Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH

Patients who undergo interhospital transfer (IHT) are felt to benefit from receipt of unique specialty care at the receiving hospital.¹ Although only 1.5% of all hospitalized Medicare patients undergo hospital transfer,² the frequency of transfer is much greater within certain patient populations, as may be expected with diagnoses requiring specialty care.^3,4 Existent data demonstrate that 5% of Medicare patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU)⁵ and up to 50% of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergo IHT.⁶

More recent data suggest variability in hospital transfer practices not accounted for by differences in patient or hospital characteristics.² Although disease-specific guidelines for IHT exist for certain diagnoses,^3,4 the process remains largely nonstandardized for many patients,⁷ leading to ambiguity surrounding indications for transfer. Because limited data suggest worse outcomes for transferred versus nontransferred patients,⁸ a better understanding of the specialized care patients actually receive across the transfer continuum may help to elucidate potential indications for transfer and ultimately help delineate which patients are most (or least) likely to benefit from transfer and why.

In this national study, we examined a select cohort of transferred patients with diagnoses associated with specific specialty procedural services to determine if they received these procedures and where along the transfer continuum they were performed.

We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files. Our study protocol was approved by the Partners Healthcare Human Subjects Review Committee.

Beneficiaries were eligible for inclusion if they were aged ≥65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, and with an acute care hospitalization claim in 2013, excluding Medicare managed care and end stage renal disease beneficiaries due to incomplete claims data in these groups. We additionally excluded beneficiaries hospitalized at federal or nonacute care hospitals, or critical access hospitals given their mission to stabilize and then transfer patients to referral hospitals.⁹

Transferred patients were defined as beneficiaries with corresponding “transfer in” and “transfer out” claims, or those with either claim and a corresponding date of admission/discharge from another hospital within 1 day of the claim, as we used in our prior research.² Beneficiaries transferred to the same hospital, those with greater than 1 transfer within the same hospitalization, or those cared for at hospitals with “outlier” transfer-in rates equal to 100% or transfer-out rates greater than 35% were excluded from analysis given the suggestion of nonstandard claims practices.

We first identified the top 15 primary diagnoses at time of transfer using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes (supplementary Appendix), and then identified those 4 most likely to require specialty procedural services: AMI, gastrointestinal bleed (GI bleed), renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation. We then chose associated ICD-9 procedure codes for each diagnosis, via expert opinion (authors SM and JS, hospitalist physicians with greater than 20 years of combined clinical experience), erring on overinclusion of procedure codes. We then quantified receipt of associated procedures at transferring and receiving hospitals, stratified by diagnosis.

We further explored the cohort of patients with hip fracture/dislocation who underwent an associated procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, examining the frequency with which these patients had other (nonrelated) procedures at the receiving hospital, and identifying which procedures they received.

Of the 101,507 patients transferred to another hospital, 19,613 (19.3%) had a primary diagnosis of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, or hip fracture/dislocation. Table 1 lists the ICD-9 procedure codes associated with each diagnosis.

Distribution of receipt of specialty procedures at the transferring and receiving hospitals varied by disease (Figure). With the exception of GI bleed, patients more often received specialty procedural care at the receiving than the transferring hospital. Depending on primary diagnosis, between 32.4% and 89.1% of patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital.

Of the 370 (22.1%) hip fracture/dislocation patients that received a specialty procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, 132 (35.7%) did not receive any procedure at the receiving hospital, whereas the remaining 238 (64.3%) received an unrelated (not associated with the primary diagnosis) procedure. There was great variety in the types of procedures received, the most common being transfusion of blood products (ICD-9 Clinical Modification 9904).

Among transferred patients with primary diagnoses that have clearly associated specialized procedural services, we found that patients received these procedures at varying frequency and locations across the transfer continuum. Across 4 diagnoses, receipt of associated procedures was more common at the receiving than the transferring hospital, with the exception being patients with GI bleed. We additionally found that many transferred patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital. These findings suggest the strong likelihood of more diverse underlying reasons for transfer rather than solely receipt of specialized procedural care.

Despite the frequency with which AMI patients are transferred,⁶ and American Heart Association guidelines directing hospitals to transfer AMI patients to institutions able to provide necessary invasive treatments,⁴ prior studies suggest these patients inconsistently receive specialty intervention following transfer, including stress testing, cardiac catheterization, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.^10,11 Our findings add to these data, demonstrating that only 47.3% of patients transferred with AMI received any cardiac-related procedure at the receiving hospital. Additionally, we found that 38.1% of AMI patients do not receive any specialty procedures at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. Taken together, these data suggest possible discrepancies in the perceived need for these procedures between transferring and receiving hospitals, reasons for transfer related to these conditions that don’t involve an associated procedure, or reasons for transfer unrelated to specialty care of the primary diagnosis (such as care of comorbidities, hospital location, prior relationships with that hospital, or desire for a second opinion). Although some of these alternate reasons for transfer likely still benefit the patient, some of these reasons may not justify the increased risks of discontinuity of care created by IHT.

Given limited data looking at IHT practices for patients with other diagnoses, the varying patterns of specialty procedural interventions we observed among transferred patients with GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation are novel contributions to this topic. Notably, we found that among patients transferred with a primary diagnosis of renal failure, the vast majority (84.1%) did not receive any associated procedure at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. It is possible that although these patients carried the diagnosis of renal failure, their clinical phenotype is more heterogeneous, and they could still be managed conservatively without receipt of invasive procedures such as hemodialysis.

Conversely, patients transferred with primary diagnosis of hip fracture/dislocation were far more likely to receive associated specialty procedural intervention at the receiving hospital, presumably reflective of the evidence demonstrating improved outcomes with early surgical intervention.¹² However, these data do not explain the reasoning behind the substantial minority of patients who received specialty intervention at the transferring hospital prior to transfer or those that did not receive any specialty intervention at either the transferring or receiving hospital. Our secondary analysis demonstrating great variety in receipt and type of nonassociated procedures provided at the receiving hospital did not help to elucidate potential underlying reasons for transfer.

Notably, among patients transferred with primary diagnosis of GI bleed, receipt of specialty procedures was more common at the transferring (77.7%) than receiving (63.2%) hospital, with nearly half (49.3%) undergoing specialty procedures at both hospitals. It is possible that these findings are reflective of the broad array of specialty procedures examined within this diagnosis. For example, it is reasonable to consider that a patient may be stabilized with receipt of a blood transfusion at the transferring hospital, then transferred to undergo a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure (ie, endoscopy/colonoscopy) at the receiving hospital, as is suggested by our results.

Our study is subject to several limitations. First, given the criteria we used to define transfer, it is possible that we included nontransferred patients within our transferred cohort if they were discharged from one hospital and admitted to a different hospital within 1 day, although quality assurance analyses we conducted in prior studies on these data support the validity of the criteria used.² Second, we cannot exclude the possibility that patients received nonprocedural specialty care (ie, expert opinion, specialized imaging, medical management, management of secondary diagnoses, etc.) not available at the transferring hospital, although, arguably, in select patients, such input could be obtained without physical transfer of the patient (ie, tele-consult). And even in patients transferred with intent to receive procedural care who did not ultimately receive that care, there is likely an appropriate “nonprocedure” rate, where patients who might benefit from a procedure receive a timely evaluation to reduce the risk of missing the opportunity to receive it. This would be analogous to transferring a patient to an ICU even if they do not end up requiring intubation or pressor therapy. However, given the likelihood of higher risks of IHT compared with intrahospital transfers, one could argue that the threshold of perceived benefit might be different in patients being considered for IHT. Additionally, we limited our analyses to only 4 diagnoses; thus, our findings may not be generalizable to other diagnoses of transferred patients. However, because the diagnoses we examined were ones considered most effectively treated with specialty procedural interventions, it is reasonable to presume that the variability in receipt of specialty procedures observed within these diagnoses is also present, if not greater, across other diagnoses. Third, although we intentionally included a broad array of specialty procedures associated with each diagnosis, it is possible that we overlooked particular specialty interventions. For example, in assuming that patients are most likely to be transferred to receive procedural services associated with their primary diagnosis, we may have missed alternate indications for transfer, including need for procedural care related to secondary or subsequent diagnoses (ie, a patient may have presented with GI bleed in the context of profound anemia that requires a bone marrow biopsy for diagnosis, and thus was transferred for the biopsy). Our further examination of unrelated procedures received by hip fracture/dislocation patients at receiving hospitals argues against a select or subset of procedures driving transfers that are not associated with the primary diagnosis but does not fully rule out this possibility (ie, if there are a large variety of secondary diagnoses with distinct associated specialty procedures that are required for each). Lastly, although our examination provides novel information regarding variability in receipt of specialty procedures of transferred patients, we were not able to identify exact reasons for transfer. Instead, our results are hypothesis generating and require further investigation to better understand these reasons.

We found that Medicare patients who undergo IHT with primary diagnoses of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation receive associated specialty interventions at varying frequency and locations, and many patients do not receive any associated procedures at receiving hospitals. Our findings suggest that specialty procedural care of patients, even those with primary diagnoses that often warrant specialized intervention, may not be the primary driver of IHT as commonly suggested, although underlying reasons for transfer in these and other “nonprocedural” transferred patients remains obscure. Given known ambiguity in the transfer process,⁷ and unclear benefit of IHT,⁸ additional research is required to further identify and evaluate other potential underlying reasons for transfer and to examine these in the context of patient outcomes, in order to understand which patients may or may not benefit from transfer and why.

Disclosure

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Patients who undergo interhospital transfer (IHT) are felt to benefit from receipt of unique specialty care at the receiving hospital.¹ Although only 1.5% of all hospitalized Medicare patients undergo hospital transfer,² the frequency of transfer is much greater within certain patient populations, as may be expected with diagnoses requiring specialty care.^3,4 Existent data demonstrate that 5% of Medicare patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU)⁵ and up to 50% of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergo IHT.⁶

More recent data suggest variability in hospital transfer practices not accounted for by differences in patient or hospital characteristics.² Although disease-specific guidelines for IHT exist for certain diagnoses,^3,4 the process remains largely nonstandardized for many patients,⁷ leading to ambiguity surrounding indications for transfer. Because limited data suggest worse outcomes for transferred versus nontransferred patients,⁸ a better understanding of the specialized care patients actually receive across the transfer continuum may help to elucidate potential indications for transfer and ultimately help delineate which patients are most (or least) likely to benefit from transfer and why.

In this national study, we examined a select cohort of transferred patients with diagnoses associated with specific specialty procedural services to determine if they received these procedures and where along the transfer continuum they were performed.

We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files. Our study protocol was approved by the Partners Healthcare Human Subjects Review Committee.

Beneficiaries were eligible for inclusion if they were aged ≥65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, and with an acute care hospitalization claim in 2013, excluding Medicare managed care and end stage renal disease beneficiaries due to incomplete claims data in these groups. We additionally excluded beneficiaries hospitalized at federal or nonacute care hospitals, or critical access hospitals given their mission to stabilize and then transfer patients to referral hospitals.⁹

Transferred patients were defined as beneficiaries with corresponding “transfer in” and “transfer out” claims, or those with either claim and a corresponding date of admission/discharge from another hospital within 1 day of the claim, as we used in our prior research.² Beneficiaries transferred to the same hospital, those with greater than 1 transfer within the same hospitalization, or those cared for at hospitals with “outlier” transfer-in rates equal to 100% or transfer-out rates greater than 35% were excluded from analysis given the suggestion of nonstandard claims practices.

We first identified the top 15 primary diagnoses at time of transfer using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes (supplementary Appendix), and then identified those 4 most likely to require specialty procedural services: AMI, gastrointestinal bleed (GI bleed), renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation. We then chose associated ICD-9 procedure codes for each diagnosis, via expert opinion (authors SM and JS, hospitalist physicians with greater than 20 years of combined clinical experience), erring on overinclusion of procedure codes. We then quantified receipt of associated procedures at transferring and receiving hospitals, stratified by diagnosis.

We further explored the cohort of patients with hip fracture/dislocation who underwent an associated procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, examining the frequency with which these patients had other (nonrelated) procedures at the receiving hospital, and identifying which procedures they received.

Of the 101,507 patients transferred to another hospital, 19,613 (19.3%) had a primary diagnosis of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, or hip fracture/dislocation. Table 1 lists the ICD-9 procedure codes associated with each diagnosis.

Distribution of receipt of specialty procedures at the transferring and receiving hospitals varied by disease (Figure). With the exception of GI bleed, patients more often received specialty procedural care at the receiving than the transferring hospital. Depending on primary diagnosis, between 32.4% and 89.1% of patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital.

Of the 370 (22.1%) hip fracture/dislocation patients that received a specialty procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, 132 (35.7%) did not receive any procedure at the receiving hospital, whereas the remaining 238 (64.3%) received an unrelated (not associated with the primary diagnosis) procedure. There was great variety in the types of procedures received, the most common being transfusion of blood products (ICD-9 Clinical Modification 9904).

Among transferred patients with primary diagnoses that have clearly associated specialized procedural services, we found that patients received these procedures at varying frequency and locations across the transfer continuum. Across 4 diagnoses, receipt of associated procedures was more common at the receiving than the transferring hospital, with the exception being patients with GI bleed. We additionally found that many transferred patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital. These findings suggest the strong likelihood of more diverse underlying reasons for transfer rather than solely receipt of specialized procedural care.

Despite the frequency with which AMI patients are transferred,⁶ and American Heart Association guidelines directing hospitals to transfer AMI patients to institutions able to provide necessary invasive treatments,⁴ prior studies suggest these patients inconsistently receive specialty intervention following transfer, including stress testing, cardiac catheterization, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.^10,11 Our findings add to these data, demonstrating that only 47.3% of patients transferred with AMI received any cardiac-related procedure at the receiving hospital. Additionally, we found that 38.1% of AMI patients do not receive any specialty procedures at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. Taken together, these data suggest possible discrepancies in the perceived need for these procedures between transferring and receiving hospitals, reasons for transfer related to these conditions that don’t involve an associated procedure, or reasons for transfer unrelated to specialty care of the primary diagnosis (such as care of comorbidities, hospital location, prior relationships with that hospital, or desire for a second opinion). Although some of these alternate reasons for transfer likely still benefit the patient, some of these reasons may not justify the increased risks of discontinuity of care created by IHT.

Given limited data looking at IHT practices for patients with other diagnoses, the varying patterns of specialty procedural interventions we observed among transferred patients with GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation are novel contributions to this topic. Notably, we found that among patients transferred with a primary diagnosis of renal failure, the vast majority (84.1%) did not receive any associated procedure at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. It is possible that although these patients carried the diagnosis of renal failure, their clinical phenotype is more heterogeneous, and they could still be managed conservatively without receipt of invasive procedures such as hemodialysis.

Conversely, patients transferred with primary diagnosis of hip fracture/dislocation were far more likely to receive associated specialty procedural intervention at the receiving hospital, presumably reflective of the evidence demonstrating improved outcomes with early surgical intervention.¹² However, these data do not explain the reasoning behind the substantial minority of patients who received specialty intervention at the transferring hospital prior to transfer or those that did not receive any specialty intervention at either the transferring or receiving hospital. Our secondary analysis demonstrating great variety in receipt and type of nonassociated procedures provided at the receiving hospital did not help to elucidate potential underlying reasons for transfer.

Notably, among patients transferred with primary diagnosis of GI bleed, receipt of specialty procedures was more common at the transferring (77.7%) than receiving (63.2%) hospital, with nearly half (49.3%) undergoing specialty procedures at both hospitals. It is possible that these findings are reflective of the broad array of specialty procedures examined within this diagnosis. For example, it is reasonable to consider that a patient may be stabilized with receipt of a blood transfusion at the transferring hospital, then transferred to undergo a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure (ie, endoscopy/colonoscopy) at the receiving hospital, as is suggested by our results.

Our study is subject to several limitations. First, given the criteria we used to define transfer, it is possible that we included nontransferred patients within our transferred cohort if they were discharged from one hospital and admitted to a different hospital within 1 day, although quality assurance analyses we conducted in prior studies on these data support the validity of the criteria used.² Second, we cannot exclude the possibility that patients received nonprocedural specialty care (ie, expert opinion, specialized imaging, medical management, management of secondary diagnoses, etc.) not available at the transferring hospital, although, arguably, in select patients, such input could be obtained without physical transfer of the patient (ie, tele-consult). And even in patients transferred with intent to receive procedural care who did not ultimately receive that care, there is likely an appropriate “nonprocedure” rate, where patients who might benefit from a procedure receive a timely evaluation to reduce the risk of missing the opportunity to receive it. This would be analogous to transferring a patient to an ICU even if they do not end up requiring intubation or pressor therapy. However, given the likelihood of higher risks of IHT compared with intrahospital transfers, one could argue that the threshold of perceived benefit might be different in patients being considered for IHT. Additionally, we limited our analyses to only 4 diagnoses; thus, our findings may not be generalizable to other diagnoses of transferred patients. However, because the diagnoses we examined were ones considered most effectively treated with specialty procedural interventions, it is reasonable to presume that the variability in receipt of specialty procedures observed within these diagnoses is also present, if not greater, across other diagnoses. Third, although we intentionally included a broad array of specialty procedures associated with each diagnosis, it is possible that we overlooked particular specialty interventions. For example, in assuming that patients are most likely to be transferred to receive procedural services associated with their primary diagnosis, we may have missed alternate indications for transfer, including need for procedural care related to secondary or subsequent diagnoses (ie, a patient may have presented with GI bleed in the context of profound anemia that requires a bone marrow biopsy for diagnosis, and thus was transferred for the biopsy). Our further examination of unrelated procedures received by hip fracture/dislocation patients at receiving hospitals argues against a select or subset of procedures driving transfers that are not associated with the primary diagnosis but does not fully rule out this possibility (ie, if there are a large variety of secondary diagnoses with distinct associated specialty procedures that are required for each). Lastly, although our examination provides novel information regarding variability in receipt of specialty procedures of transferred patients, we were not able to identify exact reasons for transfer. Instead, our results are hypothesis generating and require further investigation to better understand these reasons.

We found that Medicare patients who undergo IHT with primary diagnoses of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation receive associated specialty interventions at varying frequency and locations, and many patients do not receive any associated procedures at receiving hospitals. Our findings suggest that specialty procedural care of patients, even those with primary diagnoses that often warrant specialized intervention, may not be the primary driver of IHT as commonly suggested, although underlying reasons for transfer in these and other “nonprocedural” transferred patients remains obscure. Given known ambiguity in the transfer process,⁷ and unclear benefit of IHT,⁸ additional research is required to further identify and evaluate other potential underlying reasons for transfer and to examine these in the context of patient outcomes, in order to understand which patients may or may not benefit from transfer and why.

Disclosure

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Patients who undergo interhospital transfer (IHT) are felt to benefit from receipt of unique specialty care at the receiving hospital.¹ Although only 1.5% of all hospitalized Medicare patients undergo hospital transfer,² the frequency of transfer is much greater within certain patient populations, as may be expected with diagnoses requiring specialty care.^3,4 Existent data demonstrate that 5% of Medicare patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU)⁵ and up to 50% of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergo IHT.⁶

More recent data suggest variability in hospital transfer practices not accounted for by differences in patient or hospital characteristics.² Although disease-specific guidelines for IHT exist for certain diagnoses,^3,4 the process remains largely nonstandardized for many patients,⁷ leading to ambiguity surrounding indications for transfer. Because limited data suggest worse outcomes for transferred versus nontransferred patients,⁸ a better understanding of the specialized care patients actually receive across the transfer continuum may help to elucidate potential indications for transfer and ultimately help delineate which patients are most (or least) likely to benefit from transfer and why.

In this national study, we examined a select cohort of transferred patients with diagnoses associated with specific specialty procedural services to determine if they received these procedures and where along the transfer continuum they were performed.

We performed a cross-sectional analysis using the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files. Our study protocol was approved by the Partners Healthcare Human Subjects Review Committee.

Beneficiaries were eligible for inclusion if they were aged ≥65 years, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, and with an acute care hospitalization claim in 2013, excluding Medicare managed care and end stage renal disease beneficiaries due to incomplete claims data in these groups. We additionally excluded beneficiaries hospitalized at federal or nonacute care hospitals, or critical access hospitals given their mission to stabilize and then transfer patients to referral hospitals.⁹

Transferred patients were defined as beneficiaries with corresponding “transfer in” and “transfer out” claims, or those with either claim and a corresponding date of admission/discharge from another hospital within 1 day of the claim, as we used in our prior research.² Beneficiaries transferred to the same hospital, those with greater than 1 transfer within the same hospitalization, or those cared for at hospitals with “outlier” transfer-in rates equal to 100% or transfer-out rates greater than 35% were excluded from analysis given the suggestion of nonstandard claims practices.

We first identified the top 15 primary diagnoses at time of transfer using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes (supplementary Appendix), and then identified those 4 most likely to require specialty procedural services: AMI, gastrointestinal bleed (GI bleed), renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation. We then chose associated ICD-9 procedure codes for each diagnosis, via expert opinion (authors SM and JS, hospitalist physicians with greater than 20 years of combined clinical experience), erring on overinclusion of procedure codes. We then quantified receipt of associated procedures at transferring and receiving hospitals, stratified by diagnosis.

We further explored the cohort of patients with hip fracture/dislocation who underwent an associated procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, examining the frequency with which these patients had other (nonrelated) procedures at the receiving hospital, and identifying which procedures they received.

Of the 101,507 patients transferred to another hospital, 19,613 (19.3%) had a primary diagnosis of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, or hip fracture/dislocation. Table 1 lists the ICD-9 procedure codes associated with each diagnosis.

Distribution of receipt of specialty procedures at the transferring and receiving hospitals varied by disease (Figure). With the exception of GI bleed, patients more often received specialty procedural care at the receiving than the transferring hospital. Depending on primary diagnosis, between 32.4% and 89.1% of patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital.

Of the 370 (22.1%) hip fracture/dislocation patients that received a specialty procedure at the transferring but not receiving hospital, 132 (35.7%) did not receive any procedure at the receiving hospital, whereas the remaining 238 (64.3%) received an unrelated (not associated with the primary diagnosis) procedure. There was great variety in the types of procedures received, the most common being transfusion of blood products (ICD-9 Clinical Modification 9904).

Among transferred patients with primary diagnoses that have clearly associated specialized procedural services, we found that patients received these procedures at varying frequency and locations across the transfer continuum. Across 4 diagnoses, receipt of associated procedures was more common at the receiving than the transferring hospital, with the exception being patients with GI bleed. We additionally found that many transferred patients did not receive any associated specialty procedure at the receiving hospital. These findings suggest the strong likelihood of more diverse underlying reasons for transfer rather than solely receipt of specialized procedural care.

Despite the frequency with which AMI patients are transferred,⁶ and American Heart Association guidelines directing hospitals to transfer AMI patients to institutions able to provide necessary invasive treatments,⁴ prior studies suggest these patients inconsistently receive specialty intervention following transfer, including stress testing, cardiac catheterization, or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.^10,11 Our findings add to these data, demonstrating that only 47.3% of patients transferred with AMI received any cardiac-related procedure at the receiving hospital. Additionally, we found that 38.1% of AMI patients do not receive any specialty procedures at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. Taken together, these data suggest possible discrepancies in the perceived need for these procedures between transferring and receiving hospitals, reasons for transfer related to these conditions that don’t involve an associated procedure, or reasons for transfer unrelated to specialty care of the primary diagnosis (such as care of comorbidities, hospital location, prior relationships with that hospital, or desire for a second opinion). Although some of these alternate reasons for transfer likely still benefit the patient, some of these reasons may not justify the increased risks of discontinuity of care created by IHT.

Given limited data looking at IHT practices for patients with other diagnoses, the varying patterns of specialty procedural interventions we observed among transferred patients with GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation are novel contributions to this topic. Notably, we found that among patients transferred with a primary diagnosis of renal failure, the vast majority (84.1%) did not receive any associated procedure at either the transferring or the receiving hospital. It is possible that although these patients carried the diagnosis of renal failure, their clinical phenotype is more heterogeneous, and they could still be managed conservatively without receipt of invasive procedures such as hemodialysis.

Conversely, patients transferred with primary diagnosis of hip fracture/dislocation were far more likely to receive associated specialty procedural intervention at the receiving hospital, presumably reflective of the evidence demonstrating improved outcomes with early surgical intervention.¹² However, these data do not explain the reasoning behind the substantial minority of patients who received specialty intervention at the transferring hospital prior to transfer or those that did not receive any specialty intervention at either the transferring or receiving hospital. Our secondary analysis demonstrating great variety in receipt and type of nonassociated procedures provided at the receiving hospital did not help to elucidate potential underlying reasons for transfer.

Notably, among patients transferred with primary diagnosis of GI bleed, receipt of specialty procedures was more common at the transferring (77.7%) than receiving (63.2%) hospital, with nearly half (49.3%) undergoing specialty procedures at both hospitals. It is possible that these findings are reflective of the broad array of specialty procedures examined within this diagnosis. For example, it is reasonable to consider that a patient may be stabilized with receipt of a blood transfusion at the transferring hospital, then transferred to undergo a diagnostic/therapeutic procedure (ie, endoscopy/colonoscopy) at the receiving hospital, as is suggested by our results.

Our study is subject to several limitations. First, given the criteria we used to define transfer, it is possible that we included nontransferred patients within our transferred cohort if they were discharged from one hospital and admitted to a different hospital within 1 day, although quality assurance analyses we conducted in prior studies on these data support the validity of the criteria used.² Second, we cannot exclude the possibility that patients received nonprocedural specialty care (ie, expert opinion, specialized imaging, medical management, management of secondary diagnoses, etc.) not available at the transferring hospital, although, arguably, in select patients, such input could be obtained without physical transfer of the patient (ie, tele-consult). And even in patients transferred with intent to receive procedural care who did not ultimately receive that care, there is likely an appropriate “nonprocedure” rate, where patients who might benefit from a procedure receive a timely evaluation to reduce the risk of missing the opportunity to receive it. This would be analogous to transferring a patient to an ICU even if they do not end up requiring intubation or pressor therapy. However, given the likelihood of higher risks of IHT compared with intrahospital transfers, one could argue that the threshold of perceived benefit might be different in patients being considered for IHT. Additionally, we limited our analyses to only 4 diagnoses; thus, our findings may not be generalizable to other diagnoses of transferred patients. However, because the diagnoses we examined were ones considered most effectively treated with specialty procedural interventions, it is reasonable to presume that the variability in receipt of specialty procedures observed within these diagnoses is also present, if not greater, across other diagnoses. Third, although we intentionally included a broad array of specialty procedures associated with each diagnosis, it is possible that we overlooked particular specialty interventions. For example, in assuming that patients are most likely to be transferred to receive procedural services associated with their primary diagnosis, we may have missed alternate indications for transfer, including need for procedural care related to secondary or subsequent diagnoses (ie, a patient may have presented with GI bleed in the context of profound anemia that requires a bone marrow biopsy for diagnosis, and thus was transferred for the biopsy). Our further examination of unrelated procedures received by hip fracture/dislocation patients at receiving hospitals argues against a select or subset of procedures driving transfers that are not associated with the primary diagnosis but does not fully rule out this possibility (ie, if there are a large variety of secondary diagnoses with distinct associated specialty procedures that are required for each). Lastly, although our examination provides novel information regarding variability in receipt of specialty procedures of transferred patients, we were not able to identify exact reasons for transfer. Instead, our results are hypothesis generating and require further investigation to better understand these reasons.

We found that Medicare patients who undergo IHT with primary diagnoses of AMI, GI bleed, renal failure, and hip fracture/dislocation receive associated specialty interventions at varying frequency and locations, and many patients do not receive any associated procedures at receiving hospitals. Our findings suggest that specialty procedural care of patients, even those with primary diagnoses that often warrant specialized intervention, may not be the primary driver of IHT as commonly suggested, although underlying reasons for transfer in these and other “nonprocedural” transferred patients remains obscure. Given known ambiguity in the transfer process,⁷ and unclear benefit of IHT,⁸ additional research is required to further identify and evaluate other potential underlying reasons for transfer and to examine these in the context of patient outcomes, in order to understand which patients may or may not benefit from transfer and why.

Disclosure

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Interhospital transfer (IHT) is defined as the transfer of hospitalized patients between acute care hospitals. Although cited reasons for transfer include providing patients access to unique specialty services,¹ patterns and practices of IHT remain largely unstudied. Interhospital transfer is known to be common in certain patient populations, including selected patients presenting to the intensive care unit² and those with acute myocardial infarction (AMI),^3-5 but no recent studies have looked at frequency of IHT among a broader group of hospitalized patients nationally. Little is known about which patients are selected for transfer and why.⁶ Limited evidence suggests poor concordance between cited reason for transfer among patients, transferring physicians, and receiving physicians,⁷ indicating ambiguity in this care process.

Interhospital transfer exposes patients to the potential risks associated with discontinuity of care. Communication is particularly vulnerable to error during times of transition.^8-10 Patients transferred between acute care hospitals are especially vulnerable, given the severity of illness in this patient population,¹¹ and the absence of other factors to fill in gaps in communication, such as common electronic health records. Limited existing literature suggests transferred patients use more resources ^12-13 and experience worse outcomes compared to nontransferred patients,¹¹ although these data involved limited patient populations, and adjustment for illness severity and other factors was variably addressed.^14-16

To improve the quality and safety of IHT, therefore, it is necessary to understand which patients benefit from IHT and identify best practices in the IHT process.¹⁷ A fundamental first step is to study patterns and practices of IHT, in particular with an eye towards identifying unwarranted variation.¹⁸ This is important to understand the prevalence of the issue, provide possible evidence of lack of standardization, and natural experiments with which to identify best practices.

To address this, we conducted a foundational study examining a national sample of Medicare patients to determine the nationwide frequency of IHT among elderly patients, patient and hospital-level predictors of transfer, and hospital variability in IHT practices.

We performed a cross-sectional analysis using 2 nationally representative datasets: (1) Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files, which contains data on all fee-for-service program Medicare enrollees’ demographic information, date of death, and hospitalization claims, including ICD-9 codes for diagnoses, diagnosis-related group (DRG), and dates of service; merged with (2) 2013 American Hospital Association (AHA) data,¹⁹ which contains hospital-level characteristics for all acute care hospitals in the U.S. Our study protocol was approved by the Partners Healthcare Human Subjects Review Committee.

Beneficiaries were eligible for inclusion if they were 65 years or older, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, with an acute care hospitalization claim in 2013, excluding Medicare managed care and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) beneficiaries. We additionally excluded beneficiaries hospitalized at federal or nonacute care hospitals, or critical access hospitals given their mission to stabilize and transfer patients to referral hospitals.²⁰

Transferred patients were defined as: (1) beneficiaries with a “transfer out” claim and a corresponding “transfer in” claim at a different hospital; as well as (2) beneficiaries with a “transfer out” claim and a corresponding date of admission to another hospital within 1 day following the date of claim; and (3) beneficiaries with a “transfer in” claim and a corresponding date of discharge from another hospital within 1 day preceding the date of claim. Beneficiaries transferred to the same hospital, or cared for at hospitals with “outlier” transfer in rates equal to 100% or transfer out rates greater than 35%, were excluded from analysis given the suggestion of nonstandard claims practices. Beneficiaries with greater than 1 transfer within the same hospitalization were additionally excluded.

Patient Characteristics

Patient characteristics were obtained from the CMS data files and included: demographics (age, sex, race); DRG-weight, categorized into quartiles; primary diagnosis for the index hospitalization using ICD-9 codes; patient comorbidity using ICD-9 codes compiled into a CMS-Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk score;²¹ presence of Medicaid co-insurance; number of hospitalizations in the past 12 months, categorized into 0, 1, 2-3, and 4 or more; season, defined as calendar quarters; and median income per household by census tract. These characteristics were chosen a priori given expert opinion in combination with prior research demonstrating association with IHT.^11,22

Hospital Characteristics

Hospital characteristics were obtained from AHA data files and included hospitals’ size, categorized into small, medium, and large (less than 100, 100 to 399, 400 or more beds); geographic location; ownership; teaching status; setting (urban vs. rural); case mix index (CMI) for all patients cared for at the hospital; and presence of selected specialty services, including certified trauma center, medical intensive care unit, cardiac intensive care unit, cardiac surgery services, adult interventional cardiac catheterization, adult cardiac electrophysiology, and composite score of presence of 55 other specialty services (complete list in Appendix A). All characteristics were chosen a priori given expert opinion or relationship of characteristics with IHT, and prior research utilizing AHA data.^23-24

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the frequency of IHT, characteristics of transferred patients, and number of days to transfer. Patient and hospital characteristics of transferred vs. nontransferred patients were compared using chi-square analyses.

To analyze the effects of each patient and hospital characteristic on the odds of transfer, we used logistic regression models incorporating all patient and hospital characteristics, accounting for fixed effects for diagnosis, and utilizing generalized estimating equations (the GENMOD procedure in SAS statistical software, v 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina) to account for the clustering of patients within hospitals.²⁵ Indicator variables were created for missing covariate data and included in analyses when missing data accounted for greater than 10% of the total cohort.

To measure the variability in transfer rates between hospitals, we used a sequence of random effects logistic regression models. We first ran a model with no covariates, representing the unadjusted differences in transfer rates between hospitals. We then added patient characteristics to see if the unadjusted differences in IHT rates were explained by differences in patient characteristics between hospitals. Lastly, we added hospital characteristics to determine if these explained the remaining differences in transfer rates. Each of the 3 models provided a measure of between-hospital variability, reflecting the degree to which IHT rates differed between hospitals. Additionally, we used the intercept from the unadjusted model and the measure of between-hospital variability from each model to calculate the 95% confidence intervals, illustrating the range of IHT rates spanning 95% of all hospitals. We used those same numbers to calculate the 25^th and 75^th percentiles, illustrating the range of IHT rates for the middle half of hospitals.

Among 28 million eligible beneficiaries, 6.6 million had an acute care hospitalization to nonfederal, noncritical access hospitals, and 107,741 met our defined criteria for IHT. An additional 3790 beneficiaries were excluded for being transferred to the same facility, 416 beneficiaries (115 transferred, 301 nontransferred) were excluded as they were cared for at 1 of the 11 hospitals with “outlier” transfer in/out rates, and 2329 were excluded because they had more than 1 transfer during hospitalization. Thus, the final cohort consisted of 101,507 transferred (1.5%) and 6,625,474 nontransferred beneficiaries (Figure 1). Of the 101,507 transferred beneficiaries, 2799 (2.8%) were included more than once (ie, experienced more than 1 IHT on separate hospitalizations throughout the study period; the vast majority of these had 2 separate hospitalizations resulting in IHT). Characteristics of transferred and nontransferred beneficiaries are shown (Table 1).

Among transferred patients, the top 5 primary diagnoses at time of transfer included AMI (12.2%), congestive heart failure (CHF) (7.2%), sepsis (6.6%), arrhythmia (6.6%), and pneumonia (3.4%). Comorbid conditions most commonly present in transferred patients included CHF (52.6%), renal failure (51.8%), arrhythmia (49.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 37.0%). The most common day of transfer was day after admission (hospital day 2, 24.7%), with 75% of transferred patients transferred before hospital day 6 (Appendix B).

After adjusting for all other patient and hospital characteristics and clustering by hospital, the following variables were associated with greater odds of transfer: older age, male sex, nonblack race, non-Medicaid co-insurance, higher comorbidity (HCC score), lower DRG-weight, and fewer hospitalizations in the prior 12 months. Beneficiaries also had greater odds of transfer if initially hospitalized at smaller hospitals, nonteaching hospitals, public hospitals, at hospitals in the Northeast, those with fewer specialty services, and those with a low CMI (Table 2).

In this nationally representative study of 6.6 million Medicare beneficiaries, we found that 1.5% of patients were transferred between acute care facilities and were most often transferred prior to hospital day 6. Older age, male sex, nonblack race, higher medical comorbidity, lower DRG weight, and fewer recent hospitalizations were associated with greater odds of transfer. Initial hospitalization at smaller, nonteaching, public hospitals, with fewer specialty services were associated with greater odds of transfer, while higher CMI was associated with a lower odds of transfer. The most common comorbid conditions among transferred patients included CHF, renal failure, arrhythmia, and COPD; particularly notable was the very high prevalence of these conditions among transferred as compared with nontransferred patients. Importantly, we found significant variation in IHT by region and a large variation in transfer practices by hospital, with significant variability in transfer rates even after accounting for known patient and hospital characteristics.

Among our examined population, we found that a sizable number of patients undergo IHT—more than 100,000 per year. Primary diagnoses at time of transfer consist of common inpatient conditions, including AMI, CHF, sepsis, arrhythmia, and pneumonia. Limited prior data support our findings, with up to 50% of AMI patients reportedly undergoing IHT,^3-5 and severe sepsis and respiratory illness reported as common diagnoses at transfer.¹¹ Although knowledge of these primary diagnoses does not directly confer an understanding of reason for transfer, one can speculate based on our findings. For example, research demonstrates the majority of AMI patients who undergo IHT had further intervention, including stress testing, cardiac catheterization, and/or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.^5,26 Thus, it is reasonable to presume that many of the beneficiaries

In this national study of IHT, we found that a sizable number of patients admitted to the hospital undergo transfer to another acute care facility. Patients are transferred with common medical conditions, including those requiring specialized care such as AMI, and a high rate of comorbid clinical conditions, and certain patient and hospital characteristics are associated with greater odds of transfer. Although many of the observed associations between characteristics and odds of transfer were expected based on limited existing literature, we found several unexpected findings, eg, suggesting the possibility of a threshold beyond which sicker patients are not transferred. Additionally, we found that black and Medicaid patients had lower odds of transfer, which warrants further investigation for potential health care disparity. Importantly, we found much variability in the practice of IHT, as evidenced by the inexplicable differences in transfer by hospital region, and by residual unexplained variability in hospital transfer rates after accounting for patient and hospital characteristics, which may be due to lack of standard guidelines to direct IHT practices. In conclusion, this study of hospitalized Medicare patients provides important foundational information regarding rates and predictors of IHT nationally, as well as unexplained variability that exists within this complex care transition. Further investigation will be essential to understand reasons for, processes related to, and outcomes of transferred patients, to help guide standardization in best practices in care.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Interhospital transfer (IHT) is defined as the transfer of hospitalized patients between acute care hospitals. Although cited reasons for transfer include providing patients access to unique specialty services,¹ patterns and practices of IHT remain largely unstudied. Interhospital transfer is known to be common in certain patient populations, including selected patients presenting to the intensive care unit² and those with acute myocardial infarction (AMI),^3-5 but no recent studies have looked at frequency of IHT among a broader group of hospitalized patients nationally. Little is known about which patients are selected for transfer and why.⁶ Limited evidence suggests poor concordance between cited reason for transfer among patients, transferring physicians, and receiving physicians,⁷ indicating ambiguity in this care process.

Interhospital transfer exposes patients to the potential risks associated with discontinuity of care. Communication is particularly vulnerable to error during times of transition.^8-10 Patients transferred between acute care hospitals are especially vulnerable, given the severity of illness in this patient population,¹¹ and the absence of other factors to fill in gaps in communication, such as common electronic health records. Limited existing literature suggests transferred patients use more resources ^12-13 and experience worse outcomes compared to nontransferred patients,¹¹ although these data involved limited patient populations, and adjustment for illness severity and other factors was variably addressed.^14-16

To improve the quality and safety of IHT, therefore, it is necessary to understand which patients benefit from IHT and identify best practices in the IHT process.¹⁷ A fundamental first step is to study patterns and practices of IHT, in particular with an eye towards identifying unwarranted variation.¹⁸ This is important to understand the prevalence of the issue, provide possible evidence of lack of standardization, and natural experiments with which to identify best practices.

