Implementation of the I-PASS handoff program in diverse clinical environments: A multicenter prospective effectiveness implementation study.

BACKGROUND: Handoff miscommunications are a leading source of medical errors. Harmful medical errors decreased in pediatric academic hospitals following implementation of the I-PASS handoff improvement program. However, implementation across specialties has not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To determine if I-PASS implementation across diverse settings would be associated with improvements in patient safety and communication. DESIGN: Prospective Type 2 Hybrid effectiveness implementation study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents from diverse specialties across 32 hospitals (12 community, 20 academic). INTERVENTION: External teams provided longitudinal coaching over 18 months to facilitate implementation of an enhanced I-PASS program and monthly metric reviews. MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES: Systematic surveillance surveys assessed rates of resident-reported adverse events. Validated direct observation tools measured verbal and written handoff quality. RESULTS: 2735 resident physicians and 760 faculty champions from multiple specialties (16 internal medicine, 13 pediatric, 3 other) participated. 1942 error surveillance reports were collected. Major and minor handoff-related reported adverse events decreased 47% following implementation, from 1.7 to 0.9 major events/person-year (p < .05) and 17.5 to 9.3 minor events/person-year (p < .001). Implementation was associated with increased inclusion of all five key handoff data elements in verbal (20% vs. 66%, p < .001, n = 4812) and written (10% vs. 74%, p < .001, n = 1787) handoffs, as well as increased frequency of handoffs with high quality verbal (39% vs. 81% p < .001) and written (29% vs. 78%, p < .001) patient summaries, verbal (29% vs. 78%, p < .001) and written (24% vs. 73%, p < .001) contingency plans, and verbal receiver syntheses (31% vs. 83%, p < .001). Improvement was similar across provider types (adult vs. pediatric) and settings (community vs. academic).

Impact of a hypoglycemia reduction bundle and a systems approach to inpatient glycemic management.

OBJECTIVE: Uncontrolled hyperglycemia and iatrogenic hypoglycemia represent common and frequently preventable quality and safety issues. We sought to demonstrate the effectiveness of a hypoglycemia reduction bundle, proactive surveillance of glycemic outliers, and an interdisciplinary data-driven approach to glycemic management. POPULATION: all hospitalized adult non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients with hyperglycemia and/or a diagnosis of diabetes admitted to our 550-bed academic center across 5 calendar years (CYs). INTERVENTIONS: hypoglycemia reduction bundle targeting most common remediable contributors to iatrogenic hypoglycemia; clinical decision support in standardized order sets and glucose management pages; measure-vention (daily measurement of glycemic outliers with concurrent intervention by the inpatient diabetes team); educational programs. MEASURES AND ANALYSIS: Pearson chi-square value with relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare glycemic control, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia management parameters across the baseline time period (TP1, CY 2009-2010), transitional (TP2, CY 2011-2012), and mature postintervention phase (TP3, CY 2013). Hypoglycemia defined as blood glucose <70 mg/dL, severe hypoglycemia as <40 mg/dL, and severe hyperglycemia >299 mg/dL. RESULTS: A total of 22,990 non-ICU patients, representing 94,900 patient-days of observation were included over the 5-year study. The RR TP3:TP1 for glycemic excursions was reduced significantly: hypoglycemic stay, 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65 to 0.79); severe hypoglycemic stay, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.58); recurrent hypoglycemic day during stay, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.94); severe hypoglycemic day, 0.48 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.62); severe hyperglycemic day (>299 mg/dL), 0.76 (95% CI, 0.73 to 0.80). CONCLUSION: Hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia event rates were both improved, with the most marked effect on severe hypoglycemic events. Most of these interventions should be portable to other hospitals.

Design and implementation of a web-based reporting and benchmarking center for inpatient glucometrics.

Insulin is a top source of adverse drug events in the hospital, and glycemic control is a focus of improvement efforts across the country. Yet, the majority of hospitals have no data to gauge their performance on glycemic control, hypoglycemia rates, or hypoglycemic management. Current tools to outsource glucometrics reports are limited in availability or function. Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) faculty designed and implemented a web-based data and reporting center that calculates glucometrics on blood glucose data files securely uploaded by users. Unit labels, care type (critical care, non-critical care), and unit type (eg, medical, surgical, mixed, pediatrics) are defined on upload allowing for robust, flexible reporting. Reports for any date range, care type, unit type, or any combination of units are available on demand for review or downloading into a variety of file formats. Four reports with supporting graphics depict glycemic control, hypoglycemia, and hypoglycemia management by patient day or patient stay. Benchmarking and performance ranking reports are generated periodically for all hospitals in the database. In all, 76 hospitals have uploaded at least 12 months of data for non-critical care areas and 67 sites have uploaded critical care data. Critical care benchmarking reveals wide variability in performance. Some hospitals achieve top quartile performance in both glycemic control and hypoglycemia parameters. This new web-based glucometrics data and reporting tool allows hospitals to track their performance with a flexible reporting system, and provides them with external benchmarking. Tools like this help to establish standardized glucometrics and performance standards.

