Optimizing Discharge Summaries: A Multispecialty, Multicenter Survey of Primary Care Clinicians.

BACKGROUND: Patient care in the United States has become increasingly more fragmented, and the discharge summary serves as a critical tool for transmitting information on a patient's hospital admission to the primary care clinician. Some guidelines regarding how to write discharge summaries exist, but few are focused on prioritizing content that is most important to optimize a patient's transition of care. METHODS: We conducted a national survey across various medical primary care specialties, including trainees and advanced practice providers, to understand the priorities of primary care clinicians. We distributed the survey to 2184 clinicians affiliated with 8 large academic institutions. Our response rate was 21%. RESULTS: Hospital course, discharge diagnoses, medication reconciliation, and follow-up sections were ranked as the most important categories with a 95.5% concordance rate among surveyed institutions. The least important sections were contact numbers for inpatient clinicians, ancillary services, weight-bearing status, and wound care. Similar themes were also identified via consensus review of the free-texted comments, adding that discharge summary style was also important. Other identified barriers to high-quality transition of care are both the limited time primary care clinicians can spend reviewing discharge summaries and lack of adequate communication between hospitalists and the outpatient clinician. CONCLUSIONS: High-yield content should be presented at the beginning of the discharge summary and conveyed in a brief, succinct manner to ensure maximal utility of the document as a transition of care tool.

Clinical Evaluation of the Abbott Alinity SARS-CoV-2 Spike-Specific Quantitative IgG and IgM Assays among Infected, Recovered, and Vaccinated Groups.

The coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to impose a significant burden on global health infrastructure. While identification and containment of new cases remain important, laboratories must now pivot and consider an assessment of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) immunity in the setting of the recent availability of multiple COVID-19 vaccines. Here, we have utilized the latest Abbott Alinity semiquantitative IgM and quantitative IgG spike protein (SP) serology assays (IgMSP and IgGSP) in combination with Abbott Alinity IgG nucleocapsid (NC) antibody test (IgGNC) to assess antibody responses in a cohort of 1,236 unique participants comprised of naive, SARS-CoV-2-infected, and vaccinated (including both naive and recovered) individuals. The IgMSP and IgGSP assays were highly specific (100%) with no cross-reactivity to archived samples collected prior to the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, including those from individuals with seasonal coronavirus infections. Clinical sensitivity was 96% after 15 days for both IgMSP and IgGSP assays individually. When considered together, the sensitivity was 100%. A combination of NC- and SP-specific serologic assays clearly differentiated naive, SARS-CoV-2-infected, and vaccine-related immune responses. Vaccination resulted in a significant increase in IgGSP and IgMSP values, with a major rise in IgGSP following the booster (second) dose in the naive group. In contrast, SARS-CoV-2-recovered individuals had several-fold higher IgGSP responses than naive following the primary dose, with a comparatively dampened response following the booster. This work illustrates the strong clinical performance of these new serological assays and their utility in evaluating and distinguishing serological responses to infection and vaccination.

Choosing Unwisely.

This comic visually conveys the absurdity of overreliance on symptom measures and excessive testing in contemporary clinical decision making and health care practice.

Game-Based Medicine.

This illustration is a humorous take on experts' disagreement about the care of a patient. Breaking the deadlock requires much effort, and a focus on the patient can restore common ground. Patients should always be the center of our care universe.

Evaluation of the value of team-based psychiatric consultation in a general hospital setting.

Background With the increase use of pay for performance in healthcare, 30-day readmissions after discharges are critically important. Objective A team-based psychiatric consultation approach was tested in an inpatient hospital setting. This is the first study that examines 30-day readmission rate with this approach. Methods In this quality improvement study, 164 patients received a team-based psychiatric consultation that included daily meetings during the weekdays between psychiatrists and hospitalists and 436 received care of treatment-as-usual or traditional consultation-liaison services. Results Overall 30-day readmission rate was not significantly different between intervention and nonintervention groups. However, in subgroups with high risk of mortality or severe illness, the intervention group had a 0% 30-day readmission rate for both high risk of mortality and severe illness subgroups, while the nonintervention group's readmission rate was 5% for high risk of mortality group and 3% for severely ill patients. Annual hospital cost saving is estimated between a quarter million and 1.5 million dollars for these subgroups. Conclusion The team-based psychiatric consultation approach demonstrated the potential for substantial cost savings in providing care for patients with high risk of mortality and severe illness. Thus, this intervention may be very useful in caring for patients with complex chronic conditions.