Effect of Complementary Interventions to Redesign Care on Teamwork and Quality for Hospitalized Medical Patients : A Pragmatic Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Multiple challenges impede interprofessional teamwork and the provision of high-quality care to hospitalized patients. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of interventions to redesign hospital care delivery on teamwork and patient outcomes. DESIGN: Pragmatic controlled trial. Hospitals selected 1 unit for implementation of interventions and a second to serve as a control. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03745677). SETTING: Medical units at 4 U.S. hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Health care professionals and hospitalized medical patients. INTERVENTION: Mentored implementation of unit-based physician teams, unit nurse-physician coleadership, enhanced interprofessional rounds, unit-level performance reports, and patient engagement activities. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were teamwork climate among health care professionals and adverse events experienced by patients. Secondary outcomes were length of stay (LOS), 30-day readmissions, and patient experience. Difference-in-differences (DID) analyses of patient outcomes compared intervention versus control units before and after implementation of interventions. RESULTS: Among 155 professionals who completed pre- and postintervention surveys, the median teamwork climate score was higher after than before the intervention only for nurses (n = 77) (median score, 88.0 [IQR, 77.0 to 91.0] vs. 80.0 [IQR, 70.0 to 89.0]; P = 0.022). Among 3773 patients, a greater percentage had at least 1 adverse event after compared with before the intervention on control units (change, 1.61 percentage points [95% CI, 0.01 to 3.22 percentage points]). A similar percentage of patients had at least 1 adverse event after compared with before the intervention on intervention units (change, 0.43 percentage point [CI, -1.25 to 2.12 percentage points]). A DID analysis of adverse events did not show a significant difference in change (adjusted DID, -0.92 percentage point [CI, -2.49 to 0.64 percentage point]; P = 0.25). Similarly, there were no differences in LOS, readmissions, or patient experience. LIMITATION: Adverse events occurred less frequently than anticipated, limiting statistical power. CONCLUSION: Despite improved teamwork climate among nurses, interventions to redesign care for hospitalized patients were not associated with improved patient outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Measuring the unmet needs of American military Veterans and their caregivers: Survey protocol of the HERO CARE survey.

BACKGROUND: Empowering Veterans to age in place is a Department of Veterans Affairs priority. Family or unpaid caregivers play an important role in supporting Veterans to achieve this goal. Effectively meeting the needs of Veterans and caregivers requires identifying unmet needs and relevant gaps in resources to address those needs. METHODS: Using a modified Socio-Ecological Model, we developed a prospective longitudinal panel design survey. We randomly selected 20,000 community-dwelling Veterans enrolled in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), across five VHA sites. We oversampled Veterans with a higher predicted 2-year long-term institutional care (LTIC) risk. Veterans were mailed a packet containing a Veteran survey and a caregiver survey, to be answered by their caregiver if they had one. The Veteran survey assessed the following health-related domains: physical, mental, social determinants of health, and caregiver assistance. Caregivers completed questions regarding their demographic factors, caregiving activities, impact of caregiving, use of VA and non-VA services, and caregiver support resources. Follow-up surveys will be repeated twice at 12-month intervals for the same respondents. This article describes the HERO CARE survey protocol, content, and response rates. RESULTS: We received responses from 8,056 Veterans and 3,579 caregivers between July 2021 and January 2022, with 95.6% being received via mail. Veteran respondents were mostly males (96.5%), over 65 years of age (94.9%), married (55.0%), Non-Hispanic White (75.2%), and residing in urban areas (80.7%). CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal survey is unique in its comprehensive assessment of domains relevant to older Veterans stratified by LTIC risk and their caregivers, focusing on social determinants, caregiver support, and the use of caregiver support resources. Survey data will be linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and VA data. The results of this study will inform better planning of non-institutional care services and policy for Veterans and their caregivers.

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.

Burnout Among Hospitalists During the Early COVID-19 Pandemic: a National Mixed Methods Survey Study.