To address this, we conducted a foundational study examining a national sample of Medicare patients to determine the nationwide frequency of IHT among elderly patients, patient and hospital-level predictors of transfer, and hospital variability in IHT practices.

We performed a cross-sectional analysis using 2 nationally representative datasets: (1) Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files, which contains data on all fee-for-service program Medicare enrollees’ demographic information, date of death, and hospitalization claims, including ICD-9 codes for diagnoses, diagnosis-related group (DRG), and dates of service; merged with (2) 2013 American Hospital Association (AHA) data,¹⁹ which contains hospital-level characteristics for all acute care hospitals in the U.S. Our study protocol was approved by the Partners Healthcare Human Subjects Review Committee.

Beneficiaries were eligible for inclusion if they were 65 years or older, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, with an acute care hospitalization claim in 2013, excluding Medicare managed care and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) beneficiaries. We additionally excluded beneficiaries hospitalized at federal or nonacute care hospitals, or critical access hospitals given their mission to stabilize and transfer patients to referral hospitals.²⁰

Transferred patients were defined as: (1) beneficiaries with a “transfer out” claim and a corresponding “transfer in” claim at a different hospital; as well as (2) beneficiaries with a “transfer out” claim and a corresponding date of admission to another hospital within 1 day following the date of claim; and (3) beneficiaries with a “transfer in” claim and a corresponding date of discharge from another hospital within 1 day preceding the date of claim. Beneficiaries transferred to the same hospital, or cared for at hospitals with “outlier” transfer in rates equal to 100% or transfer out rates greater than 35%, were excluded from analysis given the suggestion of nonstandard claims practices. Beneficiaries with greater than 1 transfer within the same hospitalization were additionally excluded.

Patient Characteristics

Patient characteristics were obtained from the CMS data files and included: demographics (age, sex, race); DRG-weight, categorized into quartiles; primary diagnosis for the index hospitalization using ICD-9 codes; patient comorbidity using ICD-9 codes compiled into a CMS-Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk score;²¹ presence of Medicaid co-insurance; number of hospitalizations in the past 12 months, categorized into 0, 1, 2-3, and 4 or more; season, defined as calendar quarters; and median income per household by census tract. These characteristics were chosen a priori given expert opinion in combination with prior research demonstrating association with IHT.^11,22

Hospital Characteristics

Hospital characteristics were obtained from AHA data files and included hospitals’ size, categorized into small, medium, and large (less than 100, 100 to 399, 400 or more beds); geographic location; ownership; teaching status; setting (urban vs. rural); case mix index (CMI) for all patients cared for at the hospital; and presence of selected specialty services, including certified trauma center, medical intensive care unit, cardiac intensive care unit, cardiac surgery services, adult interventional cardiac catheterization, adult cardiac electrophysiology, and composite score of presence of 55 other specialty services (complete list in Appendix A). All characteristics were chosen a priori given expert opinion or relationship of characteristics with IHT, and prior research utilizing AHA data.^23-24

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the frequency of IHT, characteristics of transferred patients, and number of days to transfer. Patient and hospital characteristics of transferred vs. nontransferred patients were compared using chi-square analyses.

To analyze the effects of each patient and hospital characteristic on the odds of transfer, we used logistic regression models incorporating all patient and hospital characteristics, accounting for fixed effects for diagnosis, and utilizing generalized estimating equations (the GENMOD procedure in SAS statistical software, v 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina) to account for the clustering of patients within hospitals.²⁵ Indicator variables were created for missing covariate data and included in analyses when missing data accounted for greater than 10% of the total cohort.

To measure the variability in transfer rates between hospitals, we used a sequence of random effects logistic regression models. We first ran a model with no covariates, representing the unadjusted differences in transfer rates between hospitals. We then added patient characteristics to see if the unadjusted differences in IHT rates were explained by differences in patient characteristics between hospitals. Lastly, we added hospital characteristics to determine if these explained the remaining differences in transfer rates. Each of the 3 models provided a measure of between-hospital variability, reflecting the degree to which IHT rates differed between hospitals. Additionally, we used the intercept from the unadjusted model and the measure of between-hospital variability from each model to calculate the 95% confidence intervals, illustrating the range of IHT rates spanning 95% of all hospitals. We used those same numbers to calculate the 25^th and 75^th percentiles, illustrating the range of IHT rates for the middle half of hospitals.

Among 28 million eligible beneficiaries, 6.6 million had an acute care hospitalization to nonfederal, noncritical access hospitals, and 107,741 met our defined criteria for IHT. An additional 3790 beneficiaries were excluded for being transferred to the same facility, 416 beneficiaries (115 transferred, 301 nontransferred) were excluded as they were cared for at 1 of the 11 hospitals with “outlier” transfer in/out rates, and 2329 were excluded because they had more than 1 transfer during hospitalization. Thus, the final cohort consisted of 101,507 transferred (1.5%) and 6,625,474 nontransferred beneficiaries (Figure 1). Of the 101,507 transferred beneficiaries, 2799 (2.8%) were included more than once (ie, experienced more than 1 IHT on separate hospitalizations throughout the study period; the vast majority of these had 2 separate hospitalizations resulting in IHT). Characteristics of transferred and nontransferred beneficiaries are shown (Table 1).

Among transferred patients, the top 5 primary diagnoses at time of transfer included AMI (12.2%), congestive heart failure (CHF) (7.2%), sepsis (6.6%), arrhythmia (6.6%), and pneumonia (3.4%). Comorbid conditions most commonly present in transferred patients included CHF (52.6%), renal failure (51.8%), arrhythmia (49.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 37.0%). The most common day of transfer was day after admission (hospital day 2, 24.7%), with 75% of transferred patients transferred before hospital day 6 (Appendix B).

After adjusting for all other patient and hospital characteristics and clustering by hospital, the following variables were associated with greater odds of transfer: older age, male sex, nonblack race, non-Medicaid co-insurance, higher comorbidity (HCC score), lower DRG-weight, and fewer hospitalizations in the prior 12 months. Beneficiaries also had greater odds of transfer if initially hospitalized at smaller hospitals, nonteaching hospitals, public hospitals, at hospitals in the Northeast, those with fewer specialty services, and those with a low CMI (Table 2).

In this nationally representative study of 6.6 million Medicare beneficiaries, we found that 1.5% of patients were transferred between acute care facilities and were most often transferred prior to hospital day 6. Older age, male sex, nonblack race, higher medical comorbidity, lower DRG weight, and fewer recent hospitalizations were associated with greater odds of transfer. Initial hospitalization at smaller, nonteaching, public hospitals, with fewer specialty services were associated with greater odds of transfer, while higher CMI was associated with a lower odds of transfer. The most common comorbid conditions among transferred patients included CHF, renal failure, arrhythmia, and COPD; particularly notable was the very high prevalence of these conditions among transferred as compared with nontransferred patients. Importantly, we found significant variation in IHT by region and a large variation in transfer practices by hospital, with significant variability in transfer rates even after accounting for known patient and hospital characteristics.

Among our examined population, we found that a sizable number of patients undergo IHT—more than 100,000 per year. Primary diagnoses at time of transfer consist of common inpatient conditions, including AMI, CHF, sepsis, arrhythmia, and pneumonia. Limited prior data support our findings, with up to 50% of AMI patients reportedly undergoing IHT,^3-5 and severe sepsis and respiratory illness reported as common diagnoses at transfer.¹¹ Although knowledge of these primary diagnoses does not directly confer an understanding of reason for transfer, one can speculate based on our findings. For example, research demonstrates the majority of AMI patients who undergo IHT had further intervention, including stress testing, cardiac catheterization, and/or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.^5,26 Thus, it is reasonable to presume that many of the beneficiaries

In this national study of IHT, we found that a sizable number of patients admitted to the hospital undergo transfer to another acute care facility. Patients are transferred with common medical conditions, including those requiring specialized care such as AMI, and a high rate of comorbid clinical conditions, and certain patient and hospital characteristics are associated with greater odds of transfer. Although many of the observed associations between characteristics and odds of transfer were expected based on limited existing literature, we found several unexpected findings, eg, suggesting the possibility of a threshold beyond which sicker patients are not transferred. Additionally, we found that black and Medicaid patients had lower odds of transfer, which warrants further investigation for potential health care disparity. Importantly, we found much variability in the practice of IHT, as evidenced by the inexplicable differences in transfer by hospital region, and by residual unexplained variability in hospital transfer rates after accounting for patient and hospital characteristics, which may be due to lack of standard guidelines to direct IHT practices. In conclusion, this study of hospitalized Medicare patients provides important foundational information regarding rates and predictors of IHT nationally, as well as unexplained variability that exists within this complex care transition. Further investigation will be essential to understand reasons for, processes related to, and outcomes of transferred patients, to help guide standardization in best practices in care.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Interhospital transfer (IHT) is defined as the transfer of hospitalized patients between acute care hospitals. Although cited reasons for transfer include providing patients access to unique specialty services,¹ patterns and practices of IHT remain largely unstudied. Interhospital transfer is known to be common in certain patient populations, including selected patients presenting to the intensive care unit² and those with acute myocardial infarction (AMI),^3-5 but no recent studies have looked at frequency of IHT among a broader group of hospitalized patients nationally. Little is known about which patients are selected for transfer and why.⁶ Limited evidence suggests poor concordance between cited reason for transfer among patients, transferring physicians, and receiving physicians,⁷ indicating ambiguity in this care process.

Interhospital transfer exposes patients to the potential risks associated with discontinuity of care. Communication is particularly vulnerable to error during times of transition.^8-10 Patients transferred between acute care hospitals are especially vulnerable, given the severity of illness in this patient population,¹¹ and the absence of other factors to fill in gaps in communication, such as common electronic health records. Limited existing literature suggests transferred patients use more resources ^12-13 and experience worse outcomes compared to nontransferred patients,¹¹ although these data involved limited patient populations, and adjustment for illness severity and other factors was variably addressed.^14-16

To improve the quality and safety of IHT, therefore, it is necessary to understand which patients benefit from IHT and identify best practices in the IHT process.¹⁷ A fundamental first step is to study patterns and practices of IHT, in particular with an eye towards identifying unwarranted variation.¹⁸ This is important to understand the prevalence of the issue, provide possible evidence of lack of standardization, and natural experiments with which to identify best practices.

To address this, we conducted a foundational study examining a national sample of Medicare patients to determine the nationwide frequency of IHT among elderly patients, patient and hospital-level predictors of transfer, and hospital variability in IHT practices.

We performed a cross-sectional analysis using 2 nationally representative datasets: (1) Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 2013 100% Master Beneficiary Summary and Inpatient claims files, which contains data on all fee-for-service program Medicare enrollees’ demographic information, date of death, and hospitalization claims, including ICD-9 codes for diagnoses, diagnosis-related group (DRG), and dates of service; merged with (2) 2013 American Hospital Association (AHA) data,¹⁹ which contains hospital-level characteristics for all acute care hospitals in the U.S. Our study protocol was approved by the Partners Healthcare Human Subjects Review Committee.

Beneficiaries were eligible for inclusion if they were 65 years or older, continuously enrolled in Medicare A and B, with an acute care hospitalization claim in 2013, excluding Medicare managed care and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) beneficiaries. We additionally excluded beneficiaries hospitalized at federal or nonacute care hospitals, or critical access hospitals given their mission to stabilize and transfer patients to referral hospitals.²⁰

Transferred patients were defined as: (1) beneficiaries with a “transfer out” claim and a corresponding “transfer in” claim at a different hospital; as well as (2) beneficiaries with a “transfer out” claim and a corresponding date of admission to another hospital within 1 day following the date of claim; and (3) beneficiaries with a “transfer in” claim and a corresponding date of discharge from another hospital within 1 day preceding the date of claim. Beneficiaries transferred to the same hospital, or cared for at hospitals with “outlier” transfer in rates equal to 100% or transfer out rates greater than 35%, were excluded from analysis given the suggestion of nonstandard claims practices. Beneficiaries with greater than 1 transfer within the same hospitalization were additionally excluded.

Patient Characteristics

Patient characteristics were obtained from the CMS data files and included: demographics (age, sex, race); DRG-weight, categorized into quartiles; primary diagnosis for the index hospitalization using ICD-9 codes; patient comorbidity using ICD-9 codes compiled into a CMS-Hierarchical Condition Category (HCC) risk score;²¹ presence of Medicaid co-insurance; number of hospitalizations in the past 12 months, categorized into 0, 1, 2-3, and 4 or more; season, defined as calendar quarters; and median income per household by census tract. These characteristics were chosen a priori given expert opinion in combination with prior research demonstrating association with IHT.^11,22

Hospital Characteristics

Hospital characteristics were obtained from AHA data files and included hospitals’ size, categorized into small, medium, and large (less than 100, 100 to 399, 400 or more beds); geographic location; ownership; teaching status; setting (urban vs. rural); case mix index (CMI) for all patients cared for at the hospital; and presence of selected specialty services, including certified trauma center, medical intensive care unit, cardiac intensive care unit, cardiac surgery services, adult interventional cardiac catheterization, adult cardiac electrophysiology, and composite score of presence of 55 other specialty services (complete list in Appendix A). All characteristics were chosen a priori given expert opinion or relationship of characteristics with IHT, and prior research utilizing AHA data.^23-24

Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the frequency of IHT, characteristics of transferred patients, and number of days to transfer. Patient and hospital characteristics of transferred vs. nontransferred patients were compared using chi-square analyses.

