Maria Reyna, MD

Background: Communication among team members within hospitals is typically fragmented. Bedside interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) have the potential to improve communication and outcomes through enhanced structure and patient engagement.

Objective: To decrease length of stay (LOS) and complications through the transformation of daily IDR to a bedside model.

Results: There was no difference in LOS (6.6 vs. 7.0 days, P = .17, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively) or clinical deterioration (7.7% vs. 9.3%, P = .46). LOS was reduced for patients transferred to the study unit (10.4 vs. 14.0 days, P = .02, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively). Nurses and hospitalists gave significantly higher scores for patient safety climate and the efficiency of rounds after implementation of the MICRO model.

Limitations: The trial was performed at a single hospital.

Conclusions:  Bedside IDR did not reduce overall LOS or clinical deterioration. Future studies should examine whether comprehensive transformation of medical units, including co-leadership, geographic cohorting of teams, and bedside interdisciplinary rounding, improves clinical outcomes compared to units without these features.

Also in the Journal of Hospital Medicine …

Standardized Attending Rounds to Improve the Patient Experience: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors: Bradley Monash, MD, Nader Najafi, MD, Michelle Mourad, MD, Alvin Rajkomar, MD, Sumant R. Ranji, MD, Margaret C. Fang, MD, MPH, FHM, Marcia Glass, MD, Dimiter Milev, MPH, Yile Ding, MD, Andy Shen, BA, Bradley A. Sharpe, MD, FACP, SFHM, James D Harrison, MPH, PhD

All Together Now: Impact of a Regionalization and Bedside Rounding Initiative on the Efficiency and Inclusiveness of Clinical Rounds

Authors: Kristin T. L. Huang, MD, Jacquelyn Minahan, Patricia Brita-Rossi, RN, MSN, MBA, Patricia Aylward, RN, MSN, Joel T. Katz, MD, SFHM, Christopher Roy, MD, Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, Robert Boxer, MD, PhD

Family Report Compared to Clinician-Documented Diagnoses for Psychiatric Conditions Among Hospitalized Children

Authors: Stephanie K. Doupnik, MD, Chris Feudtner, MD, PhD, MPH, Steven C. Marcus, PhD

Perceived Safety and Value of Inpatient ‘Very Important Person’ Services

Authors: Joshua Allen-Dicker, MD, MPH, Andrew Auerbach, MD, MPH, SFHM, Shoshana J. Herzig, MD, MPH

A Time and Motion Study of Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Obtaining Admission Medication Histories

Authors: Caroline B. Nguyen, PharmD, BCPS, Rita Shane, PharmD, FASHP, FCSHP, Douglas S. Bell, MD, PhD, Galen Cook-Wiens, MS, Joshua M. Pevnick, MD, MSHS

Background: Communication among team members within hospitals is typically fragmented. Bedside interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) have the potential to improve communication and outcomes through enhanced structure and patient engagement.

Objective: To decrease length of stay (LOS) and complications through the transformation of daily IDR to a bedside model.

Results: There was no difference in LOS (6.6 vs. 7.0 days, P = .17, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively) or clinical deterioration (7.7% vs. 9.3%, P = .46). LOS was reduced for patients transferred to the study unit (10.4 vs. 14.0 days, P = .02, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively). Nurses and hospitalists gave significantly higher scores for patient safety climate and the efficiency of rounds after implementation of the MICRO model.

Limitations: The trial was performed at a single hospital.

Conclusions:  Bedside IDR did not reduce overall LOS or clinical deterioration. Future studies should examine whether comprehensive transformation of medical units, including co-leadership, geographic cohorting of teams, and bedside interdisciplinary rounding, improves clinical outcomes compared to units without these features.

Also in the Journal of Hospital Medicine …

Standardized Attending Rounds to Improve the Patient Experience: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors: Bradley Monash, MD, Nader Najafi, MD, Michelle Mourad, MD, Alvin Rajkomar, MD, Sumant R. Ranji, MD, Margaret C. Fang, MD, MPH, FHM, Marcia Glass, MD, Dimiter Milev, MPH, Yile Ding, MD, Andy Shen, BA, Bradley A. Sharpe, MD, FACP, SFHM, James D Harrison, MPH, PhD

All Together Now: Impact of a Regionalization and Bedside Rounding Initiative on the Efficiency and Inclusiveness of Clinical Rounds

Authors: Kristin T. L. Huang, MD, Jacquelyn Minahan, Patricia Brita-Rossi, RN, MSN, MBA, Patricia Aylward, RN, MSN, Joel T. Katz, MD, SFHM, Christopher Roy, MD, Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, Robert Boxer, MD, PhD

Family Report Compared to Clinician-Documented Diagnoses for Psychiatric Conditions Among Hospitalized Children

Authors: Stephanie K. Doupnik, MD, Chris Feudtner, MD, PhD, MPH, Steven C. Marcus, PhD

Perceived Safety and Value of Inpatient ‘Very Important Person’ Services

Authors: Joshua Allen-Dicker, MD, MPH, Andrew Auerbach, MD, MPH, SFHM, Shoshana J. Herzig, MD, MPH

A Time and Motion Study of Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Obtaining Admission Medication Histories

Authors: Caroline B. Nguyen, PharmD, BCPS, Rita Shane, PharmD, FASHP, FCSHP, Douglas S. Bell, MD, PhD, Galen Cook-Wiens, MS, Joshua M. Pevnick, MD, MSHS

Background: Communication among team members within hospitals is typically fragmented. Bedside interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) have the potential to improve communication and outcomes through enhanced structure and patient engagement.

Objective: To decrease length of stay (LOS) and complications through the transformation of daily IDR to a bedside model.

Results: There was no difference in LOS (6.6 vs. 7.0 days, P = .17, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively) or clinical deterioration (7.7% vs. 9.3%, P = .46). LOS was reduced for patients transferred to the study unit (10.4 vs. 14.0 days, P = .02, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively). Nurses and hospitalists gave significantly higher scores for patient safety climate and the efficiency of rounds after implementation of the MICRO model.

Limitations: The trial was performed at a single hospital.

Conclusions:  Bedside IDR did not reduce overall LOS or clinical deterioration. Future studies should examine whether comprehensive transformation of medical units, including co-leadership, geographic cohorting of teams, and bedside interdisciplinary rounding, improves clinical outcomes compared to units without these features.

Also in the Journal of Hospital Medicine …

Standardized Attending Rounds to Improve the Patient Experience: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Authors: Bradley Monash, MD, Nader Najafi, MD, Michelle Mourad, MD, Alvin Rajkomar, MD, Sumant R. Ranji, MD, Margaret C. Fang, MD, MPH, FHM, Marcia Glass, MD, Dimiter Milev, MPH, Yile Ding, MD, Andy Shen, BA, Bradley A. Sharpe, MD, FACP, SFHM, James D Harrison, MPH, PhD

All Together Now: Impact of a Regionalization and Bedside Rounding Initiative on the Efficiency and Inclusiveness of Clinical Rounds

Authors: Kristin T. L. Huang, MD, Jacquelyn Minahan, Patricia Brita-Rossi, RN, MSN, MBA, Patricia Aylward, RN, MSN, Joel T. Katz, MD, SFHM, Christopher Roy, MD, Jeffrey L. Schnipper, MD, MPH, FHM, Robert Boxer, MD, PhD

Family Report Compared to Clinician-Documented Diagnoses for Psychiatric Conditions Among Hospitalized Children

Authors: Stephanie K. Doupnik, MD, Chris Feudtner, MD, PhD, MPH, Steven C. Marcus, PhD

Perceived Safety and Value of Inpatient ‘Very Important Person’ Services

Authors: Joshua Allen-Dicker, MD, MPH, Andrew Auerbach, MD, MPH, SFHM, Shoshana J. Herzig, MD, MPH

A Time and Motion Study of Pharmacists and Pharmacy Technicians Obtaining Admission Medication Histories

Authors: Caroline B. Nguyen, PharmD, BCPS, Rita Shane, PharmD, FASHP, FCSHP, Douglas S. Bell, MD, PhD, Galen Cook-Wiens, MS, Joshua M. Pevnick, MD, MSHS

The care of hospitalized patients requires practitioners from multiple disciplines to assess and communicate the patient’s status in a dynamic manner during hospitalization. Although optimal teamwork is needed for patient care to be delivered reliably and efficiently, care within hospitals is typically delivered in a fragmented manner.¹ A bedside model for daily interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) has been proposed as a method to provide a structured process and engage all team members in a patient-centered, system-of-care delivery.² Specific advantages of convening rounds in the presence of the patient include the ability to directly assess care (eg, presence of a potentially unnecessary urinary catheter), patient engagement in key aspects of their care and disposition, and an increased opportunity for team members to develop a shared understanding of the patient’s views and needs.

Implementing dramatic changes to the workflow of multiple disciplines will require rigorous evidence to support a concerted effort from leadership and buy-in from stakeholders at the front line of patient care. Despite the urgency for evidence, there has been little investigation of this strategy. A systematic review³ identified 30 studies published between 1998 and 2013 addressing interdisciplinary interventions on medical wards, none of which examined a bedside IDR model. In a study performed after the period assessed by the systematic review, Stein et al⁴ described the restructuring of a medical ward as an accountable care unit (ACU), which included a bedside model for rounds by the interdisciplinary team. The change was associated with decreased mortality and length of stay (LOS), although the study did not isolate the impact of rounds or use a concurrent control group and presented aggregate rather than patient-level outcomes. The lack of convincing data may be a reason bedside rounds are not widely employed by hospitals. To provide high-quality evidence, we performed a large, prospective controlled trial comparing a structured bedside model (mobile interdisciplinary care rounds [MICRO]) with standard rounds.

This study took place at the Mount Sinai Hospital, which is a 1171-bed tertiary care academic medical center in New York City, New York. A nonteaching unit offered the ability to use a prospective controlled design. Patients were assigned to the north and the south wings of the unit in a quasi-randomized manner, rather than based on diagnosis or acuity. We transformed IDR to a bedside model on the north side of the unit (MICRO group), while the south side of the unit continued using standard conference room-based IDR (control group). The north and south sides of the unit contain 17 and 14 beds, respectively. During the study period, nurses and hospitalists cared for patients on both sides of the study unit, although on any given day were assigned only patients on 1 side of the unit. The unit uses a clinical microsystem model, which has been defined as “a group of clinicians and staff working together with a shared clinical purpose to provide care for a population of patients,” and has a defined set of characteristics associated with high performance.^5,6 Our microsystem model has incorporated features as described by Stein’s ACU model,⁴ including co-leadership by a hospitalist and a nurse manager, geographic assignment of patients to teams, and unit-level data reports. One hospitalist is assigned geographically to each area of the unit in a 2- to 4-week rotation. Coverage of the unit does not include house staff; patients are primarily assigned to hospitalists working with nurse practitioners. Patients were enrolled prospectively during their initial IDR by a research coordinator. Patient-level data and outcomes were collected prospectively by a research coordinator who attended IDR on the intervention and the control sides of the study unit daily.

Inclusion Criteria

All patients admitted to the medicine service on the study unit were eligible. Patients were greater than 18 years and admitted for an acute medical condition. Patients admitted to another unit and later transferred to the study unit were enrolled at the time of transfer. Patients could be included more than once if hospitalized on the study unit on more than 1 occasion. Most patients were covered by hospitalists, although patients covered by private physicians were included. Patients from other departments, including family medicine, are uncommonly admitted to the unit and were excluded. Patients were also excluded if they were admitted and discharged over the same weekend, because the MICRO rounds occur during weekdays and there was no opportunity to offer the intervention on Saturdays and Sundays.

