A Tertiary Care-based Complex Care Program: Improving Care for Children With Medical Complexity.

OBJECTIVE: Children with medical complexity (CMC) have significant health care costs, but they also experience substantial unmet health care needs, hospitalizations, and medical errors. Their parents often report psychosocial stressors and poor care satisfaction. Complex care programs can improve the care for CMC. At our tertiary care institution, we developed a consultative complex care program to improve the quality and cost of care for CMC and to improve the experience of care for patients and families. METHODS: To address the needs of CMC at our institution, we developed the Compass Care Program, a consultative complex care program across inpatient and outpatient settings. Utilization data [hospital admissions per patient month; length of stay per admission; hospital days per patient month; emergency department (ED) visits per patient month; and institutional charges per patient month] and caregiver satisfaction data (obtained via paper survey at outpatient visits) were tracked over the period of participation in the program and compared preenrollment and postenrollment for program participants. RESULTS: Participants had significant decreases in hospital admissions per patient month, length of stay per admission, hospital days per patient month, and charges per patient month following enrollment (P<0.01) without a tandem increase in readmissions within 7 days of discharge. There was no statistically significant difference in ED visits. Caregiver satisfaction scores improved in all domains. CONCLUSION: Participation in a consultative complex care program can improve utilization patterns and cost of care for CMC, as well as experience of care for patients and families.

Improving Anaphylaxis Care: The Impact of a Clinical Pathway.

BACKGROUND: Recommended durations of observation after anaphylaxis have been widely variable, with many ranging from 4 to 24 hours. Prolonged durations often prompt admission for ongoing observation. METHODS: In a multidisciplinary quality improvement initiative, we revised our emergency department (ED) anaphylaxis clinical pathway. Our primary aim was to safely decrease the recommended length of observation from 8 to 4 hours and thereby decrease unnecessary hospitalizations. Secondary aims included provider education on anaphylaxis diagnostic criteria, emphasizing epinephrine as first-line therapy, and implementing a practice of discharging ED patients with an epinephrine autoinjector in hand. The study period consisted of the 18 months before pathway revision (baseline) and the 18 months after revision. RESULTS: The overall admission rate decreased from 58.2% (106 of 182) in the baseline period to 25.3% (65 of 257) after pathway revision (P < .0001). There was no significant difference in the percentage of patients returning to the ED within 72 hours, and there were no adverse outcomes or deaths throughout the study period. After pathway revision, the median time to first epinephrine administration for the most critical patients was 10 minutes, and 85.4% (164 of 192) of patients were discharged with an epinephrine autoinjector in hand. CONCLUSIONS: By revising an anaphylaxis clinical pathway, we were able to streamline the care of patients with anaphylaxis presenting to a busy pediatric ED, without any compromise in safety. Most notably, decreasing the recommended length of observation from 8 to 4 hours resulted in a near 60% reduction in the average rate of admission.

A prospective analysis of implementation of multi-disciplinary team decisions in breast cancer.

Multi-disciplinary teams (MDTs) management of patients with cancer is mandatory in the United Kingdom, and auditing team decision-making by examining rates of decision implementation and reasons for nonimplementation may inform this practice. Consecutive breast cancer MDT decisions, subsequent decision implementation, and reasons for nonimplementation were prospectively recorded. Factors associated with nonimplementation of the MDT decision were analyzed with logistic regression. Of 289 consecutive MDT decisions involving 210 women, 20 (6.9%, 95% CIs 4.3%-10.5%) were not implemented. Most changed MDT decisions did so because of patient preferences (n = 13, 65%), with the discovery of new clinical information (n = 3) and individual doctor's views (n = 4) also leading to decision nonimplementation. MDT decisions were significantly less likely to be adhered to in patients with confirmed malignant disease compared to those with benign or 'unknown' disease categories (p < 0.001) and MDT decisions in older patients were significantly more likely not to be implemented than in younger patients (p = 0.002). Auditing nonimplementation of MDT recommendations and examining reasons for changed decisions is a useful process to monitor team performance and to identify factors that need more attention during the MDT meeting to ensure that the process makes optimal patient centered decisions.

The effectiveness and reliability of peer-marking in first-year medical students.

BACKGROUND: Peer-marking has been suggested as a method to enhance self-directed learning and reflection, although whether this improves performance is unclear. This study evaluated the impact of peer-marking on examination performance and investigated its reliability and acceptability to students. METHODS: First-year medical students were randomised to peer-marking using a model answer or no intervention (control arm). Student scores were compared with tutor-marked scores. Two months later, students completed a summative assessment and performance was compared between students randomised to peer-marking and the control arm. A focus group was held with students in the intervention arm to capture their experiences and attitudes. RESULTS: A total of 289 of 568 students consented to participate and 147 were randomised to peer-marking (142 controls). Students randomised to peer-marking achieved marginally higher examination marks (1.5% difference, 95% CI -0.8% to 3.9%, P = 0.19) than controls (adjusting for year and in-course assessment), although this may have been due to chance. Students were harsher markers than the tutors. Focus group analysis suggested that students valued peer-marking, although concerns about passing judgement on a colleague's work were expressed. CONCLUSIONS: Peer-marking did not have a substantial effect on examination performance, although a modest effect cannot be excluded. Students gained insight into examination technique but may not have gained deeper knowledge. Given its potential positive educational value, further work is required to understand how peer-marking can be used more effectively to enhance the learning experience.