Building a thriving academic hospitalist workforce: A rapid qualitative analysis identifying key areas of focus in the field.

BACKGROUND: The hospitalist workforce has been at the forefront of the pandemic and has been stretched in both clinical and nonclinical domains. We aimed to understand current and future workforce concerns, as well as strategies to cultivate a thriving hospital medicine workforce. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted qualitative, semistructured focus groups with practicing hospitalists via video conferencing (Zoom). Utilizing components from the Brainwriting Premortem Approach, attendees were split into small focus groups and listed their thoughts about workforce issues that hospitalists may encounter in the next 3 years, identifying the highest priority workforce issues for the hospital medicine community. Each small group discussed the most pressing workforce issues. These ideas were then shared across the entire group and ranked. We used rapid qualitative analysis to guide a structured exploration of themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Five focus groups were held with 18 participants from 13 academic institutions. We identified five key areas: (1) support for workforce wellness; (2) staffing and pipeline development to maintain an adequate workforce to match clinical growth; (3) scope of work, including how hospitalist work is defined and whether the clinical skillset should be expanded; (4) commitment to the academic mission in the setting of rapid and unpredictable clinical growth; and (5) alignment between the duties of hospitalists and resources of hospitals. Hospitalists voiced numerous concerns about the future of our workforce. Several domains were identified as high-priority areas of focus to address current and future challenges.

Performance of point-of-care severity scores to predict prognosis in patients admitted through the emergency department with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Identifying COVID-19 patients at the highest risk of poor outcomes is critical in emergency department (ED) presentation. Sepsis risk stratification scores can be calculated quickly for COVID-19 patients but have not been evaluated in a large cohort. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether well-known risk scores can predict poor outcomes among hospitalized COVID-19 patients. DESIGNS, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective cohort study of adults presenting with COVID-19 to 156 Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) Healthcare EDs, March 2, 2020, to February 11, 2021. INTERVENTION: Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA), Shock Index, National Early Warning System-2 (NEWS2), and quick COVID-19 Severity Index (qCSI) at presentation. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) admission, mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors receipt. Patients scored positive with qSOFA ≥ 2, Shock Index > 0.7, NEWS2 ≥ 5, and qCSI ≥ 4. Test characteristics and area under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROCs) were calculated. RESULTS: We identified 90,376 patients with community-acquired COVID-19 (mean age 64.3 years, 46.8% female). 17.2% of patients died in-hospital, 28.6% went to the ICU, 13.7% received mechanical ventilation, and 13.6% received vasopressors. There were 3.8% qSOFA-positive, 45.1% Shock Index-positive, 49.8% NEWS2-positive, and 37.6% qCSI-positive at ED-triage. NEWS2 exhibited the highest AUROC for in-hospital mortality (0.593, confidence interval [CI]: 0.588-0.597), ICU admission (0.602, CI: 0.599-0.606), mechanical ventilation (0.614, CI: 0.610-0.619), and vasopressor receipt (0.600, CI: 0.595-0.604). CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis severity scores at presentation have low discriminative power to predict outcomes in COVID-19 patients and are not reliable for clinical use. Severity scores should be developed using features that accurately predict poor outcomes among COVID-19 patients to develop more effective risk-based triage.

COVID-19-Related Publications by Hospitalists in the United States.

Objective To determine the degree to which hospitalists published academic manuscripts related to COVID-19 during the first year of the pandemic. Patients and methods The study was a cross-sectional analysis of the author's specialty, defined by byline or professional online biography, from articles related to COVID-19 published between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021. It included the top four internal medicine journals by impact factor: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine. Participants were all United States (US)-based physician authors contributing to COVID-19 publications. Our primary outcome was the percentage of US-based physician authors of COVID-19 articles who were hospitalists. Subgroup analyses characterized author specialty by authorship position (first, middle, last) and article type (research vs. non-research). Results Between March 1, 2020, and February 28, 2021, the top four US-based medical journals published 870 articles related to COVID-19 of which 712 articles with 1940 US-based physician authors were included. Hospitalists accounted for 4.2% (82) of authorship positions including 4.7% (49/1038) of authorship positions in research articles and 3.7% (33/902) of authorship positions in non-research articles. First, middle, and last authorship positions were held by hospitalists at 3.7% (18/485), 4.4% (45/1034), and 4.5% (19/421) of the time, respectively. Conclusions Despite caring for a large number of patients with COVID-19, hospitalists were rarely involved in disseminating COVID-19 knowledge. Limited authorship by hospitalists could constrain the dissemination of inpatient medicine knowledge, impact patient outcomes, and affect the academic promotion of early-career hospitalists.

Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN). TARGET POPULATION: Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.

Gender differences in COVID-19-related manuscript authorship by hospitalists during the pandemic: A bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: Hospital medicine (HM) has a well-described gender disparity related to academic work and promotion. During the COVID-19 pandemic, female authorship across medicine fell further behind historical averages. OBJECTIVE: Examine how COVID-19 affected the publication gender gap for hospitalists. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Bibliometric analysis to determine gender and specialty of US-based physician first and last authors of COVID-19 articles published March 1, 2020 to February 28, 2021 in the four highest impact general medical journals and two highest impact HM-specific journals. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: We characterized the percentage of all physician authors that were women, the percentage of physician authors that were hospitalists, and the percentage of HM authors that were women. We compared author gender between general medical and HM-specific journals. RESULTS: During the study period, 853 manuscripts with US-based first or last authors were published in eligible journals. Included manuscripts contained 1124 US-based physician first or last author credits, of which 34.2% (384) were women and 8.8% (99) were hospitalists. Among hospitalist author credits, 43.4% (n = 43/99) were occupied by women. The relative gender equity for hospitalist authors was driven by the two HM journals where, compared to the four general medical journals, hospitalist authors (54.1% [33/61] vs. 26.3% [10/38] women, respectively, p = .002) and hospitalist last authors (51.9% [14/27] vs. 20% [4/20], p = .03) were more likely to be women. CONCLUSIONS: Across COVID-19-related manuscripts, disparities by gender were driven by the high-impact general medical journals. HM-specific journals had more equitable inclusion of women authors, demonstrating the potential impact of proactive editorial policies on diversity.

Practical Applications of Rapid Qualitative Analysis for Operations, Quality Improvement, and Research in Dynamically Changing Hospital Environments.

BACKGROUND: Health care systems are in a constant state of change. As such, methods to quickly acquire and analyze data are essential to effectively evaluate current processes and improvement projects. Rapid qualitative analysis offers an expeditious approach to evaluate complex, dynamic, and time-sensitive issues. METHODS: We used rapid data acquisition and qualitative methods to assess six real-world problems the hospitalist field faced during the COVID-19 pandemic. We iteratively modified and applied a six-step framework for conducting rapid qualitative analysis, including determining if rapid methods are appropriate, creating a team, selecting a data collection approach, data analysis, and synthesis and dissemination. Virtual platforms were used for focus groups and interviews; templated summaries and matrix analyses were then applied to allow for rapid qualitative analyses. RESULTS: We conducted six projects using rapid data acquisition and rapid qualitative analysis from December 4, 2020, to January 14, 2022, each of which included 23 to 33 participants. One project involved participants from a single institution; the remainder included participants from 15 to 24 institutions. These projects led to the refinement of an adapted rapid qualitative method for evaluation of hospitalist-driven operational, research, and quality improvement efforts. We describe how we used these methods and disseminated our results. We also discuss situations for which rapid qualitative methods are well-suited and strengths and weaknesses of the methods. CONCLUSION: Rapid qualitative methods paired with rapid data acquisition can be employed for prompt turnaround assessments of quality, operational, and research projects in complex health care environments. Although rapid qualitative analysis is not meant to replace more traditional qualitative methods, it may be appropriate in certain situations. Application of a framework to guide projects using a rapid qualitative approach can help provide structure to the analysis and instill confidence in the findings.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention and diagnosis in COVID-19: Practice patterns and outcomes at 33 hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Early reports of increased thrombosis risk with SARS-CoV-2 infection led to changes in venous thromboembolism (VTE) management. Real-world data on the prevalence, efficacy and harms of these changes informs best practices. OBJECTIVE: Define practice patterns and clinical outcomes related to VTE diagnosis, prevention, and management in hospitalized patients with coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) using a multi-hospital US sample. METHODS: In this retrospective cross-sectional study of 1121 patients admitted to 33 hospitals, exposure was dose of anticoagulant prescribed for VTE prophylaxis (standard, intensified, therapeutic), and primary outcome was VTE (pulmonary embolism [PE] and deep vein thrombosis [DVT]); secondary outcomes were PE, DVT, arterial thromboembolism (ATE), and bleeding events. Multivariable logistic regression models accounting for clustering by site and adjusted for risk factors were used to estimate odds ratios (ORs). Inverse probability weighting was used to account for confounding by indication. RESULTS: 1121 patients (mean age 60 ± 18, 47% female) admitted with COVID-19 between February 2, 2020 and December 31, 2020 to 33 US hospitals were included. Pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was prescribed in 86%. Forty-seven patients (4.2%) had PE, 51 (4.6%) had DVT, and 23 (2.1%) had ATE. Forty-six patients (4.1%) had major bleeding and 46 (4.1%) had clinically relevant non-major bleeding. Compared to standard prophylaxis, adjusted odds of VTE were 0.67 (95% CI 0.21-2.1) with no prophylaxis, 1.0 (95% CI 0.06-17) with intensified, and 3.0 (95% CI 0.89-10) with therapeutic. Adjusted odds of bleeding with no prophylaxis were 5.6 (95% CI 3.0-11) and 5.3 (95% CI 3.0-10) with therapeutic (no events on intensified dosing). CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic anticoagulation was associated with a 3-fold increased odds of VTE and 5-fold increased odds of bleeding. While higher bleeding rates with high-intensity prophylaxis were likely due to full-dose anticoagulation, we conclude that high thrombosis rates were due to clinical concern for thrombosis before formal diagnosis.