To analyze the effects of each patient and hospital characteristic on the odds of transfer, we used logistic regression models incorporating all patient and hospital characteristics, accounting for fixed effects for diagnosis, and utilizing generalized estimating equations (the GENMOD procedure in SAS statistical software, v 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina) to account for the clustering of patients within hospitals.²⁵ Indicator variables were created for missing covariate data and included in analyses when missing data accounted for greater than 10% of the total cohort.

To measure the variability in transfer rates between hospitals, we used a sequence of random effects logistic regression models. We first ran a model with no covariates, representing the unadjusted differences in transfer rates between hospitals. We then added patient characteristics to see if the unadjusted differences in IHT rates were explained by differences in patient characteristics between hospitals. Lastly, we added hospital characteristics to determine if these explained the remaining differences in transfer rates. Each of the 3 models provided a measure of between-hospital variability, reflecting the degree to which IHT rates differed between hospitals. Additionally, we used the intercept from the unadjusted model and the measure of between-hospital variability from each model to calculate the 95% confidence intervals, illustrating the range of IHT rates spanning 95% of all hospitals. We used those same numbers to calculate the 25^th and 75^th percentiles, illustrating the range of IHT rates for the middle half of hospitals.

Among 28 million eligible beneficiaries, 6.6 million had an acute care hospitalization to nonfederal, noncritical access hospitals, and 107,741 met our defined criteria for IHT. An additional 3790 beneficiaries were excluded for being transferred to the same facility, 416 beneficiaries (115 transferred, 301 nontransferred) were excluded as they were cared for at 1 of the 11 hospitals with “outlier” transfer in/out rates, and 2329 were excluded because they had more than 1 transfer during hospitalization. Thus, the final cohort consisted of 101,507 transferred (1.5%) and 6,625,474 nontransferred beneficiaries (Figure 1). Of the 101,507 transferred beneficiaries, 2799 (2.8%) were included more than once (ie, experienced more than 1 IHT on separate hospitalizations throughout the study period; the vast majority of these had 2 separate hospitalizations resulting in IHT). Characteristics of transferred and nontransferred beneficiaries are shown (Table 1).

Among transferred patients, the top 5 primary diagnoses at time of transfer included AMI (12.2%), congestive heart failure (CHF) (7.2%), sepsis (6.6%), arrhythmia (6.6%), and pneumonia (3.4%). Comorbid conditions most commonly present in transferred patients included CHF (52.6%), renal failure (51.8%), arrhythmia (49.8%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD; 37.0%). The most common day of transfer was day after admission (hospital day 2, 24.7%), with 75% of transferred patients transferred before hospital day 6 (Appendix B).

After adjusting for all other patient and hospital characteristics and clustering by hospital, the following variables were associated with greater odds of transfer: older age, male sex, nonblack race, non-Medicaid co-insurance, higher comorbidity (HCC score), lower DRG-weight, and fewer hospitalizations in the prior 12 months. Beneficiaries also had greater odds of transfer if initially hospitalized at smaller hospitals, nonteaching hospitals, public hospitals, at hospitals in the Northeast, those with fewer specialty services, and those with a low CMI (Table 2).

In this nationally representative study of 6.6 million Medicare beneficiaries, we found that 1.5% of patients were transferred between acute care facilities and were most often transferred prior to hospital day 6. Older age, male sex, nonblack race, higher medical comorbidity, lower DRG weight, and fewer recent hospitalizations were associated with greater odds of transfer. Initial hospitalization at smaller, nonteaching, public hospitals, with fewer specialty services were associated with greater odds of transfer, while higher CMI was associated with a lower odds of transfer. The most common comorbid conditions among transferred patients included CHF, renal failure, arrhythmia, and COPD; particularly notable was the very high prevalence of these conditions among transferred as compared with nontransferred patients. Importantly, we found significant variation in IHT by region and a large variation in transfer practices by hospital, with significant variability in transfer rates even after accounting for known patient and hospital characteristics.

Among our examined population, we found that a sizable number of patients undergo IHT—more than 100,000 per year. Primary diagnoses at time of transfer consist of common inpatient conditions, including AMI, CHF, sepsis, arrhythmia, and pneumonia. Limited prior data support our findings, with up to 50% of AMI patients reportedly undergoing IHT,^3-5 and severe sepsis and respiratory illness reported as common diagnoses at transfer.¹¹ Although knowledge of these primary diagnoses does not directly confer an understanding of reason for transfer, one can speculate based on our findings. For example, research demonstrates the majority of AMI patients who undergo IHT had further intervention, including stress testing, cardiac catheterization, and/or coronary artery bypass graft surgery.^5,26 Thus, it is reasonable to presume that many of the beneficiaries

In this national study of IHT, we found that a sizable number of patients admitted to the hospital undergo transfer to another acute care facility. Patients are transferred with common medical conditions, including those requiring specialized care such as AMI, and a high rate of comorbid clinical conditions, and certain patient and hospital characteristics are associated with greater odds of transfer. Although many of the observed associations between characteristics and odds of transfer were expected based on limited existing literature, we found several unexpected findings, eg, suggesting the possibility of a threshold beyond which sicker patients are not transferred. Additionally, we found that black and Medicaid patients had lower odds of transfer, which warrants further investigation for potential health care disparity. Importantly, we found much variability in the practice of IHT, as evidenced by the inexplicable differences in transfer by hospital region, and by residual unexplained variability in hospital transfer rates after accounting for patient and hospital characteristics, which may be due to lack of standard guidelines to direct IHT practices. In conclusion, this study of hospitalized Medicare patients provides important foundational information regarding rates and predictors of IHT nationally, as well as unexplained variability that exists within this complex care transition. Further investigation will be essential to understand reasons for, processes related to, and outcomes of transferred patients, to help guide standardization in best practices in care.

Disclosure

Nothing to report.

Attending rounds at academic medical centers are often disconnected from patients and non-physician care team members. Time spent bedside is consistently less than one third of total rounding time, with observational studies reporting a range of 9% to 33% over the past several decades.^1-8 Rounds are often conducted outside patient rooms, denying patients, families, and nurses the opportunity to participate and offer valuable insights. Lack of bedside rounds thus limits patient and family engagement, patient input into the care plan, teaching of the physical examination, and communication and collaboration with nurses. In one study, physicians and nurses on rounds engaged in interprofessional communication in only 12% of patient cases.¹ Studies have found interdisciplinary bedside rounds have several benefits, including subjectively improved communication and teamwork between physicians and nurses; increased patient satisfaction, including feeling more cared for by the medical team; and decreased length of stay and costs of care.^2-10

However, there are many barriers to conducting interdisciplinary bedside rounds at large academic medical centers. Patients cared for by a single medical team are often geographically dispersed to several nursing units, and nurses are unable to predict when physicians will round on their patients. This situation limits nursing involvement on rounds and keeps doctors and nurses isolated from each other.² Regionalization of care teams reduces this fragmentation by facilitating more interaction among doctors, patients, families, and nursing staff.

There are few data on how regionalized patients and interdisciplinary bedside rounds affect rounding time and the nature of rounds. This information is needed to understand how these structural changes mediate their effects, whether other steps are required to optimize outcomes, and how to maximize efficiency. We used time-motion analysis (TMA) to investigate how regionalization of medical teams, encouragement of bedside rounding, and systematic inclusion of nurses on ward rounds affect amount of time spent with patients, nursing presence on rounds, and total rounding time.

Setting

This prospective interventional study, approved by the Institutional Review Board of Partners HealthCare, was conducted on the general medical wards at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, an academic 793-bed tertiary-care center in Boston, Massachusetts. Housestaff teams consist of 1 attending, 1 resident, and 2 interns with or without a medical student. Before June 20, 2013, daily rounds on medical inpatients were conducted largely on the patient unit but outside patient rooms. After completing most of a rounding discussion outside a patient’s room, the team might walk in to examine or speak with the patient. A typical medical team had patients dispersed over 7 medical units on average, and over as many as 13. As nurses were unit based, they did not consistently participate in rounds.

Intervention

In June 2013, as part of a general medical service care redesign initiative, the general medical teams were regionalized to specific inpatient units. The goal was to have teams admit patients predominantly to the team’s designated unit and to have all patients on a unit be cared for by the unit’s assigned team as often as possible, with an 85% goal for both. Toward those ends, the admitting structure was changed from a traditional 4-day call cycle to daily admitting for all teams, based on each unit’s bed availability.¹¹

Teams were also expected to conduct rounds with nurses, and a system for facilitating these rounds was established. As physician and nurse care teams were now geographically co-located, it became possible for residents and nurses to check a rounding sheet for the planned patient rounding order, which had been set by the resident and nurse-in-charge before rounds. No more than about 5 minutes was needed to prepare each day’s order. The rounding sheet prioritized sick patients, newly admitted patients, and planned morning discharges, but patients were also always grouped by nurse. For example, the physician team rounded with the first nurse on all 3 of a nurse’s patients, and then proceeded to the next group of 3 patients with the next nurse, until all patients were seen.

Teams were encouraged to conduct patient- and family-centered rounds exclusively at bedside, except when bedside rounding was thought to be detrimental to a patient (eg, one with delirium). After an intern’s bedside presentation, which included a brief summary and details about overnight events and vital signs, the concerns of the patient, family, and nurse were shared, a focused physical examination performed, relevant data (eg, laboratory test results and imaging studies) reviewed, and the day’s plan formulated. The entire team, including the attending, was expected to have read new patients’ admission notes before rounds. Bedside rounds could thus be focused more on patient assessment and patient/family engagement and less on data transfer.

Several actions were taken to facilitate these changes. Residents, attendings, nurses, and other interdisciplinary team members participated in a series of focus groups and conferences to define workflows and share best practices for patient- and family-centered bedside rounds. Tips on bedside rounding were included in a general medicine rotation guidebook made available to residents and attendings. At the beginning of each post-intervention general medicine rotation, attendings and residents attended brief orientation sessions to review the new daily schedule, have interdisciplinary huddles, and share expectations for patient- and family-centered bedside rounds. On the general medicine units, new medical directors were hired to partner with existing nursing directors to support adoption of the workflows. Last, an interdisciplinary leadership team was formed to support the care redesign efforts. This team started meeting every 2 weeks.

Study Design

We used a pre–post analysis to study the effects of care redesign. Analysis was performed at the same time of year for 2 consecutive years to control for the stage of training and experience of the housestaff. TMA was performed by trained medical students using computer tablets linked to a customized Microsoft Access database form (Redmond, Washington). The form and the database were designed with specific buttons that, when pressed, recorded the time of particular events, such as the coming and going of each participant, the location of rounds, and the beginning and the end of rounding encounters with a patient. One research assistant using an Access entry form was able to dynamically track all events in real time, as they occurred. We collected data on 4 teams at baseline and 5 teams after the intervention. Each of the 4 baseline teams was followed for 4 consecutive weekdays—16 rounds total, April-June 2013—to capture the 4-day call cycle. Each of the 5 post-intervention teams was followed for 5 consecutive weekdays—25 rounds total, April–June 2014—to capture the 5-day cycle. (Because of technical difficulties, data from 1 rounding session were not captured.) For inclusion in the statistical analyses, TMA captured 166 on-service patients before the intervention and 304 afterward. Off-service patients, those with an attending other than the team attending, were excluded because their rounds were conducted separately.

We examined 2 primary outcomes, the proportion of time each clinical team member was present on rounds and the proportion of bedside rounding time. Secondary outcomes were round duration, rounding time per patient, and total non-patient time per rounding session (total rounding time minus total patient time).

Statistical Analysis

TMA data were organized in an Access database and analyzed with SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). We analyzed the data by round session as well as by patient.

Data are presented as means with standard deviations, medians with interquartile ranges, and proportions, as appropriate. For analyses by round session, we used unadjusted linear regression; for patient-level analyses, we used general estimating equations to adjust for clustering of patients within each session; for nurse presence during any part of a round by patient, we used a χ² test. Total non-patient time per round session was compared with use of patient-clustered general estimating equations using a γ distribution to account for the non-normality of the data.

Patient and Care Team Characteristics

Over the first year of the initiative, 85% of a team’s patients were on their assigned unit, and 87% of a unit’s patients were with the assigned team. Census numbers were 10.4 patients per general medicine team in April-June 2013 and 12.7 patients per team in April-June 2014, a 22% increase after care redesign. There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics, including age, sex, race, language, admission source, and comorbidity measure (Elixhauser score), between the pre-intervention and post-intervention study periods, except for a slightly higher proportion of patients admitted from home and fewer patients admitted directly from clinic (Table 1).

Primary Outcomes

Mean proportion of time the nurse was present on rounds per round session increased significantly (P < 0.001), from 24.1% to 67.8% (Figure 1A, Table 2). For individual patient encounters, the increased overall nursing presence was attributable to having more nurses on rounds and having nurses present for a larger proportion of individual rounding encounters (Figure 1B, Table 2). Nurses were present for at least some part of rounds for 53% of patients before the intervention and 93% afterward (P < 0.001). Mean proportion of round time by each of the 2 interns on each team decreased from 59.6% to 49.6% (P = 0.007).

Total bedside rounding time increased significantly ( P < 0.001), from 39.9% before the intervention to 55.8% afterward (Table 2). Meanwhile, percentage of rounding time spent on the unit but outside patient rooms decreased significantly ( P = 0.004), from 55.2% to 42.2%, as did rounding time on a unit completely different from the patient’s (4.9% before intervention, 2.0% afterward; P = 0.03). Again, patient-level results were similar (Figure 2, Table 2), but the decreased time spent on the unit, outside the patient rooms, was not significant.

