Creation of a medical procedure service in a tertiary medical center: Blueprint and procedural outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Medical Procedure Services (MPS) may represent a solution to the educational gap in procedural training among internal medicine residents and the unmet need for the clinical provision of non-urgent inpatient procedures. However, there is little guidance available to help launch an MPS. Furthermore, procedural outcomes from a newly initiated MPS, including those comparing trainees versus attending physicians, are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To describe the blueprint used in the design, implementation, and ongoing oversight of an MPS and to report its procedural outcomes. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC), Nashville, Tennessee. INTERVENTION: The launch of an MPS at a large tertiary academic hospital. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: 6,152 procedural consultations resulting in 5,320 attempted procedures over a four-and-a-half year period. RESULTS: The primary proceduralist was a supervised resident in 58.7% (3124 /5,320) and an attending in 41.3% (2,196/5,320) of procedures. The overall success rate was 91.1% (95% CI: 90.3-91.9%) and the major complication rate was 0.7% (95% CI: 0.5-1.0%). There was no difference in the mean number of attempts required to complete a procedure (1.6 vs 1.5 attempts, p=0.68) and the complication rates between supervised residents and attending proceduralists, respectively (20/3,124 vs 20/2,196, p=0.26). CONCLUSION: At a tertiary academic medical center, the implementation and maintenance of MPS is feasible, safe, and results in high rates of successful procedures performed by supervised residents. Procedures performed by supervised residents require comparable number of attempts for completion and carry similar risks as those performed alone by attendings.

The Rural VA Multi-Center Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement Study (R-VA-MARQUIS).

PURPOSE: High-quality medication reconciliation reduces medication discrepancies, but smaller hospitals serving rural patients may have difficulty implementing this because of limited resources. We sought to adapt and implement an evidence-based toolkit of best practices for medication reconciliation in smaller hospitals, evaluate the effect on unintentional medication discrepancies, and assess facilitators and barriers to implementation. METHODS: We conducted a 2-year mentored-implementation quality improvement feasibility study in 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals serving rural patients. The primary outcome was unintentional medication discrepancies per medication per patient, determined by comparing the "gold standard" preadmission medication history to the documented preadmission medication list and admission and discharge orders. RESULTS: In total, 797 patients were included; their average age was 68.7 years, 94.4% were male, and they were prescribed an average of 9.6 medications. Sites 2 and 3 implemented toolkit interventions, including clarifying roles among clinical personnel, educating providers on taking a best possible medication history, and hiring pharmacy professionals to obtain a best possible medication history and perform discharge medication reconciliation. Site 1 did not implement an intervention. Discrepancies improved in intervention patients compared with controls at Site 3 (adjusted incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.67) but increased in intervention patients compared with controls at Site 2 (adjusted IRR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.36). CONCLUSIONS: An evidence-based toolkit for medication reconciliation adapted to the VA setting was adopted in 2 of 3 small, rural, resource-limited hospitals, resulting in both reduced and increased unintentional medication discrepancies. We highlight facilitators and barriers to implementing evidence-based medication reconciliation in smaller hospitals.