Impact of billing reforms on academic hospitalist physician and advanced practice provider collaboration: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Medicare previously announced plans for new billing reforms for inpatient visits that are shared by physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs) whereby the clinician spending the most time on the patient visit would bill for the visit. OBJECTIVE: To understand how inpatient hospital medicine teams utilize APPs in patient care and how the proposed billing policies might impact future APP utilization. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted focus groups with hospitalist physicians, APPs, and other leaders from 21 academic hospitals across the United States. Utilizing rapid qualitative methods, focus groups were analyzed using a mixed inductive and deductive method at the semantic level with templated summaries and matrix analysis. Thirty-three individuals (physicians [n = 21], APPs [n = 10], practice manager [n = 1], and patient representative [n = 1]) participated in six focus groups. RESULTS: Four themes emerged from the analysis of the focus groups, including: (1) staffing models with APPs are rapidly evolving, (2) these changes were felt to be driven by staffing shortages, financial models, and governance with minimal consideration to teamwork and relationships, (3) time-based billing was perceived to value tasks over cognitive workload, and (4) that the proposed billing changes may create unintended consequences impacting collaboration and professional satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Physician and APP collaborative care models are increasingly evolving to independent visits often driven by workloads, financial drivers, and local regulations such as medical staff rules and hospital bylaws. Understanding which staffing models produce optimal patient, clinician, and organizational outcomes should inform billing policies rather than the reverse.

Contextual Factors Influencing the Implementation of a Multifaceted Intervention to Improve Teamwork and Quality for Hospitalized Patients: A Multisite Qualitative Comparative Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Many hospitals have begun to implement models that combine interventions to redesign care for medical patients. These models include localization of physicians to specific units, nurse-physician co-leadership, and interprofessional rounds. Understanding contextual factors, the circumstances surrounding an implementation effort that influence its success, is essential to provide guidance to leaders implementing similar models of care. METHODS: A multisite qualitative comparative case study was conducted with four hospitals in the REdesigning SystEms to Improve Teamwork and Quality for Hospitalized Patients (RESET) study. Researchers conducted observations and semistructured interviews with 40 health care professionals and four implementation mentors. Researchers used inductive qualitative content analysis, reviewed fidelity of implementation trends, and performed cross-case analysis to identify contextual factors and their influence on implementation. RESULTS: Four contextual factors were associated with implementation success: (1) senior hospital leader involvement and organizational support; (2) alignment of RESET with organizational, hospital, and professional group priorities; (3) site leaders' engagement in RESET and relationship with one another; and (4) perceptions of need and intervention benefits among professionals. Implementation was optimal when senior leadership was stable and tangibly involved; organizational, hospital, and group goals were aligned; site leaders were committed and collaborated well; and nurses and physicians perceived a need for and benefits from the interventions. CONCLUSION: Four interrelated contextual factors are associated with the implementation of combined interventions to redesign care for hospitalized medical patients. Hospital leaders should consider these findings prior to implementing similar interventions and be prepared to address challenges related to these factors during implementation.

Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on Women Hospitalists: A Mixed-Gender Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Women physicians have faced persistent challenges, including gender bias, salary inequities, a disproportionate share of caregiving and domestic responsibilities, and limited representation in leadership. Data indicate the COVID-19 pandemic further highlighted and exacerbated these inequities. OBJECTIVE: To understand the pandemic's impact on women physicians and to brainstorm solutions to better support women physicians. DESIGN: Mixed-gender semi-structured focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalists in the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network (HOMERuN). APPROACH: Six semi-structured virtual focus groups were held with 22 individuals from 13 institutions comprised primarily of academic hospitalist physicians. Rapid qualitative methods including templated summaries and matrix analysis were applied to identify major themes and subthemes. KEY RESULTS: Four key themes emerged: (1) the pandemic exacerbated perceived gender inequities, (2) women's academic productivity and career development were negatively impacted, (3) women held disproportionate roles as caregivers and household managers, and (4) institutional pandemic responses were often misaligned with workforce needs, especially those of women hospitalists. Multiple interventions were proposed including: creating targeted workforce solutions and benefits to address the disproportionate caregiving burden placed on women, addressing hospitalist scheduling and leave practices, ensuring promotion pathways value clinical and COVID-19 contributions, creating transparency around salary and non-clinical time allocation, and ensuring women are better represented in leadership roles. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalists perceived and experienced that women physicians faced negative impacts from the pandemic in multiple domains including leadership opportunities and scholarship, while also shouldering larger caregiving duties than men. There are many opportunities to improve workplace conditions for women; however, current institutional efforts were perceived as misaligned to actual needs. Thus, policy and programmatic changes, such as those proposed by this cohort of hospitalists, are needed to advance equity in the workplace.

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.

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.

Classifying and Disclosing Medical Errors.

