The effect of robotic telerounding in the surgical intensive care units impact on medical education.

Robotic telerounding is effective from the standpoint of patients' satisfaction and patients' care in teaching and community hospitals. However, the impact of robotic telerounding by the intensivist rounding remotely in the surgical intensive care unit (SICU), on patients' outcome and on the education of medical students physician assistants and surgical residents, as well as on nurses' satisfaction has not been studied. Prospective evaluation of robotic telerounding (RT) using a Likert Scale measuring tool to assess whether it can replace conventional rounding (CR) from the standpoint of patients' care and outcome, nursing satisfaction, and educational effectiveness. RT did not have a negative impact on patients' outcome during the study interval: mortality 5/42 (12 %) versus 6/37 (16 %), RT versus CR, respectively, p = 0.747. The intensivists rounding in the SICU were satisfied with their ability to deliver the same patients' care remotely (Likert score 4.4 ± 0.2). The educational experience of medical students, physicia assistants, and surgical residents was not affected by RT (average Likert score 4.5 ± 0.2, 3.9 ± 0.4, and 4.4 ± 0.4 for surgical residents, medical students and PAs, respectively, p > 0.05). However, as shown by a Likert score of 3.5 ± 1.0, RT did not meet nurses' expectations from several standpoints. Intensivists regard robotic telerounding as an effective alternative to conventional rounding from the standpoint of patients' care and teaching. Medical students, physician assistants (PA's), and surgical residents do not believe that RT compromises their education. Despite similar patients' outcome, nurses have a less favorable opinion of RT; they believe that the physical presence of the intensivist is favorable at all times.

A validated value-based model to improve hospital-wide perioperative outcomes: adaptability to combined medical/surgical inpatient cohorts.

OBJECTIVES: Authors hypothesized that building safe hospital systems to improve value-based surgical outcomes is predicated on workflow redesign for dynamic risk stratification, coupled with "real-time" mitigation of risk. We developed a comanagement model for hospitalized surgical cohort, and determined whether this iterative process redesign for surgery will be adaptable to disparate hospital systems and will be beneficial for combined medical/surgical adult inpatients. CONTEXT: Concerns about preventable harm in hospitalized patients have generated a plethora of both, process-driven and outcome-based strategies in US Healthcare. Although comparison between hospitals is a common mechanism to drive quality, other innovative approaches are needed for real-time risk mitigation to improve outcomes. METHODS: Prospective implementation of Surgical Continuum of Care (SCoC) model in hospitals initially for surgery patients; subsequently Continuum of Care (CoC) for medical/surgical population. Redesign of hospital care delivery model: patient cohorting, floor-based team building, and intensivist/hospitalist staffing of progressive care unit (PCU). Work flow redesign for clinical effectiveness: multidisciplinary team rounds, acuity stratified care rounding based on dynamic risk assessment into a novel HAWK (high risk)/DOVE (low risk) patient grouping, intensivist/hospitalist comanagement of surgical patients, and targeted response. STUDY: Pre- and postintervention with concurrent cohort control design. SETTING: Academic medical centers for SCoC and integrated health system hospital for CoC. PATIENT GROUPS: SCoC Pilot Study-Campus A: Preintervention control group 1998-2000, Intervention Group 2001-2004; Campus B: Comparator Control Group 1998-2004. SCoC Validation Study-Campus C: Preintervention Group 2001-2005; Intervention Group 2006-2008. CoC Study-Campus D: Hospital-wide Group 2009. METRICS: Mortality, length of stay (LOS): overall, surgical intensive care unit and PCU, readmission rates, and cost. Case mix index for risk adjustment. RESULTS: Total >100,000 admissions. There was a significant reduction in overall surgical mortality in both, pilot (P < 0.002) and validation (P < 0.02) SCoC studies and overall hospital mortality in the medical/surgical CoC study (risk-adjusted mortality index progressively declined in CoC study from 1.16 pre-CoC to 0.77 six months post-CoC implementation; significant at 75% confidence level). Case mix index was unchanged during study period in each campus. Nested study in validation cohort of hospital-wide versus surgery alone (observed/expected mortality index) demonstrated significant benefit to SCoC in intervention group. The mortality benefit was primarily derived from risk-stratified rounding and actively managing risk prone population in the PCU. Surgical intensive care unit, PCU, and total hospital patient-days significantly decreased in SCoC pilot study (P < 0.05), reflecting enhanced throughput. LOS reduction benefit persisted in SCoC validation and CoC studies. In addition to decreased LOS, cost savings were in PCU (range, $851,511-2,007,388) and top diagnosis-related groups, for example, $452 K/yr for diagnosis-related group 148. CONCLUSIONS: SCoC is patient-centered, outcomes-driven, value-based approach for hospital-wide surgical patient safety. The principles of this value paradigm are adaptable to other hospitals as demonstrated in our longitudinal study in 3 hospital systems, and the initial experience of CoC suggests that this model will have benefit beyond surgical hospital cohort.