for them is likely underestimated. As data from 3, 6, or 12 months become available, we may also see the effect sizes described in this early literature become even larger.

Consistent with the findings of Chopra et al,² financial toxicity after COVID-19 hospitalization was high. The longer-term financial burden of COVID-19 will likely exceed what is described here, particularly for Black and Hispanic patients, who experienced a disproportionate drain on their savings. These populations are also more likely to be negatively impacted by the COVID economy⁴ and thus may suffer a “double hit” financially if hospitalized.

Iwashyna et al¹ underscore the urgent need for progress in understanding COVID “long-haulers”⁵ and helping patients with physical and financial recovery. Whether the spectacular innovations identified by the medical community in COVID-19 prevention and treatment of acute illness can be found for long COVID remains to be seen. The fact that so many patients studied by Iwashyna et al did not receive home care services and experienced financial toxicity shows the importance of broader implementation of systems and services to support survivors of COVID-19 hospitalization. Developers of this support must emphasize the importance of physical and cardiopulmonary rehabilitation as well as financial relief, particularly for minorities. For our patients and their families, this may be the best strategy to get “back to normal.”

The authors thank Dr Vineet Arora for reviewing and advising on this manuscript.

Inpatient consultation is an extremely common practice with the potential to improve patient outcomes significantly.^1-3 However, variability in consultation practices may be risky for patients. In addition to underuse when the benefit is clear, the overuse of consultation may lead to additional testing and therapies, increased length of stay (LOS) and costs, conflicting recommendations, and opportunities for communication breakdown.

Consultation use is often at the discretion of individual providers. While this decision is frequently driven by patient needs, significant variation in consultation practices not fully explained by patient factors exists.¹ Prior work has described hospital-level variation¹ and that primary care physicians use more consultation than hospitalists.⁴ However, other factors affecting consultation remain unknown. We sought to explore physician-, patient-, and admission-level factors associated with consultation use on inpatient general medicine services.

Study Design

We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from the University of Chicago Hospitalist Project (UCHP). UCHP is a longstanding study of the care of hospitalized patients admitted to the University of Chicago general medicine services, involving both patient data collection and physician experience surveys.⁵ Data were obtained for enrolled UCHP patients between 2011-2016 from the Center for Research Informatics (CRI). The University of Chicago Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Data Collection

Attendings and patients consented to UCHP participation. Data collection details are described elsewhere.^5,6 Data from EpicCare (EpicSystems Corp, Wisconsin) and Centricity Billing (GE Healthcare, Illinois) were obtained via CRI for all encounters of enrolled UCHP patients during the study period (N = 218,591).

Attending Attribution

We determined attending attribution for admissions as follows: the attending author of the first history and physical (H&P) was assigned. If this was unavailable, the attending author of the first progress note (PN) was assigned. For patients admitted by hospitalists on admitting shifts to nonteaching services (ie, service without residents/students), the author of the first PN was assigned if different from H&P. Where available, attribution was corroborated with call schedules.

Sample and Variables

All encounters containing inpatient admissions to the University of Chicago from May 10, 2011 (Electronic Health Record activation date), through December 31, 2016, were considered for inclusion (N = 51,171, Appendix 1). Admissions including only documentation from ancillary services were excluded (eg, encounters for hemodialysis or physical therapy). Admissions were limited to a length of stay (LOS) ≤ 5 days, corresponding to the average US inpatient LOS of 4.6 days,⁷ to minimize the likelihood of attending handoffs (N = 31,592). If attending attribution was not possible via the above-described methods, the admission was eliminated (N = 3,103; 10.9% of admissions with LOS ≤ 5 days). Finally, the sample was restricted to general medicine service admissions under attendings enrolled in UCHP who completed surveys. After the application of all criteria, 6,153 admissions remained for analysis.

The outcome variable was the number of consultations per admission, determined by counting the unique number of services creating clinical documentation, and subtracting one for the primary team. If the Medical/Surgical intensive care unit (ICU) was a service, then two were subtracted to account for the ICU transfer.

Attending years in practice (ie, years since medical school graduation) and gender were determined from public resources. Practice characteristics were determined from UCHP attending surveys, which address perceptions of workload and satisfaction (Appendix 2).

Patient characteristics (gender, age, Elixhauser Indices) and admission characteristics (LOS, season of admission, payor) were determined from UCHP and CRI data. The Elixhauser Index uses a well-validated system combining the presence/absence of 31 comorbidities to predict mortality and 30-day readmission.⁸ Elixhauser Indices were calculated using the “Creation of Elixhauser Comorbidity Index Scores 1.0” software.⁹ For admissions under hospitalist attendings, teaching/nonteaching team was ascertained via internal teaching service calendars.

Analysis

We used descriptive statistics to examine demographic characteristics. The difference between the lowest and highest quartile consultation use was determined via a two-sample t test. Given the multilevel nature of our count data, we used a mixed-effects Poisson model accounting for within-group variation by clustering on attending and patient (3-level random-effects model). The analysis was done using Stata 15 (StataCorp, Texas).

From 2011 to 2016, 14,848 patients and 88 attendings were enrolled in UCHP; 4,772 patients (32%) and 69 attendings (59.4%) had data available and were included. Mean LOS was 3.0 days (SD = 1.3). Table 1 describes the characteristics of attendings, patients, and admissions.

Seventy-six percent of admissions included at least one consultation. Consultation use varied widely, ranging from 0 to 10 per admission (mean = 1.39, median = 1; standard deviation [SD] = 1.17). The number of consultations per admission in the highest quartile of consultation frequency (mean = 3.47, median = 3) was 5.7-fold that of the lowest quartile (mean = 0.613, median = 1; P <.001).

In multivariable regression, physician-, patient-, and admission-level characteristics were associated with the differential use of consultation (Table 2). On teaching services, consultations called by hospitalist vs nonhospitalist generalists did not differ (P =.361). However, hospitalists on nonteaching services called 8.6% more consultations than hospitalists on teaching services (P =.02). Attending agreement with survey item “The interruption of my personal life by work is a problem” was associated with 8.2% fewer consultations per admission (P =.002).

Patients older than 75 years received 19% fewer consultations compared with patients younger than 49 years (P <.001). Compared with Medicare, Medicaid admissions had 12.2% fewer consultations (P <.001), whereas privately insured admissions had 10.7% more (P =.001). The number of consultations per admission decreased every year, with 45.3% fewer consultations in 2015 than 2011 (P <.001). Consultations increased by each 22% per day increase in LOS (P <.001).

Our analysis described several physician-, patient-, and admission-level characteristics associated with the use of inpatient consultation. Our results strengthen prior work demonstrating that patient-level factors alone are insufficient to explain consultation variability.¹

Hospitalists on nonteaching services called more consultations, which may reflect a higher workload on these services. Busy hospitalists on nonteaching teams may lack time to delve deeply into clinical problems and require more consultations, especially for work with heavy cognitive loads such as diagnosis. “Outsourcing” tasks when workload increases occurs in other cognitive activities such as teaching.¹⁰ The association between work interrupting personal life and fewer consultations may also implicate the effects of time. Attendings who are experiencing work encroaching on their personal lives may be those spending more time with patients and consulting less. This finding merits further study, especially with increasing concern about balancing time spent in meaningful patient care activities with risk of physician burnout.