Multidisciplinary initiative to improve inpatient anticoagulation and management of venous thromboembolism.

PURPOSE: The implementation of best practices to optimize inpatient anticoagulation and venous thromboembolism (VTE) management are described. SUMMARY: A multidisciplinary team of pharmacists, hospitalists, computer prescriber-order-entry system (CPOE) experts, and data specialists was assembled. A VTE management best-practices bundle was designed and implemented using education, CPOE upgrades, clinical decision support, triggered consultation, and checklists. Process performance data were collected from CPOE and chart review. A total of 189 patients with 211 identified VTE events were included in the analysis. Compliance with warfarin adjustment by protocol improved significantly, from 70% before the launch of the order set to 96% afterward. Heparin-warfarin overlap nearly tripled, from 26% to 74%, but still over a quarter of postimplementation cases did not meet this quality measure. While low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) was used appropriately in all six postintervention cases of cancer-related VTE, the result was not a significant improvement over the 68% compliance in the period preceding the order set. The prescription rate of compression stockings after leg DVT was low in both periods. Point estimates for mean length of hospital stay improved but did not reach statistical significance. Measures of mortality and readmission rates were limited by sample size and were not significantly changed. CONCLUSION: Implementation by a multidisciplinary team of a VTE management bundle incorporated CPOE upgrades and other interventions. Laboratory testing before warfarin treatment, warfarin education, warfarin adjustment by protocol, and warfarin-heparin overlap improved after the interventions, but LMWH education, compression stocking use, laboratory testing before heparin treatment, and clinical outcomes did not change significantly.

Best Practices for Interdisciplinary Care Management by Hospital Glycemic Teams: Results of a Society of Hospital Medicine Survey Among 19 U.S. Hospitals.

Objective. The Society for Hospital Medicine (SHM) conducted a survey of U.S. hospital systems to determine how nonphysician providers (NPPs) are utilized in interdisciplinary glucose management teams. Methods. An online survey grouped 50 questions into broad categories related to team functions. Queries addressed strategies that had proven successful, as well as challenges encountered. Fifty surveys were electronically distributed with an invitation to respond. A subset of seven respondents identified as having active glycemic committees that met at least every other month also participated in an in-depth telephone interview conducted by an SHM Glycemic Advisory Panel physician and NPP to obtain further details. The survey and interviews were conducted from May to July 2012. Results. Nineteen hospital/hospital system teams completed the survey (38% response rate). Most of the teams (52%) had existed for 1-5 years and served 90-100% of noncritical care, medical critical care, and surgical units. All of the glycemic control teams were supported by the use of protocols for insulin infusion, basal-bolus subcutaneous insulin orders, and hypoglycemia management. However, > 20% did not have protocols for discontinuation of oral hypoglycemic agents on admission or for transition from intravenous to subcutaneous insulin infusion. About 30% lacked protocols assessing A1C during the admission or providing guidance for insulin pump management. One-third reported that glycemic triggers led to preauthorized consultation or assumption of care for hyperglycemia. Institutional knowledge assessment programs were common for nurses (85%); intermediate for pharmacists, nutritionists, residents, and students (40-45%); and uncommon for fellows (25%) and attending physicians (20%). Many institutions were not monitoring appropriate use of insulin, oral agents, or insulin protocol utilization. Although the majority of teams had a process in place for post-discharge referrals and specific written instructions were provided, only one-fourth were supported with written protocols to standardize medication, education, equipment, and follow-up instructions. Conclusion. Inpatient glycemic control teams with NPPs often function in environments without a full set of measurement, education, standardization, transition, and order tools. Executive hospital leaders, community partners, and the glycemic control teams themselves need to address these deficiencies to optimize team effectiveness.

Venous thromboembolism prevention guidelines for medical inpatients: mind the (implementation) gap.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-associated nonsurgical venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important problem addressed by new guidelines from the American College of Physicians (ACP) and American College of Chest Physicians (AT9). METHODS: Narrative review and critique. RESULTS: Both guidelines discount asymptomatic VTE outcomes and caution against overprophylaxis, but have different methodologies and estimates of risk/benefit. Guideline complexity and lack of consensus on VTE risk assessment contribute to an implementation gap. Methods to estimate prophylaxis benefit have significant limitations because major trials included mostly screening-detected events. AT9 relies on a single Italian cohort study to conclude that those with a Padua score ≥4 have a very high VTE risk, whereas patients with a score <4 (60% of patients) have a very small risk. However, the cohort population has less comorbidity than US inpatients, and over 1% of patients with a score of 3 suffered pulmonary emboli. The ACP guideline does not endorse any risk-assessment model. AT9 includes the Padua model and Caprini point-based system for nonsurgical inpatients and surgical inpatients, respectively, but there is no evidence they are more effective than simpler risk-assessment models. CONCLUSIONS: New VTE prevention guidelines provide varied guidance on important issues including risk assessment. If Padua is used, a threshold of 3, as well as 4, should be considered. Simpler VTE risk-assessment models may be superior to complicated point-based models in environments without sophisticated clinical decision support.

