Examining the Relationship of an All-Cause Harm Patient Safety Measure and Critical Performance Measures at the Frontline of Care.

BACKGROUND: In 2015, the Institute of Medicine Vital Signs report called for a new patient safety composite measure to lessen the reporting burden of patient harm. Before this report, two patient safety organizations had developed an electronic all-cause harm measurement system leveraging data from the electronic health record, which identified and grouped harms into five broad categories and consolidated them into one all-cause harm outcome measure. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine the relationship between this all-cause harm patient safety measure and the following three performance measures important to overall hospital safety performance: safety culture, employee engagement, and patient experience. METHODS: We studied the relationship between all-cause harm and three performance measures on eight inpatient care units at one hospital for 7 months. RESULTS: The findings demonstrated strong correlations between an all-cause harm measure and patient safety culture, employee engagement, and patient experience at the hospital unit level. Four safety culture domains showed significant negative correlations with all-cause harm at a P value of 0.05 or less. Six employee engagement domains were significantly negatively correlated with all-cause harm at a P value of 0.01 or less, and six of the ten patient experience measures were significantly correlated with all-cause harm at a P value of 0.05 or less. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that there is a strong relationship between all-cause harm and these performance measures indicating that when there is a positive patient safety culture, a more engaged employee, and a more satisfying patient experience, there may be less all-cause harm.

Reducing Unneeded Clinical Variation in Sepsis and Heart Failure Care to Improve Outcomes and Reduce Cost: A Collaborative Engagement with Hospitalists in a MultiState System.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) measure hospitalist care for sepsis and heart failure patients using online simulated patients, (2) improve quality and reduce cost through customized feedback, and (3) compare patient-level outcomes between project participants and nonparticipants. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, quasi-controlled cohort study of hospitalists in eight hospitals matched with comparator hospitalists in six nonparticipating hospitals across the AdventHealth system. We provided measurement and feedback to participants using Clinical Performance and Value (CPV) vignettes to measure and track quality improvement. We then compared length of stay (LOS) and cost results between the two groups. RESULTS: 107 providers participated in the study. Over two years, participants improved CPV scores by nearly 8% (P < .001), with improvements in utilization of the three-hour sepsis bundle (46.0% vs 57.7%; P = .034) and ordering essential medical treatment elements for heart failure (58.2% vs 72.1%; P = .038). In study year one, average LOS observed/expected (O/E) rates dropped by 8% for participants, compared to 2.5% in the comparator group, equating to an additional 570 hospital days saved among project participants. In study year two, cost O/E rates improved from 1.16 to 0.98 for participants versus 1.14 to 1.01 in the comparator group. Based on these improvements, we calculated total cost savings of $6.2 million among study participants, with $3.8 million linked to system-wide improvements and an additional $2.4 million in savings attributable to this project. CONCLUSIONS: CPV case simulation-based measurement and feedback helped drive improvements in evidence-based care that translated into lower costs and LOS, above-and-beyond other improvements at AdventHealth.

Impact of Inpatient Harms on Hospital Finances and Patient Clinical Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the impact of all-cause inpatient harms on hospital finances and patient clinical outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of inpatient harm from 24 hospitals in a large multistate health system was conducted during 2009 to 2012 using the Institute of Healthcare Improvement Global Trigger Tool for Measuring Adverse Events. Inpatient harms were detected and categorized into harm (F-I), temporary harm (E), and no harm. RESULTS: Of the 21,007 inpatients in this study, 15,610 (74.3%) experienced no harm, 2818 (13.4%) experienced temporary harm, and 2579 (12.3%) experienced harm. A patient with harm was estimated to have higher total cost ($4617 [95% confidence interval (CI), $4364 to 4871]), higher variable cost ($1774 [95% CI, $1648 to $1900]), lower contribution margin (-$1112 [95% CI, -$1378 to -$847]), longer length of stay (2.6 d [95% CI, 2.5 to 2.8]), higher mortality probability (59%; odds ratio, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.0 to 2.0]), and higher 30-day readmission probability (74.4%; odds ratio, 2.9 [95% CI, 2.6 to 3.2]). A patient with temporary harm was estimated to have higher total cost ($2187 [95% CI, $2008 to $2366]), higher variable cost ($800 [95% CI, $709 to $892]), lower contribution margin (-$669 [95% CI, -$891 to -$446]), longer length of stay (1.3 d [95% CI, 1.2 to 1.4]), mortality probability not statistically different, and higher 30-day readmission probability (54.6%; odds ratio, 1.2 [95% CI, 1.1 to 1.4]). Total health system reduction of harm was associated with a decrease of $108 million in total cost, $48 million in variable cost, an increase of contribution margin by $18 million, and savings of 60,000 inpatient care days. CONCLUSIONS: This all-cause harm safety study indicates that inpatient harm has negative financial outcomes for hospitals and negative clinical outcomes for patients.

Outcomes of patients hospitalized for acute decompensated heart failure: does nesiritide make a difference?

BACKGROUND: Nesiritide is indicated in the treatment of acute decompensated heart failure. However, a recent meta-analysis reported that nesiritide may be associated with an increased risk of death. Our goal was to evaluate the impact of nesiritide treatment on four outcomes among adults hospitalized for congestive heart failure (CHF) during a three-year period. METHODS: CHF patients discharged between 1/1/2002 and 12/31/2004 from the Adventist Health System, a national, not-for-profit hospital system, were identified. 25,330 records were included in this retrospective study. Nesiritide odds ratios (OR) were adjusted for various factors including nine medications and/or an APR-DRG severity score. RESULTS: Initially, treatment with nesiritide was found to be associated with a 59% higher odds of hospital mortality (Unadjusted OR = 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31-1.93). Adjusting for race, low economic status, APR-DRG severity of illness score, and the receipt of nine medications yielded a nonsignificant nesiritide OR of 1.07 for hospital death (95% CI: 0.85-1.35). Nesiritide was positively associated with the odds of prolonged length of stay (all adjusted ORs = 1.66) and elevated pharmacy cost (all adjusted ORs > 5). CONCLUSION: In this observational study, nesiritide therapy was associated with increased length of stay and pharmacy cost, but not hospital mortality. Randomized trials are urgently needed to better define the efficacy, if any, of nesiritide in the treatment of decompensated heart failure.

Clinical pathway care improves outcomes among patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia.

PURPOSE: To examine the impact of a unique evidence-based clinical pathway on six outcomes of care in patients hospitalized for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of CAP patients discharged between January 1999 and December 2001, from 31 Adventist Health System institutions nationwide. A total of 22,196 records were available for multivariate analyses. Odds ratios (OR) for the outcomes were calculated and stratified by a unique severity score. The severity score ranged from 1 to 5, where 5 indicated the most severe condition. RESULTS: Pathway patients were significantly less likely to die in-hospital compared with non-pathway patients in four of the five severity strata (OR in severity level 1=0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.70). In all severity strata, pathway patients were approximately twice as likely as non-pathway patients to receive blood cultures and appropriate antibiotic therapy. Among patients who were classified as severity level 1, pathway patients experienced an 80% reduction in the odds of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation (OR=0.20; 95% CI, 0.12-0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who were placed on pneumonia clinical pathway care were much more likely than non-pathway patients to have favorable outcomes of care.