This finding could also indicate that trainee participation modifies consultation use for hospitalists. Teaching service teams with more individual members may allow a greater pool of collective knowledge, decreasing the need for consultation to answer clinical questions.¹¹ Interestingly, there was no difference in consultation use between generalists or subspecialists and hospitalists on teaching services, possibly suggesting a unique effect in hospitalists who vary clinical practice depending on team structure. These differences deserve further investigation, with implications for education and resource utilization.

We were surprised by the finding that consultations decreased each year, despite increasing patient complexity and availability of consultation services. This could be explained by a growing emphasis on shortening LOS in our institution, thus shifting consultative care to outpatient settings. Understanding these effects is critically important with growing evidence that consultation improves patient outcomes because these external pressures could lead to unintended consequences for quality or access to care.

Several findings related to patient factors additionally emerged, including age and insurance status. Although related to medical complexity, these effects persist despite adjustment, which raises the question of whether they contribute to the decision to seek consultation. Older patients received fewer consultations, which could reflect the use of more conservative practice models in the elderly,¹² or ageism, which is associated with undertreatment.¹³ With respect to insurance status, Medicaid patients were associated with fewer consultations. This finding is consistent with previous work showing the decreased intensity of hospital services used for Medicaid patients.¹⁴Our study has limitations. Our data were from one large urban academic center that limits generalizability. Although systematic and redundant, attending attribution may have been flawed: incomplete or erroneous documentation could have led to attribution error, and we cannot rule out the possibility of service handoffs. We used a LOS ≤ 5 days to minimize this possibility, but this limits the applicability of our findings to longer admissions. Unsurprisingly, longer LOS correlated with the increased use of consultation even within our restricted sample, and future work should examine the effects of prolonged LOS. As a retrospective analysis, unmeasured confounders due to our limited adjustment will likely explain some findings, although we took steps to address this in our statistical design. Finally, we could not measure patient outcomes and, therefore, cannot determine the value of more or fewer consultations for specific patients or illnesses. Positive and negative outcomes of increased consultation are described, and understanding the impact of consultation is critical for further study.^2,3

We found that the use of consultation on general medicine services varies widely between admissions, with large differences between the highest and lowest frequencies of use. This variation can be partially explained by several physician-, patient-, and admission-level characteristics. Our work may help identify patient and attending groups at high risk for under- or overuse of consultation and guide the subsequent development of interventions to improve value in consultation. One additional consultation over the average LOS of 4.6 days adds $420 per admission or $4.8 billion to the 11.5 million annual Medicare admissions.¹⁵ Increasing research, guidelines, and education on the judicious use of inpatient consultation will be key in maximizing high-value care and improving patient outcomes.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable support and assistance of the University of Chicago Hospitalist Project, the Pritzker School of Medicine Summer Research Program, the University of Chicago Center for Quality, and the University of Chicago Center for Health and the Social Sciences (CHeSS). The authors would additionally like to thank John Cursio, PhD, for his support and guidance in statistical analysis for this project.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. The funders had no role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the decision to approve publication of the finished manuscript. Preliminary results of this analysis were presented at the 2018 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida. All coauthors have seen and agree with the contents of the manuscript. The submission is not under review by any other publication.

Inpatient consultation is an extremely common practice with the potential to improve patient outcomes significantly.^1-3 However, variability in consultation practices may be risky for patients. In addition to underuse when the benefit is clear, the overuse of consultation may lead to additional testing and therapies, increased length of stay (LOS) and costs, conflicting recommendations, and opportunities for communication breakdown.

Consultation use is often at the discretion of individual providers. While this decision is frequently driven by patient needs, significant variation in consultation practices not fully explained by patient factors exists.¹ Prior work has described hospital-level variation¹ and that primary care physicians use more consultation than hospitalists.⁴ However, other factors affecting consultation remain unknown. We sought to explore physician-, patient-, and admission-level factors associated with consultation use on inpatient general medicine services.

Study Design

We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from the University of Chicago Hospitalist Project (UCHP). UCHP is a longstanding study of the care of hospitalized patients admitted to the University of Chicago general medicine services, involving both patient data collection and physician experience surveys.⁵ Data were obtained for enrolled UCHP patients between 2011-2016 from the Center for Research Informatics (CRI). The University of Chicago Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Data Collection

Attendings and patients consented to UCHP participation. Data collection details are described elsewhere.^5,6 Data from EpicCare (EpicSystems Corp, Wisconsin) and Centricity Billing (GE Healthcare, Illinois) were obtained via CRI for all encounters of enrolled UCHP patients during the study period (N = 218,591).

Attending Attribution

We determined attending attribution for admissions as follows: the attending author of the first history and physical (H&P) was assigned. If this was unavailable, the attending author of the first progress note (PN) was assigned. For patients admitted by hospitalists on admitting shifts to nonteaching services (ie, service without residents/students), the author of the first PN was assigned if different from H&P. Where available, attribution was corroborated with call schedules.

Sample and Variables

All encounters containing inpatient admissions to the University of Chicago from May 10, 2011 (Electronic Health Record activation date), through December 31, 2016, were considered for inclusion (N = 51,171, Appendix 1). Admissions including only documentation from ancillary services were excluded (eg, encounters for hemodialysis or physical therapy). Admissions were limited to a length of stay (LOS) ≤ 5 days, corresponding to the average US inpatient LOS of 4.6 days,⁷ to minimize the likelihood of attending handoffs (N = 31,592). If attending attribution was not possible via the above-described methods, the admission was eliminated (N = 3,103; 10.9% of admissions with LOS ≤ 5 days). Finally, the sample was restricted to general medicine service admissions under attendings enrolled in UCHP who completed surveys. After the application of all criteria, 6,153 admissions remained for analysis.

The outcome variable was the number of consultations per admission, determined by counting the unique number of services creating clinical documentation, and subtracting one for the primary team. If the Medical/Surgical intensive care unit (ICU) was a service, then two were subtracted to account for the ICU transfer.

Attending years in practice (ie, years since medical school graduation) and gender were determined from public resources. Practice characteristics were determined from UCHP attending surveys, which address perceptions of workload and satisfaction (Appendix 2).

Patient characteristics (gender, age, Elixhauser Indices) and admission characteristics (LOS, season of admission, payor) were determined from UCHP and CRI data. The Elixhauser Index uses a well-validated system combining the presence/absence of 31 comorbidities to predict mortality and 30-day readmission.⁸ Elixhauser Indices were calculated using the “Creation of Elixhauser Comorbidity Index Scores 1.0” software.⁹ For admissions under hospitalist attendings, teaching/nonteaching team was ascertained via internal teaching service calendars.

Analysis

We used descriptive statistics to examine demographic characteristics. The difference between the lowest and highest quartile consultation use was determined via a two-sample t test. Given the multilevel nature of our count data, we used a mixed-effects Poisson model accounting for within-group variation by clustering on attending and patient (3-level random-effects model). The analysis was done using Stata 15 (StataCorp, Texas).

From 2011 to 2016, 14,848 patients and 88 attendings were enrolled in UCHP; 4,772 patients (32%) and 69 attendings (59.4%) had data available and were included. Mean LOS was 3.0 days (SD = 1.3). Table 1 describes the characteristics of attendings, patients, and admissions.

