Predictors and Outcomes of Patient Knowledge of Plan of Care in Hospital Medicine: A Quality Improvement Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient understanding of plan of care is associated with positive outcomes in ambulatory settings. In hospital medicine settings, patient-physician agreement on plan of care (concordance) has been limited and difficult to improve. This study examined the impact of adding a hospitalist to interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) on physician-patient-nurse concordance and the relationship between concordance and outcomes. METHODS: IDR were conducted by core teams made up of unit-based nurses, a case manager, and a pharmacist. Over time, with cohorting, hospitalists were included in IDR (hospitalist IDR) for some patients assigned to unit-based hospitalists. In developing hospitalist IDR, the researchers emphasized using an IDR checklist, including a patient communication plan. Patient-nurse-physician interviews were used to assess concordance in the domains of diagnosis, tests and procedures, and expected discharge date. Using two-hospitalist review, agreement was rated as none, partial, or complete, and a total concordance score was calculated for each patient in both IDR groups. Multivariate analysis was used to examine the relationship between concordance, IDR type, patient factors, and utilization outcomes. RESULTS: For 658 patients, the mean concordance score was 11.71 out of a possible 18. There was no difference in concordance between hospitalist and core IDR groups (11.68 vs. 11.84, p = 0.7). Higher total concordance score was associated with lower lengths of stay (p < 0.001) and readmission rates (p = 0.001). Total concordance had a negative association with patient age (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Concordance did not change with IDR type. Higher concordance appears to be related to positive utilization outcomes. Future studies are needed to evaluate potential interventions to improve concordance.

Structure and outcomes of interdisciplinary rounds in hospitalized medicine patients: A systematic review and suggested taxonomy.

BACKGROUND: Interdisciplinary rounds (IDR) have been described to improve outcomes. However, there is limited understanding of optimal IDR design. PURPOSE: To systematically review published reports of IDR to catalog types of IDR and outcomes, and assess the influence of IDR design on outcomes. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Journals Ovid, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (EBSCOhost), and PubMed from 1990 through December 2014, and hand searching of article bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Experimental, quasiexperimental, and observation studies in English-language literature where physicians rounded with another healthcare professional in inpatient medicine units. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were abstracted for study setting and characteristics, and design and outcomes of IDR. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-two studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Many were of low to medium quality with few high-quality studies. There is no clear definition of IDR in the literature. There was wide variation in IDR design and team composition across studies. We found three different models of IDR: pharmacist focused, bedside rounding, and interdisciplinary team rounding. There are reasonable data to support an association with length of stay and staff satisfaction but little data on patient safety or satisfaction. Positive outcomes may be related to particular components of IDR design, but the relationship between design and outcomes remains unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should be more deliberately designed and fully reported with careful attention to team composition and features of IDR and their impact on selected outcomes. We present a proposed IDR definition and taxonomy for future studies. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:513-523. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine.