Creating a Process for the Implementation of Tiered Huddles in a Veterans Affairs Medical Center.

INTRODUCTION: In 2019, the Veteran's Health Administration began its journey in pursuit of becoming an enterprise-wide High Reliability Organization (HRO). Improving the delivery of safe, high quality patient care is a central focus of HROs. Requisite to meeting this goal is the timely identification and resolution of problems. This is best achieved by empowering and engaging both clinical and non-clinical staff across the healthcare organization through the promotion of robust collaboration and communication between various disciplines. Improved care coordination and increased accountability are two important subsequent outcomes. One method for accomplishing this is through the implementation of tiered huddles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An extensive review of the current literature from 2013 until June 2021 was conducted for evidence highlighting the experiences of other healthcare organizations during implementation of huddles. Following the review, a tiered huddle proposal was developed and presented to the executive leadership team of a healthcare system for approval. Pilot testing of the tiered huddle implementation plan began in October 2021 over a 12-week period with three services. On average, the pilot services had between three to four tiers from frontline staff to the executive level of leadership. RESULTS: Over the 12-week period, out of the possible 120 tiered huddles that could have been conducted, 68% (n = 81) were completed. Of the tiered huddles conducted, 99% (n = 80) started and ended on time. During the pilot test, seven issues were identified by frontline staff: coordination of pre-procedural coronavirus testing, equipment/computer issues, rooms out of service, staffing levels, and lack of responsiveness from other departments. Issues related to staffing, unresponsiveness from other departments, and equipment concerns required elevation to a higher-level tier with no issues remaining open. Delays in patient care, or prolongation of shift hours for staff because of tiered huddles, was low at 2.5% (n = 2). For the duration of the pilot test, a total of 75 minutes accounted for shifts being extended among five staff members. CONCLUSIONS: The success of this initiative demonstrates the importance of thoughtfully creating a robust process when planning for the implementation of tiered huddles. The findings from this initiative will be of immense value with the implementation of tiered huddles across our healthcare system. We believe that this approach can be used by other healthcare institutions along their journey to improving patient safety and quality.

A High-reliability Organization Mindset.

In 2020, the US Department of Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System began its journey to becoming a high-reliability organization as part of Veterans Affairs efforts to become an enterprise-wide high-reliability organization through the Veterans Health Administration. The initiative was launched to create safe enterprise-wide health care systems and environments with robust continuous process improvements as a method for providing patients with safer and higher quality care. In this article, the authors describe a continuous process improvement initiative aimed at implementing system-wide initiatives along the journey to becoming a high-reliability organization. The initiatives are described from the perspectives of individuals representing staff from the frontline to executive leadership. The authors believe that the processes, strategies, and example initiatives described can be readily adopted and implemented in other health care organizations along the journey to high reliability.

Room of Hazards: A Comparison of Differences in Safety Hazard Recognition Among Various Hospital-Based Healthcare Professionals and Trainees in a Simulated Patient Room.

OBJECTIVES: Adverse events in hospitals are common. While studies have used simulated patient rooms to assess healthcare trainees' skills in detecting safety hazards, few have explored the characteristics of safety hazards that make them more or less identifiable to healthcare workers. We sought to determine differences in hospital-based safety hazard identification among physicians, nurses, and other staff members. METHODS: Healthcare workers were invited to identify safety hazards in a simulated patient room with intentionally placed hazards. Responses were transcribed and compared between physicians (MD), nurses (RN), and other hospital-based healthcare professionals and trainees (other). Data were analyzed using nonparametric statistical analysis. RESULTS: Twelve physicians, 29 nurses, and 26 other staff members participated in this study. Different professions identified different numbers of total hazards with nurses identifying more hazards than other professions (RN: 9.59, MD: 9.17, other: 6.35; P = 0.001). All professions had difficulty identifying hazards associated with omission (e.g., no precaution sign: MD: 8.3%, RN: 3.4%, other: 0%) or hazards requiring 2-step logical thinking (e.g., intravenous heparin for patient with head laceration: MD: 0%, RN: 6.9%, other: 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians, nurses, and others identified different numbers of total hazards, and few participants identified hazards associated with omission or 2-step logical thinking. While previous studies have found differences in types of hazards identified among different healthcare members, we identified hazards that were collectively challenging for all participants to identify. Future studies should target identification of these types of hazards, using human factor engineering to decrease risk of patient harm.

Room of Hazards: An Interprofessional Evaluation of Safety Risks in a Simulated Patient Room.

OBJECTIVES: Approximately 3.7% of patients experience adverse events in health care facilities, many of which are preventable. Patient safety requires effective training and an interprofessional culture of safety, but few studies compare the safety skills of different hospital professions. We sought to assess skills in safety hazards identification among staff from different health care disciplines with a pilot study. METHODS: An exercise with a simulated room of an inpatient ward with a patient mannequin in a hospital bed with 34-intentionally planted safety hazards was set up. Health care staff members from various professions walked around the room and independently documented observed safety hazards. Identified hazards were separated based on staff disciplines, grouped into 5 categories (patient, medications, equipment, environment, care processes), and analyzed using analysis of variance. Because participants identified more hazards than the 34 intentionally planted hazards, these were analyzed separately. RESULTS: The study included 111 staff: nurses (n = 68), nursing students (n = 5), medical students (n = 3), physicians (n = 11), social workers (n = 5), pharmacists (n = 6), certified nursing assistants (n = 9), and psychologists (n = 4). There were significant differences among professions in the following categories: medications, equipment, and total number of safety hazards (P < 0.05 for all). Nurses found more intended equipment hazards than did social workers (38.8% versus 4.4%, P < 0.001), pharmacists (38.8% versus 11.1%, P = 0.004), medical students (38.8% versus 7.4%, P = 0.021), and psychologists (38.8% versus 8.3%, P = 0.001) and more medication hazards than nursing students (20.3% versus 16.7%, P = 0.008), whereas certified nursing assistants also found more equipment hazards than did social workers (25.9% versus 4.4%, P = 0.016). CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences in patterns of safety hazards identified among health care professions, with nurses identifying more hazards than several other professions. This finding suggests that each health care profession's unique training and responsibilities result in varying ability to identify safety hazards and that interdisciplinary safety teams may be more effective than those from only a single profession. Our study provides a starting point to encourage diversification of hospital professions in simulation-based safety trainings, although further work is needed to validate these findings moving forward.