MICRO Intervention

Interdisciplinary rounds occurred daily at 10:00 am for the control group and at 10:30 am for the MICRO group, and were attended by the hospitalist caring for the majority of patients on the unit, staff nurses, and the unit medical director, nurse manager, social worker, and case manager. Rounds on the control unit focused on the plan of care and disposition but did not follow any set structure and were typically 25 to 30 minutes in duration.

The MICRO rounds occurred at the bedside and followed a structured script (Appendix 1) that was designed to limit discussion of each patient to 3 minutes or less, and included speaking roles for the hospitalist, nurse, and social worker. For private physicians, the nurse practitioner assigned to the patient performed the role of the hospitalist. Rounds were expected to be approximately 50 minutes in duration. Patients were further engaged by asking for their main goal for the day. A patient safety checklist was reviewed. Initially, this task was performed by the nurse manager, who did not verbalize the items unless a deficiency was noted. After 6 months’ experience, this responsibility was given to the staff nurse, who reviewed the checklist verbally as part of the bedside script. Patients were seen daily, including those being discharged later that same day.

Staff and Clinician Education

We developed and implemented a curriculum based on a modified version of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s TeamStepps^® program to ensure that all team members were provided with the basic principles of communication within the healthcare setting. The curriculum consisted of interactive didactics on essential elements of teamwork, including team structure, communication, situation monitoring, and mutual support, as well as the purpose and structure of the MICRO model. The curriculum was delivered to nurses at 3 monthly staff meetings on the study unit and to hospitalists during 3 hospital medicine grand rounds over a 3-month period. Nurses and physicians providing care on both geographic areas of the study unit received the education program because no group of practitioners was designated to only 1 geographic area.

Outcomes

Primary and Secondary Outcomes

The primary outcomes were clinical deterioration (CD) and length of stay. Clinical deterioration was a composite outcome defined a priori as death; escalation of care (ie, transfer to an intensive care unit, intermediate care unit, or teaching unit); or a hospital-acquired complication (ie, venous thromboembolism, fall, stage III-IV pressure ulcer, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, central-line associated bloodstream infection, or Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea). The LOS was calculated as the mean LOS with outliers excluded (outliers defined as having a LOS 100 days or longer or 2.5 or more standard deviations from the expected LOS).

Process metrics on IDR, such as the duration of rounds, attendance by members of the interdisciplinary team, the percentage of patients discussed, or the effectiveness of communication, were not collected. We assessed patient satisfaction based on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey.

Patient Safety Culture Survey

To assess the impact on the perceptions of patient safety, we administered the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture to all staff and clinicians working on both sides of the study unit immediately before and 12 months after implementation of the MICRO model. Results are reported for the AHRQ dimensions that were most relevant to the MICRO intervention: “teamwork within units,” “overall perceptions of safety,” “communication,” “openness,” “overall patient safety grade,” and “handoffs and transitions.” The survey represents pre- and post-comparison. All nurses and hospitalists on both the MICRO and control sides of the study unit had received the TeamStepps curriculum and participated in MICRO rounds by the time of the postintervention survey. We added 3 questions specifically assessing the perception of the efficiency and effectiveness of IDR. Postintervention respondents reflected on their overall impression of IDR, which included their experiences on both sides of the unit, because no group of nurses or hospitalists was exposed only to the MICRO side or the control side of the unit. Responses to survey questions were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” for opinion questions; and “never,” rarely,” sometimes,” “most of the time,” and “always” for frequency questions) and given a score from 1 to 5. The question asking for an overall grade for patient safety was scored from 1 to 5 points corresponding to letter grade choices F, D, C, B, A.

Statistical Analysis

The sample size was based on the estimate of the baseline rate of the primary outcome of CD and the projected decrease by the MICRO intervention. A study using the Global Trigger Tool developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement provided a best estimate of 16% as the baseline rate for CD.⁷ A total of 2000 hospitalizations were planned to be included to have a power of at least 80% to detect a 25% reduction in the annual incidence of CD with a 2-tailed type I error rate of 0.05. Comparisons of dichotomous event rates were made using chi square tests at a 2-tailed level for significance of 0.05. The LOS was analyzed using the nonparametric median test and multivariable regression analysis. We used a generalized linear model with gamma distribution and log link for all analyses of LOS, where LOS was the outcome variable, and intervention vs. control unit type was the predictor variable. Age, sex, race, payer, case mix, and comorbidities defined with the Elixhauser algorithm were used as covariates.⁸ We used multivariable logistic regression for analysis of CD, where the dependent variable was CD. Predictor variables included intervention, patient age, sex, race, payer, case mix and comorbidities. Patient satisfaction data were compared using the chi square test. The Student t test for dependent means was used to analyze the patient safety culture survey data.

The study protocol was submitted to the Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s institutional review board and determined to be exempt from full review.

A total of 2005 hospitalizations were included over the 12-month study period, consisting of 1089 hospitalizations in the MICRO group and 916 in the control group. Bedside and standard IDR were completed daily, Monday through Friday without exception. The demographic characteristics and comorbidities were similar for the 2 groups (Table). Hospitalizations of patients who were initially admitted to another unit and subsequently transferred to the study unit accounted for 11.1% of hospitalizations.

Risk-adjusted LOS was similar for the groups (6.6 vs 7.0 days, P = 0.17, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively). On subgroup analysis, a reduction in LOS was noted for patients transferred to the study unit (10.4 vs 14.0 days, P = 0.02, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively). The LOS was unchanged for patients admitted directly to the study unit (6.0 vs 5.8 days, P = 0.93). There was no difference in the incidence of clinical deterioration for the MICRO or control groups (7.7% vs 9.3%, odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.22, P = 0.46).

The finding of a LOS benefit for the MICRO group limited to patients transferred to the study unit prompted a comparison of patients transferred to the study unit and patients directly admitted to the study unit from the emergency department (Appendix 2). Compared to patients admitted directly to the study unit, patients transferred to the study unit were more likely to have Medicaid or no insurance, more likely to be discharged to a facility, had longer LOS, and were more likely to experience CD.

Patient Satisfaction

There were 175 and 140 responses to the HCAHPS survey for the MICRO and the control groups, respectively. Patients in the MICRO group were more likely to report that “doctors, nurses, or other hospital staff talk with you about whether you would have the help you needed when you left the hospital” (88% vs 78%, P = 0.01). Responses for all other HCAHPS items were similar for the 2 groups.

Clinician/Staff Survey

The response rate was 96% (30 nurses and 17 hospitalists) pre-intervention and 100% (30 nurses and 22 hospitalists) postintervention. Hospitalists and nurses gave significantly higher scores for the dimensions “teamwork within units,” “overall perception of patient safety,” and “patient safety grade” on the postintervention survey compared to the pre-intervention survey (Figure 1). Hospitalists and nurses rated the efficiency of IDR and the ability of IDR to identify safety issues higher on the postintervention survey compared to the pre-intervention survey (Figure 2).

We transformed daily IDR from a standard conference room model to a structured bedside model with scripted roles, and performed a rigorous comparison using patient-level data. Our finding that transforming daily IDR from a standard conference room model to a bedside model did not significantly reduce LOS suggests either that the model is ineffective or needs to be incorporated into more comprehensive efforts to improve clinical outcomes. Studies suggest that bedside rounding can improve outcomes when implemented in the context of comprehensive restructuring of patient care.^4,9 Stein et al.⁴ have described the reorganization of a medical ward as an “accountable care unit.” The ACU model included daily IDRs at the bedside, as well as geographic-based teams, co-leadership by a hospitalist and nurse manager, and unit-level reporting. Although no definitive conclusions can be drawn based on their descriptive report, transformation of the unit was associated with reduced LOS and mortality. Similarly, Kara et al.⁹ found that the number of elements of an “accountable care team” model implemented by each unit was associated with greater reductions in LOS and cost. In contrast, our findings of a lack of an effect are consistent with a recent cluster-randomized trial by O’Leary et al,¹⁰ which found that implementation of patient-centered bedside rounds did not improve patient satisfaction or perceptions of shared decision-making compared to units using a model of structured IDRs in a conference room setting. It is notable that the control groups in both the O’Leary trial¹⁰ and this study did not represent usual care, because these groups featured localization of the clinical teams and high-quality IDR. In our trial, it is plausible that the control side of the unit was functioning at a high level, which would have decreased our ability to further improve outcomes. Whether restructuring unit processes, including implementation of bedside IDR, improves care compared to usual care without these processes is unknown.

We found that the MICRO intervention significantly decreased LOS compared to the control group for patients transferred to the study unit. This analysis was exploratory and the finding was unexpected. Patients were transferred to the study unit from units of higher acuity, and were more likely to have Medicaid or no insurance and be discharged to facilities rather than home, suggesting that these patients had substantial disposition challenges. It is plausible that this is the population for which bedside IDRs may have the greatest impact. This was a secondary analysis, however, and should be considered as hypothesis-generating for future investigations.

Although the impact on outcomes of bedside IDRs is uncertain, potential benefits and practical barriers have been examined. Gonzalo et al.¹¹ surveyed inpatient physicians and nurses at a hospital employing bedside IDRs and found that the benefits ranked the highest were communication, coordination, and teamwork, and the lowest-ranked benefits were related to efficiency and outcomes. The 6 greatest barriers concerned the time required to complete bedside IDR. These results indicate that the time investiture by staff may be a barrier to widespread adoption. More modest changes, such as increasing the structure of standard conference room rounds, may improve care, although the data are mixed. O’Leary et al.¹² assessed the value of a structured approach in a conference room setting, which primarily entailed implementing a checklist for newly admitted patients, and found no difference in LOS. Follow-up studies by these investigators found mixed results on the ability of structured IDR to decrease the incidence of adverse events.^13,14

The results of our AHRQ survey of patient safety culture found that several important aspects of teamwork and safety were perceived as improved by the intervention, including the “overall grade on patient safety.” Other studies have similarly shown increases in teamwork and safety ratings through redesign of IDR. O’Leary et al.¹² surveyed residents and nurses on a unit that implemented a structured, conference room-based IDR and found that providers on the intervention unit rated the teamwork climate higher than providers on the control unit. Our finding that hospitalists and nurses gave higher ratings for IDR being “efficient” and “a good use of my time” on the postintervention survey than the pre-intervention survey suggests that initial concerns about the additional time commitment may be offset by gains in overall efficiency and in development of an environment of enhanced communication, teamwork, and safety.

This study has several limitations. First, the trial may have been underpowered to find small differences between the groups. The trends for decreased LOS and clinical deterioration in the MICRO group may suggest that bedside IDR can provide a small but clinically significant benefit that would be statistically significant only in a larger trial. Second, patients were not randomized to the 2 groups. The impact is diminished, however, because the routine hospital process for assigning patients to the 2 areas in which the groups were located is random and based solely on bed availability. Third, nurses and hospitalists caring for patients in the control group likely experienced improved communication practices from the unit-wide TeamStepps education and from participating in the MICRO protocol when caring for patients on the intervention side of the unit. Fourth, we did not collect data on the effectiveness of communication and are unable to assess the fidelity with which the structured protocol was followed or whether interprofessional communication was fostered or hindered. Lastly, the study was implemented on a nonteaching unit at a single academic medical center. The protocol and the results may not be generalizable to other hospitals or units that include house staff.