BACKGROUND  : Hospitalist physician stress was exacerbated by the pandemic, yet there have been no large scale studies of contributing factors. OBJECTIVE: Assess remediable components of burnout in hospitalists. PARTICIPANTS, STUDY DESIGN AND MEASURES: In this Coping with COVID study, we focused on assessment of stress factors among 1022 hospital-based clinicians surveyed between April to December 2020. We assessed variables previously associated with burnout (anxiety/depression due to COVID-19, work overload, fear of exposure or transmission, mission/purpose, childcare stress and feeling valued) on 4 point Likert scales, with results dichotomized with the top two categories meaning "present"; burnout was assessed with the Mini Z single item measure (top 3 choices = burnout). Quantitative analyses utilized multilevel logistic regression; qualitative analysis used inductive and deductive methods. These data informed a conceptual model. KEY RESULTS: Of 58,408 HCWs (median response rate 32%), 1022 were hospital-based clinicians (906 (89%) physicians; 449 (44%) female; 469 (46%) White); 46% of these hospital-based clinicians reported burnout. Work overload was associated with almost 5 times the odds of burnout (OR 4.9, 95% CIs 3.67, 6.85, p < 0.001), and those with anxiety or depression had 4 times the odds of burnout (OR 4.2, CIs 3.21, 7.12, p < 0.001), while those feeling valued had half the burnout odds (OR 0.43, CIs 0.31, 0.61, p < 0.001). Regression models estimated 42% of burnout variance was explained by these variables. In open-ended comments, leadership support was helpful, with "great leadership" represented by transparency, regular updates, and opportunities to ask questions. CONCLUSIONS: In this national study of hospital medicine, 2 variables were significantly related to burnout (workload and mental health) while two variables (feeling valued and leadership) were likely mitigators. These variables merit further investigation as means of reducing burnout in hospital medicine.

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.

Foundational Collective Actions for Achieving Agile High-Quality Primary Care in the United States.

In 2021, the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine Committee on Implementing High-Quality Primary Care published its recommendations to expand the provision of high-quality primary care in the USA. These include paying for primary care teams to care for people, ensuring that high-quality primary care is available, training primary care teams where people live and work, and designing information technology that serves the patient, family, and care team. Many of these recommendations echo those of prior calls for action, including the Institute of Medicine's 1996 report. However, the 2021 report recognizes the importance of implementation in its final recommendation of ensuring that high-quality primary care is implemented in the USA. We consider the NASEM recommendations in terms of the complexity of the task of supporting interconnected implementation activities that occur in local contexts. With this vantage point, we identify foundational collective actions, including the creation of an accountable leadership entity, payment reform, and community networks. We then discuss the creation of a monitoring mechanism to assess and support sustained action.

Interdisciplinary Team Meetings in Practice: an Observational Study of IDTs, Sensemaking Around Care Transitions, and Readmission Rates.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary teams (IDTs) have been implemented to improve collaboration in hospital care, but their impact on patient outcomes, including readmissions, has been mixed. These mixed results might be rooted in differences in organization of IDT meetings between hospitals, as well as variation in IDT characteristics and function. We hypothesize that relationships between IDT members are an important team characteristic, influencing IDT function in terms of how members make sense of what is happening with patients, a process called sensemaking OBJECTIVE: (1) To describe how IDT meetings are organized in practice, (2) assess differences in IDT member relationships and sensemaking during patient discussions, and (3) explore their potential association with risk-stratified readmission rates (RSRRs). DESIGN: Observational, explanatory convergent mixed-methods case-comparison study of IDT meetings in 10 Veterans Affairs hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians participating in IDTs and facility leadership. APPROACH: Three-person teams observed and recorded IDT meetings during week-long visits. We used observational data to characterize relationships and sensemaking during IDT patient discussions. To assess sensemaking, we used 2 frameworks that reflected sensemaking around each patient's situation generally, and around care transitions specifically. We examined the association between IDT relationships and sensemaking, and RSRRs. KEY RESULTS: We observed variability in IDT organization, characteristics, and function across 10 hospitals. This variability was greater between hospitals than between teams at the same hospital. Relationship characteristics and both types of sensemaking were all significantly, positively correlated. General sensemaking regarding each patient was significantly negatively associated with RSRR (- 0.65, p = 0.044). CONCLUSIONS: IDTs vary not only in how they are organized, but also in team relationships and sensemaking. Though our design does not allow for inferences of causation, these differences may be associated with hospital readmission rates.

