Effects of Implementing a Health Team Communication Redesign on Hospital Readmissions Within 30 Days.

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE: Poor communication between health team members can interfere with timely, coordinated preparation for hospital discharge. Research on daily bedside interprofessional health team rounds and nursing bedside shift handoff reports provides evidence that these strategies can improve communication. AIMS: To improve health team communication and collaboration about hospital discharge; improve patient experience of discharge measured by patient-reported quality of discharge teaching, readiness for discharge, and postdischarge coping difficulty; and reduce readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits postdischarge. METHODS: A two-sample pre- and postintervention design provided baseline data for redesign of health team communication processes and comparison data for evaluation of the new process' impact. Health team members (n = 105 [pre], n = 95 [post]) from two surgical units of an academic medical center in the midwestern United States provided data on discharge-related communication and collaboration. Patients (n = 413 [pre], n = 191 [post]) provided data on their discharge experience (quality of discharge teaching, readiness for discharge, postdischarge coping difficulty) and outcomes (readmissions, ED visits). Chi-square and t tests were used for unadjusted pre- and postintervention comparisons. Logistic regression of readmissions with a matched pre- and postintervention sample included adjustments for patient characteristics and hospitalization factors. RESULTS: Readmissions decreased from 18% to 12% (p < .001); ED visits decreased from 4.4% to 1.5% (p < .001). Changes in health team communication and collaboration and patients' experience of discharge were minimal. DISCUSSION: The targeted outcomes of readmission and ED visits improved after the health team communication process redesign. The process indicators did not improve; potential explanations include unmeasured hospital and unit discharge, and other care process changes during the study timeframe. LINKING EVIDENCE TO PRACTICE: Evidence from daily interprofessional team bedside rounding and bedside shift report studies was translated into a redesign of health team communication for discharge. These strategies support readmission reduction efforts.

Integrating Research and Quality Improvement Using TeamSTEPPS: A Health Team Communication Project to Improve Hospital Discharge.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to describe an innovative approach to the integration of quality improvement and research processes. A project with the objective of improving health team communication about hospital discharge provides an exemplar case. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT/PROGRAM: The TeamSTEPPS 10-step action planning guide provided the structure for planning, developing, and evaluating a redesign of interprofessional health team communication to improve hospital discharge led by 2 clinical nurse specialists. The redesign involved development of processes for team bedside rounding, registered nurse bedside shift reports, and briefing tools to support the rounding processes. OUTCOME: Using the TeamSTEPPS process, a 4-phase combined quality improvement and research project was designed and implemented. Implementation is ongoing, supported by process evaluation for continuing process improvement. Longitudinal analysis of research outcomes will follow in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Led by unit-based clinical nurse specialists, use of an integrated process of quality improvement and research creates evidence-based innovation to solve interprofessional practice problems. Incorporating research within the project design allows for data-based decisions to inform the clinical process improvement, as well as documentation of both the processes and outcomes of the local improvements that can inform replications in other sites.

Initial Experience with "Honoring Choices Wisconsin": Implementation of an Advance Care Planning Pilot in a Tertiary Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: Although previous research on advance care planning (ACP) has associated ACP with improved quality of care at the end of life, the appropriate use of ACP remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a pilot program using the "Honoring Choices Wisconsin" (HCW) model for ACP in a tertiary care setting, and to understand barriers to system-wide implementation. DESIGN: Retrospective review of prospectively collected data. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Patients who received medical or surgical oncology care at Froedtert and the Medical College of Wisconsin. MEASUREMENTS: Patient demographics, disease characteristics, patient satisfaction, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Data from 69 patients who died following the implementation of the HCW program were reviewed; 24 patients were enrolled in the HCW program while 45 were not. Patients enrolled in HCW were proportionally less likely to be admitted to the ICU (12.5% vs. 17.8%) and were more likely to be "do not resuscitate" (87.5% vs. 80.0%), as well as have a completed ACP (83.3% vs. 79.1%). Furthermore, admission to a hospice was also higher among patients who were enrolled in the HCW program (79.2% vs. 25.6%), with patients enrolled in HCW more likely to die in hospice (70.8% vs. 53.3%). The HCW program was favorably viewed by patients, patient caregivers, and healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a facilitator-based ACP care model was associated with fewer ICU admissions, and a higher use of hospice care. System-level changes are required to overcome barriers to ACP that limit patients from receiving end-of-life care in accordance with their preferences.

Interprofessional Health Team Communication About Hospital Discharge: An Implementation Science Evaluation Study.

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research guided formative evaluation of the implementation of a redesigned interprofessional team rounding process. The purpose of the redesigned process was to improve health team communication about hospital discharge. Themes emerging from interviews of patients, nurses, and providers revealed the inherent value and positive characteristics of the new process, but also workflow, team hierarchy, and process challenges to successful implementation. The evaluation identified actionable recommendations for modifying the implementation process.