In conclusion, transforming IDR from a conference room model to a bedside model did not reduce overall LOS or clinical deterioration on a unit using features of an ACU structure. Although several beneficial effects were noted, including a reduction in LOS for patients transferred to the study unit and higher ratings of the patient safety climate and efficiency of IDR, implementing bedside IDR in this setting has marginal benefit. Future studies should assess whether a comprehensive transformation of the inpatient model of care, including patient-centered bedside IDR, geographic cohorting of teams, and co-leadership, improves outcomes compared to models without these features.

Disclosures

This trial was funded by Medline’s Prevention Above All Discoveries Grant Program. The authors report no financial conflicts of interest.

The care of hospitalized patients requires practitioners from multiple disciplines to assess and communicate the patient’s status in a dynamic manner during hospitalization. Although optimal teamwork is needed for patient care to be delivered reliably and efficiently, care within hospitals is typically delivered in a fragmented manner.¹ A bedside model for daily interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) has been proposed as a method to provide a structured process and engage all team members in a patient-centered, system-of-care delivery.² Specific advantages of convening rounds in the presence of the patient include the ability to directly assess care (eg, presence of a potentially unnecessary urinary catheter), patient engagement in key aspects of their care and disposition, and an increased opportunity for team members to develop a shared understanding of the patient’s views and needs.

Implementing dramatic changes to the workflow of multiple disciplines will require rigorous evidence to support a concerted effort from leadership and buy-in from stakeholders at the front line of patient care. Despite the urgency for evidence, there has been little investigation of this strategy. A systematic review³ identified 30 studies published between 1998 and 2013 addressing interdisciplinary interventions on medical wards, none of which examined a bedside IDR model. In a study performed after the period assessed by the systematic review, Stein et al⁴ described the restructuring of a medical ward as an accountable care unit (ACU), which included a bedside model for rounds by the interdisciplinary team. The change was associated with decreased mortality and length of stay (LOS), although the study did not isolate the impact of rounds or use a concurrent control group and presented aggregate rather than patient-level outcomes. The lack of convincing data may be a reason bedside rounds are not widely employed by hospitals. To provide high-quality evidence, we performed a large, prospective controlled trial comparing a structured bedside model (mobile interdisciplinary care rounds [MICRO]) with standard rounds.

This study took place at the Mount Sinai Hospital, which is a 1171-bed tertiary care academic medical center in New York City, New York. A nonteaching unit offered the ability to use a prospective controlled design. Patients were assigned to the north and the south wings of the unit in a quasi-randomized manner, rather than based on diagnosis or acuity. We transformed IDR to a bedside model on the north side of the unit (MICRO group), while the south side of the unit continued using standard conference room-based IDR (control group). The north and south sides of the unit contain 17 and 14 beds, respectively. During the study period, nurses and hospitalists cared for patients on both sides of the study unit, although on any given day were assigned only patients on 1 side of the unit. The unit uses a clinical microsystem model, which has been defined as “a group of clinicians and staff working together with a shared clinical purpose to provide care for a population of patients,” and has a defined set of characteristics associated with high performance.^5,6 Our microsystem model has incorporated features as described by Stein’s ACU model,⁴ including co-leadership by a hospitalist and a nurse manager, geographic assignment of patients to teams, and unit-level data reports. One hospitalist is assigned geographically to each area of the unit in a 2- to 4-week rotation. Coverage of the unit does not include house staff; patients are primarily assigned to hospitalists working with nurse practitioners. Patients were enrolled prospectively during their initial IDR by a research coordinator. Patient-level data and outcomes were collected prospectively by a research coordinator who attended IDR on the intervention and the control sides of the study unit daily.

Inclusion Criteria

All patients admitted to the medicine service on the study unit were eligible. Patients were greater than 18 years and admitted for an acute medical condition. Patients admitted to another unit and later transferred to the study unit were enrolled at the time of transfer. Patients could be included more than once if hospitalized on the study unit on more than 1 occasion. Most patients were covered by hospitalists, although patients covered by private physicians were included. Patients from other departments, including family medicine, are uncommonly admitted to the unit and were excluded. Patients were also excluded if they were admitted and discharged over the same weekend, because the MICRO rounds occur during weekdays and there was no opportunity to offer the intervention on Saturdays and Sundays.

MICRO Intervention

Interdisciplinary rounds occurred daily at 10:00 am for the control group and at 10:30 am for the MICRO group, and were attended by the hospitalist caring for the majority of patients on the unit, staff nurses, and the unit medical director, nurse manager, social worker, and case manager. Rounds on the control unit focused on the plan of care and disposition but did not follow any set structure and were typically 25 to 30 minutes in duration.

The MICRO rounds occurred at the bedside and followed a structured script (Appendix 1) that was designed to limit discussion of each patient to 3 minutes or less, and included speaking roles for the hospitalist, nurse, and social worker. For private physicians, the nurse practitioner assigned to the patient performed the role of the hospitalist. Rounds were expected to be approximately 50 minutes in duration. Patients were further engaged by asking for their main goal for the day. A patient safety checklist was reviewed. Initially, this task was performed by the nurse manager, who did not verbalize the items unless a deficiency was noted. After 6 months’ experience, this responsibility was given to the staff nurse, who reviewed the checklist verbally as part of the bedside script. Patients were seen daily, including those being discharged later that same day.

Staff and Clinician Education

We developed and implemented a curriculum based on a modified version of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s TeamStepps^® program to ensure that all team members were provided with the basic principles of communication within the healthcare setting. The curriculum consisted of interactive didactics on essential elements of teamwork, including team structure, communication, situation monitoring, and mutual support, as well as the purpose and structure of the MICRO model. The curriculum was delivered to nurses at 3 monthly staff meetings on the study unit and to hospitalists during 3 hospital medicine grand rounds over a 3-month period. Nurses and physicians providing care on both geographic areas of the study unit received the education program because no group of practitioners was designated to only 1 geographic area.

Outcomes

Primary and Secondary Outcomes

The primary outcomes were clinical deterioration (CD) and length of stay. Clinical deterioration was a composite outcome defined a priori as death; escalation of care (ie, transfer to an intensive care unit, intermediate care unit, or teaching unit); or a hospital-acquired complication (ie, venous thromboembolism, fall, stage III-IV pressure ulcer, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, central-line associated bloodstream infection, or Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea). The LOS was calculated as the mean LOS with outliers excluded (outliers defined as having a LOS 100 days or longer or 2.5 or more standard deviations from the expected LOS).

Process metrics on IDR, such as the duration of rounds, attendance by members of the interdisciplinary team, the percentage of patients discussed, or the effectiveness of communication, were not collected. We assessed patient satisfaction based on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey.

Patient Safety Culture Survey

To assess the impact on the perceptions of patient safety, we administered the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture to all staff and clinicians working on both sides of the study unit immediately before and 12 months after implementation of the MICRO model. Results are reported for the AHRQ dimensions that were most relevant to the MICRO intervention: “teamwork within units,” “overall perceptions of safety,” “communication,” “openness,” “overall patient safety grade,” and “handoffs and transitions.” The survey represents pre- and post-comparison. All nurses and hospitalists on both the MICRO and control sides of the study unit had received the TeamStepps curriculum and participated in MICRO rounds by the time of the postintervention survey. We added 3 questions specifically assessing the perception of the efficiency and effectiveness of IDR. Postintervention respondents reflected on their overall impression of IDR, which included their experiences on both sides of the unit, because no group of nurses or hospitalists was exposed only to the MICRO side or the control side of the unit. Responses to survey questions were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” for opinion questions; and “never,” rarely,” sometimes,” “most of the time,” and “always” for frequency questions) and given a score from 1 to 5. The question asking for an overall grade for patient safety was scored from 1 to 5 points corresponding to letter grade choices F, D, C, B, A.

Statistical Analysis

The sample size was based on the estimate of the baseline rate of the primary outcome of CD and the projected decrease by the MICRO intervention. A study using the Global Trigger Tool developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement provided a best estimate of 16% as the baseline rate for CD.⁷ A total of 2000 hospitalizations were planned to be included to have a power of at least 80% to detect a 25% reduction in the annual incidence of CD with a 2-tailed type I error rate of 0.05. Comparisons of dichotomous event rates were made using chi square tests at a 2-tailed level for significance of 0.05. The LOS was analyzed using the nonparametric median test and multivariable regression analysis. We used a generalized linear model with gamma distribution and log link for all analyses of LOS, where LOS was the outcome variable, and intervention vs. control unit type was the predictor variable. Age, sex, race, payer, case mix, and comorbidities defined with the Elixhauser algorithm were used as covariates.⁸ We used multivariable logistic regression for analysis of CD, where the dependent variable was CD. Predictor variables included intervention, patient age, sex, race, payer, case mix and comorbidities. Patient satisfaction data were compared using the chi square test. The Student t test for dependent means was used to analyze the patient safety culture survey data.

The study protocol was submitted to the Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s institutional review board and determined to be exempt from full review.

A total of 2005 hospitalizations were included over the 12-month study period, consisting of 1089 hospitalizations in the MICRO group and 916 in the control group. Bedside and standard IDR were completed daily, Monday through Friday without exception. The demographic characteristics and comorbidities were similar for the 2 groups (Table). Hospitalizations of patients who were initially admitted to another unit and subsequently transferred to the study unit accounted for 11.1% of hospitalizations.

Risk-adjusted LOS was similar for the groups (6.6 vs 7.0 days, P = 0.17, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively). On subgroup analysis, a reduction in LOS was noted for patients transferred to the study unit (10.4 vs 14.0 days, P = 0.02, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively). The LOS was unchanged for patients admitted directly to the study unit (6.0 vs 5.8 days, P = 0.93). There was no difference in the incidence of clinical deterioration for the MICRO or control groups (7.7% vs 9.3%, odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.22, P = 0.46).

The finding of a LOS benefit for the MICRO group limited to patients transferred to the study unit prompted a comparison of patients transferred to the study unit and patients directly admitted to the study unit from the emergency department (Appendix 2). Compared to patients admitted directly to the study unit, patients transferred to the study unit were more likely to have Medicaid or no insurance, more likely to be discharged to a facility, had longer LOS, and were more likely to experience CD.

Patient Satisfaction

There were 175 and 140 responses to the HCAHPS survey for the MICRO and the control groups, respectively. Patients in the MICRO group were more likely to report that “doctors, nurses, or other hospital staff talk with you about whether you would have the help you needed when you left the hospital” (88% vs 78%, P = 0.01). Responses for all other HCAHPS items were similar for the 2 groups.

Clinician/Staff Survey

The response rate was 96% (30 nurses and 17 hospitalists) pre-intervention and 100% (30 nurses and 22 hospitalists) postintervention. Hospitalists and nurses gave significantly higher scores for the dimensions “teamwork within units,” “overall perception of patient safety,” and “patient safety grade” on the postintervention survey compared to the pre-intervention survey (Figure 1). Hospitalists and nurses rated the efficiency of IDR and the ability of IDR to identify safety issues higher on the postintervention survey compared to the pre-intervention survey (Figure 2).