Seventy-six percent of admissions included at least one consultation. Consultation use varied widely, ranging from 0 to 10 per admission (mean = 1.39, median = 1; standard deviation [SD] = 1.17). The number of consultations per admission in the highest quartile of consultation frequency (mean = 3.47, median = 3) was 5.7-fold that of the lowest quartile (mean = 0.613, median = 1; P <.001).

In multivariable regression, physician-, patient-, and admission-level characteristics were associated with the differential use of consultation (Table 2). On teaching services, consultations called by hospitalist vs nonhospitalist generalists did not differ (P =.361). However, hospitalists on nonteaching services called 8.6% more consultations than hospitalists on teaching services (P =.02). Attending agreement with survey item “The interruption of my personal life by work is a problem” was associated with 8.2% fewer consultations per admission (P =.002).

Patients older than 75 years received 19% fewer consultations compared with patients younger than 49 years (P <.001). Compared with Medicare, Medicaid admissions had 12.2% fewer consultations (P <.001), whereas privately insured admissions had 10.7% more (P =.001). The number of consultations per admission decreased every year, with 45.3% fewer consultations in 2015 than 2011 (P <.001). Consultations increased by each 22% per day increase in LOS (P <.001).

Our analysis described several physician-, patient-, and admission-level characteristics associated with the use of inpatient consultation. Our results strengthen prior work demonstrating that patient-level factors alone are insufficient to explain consultation variability.¹

Hospitalists on nonteaching services called more consultations, which may reflect a higher workload on these services. Busy hospitalists on nonteaching teams may lack time to delve deeply into clinical problems and require more consultations, especially for work with heavy cognitive loads such as diagnosis. “Outsourcing” tasks when workload increases occurs in other cognitive activities such as teaching.¹⁰ The association between work interrupting personal life and fewer consultations may also implicate the effects of time. Attendings who are experiencing work encroaching on their personal lives may be those spending more time with patients and consulting less. This finding merits further study, especially with increasing concern about balancing time spent in meaningful patient care activities with risk of physician burnout.

This finding could also indicate that trainee participation modifies consultation use for hospitalists. Teaching service teams with more individual members may allow a greater pool of collective knowledge, decreasing the need for consultation to answer clinical questions.¹¹ Interestingly, there was no difference in consultation use between generalists or subspecialists and hospitalists on teaching services, possibly suggesting a unique effect in hospitalists who vary clinical practice depending on team structure. These differences deserve further investigation, with implications for education and resource utilization.

We were surprised by the finding that consultations decreased each year, despite increasing patient complexity and availability of consultation services. This could be explained by a growing emphasis on shortening LOS in our institution, thus shifting consultative care to outpatient settings. Understanding these effects is critically important with growing evidence that consultation improves patient outcomes because these external pressures could lead to unintended consequences for quality or access to care.

Several findings related to patient factors additionally emerged, including age and insurance status. Although related to medical complexity, these effects persist despite adjustment, which raises the question of whether they contribute to the decision to seek consultation. Older patients received fewer consultations, which could reflect the use of more conservative practice models in the elderly,¹² or ageism, which is associated with undertreatment.¹³ With respect to insurance status, Medicaid patients were associated with fewer consultations. This finding is consistent with previous work showing the decreased intensity of hospital services used for Medicaid patients.¹⁴Our study has limitations. Our data were from one large urban academic center that limits generalizability. Although systematic and redundant, attending attribution may have been flawed: incomplete or erroneous documentation could have led to attribution error, and we cannot rule out the possibility of service handoffs. We used a LOS ≤ 5 days to minimize this possibility, but this limits the applicability of our findings to longer admissions. Unsurprisingly, longer LOS correlated with the increased use of consultation even within our restricted sample, and future work should examine the effects of prolonged LOS. As a retrospective analysis, unmeasured confounders due to our limited adjustment will likely explain some findings, although we took steps to address this in our statistical design. Finally, we could not measure patient outcomes and, therefore, cannot determine the value of more or fewer consultations for specific patients or illnesses. Positive and negative outcomes of increased consultation are described, and understanding the impact of consultation is critical for further study.^2,3

We found that the use of consultation on general medicine services varies widely between admissions, with large differences between the highest and lowest frequencies of use. This variation can be partially explained by several physician-, patient-, and admission-level characteristics. Our work may help identify patient and attending groups at high risk for under- or overuse of consultation and guide the subsequent development of interventions to improve value in consultation. One additional consultation over the average LOS of 4.6 days adds $420 per admission or $4.8 billion to the 11.5 million annual Medicare admissions.¹⁵ Increasing research, guidelines, and education on the judicious use of inpatient consultation will be key in maximizing high-value care and improving patient outcomes.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable support and assistance of the University of Chicago Hospitalist Project, the Pritzker School of Medicine Summer Research Program, the University of Chicago Center for Quality, and the University of Chicago Center for Health and the Social Sciences (CHeSS). The authors would additionally like to thank John Cursio, PhD, for his support and guidance in statistical analysis for this project.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. The funders had no role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the decision to approve publication of the finished manuscript. Preliminary results of this analysis were presented at the 2018 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida. All coauthors have seen and agree with the contents of the manuscript. The submission is not under review by any other publication.

Inpatient consultation is an extremely common practice with the potential to improve patient outcomes significantly.^1-3 However, variability in consultation practices may be risky for patients. In addition to underuse when the benefit is clear, the overuse of consultation may lead to additional testing and therapies, increased length of stay (LOS) and costs, conflicting recommendations, and opportunities for communication breakdown.

Consultation use is often at the discretion of individual providers. While this decision is frequently driven by patient needs, significant variation in consultation practices not fully explained by patient factors exists.¹ Prior work has described hospital-level variation¹ and that primary care physicians use more consultation than hospitalists.⁴ However, other factors affecting consultation remain unknown. We sought to explore physician-, patient-, and admission-level factors associated with consultation use on inpatient general medicine services.

Study Design

We conducted a retrospective analysis of data from the University of Chicago Hospitalist Project (UCHP). UCHP is a longstanding study of the care of hospitalized patients admitted to the University of Chicago general medicine services, involving both patient data collection and physician experience surveys.⁵ Data were obtained for enrolled UCHP patients between 2011-2016 from the Center for Research Informatics (CRI). The University of Chicago Institutional Review Board approved this study.

Data Collection

Attendings and patients consented to UCHP participation. Data collection details are described elsewhere.^5,6 Data from EpicCare (EpicSystems Corp, Wisconsin) and Centricity Billing (GE Healthcare, Illinois) were obtained via CRI for all encounters of enrolled UCHP patients during the study period (N = 218,591).

Attending Attribution

We determined attending attribution for admissions as follows: the attending author of the first history and physical (H&P) was assigned. If this was unavailable, the attending author of the first progress note (PN) was assigned. For patients admitted by hospitalists on admitting shifts to nonteaching services (ie, service without residents/students), the author of the first PN was assigned if different from H&P. Where available, attribution was corroborated with call schedules.