Improving the Quality of Inpatient Discharge Instructions: An Evaluation and Implementation of Best Practices.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known about whether improving the quality of written discharge instructions can result in improved readmission rates and whether there are differences in the quality of discharge instructions based on provider and patient characteristics. We set out to determine provider characteristics associated with high quality discharge instructions and whether redesigned discharge instructions would lead to improvement in their quality and reduce hospital readmission rates. METHODS: We instituted sequential interventions of educational outreach and a redesigned discharge instructions template and evaluated their quality using 11 metrics based on established best practices and subsequent 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS: In total, 225 randomly selected charts were reviewed during a 15-month period. An average of 5.36 quality metrics were completed before our interventions, which increased to 5.61 after educational outreach and 7.16 after the template was redesigned. The risk standardized 30-day readmission rate fluctuated from a baseline of 10.48% to 12.71% and 10.97% following each intervention, respectively. Medical students completed significantly more quality metrics than interns, residents, or attendings (P < 0.05 for all) and residents completed significantly more than attendings (P = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Although an education intervention was ineffective in improving discharge instruction quality, a redesigned discharge instructions template did improve the quality of patient discharge instructions. Neither intervention led to a meaningful change in readmission rates. We also found significant differences in the quality of discharge instructions based on the level of training of the author of the discharge instructions.

Rate of Preventable Mortality in Hospitalized Patients: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The number of preventable inpatient deaths in the USA is commonly estimated as between 44,000 and 98,000 deaths annually. Because many inpatient deaths are believed to be preventable, mortality rates are used for quality measures and reimbursement. We aimed to estimate the proportion of inpatient deaths that are preventable. METHODS: A systematic literature search of Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library through April 8, 2019, was conducted. We included case series of adult patients who died in the hospital and were reviewed by physicians to determine if the death was preventable. Two reviewers independently performed data extraction and study quality assessment. The proportion of preventable deaths from individual studies was pooled using a random-effects model. RESULTS: Sixteen studies met inclusion criteria. Eight studies of consecutive or randomly selected cohorts including 12,503 deaths were pooled. The pooled rate of preventable mortality was 3.1% (95% CI 2.2-4.1%). Two studies also reported rates of preventable mortality limited to patients expected to live longer than 3 months, ranging from 0.5 to 1.0%. In the USA, these estimates correspond to approximately 22,165 preventable deaths annually and 7150 deaths for patients with greater than 3-month life expectancy. DISCUSSION: The number of deaths due to medical error is lower than previously reported and the majority occur in patients with less than 3-month life expectancy. The vast majority of hospital deaths are due to underlying disease. Our results have implications for the use of hospital mortality rates for quality reporting and reimbursement. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42018095140.

Bedside Rounds Valued But Not Preferred: Perceptions of Internal Medicine Residents and Attending Physicians in a Diverse Academic Training Program.

OBJECTIVES: Bedside rounds/rounding (BDR) is an important tool for patient-centered care and trainee education. This study aimed at understanding the attitudes toward BDR among residents and attending physicians. METHODS: A survey was conducted using the Qualtrics survey tool. Responses were measured using a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 301 attending physicians and 195 residents. Attending physicians conducted BDR 19% of the time. The preferred mode of rounding for residents was hallway and/or conference room rounding (67%). The major barriers to BDR were concern for causing confusion in or alarm to patients (attending physicians 49%, residents 77%) and prolongation of rounds (attending physicians 47%, residents 72%). The major advantages to BDR were increased likelihood of using patient-friendly language (attending physicians 84%, residents 69%) and the potential to improve trainees' oral presentations and physical examination skills (attending physicians 71%, residents 54%). Attending physicians reported having adequate skills to conduct BDR (95%) and potential opportunity to be better teachers with this mode of rounding (69%). Residents reported having some previous experience with BDR (46%) and agreed that BDR is an important skill for residents (62%). Only 34% of residents agreed that BDR allowed them to learn more about patient care compared with other modes of rounding, however. CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed that our participants perceive BDR positively. Endorsed benefits include the ability to use patient-friendly language, the potential to improve trainees' clinical skills, and an opportunity to become better teachers. The reported major barriers to BDR were potential concern for patient confusion and prolongation of rounds. Despite some prior exposure reported by residents and adequate attending skills, the frequency and preference for BDR remains low and the residents remain uncertain about the educational value of BDR. The evaluation of other factors that contribute to the low frequency of BDR needs further consideration. Furthermore, each residency program may differ in the patterns of perception toward BDR and these should be formally assessed before implementing this patient-centered mode of rounding.