We transformed daily IDR from a standard conference room model to a structured bedside model with scripted roles, and performed a rigorous comparison using patient-level data. Our finding that transforming daily IDR from a standard conference room model to a bedside model did not significantly reduce LOS suggests either that the model is ineffective or needs to be incorporated into more comprehensive efforts to improve clinical outcomes. Studies suggest that bedside rounding can improve outcomes when implemented in the context of comprehensive restructuring of patient care.^4,9 Stein et al.⁴ have described the reorganization of a medical ward as an “accountable care unit.” The ACU model included daily IDRs at the bedside, as well as geographic-based teams, co-leadership by a hospitalist and nurse manager, and unit-level reporting. Although no definitive conclusions can be drawn based on their descriptive report, transformation of the unit was associated with reduced LOS and mortality. Similarly, Kara et al.⁹ found that the number of elements of an “accountable care team” model implemented by each unit was associated with greater reductions in LOS and cost. In contrast, our findings of a lack of an effect are consistent with a recent cluster-randomized trial by O’Leary et al,¹⁰ which found that implementation of patient-centered bedside rounds did not improve patient satisfaction or perceptions of shared decision-making compared to units using a model of structured IDRs in a conference room setting. It is notable that the control groups in both the O’Leary trial¹⁰ and this study did not represent usual care, because these groups featured localization of the clinical teams and high-quality IDR. In our trial, it is plausible that the control side of the unit was functioning at a high level, which would have decreased our ability to further improve outcomes. Whether restructuring unit processes, including implementation of bedside IDR, improves care compared to usual care without these processes is unknown.

We found that the MICRO intervention significantly decreased LOS compared to the control group for patients transferred to the study unit. This analysis was exploratory and the finding was unexpected. Patients were transferred to the study unit from units of higher acuity, and were more likely to have Medicaid or no insurance and be discharged to facilities rather than home, suggesting that these patients had substantial disposition challenges. It is plausible that this is the population for which bedside IDRs may have the greatest impact. This was a secondary analysis, however, and should be considered as hypothesis-generating for future investigations.

Although the impact on outcomes of bedside IDRs is uncertain, potential benefits and practical barriers have been examined. Gonzalo et al.¹¹ surveyed inpatient physicians and nurses at a hospital employing bedside IDRs and found that the benefits ranked the highest were communication, coordination, and teamwork, and the lowest-ranked benefits were related to efficiency and outcomes. The 6 greatest barriers concerned the time required to complete bedside IDR. These results indicate that the time investiture by staff may be a barrier to widespread adoption. More modest changes, such as increasing the structure of standard conference room rounds, may improve care, although the data are mixed. O’Leary et al.¹² assessed the value of a structured approach in a conference room setting, which primarily entailed implementing a checklist for newly admitted patients, and found no difference in LOS. Follow-up studies by these investigators found mixed results on the ability of structured IDR to decrease the incidence of adverse events.^13,14

The results of our AHRQ survey of patient safety culture found that several important aspects of teamwork and safety were perceived as improved by the intervention, including the “overall grade on patient safety.” Other studies have similarly shown increases in teamwork and safety ratings through redesign of IDR. O’Leary et al.¹² surveyed residents and nurses on a unit that implemented a structured, conference room-based IDR and found that providers on the intervention unit rated the teamwork climate higher than providers on the control unit. Our finding that hospitalists and nurses gave higher ratings for IDR being “efficient” and “a good use of my time” on the postintervention survey than the pre-intervention survey suggests that initial concerns about the additional time commitment may be offset by gains in overall efficiency and in development of an environment of enhanced communication, teamwork, and safety.

This study has several limitations. First, the trial may have been underpowered to find small differences between the groups. The trends for decreased LOS and clinical deterioration in the MICRO group may suggest that bedside IDR can provide a small but clinically significant benefit that would be statistically significant only in a larger trial. Second, patients were not randomized to the 2 groups. The impact is diminished, however, because the routine hospital process for assigning patients to the 2 areas in which the groups were located is random and based solely on bed availability. Third, nurses and hospitalists caring for patients in the control group likely experienced improved communication practices from the unit-wide TeamStepps education and from participating in the MICRO protocol when caring for patients on the intervention side of the unit. Fourth, we did not collect data on the effectiveness of communication and are unable to assess the fidelity with which the structured protocol was followed or whether interprofessional communication was fostered or hindered. Lastly, the study was implemented on a nonteaching unit at a single academic medical center. The protocol and the results may not be generalizable to other hospitals or units that include house staff.

In conclusion, transforming IDR from a conference room model to a bedside model did not reduce overall LOS or clinical deterioration on a unit using features of an ACU structure. Although several beneficial effects were noted, including a reduction in LOS for patients transferred to the study unit and higher ratings of the patient safety climate and efficiency of IDR, implementing bedside IDR in this setting has marginal benefit. Future studies should assess whether a comprehensive transformation of the inpatient model of care, including patient-centered bedside IDR, geographic cohorting of teams, and co-leadership, improves outcomes compared to models without these features.

Disclosures

This trial was funded by Medline’s Prevention Above All Discoveries Grant Program. The authors report no financial conflicts of interest.

The care of hospitalized patients requires practitioners from multiple disciplines to assess and communicate the patient’s status in a dynamic manner during hospitalization. Although optimal teamwork is needed for patient care to be delivered reliably and efficiently, care within hospitals is typically delivered in a fragmented manner.¹ A bedside model for daily interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) has been proposed as a method to provide a structured process and engage all team members in a patient-centered, system-of-care delivery.² Specific advantages of convening rounds in the presence of the patient include the ability to directly assess care (eg, presence of a potentially unnecessary urinary catheter), patient engagement in key aspects of their care and disposition, and an increased opportunity for team members to develop a shared understanding of the patient’s views and needs.

Implementing dramatic changes to the workflow of multiple disciplines will require rigorous evidence to support a concerted effort from leadership and buy-in from stakeholders at the front line of patient care. Despite the urgency for evidence, there has been little investigation of this strategy. A systematic review³ identified 30 studies published between 1998 and 2013 addressing interdisciplinary interventions on medical wards, none of which examined a bedside IDR model. In a study performed after the period assessed by the systematic review, Stein et al⁴ described the restructuring of a medical ward as an accountable care unit (ACU), which included a bedside model for rounds by the interdisciplinary team. The change was associated with decreased mortality and length of stay (LOS), although the study did not isolate the impact of rounds or use a concurrent control group and presented aggregate rather than patient-level outcomes. The lack of convincing data may be a reason bedside rounds are not widely employed by hospitals. To provide high-quality evidence, we performed a large, prospective controlled trial comparing a structured bedside model (mobile interdisciplinary care rounds [MICRO]) with standard rounds.

This study took place at the Mount Sinai Hospital, which is a 1171-bed tertiary care academic medical center in New York City, New York. A nonteaching unit offered the ability to use a prospective controlled design. Patients were assigned to the north and the south wings of the unit in a quasi-randomized manner, rather than based on diagnosis or acuity. We transformed IDR to a bedside model on the north side of the unit (MICRO group), while the south side of the unit continued using standard conference room-based IDR (control group). The north and south sides of the unit contain 17 and 14 beds, respectively. During the study period, nurses and hospitalists cared for patients on both sides of the study unit, although on any given day were assigned only patients on 1 side of the unit. The unit uses a clinical microsystem model, which has been defined as “a group of clinicians and staff working together with a shared clinical purpose to provide care for a population of patients,” and has a defined set of characteristics associated with high performance.^5,6 Our microsystem model has incorporated features as described by Stein’s ACU model,⁴ including co-leadership by a hospitalist and a nurse manager, geographic assignment of patients to teams, and unit-level data reports. One hospitalist is assigned geographically to each area of the unit in a 2- to 4-week rotation. Coverage of the unit does not include house staff; patients are primarily assigned to hospitalists working with nurse practitioners. Patients were enrolled prospectively during their initial IDR by a research coordinator. Patient-level data and outcomes were collected prospectively by a research coordinator who attended IDR on the intervention and the control sides of the study unit daily.

Inclusion Criteria

All patients admitted to the medicine service on the study unit were eligible. Patients were greater than 18 years and admitted for an acute medical condition. Patients admitted to another unit and later transferred to the study unit were enrolled at the time of transfer. Patients could be included more than once if hospitalized on the study unit on more than 1 occasion. Most patients were covered by hospitalists, although patients covered by private physicians were included. Patients from other departments, including family medicine, are uncommonly admitted to the unit and were excluded. Patients were also excluded if they were admitted and discharged over the same weekend, because the MICRO rounds occur during weekdays and there was no opportunity to offer the intervention on Saturdays and Sundays.

MICRO Intervention

Interdisciplinary rounds occurred daily at 10:00 am for the control group and at 10:30 am for the MICRO group, and were attended by the hospitalist caring for the majority of patients on the unit, staff nurses, and the unit medical director, nurse manager, social worker, and case manager. Rounds on the control unit focused on the plan of care and disposition but did not follow any set structure and were typically 25 to 30 minutes in duration.

The MICRO rounds occurred at the bedside and followed a structured script (Appendix 1) that was designed to limit discussion of each patient to 3 minutes or less, and included speaking roles for the hospitalist, nurse, and social worker. For private physicians, the nurse practitioner assigned to the patient performed the role of the hospitalist. Rounds were expected to be approximately 50 minutes in duration. Patients were further engaged by asking for their main goal for the day. A patient safety checklist was reviewed. Initially, this task was performed by the nurse manager, who did not verbalize the items unless a deficiency was noted. After 6 months’ experience, this responsibility was given to the staff nurse, who reviewed the checklist verbally as part of the bedside script. Patients were seen daily, including those being discharged later that same day.

Staff and Clinician Education

We developed and implemented a curriculum based on a modified version of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s TeamStepps^® program to ensure that all team members were provided with the basic principles of communication within the healthcare setting. The curriculum consisted of interactive didactics on essential elements of teamwork, including team structure, communication, situation monitoring, and mutual support, as well as the purpose and structure of the MICRO model. The curriculum was delivered to nurses at 3 monthly staff meetings on the study unit and to hospitalists during 3 hospital medicine grand rounds over a 3-month period. Nurses and physicians providing care on both geographic areas of the study unit received the education program because no group of practitioners was designated to only 1 geographic area.

Outcomes

Primary and Secondary Outcomes

The primary outcomes were clinical deterioration (CD) and length of stay. Clinical deterioration was a composite outcome defined a priori as death; escalation of care (ie, transfer to an intensive care unit, intermediate care unit, or teaching unit); or a hospital-acquired complication (ie, venous thromboembolism, fall, stage III-IV pressure ulcer, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, central-line associated bloodstream infection, or Clostridium difficile-associated diarrhea). The LOS was calculated as the mean LOS with outliers excluded (outliers defined as having a LOS 100 days or longer or 2.5 or more standard deviations from the expected LOS).

Process metrics on IDR, such as the duration of rounds, attendance by members of the interdisciplinary team, the percentage of patients discussed, or the effectiveness of communication, were not collected. We assessed patient satisfaction based on the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey.

Patient Safety Culture Survey

To assess the impact on the perceptions of patient safety, we administered the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture to all staff and clinicians working on both sides of the study unit immediately before and 12 months after implementation of the MICRO model. Results are reported for the AHRQ dimensions that were most relevant to the MICRO intervention: “teamwork within units,” “overall perceptions of safety,” “communication,” “openness,” “overall patient safety grade,” and “handoffs and transitions.” The survey represents pre- and post-comparison. All nurses and hospitalists on both the MICRO and control sides of the study unit had received the TeamStepps curriculum and participated in MICRO rounds by the time of the postintervention survey. We added 3 questions specifically assessing the perception of the efficiency and effectiveness of IDR. Postintervention respondents reflected on their overall impression of IDR, which included their experiences on both sides of the unit, because no group of nurses or hospitalists was exposed only to the MICRO side or the control side of the unit. Responses to survey questions were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree” for opinion questions; and “never,” rarely,” sometimes,” “most of the time,” and “always” for frequency questions) and given a score from 1 to 5. The question asking for an overall grade for patient safety was scored from 1 to 5 points corresponding to letter grade choices F, D, C, B, A.