Sample and Variables

All encounters containing inpatient admissions to the University of Chicago from May 10, 2011 (Electronic Health Record activation date), through December 31, 2016, were considered for inclusion (N = 51,171, Appendix 1). Admissions including only documentation from ancillary services were excluded (eg, encounters for hemodialysis or physical therapy). Admissions were limited to a length of stay (LOS) ≤ 5 days, corresponding to the average US inpatient LOS of 4.6 days,⁷ to minimize the likelihood of attending handoffs (N = 31,592). If attending attribution was not possible via the above-described methods, the admission was eliminated (N = 3,103; 10.9% of admissions with LOS ≤ 5 days). Finally, the sample was restricted to general medicine service admissions under attendings enrolled in UCHP who completed surveys. After the application of all criteria, 6,153 admissions remained for analysis.

The outcome variable was the number of consultations per admission, determined by counting the unique number of services creating clinical documentation, and subtracting one for the primary team. If the Medical/Surgical intensive care unit (ICU) was a service, then two were subtracted to account for the ICU transfer.

Attending years in practice (ie, years since medical school graduation) and gender were determined from public resources. Practice characteristics were determined from UCHP attending surveys, which address perceptions of workload and satisfaction (Appendix 2).

Patient characteristics (gender, age, Elixhauser Indices) and admission characteristics (LOS, season of admission, payor) were determined from UCHP and CRI data. The Elixhauser Index uses a well-validated system combining the presence/absence of 31 comorbidities to predict mortality and 30-day readmission.⁸ Elixhauser Indices were calculated using the “Creation of Elixhauser Comorbidity Index Scores 1.0” software.⁹ For admissions under hospitalist attendings, teaching/nonteaching team was ascertained via internal teaching service calendars.

Analysis

We used descriptive statistics to examine demographic characteristics. The difference between the lowest and highest quartile consultation use was determined via a two-sample t test. Given the multilevel nature of our count data, we used a mixed-effects Poisson model accounting for within-group variation by clustering on attending and patient (3-level random-effects model). The analysis was done using Stata 15 (StataCorp, Texas).

From 2011 to 2016, 14,848 patients and 88 attendings were enrolled in UCHP; 4,772 patients (32%) and 69 attendings (59.4%) had data available and were included. Mean LOS was 3.0 days (SD = 1.3). Table 1 describes the characteristics of attendings, patients, and admissions.

Seventy-six percent of admissions included at least one consultation. Consultation use varied widely, ranging from 0 to 10 per admission (mean = 1.39, median = 1; standard deviation [SD] = 1.17). The number of consultations per admission in the highest quartile of consultation frequency (mean = 3.47, median = 3) was 5.7-fold that of the lowest quartile (mean = 0.613, median = 1; P <.001).

In multivariable regression, physician-, patient-, and admission-level characteristics were associated with the differential use of consultation (Table 2). On teaching services, consultations called by hospitalist vs nonhospitalist generalists did not differ (P =.361). However, hospitalists on nonteaching services called 8.6% more consultations than hospitalists on teaching services (P =.02). Attending agreement with survey item “The interruption of my personal life by work is a problem” was associated with 8.2% fewer consultations per admission (P =.002).

Patients older than 75 years received 19% fewer consultations compared with patients younger than 49 years (P <.001). Compared with Medicare, Medicaid admissions had 12.2% fewer consultations (P <.001), whereas privately insured admissions had 10.7% more (P =.001). The number of consultations per admission decreased every year, with 45.3% fewer consultations in 2015 than 2011 (P <.001). Consultations increased by each 22% per day increase in LOS (P <.001).

Our analysis described several physician-, patient-, and admission-level characteristics associated with the use of inpatient consultation. Our results strengthen prior work demonstrating that patient-level factors alone are insufficient to explain consultation variability.¹

Hospitalists on nonteaching services called more consultations, which may reflect a higher workload on these services. Busy hospitalists on nonteaching teams may lack time to delve deeply into clinical problems and require more consultations, especially for work with heavy cognitive loads such as diagnosis. “Outsourcing” tasks when workload increases occurs in other cognitive activities such as teaching.¹⁰ The association between work interrupting personal life and fewer consultations may also implicate the effects of time. Attendings who are experiencing work encroaching on their personal lives may be those spending more time with patients and consulting less. This finding merits further study, especially with increasing concern about balancing time spent in meaningful patient care activities with risk of physician burnout.

This finding could also indicate that trainee participation modifies consultation use for hospitalists. Teaching service teams with more individual members may allow a greater pool of collective knowledge, decreasing the need for consultation to answer clinical questions.¹¹ Interestingly, there was no difference in consultation use between generalists or subspecialists and hospitalists on teaching services, possibly suggesting a unique effect in hospitalists who vary clinical practice depending on team structure. These differences deserve further investigation, with implications for education and resource utilization.

We were surprised by the finding that consultations decreased each year, despite increasing patient complexity and availability of consultation services. This could be explained by a growing emphasis on shortening LOS in our institution, thus shifting consultative care to outpatient settings. Understanding these effects is critically important with growing evidence that consultation improves patient outcomes because these external pressures could lead to unintended consequences for quality or access to care.

Several findings related to patient factors additionally emerged, including age and insurance status. Although related to medical complexity, these effects persist despite adjustment, which raises the question of whether they contribute to the decision to seek consultation. Older patients received fewer consultations, which could reflect the use of more conservative practice models in the elderly,¹² or ageism, which is associated with undertreatment.¹³ With respect to insurance status, Medicaid patients were associated with fewer consultations. This finding is consistent with previous work showing the decreased intensity of hospital services used for Medicaid patients.¹⁴Our study has limitations. Our data were from one large urban academic center that limits generalizability. Although systematic and redundant, attending attribution may have been flawed: incomplete or erroneous documentation could have led to attribution error, and we cannot rule out the possibility of service handoffs. We used a LOS ≤ 5 days to minimize this possibility, but this limits the applicability of our findings to longer admissions. Unsurprisingly, longer LOS correlated with the increased use of consultation even within our restricted sample, and future work should examine the effects of prolonged LOS. As a retrospective analysis, unmeasured confounders due to our limited adjustment will likely explain some findings, although we took steps to address this in our statistical design. Finally, we could not measure patient outcomes and, therefore, cannot determine the value of more or fewer consultations for specific patients or illnesses. Positive and negative outcomes of increased consultation are described, and understanding the impact of consultation is critical for further study.^2,3

We found that the use of consultation on general medicine services varies widely between admissions, with large differences between the highest and lowest frequencies of use. This variation can be partially explained by several physician-, patient-, and admission-level characteristics. Our work may help identify patient and attending groups at high risk for under- or overuse of consultation and guide the subsequent development of interventions to improve value in consultation. One additional consultation over the average LOS of 4.6 days adds $420 per admission or $4.8 billion to the 11.5 million annual Medicare admissions.¹⁵ Increasing research, guidelines, and education on the judicious use of inpatient consultation will be key in maximizing high-value care and improving patient outcomes.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the invaluable support and assistance of the University of Chicago Hospitalist Project, the Pritzker School of Medicine Summer Research Program, the University of Chicago Center for Quality, and the University of Chicago Center for Health and the Social Sciences (CHeSS). The authors would additionally like to thank John Cursio, PhD, for his support and guidance in statistical analysis for this project.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. The funders had no role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; or the decision to approve publication of the finished manuscript. Preliminary results of this analysis were presented at the 2018 Society of Hospital Medicine Annual Meeting in Orlando, Florida. All coauthors have seen and agree with the contents of the manuscript. The submission is not under review by any other publication.

