Adverse diagnostic events in hospitalised patients: a single-centre, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Adverse event surveillance approaches underestimate the prevalence of harmful diagnostic errors (DEs) related to hospital care. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre, retrospective cohort study of a stratified sample of patients hospitalised on general medicine using four criteria: transfer to intensive care unit (ICU), death within 90 days, complex clinical events, and none of the aforementioned high-risk criteria. Cases in higher-risk subgroups were over-sampled in predefined percentages. Each case was reviewed by two adjudicators trained to judge the likelihood of DE using the Safer Dx instrument; characterise harm, preventability and severity; and identify associated process failures using the Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research Taxonomy modified for acute care. Cases with discrepancies or uncertainty about DE or impact were reviewed by an expert panel. We used descriptive statistics to report population estimates of harmful, preventable and severely harmful DEs by demographic variables based on the weighted sample, and characteristics of harmful DEs. Multivariable models were used to adjust association of process failures with harmful DEs. RESULTS: Of 9147 eligible cases, 675 were randomly sampled within each subgroup: 100% of ICU transfers, 38.5% of deaths within 90 days, 7% of cases with complex clinical events and 2.4% of cases without high-risk criteria. Based on the weighted sample, the population estimates of harmful, preventable and severely harmful DEs were 7.2% (95% CI 4.66 to 9.80), 6.1% (95% CI 3.79 to 8.50) and 1.1% (95% CI 0.55 to 1.68), respectively. Harmful DEs were frequently characterised as delays (61.9%). Severely harmful DEs were frequent in high-risk cases (55.1%). In multivariable models, process failures in assessment, diagnostic testing, subspecialty consultation, patient experience, and history were significantly associated with harmful DEs. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that a harmful DE occurred in 1 of every 14 patients hospitalised on general medicine, the majority of which were preventable. Our findings underscore the need for novel approaches for adverse DE surveillance.

Effect of digital tools to promote hospital quality and safety on adverse events after discharge.

OBJECTIVES: Post-discharge adverse events (AEs) are common and heralded by new and worsening symptoms (NWS). We evaluated the effect of electronic health record (EHR)-integrated digital tools designed to promote quality and safety in hospitalized patients on NWS and AEs after discharge. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adult general medicine patients at a community hospital were enrolled. We implemented a dashboard which clinicians used to assess safety risks during interdisciplinary rounds. Post-implementation patients were randomized to complete a discharge checklist whose responses were incorporated into the dashboard. Outcomes were assessed using EHR review and 30-day call data adjudicated by 2 clinicians and analyzed using Poisson regression. We conducted comparisons of each exposure on post-discharge outcomes and used selected variables and NWS as independent predictors to model post-discharge AEs using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 260 patients (122 pre, 71 post [dashboard], 67 post [dashboard plus discharge checklist]) enrolled. The adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRR) for NWS and AEs were unchanged in the post- compared to pre-implementation period. For patient-reported NWS, aIRR was non-significantly higher for dashboard plus discharge checklist compared to dashboard participants (1.23 [0.97,1.56], P = .08). For post-implementation patients with an AE, aIRR for duration of injury (>1 week) was significantly lower for dashboard plus discharge checklist compared to dashboard participants (0 [0,0.53], P < .01). In multivariable models, certain patient-reported NWS were associated with AEs (3.76 [1.89,7.82], P < .01). DISCUSSION: While significant reductions in post-discharge AEs were not observed, checklist participants experiencing a post-discharge AE were more likely to report NWS and had a shorter duration of injury. CONCLUSION: Interventions designed to prompt patients to report NWS may facilitate earlier detection of AEs after discharge. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT05232656.

Implementation of a standardised accept note to improve communication during inter-hospital transfer: a prospective cohort study.