Statistical Analysis

The sample size was based on the estimate of the baseline rate of the primary outcome of CD and the projected decrease by the MICRO intervention. A study using the Global Trigger Tool developed by the Institute for Healthcare Improvement provided a best estimate of 16% as the baseline rate for CD.⁷ A total of 2000 hospitalizations were planned to be included to have a power of at least 80% to detect a 25% reduction in the annual incidence of CD with a 2-tailed type I error rate of 0.05. Comparisons of dichotomous event rates were made using chi square tests at a 2-tailed level for significance of 0.05. The LOS was analyzed using the nonparametric median test and multivariable regression analysis. We used a generalized linear model with gamma distribution and log link for all analyses of LOS, where LOS was the outcome variable, and intervention vs. control unit type was the predictor variable. Age, sex, race, payer, case mix, and comorbidities defined with the Elixhauser algorithm were used as covariates.⁸ We used multivariable logistic regression for analysis of CD, where the dependent variable was CD. Predictor variables included intervention, patient age, sex, race, payer, case mix and comorbidities. Patient satisfaction data were compared using the chi square test. The Student t test for dependent means was used to analyze the patient safety culture survey data.

The study protocol was submitted to the Icahn Mount Sinai School of Medicine’s institutional review board and determined to be exempt from full review.

A total of 2005 hospitalizations were included over the 12-month study period, consisting of 1089 hospitalizations in the MICRO group and 916 in the control group. Bedside and standard IDR were completed daily, Monday through Friday without exception. The demographic characteristics and comorbidities were similar for the 2 groups (Table). Hospitalizations of patients who were initially admitted to another unit and subsequently transferred to the study unit accounted for 11.1% of hospitalizations.

Risk-adjusted LOS was similar for the groups (6.6 vs 7.0 days, P = 0.17, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively). On subgroup analysis, a reduction in LOS was noted for patients transferred to the study unit (10.4 vs 14.0 days, P = 0.02, for the MICRO and control groups, respectively). The LOS was unchanged for patients admitted directly to the study unit (6.0 vs 5.8 days, P = 0.93). There was no difference in the incidence of clinical deterioration for the MICRO or control groups (7.7% vs 9.3%, odds ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-1.22, P = 0.46).

The finding of a LOS benefit for the MICRO group limited to patients transferred to the study unit prompted a comparison of patients transferred to the study unit and patients directly admitted to the study unit from the emergency department (Appendix 2). Compared to patients admitted directly to the study unit, patients transferred to the study unit were more likely to have Medicaid or no insurance, more likely to be discharged to a facility, had longer LOS, and were more likely to experience CD.

Patient Satisfaction

There were 175 and 140 responses to the HCAHPS survey for the MICRO and the control groups, respectively. Patients in the MICRO group were more likely to report that “doctors, nurses, or other hospital staff talk with you about whether you would have the help you needed when you left the hospital” (88% vs 78%, P = 0.01). Responses for all other HCAHPS items were similar for the 2 groups.

Clinician/Staff Survey

The response rate was 96% (30 nurses and 17 hospitalists) pre-intervention and 100% (30 nurses and 22 hospitalists) postintervention. Hospitalists and nurses gave significantly higher scores for the dimensions “teamwork within units,” “overall perception of patient safety,” and “patient safety grade” on the postintervention survey compared to the pre-intervention survey (Figure 1). Hospitalists and nurses rated the efficiency of IDR and the ability of IDR to identify safety issues higher on the postintervention survey compared to the pre-intervention survey (Figure 2).

We transformed daily IDR from a standard conference room model to a structured bedside model with scripted roles, and performed a rigorous comparison using patient-level data. Our finding that transforming daily IDR from a standard conference room model to a bedside model did not significantly reduce LOS suggests either that the model is ineffective or needs to be incorporated into more comprehensive efforts to improve clinical outcomes. Studies suggest that bedside rounding can improve outcomes when implemented in the context of comprehensive restructuring of patient care.^4,9 Stein et al.⁴ have described the reorganization of a medical ward as an “accountable care unit.” The ACU model included daily IDRs at the bedside, as well as geographic-based teams, co-leadership by a hospitalist and nurse manager, and unit-level reporting. Although no definitive conclusions can be drawn based on their descriptive report, transformation of the unit was associated with reduced LOS and mortality. Similarly, Kara et al.⁹ found that the number of elements of an “accountable care team” model implemented by each unit was associated with greater reductions in LOS and cost. In contrast, our findings of a lack of an effect are consistent with a recent cluster-randomized trial by O’Leary et al,¹⁰ which found that implementation of patient-centered bedside rounds did not improve patient satisfaction or perceptions of shared decision-making compared to units using a model of structured IDRs in a conference room setting. It is notable that the control groups in both the O’Leary trial¹⁰ and this study did not represent usual care, because these groups featured localization of the clinical teams and high-quality IDR. In our trial, it is plausible that the control side of the unit was functioning at a high level, which would have decreased our ability to further improve outcomes. Whether restructuring unit processes, including implementation of bedside IDR, improves care compared to usual care without these processes is unknown.

We found that the MICRO intervention significantly decreased LOS compared to the control group for patients transferred to the study unit. This analysis was exploratory and the finding was unexpected. Patients were transferred to the study unit from units of higher acuity, and were more likely to have Medicaid or no insurance and be discharged to facilities rather than home, suggesting that these patients had substantial disposition challenges. It is plausible that this is the population for which bedside IDRs may have the greatest impact. This was a secondary analysis, however, and should be considered as hypothesis-generating for future investigations.

Although the impact on outcomes of bedside IDRs is uncertain, potential benefits and practical barriers have been examined. Gonzalo et al.¹¹ surveyed inpatient physicians and nurses at a hospital employing bedside IDRs and found that the benefits ranked the highest were communication, coordination, and teamwork, and the lowest-ranked benefits were related to efficiency and outcomes. The 6 greatest barriers concerned the time required to complete bedside IDR. These results indicate that the time investiture by staff may be a barrier to widespread adoption. More modest changes, such as increasing the structure of standard conference room rounds, may improve care, although the data are mixed. O’Leary et al.¹² assessed the value of a structured approach in a conference room setting, which primarily entailed implementing a checklist for newly admitted patients, and found no difference in LOS. Follow-up studies by these investigators found mixed results on the ability of structured IDR to decrease the incidence of adverse events.^13,14

The results of our AHRQ survey of patient safety culture found that several important aspects of teamwork and safety were perceived as improved by the intervention, including the “overall grade on patient safety.” Other studies have similarly shown increases in teamwork and safety ratings through redesign of IDR. O’Leary et al.¹² surveyed residents and nurses on a unit that implemented a structured, conference room-based IDR and found that providers on the intervention unit rated the teamwork climate higher than providers on the control unit. Our finding that hospitalists and nurses gave higher ratings for IDR being “efficient” and “a good use of my time” on the postintervention survey than the pre-intervention survey suggests that initial concerns about the additional time commitment may be offset by gains in overall efficiency and in development of an environment of enhanced communication, teamwork, and safety.

This study has several limitations. First, the trial may have been underpowered to find small differences between the groups. The trends for decreased LOS and clinical deterioration in the MICRO group may suggest that bedside IDR can provide a small but clinically significant benefit that would be statistically significant only in a larger trial. Second, patients were not randomized to the 2 groups. The impact is diminished, however, because the routine hospital process for assigning patients to the 2 areas in which the groups were located is random and based solely on bed availability. Third, nurses and hospitalists caring for patients in the control group likely experienced improved communication practices from the unit-wide TeamStepps education and from participating in the MICRO protocol when caring for patients on the intervention side of the unit. Fourth, we did not collect data on the effectiveness of communication and are unable to assess the fidelity with which the structured protocol was followed or whether interprofessional communication was fostered or hindered. Lastly, the study was implemented on a nonteaching unit at a single academic medical center. The protocol and the results may not be generalizable to other hospitals or units that include house staff.

In conclusion, transforming IDR from a conference room model to a bedside model did not reduce overall LOS or clinical deterioration on a unit using features of an ACU structure. Although several beneficial effects were noted, including a reduction in LOS for patients transferred to the study unit and higher ratings of the patient safety climate and efficiency of IDR, implementing bedside IDR in this setting has marginal benefit. Future studies should assess whether a comprehensive transformation of the inpatient model of care, including patient-centered bedside IDR, geographic cohorting of teams, and co-leadership, improves outcomes compared to models without these features.

Disclosures

This trial was funded by Medline’s Prevention Above All Discoveries Grant Program. The authors report no financial conflicts of interest.

Clinical question: In patients with a first unprovoked VTE, is it safe to use a normalized D-dimer test to stop anticoagulation therapy?

Background: The risk of VTE recurrence after stopping anticoagulation is higher in patients who have elevated D-dimer levels after treatment. It is unknown whether we can use normalized D-dimer levels to guide the decision about whether or not to stop anticoagulation.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Thirteen university-affiliated centers.

Synopsis: Study authors screened 410 adult patients who had a first unprovoked VTE and completed three to seven months of anticoagulation therapy with D-dimer tests. In patients with negative D-dimer tests, anticoagulation was stopped, and D-dimer tests were repeated after a month. In those with two consecutive negative D-dimer tests, anticoagulation was stopped indefinitely; these patients were followed for an average of 2.2 years. Among those 319 patients, there was an overall recurrent VTE rate of 6.7% per patient year. Subgroup analysis was performed among men, women not on estrogen therapy, and women on estrogen therapy; recurrence rates per patient year were 9.7%, 5.4%, and 0%, respectively.

This study used a point-of-care D-dimer test that was either positive or negative; it is unclear if the results can be generalized to all D-dimer tests. Additionally, although the study found a lower recurrence VTE rate among women, the study was not powered for the subgroups.

Bottom line: The high rate of recurrent VTE among men makes the D-dimer test an unsafe marker to use in deciding whether or not to stop anticoagulation for an unprovoked VTE. Among women, D-dimer test can potentially be used to guide length of treatment, but, given the limitations of the study, more evidence is needed.

Citation: Kearon C, Spencer FA, O’Keeffe D, et al. D-Dimer testing to select patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism who can stop anticoagulant therapy. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):27-34.

Clinical question: In patients with a first unprovoked VTE, is it safe to use a normalized D-dimer test to stop anticoagulation therapy?

Background: The risk of VTE recurrence after stopping anticoagulation is higher in patients who have elevated D-dimer levels after treatment. It is unknown whether we can use normalized D-dimer levels to guide the decision about whether or not to stop anticoagulation.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Thirteen university-affiliated centers.

Synopsis: Study authors screened 410 adult patients who had a first unprovoked VTE and completed three to seven months of anticoagulation therapy with D-dimer tests. In patients with negative D-dimer tests, anticoagulation was stopped, and D-dimer tests were repeated after a month. In those with two consecutive negative D-dimer tests, anticoagulation was stopped indefinitely; these patients were followed for an average of 2.2 years. Among those 319 patients, there was an overall recurrent VTE rate of 6.7% per patient year. Subgroup analysis was performed among men, women not on estrogen therapy, and women on estrogen therapy; recurrence rates per patient year were 9.7%, 5.4%, and 0%, respectively.

This study used a point-of-care D-dimer test that was either positive or negative; it is unclear if the results can be generalized to all D-dimer tests. Additionally, although the study found a lower recurrence VTE rate among women, the study was not powered for the subgroups.

Bottom line: The high rate of recurrent VTE among men makes the D-dimer test an unsafe marker to use in deciding whether or not to stop anticoagulation for an unprovoked VTE. Among women, D-dimer test can potentially be used to guide length of treatment, but, given the limitations of the study, more evidence is needed.

Citation: Kearon C, Spencer FA, O’Keeffe D, et al. D-Dimer testing to select patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism who can stop anticoagulant therapy. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):27-34.