Although sleep is critical to patient recovery in the hospital, hospitalization is not restful,^1,2 and inpatient sleep deprivation has been linked to poor health outcomes.^1-4 The American Academy of Nursing’s Choosing Wisely^® campaign recommends nurses reduce unnecessary nocturnal care.⁵ However, interventions to improve inpatient sleep are not widely implemented.⁶ Targeting routine disruptions, such as overnight vital signs, by changing default settings in the electronic health record (EHR)with “nudges” could be a cost-effective strategy to improve inpatient sleep.^4,7

We created Sleep for Inpatients: Empowering Staff to Act (SIESTA), which pairs nudges in the EHR with interprofessional education and empowerment,⁸ and tested its effectiveness on objectively and subjectively measured nocturnal sleep disruptors.

Study Design

Two 18-room University of Chicago Medicine general-medicine units were used in this prospective study. The SIESTA-enhanced unit underwent the full sleep intervention: nursing education and empowerment, physician education, and EHR changes. The standard unit did not receive nursing interventions but received all other forms of intervention. Because physicians simultaneously cared for patients on both units, all internal medicine residents and hospitalists received the same education. The study population included physicians, nurses, and awake English-speaking patients who were cognitively intact and admitted to these two units. The University of Chicago Institutional Review Board approved this study (12-1766; 16685B).

Development of SIESTA

To develop SIESTA, patients were surveyed, and focus groups of staff were conducted; overnight vitals, medications, and phlebotomy were identified as major barriers to patient sleep.⁹ We found that physicians did not know how to change the default vital signs order “every 4 hours” or how to batch-order morning phlebotomy at a time other than 4:00 am. Nurses reported having to wake patients up at 1:00 am for q8h subcutaneous heparin.

Behavioral Nudges

The SIESTA team worked with clinical informaticists to change the default orders in Epic^TM (Epic Systems Corporation, 2017, Verona, Wisconsin) in September 2015 so that physicians would be asked, “Continue vital signs throughout the night?”¹⁰ Previously, this question was marked “Yes” by default and hidden. While the default protocol for heparin q8h was maintained, heparin q12h (9:00 am and 9:00 pm) was introduced as an option, since q12h heparin is equally effective for VTE prophylaxis.¹¹ Laboratory ordering was streamlined so that physicians could batch-order laboratory draws at 6:00 am or 10:00 pm.

SIESTA Physician Education

We created a 20-minute presentation on the consequences and causes of in-hospital sleep deprivation and evidence-based behavioral modification. We distributed pocket cards describing the mnemonic SIESTA (Screen patients for sleep disorders, Instruct patients on sleep hygiene, Eliminate disruptions, Shut doors, Treat pain, and Alarm and noise control). Physicians were instructed to consider forgoing overnight vitals, using clinical judgment to identify stable patients, use a sleep-promoting VTE prophylaxis option, and order daily labs at 10:00 pm or 6:00 am. An online educational module was sent to staff who missed live sessions due to days off.

SIESTA-Enhanced Unit

In the SIESTA-enhanced unit, nurses received education using pocket cards and were coached to collaborate with physicians to implement sleep-friendly orders. Customized signage depicting empowered nurses advocating for patients was posted near the huddle board. Because these nurses suggested adding SIESTA to the nurses’ ongoing daily huddles at 4:00 pm and 3:00 am, beginning on January 1, 2016, nurses were asked to identify at least two stable patients for sleep-friendly orders at the huddle. Night nurses incorporated SIESTA into their handoff to day nurses for eligible patients. Day nurses would then call physicians to advocate changing of orders.

Data Collection

Objectively Measured Sleep Disruptors

Adoption of SIESTA orders from March 2015 to March 2016 was assessed with a monthly Epic^TM Clarity report. From August 1, 2015 to April 1, 2016, nocturnal room entries were recorded using the GOJO SMARTLINK^TM Hand Hygiene system (GOJO Industries Inc., 2017, Akron, Ohio). This system includes two components: the hand-sanitizer dispensers, which track dispenses (numerator), and door-mounted Activity Counters, which use heat sensors that react to body heat emitted by a person passing through the doorway (denominator for hand-hygiene compliance). For our analysis, we only used Activity Counter data, which count room entries and exits, regardless of whether sanitizer was dispensed.

Patient-Reported Nighttime Sleep Disruptions

From June 2015 to March 2016, research assistants administered a 10-item Potential Hospital Sleep Disruptions and Noises Questionnaire (PHSDNQ) to patients in both units. Responses to this questionnaire correlate with actigraphy-based sleep measurements.^9,12,13 Surveys were administered every other weekday to patients available to participate (eg, willing to participate, on the unit, awake). Survey data were stored on the REDCap Database (Version 6.14.0; Vanderbilt University, 2016, Nashville, Tennessee). Pre- and post-intervention Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) “top-box ratings” for percent quiet at night and percent pain well controlled were also compared.

Data Analysis

Objectively Measured Potential Sleep Disruptors

The proportion of sleep-friendly orders was analyzed using a two-sample test for proportions pre-post for the SIESTA-enhanced and standard units. The difference in use of SIESTA orders between units was analyzed via multivariable logistic regression, testing for independent associations between post-period, SIESTA-enhanced unit, and an interaction term (post-period × SIESTA unit) on use of sleep-friendly orders.

Room entries per night (11:00 pm–7:00 am) were analyzed via single-group interrupted time-series. Multiple Activity Counter entries within three minutes were counted as a single room entry. In addition, the pre-post cutoff was set to 7:00 am, September 8, 2015; after the SIESTA launch, a second cutoff marking when SIESTA was added to the nurses’ MDI Huddle was added at 7:00 am, January 1, 2016.

Patient-Reported Nighttime Sleep Disruptions

Per prior studies, we defined a score 2 or higher as “sleep disruption.”⁹ Differences between units were evaluated via multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the interaction of post-period × SIESTA-enhanced unit and odds of not reporting a sleep disruption. Significance was denoted as P = .05.

Between March 2015 and March 2016, 1,083 general-medicine patients were admitted to the SIESTA-enhanced and standard units (Table).

Nocturnal Orders

From March 2015 to March 2016, 1,669 Epic^TM general medicine orders were reviewed (Figure). In the SIESTA-enhanced unit, the mean percentage of sleep-friendly orders rose for both vital signs (+31% [95% CI = 25%, 36%]; P < .001, n_pre = 306, n_post = 306] and VTE prophylaxis (+28% [95% CI = 18%, 37%]; P < .001, n_pre = 158, n_post = 173]. Similar changes were observed in the standard unit for sleep-friendly vital signs (+20% [95% CI = 14%, 25%]; P < .001, n_pre = 252, n_post = 219) and VTE prophylaxis (+16% [95% CI = 6%, 25%]; P = .002, n_pre = 130, n_post = 125). Differences between the two units were not statistically significant, and no significant change in timing of laboratory orders postintervention was found.

