Hospital Readmission From the Perspective of Medicaid and Uninsured Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with little or no health insurance are frequently readmitted to the hospital, yet few previous studies have listened to patients' explanations of why they returned to the hospital after discharge. Enhanced understanding of patient perspectives may facilitate targeted services and improve care. METHODS: We enrolled 18 patients with Medicaid or no insurance during a hospital readmission within 30 days in a major metropolitan area, and conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews to explore the impact of patients' experiences around readmission using a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: We identified five themes contributing to readmission: (1) therapeutic misalignment; (2) accountability; (3) social fragility; (4) access failures; and (5) disease behavior. Medical conditions were complicated by social influences and insufficiently addressed by our health system. Patients understood the need to manage their own health but were unable to effectively execute care plans because of competing life demands and compromised relationships with health providers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study using interviews of readmitted Medicaid and uninsured patients revealed complex illnesses complicated by social instability and health system failures. Improved patient-provider trust and shared decision-making, while addressing social determinants and expanding care coordination with community partners, provide opportunity to better meet patients' needs and decrease hospital readmission in high-risk patients.

Prospective comparison of curbside versus formal consultations.

BACKGROUND: Curbside consultations are commonly requested during the care of hospitalized patients, but physicians perceive that the recommendations provided may be based on inaccurate or incomplete information. OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and completeness of the information received from providers requesting a curbside consultation of hospitalists with that obtained in a formal consultation on the same patients, and to examine whether the recommendations offered in the 2 consultations differed. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: University-affiliated, urban safety net hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of curbside consultations with inaccurate or incomplete information; frequency with which recommendations in the formal consultation differed from those in the curbside consultation. RESULTS: Curbside consultations were requested for 50 patients, 47 of which were also evaluated in a formal consultation performed on the same day by a hospitalist other than the one performing the curbside consultation. Based on information collected in the formal consultation, information was either inaccurate or incomplete in 24/47 (51%) of the curbside consultations. Management advice after formal consultation differed from that given in the curbside consultation for 28/47 patients (60%). When inaccurate or incomplete information was received, the advice provided in the formal versus the curbside consultation differed in 22/24 patients (92%, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Information presented during inpatient curbside consultations of hospitalists is often inaccurate or incomplete, and this often results in inaccurate management advice.

Mentorship, productivity, and promotion among academic hospitalists.

BACKGROUND: United States academic hospitals have rapidly adopted the hospitalist model of care. Academic hospitalists have taken on much of the clinical and teaching responsibilities at many institutions, yet little is known about their academic productivity and promotion. OBJECTIVE: We sought to discover the attitudes and attributes of academic hospitalists regarding mentorship, productivity, and promotion. DESIGN: We performed a web-based email survey of academic hospitalists consisting of 61 questions. PARTICIPANTS: Four hundred and twenty academic hospitalists. MAIN MEASURES: Demographic details, scholarly production, presence of mentorship and attitudes towards mentor, academic rank KEY RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-six (63%) of hospitalists responded. The majority were under 41 (80%) and had been working as hospitalists for <5 years (62%). Only 42% of academic hospitalists had a mentor. Forty-four percent of hospitalists had not presented a poster or abstract at national meeting; 51% had not been first author on a peer-reviewed publication. Factors positively associated with publication of a peer-reviewed first author paper included: 1) male gender, AOR = 2.38 (95% CI 1.30, 4.33), 2) >20% "protected" time, AOR = 1.92 (95% CI 1.00, 3.69), and 3) a better-than-average understanding of the criteria for promotion, AOR = 3.66 (95% CI 1.76, 7.62). A lack of mentorship was negatively associated with producing any peer-reviewed first author publications AOR = 0.43 (95% CI 0.23, 0.81); any non-peer reviewed publications AOR = 0.45 (95% CI 0.24, 0.83), and leading a teaching session at a national meeting AOR = 0.41 (95% CI 0.19, 0.88). Most hospitalists promoted to the level of associate professor had been first author on four to six peer-reviewed publications. CONCLUSIONS: Most academic hospitalists had not presented a poster at a national meeting, authored an academic publication, or presented grand rounds at their institution. Many academic hospitalists lacked mentorship and this was associated with a failure to produce scholarly activity. Mentorship may improve academic productivity among hospitalists.

A cooperative care model: cardiologists and hospitalists reduce length of stay in a chest pain observation unit.

Chest pain observation units are increasingly used to evaluate patients at low risk for cardiovascular events and are commonly staffed by cardiologists. The role of hospitalists in this setting has not been described. We assessed emergency department (ED) length of stay before and after adding hospitalists to the care team among 493 patients. Prior to intervention, median ED length of stay was 19.3 hours, which decreased to 11.0 hours with the addition of hospitalists (43% decrease, P <0.0001). No significant difference in 30-day cardiac event rate was observed (5% versus 6%, P = 0.68).