The Volume and Cost of Quality Metric Reporting.

Importance: US hospitals report data on many health care quality metrics to government and independent health care rating organizations, but the annual cost to acute care hospitals of measuring and reporting quality metric data, independent of resources spent on quality interventions, is not well known. Objective: To evaluate externally reported inpatient quality metrics for adult patients and estimate the cost of data collection and reporting, independent of quality-improvement efforts. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective time-driven activity-based costing study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital (Baltimore, Maryland) with hospital personnel involved in quality metric reporting processes interviewed between January 1, 2019, and June 30, 2019, about quality reporting activities in the 2018 calendar year. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes included the number of metrics, annual person-hours per metric type, and annual personnel cost per metric type. Results: A total of 162 unique metrics were identified, of which 96 (59.3%) were claims-based, 107 (66.0%) were outcome metrics, and 101 (62.3%) were related to patient safety. Preparing and reporting data for these metrics required an estimated 108 478 person-hours, with an estimated personnel cost of $5 038 218.28 (2022 USD) plus an additional $602 730.66 in vendor fees. Claims-based (96 metrics; $37 553.58 per metric per year) and chart-abstracted (26 metrics; $33 871.30 per metric per year) metrics used the most resources per metric, while electronic metrics consumed far less (4 metrics; $1901.58 per metric per year). Conclusions and Relevance: Significant resources are expended exclusively for quality reporting, and some methods of quality assessment are far more expensive than others. Claims-based metrics were unexpectedly found to be the most resource intensive of all metric types. Policy makers should consider reducing the number of metrics and shifting to electronic metrics, when possible, to optimize resources spent in the overall pursuit of higher quality.

Improving Clinician Well-being and Patient Safety Through Human-Centered Design.

This Viewpoint discusses the need for clinicians to be involved in every stage of the development of patient safety interventions in order to not only improve patient care, but also maximize the interventions' effectiveness and ensure clinician well-being and buy-in.

Lessons Learned From Rapid Deployment of 100% Mortality Review for Patients With COVID-19 Across a Health System.

Mortality review is one approach to systematically examine delivery of care and identify areas for improvement. Health system leaders sought to ensure hospitals were adapting to the rapidly changing medical guidance for COVID-19 and delivering high-quality care. Thus, all patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis within the 6-hospital system who died between March and July 2020 were reviewed within 72 hours. Concerns for preventability advanced review to level 2 (content experts) or 3 (hospital leadership). Reviews included available autopsy and cardiac arrest data. Overall health system mortality for COVID-19 patient admissions was 12.5% and mortality for mechanically ventilated patients was 34.4%. Significant differences in mortality rates were observed among hospitals due to demographic variations in patient populations at hospitals. Mortality reviews resulted in the dissemination of evolving knowledge among sites using an electronic medical record order set, implementation of proning teams, and development of checklists for converting COVID-19 floors and units.

Improving Allergy Documentation: A Retrospective Electronic Health Record System-Wide Patient Safety Initiative.

OBJECTIVES: Documentation of allergies in a coded, non-free-text format in the electronic health record (EHR) triggers clinical decision support to prevent adverse events. Health system-wide patient safety initiatives to improve EHR allergy documentation by specifically decreasing free-text allergy entries have not been reported. The goal of this initiative was to systematically reduce free-text allergen entries in the EHR allergy module. METHODS: We assessed free-text allergy entries in a commercial EHR used at a multihospital integrated health care system in the greater Boston area. Using both manual and automated methods, a multidisciplinary consensus group prioritized high-risk and frequently used free-text allergens for conversion to coded entries, added new allergen entries, and deleted duplicate allergen entries. Environmental allergies were moved to the patient problem list. RESULTS: We identified 242,330 free-text entries, which included a variety of environmental allergies (42%), food allergies (18%), contrast media allergies (13%), "no known allergy" (12%), drug allergies (2%), and "no contrast allergy" (2%). Most free-text entries were entered by medical assistants in ambulatory settings (34%) and registered nurses in perioperative settings (20%). We remediated a total of 52,206 free-text entries with automated methods and 79,578 free-text entries with manual methods. CONCLUSIONS: Through this multidisciplinary intervention, we identified and remediated 131,784 free-text entries in our EHR to improve clinical decision support and patient safety. Additional strategies are required to completely eliminate free-text allergy entry, and establish systematic, consistent, and safe guidelines for documenting allergies.

Safety Culture in the Operating Room: Variability Among Perioperative Healthcare Workers.

INTRODUCTION: Safety culture is defined as the product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies, and patterns of behavior that determine an organization's health and safety management. There is a lack of studies assessing patient safety culture in the perioperative setting. OBJECTIVES: We examined safety culture at a single tertiary care hospital, across all types of surgery, using previously collected data from a validated survey tool. We aim to understand how safety culture varies among perioperative staff. METHODS: The Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture was administered at a single tertiary care hospital in 2014. We identified 431 respondents as perioperative healthcare workers: surgery attending physician, surgery trainee physician, anesthesia attending physician, anesthesia trainee physician, nurse, and technician. We calculated percent positive scores for each dimension of safety culture, as well as a composite score. Pairwise comparisons were calculated via analysis of variance. RESULTS: The average response rate was 67%. The dimensions with the highest average percent positive scores were teamwork within hospital units (69%) and organizational learning and continuous improvement (57%). The dimensions with the lowest scores were feedback and communication about error (34%) and hospital handoffs and transitions (30%). Surgery attending physicians perceived the strongest safety climate overall, whereas nurses and surgical technicians perceived significantly worse safety climate. CONCLUSIONS: We observed significant variability in perioperative safety culture, across dimensions of safety climate, professional roles, and levels of training. These variations in safety culture should be addressed when implementing culture change programs in the perioperative setting.