Medical errors are an unfortunate but common occurrence in health care. It is important to understand what medical errors are and what types of harm can occur to patients. Along with recognition of the error, disclosure is an equally important part of the process. Clinicians should provide open and honest discussion about the events that occurred to patients along with feedback to institutions on ways to prevent such errors in the future.

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.

Learning from Missed Opportunities Through Reflective Practice.

Identification of diagnostic errors is difficult but is not alone sufficient for performance improvement. Instead, cases must be reflected on to identify ways to improve decision-making in the future. There are many tools and modalities to retrospectively reflect on action to study medical decisions and outcomes and improve future performance. Reflection in action-in which diagnostic decisions are considered in real-time-may also improve medical decision-making especially through strategies such as structured reflection. Ongoing regular feedback can normalize the discussion about improving decision-making, enable reflective practice, and improve decision making.

Implementation of a triage nurse role and the effect on hospitalist workload.

OBJECTIVES: Hospital medicine groups vary staffing models to match available workforce with expected patient volumes and acuity. Larger groups often assign a single hospitalist to triage pager duty which can be burdensome due to frequent interruptions and multitasking. We introduced a new role, the Triage nurse, to hold the triage pager and distribute patients. We sought to determine the effect of this Triage Nurse on the perceived workload of hospitalists and frequency of pages. METHODS: We partnered with our patient throughput department to implement the Triage Nurse role who took the responsibility of tracking and distributing admissions among three admitting physicians along with coordinating report. We used the National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) to measure perceived workload and accessed pager logs of admitters for 3 months before and after implementation. RESULTS: Overall, 50 of an expected 67 NASA-TLX surveys (74.6%) were returned in the pre-intervention period and 64 of 92 (69.6%) were returned in the post-intervention period. We found a statistically significant reduction in the domains of physical demand, temporal demand, effort and frustration from pre- to post-intervention periods (p < 0.01). There was also a significant decrease in the performance domain (p = 0.01) with a lower number indicative of better perceived performance. There was a significant reduction in the mean number of pages received by admitting hospitalists over their 9-h shifts (81.3 + 17.3 vs 52.4 + 7.3; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The implementation of the Triage Nurse role was associated with a significant decrease in the perceived workload of admitting hospitalists. Our findings are important because workload and interruptions can contribute to errors and burnout. Future studies should test interventions to improve hospitalist workload and evaluate their effect on patient outcomes and physician wellness.

Bracing for the Wave: a Multi-Institutional Survey Analysis of Inpatient Workforce Adaptations in the First Phase of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Medical centers across the country have had to rapidly adapt clinician staffing strategies to accommodate large influxes of patients with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the adaptations and staffing strategies that US academic medical centers employed in the inpatient setting early in the spread of COVID-19, and to assess whether those changes were sustained during the first phase of the pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey assessing organization-level, team-level, and clinician-level inpatient workforce adaptations. PARTICIPANTS: Hospital medicine leadership at 27 academic medical centers in the USA. KEY RESULTS: Twenty-seven of 36 centers responded to the survey (75%). Widespread practices included frequent staffing reassessment, organization-level changes such as geographic cohorting and redeployment of non-hospitalists, and exempting high-risk healthcare workers from direct care of patients with COVID-19. Several practices were implemented but discontinued, such as reduction of non-essential services, indicating that they were less sustainable for large centers. CONCLUSION: These findings provide guidance for inpatient leaders seeking to identify sustainable practices for COVID-19 inpatient workforce planning.

Use of Unit-Based Interventions to Improve the Quality of Care for Hospitalized Medical Patients: A National Survey.

BACKGROUND: Recent publications have drawn attention to interventions to redesign aspects of care delivery for hospitalized medical patients, including localization of physicians to specific units, nurse-physician co-leadership, interdisciplinary rounds (IDR), and access to quality performance data. Use of these interventions across hospitals has not been previously described. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of internal medicine (IM) residency program directors and hospital medicine group (HMG) leaders in the United States was conducted to characterize use of unit-based interventions on inpatient medical services. The survey served as a pilot study to assess the use of localization of physicians to specific units, nurse-physician co-leadership, IDR, and access to quality performance data. RESULTS: Ninety-four IM program directors (response rate, 23.3%) and 62 HMG leaders (response rate, 20.7%) responded. No single intervention was used by the vast majority of sites, and the extent and intensity of use varied. About a quarter of respondents indicated that physicians typically cared for patients on only one to two units, a third or fewer had unit co-leadership on at least half of hospital units, fewer than half had daily IDR, and approximately half had access to unit-level performance data. Most IM programs and hospitalist groups had implemented 0 to 1 interventions to a high degree of fidelity, and few (≤ 5%) had implemented all 4. CONCLUSION: IM program directors and HMG leaders reported variation in use of unit-based interventions to improve quality of care for medical inpatients. Future research should evaluate the association of the degree and intensity of using unit-based interventions on patient outcomes.