Inpatient Understanding of Their Care Team and Receipt of Mixed Messages: a Two-Site Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient understanding of their care, supported by physician involvement and consistent communication, is key to positive health outcomes. However, patient and care team characteristics can hinder this understanding. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess inpatients' understanding of their care and their perceived receipt of mixed messages, as well as the associated patient, care team, and hospitalization characteristics. DESIGN: We administered a 30-item survey to inpatients between February 2020 and November 2021 and incorporated other hospitalization data from patients' health records. PARTICIPANTS: Randomly selected inpatients at two urban academic hospitals in the USA who were (1) admitted to general medicine services and (2) on or past the third day of their hospitalization. MAIN MEASURES: Outcome measures include (1) knowledge of main doctor and (2) frequency of mixed messages. Potential predictors included mean notes per day, number of consultants involved in the patient's care, number of unit transfers, number of attending physicians, length of stay, age, sex, insurance type, and primary race. KEY RESULTS: A total of 172 patients participated in our survey. Most patients were unaware of their main doctor, an issue related to more daily interactions with care team members. Twenty-three percent of patients reported receiving mixed messages at least sometimes, most often between doctors on the primary team and consulting doctors. However, the likelihood of receiving mixed messages decreased with more daily interactions with care team members. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were often unaware of their main doctor, and almost a quarter perceived receiving mixed messages about their care. Future research should examine patients' understanding of different aspects of their care, and the nature of interactions that might improve clarity around who's in charge while simultaneously reducing the receipt of mixed messages.

Evaluating a patient safety learning laboratory to create an interdisciplinary ecosystem for health care innovation.

BACKGROUND: In response to the complexity, challenges, and slow pace of innovation, health care organizations are adopting interdisciplinary team approaches. Systems engineering, which is oriented to creating new, scalable processes that perform with higher reliability and lower costs, holds promise for driving innovation in the face of challenges to team performance. A patient safety learning laboratory (lab) can be an essential aspect of fostering interdisciplinary team innovation across multiple projects and organizations by creating an ecosystem focused on deploying systems engineering methods to accomplish process redesign. PURPOSE: We sought to identify the role and activities of a learning ecosystem that support interdisciplinary team innovation through evaluation of a patient safety learning lab. METHODS: Our study included three participating learning lab project teams. We applied a mixed-methods approach using a convergent design that combined data from qualitative interviews of team members conducted as teams neared the completion of their redesign projects, as well as evaluation questionnaires administered throughout the 4-year learning lab. RESULTS: Our results build on learning theories by showing that successful learning ecosystems continually create alignment between interdisciplinary teams' activities, organizational context, and innovation project objectives. The study identified four types of alignment, interpersonal/interprofessional, informational, structural, and processual, and supporting activities for alignment to occur. CONCLUSION: Interdisciplinary learning ecosystems have the potential to foster health care improvement and innovation through alignment of team activities, project goals, and organizational contexts. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This study applies to interdisciplinary teams tackling multilevel system challenges in their health care organization and suggests that the work of such teams benefits from the four types of alignment. Alignment on all four dimensions may yield best results.

Moving Forward from COVID-19: Organizational Dimensions of Effective Hospital Emergency Management.

Federal investment in emergency preparedness has increased notably since the 9/11 attacks, yet it is unclear if and how US hospital readiness has changed in the 20 years since then. In particular, understanding effective aspects of hospital emergency management programs is essential to improve healthcare systems' readiness for future disasters. The authors of this article examined the state of US hospital emergency management, focusing on the following question: During the COVID-19 pandemic, what aspects of hospital emergency management, including program components and organizational characteristics, were most effective in supporting and improving emergency preparedness and response? We conducted semistructured interviews of emergency managers and leaders at 12 urban and rural hospitals across the country. Through qualitative analysis of content derived from examination of transcripts from our interviews, we identified 7 dimensions of effective healthcare emergency management: (1) identify capable leaders; (2) assure robust institutional support; (3) design effective, tiered communications systems; (4) embrace the hospital incident command system to delineate roles and responsibilities; (5) actively promote collaboration and team building; (6) appreciate the necessity of training and exercises; and (7) balance structure and flexibility. These dimensions represent the unique and critical intersection of organizational factors and emergency management program characteristics at the core of hospital emergency preparedness and response. Extending these findings, we provide several recommendations for hospitals to better develop and sustain what we call a response culture in supporting effective emergency management.

Patterns of Use of a Price Transparency Tool for Childbirth Among Pregnant Individuals With Commercial Insurance.

Importance: When introduced a decade ago, patient-facing price transparency tools had low use rates and were largely not associated with changes in spending. Little is known about how such tools are used by pregnant individuals in anticipation of childbirth, a shoppable service with increasing out-of-pocket spending. Objective: To measure changes over time in the patterns and characteristics of use of a price transparency tool by pregnant individuals, and to identify the association between price transparency tool use, coinsurance, and childbirth spending. Design, Setting, and Participants: This descriptive cross-sectional study of 2 cohorts used data from a US commercial health insurance company that launched a web-based price transparency tool in 2010. Data on all price transparency tool queries for 2 periods (January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012, and January 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016) were obtained. The sample included enrollees aged 19 to 45 years who had a delivery episode during 2 periods (November 1, 2011, to December 31, 2012, or November 1, 2015, to December 31, 2016) and were continuously enrolled for the 10 months prior to delivery (N = 253 606). Exposures: Access to a web-based price transparency tool that provided individualized out-of-pocket price estimates for vaginal and cesarean deliveries. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were searches on the price transparency tool by delivery mode (vaginal or cesarean), timing (first, second, or third trimester), and individual characteristics (age at childbirth, rurality, pregnancy risk status, coinsurance exposure, area educational attainment, and area median household income). Another outcome was the association of out-of-pocket childbirth spending with price transparency tool use. Results: The sample included 253 606 pregnant individuals, of whom 131 224 (51.7%) were in the 2011 to 2012 cohort and 122 382 (48.3%) were in the 2015 to 2016 cohort. In the 2015 to 2016 cohort, the mean (SD) age was 31 years (5.2 years) and most individuals had coinsurance for delivery (94 251 [77.0%]). Price searching increased from 5.9% in the 2011 to 2012 cohort to 13.0% in the 2015 to 2016 cohort. In the 2015 to 2016 cohort, 43.9% of searchers' first price query was in their first trimester. The adjusted probability of searching was lower for individuals with a high-risk pregnancy due to a previous cesarean delivery (11.5%; 95% CI, 11.0%-12.1%) vs individuals with low-risk pregnancy (13.4%; 95% CI, 12.9%-14.0%). Use increased monotonically with coinsurance, from 9.2% (95% CI, 8.7%-9.8%) among individuals with no coinsurance to 15.0% (95% CI, 14.4%-15.5%) among individuals with 11% or higher coinsurance. After adjusting for covariates, searching was positively associated with out-of-pocket delivery episode spending. Among patients with 11% coinsurance or higher, early and late searchers spent more out of pocket ($59.57 [95% CI, $33.44-$85.96] and $73.33 [95% CI, $32.04-$115.29], respectively), compared with never searchers. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study indicate that the proportion of pregnant individuals who sought price information before childbirth more than doubled within the first 6 years of availability of a price transparency tool. These findings suggest that price information may help individuals anticipate their out-of-pocket childbirth costs.