Building an Ambulatory Safety Program at an Academic Health System.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety has traditionally focused on the inpatient setting; however, there is an increased awareness of ambulatory safety risk. However, successful strategies and programs to mitigate risk in the ambulatory setting are lacking. PROGRAM: In 2012, we started building a multidisciplinary ambulatory safety program at an academic health system. Our team was composed of clinical, administrative, and patient safety membership. Based on organizational needs, our program initially focused on the following: (1) safety reporting, (2) safety culture measurement, (3) medication safety, and (4) test result management. WHAT WE DID: We were able to develop initiatives around safety reporting, safety culture survey administration, and medication safety and begin to work on test result management. Internal metrics were developed to measure performance and to drive improvement. SAFETY REPORTING: When evaluating our ambulatory safety reports, we discovered that less than one-third of staff filing safety reports requested feedback. From 2013 to 2018, we tested various strategies to increase the rates of feedback to staff and ultimately found that a decentralized process that was supported by the ambulatory safety program could achieve rates of feedback of 90%. SAFETY CULTURE MEASUREMENT: We administered the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Medical Office Survey in 2012, 2014, and 2016, achieving a more than 70% response rate across 70 unique ambulatory areas. Data from these surveys were shared with senior hospital leadership, local departmental directors, and managers and ultimately with frontline staff focusing on two key survey areas: communication openness and communication about error. MEDICATION SAFETY: From 2012 to 2014, our rates of ambulatory medication reconciliation increased to more than 90% in both primary care and specialty practices in our homegrown electronic medical record system. From 2015 to 2016, rates of ambulatory medication reconciliation in our new vendor-based electronic medical record were 73% as of August 2017. CONCLUSIONS: We were able to build an infrastructure to focus and support ambulatory safety efforts on safety reporting, safety culture change, and medication reconciliation with a team dedicated to ambulatory-focused safety risks and encountered many challenges along the way. Currently, we are expanding our program to concentrate on test result follow-up to prevent missed and delayed diagnosis and medication error reduction.

Body of Evidence: Do Autopsy Findings Impact Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes?

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians may hesitate to advocate for autopsies out of concern for increased malpractice risk if the pathological findings at time of death differ from the clinical findings. We aimed to understand the impact of autopsy findings on malpractice claim outcomes. METHODS: Closed malpractice claims with loss dates between 1995 and 2015 involving death related to inpatient care at 3 Harvard Medical School hospitals were extracted from a captive malpractice insurer's database. These claims were linked to patients' electronic health records and their autopsy reports. Using the Goldman classification system, 2 physician reviewers blinded to claim outcome determined whether there was major, minor, or no discordance between the final clinical diagnoses and pathologic diagnoses. Claims were compared depending on whether an autopsy was performed and whether there was major versus minor/no clinical-pathologic discordance. Primary outcomes included percentage of claims paid through settlement or plaintiff verdict and the amount of indemnity paid, inflation adjusted. RESULTS: Of 293 malpractice claims related to an inpatient death that could be linked to patients' electronic health records, 89 claims (30%) had an autopsy performed by either the hospital or medical examiner. The most common claim allegation was an issue with clinician diagnosis, which was statistically less common in the autopsy group (18% versus 38%, P = 0.001). There was no difference in percentage of claims paid whether an autopsy was performed or not (42% versus 41%, P = 0.90) and no difference in median indemnity of paid claims after adjusting for number of defendants ($1,180,537 versus $906,518, P = 0.15). Thirty-one percent of claims with hospital autopsies performed demonstrated major discordance between autopsy and clinical findings. Claims with major clinical-pathologic discordance also did not have a statistically significant difference in percentage paid (44% versus 41%, P > 0.99) or amount paid ($895,954 versus $1,494,120, P = 0.10) compared with claims with minor or no discordance. CONCLUSIONS: Although multiple factors determine malpractice claim outcome, in this cohort, claims in which an autopsy was performed did not result in more paid outcomes, even when there was major discordance between clinical and pathologic diagnoses.

Operational Recommendations for Scarce Resource Allocation in a Public Health Crisis.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic may require rationing of various medical resources if demand exceeds supply. Theoretical frameworks for resource allocation have provided much needed ethical guidance, but hospitals still need to address objective practicalities and legal vetting to operationalize scarce resource allocation schemata. To develop operational scarce resource allocation processes for public health catastrophes, including the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, five health systems in Maryland formed a consortium-with diverse expertise and representation-representing more than half of all hospitals in the state. Our efforts built on a prior statewide community engagement process that determined the values and moral reference points of citizens and health-care professionals regarding the allocation of ventilators during a public health catastrophe. Through a partnership of health systems, we developed a scarce resource allocation framework informed by citizens' values and by general expert consensus. Allocation schema for mechanical ventilators, ICU resources, blood components, novel therapeutics, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and renal replacement therapies were developed. Creating operational algorithms for each resource posed unique challenges; each resource's varying nature and underlying data on benefit prevented any single algorithm from being universally applicable. The development of scarce resource allocation processes must be iterative, legally vetted, and tested. We offer our processes to assist other regions that may be faced with the challenge of rationing health-care resources during public health catastrophes.