Nighttime Room Entries

Immediately after SIESTA launch, an average decrease of 114 total entries/night were noted in the SIESTA-enhanced unit, ([95% CI = −138, −91]; P < .001), corresponding to a 44% reduction (−6.3 entries/room) from the mean of 14.3 entries per patient room at baseline (Figure). No statistically significant change was seen in the standard unit. After SIESTA was incorporated into nursing huddles, total disruptions/night decreased by 1.31 disruptions/night ([95% CI = −1.64, −0.98]; P < .001) in the SIESTA-enhanced unit; by comparison, no significant changes were observed in the standard unit.

Patient-Reported Nighttime Sleep Disruptions

Between June 2015 and March 2016, 201 patient surveys were collected. A significant interaction was observed between the SIESTA-enhanced unit and post-period, and patients in the SIESTA-enhanced unit were more likely to report not being disrupted by medications (OR 4.08 [95% CI = 1.13–14.07]; P = .031) and vital signs (OR 3.35 [95% CI = 1.00–11.2]; P = .05) than those in the standard unit. HCAHPS top-box scores for the SIESTA unit increased by 7% for the “Quiet at night” category and 9% for the “Pain well controlled” category; by comparison, no major changes (>5%) were observed in the standard unit.

The present SIESTA intervention demonstrated that physician education coupled with EHR default changes are associated with a significant reduction in orders for overnight vital signs and medication administration in both units. However, addition of nursing education and empowerment in the SIESTA-enhanced unit was associated with fewer nocturnal room entries and improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with those in the standard unit.

This study presents several implications for hospital initiatives aiming to improve patient sleep.¹⁴ Our study is consistent with other research highlighting the hypothesis that altering the default settings of EHR systems can influence physician behavior in a sustainable manner.¹⁵ However, our study also finds that, even when sleep-friendly orders are present, creating a sleep-friendly environment likely depends on the unit-based nurses championing the cause. While the initial decrease in nocturnal room entries post-SIESTA eventually faded, sustainable changes were observed only after SIESTA was added to nursing huddles, which illustrates the importance of using multiple methods to nudge staff.

Our study includes a number of limitations. It is not a randomized controlled trial, we cannot assume causality, and contamination was assumed, as residents and hospitalists worked in both units. Our single-site study may not be generalizable. Low HCAHPS response rates (10%-20%) also prevent demonstration of statistically significant differences. Finally, our convenience sampling strategy means not all inpatients were surveyed, and objective sleep duration was not measured.

In summary, at the University of Chicago, SIESTA could be associated with adoption of sleep-friendly vitals and medication orders, a decrease in nighttime room entries, and improved patient experience.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA Grant No. T35AG029795) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI Grant Nos. R25HL116372 and K24HL136859).

Although sleep is critical to patient recovery in the hospital, hospitalization is not restful,^1,2 and inpatient sleep deprivation has been linked to poor health outcomes.^1-4 The American Academy of Nursing’s Choosing Wisely^® campaign recommends nurses reduce unnecessary nocturnal care.⁵ However, interventions to improve inpatient sleep are not widely implemented.⁶ Targeting routine disruptions, such as overnight vital signs, by changing default settings in the electronic health record (EHR)with “nudges” could be a cost-effective strategy to improve inpatient sleep.^4,7

We created Sleep for Inpatients: Empowering Staff to Act (SIESTA), which pairs nudges in the EHR with interprofessional education and empowerment,⁸ and tested its effectiveness on objectively and subjectively measured nocturnal sleep disruptors.

Study Design

Two 18-room University of Chicago Medicine general-medicine units were used in this prospective study. The SIESTA-enhanced unit underwent the full sleep intervention: nursing education and empowerment, physician education, and EHR changes. The standard unit did not receive nursing interventions but received all other forms of intervention. Because physicians simultaneously cared for patients on both units, all internal medicine residents and hospitalists received the same education. The study population included physicians, nurses, and awake English-speaking patients who were cognitively intact and admitted to these two units. The University of Chicago Institutional Review Board approved this study (12-1766; 16685B).

Development of SIESTA

To develop SIESTA, patients were surveyed, and focus groups of staff were conducted; overnight vitals, medications, and phlebotomy were identified as major barriers to patient sleep.⁹ We found that physicians did not know how to change the default vital signs order “every 4 hours” or how to batch-order morning phlebotomy at a time other than 4:00 am. Nurses reported having to wake patients up at 1:00 am for q8h subcutaneous heparin.

Behavioral Nudges

The SIESTA team worked with clinical informaticists to change the default orders in Epic^TM (Epic Systems Corporation, 2017, Verona, Wisconsin) in September 2015 so that physicians would be asked, “Continue vital signs throughout the night?”¹⁰ Previously, this question was marked “Yes” by default and hidden. While the default protocol for heparin q8h was maintained, heparin q12h (9:00 am and 9:00 pm) was introduced as an option, since q12h heparin is equally effective for VTE prophylaxis.¹¹ Laboratory ordering was streamlined so that physicians could batch-order laboratory draws at 6:00 am or 10:00 pm.

SIESTA Physician Education

We created a 20-minute presentation on the consequences and causes of in-hospital sleep deprivation and evidence-based behavioral modification. We distributed pocket cards describing the mnemonic SIESTA (Screen patients for sleep disorders, Instruct patients on sleep hygiene, Eliminate disruptions, Shut doors, Treat pain, and Alarm and noise control). Physicians were instructed to consider forgoing overnight vitals, using clinical judgment to identify stable patients, use a sleep-promoting VTE prophylaxis option, and order daily labs at 10:00 pm or 6:00 am. An online educational module was sent to staff who missed live sessions due to days off.

SIESTA-Enhanced Unit

In the SIESTA-enhanced unit, nurses received education using pocket cards and were coached to collaborate with physicians to implement sleep-friendly orders. Customized signage depicting empowered nurses advocating for patients was posted near the huddle board. Because these nurses suggested adding SIESTA to the nurses’ ongoing daily huddles at 4:00 pm and 3:00 am, beginning on January 1, 2016, nurses were asked to identify at least two stable patients for sleep-friendly orders at the huddle. Night nurses incorporated SIESTA into their handoff to day nurses for eligible patients. Day nurses would then call physicians to advocate changing of orders.

Data Collection

Objectively Measured Sleep Disruptors

Adoption of SIESTA orders from March 2015 to March 2016 was assessed with a monthly Epic^TM Clarity report. From August 1, 2015 to April 1, 2016, nocturnal room entries were recorded using the GOJO SMARTLINK^TM Hand Hygiene system (GOJO Industries Inc., 2017, Akron, Ohio). This system includes two components: the hand-sanitizer dispensers, which track dispenses (numerator), and door-mounted Activity Counters, which use heat sensors that react to body heat emitted by a person passing through the doorway (denominator for hand-hygiene compliance). For our analysis, we only used Activity Counter data, which count room entries and exits, regardless of whether sanitizer was dispensed.

Patient-Reported Nighttime Sleep Disruptions

From June 2015 to March 2016, research assistants administered a 10-item Potential Hospital Sleep Disruptions and Noises Questionnaire (PHSDNQ) to patients in both units. Responses to this questionnaire correlate with actigraphy-based sleep measurements.^9,12,13 Surveys were administered every other weekday to patients available to participate (eg, willing to participate, on the unit, awake). Survey data were stored on the REDCap Database (Version 6.14.0; Vanderbilt University, 2016, Nashville, Tennessee). Pre- and post-intervention Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) “top-box ratings” for percent quiet at night and percent pain well controlled were also compared.