Clinical question: In patients with a first unprovoked VTE, is it safe to use a normalized D-dimer test to stop anticoagulation therapy?

Background: The risk of VTE recurrence after stopping anticoagulation is higher in patients who have elevated D-dimer levels after treatment. It is unknown whether we can use normalized D-dimer levels to guide the decision about whether or not to stop anticoagulation.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: Thirteen university-affiliated centers.

Synopsis: Study authors screened 410 adult patients who had a first unprovoked VTE and completed three to seven months of anticoagulation therapy with D-dimer tests. In patients with negative D-dimer tests, anticoagulation was stopped, and D-dimer tests were repeated after a month. In those with two consecutive negative D-dimer tests, anticoagulation was stopped indefinitely; these patients were followed for an average of 2.2 years. Among those 319 patients, there was an overall recurrent VTE rate of 6.7% per patient year. Subgroup analysis was performed among men, women not on estrogen therapy, and women on estrogen therapy; recurrence rates per patient year were 9.7%, 5.4%, and 0%, respectively.

This study used a point-of-care D-dimer test that was either positive or negative; it is unclear if the results can be generalized to all D-dimer tests. Additionally, although the study found a lower recurrence VTE rate among women, the study was not powered for the subgroups.

Bottom line: The high rate of recurrent VTE among men makes the D-dimer test an unsafe marker to use in deciding whether or not to stop anticoagulation for an unprovoked VTE. Among women, D-dimer test can potentially be used to guide length of treatment, but, given the limitations of the study, more evidence is needed.

Citation: Kearon C, Spencer FA, O’Keeffe D, et al. D-Dimer testing to select patients with a first unprovoked venous thromboembolism who can stop anticoagulant therapy. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(1):27-34.

Clinical question: Do patients hospitalized with acute COPD exacerbations have improved outcomes with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) compared to those treated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV)?

Background: Previous studies have shown that in select patients, NIV has a mortality benefit over IMV for acute COPD exacerbations requiring hospitalization. NIV may also decrease complication rates and reduce length of stay; however, the previous prospective studies have been small.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 420 structurally and geographically diverse U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: Using the Premier Healthcare Informatics database, this study looked at 25,628 patients over 40 years old who were hospitalized with COPD exacerbations. Compared with patients who were initially treated with IMV, patients treated with NIV demonstrated lower mortality rates with an odds ratio of 0.54, lower risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia with an odds ratio of 0.53, and a 32% cost reduction. They also had shorter lengths of stay.

This was a retrospective study using a limited data set, and the authors did not have access to potentially confounding factors between the two groups, including vital signs and blood gases. Additionally, the advantages of NIV were attenuated among patients with pneumonia present on admission, patients with high burden of comorbid diseases, and patients older than 85 years.

Bottom line: Treatment of acute COPD exacerbations with NIV is associated with lower mortality, lower costs, and shorter length of stay as compared with IMV.

Citation: Lindenauer PK, Stefan MS, Shieh MS, Pekow PS, Rothberg MB, Hill NS. Outcomes associated with invasive and noninvasive ventilation among patients hospitalized with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(12):1982-1993.

Clinical question: Do patients hospitalized with acute COPD exacerbations have improved outcomes with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) compared to those treated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV)?

Background: Previous studies have shown that in select patients, NIV has a mortality benefit over IMV for acute COPD exacerbations requiring hospitalization. NIV may also decrease complication rates and reduce length of stay; however, the previous prospective studies have been small.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 420 structurally and geographically diverse U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: Using the Premier Healthcare Informatics database, this study looked at 25,628 patients over 40 years old who were hospitalized with COPD exacerbations. Compared with patients who were initially treated with IMV, patients treated with NIV demonstrated lower mortality rates with an odds ratio of 0.54, lower risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia with an odds ratio of 0.53, and a 32% cost reduction. They also had shorter lengths of stay.

This was a retrospective study using a limited data set, and the authors did not have access to potentially confounding factors between the two groups, including vital signs and blood gases. Additionally, the advantages of NIV were attenuated among patients with pneumonia present on admission, patients with high burden of comorbid diseases, and patients older than 85 years.

Bottom line: Treatment of acute COPD exacerbations with NIV is associated with lower mortality, lower costs, and shorter length of stay as compared with IMV.

Citation: Lindenauer PK, Stefan MS, Shieh MS, Pekow PS, Rothberg MB, Hill NS. Outcomes associated with invasive and noninvasive ventilation among patients hospitalized with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(12):1982-1993.

Clinical question: Do patients hospitalized with acute COPD exacerbations have improved outcomes with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) compared to those treated with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV)?

Background: Previous studies have shown that in select patients, NIV has a mortality benefit over IMV for acute COPD exacerbations requiring hospitalization. NIV may also decrease complication rates and reduce length of stay; however, the previous prospective studies have been small.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 420 structurally and geographically diverse U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: Using the Premier Healthcare Informatics database, this study looked at 25,628 patients over 40 years old who were hospitalized with COPD exacerbations. Compared with patients who were initially treated with IMV, patients treated with NIV demonstrated lower mortality rates with an odds ratio of 0.54, lower risk of hospital-acquired pneumonia with an odds ratio of 0.53, and a 32% cost reduction. They also had shorter lengths of stay.

This was a retrospective study using a limited data set, and the authors did not have access to potentially confounding factors between the two groups, including vital signs and blood gases. Additionally, the advantages of NIV were attenuated among patients with pneumonia present on admission, patients with high burden of comorbid diseases, and patients older than 85 years.

Bottom line: Treatment of acute COPD exacerbations with NIV is associated with lower mortality, lower costs, and shorter length of stay as compared with IMV.

Citation: Lindenauer PK, Stefan MS, Shieh MS, Pekow PS, Rothberg MB, Hill NS. Outcomes associated with invasive and noninvasive ventilation among patients hospitalized with exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(12):1982-1993.

Clinical question: Can the Bova risk model stratify patients with acute PE into stages of increasing risk for 30-day pulmonary embolism (PE)-related complications?

Background: The Bova score is based on four variables assessed at the time of PE diagnosis: heart rate, systolic blood pressure, cardiac troponin, and a marker of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. In the original study, the Bova risk model was derived from 2,874 normotensive patients with PE. This study performed a retrospective validation of this model on a different cohort of patients.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Academic urban ED in Madrid, Spain.

Synopsis: Investigators included 1,083 patients with normotensive PE, and the Bova risk score classified 80% into class I, 15% into class II, and 5% into class III—correlating 30-day PE-related complication rates were 4.4%, 18%, and 42%, respectively. When dichotomized into low risk (class I and II) versus intermediate to high risk (class III), the model had a specificity of 97%, a positive predictive value of 42%, and a positive likelihood ratio of 7.9 for predicting 30-day PE-related complications.

The existing risk assessment models, the pulmonary embolism severity index (PESI) and the simplified PESI (sPESI), have been extensively validated but were specifically developed to identity patients with low risk for mortality. The Bova risk model could be used in a stepwise fashion, with the PESI or sPESI model, to further assess intermediate-risk patients.

This model was derived and validated at one single center, so the results may not be generalizable. Additionally, the variables were collected prospectively, but this validation analysis was performed retrospectively.

Bottom line: The Bova risk model accurately stratifies patients with normotensive PE into stages of increasing risk for developing 30-day PE-related complications.

Citation: Fernández C, Bova C, Sanchez O, et al. Validation of a model for identification of patients at intermediate to high risk for complications associated with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism [published online ahead of print January 29, 2015]. Chest.

Clinical question: Can the Bova risk model stratify patients with acute PE into stages of increasing risk for 30-day pulmonary embolism (PE)-related complications?

Background: The Bova score is based on four variables assessed at the time of PE diagnosis: heart rate, systolic blood pressure, cardiac troponin, and a marker of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. In the original study, the Bova risk model was derived from 2,874 normotensive patients with PE. This study performed a retrospective validation of this model on a different cohort of patients.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Academic urban ED in Madrid, Spain.

Synopsis: Investigators included 1,083 patients with normotensive PE, and the Bova risk score classified 80% into class I, 15% into class II, and 5% into class III—correlating 30-day PE-related complication rates were 4.4%, 18%, and 42%, respectively. When dichotomized into low risk (class I and II) versus intermediate to high risk (class III), the model had a specificity of 97%, a positive predictive value of 42%, and a positive likelihood ratio of 7.9 for predicting 30-day PE-related complications.

The existing risk assessment models, the pulmonary embolism severity index (PESI) and the simplified PESI (sPESI), have been extensively validated but were specifically developed to identity patients with low risk for mortality. The Bova risk model could be used in a stepwise fashion, with the PESI or sPESI model, to further assess intermediate-risk patients.

This model was derived and validated at one single center, so the results may not be generalizable. Additionally, the variables were collected prospectively, but this validation analysis was performed retrospectively.

Bottom line: The Bova risk model accurately stratifies patients with normotensive PE into stages of increasing risk for developing 30-day PE-related complications.

Citation: Fernández C, Bova C, Sanchez O, et al. Validation of a model for identification of patients at intermediate to high risk for complications associated with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism [published online ahead of print January 29, 2015]. Chest.

Clinical question: Can the Bova risk model stratify patients with acute PE into stages of increasing risk for 30-day pulmonary embolism (PE)-related complications?

Background: The Bova score is based on four variables assessed at the time of PE diagnosis: heart rate, systolic blood pressure, cardiac troponin, and a marker of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction. In the original study, the Bova risk model was derived from 2,874 normotensive patients with PE. This study performed a retrospective validation of this model on a different cohort of patients.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Academic urban ED in Madrid, Spain.

Synopsis: Investigators included 1,083 patients with normotensive PE, and the Bova risk score classified 80% into class I, 15% into class II, and 5% into class III—correlating 30-day PE-related complication rates were 4.4%, 18%, and 42%, respectively. When dichotomized into low risk (class I and II) versus intermediate to high risk (class III), the model had a specificity of 97%, a positive predictive value of 42%, and a positive likelihood ratio of 7.9 for predicting 30-day PE-related complications.

The existing risk assessment models, the pulmonary embolism severity index (PESI) and the simplified PESI (sPESI), have been extensively validated but were specifically developed to identity patients with low risk for mortality. The Bova risk model could be used in a stepwise fashion, with the PESI or sPESI model, to further assess intermediate-risk patients.

This model was derived and validated at one single center, so the results may not be generalizable. Additionally, the variables were collected prospectively, but this validation analysis was performed retrospectively.

Bottom line: The Bova risk model accurately stratifies patients with normotensive PE into stages of increasing risk for developing 30-day PE-related complications.

Citation: Fernández C, Bova C, Sanchez O, et al. Validation of a model for identification of patients at intermediate to high risk for complications associated with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism [published online ahead of print January 29, 2015]. Chest.

Clinical question: Do minor and minimal head injuries in patients on warfarin lead to significant intracranial bleed?

Background: Warfarin use is common, and many of these patients sustain minor and minimal head injuries. When presenting to the ED, these patients pose a clinical dilemma regarding whether to obtain neuroimaging and/or admit.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Two urban tertiary care EDs in Ottawa, Canada, over a two-year period.

Synopsis: Using the Canadian National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database and the associated coding data, 259 patients were identified that fit the inclusion criteria GCS ≥13 and INR >1.5. This study showed that the rate of intracranial bleeds in this group of patients was high (15.9%); for minor and minimal head injury groups, the rate was 21.9% and 4.8%, respectively. Additionally, loss of consciousness was associated with higher rates of intracranial bleeding.

The risk of intracranial bleed after a head injury while on warfarin is considerably high, particularly for those patients with minor head injury (21.9%), which is about three times the rate previously reported. Hospitalists evaluating these patients should consider obtaining neuroimaging.

Nonetheless, these rates may be overestimating the true prevalence due to the following: 1) Coding data may overlook minor and minimal head injuries in the presence of more serious injuries, and 2) patients with minimal head injuries may not seek medical care.

Bottom line: Patients sustaining minor head injury while on warfarin have a high rate of intracranial bleed.

Reference: Alrajhi KN, Perry JJ, Forster AJ. Intracranial bleeds after minor and minimal head injury in patients on warfarin. J Emer Med. 2015;48(2):137-142.

Clinical question: Do minor and minimal head injuries in patients on warfarin lead to significant intracranial bleed?

Background: Warfarin use is common, and many of these patients sustain minor and minimal head injuries. When presenting to the ED, these patients pose a clinical dilemma regarding whether to obtain neuroimaging and/or admit.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Two urban tertiary care EDs in Ottawa, Canada, over a two-year period.

Synopsis: Using the Canadian National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database and the associated coding data, 259 patients were identified that fit the inclusion criteria GCS ≥13 and INR >1.5. This study showed that the rate of intracranial bleeds in this group of patients was high (15.9%); for minor and minimal head injury groups, the rate was 21.9% and 4.8%, respectively. Additionally, loss of consciousness was associated with higher rates of intracranial bleeding.

The risk of intracranial bleed after a head injury while on warfarin is considerably high, particularly for those patients with minor head injury (21.9%), which is about three times the rate previously reported. Hospitalists evaluating these patients should consider obtaining neuroimaging.

Nonetheless, these rates may be overestimating the true prevalence due to the following: 1) Coding data may overlook minor and minimal head injuries in the presence of more serious injuries, and 2) patients with minimal head injuries may not seek medical care.

Bottom line: Patients sustaining minor head injury while on warfarin have a high rate of intracranial bleed.

Reference: Alrajhi KN, Perry JJ, Forster AJ. Intracranial bleeds after minor and minimal head injury in patients on warfarin. J Emer Med. 2015;48(2):137-142.

Clinical question: Do minor and minimal head injuries in patients on warfarin lead to significant intracranial bleed?

Background: Warfarin use is common, and many of these patients sustain minor and minimal head injuries. When presenting to the ED, these patients pose a clinical dilemma regarding whether to obtain neuroimaging and/or admit.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Two urban tertiary care EDs in Ottawa, Canada, over a two-year period.

Synopsis: Using the Canadian National Ambulatory Care Reporting System database and the associated coding data, 259 patients were identified that fit the inclusion criteria GCS ≥13 and INR >1.5. This study showed that the rate of intracranial bleeds in this group of patients was high (15.9%); for minor and minimal head injury groups, the rate was 21.9% and 4.8%, respectively. Additionally, loss of consciousness was associated with higher rates of intracranial bleeding.

The risk of intracranial bleed after a head injury while on warfarin is considerably high, particularly for those patients with minor head injury (21.9%), which is about three times the rate previously reported. Hospitalists evaluating these patients should consider obtaining neuroimaging.

Nonetheless, these rates may be overestimating the true prevalence due to the following: 1) Coding data may overlook minor and minimal head injuries in the presence of more serious injuries, and 2) patients with minimal head injuries may not seek medical care.

Bottom line: Patients sustaining minor head injury while on warfarin have a high rate of intracranial bleed.

Reference: Alrajhi KN, Perry JJ, Forster AJ. Intracranial bleeds after minor and minimal head injury in patients on warfarin. J Emer Med. 2015;48(2):137-142.

Clinical question: Does a high-calorie, high-protein formula enriched with supplements of arginine, zinc, and antioxidants improve pressure ulcer healing?

Background: Malnutrition is thought to be a major factor in the development and poor healing of pressure ulcers. Trials evaluating whether or not the addition of antioxidants, arginine, and zinc to nutritional formulas improves pressure ulcer healing have been small and inconsistent.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, controlled, blinded trial.

Setting: Long-term care facilities and patients receiving home care services.

Synopsis: Two hundred patients with stage II, III, or IV pressure ulcers receiving standardized wound care were randomly assigned to a control formula or an experimental formula enriched with arginine, zinc, and antioxidants. At eight weeks, the experimental formula group had an 18.7% (CI, 5.7% to 31.8%, P=0.017) mean reduction in pressure ulcer size compared with the control formula group, although both groups showed efficacy in wound healing.

Nutrition is an important part of wound healing and should be incorporated into the plan of care for the hospitalized patient with pressure ulcers. Hospitalists should be mindful that this study was conducted in non-acute settings, with a chronically ill patient population; more research needs to be done to investigate the effect of these specific immune-modulating nutritional supplements in acutely ill hospitalized patients, given the inconclusive safety profile of certain nutrients such as arginine in severe sepsis.

Bottom line: Enhanced nutritional support with an oral nutritional formula enriched with arginine, zinc, and antioxidants improves pressure ulcer healing in malnourished patients already receiving standard wound care.

Citation: Cereda E, Klersy C, Serioli M, Crespi A, D’Andrea F, OligoElement Sore Trial Study Group. A nutritional formula enriched with arginine, zinc, and antioxidants for the healing of pressure ulcers: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):167-174.

Clinical question: Does a high-calorie, high-protein formula enriched with supplements of arginine, zinc, and antioxidants improve pressure ulcer healing?

Background: Malnutrition is thought to be a major factor in the development and poor healing of pressure ulcers. Trials evaluating whether or not the addition of antioxidants, arginine, and zinc to nutritional formulas improves pressure ulcer healing have been small and inconsistent.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, controlled, blinded trial.

Setting: Long-term care facilities and patients receiving home care services.

Synopsis: Two hundred patients with stage II, III, or IV pressure ulcers receiving standardized wound care were randomly assigned to a control formula or an experimental formula enriched with arginine, zinc, and antioxidants. At eight weeks, the experimental formula group had an 18.7% (CI, 5.7% to 31.8%, P=0.017) mean reduction in pressure ulcer size compared with the control formula group, although both groups showed efficacy in wound healing.

Nutrition is an important part of wound healing and should be incorporated into the plan of care for the hospitalized patient with pressure ulcers. Hospitalists should be mindful that this study was conducted in non-acute settings, with a chronically ill patient population; more research needs to be done to investigate the effect of these specific immune-modulating nutritional supplements in acutely ill hospitalized patients, given the inconclusive safety profile of certain nutrients such as arginine in severe sepsis.

Bottom line: Enhanced nutritional support with an oral nutritional formula enriched with arginine, zinc, and antioxidants improves pressure ulcer healing in malnourished patients already receiving standard wound care.

Citation: Cereda E, Klersy C, Serioli M, Crespi A, D’Andrea F, OligoElement Sore Trial Study Group. A nutritional formula enriched with arginine, zinc, and antioxidants for the healing of pressure ulcers: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):167-174.

Clinical question: Does a high-calorie, high-protein formula enriched with supplements of arginine, zinc, and antioxidants improve pressure ulcer healing?

Background: Malnutrition is thought to be a major factor in the development and poor healing of pressure ulcers. Trials evaluating whether or not the addition of antioxidants, arginine, and zinc to nutritional formulas improves pressure ulcer healing have been small and inconsistent.

Study design: Multicenter, randomized, controlled, blinded trial.

Setting: Long-term care facilities and patients receiving home care services.

Synopsis: Two hundred patients with stage II, III, or IV pressure ulcers receiving standardized wound care were randomly assigned to a control formula or an experimental formula enriched with arginine, zinc, and antioxidants. At eight weeks, the experimental formula group had an 18.7% (CI, 5.7% to 31.8%, P=0.017) mean reduction in pressure ulcer size compared with the control formula group, although both groups showed efficacy in wound healing.

Nutrition is an important part of wound healing and should be incorporated into the plan of care for the hospitalized patient with pressure ulcers. Hospitalists should be mindful that this study was conducted in non-acute settings, with a chronically ill patient population; more research needs to be done to investigate the effect of these specific immune-modulating nutritional supplements in acutely ill hospitalized patients, given the inconclusive safety profile of certain nutrients such as arginine in severe sepsis.

Bottom line: Enhanced nutritional support with an oral nutritional formula enriched with arginine, zinc, and antioxidants improves pressure ulcer healing in malnourished patients already receiving standard wound care.

Citation: Cereda E, Klersy C, Serioli M, Crespi A, D’Andrea F, OligoElement Sore Trial Study Group. A nutritional formula enriched with arginine, zinc, and antioxidants for the healing of pressure ulcers: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(3):167-174.

Clinical question: Is there an association between hospital volume and hospital readmission rates?

Background: There is an established association between high patient volume and reduced complications or mortality after surgical procedures; however, readmission represents a different type of quality metric than mortality or complications. Studies on the association between hospital patient volume and readmission rates have been controversial.

Study design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study.

Setting: Acute care hospitals.

Synopsis: The study included 6,916,644 admissions to 4,651 hospitals, where patients were assigned to one of five cohorts: medicine, surgery/gynecology, cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, and neurology. The hospital with the highest volume group had a hospital-wide mean standardized readmission rate of 15.9%, while the hospital with the lowest volume group had a readmission rate of 14.7%. This was a 1.2 percentage point absolute difference between the two hospitals (95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.5). This trend continued when specialty cohorts were examined, with the exception of the procedure-heavy cardiovascular cohort.

Results showed a trend toward decreased readmission rates in lower-volume hospitals; however, it is unclear why this trend exists. Possible reasons include different patient populations and different practitioner-to-patient ratios in low-volume hospitals.

Limitations of this study are the inclusion of only patients 65 years and older and the fact that all admissions per patient were included, which may bias the results against hospitals with many frequently admitted patients.

Bottom line: Hospitals with high patient volumes are associated with higher readmission rates, except in procedure-heavy patient groups.

Citation: Horwitz LI, Lin Z, Herrin J, et al.Association of hospital volume with readmission rates: a retrospective cross-sectional study. BMJ. 2015;350:h447.

Clinical question: Is there an association between hospital volume and hospital readmission rates?

Background: There is an established association between high patient volume and reduced complications or mortality after surgical procedures; however, readmission represents a different type of quality metric than mortality or complications. Studies on the association between hospital patient volume and readmission rates have been controversial.

Study design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study.

Setting: Acute care hospitals.

Synopsis: The study included 6,916,644 admissions to 4,651 hospitals, where patients were assigned to one of five cohorts: medicine, surgery/gynecology, cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, and neurology. The hospital with the highest volume group had a hospital-wide mean standardized readmission rate of 15.9%, while the hospital with the lowest volume group had a readmission rate of 14.7%. This was a 1.2 percentage point absolute difference between the two hospitals (95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.5). This trend continued when specialty cohorts were examined, with the exception of the procedure-heavy cardiovascular cohort.

Results showed a trend toward decreased readmission rates in lower-volume hospitals; however, it is unclear why this trend exists. Possible reasons include different patient populations and different practitioner-to-patient ratios in low-volume hospitals.

Limitations of this study are the inclusion of only patients 65 years and older and the fact that all admissions per patient were included, which may bias the results against hospitals with many frequently admitted patients.

Bottom line: Hospitals with high patient volumes are associated with higher readmission rates, except in procedure-heavy patient groups.

Citation: Horwitz LI, Lin Z, Herrin J, et al.Association of hospital volume with readmission rates: a retrospective cross-sectional study. BMJ. 2015;350:h447.

Clinical question: Is there an association between hospital volume and hospital readmission rates?