Growth trends of the adult hospitalist workforce between 2012 and 2019.

BACKGROUND: Accurately identifying the number of practicing hospitalists across the United States continues to be a challenge. Characterizing the workforce is important in the context of healthcare reforms and public reporting. OBJECTIVE: We sought to estimate the number of adult hospitalists practicing in the United States over an 8-year period, to examine patterns in growth, and begin to explore billing patterns. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective study using national Medicare Part B claims datasets. We applied a commonly used 90% threshold of billing hospital visit-associated Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System codes to identify adult hospitalists in publicly available Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment data for 2012-2019. We then analyzed billing patterns for those identified hospitalists. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Identify trends in the number of identified adult hospitalists, including those self-identified. Compare hospitalists' billing to that of non-hospitalist Internal Medicine and Family Medicine physicians. RESULTS: We saw more than a 50% growth rate of practicing adult hospitalists between 2012 and 2019. In 2019, we identified 44,037 adult hospitalists. CONCLUSIONS: The number of adult hospitalists continued to grow at a consistent rate, such that hospitalists are in the top five largest physician specialties in the United States. In the absence of more formal identification and consistent use by hospitalists, a threshold continues to be a meaningful tool to characterize the workforce.

Engaging Veterans, caregivers, and system stakeholders to improve VA home and community-based services.

OBJECTIVE: To understand Veterans', caregivers', and stakeholders' perceptions of home-based and caregiver support services and their suggestions for improvement to better align services with needs. DATA SOURCES: We identified Veterans and caregivers at four EDCoE sites using the VA high-need, high-risk list, representing Veterans who qualify for home-based primary care. We randomly selected Veterans and their caregivers, stratifying by age. We also identified leaders and clinicians involved in clinical service delivery. STUDY DESIGN: Between February and November 2019, we conducted in-person and telephone interviews and focus groups using semi-structured questions tailored to each group, analyzing them through a rapid qualitative analysis approach and providing real-time feedback to operational partners. DATA COLLECTION: Thirty-four Veterans, 24 caregivers, and 39 leaders and clinicians participated. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Respondents identified key categories of experience that could be monitored and improved, including navigating an increasingly complex system, coordinating and communicating across services, and unmet household and financial needs. Veterans and caregivers described quality in terms of reliability, timeliness, standardization, and accountability. Summaries were created to contextualize results and to highlight gaps and opportunities for new measures and policy development. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborating with Veterans, caregivers, and stakeholders enables us to understand their daily experiences and to develop meaningful approaches to evaluating services that incorporate their perspectives. Providing regular, actionable feedback to operational partners informs policy and operational initiatives, such as the scope of services and infrastructure for system navigation.

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.

Design, implement, and diffuse scalable and sustainable solutions for dementia care.

Most innovations developed to reduce the burden of Alzheimer disease and other related dementias (ADRD) are difficult to implement, diffuse, and scale. The consequences of such challenges in design, implementation, and diffusion are suboptimal care and resulting harm for people living with ADRD and their caregivers. National experts identified four factors that contribute to our limited ability to implement and diffuse of evidence-based services and interventions for people living with ADRD: (1) limited market demand for the implementation and diffusion of effective ADRD interventions; (2) insufficient engagement of persons living with ADRD and those caring for them in the development of potential ADRD services and interventions; (3) limited evidence and experience regarding scalability and sustainability of evidence-based ADRD care services; and (4) difficulties in taking innovations that work in one context and successfully implementing them in other contexts. New investments in the science of human-centered design, implementation, and diffusion are crucial for meeting the goals of the National Plan to Address Alzheimer's Disease under the auspices of the National Alzheimer's Project Act.

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.