Adaptability on Shifting Ground: a Rapid Qualitative Assessment of Multi-institutional Inpatient Surge Planning and Workforce Deployment During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the initial wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations, care delivery and workforce adaptations were rapidly implemented. In response to subsequent surges of patients, institutions have deployed, modified, and/or discontinued their workforce plans. OBJECTIVE: Using rapid qualitative methods, we sought to explore hospitalists' experiences with workforce deployment, types of clinicians deployed, and challenges encountered with subsequent iterations of surge planning during the COVID-19 pandemic across a collaborative of hospital medicine groups. APPROACH: Using rapid qualitative methods, focus groups were conducted in partnership with the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). We interviewed physicians, advanced practice providers (APP), and physician researchers about (1) ongoing adaptations to the workforce as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) current struggles with workforce planning, and (3) evolution of workforce planning. KEY RESULTS: We conducted five focus groups with 33 individuals from 24 institutions, representing 52% of HOMERuN sites. A variety of adaptations was described by participants, some common across institutions and others specific to the institution's location and context. Adaptations implemented shifted from the first waves of COVID patients to subsequent waves. Three global themes also emerged: (1) adaptability and comfort with dynamic change, (2) the importance of the unique hospitalist skillset for effective surge planning and redeployment, and (3) the lack of universal solutions. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital workforce adaptations to the COVID pandemic continued to evolve. While few approaches were universally effective in managing surges of patients, and successful adaptations were highly context dependent, the ability to navigate a complex system, adaptability, and comfort in a chaotic, dynamic environment were themes considered most critical to successful surge management. However, resource constraints and sustained high workload levels raised issues of burnout.

A Patient-Centered Environmental Scan of Inpatient Visitor Policies During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Researchers and patients conducted an environmental scan of policy documents and public-facing websites and abstracted data to describe COVID-19 adult inpatient visitor restrictions at 70 academic medical centers. We identified variations in how centers described and operationalized visitor policies. Then, we used the nominal group technique process to identify patient-centered information gaps in visitor policies and provide key recommendations for improvement. Recommendations were categorized into the following domains: 1) provision of comprehensive, consistent, and clear information; 2) accessible information for patients with limited English proficiency and health literacy; 3) COVID-19 related considerations; and 4) care team member methods of communication.

Preventability of 30-Day Hospital Revisits Following Admission with COVID-19 at an Academic Medical Center.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have affected the preventability of 30-day hospital revisits, including readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits without admission. This study was conducted to examine the preventability of 30-day revisits for patients admitted with COVID-19 in order to inform the design of interventions that may decrease preventable revisits in the future. METHODS: The study team retrospectively reviewed a cohort of adults admitted to an academic medical center with COVID-19 between March 21 and June 29, 2020, and discharged alive. Patients with a 30-day revisit following hospital discharge were identified. Two-physician review was used to determine revisit preventability, identify factors contributing to preventable revisits, assess potential preventive interventions, and establish the influence of pandemic-related conditions on the revisit. RESULTS: Seventy-six of 576 COVID-19 hospitalizations resulted in a 30-day revisit (13.2%), including 21 ED visits without admission (3.6%) and 55 readmissions (9.5%). Of these 76 revisits, 20 (26.3%) were potentially preventable. The most frequently identified factors contributing to preventable revisits were related to the choice of postdischarge location and to patient/caregiver understanding of the discharge medication regimen, each occurring in 25.0% of cases. The most frequently cited potentially preventive intervention was "improved self-management plan at discharge," occurring in 65.0% of cases. Five of the 20 preventable revisits (25.0%) had contributing factors that were thought to be directly related to the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Although only approximately one quarter of 30-day hospital revisits following admission with COVID-19 were potentially preventable, these results highlight opportunities for improvement to reduce revisits going forward.

