Retrospective study of inpatient diabetes management service, length of stay and 30-day readmission rate of patients with diabetes at a community hospital.

Background: Hospitalized patients with diabetes are at risk of complications and longer length of stay (LOS). Inpatient Diabetes Management Services (IDMS) are known to be beneficial; however, their impact on patient care measures in community, non-teaching hospitals, is unknown. Objectives: To evaluate whether co-managing patients with diabetes by the IDMS team reduces LOS and 30-day readmission rate (30DR). Methods: This retrospective quality improvement cohort study analyzed LOS and 30DR among patients with diabetes admitted to a community hospital. The IDMS medical team consisted of an endocrinologist, nurse practitioner, and diabetes educator. The comparison group consisted of hospitalized patients with diabetes under standard care of attending physicians (mostly internal medicine-trained hospitalists). The relationship between study groups and outcome variables was assessed using Generalized Estimating Equation models. Results: 4,654 patients with diabetes (70.8 ± 0.2 years old) were admitted between January 2016 and May 2017. The IDMS team co-managed 18.3% of patients, mostly with higher severity of illness scores (p < 0.0001). Mean LOS in patients co-managed by the IDMS team decreased by 27%. Median LOS decreased over time in the IDMS group (p = 0.046), while no significant decrease was seen in the comparison group. Mean 30DR in patients co-managed by the IDMS decreased by 10.71%. Median 30DR decreased among patients co-managed by the IDMS (p = 0.048). Conclusions: In a community hospital setting, LOS and 30DR significantly decreased in patients co-managed by a specialized diabetes team. These changes may be translated into considerable cost savings.

Improving healthcare value through clinical community and supply chain collaboration.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that integrating supply chain with clinical communities would allow for clinician-led supply cost reduction and improved value in an academic health system. METHODS: Three clinical communities (spine, joint, blood management) and one clinical community-like physician led team of surgeon stakeholders partnered with the supply chain team on specific supply cost initiatives. The teams reviewed their specific utilization and cost data, and the physicians led consensus-building conversations over a series of team meetings to agree to standard supply utilization. RESULTS: The spine and joint clinical communities each agreed upon a vendor capping model that led to cost savings of $3 million dollars and $1.5 million dollars respectively. The blood management decreased blood product utilization and achieved $1.2 million dollars savings. $5.6 million dollars in savings was achieved by a clinical community-like group of surgeon stakeholders through standardization of sutures and endomechanicals. CONCLUSIONS: Physician led clinical teams empowered to lead change achieved substantial supply chain cost savings in an academic health system. The model of combining clinical communities with supply chain offers hope for an effective, practical, and scalable approach to improving value and engaging physicians in other academic health systems. IMPLICATIONS: This clinician led model could benefit both private and academic health systems engaging in value optimization efforts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.

Assessment of Endoscope Reprocessing Using Peer-to-Peer Assessment Through a Clinical Community.

BACKGROUND: Cleaning, disinfection, and sterilization (CDS) of medical devices are intended to help prevent health care-associated infections (HAIs), a significant cause of mortality and morbidity. In February 2013 the Johns Hopkins Health System (JHHS; Baltimore) formed a clinical community of experts and stakeholders--physicians, nurses, administrators, infection control practitioners, risk managers, and regulatory staff--to assess CDS practices across facilities. METHODS: A survey administered to leadership indicated endoscopy areas of risk. An endoscopy tracer tool with eight major performance areas was then created from best practices identified in the literature, regulatory requirements, and national guidelines for endoscope reprocessing. Peer-to-peer (P2P) assessments using the tracer tool were performed at five Johns Hopkins Medicine gastrointestinal endoscopy sites (three hospital-based; two freestanding ambulatory surgery centers) selected on the basis of their large procedural volumes and their operational ability to participate in further areas of the project. RESULTS: The P2P assessments revealed that 20 (42%) of the 48 possible criteria had a noted deficiency at one or more sites. Three of the eight major performance areas on the tracer tool had no deficiencies identified at any of the five sites. Deficiencies were mostly minor process improvements, and only one critical process required immediate alteration of practice. Because the assessments were nonpunitive, horizontal communication enabled feedback on process improvements, alternate methods to achieve outcomes, and solutions to common issues. CONCLUSIONS: A nonpunitive and collaborative peer methodology was successful in capturing and sharing best practices in endoscopy areas. Successful replication in other clinical areas can be an effective way to assess CDS processes and facilitate dialogue for improvements.

Clinical Communities at Johns Hopkins Medicine: An Emerging Approach to Quality Improvement.

BACKGROUND: Clinical communities are an emerging approach to quality improvement (QI) to which several large-scale projects have attributed some success. In 2011 the Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality established clinical communities as a core strategy to connect frontline providers from six different hospitals to improve quality of care, patient safety, and value across the health system. CLINICAL COMMUNITIES: Fourteen clinical communities that presented great opportunity for improvement were established. A community could focus on a clinical area, a patient population, a group, a process, a safety-related issue, or nearly any health care issue. The collaborative spirit of the communities embraced interdisciplinary membership and representation from each hospital in each community. Communities engaged in team-building activities and facilitated discussions, met monthly, and were encouraged to meet in person to develop relationships and build trust. After a community was established, patients and families were invited to join and share their perspectives and experiences. ENABLING STRUCTURES: The clinical community structure provided clinicians access to resources, such as technical experts and safety and QI researchers, that were not easily otherwise accessible or available. Communities convened clinicians from each hospital to consider safety problems and their resolution and share learning with workplace peers and local unit safety teams. CONCLUSION: The clinical communities engaged 195 clinicians from across the health system in QI projects and peer learning. Challenges included limited financial support and time for clinicians, timely access to data, limited resources from the health system, and not enough time with improvement experts.