Secondary Outcomes

Total rounding time decreased significantly, from a mean of 182 minutes (3.0 hours) at baseline to a mean of 146 minutes (2.4 hours) after the intervention, despite the higher post-intervention census. (When adjusted for patient census, the difference increased from 35.5 to 53.8 minutes; Table 2.) Mean rounding time per patient decreased significantly, from 14.7 minutes at baseline to 10.5 minutes after the intervention. For newly admitted patients, mean rounding time per patient decreased from 30.0 minutes before implementation to 16.3 minutes afterward. Mean rounding time also decreased, though much less, for subsequent-day patients (Table 2). For both new and existing patients, the decrease in rounding time largely was a reduction in time spent rounding outside patient rooms, with minimal impact on bedside time (Table 2). Mean time nurses were present during a patient’s rounds increased significantly, from 4.5 to 8.0 minutes (Table 2). Total nurse rounding time increased from 45.1 minutes per session to 98.8 minutes. Rounding time not related to patient discussion or evaluation decreased from 22.7 minutes per session to 13.3 minutes ( P = 0.003).

TMA of our care redesign initiative showed that this multipronged intervention, which included team regionalization, encouragement of bedside rounding with nurses, call structure changes, and attendings’ reading of admission notes before rounds, resulted in an increased proportion of rounding time spent with patients and an increased proportion of time nurses were present on rounds. Secondarily, round duration decreased even as patient census increased.

Regionalized teams have been found to improve interdisciplinary communication.¹ The present study elaborates on that finding by demonstrating a dramatic increase in nursing presence on rounds, likely resulting from the unit’s use of rounding schedules and nurses’ prioritization of rounding orders, both of which were made possible by geographic co-localization. Other research has noted that one of the most significant barriers to interdisciplinary rounds is difficulty coordinating the start times of physician/nurse bedside rounding encounters. The system we have studied directly addresses this difficulty.⁹ Of note, nursing presence on rounds is necessary but not sufficient for true physician–nurse collaboration and effective communication,¹ as reflected in a separate study of the intervention showing no significant difference in the concordance of the patient care plan between nurses and physicians before and after regionalization.¹² Additional interventions may be needed to ensure that communication during bedside rounds is effective.

Our regionalized teams spent a significantly higher proportion of rounding time bedside, likely because of a cultural shift in expectations and the increased convenience of seeing patients on the team’s unit. Nevertheless, bedside time was not 100%. Structural barriers (eg, patients off-unit for dialysis) and cultural barriers likely contributed to the less than full adoption of bedside rounding. As described previously, cultural barriers to bedside rounding include trainees’ anxiety about being questioned in front of patients, the desire to freely exchange academic ideas in a conference room, and attendings’ doubts about their bedside teaching ability.^1,9,13 Bedside rounds provide an important opportunity to apply the principles of patient- and family-centered care, including promotion of dignity and respect, information sharing, and collaboration. Thus, overcoming the concerns of housestaff and attendings and helping them feel prepared for bedside rounds can benefit the patient experience. More attention should be given to these practices as these types of interventions are implemented at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and elsewhere.^1,13-15

Another primary concern about interdisciplinary bedside rounding is the perception that it takes more time.⁹ Therefore, it was important for us to measure round duration as a balancing measure to be considered for our intervention. Fortunately, we found round duration decreased with regionalization and encouragement of bedside rounding. This decrease was driven largely by a significant decrease in mean rounding time per new patient, which may be attributable at least in part to setting expectations that attendings and residents will read admission notes before rounds and that interns will summarize rather than recount information from admission notes. However, we also found rounding time decreases for subsequent-day patients, suggesting an underlying time savings. Spending a larger proportion of time bedside may therefore result in more efficient rounds. Bedside presentations can reduce redundancies, such as discussing a patient’s case outside his or her room and subsequently walking in and going over much of the same information with the patient. Our model de-emphasizes data transfer in favor of discussion of care plans. There was also a decrease in non-patient time, likely reflecting reduced transit time for regionalized teams. This decrease aligns with a recent finding that bedside rounding was at least as efficient as rounding outside the room.¹⁶

Of note, though a larger percentage of time was spent bedside after implementation of the care redesign, the absolute amount of bedside time did not change significantly. Our data showed that, even with shorter rounds, the same amount of absolute time can be spent bedside, face to face with the patient, by increasing the proportion of bedside rounding time. In other words, teams on average did not spend more time with patients, though the content and the structure of those encounters may have changed. This finding may be attributable to eliminating redundancy, forgoing the outside-the-room discussion, and thus the largest time reductions were realized there. In addition, teams incompletely adopted beside rounds, as reflected in the data. We expect that, with more complete adoption, an even larger proportion of time will be spent bedside, and absolute time bedside might increase as a result.

An unexpected result of the care redesign was that interns’ proportion of rounding time decreased after the intervention. This decrease most likely is attributable to interns’ being less likely to participate in rounds for a co-intern’s patient, and to their staying outside that patient’s room to give themselves more time to advance the care of their own patients. Before the intervention, when more rounding time was spent outside patient rooms, interns were more likely to join rounds for their co-intern’s patients because they could easily break away, as needed, to continue care of their own patients. The resident is now encouraged to use the morning huddle to identify which patients likely have the most educational value, and both interns are expected to join the bedside rounds for these patients.

This study had a few limitations. First, the pre–post design made it difficult to exclude the possibility that other temporal changes may have affected outcomes, though we did account for time-of-year effects by aligning our data-collection phases. In addition, the authors, including the director of the general medical service, are unaware of any co-interventions during the study period. Second, the multipronged intervention included care team regionalization, encouragement of bedside rounding with nurses, call structure changes (from 4 days to daily admitting), and attendings’ reading of admission notes before rounds. Thus, parsing which component(s) contributed to the results was difficult, though all the changes instituted likely were necessary for system redesign. For example, regionalization of clinicians to unit-based teams was made possible by switching to a daily admitting system.

Time that team members spent preparing for rounds was not recorded before or after the intervention. Thus, the decrease in total rounding time could have been accompanied by an increase in time spent preparing for rounds. However, admission notes were available in our electronic medical record before and after the intervention, and most residents and attendings were already reading them pre-intervention. After the intervention, pre-round note reading was more clearly defined as an expectation, and we were able to set the expectation that interns should use their presentations to summarize rather than recount information. In addition, in the post-intervention period, we did not include time spent preparing rounding orders; as already noted, however, preparation took only 5 minutes per day. Also, we did not analyze the content or the quality of the discussion on rounds, but simply recorded who was present where and when. Regarding the effect of the intervention on patient care, results were mixed. As reported in 2016, we saw no difference in frequency of adverse events with this intervention.¹² However, a more sensitive measure of adverse events—used in a study on handoffs—showed our regionalization efforts had an additive effect on reducing overnight adverse events.¹⁷Researchers should now focus on the effects of care redesign on clinical outcomes, interdisciplinary care team communication, patient engagement and satisfaction, provider opinions of communication, workflow, patient care, and housestaff education. Our methodology can be used as a model to link structure, process, and outcome related to rounds and thereby better understand how best to optimize patient care and efficiency. Additional studies are needed to analyze the content of rounds and their association with patient and educational outcomes. Last, it will be important to conduct a study to see if the effects we have identified can be sustained. Such a study is already under way.

In conclusion, creating regionalized care teams and encouraging focused bedside rounds increased the proportion of bedside time and the presence of nurses on rounds. Rounds were shorter despite higher patient census. TMA revealed that regionalized care teams and bedside rounding at a large academic hospital are feasible, and are useful in establishing the necessary structures for increasing physician–nurse and provider–patient interactions.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Dr. Stan Ashley, Dr. Jacqueline Somerville, and Sheila Harris for their support of the regionalization initiative.

Disclosures

Dr. Schnipper received funding from Sanofi-aventis to conduct an investigator-initiated study to implement and evaluate a multi-faceted intervention to improve transitions of care in patients discharged home on insulin. The study was also supported by funding from the Marshall A. Wolf Medical Education Fund, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Dr. Stan Ashley, Chief Medical Officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Some of the content of this article was orally presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine; March 29-April 1, 2015; National Harbor, MD.

Attending rounds at academic medical centers are often disconnected from patients and non-physician care team members. Time spent bedside is consistently less than one third of total rounding time, with observational studies reporting a range of 9% to 33% over the past several decades.^1-8 Rounds are often conducted outside patient rooms, denying patients, families, and nurses the opportunity to participate and offer valuable insights. Lack of bedside rounds thus limits patient and family engagement, patient input into the care plan, teaching of the physical examination, and communication and collaboration with nurses. In one study, physicians and nurses on rounds engaged in interprofessional communication in only 12% of patient cases.¹ Studies have found interdisciplinary bedside rounds have several benefits, including subjectively improved communication and teamwork between physicians and nurses; increased patient satisfaction, including feeling more cared for by the medical team; and decreased length of stay and costs of care.^2-10

However, there are many barriers to conducting interdisciplinary bedside rounds at large academic medical centers. Patients cared for by a single medical team are often geographically dispersed to several nursing units, and nurses are unable to predict when physicians will round on their patients. This situation limits nursing involvement on rounds and keeps doctors and nurses isolated from each other.² Regionalization of care teams reduces this fragmentation by facilitating more interaction among doctors, patients, families, and nursing staff.

There are few data on how regionalized patients and interdisciplinary bedside rounds affect rounding time and the nature of rounds. This information is needed to understand how these structural changes mediate their effects, whether other steps are required to optimize outcomes, and how to maximize efficiency. We used time-motion analysis (TMA) to investigate how regionalization of medical teams, encouragement of bedside rounding, and systematic inclusion of nurses on ward rounds affect amount of time spent with patients, nursing presence on rounds, and total rounding time.

Setting

This prospective interventional study, approved by the Institutional Review Board of Partners HealthCare, was conducted on the general medical wards at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, an academic 793-bed tertiary-care center in Boston, Massachusetts. Housestaff teams consist of 1 attending, 1 resident, and 2 interns with or without a medical student. Before June 20, 2013, daily rounds on medical inpatients were conducted largely on the patient unit but outside patient rooms. After completing most of a rounding discussion outside a patient’s room, the team might walk in to examine or speak with the patient. A typical medical team had patients dispersed over 7 medical units on average, and over as many as 13. As nurses were unit based, they did not consistently participate in rounds.

Intervention

In June 2013, as part of a general medical service care redesign initiative, the general medical teams were regionalized to specific inpatient units. The goal was to have teams admit patients predominantly to the team’s designated unit and to have all patients on a unit be cared for by the unit’s assigned team as often as possible, with an 85% goal for both. Toward those ends, the admitting structure was changed from a traditional 4-day call cycle to daily admitting for all teams, based on each unit’s bed availability.¹¹

Teams were also expected to conduct rounds with nurses, and a system for facilitating these rounds was established. As physician and nurse care teams were now geographically co-located, it became possible for residents and nurses to check a rounding sheet for the planned patient rounding order, which had been set by the resident and nurse-in-charge before rounds. No more than about 5 minutes was needed to prepare each day’s order. The rounding sheet prioritized sick patients, newly admitted patients, and planned morning discharges, but patients were also always grouped by nurse. For example, the physician team rounded with the first nurse on all 3 of a nurse’s patients, and then proceeded to the next group of 3 patients with the next nurse, until all patients were seen.

Teams were encouraged to conduct patient- and family-centered rounds exclusively at bedside, except when bedside rounding was thought to be detrimental to a patient (eg, one with delirium). After an intern’s bedside presentation, which included a brief summary and details about overnight events and vital signs, the concerns of the patient, family, and nurse were shared, a focused physical examination performed, relevant data (eg, laboratory test results and imaging studies) reviewed, and the day’s plan formulated. The entire team, including the attending, was expected to have read new patients’ admission notes before rounds. Bedside rounds could thus be focused more on patient assessment and patient/family engagement and less on data transfer.

Several actions were taken to facilitate these changes. Residents, attendings, nurses, and other interdisciplinary team members participated in a series of focus groups and conferences to define workflows and share best practices for patient- and family-centered bedside rounds. Tips on bedside rounding were included in a general medicine rotation guidebook made available to residents and attendings. At the beginning of each post-intervention general medicine rotation, attendings and residents attended brief orientation sessions to review the new daily schedule, have interdisciplinary huddles, and share expectations for patient- and family-centered bedside rounds. On the general medicine units, new medical directors were hired to partner with existing nursing directors to support adoption of the workflows. Last, an interdisciplinary leadership team was formed to support the care redesign efforts. This team started meeting every 2 weeks.

Study Design

We used a pre–post analysis to study the effects of care redesign. Analysis was performed at the same time of year for 2 consecutive years to control for the stage of training and experience of the housestaff. TMA was performed by trained medical students using computer tablets linked to a customized Microsoft Access database form (Redmond, Washington). The form and the database were designed with specific buttons that, when pressed, recorded the time of particular events, such as the coming and going of each participant, the location of rounds, and the beginning and the end of rounding encounters with a patient. One research assistant using an Access entry form was able to dynamically track all events in real time, as they occurred. We collected data on 4 teams at baseline and 5 teams after the intervention. Each of the 4 baseline teams was followed for 4 consecutive weekdays—16 rounds total, April-June 2013—to capture the 4-day call cycle. Each of the 5 post-intervention teams was followed for 5 consecutive weekdays—25 rounds total, April–June 2014—to capture the 5-day cycle. (Because of technical difficulties, data from 1 rounding session were not captured.) For inclusion in the statistical analyses, TMA captured 166 on-service patients before the intervention and 304 afterward. Off-service patients, those with an attending other than the team attending, were excluded because their rounds were conducted separately.