Project BOOST: effectiveness of a multihospital effort to reduce rehospitalization.

BACKGROUND: Rehospitalization is a prominent target for healthcare quality improvement and performance-based reimbursement. The generalizability of existing evidence on best practices is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older adults through Safe Transitions) on rehospitalization rates and length of stay. DESIGN: Semicontrolled pre-post study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Volunteer sample of 11 hospitals varying in geography, size, and academic affiliation. INTERVENTION: Hospitals implemented Project BOOST-recommended tools supported by an external quality improvement physician mentor. METHODS: Pre-post changes in readmission rates and length of stay within BOOST units, and between BOOST units and site-designated control units. RESULTS: The average rate of 30-day rehospitalization in BOOST units was 14.7% prior to implementation and 12.7% 12 months later (P = 0.010), reflecting an absolute reduction of 2% and a relative reduction of 13.6%. Rehospitalization rates for matched control units were 14.0% in the preintervention period and 14.1% in the postintervention period (P = 0.831). The mean absolute reduction in readmission rates in BOOST units compared to control units was 2.0% (P = 0.054 for signed rank test comparing differences in readmission rate reduction in BOOST units compared to site-matched control units). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in Project BOOST appeared to be associated with a decrease in readmission rates.

Maintaining glycemic control when transitioning from infusion insulin: a protocol-driven, multidisciplinary approach.

BACKGROUND: An observational pilot study of 41 medical and surgical intensive care patients on infusion insulin at our own institution found that glycemic control rapidly deteriorated within 48 hours of stopping infusion insulin. This prompted the design and testing of a transition protocol. METHODS: The transition protocol identified appropriate patients for subcutaneous (SC) insulin along with the insulin dose and schedule. A pharmacist-hospitalist improvement team offered protocol guidance but adherence was left to the discretion of the provider. The primary endpoints were mean blood glucose the first and second day after stopping the insulin infusion and the number of patients with hypoglycemia (41-70 mg/dL) and severe hypoglycemia (<40 mg/dL) during the 48-hour transition. Secondary endpoints include severe hyperglycemia (>300 mg/dL), length of stay (LOS), re-initiation of the infusion insulin, day-weighted glucose mean 12 days following transition for patients with diabetes, and identification of a new diagnosis of diabetes. RESULTS: Patients with diabetes transitioned by protocol (n = 33) had better glycemic control than those (n = 39) transitioned without the protocol (Day 1 population glucose mean of 168 mg/dL vs. 211 mg/dL [P<0.001], Day 2 means of 176 mg/dL vs 218 mg/dL [P<0.001]). Severe hypoglycemia occurred once in each group. There were 14 patients newly diagnosed with diabetes based on an A1c ≥6%. Patients with stress hyperglycemia maintained good glycemic control with correctional insulin only. CONCLUSION: Protocol adherence improved glycemic control, reduced unnecessary use of insulin, and identified patients with previously undiagnosed diabetes, without any increase in hypoglycemia.

Designing and implementing effective venous thromboembolism prevention protocols: lessons from collaborative efforts.

Hospital acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major source of morbidity and mortality, yet proven prevention measures are often underutilized. The lack of a validated VTE risk assessment model, difficulty integrating VTE risk assessment and prevention protocols into the routine process of care, and the lack of standardized metrics for VTE prophylaxis have all been barriers. Recently, a VTE risk assessment/prevention protocol has been validated, leading to portable strategies achieving breakthrough levels of adequate prophylaxis in a variety of inpatient settings. VTE prevention protocol design and implementation strategies have been collected in implementation guides available from the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. These guides were the centerpieces of national collaborative efforts to improve VTE involving over 150 medical centers, honing the approach to accelerate improvement described in this article. Embedding a VTE prevention protocol into admission, transfer, and perioperative order sets is a key strategy. A VTE prevention protocol is defined as a VTE risk assessment with no more than three levels of risk, tightly linked to recommended prophylaxis for each level. A balance between the need to provide protocol guidance and the need for efficiency and ease-of-use by the clinician must be maintained. The power of this protocol driven approach is bolstered by a quality improvement framework, multidisciplinary teams, ongoing monitoring of the process, and real time identification and mitigation of non-adherents via a technique that measures progress and prompts concurrent intervention, an approach we call "measure-vention."