Discharge Practices for COVID-19 Patients: Rapid Review of Published Guidance and Synthesis of Documents and Practices at 22 US Academic Medical Centers.

BACKGROUND: There are currently no evidence-based guidelines that provide standardized criteria for the discharge of COVID-19 patients from the hospital. OBJECTIVE: To address this gap in practice guidance, we reviewed published guidance and collected discharge protocols and procedures to identify and synthesize common practices. DESIGN: Rapid review of existing guidance from US and non-US public health organizations and professional societies and qualitative review using content analysis of discharge documents collected from a national sample of US academic medical centers with follow-up survey of hospital leaders SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We reviewed 65 websites for major professional societies and public health organizations and collected documents from 22 Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) in the US participating in the HOspital MEdicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). RESULTS: We synthesized data regarding common practices around 5 major domains: (1) isolation and transmission mitigation; (2) criteria for discharge to non-home settings including skilled nursing, assisted living, or homeless; (3) clinical criteria for discharge including oxygenation levels, fever, and symptom improvement; (4) social support and ability to perform activities of daily living; (5) post-discharge instructions, monitoring, and follow-up. LIMITATIONS: We used streamlined methods for rapid review of published guidance and collected discharge documents only in a focused sample of US academic medical centers. CONCLUSION: AMCs studied showed strong consensus on discharge practices for COVID-19 patients related to post-discharge isolation and transmission mitigation for home and non-home settings. There was high concordance among AMCs that discharge practices should address COVID-19-specific factors in clinical, functional, and post-discharge monitoring domains although definitions and details varied.

Acute Cerebellar Ataxia in COVID-19 Infection: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND: The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been widely reported to cause symptoms such as fever, cough, sore throat, fatigue, and shortness of breath. Neurologic complications have not been widely reported without associated respiratory symptoms. These neurologic manifestations have been found mostly in the elderly. There has been no report of ataxia or COVID-19 cerebellitis in the young adult population without associated respiratory symptoms. CASE REPORT: Here we report the case of a 30-year-old patient who presented with isolated cerebellar symptoms and was diagnosed with COVID-19 cerebellitis. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: It is important for emergency physicians to know that COVID-19 can have many clinical manifestations and to have a high level of suspicion with acute neurologic symptoms.

COVID-19 coagulopathy and thrombosis: Analysis of hospital protocols in response to the rapidly evolving pandemic.

As the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic spread to the US, so too did descriptions of an associated coagulopathy and thrombotic complications. Hospitals created institutional protocols for inpatient management of COVID-19 coagulopathy and thrombosis in response to this developing data. We collected and analyzed protocols from 21 US academic medical centers developed between January and May 2020. We found greatest consensus on recommendations for heparin-based pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients without contraindications. Protocols differed regarding incorporation of D-dimer tests, dosing of VTE prophylaxis, indications for post-discharge pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis, how to evaluate for VTE, and the use of empiric therapeutic anticoagulation. These findings support ongoing efforts to establish international, evidence-based guidelines.

Hospital Ward Adaptation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A National Survey of Academic Medical Centers.

IMPORTANCE: Although intensive care unit (ICU) adaptations to the coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have received substantial attention , most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 have been in general medical units. OBJECTIVE: To characterize inpatient adaptations to care for non-ICU COVID-19 patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A network of 72 hospital medicine groups at US academic centers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: COVID-19 testing, approaches to personal protective equipment (PPE), and features of respiratory isolation units (RIUs). RESULTS: Fifty-one of 72 sites responded (71%) between April 3 and April 5, 2020. At the time of our survey, only 15 (30%) reported COVID-19 test results being available in less than 6 hours. Half of sites with PPE data available reported PPE stockpiles of 2 weeks or less. Nearly all sites (90%) reported implementation of RIUs. RIUs primarily utilized attending physicians, with few incorporating residents and none incorporating students. Isolation and room-entry policies focused on grouping care activities and utilizing technology (such as video visits) to communicate with and evaluate patients. The vast majority of sites reported decreases in frequency of in-room encounters across provider or team types. Forty-six percent of respondents reported initially unrecognized non-COVID-19 diagnoses in patients admitted for COVID-19 evaluation; a similar number reported delayed identification of COVID-19 in patients admitted for other reasons. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has required medical wards to rapidly adapt with expanding use of RIUs and use of technology emerging as critical approaches. Reports of unrecognized or delayed diagnoses highlight how such adaptations may produce potential adverse effects on care.