We examined 2 primary outcomes, the proportion of time each clinical team member was present on rounds and the proportion of bedside rounding time. Secondary outcomes were round duration, rounding time per patient, and total non-patient time per rounding session (total rounding time minus total patient time).

Statistical Analysis

TMA data were organized in an Access database and analyzed with SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). We analyzed the data by round session as well as by patient.

Data are presented as means with standard deviations, medians with interquartile ranges, and proportions, as appropriate. For analyses by round session, we used unadjusted linear regression; for patient-level analyses, we used general estimating equations to adjust for clustering of patients within each session; for nurse presence during any part of a round by patient, we used a χ² test. Total non-patient time per round session was compared with use of patient-clustered general estimating equations using a γ distribution to account for the non-normality of the data.

Patient and Care Team Characteristics

Over the first year of the initiative, 85% of a team’s patients were on their assigned unit, and 87% of a unit’s patients were with the assigned team. Census numbers were 10.4 patients per general medicine team in April-June 2013 and 12.7 patients per team in April-June 2014, a 22% increase after care redesign. There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics, including age, sex, race, language, admission source, and comorbidity measure (Elixhauser score), between the pre-intervention and post-intervention study periods, except for a slightly higher proportion of patients admitted from home and fewer patients admitted directly from clinic (Table 1).

Primary Outcomes

Mean proportion of time the nurse was present on rounds per round session increased significantly (P < 0.001), from 24.1% to 67.8% (Figure 1A, Table 2). For individual patient encounters, the increased overall nursing presence was attributable to having more nurses on rounds and having nurses present for a larger proportion of individual rounding encounters (Figure 1B, Table 2). Nurses were present for at least some part of rounds for 53% of patients before the intervention and 93% afterward (P < 0.001). Mean proportion of round time by each of the 2 interns on each team decreased from 59.6% to 49.6% (P = 0.007).

Total bedside rounding time increased significantly ( P < 0.001), from 39.9% before the intervention to 55.8% afterward (Table 2). Meanwhile, percentage of rounding time spent on the unit but outside patient rooms decreased significantly ( P = 0.004), from 55.2% to 42.2%, as did rounding time on a unit completely different from the patient’s (4.9% before intervention, 2.0% afterward; P = 0.03). Again, patient-level results were similar (Figure 2, Table 2), but the decreased time spent on the unit, outside the patient rooms, was not significant.

Secondary Outcomes

Total rounding time decreased significantly, from a mean of 182 minutes (3.0 hours) at baseline to a mean of 146 minutes (2.4 hours) after the intervention, despite the higher post-intervention census. (When adjusted for patient census, the difference increased from 35.5 to 53.8 minutes; Table 2.) Mean rounding time per patient decreased significantly, from 14.7 minutes at baseline to 10.5 minutes after the intervention. For newly admitted patients, mean rounding time per patient decreased from 30.0 minutes before implementation to 16.3 minutes afterward. Mean rounding time also decreased, though much less, for subsequent-day patients (Table 2). For both new and existing patients, the decrease in rounding time largely was a reduction in time spent rounding outside patient rooms, with minimal impact on bedside time (Table 2). Mean time nurses were present during a patient’s rounds increased significantly, from 4.5 to 8.0 minutes (Table 2). Total nurse rounding time increased from 45.1 minutes per session to 98.8 minutes. Rounding time not related to patient discussion or evaluation decreased from 22.7 minutes per session to 13.3 minutes ( P = 0.003).

TMA of our care redesign initiative showed that this multipronged intervention, which included team regionalization, encouragement of bedside rounding with nurses, call structure changes, and attendings’ reading of admission notes before rounds, resulted in an increased proportion of rounding time spent with patients and an increased proportion of time nurses were present on rounds. Secondarily, round duration decreased even as patient census increased.

Regionalized teams have been found to improve interdisciplinary communication.¹ The present study elaborates on that finding by demonstrating a dramatic increase in nursing presence on rounds, likely resulting from the unit’s use of rounding schedules and nurses’ prioritization of rounding orders, both of which were made possible by geographic co-localization. Other research has noted that one of the most significant barriers to interdisciplinary rounds is difficulty coordinating the start times of physician/nurse bedside rounding encounters. The system we have studied directly addresses this difficulty.⁹ Of note, nursing presence on rounds is necessary but not sufficient for true physician–nurse collaboration and effective communication,¹ as reflected in a separate study of the intervention showing no significant difference in the concordance of the patient care plan between nurses and physicians before and after regionalization.¹² Additional interventions may be needed to ensure that communication during bedside rounds is effective.

Our regionalized teams spent a significantly higher proportion of rounding time bedside, likely because of a cultural shift in expectations and the increased convenience of seeing patients on the team’s unit. Nevertheless, bedside time was not 100%. Structural barriers (eg, patients off-unit for dialysis) and cultural barriers likely contributed to the less than full adoption of bedside rounding. As described previously, cultural barriers to bedside rounding include trainees’ anxiety about being questioned in front of patients, the desire to freely exchange academic ideas in a conference room, and attendings’ doubts about their bedside teaching ability.^1,9,13 Bedside rounds provide an important opportunity to apply the principles of patient- and family-centered care, including promotion of dignity and respect, information sharing, and collaboration. Thus, overcoming the concerns of housestaff and attendings and helping them feel prepared for bedside rounds can benefit the patient experience. More attention should be given to these practices as these types of interventions are implemented at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and elsewhere.^1,13-15

Another primary concern about interdisciplinary bedside rounding is the perception that it takes more time.⁹ Therefore, it was important for us to measure round duration as a balancing measure to be considered for our intervention. Fortunately, we found round duration decreased with regionalization and encouragement of bedside rounding. This decrease was driven largely by a significant decrease in mean rounding time per new patient, which may be attributable at least in part to setting expectations that attendings and residents will read admission notes before rounds and that interns will summarize rather than recount information from admission notes. However, we also found rounding time decreases for subsequent-day patients, suggesting an underlying time savings. Spending a larger proportion of time bedside may therefore result in more efficient rounds. Bedside presentations can reduce redundancies, such as discussing a patient’s case outside his or her room and subsequently walking in and going over much of the same information with the patient. Our model de-emphasizes data transfer in favor of discussion of care plans. There was also a decrease in non-patient time, likely reflecting reduced transit time for regionalized teams. This decrease aligns with a recent finding that bedside rounding was at least as efficient as rounding outside the room.¹⁶

Of note, though a larger percentage of time was spent bedside after implementation of the care redesign, the absolute amount of bedside time did not change significantly. Our data showed that, even with shorter rounds, the same amount of absolute time can be spent bedside, face to face with the patient, by increasing the proportion of bedside rounding time. In other words, teams on average did not spend more time with patients, though the content and the structure of those encounters may have changed. This finding may be attributable to eliminating redundancy, forgoing the outside-the-room discussion, and thus the largest time reductions were realized there. In addition, teams incompletely adopted beside rounds, as reflected in the data. We expect that, with more complete adoption, an even larger proportion of time will be spent bedside, and absolute time bedside might increase as a result.

An unexpected result of the care redesign was that interns’ proportion of rounding time decreased after the intervention. This decrease most likely is attributable to interns’ being less likely to participate in rounds for a co-intern’s patient, and to their staying outside that patient’s room to give themselves more time to advance the care of their own patients. Before the intervention, when more rounding time was spent outside patient rooms, interns were more likely to join rounds for their co-intern’s patients because they could easily break away, as needed, to continue care of their own patients. The resident is now encouraged to use the morning huddle to identify which patients likely have the most educational value, and both interns are expected to join the bedside rounds for these patients.

This study had a few limitations. First, the pre–post design made it difficult to exclude the possibility that other temporal changes may have affected outcomes, though we did account for time-of-year effects by aligning our data-collection phases. In addition, the authors, including the director of the general medical service, are unaware of any co-interventions during the study period. Second, the multipronged intervention included care team regionalization, encouragement of bedside rounding with nurses, call structure changes (from 4 days to daily admitting), and attendings’ reading of admission notes before rounds. Thus, parsing which component(s) contributed to the results was difficult, though all the changes instituted likely were necessary for system redesign. For example, regionalization of clinicians to unit-based teams was made possible by switching to a daily admitting system.

Time that team members spent preparing for rounds was not recorded before or after the intervention. Thus, the decrease in total rounding time could have been accompanied by an increase in time spent preparing for rounds. However, admission notes were available in our electronic medical record before and after the intervention, and most residents and attendings were already reading them pre-intervention. After the intervention, pre-round note reading was more clearly defined as an expectation, and we were able to set the expectation that interns should use their presentations to summarize rather than recount information. In addition, in the post-intervention period, we did not include time spent preparing rounding orders; as already noted, however, preparation took only 5 minutes per day. Also, we did not analyze the content or the quality of the discussion on rounds, but simply recorded who was present where and when. Regarding the effect of the intervention on patient care, results were mixed. As reported in 2016, we saw no difference in frequency of adverse events with this intervention.¹² However, a more sensitive measure of adverse events—used in a study on handoffs—showed our regionalization efforts had an additive effect on reducing overnight adverse events.¹⁷Researchers should now focus on the effects of care redesign on clinical outcomes, interdisciplinary care team communication, patient engagement and satisfaction, provider opinions of communication, workflow, patient care, and housestaff education. Our methodology can be used as a model to link structure, process, and outcome related to rounds and thereby better understand how best to optimize patient care and efficiency. Additional studies are needed to analyze the content of rounds and their association with patient and educational outcomes. Last, it will be important to conduct a study to see if the effects we have identified can be sustained. Such a study is already under way.

In conclusion, creating regionalized care teams and encouraging focused bedside rounds increased the proportion of bedside time and the presence of nurses on rounds. Rounds were shorter despite higher patient census. TMA revealed that regionalized care teams and bedside rounding at a large academic hospital are feasible, and are useful in establishing the necessary structures for increasing physician–nurse and provider–patient interactions.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Dr. Stan Ashley, Dr. Jacqueline Somerville, and Sheila Harris for their support of the regionalization initiative.

Disclosures

Dr. Schnipper received funding from Sanofi-aventis to conduct an investigator-initiated study to implement and evaluate a multi-faceted intervention to improve transitions of care in patients discharged home on insulin. The study was also supported by funding from the Marshall A. Wolf Medical Education Fund, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Dr. Stan Ashley, Chief Medical Officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Some of the content of this article was orally presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine; March 29-April 1, 2015; National Harbor, MD.

Attending rounds at academic medical centers are often disconnected from patients and non-physician care team members. Time spent bedside is consistently less than one third of total rounding time, with observational studies reporting a range of 9% to 33% over the past several decades.^1-8 Rounds are often conducted outside patient rooms, denying patients, families, and nurses the opportunity to participate and offer valuable insights. Lack of bedside rounds thus limits patient and family engagement, patient input into the care plan, teaching of the physical examination, and communication and collaboration with nurses. In one study, physicians and nurses on rounds engaged in interprofessional communication in only 12% of patient cases.¹ Studies have found interdisciplinary bedside rounds have several benefits, including subjectively improved communication and teamwork between physicians and nurses; increased patient satisfaction, including feeling more cared for by the medical team; and decreased length of stay and costs of care.^2-10

However, there are many barriers to conducting interdisciplinary bedside rounds at large academic medical centers. Patients cared for by a single medical team are often geographically dispersed to several nursing units, and nurses are unable to predict when physicians will round on their patients. This situation limits nursing involvement on rounds and keeps doctors and nurses isolated from each other.² Regionalization of care teams reduces this fragmentation by facilitating more interaction among doctors, patients, families, and nursing staff.

There are few data on how regionalized patients and interdisciplinary bedside rounds affect rounding time and the nature of rounds. This information is needed to understand how these structural changes mediate their effects, whether other steps are required to optimize outcomes, and how to maximize efficiency. We used time-motion analysis (TMA) to investigate how regionalization of medical teams, encouragement of bedside rounding, and systematic inclusion of nurses on ward rounds affect amount of time spent with patients, nursing presence on rounds, and total rounding time.

Setting

This prospective interventional study, approved by the Institutional Review Board of Partners HealthCare, was conducted on the general medical wards at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, an academic 793-bed tertiary-care center in Boston, Massachusetts. Housestaff teams consist of 1 attending, 1 resident, and 2 interns with or without a medical student. Before June 20, 2013, daily rounds on medical inpatients were conducted largely on the patient unit but outside patient rooms. After completing most of a rounding discussion outside a patient’s room, the team might walk in to examine or speak with the patient. A typical medical team had patients dispersed over 7 medical units on average, and over as many as 13. As nurses were unit based, they did not consistently participate in rounds.