Improved inpatient use of basal insulin, reduced hypoglycemia, and improved glycemic control: effect of structured subcutaneous insulin orders and an insulin management algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Structured subcutaneous insulin order sets and insulin protocols are widely advocated. The intervention effects are not well reported. OBJECTIVE: Assess the impact of these interventions on insulin use patterns, hypoglycemia, and glycemic control. DESIGN: Prospective observational. SETTING: 400-bed academic center. PATIENTS: Adult non-critical care inpatients with diabetes or hyperglycemia and point-of-care (POC) glucose testing. INTERVENTIONS: Structured insulin orders, insulin management algorithm. MEASUREMENTS: Percent of insulin orders with basal insulin. Percent uncontrolled patient-stays (day-weighted mean glucose >or=180 mg/dL) and uncontrolled patient-days (patient-day mean glucose >or=180 mg/dL). Percent of monitored patient-days and patient-stays with hypoglycemia (glucose

Perioperative care of the geriatric patient with diabetes or hyperglycemia.

The incidence of diabetes in the geriatric population is increasing and the resulting co-morbidities have led to corresponding increases in hospital admissions and surgeries. The weight of the evidence and national guidelines should dissuade us from allowing uncontrolled hyperglycemia in the geriatric perioperative population, but the glycemic target should be modified upwards based on the individual patient characteristics, and in environments that do not have an established track record of reaching more aggressive targets safely. Insulin is the most effective and flexible regimen to achieve inpatient glycemic control, whether by infusion or by subcutaneous basal bolus regimens. Strategies for safe and effective dosing and adjustment of insulin regimens, and methods to avoid hypoglycemia in the perioperative period are outlined. Finally, discharge planning should take into consideration a patient's HbA1c, preoperative glycemic control, inpatient glycemic regimen and control, financial and physical limitations, social support, co-morbid medical conditions, episodes of hypoglycemia, and overall prognosis to create an individualized safe and effective medication regimen for optimal glycemic control at home.

Designing and implementing insulin infusion protocols and order sets.

Influential trials and guidelines supporting the value of glucose control in hospital settings, particularly in the intensive care and postoperative settings, has led to the widespread adoption of intravenous infusions of human regular insulin. As groups have attempted to study the outcomes or to explore improved methods for improved glucose control, a number of insulin infusion protocols (IIPs) have been reported and validated. Now, many institutions are attempting to translate this experience into clinical practice in a systematic manner. The intent of this discussion is to highlight the authors' practical view of best practices in development and use of IIPs. As the implementation of IIPs has progressed, it has become apparent that this is not a simple process. It requires a carefully planned, inclusive, and continuous effort striving to attain effective glucose control while avoiding severe hypoglycemia. Whereas there are limitations in the literature comparing the IIPs, we identify design elements and implementation methods that increase the chances for staff acceptance and safe attainment of glycemic goals. Most importantly, this must be a team effort with attention to the numerous potential pitfalls that can disrupt the process and place patients at risk. In many cases, it is best to start more conservatively and methodically intensify the protocol. Continuous assessment of protocol errors, adverse events, staff satisfaction, and outcomes is vital to overall success.

Curriculum development: the venous thromboembolism quality improvement resource room.

BACKGROUND: The role of the hospitalist has evolved over the last decade, with hospitalists increasingly being asked to lead systems-based initiatives to improve the quality of inpatient care. The educational strategy of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) includes development of practice-based resources to support hospitalist-led improvement in clinically important measures of hospital care quality. OBJECTIVE: To develop a resource at the SHM Web site to present quality improvement (QI) principles for systems-based care in the hospital and to help individual hospitalists improve specific patient outcomes. DESIGN: The SHM defined the role of the hospitalist in QI, performed an assessment of the educational needs of hospitalists, and executed a Web-based educational strategy to address these needs. The organization identified the most common cause of preventable inpatient deaths, hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE), and prioritized the need to improve prophylaxis. RESULTS: This new resource at the SHM Web site presents principles for conducting QI in the hospital. To enable learning that is practice based, the VTE Quality Improvement Resource Room (QI RR) features Ask the Expert, an interactive discussion community, and an original Improvement Workbook, a downloadable project outline and tutorial that hospitalists can use to guide and document steps in an effort aimed at reducing hospital-acquired VTE. CONCLUSIONS: This QI resource serves as a template for the development of subsequent hospital-based resources. User feedback will refine the QI RR and its format so that similar offerings can target other significant inpatient problems. Additional research is needed to evaluate learning and the clinical impact of this quality improvement resource on hospital performance measures and patient outcomes.