Data Analysis

Objectively Measured Potential Sleep Disruptors

The proportion of sleep-friendly orders was analyzed using a two-sample test for proportions pre-post for the SIESTA-enhanced and standard units. The difference in use of SIESTA orders between units was analyzed via multivariable logistic regression, testing for independent associations between post-period, SIESTA-enhanced unit, and an interaction term (post-period × SIESTA unit) on use of sleep-friendly orders.

Room entries per night (11:00 pm–7:00 am) were analyzed via single-group interrupted time-series. Multiple Activity Counter entries within three minutes were counted as a single room entry. In addition, the pre-post cutoff was set to 7:00 am, September 8, 2015; after the SIESTA launch, a second cutoff marking when SIESTA was added to the nurses’ MDI Huddle was added at 7:00 am, January 1, 2016.

Patient-Reported Nighttime Sleep Disruptions

Per prior studies, we defined a score 2 or higher as “sleep disruption.”⁹ Differences between units were evaluated via multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the interaction of post-period × SIESTA-enhanced unit and odds of not reporting a sleep disruption. Significance was denoted as P = .05.

Between March 2015 and March 2016, 1,083 general-medicine patients were admitted to the SIESTA-enhanced and standard units (Table).

Nocturnal Orders

From March 2015 to March 2016, 1,669 Epic^TM general medicine orders were reviewed (Figure). In the SIESTA-enhanced unit, the mean percentage of sleep-friendly orders rose for both vital signs (+31% [95% CI = 25%, 36%]; P < .001, n_pre = 306, n_post = 306] and VTE prophylaxis (+28% [95% CI = 18%, 37%]; P < .001, n_pre = 158, n_post = 173]. Similar changes were observed in the standard unit for sleep-friendly vital signs (+20% [95% CI = 14%, 25%]; P < .001, n_pre = 252, n_post = 219) and VTE prophylaxis (+16% [95% CI = 6%, 25%]; P = .002, n_pre = 130, n_post = 125). Differences between the two units were not statistically significant, and no significant change in timing of laboratory orders postintervention was found.

Nighttime Room Entries

Immediately after SIESTA launch, an average decrease of 114 total entries/night were noted in the SIESTA-enhanced unit, ([95% CI = −138, −91]; P < .001), corresponding to a 44% reduction (−6.3 entries/room) from the mean of 14.3 entries per patient room at baseline (Figure). No statistically significant change was seen in the standard unit. After SIESTA was incorporated into nursing huddles, total disruptions/night decreased by 1.31 disruptions/night ([95% CI = −1.64, −0.98]; P < .001) in the SIESTA-enhanced unit; by comparison, no significant changes were observed in the standard unit.

Patient-Reported Nighttime Sleep Disruptions

Between June 2015 and March 2016, 201 patient surveys were collected. A significant interaction was observed between the SIESTA-enhanced unit and post-period, and patients in the SIESTA-enhanced unit were more likely to report not being disrupted by medications (OR 4.08 [95% CI = 1.13–14.07]; P = .031) and vital signs (OR 3.35 [95% CI = 1.00–11.2]; P = .05) than those in the standard unit. HCAHPS top-box scores for the SIESTA unit increased by 7% for the “Quiet at night” category and 9% for the “Pain well controlled” category; by comparison, no major changes (>5%) were observed in the standard unit.

The present SIESTA intervention demonstrated that physician education coupled with EHR default changes are associated with a significant reduction in orders for overnight vital signs and medication administration in both units. However, addition of nursing education and empowerment in the SIESTA-enhanced unit was associated with fewer nocturnal room entries and improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with those in the standard unit.

This study presents several implications for hospital initiatives aiming to improve patient sleep.¹⁴ Our study is consistent with other research highlighting the hypothesis that altering the default settings of EHR systems can influence physician behavior in a sustainable manner.¹⁵ However, our study also finds that, even when sleep-friendly orders are present, creating a sleep-friendly environment likely depends on the unit-based nurses championing the cause. While the initial decrease in nocturnal room entries post-SIESTA eventually faded, sustainable changes were observed only after SIESTA was added to nursing huddles, which illustrates the importance of using multiple methods to nudge staff.

Our study includes a number of limitations. It is not a randomized controlled trial, we cannot assume causality, and contamination was assumed, as residents and hospitalists worked in both units. Our single-site study may not be generalizable. Low HCAHPS response rates (10%-20%) also prevent demonstration of statistically significant differences. Finally, our convenience sampling strategy means not all inpatients were surveyed, and objective sleep duration was not measured.

In summary, at the University of Chicago, SIESTA could be associated with adoption of sleep-friendly vitals and medication orders, a decrease in nighttime room entries, and improved patient experience.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA Grant No. T35AG029795) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI Grant Nos. R25HL116372 and K24HL136859).

Although sleep is critical to patient recovery in the hospital, hospitalization is not restful,^1,2 and inpatient sleep deprivation has been linked to poor health outcomes.^1-4 The American Academy of Nursing’s Choosing Wisely^® campaign recommends nurses reduce unnecessary nocturnal care.⁵ However, interventions to improve inpatient sleep are not widely implemented.⁶ Targeting routine disruptions, such as overnight vital signs, by changing default settings in the electronic health record (EHR)with “nudges” could be a cost-effective strategy to improve inpatient sleep.^4,7

We created Sleep for Inpatients: Empowering Staff to Act (SIESTA), which pairs nudges in the EHR with interprofessional education and empowerment,⁸ and tested its effectiveness on objectively and subjectively measured nocturnal sleep disruptors.

Study Design

Two 18-room University of Chicago Medicine general-medicine units were used in this prospective study. The SIESTA-enhanced unit underwent the full sleep intervention: nursing education and empowerment, physician education, and EHR changes. The standard unit did not receive nursing interventions but received all other forms of intervention. Because physicians simultaneously cared for patients on both units, all internal medicine residents and hospitalists received the same education. The study population included physicians, nurses, and awake English-speaking patients who were cognitively intact and admitted to these two units. The University of Chicago Institutional Review Board approved this study (12-1766; 16685B).

Development of SIESTA

To develop SIESTA, patients were surveyed, and focus groups of staff were conducted; overnight vitals, medications, and phlebotomy were identified as major barriers to patient sleep.⁹ We found that physicians did not know how to change the default vital signs order “every 4 hours” or how to batch-order morning phlebotomy at a time other than 4:00 am. Nurses reported having to wake patients up at 1:00 am for q8h subcutaneous heparin.

Behavioral Nudges

The SIESTA team worked with clinical informaticists to change the default orders in Epic^TM (Epic Systems Corporation, 2017, Verona, Wisconsin) in September 2015 so that physicians would be asked, “Continue vital signs throughout the night?”¹⁰ Previously, this question was marked “Yes” by default and hidden. While the default protocol for heparin q8h was maintained, heparin q12h (9:00 am and 9:00 pm) was introduced as an option, since q12h heparin is equally effective for VTE prophylaxis.¹¹ Laboratory ordering was streamlined so that physicians could batch-order laboratory draws at 6:00 am or 10:00 pm.

SIESTA Physician Education

We created a 20-minute presentation on the consequences and causes of in-hospital sleep deprivation and evidence-based behavioral modification. We distributed pocket cards describing the mnemonic SIESTA (Screen patients for sleep disorders, Instruct patients on sleep hygiene, Eliminate disruptions, Shut doors, Treat pain, and Alarm and noise control). Physicians were instructed to consider forgoing overnight vitals, using clinical judgment to identify stable patients, use a sleep-promoting VTE prophylaxis option, and order daily labs at 10:00 pm or 6:00 am. An online educational module was sent to staff who missed live sessions due to days off.

SIESTA-Enhanced Unit

In the SIESTA-enhanced unit, nurses received education using pocket cards and were coached to collaborate with physicians to implement sleep-friendly orders. Customized signage depicting empowered nurses advocating for patients was posted near the huddle board. Because these nurses suggested adding SIESTA to the nurses’ ongoing daily huddles at 4:00 pm and 3:00 am, beginning on January 1, 2016, nurses were asked to identify at least two stable patients for sleep-friendly orders at the huddle. Night nurses incorporated SIESTA into their handoff to day nurses for eligible patients. Day nurses would then call physicians to advocate changing of orders.

Data Collection

Objectively Measured Sleep Disruptors

Adoption of SIESTA orders from March 2015 to March 2016 was assessed with a monthly Epic^TM Clarity report. From August 1, 2015 to April 1, 2016, nocturnal room entries were recorded using the GOJO SMARTLINK^TM Hand Hygiene system (GOJO Industries Inc., 2017, Akron, Ohio). This system includes two components: the hand-sanitizer dispensers, which track dispenses (numerator), and door-mounted Activity Counters, which use heat sensors that react to body heat emitted by a person passing through the doorway (denominator for hand-hygiene compliance). For our analysis, we only used Activity Counter data, which count room entries and exits, regardless of whether sanitizer was dispensed.

Patient-Reported Nighttime Sleep Disruptions

From June 2015 to March 2016, research assistants administered a 10-item Potential Hospital Sleep Disruptions and Noises Questionnaire (PHSDNQ) to patients in both units. Responses to this questionnaire correlate with actigraphy-based sleep measurements.^9,12,13 Surveys were administered every other weekday to patients available to participate (eg, willing to participate, on the unit, awake). Survey data were stored on the REDCap Database (Version 6.14.0; Vanderbilt University, 2016, Nashville, Tennessee). Pre- and post-intervention Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) “top-box ratings” for percent quiet at night and percent pain well controlled were also compared.

Data Analysis

Objectively Measured Potential Sleep Disruptors

The proportion of sleep-friendly orders was analyzed using a two-sample test for proportions pre-post for the SIESTA-enhanced and standard units. The difference in use of SIESTA orders between units was analyzed via multivariable logistic regression, testing for independent associations between post-period, SIESTA-enhanced unit, and an interaction term (post-period × SIESTA unit) on use of sleep-friendly orders.

Room entries per night (11:00 pm–7:00 am) were analyzed via single-group interrupted time-series. Multiple Activity Counter entries within three minutes were counted as a single room entry. In addition, the pre-post cutoff was set to 7:00 am, September 8, 2015; after the SIESTA launch, a second cutoff marking when SIESTA was added to the nurses’ MDI Huddle was added at 7:00 am, January 1, 2016.

Patient-Reported Nighttime Sleep Disruptions

Per prior studies, we defined a score 2 or higher as “sleep disruption.”⁹ Differences between units were evaluated via multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the interaction of post-period × SIESTA-enhanced unit and odds of not reporting a sleep disruption. Significance was denoted as P = .05.

Between March 2015 and March 2016, 1,083 general-medicine patients were admitted to the SIESTA-enhanced and standard units (Table).

Nocturnal Orders

From March 2015 to March 2016, 1,669 Epic^TM general medicine orders were reviewed (Figure). In the SIESTA-enhanced unit, the mean percentage of sleep-friendly orders rose for both vital signs (+31% [95% CI = 25%, 36%]; P < .001, n_pre = 306, n_post = 306] and VTE prophylaxis (+28% [95% CI = 18%, 37%]; P < .001, n_pre = 158, n_post = 173]. Similar changes were observed in the standard unit for sleep-friendly vital signs (+20% [95% CI = 14%, 25%]; P < .001, n_pre = 252, n_post = 219) and VTE prophylaxis (+16% [95% CI = 6%, 25%]; P = .002, n_pre = 130, n_post = 125). Differences between the two units were not statistically significant, and no significant change in timing of laboratory orders postintervention was found.

Nighttime Room Entries

Immediately after SIESTA launch, an average decrease of 114 total entries/night were noted in the SIESTA-enhanced unit, ([95% CI = −138, −91]; P < .001), corresponding to a 44% reduction (−6.3 entries/room) from the mean of 14.3 entries per patient room at baseline (Figure). No statistically significant change was seen in the standard unit. After SIESTA was incorporated into nursing huddles, total disruptions/night decreased by 1.31 disruptions/night ([95% CI = −1.64, −0.98]; P < .001) in the SIESTA-enhanced unit; by comparison, no significant changes were observed in the standard unit.

Patient-Reported Nighttime Sleep Disruptions

Between June 2015 and March 2016, 201 patient surveys were collected. A significant interaction was observed between the SIESTA-enhanced unit and post-period, and patients in the SIESTA-enhanced unit were more likely to report not being disrupted by medications (OR 4.08 [95% CI = 1.13–14.07]; P = .031) and vital signs (OR 3.35 [95% CI = 1.00–11.2]; P = .05) than those in the standard unit. HCAHPS top-box scores for the SIESTA unit increased by 7% for the “Quiet at night” category and 9% for the “Pain well controlled” category; by comparison, no major changes (>5%) were observed in the standard unit.

The present SIESTA intervention demonstrated that physician education coupled with EHR default changes are associated with a significant reduction in orders for overnight vital signs and medication administration in both units. However, addition of nursing education and empowerment in the SIESTA-enhanced unit was associated with fewer nocturnal room entries and improvements in patient-reported outcomes compared with those in the standard unit.

This study presents several implications for hospital initiatives aiming to improve patient sleep.¹⁴ Our study is consistent with other research highlighting the hypothesis that altering the default settings of EHR systems can influence physician behavior in a sustainable manner.¹⁵ However, our study also finds that, even when sleep-friendly orders are present, creating a sleep-friendly environment likely depends on the unit-based nurses championing the cause. While the initial decrease in nocturnal room entries post-SIESTA eventually faded, sustainable changes were observed only after SIESTA was added to nursing huddles, which illustrates the importance of using multiple methods to nudge staff.

Our study includes a number of limitations. It is not a randomized controlled trial, we cannot assume causality, and contamination was assumed, as residents and hospitalists worked in both units. Our single-site study may not be generalizable. Low HCAHPS response rates (10%-20%) also prevent demonstration of statistically significant differences. Finally, our convenience sampling strategy means not all inpatients were surveyed, and objective sleep duration was not measured.

In summary, at the University of Chicago, SIESTA could be associated with adoption of sleep-friendly vitals and medication orders, a decrease in nighttime room entries, and improved patient experience.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

This study was funded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA Grant No. T35AG029795) and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI Grant Nos. R25HL116372 and K24HL136859).