Intervention

In June 2013, as part of a general medical service care redesign initiative, the general medical teams were regionalized to specific inpatient units. The goal was to have teams admit patients predominantly to the team’s designated unit and to have all patients on a unit be cared for by the unit’s assigned team as often as possible, with an 85% goal for both. Toward those ends, the admitting structure was changed from a traditional 4-day call cycle to daily admitting for all teams, based on each unit’s bed availability.¹¹

Teams were also expected to conduct rounds with nurses, and a system for facilitating these rounds was established. As physician and nurse care teams were now geographically co-located, it became possible for residents and nurses to check a rounding sheet for the planned patient rounding order, which had been set by the resident and nurse-in-charge before rounds. No more than about 5 minutes was needed to prepare each day’s order. The rounding sheet prioritized sick patients, newly admitted patients, and planned morning discharges, but patients were also always grouped by nurse. For example, the physician team rounded with the first nurse on all 3 of a nurse’s patients, and then proceeded to the next group of 3 patients with the next nurse, until all patients were seen.

Teams were encouraged to conduct patient- and family-centered rounds exclusively at bedside, except when bedside rounding was thought to be detrimental to a patient (eg, one with delirium). After an intern’s bedside presentation, which included a brief summary and details about overnight events and vital signs, the concerns of the patient, family, and nurse were shared, a focused physical examination performed, relevant data (eg, laboratory test results and imaging studies) reviewed, and the day’s plan formulated. The entire team, including the attending, was expected to have read new patients’ admission notes before rounds. Bedside rounds could thus be focused more on patient assessment and patient/family engagement and less on data transfer.

Several actions were taken to facilitate these changes. Residents, attendings, nurses, and other interdisciplinary team members participated in a series of focus groups and conferences to define workflows and share best practices for patient- and family-centered bedside rounds. Tips on bedside rounding were included in a general medicine rotation guidebook made available to residents and attendings. At the beginning of each post-intervention general medicine rotation, attendings and residents attended brief orientation sessions to review the new daily schedule, have interdisciplinary huddles, and share expectations for patient- and family-centered bedside rounds. On the general medicine units, new medical directors were hired to partner with existing nursing directors to support adoption of the workflows. Last, an interdisciplinary leadership team was formed to support the care redesign efforts. This team started meeting every 2 weeks.

Study Design

We used a pre–post analysis to study the effects of care redesign. Analysis was performed at the same time of year for 2 consecutive years to control for the stage of training and experience of the housestaff. TMA was performed by trained medical students using computer tablets linked to a customized Microsoft Access database form (Redmond, Washington). The form and the database were designed with specific buttons that, when pressed, recorded the time of particular events, such as the coming and going of each participant, the location of rounds, and the beginning and the end of rounding encounters with a patient. One research assistant using an Access entry form was able to dynamically track all events in real time, as they occurred. We collected data on 4 teams at baseline and 5 teams after the intervention. Each of the 4 baseline teams was followed for 4 consecutive weekdays—16 rounds total, April-June 2013—to capture the 4-day call cycle. Each of the 5 post-intervention teams was followed for 5 consecutive weekdays—25 rounds total, April–June 2014—to capture the 5-day cycle. (Because of technical difficulties, data from 1 rounding session were not captured.) For inclusion in the statistical analyses, TMA captured 166 on-service patients before the intervention and 304 afterward. Off-service patients, those with an attending other than the team attending, were excluded because their rounds were conducted separately.

We examined 2 primary outcomes, the proportion of time each clinical team member was present on rounds and the proportion of bedside rounding time. Secondary outcomes were round duration, rounding time per patient, and total non-patient time per rounding session (total rounding time minus total patient time).

Statistical Analysis

TMA data were organized in an Access database and analyzed with SAS Version 9.3 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). We analyzed the data by round session as well as by patient.

Data are presented as means with standard deviations, medians with interquartile ranges, and proportions, as appropriate. For analyses by round session, we used unadjusted linear regression; for patient-level analyses, we used general estimating equations to adjust for clustering of patients within each session; for nurse presence during any part of a round by patient, we used a χ² test. Total non-patient time per round session was compared with use of patient-clustered general estimating equations using a γ distribution to account for the non-normality of the data.

Patient and Care Team Characteristics

Over the first year of the initiative, 85% of a team’s patients were on their assigned unit, and 87% of a unit’s patients were with the assigned team. Census numbers were 10.4 patients per general medicine team in April-June 2013 and 12.7 patients per team in April-June 2014, a 22% increase after care redesign. There were no statistically significant differences in patient characteristics, including age, sex, race, language, admission source, and comorbidity measure (Elixhauser score), between the pre-intervention and post-intervention study periods, except for a slightly higher proportion of patients admitted from home and fewer patients admitted directly from clinic (Table 1).

Primary Outcomes

Mean proportion of time the nurse was present on rounds per round session increased significantly (P < 0.001), from 24.1% to 67.8% (Figure 1A, Table 2). For individual patient encounters, the increased overall nursing presence was attributable to having more nurses on rounds and having nurses present for a larger proportion of individual rounding encounters (Figure 1B, Table 2). Nurses were present for at least some part of rounds for 53% of patients before the intervention and 93% afterward (P < 0.001). Mean proportion of round time by each of the 2 interns on each team decreased from 59.6% to 49.6% (P = 0.007).

Total bedside rounding time increased significantly ( P < 0.001), from 39.9% before the intervention to 55.8% afterward (Table 2). Meanwhile, percentage of rounding time spent on the unit but outside patient rooms decreased significantly ( P = 0.004), from 55.2% to 42.2%, as did rounding time on a unit completely different from the patient’s (4.9% before intervention, 2.0% afterward; P = 0.03). Again, patient-level results were similar (Figure 2, Table 2), but the decreased time spent on the unit, outside the patient rooms, was not significant.

Secondary Outcomes

Total rounding time decreased significantly, from a mean of 182 minutes (3.0 hours) at baseline to a mean of 146 minutes (2.4 hours) after the intervention, despite the higher post-intervention census. (When adjusted for patient census, the difference increased from 35.5 to 53.8 minutes; Table 2.) Mean rounding time per patient decreased significantly, from 14.7 minutes at baseline to 10.5 minutes after the intervention. For newly admitted patients, mean rounding time per patient decreased from 30.0 minutes before implementation to 16.3 minutes afterward. Mean rounding time also decreased, though much less, for subsequent-day patients (Table 2). For both new and existing patients, the decrease in rounding time largely was a reduction in time spent rounding outside patient rooms, with minimal impact on bedside time (Table 2). Mean time nurses were present during a patient’s rounds increased significantly, from 4.5 to 8.0 minutes (Table 2). Total nurse rounding time increased from 45.1 minutes per session to 98.8 minutes. Rounding time not related to patient discussion or evaluation decreased from 22.7 minutes per session to 13.3 minutes ( P = 0.003).

TMA of our care redesign initiative showed that this multipronged intervention, which included team regionalization, encouragement of bedside rounding with nurses, call structure changes, and attendings’ reading of admission notes before rounds, resulted in an increased proportion of rounding time spent with patients and an increased proportion of time nurses were present on rounds. Secondarily, round duration decreased even as patient census increased.

Regionalized teams have been found to improve interdisciplinary communication.¹ The present study elaborates on that finding by demonstrating a dramatic increase in nursing presence on rounds, likely resulting from the unit’s use of rounding schedules and nurses’ prioritization of rounding orders, both of which were made possible by geographic co-localization. Other research has noted that one of the most significant barriers to interdisciplinary rounds is difficulty coordinating the start times of physician/nurse bedside rounding encounters. The system we have studied directly addresses this difficulty.⁹ Of note, nursing presence on rounds is necessary but not sufficient for true physician–nurse collaboration and effective communication,¹ as reflected in a separate study of the intervention showing no significant difference in the concordance of the patient care plan between nurses and physicians before and after regionalization.¹² Additional interventions may be needed to ensure that communication during bedside rounds is effective.

Our regionalized teams spent a significantly higher proportion of rounding time bedside, likely because of a cultural shift in expectations and the increased convenience of seeing patients on the team’s unit. Nevertheless, bedside time was not 100%. Structural barriers (eg, patients off-unit for dialysis) and cultural barriers likely contributed to the less than full adoption of bedside rounding. As described previously, cultural barriers to bedside rounding include trainees’ anxiety about being questioned in front of patients, the desire to freely exchange academic ideas in a conference room, and attendings’ doubts about their bedside teaching ability.^1,9,13 Bedside rounds provide an important opportunity to apply the principles of patient- and family-centered care, including promotion of dignity and respect, information sharing, and collaboration. Thus, overcoming the concerns of housestaff and attendings and helping them feel prepared for bedside rounds can benefit the patient experience. More attention should be given to these practices as these types of interventions are implemented at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and elsewhere.^1,13-15

Another primary concern about interdisciplinary bedside rounding is the perception that it takes more time.⁹ Therefore, it was important for us to measure round duration as a balancing measure to be considered for our intervention. Fortunately, we found round duration decreased with regionalization and encouragement of bedside rounding. This decrease was driven largely by a significant decrease in mean rounding time per new patient, which may be attributable at least in part to setting expectations that attendings and residents will read admission notes before rounds and that interns will summarize rather than recount information from admission notes. However, we also found rounding time decreases for subsequent-day patients, suggesting an underlying time savings. Spending a larger proportion of time bedside may therefore result in more efficient rounds. Bedside presentations can reduce redundancies, such as discussing a patient’s case outside his or her room and subsequently walking in and going over much of the same information with the patient. Our model de-emphasizes data transfer in favor of discussion of care plans. There was also a decrease in non-patient time, likely reflecting reduced transit time for regionalized teams. This decrease aligns with a recent finding that bedside rounding was at least as efficient as rounding outside the room.¹⁶

Of note, though a larger percentage of time was spent bedside after implementation of the care redesign, the absolute amount of bedside time did not change significantly. Our data showed that, even with shorter rounds, the same amount of absolute time can be spent bedside, face to face with the patient, by increasing the proportion of bedside rounding time. In other words, teams on average did not spend more time with patients, though the content and the structure of those encounters may have changed. This finding may be attributable to eliminating redundancy, forgoing the outside-the-room discussion, and thus the largest time reductions were realized there. In addition, teams incompletely adopted beside rounds, as reflected in the data. We expect that, with more complete adoption, an even larger proportion of time will be spent bedside, and absolute time bedside might increase as a result.

An unexpected result of the care redesign was that interns’ proportion of rounding time decreased after the intervention. This decrease most likely is attributable to interns’ being less likely to participate in rounds for a co-intern’s patient, and to their staying outside that patient’s room to give themselves more time to advance the care of their own patients. Before the intervention, when more rounding time was spent outside patient rooms, interns were more likely to join rounds for their co-intern’s patients because they could easily break away, as needed, to continue care of their own patients. The resident is now encouraged to use the morning huddle to identify which patients likely have the most educational value, and both interns are expected to join the bedside rounds for these patients.

This study had a few limitations. First, the pre–post design made it difficult to exclude the possibility that other temporal changes may have affected outcomes, though we did account for time-of-year effects by aligning our data-collection phases. In addition, the authors, including the director of the general medical service, are unaware of any co-interventions during the study period. Second, the multipronged intervention included care team regionalization, encouragement of bedside rounding with nurses, call structure changes (from 4 days to daily admitting), and attendings’ reading of admission notes before rounds. Thus, parsing which component(s) contributed to the results was difficult, though all the changes instituted likely were necessary for system redesign. For example, regionalization of clinicians to unit-based teams was made possible by switching to a daily admitting system.

Time that team members spent preparing for rounds was not recorded before or after the intervention. Thus, the decrease in total rounding time could have been accompanied by an increase in time spent preparing for rounds. However, admission notes were available in our electronic medical record before and after the intervention, and most residents and attendings were already reading them pre-intervention. After the intervention, pre-round note reading was more clearly defined as an expectation, and we were able to set the expectation that interns should use their presentations to summarize rather than recount information. In addition, in the post-intervention period, we did not include time spent preparing rounding orders; as already noted, however, preparation took only 5 minutes per day. Also, we did not analyze the content or the quality of the discussion on rounds, but simply recorded who was present where and when. Regarding the effect of the intervention on patient care, results were mixed. As reported in 2016, we saw no difference in frequency of adverse events with this intervention.¹² However, a more sensitive measure of adverse events—used in a study on handoffs—showed our regionalization efforts had an additive effect on reducing overnight adverse events.¹⁷Researchers should now focus on the effects of care redesign on clinical outcomes, interdisciplinary care team communication, patient engagement and satisfaction, provider opinions of communication, workflow, patient care, and housestaff education. Our methodology can be used as a model to link structure, process, and outcome related to rounds and thereby better understand how best to optimize patient care and efficiency. Additional studies are needed to analyze the content of rounds and their association with patient and educational outcomes. Last, it will be important to conduct a study to see if the effects we have identified can be sustained. Such a study is already under way.

In conclusion, creating regionalized care teams and encouraging focused bedside rounds increased the proportion of bedside time and the presence of nurses on rounds. Rounds were shorter despite higher patient census. TMA revealed that regionalized care teams and bedside rounding at a large academic hospital are feasible, and are useful in establishing the necessary structures for increasing physician–nurse and provider–patient interactions.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Dr. Stan Ashley, Dr. Jacqueline Somerville, and Sheila Harris for their support of the regionalization initiative.

Disclosures

Dr. Schnipper received funding from Sanofi-aventis to conduct an investigator-initiated study to implement and evaluate a multi-faceted intervention to improve transitions of care in patients discharged home on insulin. The study was also supported by funding from the Marshall A. Wolf Medical Education Fund, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and Dr. Stan Ashley, Chief Medical Officer, Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Some of the content of this article was orally presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine; March 29-April 1, 2015; National Harbor, MD.