Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
BMJ Open Qual ; 13(2)2024 Jun 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38858076

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Rapid response team (RRT) and code activation events occur relatively commonly in inpatient settings. RRT systems have been the subject of a significant amount of analysis, although this has been largely focused on the impact of RRT system implementation and RRT events on patient outcomes. There is reason to believe that the structured assessment of RRT and code events may be an effective way to identify opportunities for system improvement, although no standardised approach to event analysis is widely accepted. We developed and refined a protocolised system of RRT and code event review, focused on sustainable, timely and high value event analysis meant to inform ongoing improvement activities. METHODS: A group of clinicians with expertise in process and quality improvement created a protocolised analytic plan for rapid response event review, piloted and then iteratively optimised a systematic process which was applied to all subsequent cases to be reviewed. RESULTS: Hospitalist reviewers were recruited and trained in a methodical approach. Each reviewer performed a chart review to summarise RRT events, and collect specific variables for each case (coding). Coding was then reviewed for concordance, at monthly interdisciplinary group meetings and 'Action Items' were identified and considered for implementation. In any 12-month period starting in 2021, approximately 12-15 distinct cases per month were reviewed and coded, offering ample opportunities to identify trends and patterns. CONCLUSION: We have developed an innovative process for ongoing review of RRT-Code events. The review process is easy to implement and has allowed for the timely identification of high value improvement opportunities.


Subject(s)
Hospital Rapid Response Team , Quality Improvement , Humans , Hospital Rapid Response Team/standards , Hospital Rapid Response Team/statistics & numerical data , Hospital Rapid Response Team/trends
2.
Am J Med ; 2024 May 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38740321

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the ability of internal medicine residents to perform a cardiovascular physical examination using real patients. METHODS: First year internal medicine interns from 2 large academic medical centers in Maryland examined the same patient with aortic insufficiency as part of the Assessment of Physical Examination and Communication Skills (APECS). Interns were assessed on 5 clinical domains: physical exam technique, identifying physical signs, generating a differential diagnosis, clinical judgment, and maintaining patient welfare. Spearman's correlation test was used to describe associations between clinical domains. Preceptor comments were examined to identify common errors in physical exam technique and identifying physical signs. RESULTS: One hundred nine interns examined the same patient with aortic insufficiency across 14 APECS sessions. Only 58 interns (53.2%) correctly identified the presence of a diastolic murmur, and only 52 interns (47.7%) included aortic insufficiency on their differential diagnosis. There was a significant and positive correlation between physical exam technique and identification of the correct physical findings (r = 0.42, P < .001). Both technique (r = 0.34, P = .003) and identifying findings (r = 0.42, P < .001) were significantly associated with generating an appropriate differential diagnosis. Common errors in technique included auscultating over the gown, timing the cardiac cycle with the radial pulse, and failing to palpate for the apical impulse. CONCLUSIONS: Internal medicine interns had variable skills in performing and interpreting the cardiovascular physical exam. Improving cardiovascular exam skills would likely lead to increased identification of relevant cardiovascular findings, inform clinical decision making and improve overall patient care.

3.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(1): 33-41, 2021 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32960645

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Risk factors for progression of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to severe disease or death are underexplored in U.S. cohorts. OBJECTIVE: To determine the factors on hospital admission that are predictive of severe disease or death from COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis. SETTING: Five hospitals in the Maryland and Washington, DC, area. PATIENTS: 832 consecutive COVID-19 admissions from 4 March to 24 April 2020, with follow-up through 27 June 2020. MEASUREMENTS: Patient trajectories and outcomes, categorized by using the World Health Organization COVID-19 disease severity scale. Primary outcomes were death and a composite of severe disease or death. RESULTS: Median patient age was 64 years (range, 1 to 108 years); 47% were women, 40% were Black, 16% were Latinx, and 21% were nursing home residents. Among all patients, 131 (16%) died and 694 (83%) were discharged (523 [63%] had mild to moderate disease and 171 [20%] had severe disease). Of deaths, 66 (50%) were nursing home residents. Of 787 patients admitted with mild to moderate disease, 302 (38%) progressed to severe disease or death: 181 (60%) by day 2 and 238 (79%) by day 4. Patients had markedly different probabilities of disease progression on the basis of age, nursing home residence, comorbid conditions, obesity, respiratory symptoms, respiratory rate, fever, absolute lymphocyte count, hypoalbuminemia, troponin level, and C-reactive protein level and the interactions among these factors. Using only factors present on admission, a model to predict in-hospital disease progression had an area under the curve of 0.85, 0.79, and 0.79 at days 2, 4, and 7, respectively. LIMITATION: The study was done in a single health care system. CONCLUSION: A combination of demographic and clinical variables is strongly associated with severe COVID-19 disease or death and their early onset. The COVID-19 Inpatient Risk Calculator (CIRC), using factors present on admission, can inform clinical and resource allocation decisions. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Hopkins inHealth and COVID-19 Administrative Supplement for the HHS Region 3 Treatment Center from the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Severity of Illness Index , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Child , Child, Preschool , Disease Progression , Female , Humans , Infant , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology
4.
J Clin Transl Endocrinol ; 20: 100220, 2020 Jun.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32140422

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus is a prevalent condition among hospitalized patients and the inpatient setting presents an opportunity for providers to review and adjust antihyperglycemic medications. We sought to describe practice patterns and predictors of antihyperglycemic intensification (AHI) at hospital discharge for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients not on home insulin. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of adult patients with T2DM receiving either non-insulin antihyperglycemic (NIA) or no antihyperglycemic medications prior to admission who were hospitalized within two hospitals in the Johns Hopkins Health System from December 2015 to September 2016. Mean hospital glucose values and observed vs. individualized target hemoglobin A1C values (based on risk of mortality score) were used to define an indication for AHI. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of AHI. RESULTS: A total of 554 discharges of 475 unique patients were included. An indication for AHI was present in 104 (18.8%) of discharges, and AHI occurred in 30 (28.8%) of these discharges. Higher mean admission BG values and A1C, fewer pre-admission antihyperglycemic agents, involvement of the diabetes service, and admitting service were associated with AHI, while no association was observed with age, sex, race, risk of mortality and severity of illness scores, or length of stay. AHI was not associated with 30-day readmission. CONCLUSION: An indication for AHI occurs relatively infrequently among hospitalized patients, but when present, AHI occurs in approximately 1 in 3 discharges. AHI appears to be related largely to the degree of hyperglycemia, and diabetes service involvement. Further studies are needed to understand the implications of AHI at hospital discharge on short and long-term outcomes in this population.

5.
Med Clin North Am ; 102(3): 475-483, 2018 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29650069

ABSTRACT

This review examines how the adoption of the electronic health record (EHR) has changed the most fundamental unit of medicine: the clinical examination. The impact of the EHR on the clinical history, physical examination, documentation, and the doctor-patient relationship is described. The EHR now has a dominant role in clinical care and will be a central factor in clinical work of the future. Conversation needs to be shifted toward defining best practices with current EHRs inside and outside of the examination room.


Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records , Physical Examination , Physician-Patient Relations , Communication , Documentation , Humans , Medical History Taking/methods , Physical Examination/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...