Background: There is an established association between high patient volume and reduced complications or mortality after surgical procedures; however, readmission represents a different type of quality metric than mortality or complications. Studies on the association between hospital patient volume and readmission rates have been controversial.

Study design: Retrospective, cross-sectional study.

Setting: Acute care hospitals.

Synopsis: The study included 6,916,644 admissions to 4,651 hospitals, where patients were assigned to one of five cohorts: medicine, surgery/gynecology, cardiorespiratory, cardiovascular, and neurology. The hospital with the highest volume group had a hospital-wide mean standardized readmission rate of 15.9%, while the hospital with the lowest volume group had a readmission rate of 14.7%. This was a 1.2 percentage point absolute difference between the two hospitals (95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.5). This trend continued when specialty cohorts were examined, with the exception of the procedure-heavy cardiovascular cohort.

Results showed a trend toward decreased readmission rates in lower-volume hospitals; however, it is unclear why this trend exists. Possible reasons include different patient populations and different practitioner-to-patient ratios in low-volume hospitals.

Limitations of this study are the inclusion of only patients 65 years and older and the fact that all admissions per patient were included, which may bias the results against hospitals with many frequently admitted patients.

Bottom line: Hospitals with high patient volumes are associated with higher readmission rates, except in procedure-heavy patient groups.

Citation: Horwitz LI, Lin Z, Herrin J, et al.Association of hospital volume with readmission rates: a retrospective cross-sectional study. BMJ. 2015;350:h447.

Clinical Question: What is the extent of, and factors associated with, testing overuse in U.S. hospitals for pre-operative evaluation and syncope.

Background: Little is known about the extent and drivers of overuse by hospitalists.

Study design: Two vignettes (pre-operative evaluation and syncope) were mailed to hospitalists. They were asked to identify what most hospitalists at their institution would recommend and “the most likely primary driver of the hospitalist’s decision.”

Setting: Random selection of hospitalists from SHM member database and SHM national meeting attendees.

Synopsis: Investigators mailed 1,753 surveys and received a 68% response rate. For the pre-operative evaluation vignette, 52% of hospitalists reported overuse of pre-operative testing. When a family member was a physician and requested further testing, overuse increased significantly to 65%. For the syncope vignette, any choice involving admission was considered overuse.

Eighty-two percent of respondents reported overuse; when the wife was a lawyer or requested further testing, overuse remained the same. Overuse in both cases was more frequent due to a hospitalist’s desire to reassure patients or themselves, rather than a belief that it was clinically indicated (pre-operative evaluation, 63% vs. 37%; syncope, 69% vs. 31%, P<0.001).

The survey responses do not necessarily represent actual clinical choices, and the hospitalist sample may not be representative of all hospitalists; however, this study shows that efforts to reduce overuse in hospitals need to move beyond financial incentives and/or informing providers of evidence-based recommendations.

Bottom line: A survey of hospitalists showed substantial overuse in two common clinical situations, syncope and pre-operative evaluation, mostly driven by a desire to reassure patients, families, or themselves.

Citation: Kachalia A, Berg A, Fagerlin A, et al. Overuse of testing in preoperative evaluation and syncope: a survey of hospitalists. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(2):100-108.

Clinical Question: What is the extent of, and factors associated with, testing overuse in U.S. hospitals for pre-operative evaluation and syncope.

Background: Little is known about the extent and drivers of overuse by hospitalists.

Study design: Two vignettes (pre-operative evaluation and syncope) were mailed to hospitalists. They were asked to identify what most hospitalists at their institution would recommend and “the most likely primary driver of the hospitalist’s decision.”

Setting: Random selection of hospitalists from SHM member database and SHM national meeting attendees.

Synopsis: Investigators mailed 1,753 surveys and received a 68% response rate. For the pre-operative evaluation vignette, 52% of hospitalists reported overuse of pre-operative testing. When a family member was a physician and requested further testing, overuse increased significantly to 65%. For the syncope vignette, any choice involving admission was considered overuse.

Eighty-two percent of respondents reported overuse; when the wife was a lawyer or requested further testing, overuse remained the same. Overuse in both cases was more frequent due to a hospitalist’s desire to reassure patients or themselves, rather than a belief that it was clinically indicated (pre-operative evaluation, 63% vs. 37%; syncope, 69% vs. 31%, P<0.001).

The survey responses do not necessarily represent actual clinical choices, and the hospitalist sample may not be representative of all hospitalists; however, this study shows that efforts to reduce overuse in hospitals need to move beyond financial incentives and/or informing providers of evidence-based recommendations.

Bottom line: A survey of hospitalists showed substantial overuse in two common clinical situations, syncope and pre-operative evaluation, mostly driven by a desire to reassure patients, families, or themselves.

Citation: Kachalia A, Berg A, Fagerlin A, et al. Overuse of testing in preoperative evaluation and syncope: a survey of hospitalists. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(2):100-108.

Clinical Question: What is the extent of, and factors associated with, testing overuse in U.S. hospitals for pre-operative evaluation and syncope.

Background: Little is known about the extent and drivers of overuse by hospitalists.

Study design: Two vignettes (pre-operative evaluation and syncope) were mailed to hospitalists. They were asked to identify what most hospitalists at their institution would recommend and “the most likely primary driver of the hospitalist’s decision.”

Setting: Random selection of hospitalists from SHM member database and SHM national meeting attendees.

Synopsis: Investigators mailed 1,753 surveys and received a 68% response rate. For the pre-operative evaluation vignette, 52% of hospitalists reported overuse of pre-operative testing. When a family member was a physician and requested further testing, overuse increased significantly to 65%. For the syncope vignette, any choice involving admission was considered overuse.

Eighty-two percent of respondents reported overuse; when the wife was a lawyer or requested further testing, overuse remained the same. Overuse in both cases was more frequent due to a hospitalist’s desire to reassure patients or themselves, rather than a belief that it was clinically indicated (pre-operative evaluation, 63% vs. 37%; syncope, 69% vs. 31%, P<0.001).

The survey responses do not necessarily represent actual clinical choices, and the hospitalist sample may not be representative of all hospitalists; however, this study shows that efforts to reduce overuse in hospitals need to move beyond financial incentives and/or informing providers of evidence-based recommendations.

Bottom line: A survey of hospitalists showed substantial overuse in two common clinical situations, syncope and pre-operative evaluation, mostly driven by a desire to reassure patients, families, or themselves.

Citation: Kachalia A, Berg A, Fagerlin A, et al. Overuse of testing in preoperative evaluation and syncope: a survey of hospitalists. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(2):100-108.

Clinical question: Is functional impairment associated with an increased risk of 30-day readmission?

Background: Many Medicare seniors suffer from some level of impairment in functional status, which, in turn, has been linked to high healthcare utilization. Studies that examine the role of functional impairment with readmission rates are limited.

Study design: Prospective, cohort study.

Setting: Seniors enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) with Medicare hospitalizations from Jan. 1, 2000, to Dec. 31, 2010.

Synopsis: The primary outcome was readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Activities of daily living (ADL) scale and instrumental ADL were used as measures of functional impairment.

Overall, 48.3% of patients had preadmission functional impairments with a readmission rate of 15.5%. There was a progressive increase in the adjusted risk of readmission as the degree of functional impairment increased: 13.5% with no functional impairment, 14.3% with difficulty in one or more instrumental ADLs (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.94-1.20), 14.4% with difficulty in one or more ADLs (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.96-1.21), 16.5% with dependency in one or two ADLs (OR, 1.26; 95% CI 1.11-1.44), and 18.2% with dependency in three or more ADLs (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.20-1.69).

This observation was more pronounced in patients admitted for heart failure, MI, and pneumonia (16.9% readmission rate for no impairment vs. 25.7% dependency in three or more ADLs, OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.04-2.78).

Although the study is limited by reliance on survey data and Medicare claim data, functional status may be an important variable in calculating readmission risk and a potential target for intervention.

Bottom line: Functional impairment is associated with an increased risk of 30-day readmission, especially in patients admitted for heart failure, MI, and pneumonia.

Citation: Greysen SR, Stijacic Cenzer I, Auerbach AD, Covinsky KE. Functional impairment and hospital readmission in Medicare seniors. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(4):559-565.

Clinical question: Is functional impairment associated with an increased risk of 30-day readmission?

Background: Many Medicare seniors suffer from some level of impairment in functional status, which, in turn, has been linked to high healthcare utilization. Studies that examine the role of functional impairment with readmission rates are limited.

Study design: Prospective, cohort study.

Setting: Seniors enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) with Medicare hospitalizations from Jan. 1, 2000, to Dec. 31, 2010.

Synopsis: The primary outcome was readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Activities of daily living (ADL) scale and instrumental ADL were used as measures of functional impairment.

Overall, 48.3% of patients had preadmission functional impairments with a readmission rate of 15.5%. There was a progressive increase in the adjusted risk of readmission as the degree of functional impairment increased: 13.5% with no functional impairment, 14.3% with difficulty in one or more instrumental ADLs (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.94-1.20), 14.4% with difficulty in one or more ADLs (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.96-1.21), 16.5% with dependency in one or two ADLs (OR, 1.26; 95% CI 1.11-1.44), and 18.2% with dependency in three or more ADLs (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.20-1.69).

This observation was more pronounced in patients admitted for heart failure, MI, and pneumonia (16.9% readmission rate for no impairment vs. 25.7% dependency in three or more ADLs, OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.04-2.78).

Although the study is limited by reliance on survey data and Medicare claim data, functional status may be an important variable in calculating readmission risk and a potential target for intervention.

Bottom line: Functional impairment is associated with an increased risk of 30-day readmission, especially in patients admitted for heart failure, MI, and pneumonia.

Citation: Greysen SR, Stijacic Cenzer I, Auerbach AD, Covinsky KE. Functional impairment and hospital readmission in Medicare seniors. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(4):559-565.

Clinical question: Is functional impairment associated with an increased risk of 30-day readmission?

Background: Many Medicare seniors suffer from some level of impairment in functional status, which, in turn, has been linked to high healthcare utilization. Studies that examine the role of functional impairment with readmission rates are limited.

Study design: Prospective, cohort study.

Setting: Seniors enrolled in the Health and Retirement Study (HRS) with Medicare hospitalizations from Jan. 1, 2000, to Dec. 31, 2010.

Synopsis: The primary outcome was readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Activities of daily living (ADL) scale and instrumental ADL were used as measures of functional impairment.

Overall, 48.3% of patients had preadmission functional impairments with a readmission rate of 15.5%. There was a progressive increase in the adjusted risk of readmission as the degree of functional impairment increased: 13.5% with no functional impairment, 14.3% with difficulty in one or more instrumental ADLs (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.94-1.20), 14.4% with difficulty in one or more ADLs (OR 1.08; 95% CI 0.96-1.21), 16.5% with dependency in one or two ADLs (OR, 1.26; 95% CI 1.11-1.44), and 18.2% with dependency in three or more ADLs (OR 1.42; 95% CI 1.20-1.69).

This observation was more pronounced in patients admitted for heart failure, MI, and pneumonia (16.9% readmission rate for no impairment vs. 25.7% dependency in three or more ADLs, OR 1.70; 95% CI 1.04-2.78).

Although the study is limited by reliance on survey data and Medicare claim data, functional status may be an important variable in calculating readmission risk and a potential target for intervention.

Bottom line: Functional impairment is associated with an increased risk of 30-day readmission, especially in patients admitted for heart failure, MI, and pneumonia.

Citation: Greysen SR, Stijacic Cenzer I, Auerbach AD, Covinsky KE. Functional impairment and hospital readmission in Medicare seniors. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(4):559-565.