IMPORTANCE: The transfer of patients between hospitals (interhospital transfer, IHT), exposes patients to communication errors and gaps in information exchange. OBJECTIVE: To design and implement a standardised accept note to improve communication during medical service transfers, and evaluate its impact on patient outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective interventional cohort study. SETTING: A 792-bed tertiary care hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patient transfers from any acute care hospital to the general medicine, cardiology, oncology and intensive care unit (ICU) services between August 2020 and June 2022. INTERVENTIONS: A standardised accept note template was developed over a 9-month period with key stakeholder input and embedded in the electronic health record, completed by nurses within the hospital's Access Centre. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcome was clinician-reported medical errors collected via surveys of admitting clinicians within 72 hours after IHT patient admission. Secondary outcomes included clinician-reported failures in communication; presence and 'timeliness' of accept note documentation; patient length of stay (LOS) after transfer; rapid response or ICU transfer within 24 hours and in-hospital mortality. All outcomes were analysed postintervention versus preintervention, adjusting for patient demographics, diagnosis, comorbidity, illness severity, admitting service, time of year, hospital COVID census and census of admitting service and admitting team on date of admission. RESULTS: Of the 1004 and 654 IHT patients during preintervention and postintervention periods, surveys were collected on 735 (73.2%) and 462 (70.6%), respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar among patients in each time period and between survey responders and non-responders. Adjusted analyses demonstrated a 27% reduction in clinician-reported medical error rates postimplementation versus preimplementation (11.5 vs 15.8, adjusted OR (aOR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99). Secondary outcomes demonstrated lower adjusted odds of clinician-reported failures in communication (aOR 0.88; 0.78 to 0.98) and rapid response/ICU transfer (aOR 0.57; 0.34 to 0.97), and improved presence (aOR 2.30; 1.75 to 3.02) and timeliness (-21.4 hours vs -8.7 hours, p<0.001) of accept note documentation. There were no significant differences in LOS or mortality. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among 1658 medical patient transfers, implementing a standardised accept note was associated with improved presence and timeliness of accept note documentation, clinician-reported medical errors, failures in communication and clinical decline following transfer, suggesting that improving communication during IHT can improve patient outcomes.

Early Expected Discharge Date Accuracy During Hospitalization: A Multivariable Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate estimation of an expected discharge date (EDD) early during hospitalization impacts clinical operations and discharge planning. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of patients discharged from six general medicine units at an academic medical center in Boston, MA from January 2017 to June 2018. We retrieved all EDD entries and patient, encounter, unit, and provider data from the electronic health record (EHR), and public weather data. We excluded patients who expired, discharged against medical advice, or lacked an EDD within the first 24 h of hospitalization. We used generalized estimating equations in a multivariable logistic regression analysis to model early EDD accuracy (an accurate EDD entered within 24 h of admission), adjusting for all covariates and clustering by patient. We similarly constructed a secondary multivariable model using covariates present upon admission alone. RESULTS: Of 3917 eligible hospitalizations, 890 (22.7%) had at least one accurate early EDD entry. Factors significantly positively associated (OR > 1) with an accurate early EDD included clinician-entered EDD, admit day and discharge day during the work week, and teaching clinical units. Factors significantly negatively associated (OR < 1) with an accurate early EDD included Elixhauser Comorbidity Index ≥ 11 and length of stay of two or more days. C-statistics for the primary and secondary multivariable models were 0.75 and 0.60, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: EDDs entered within the first 24 h of admission were often inaccurate. While several variables from the EHR were associated with accurate early EDD entries, few would be useful for prospective prediction.

Effects of a refined evidence-based toolkit and mentored implementation on medication reconciliation at 18 hospitals: results of the MARQUIS2 study.

BACKGROUND: The first Multicenter Medication Reconciliation Quality Improvement (QI) Study (MARQUIS1) demonstrated that mentored implementation of a medication reconciliation best practices toolkit decreased total unintentional medication discrepancies in five hospitals, but results varied by site. The objective of this study was to determine the effects of a refined toolkit on a larger group of hospitals. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic quality improvement study (MARQUIS2) at 18 North American hospitals or hospital systems from 2016 to 2018. Incorporating lessons learnt from MARQUIS1, we implemented a refined toolkit, offering 17 system-level and 6 patient-level interventions. One of eight physician mentors coached each site via monthly calls and performed one to two site visits. The primary outcome was number of unintentional medication discrepancies in admission or discharge orders per patient. Time series analysis used multivariable Poisson regression. RESULTS: A total of 4947 patients were sampled, including 1229 patients preimplementation and 3718 patients postimplementation. Both the number of system-level interventions adopted per site and the proportion of patients receiving patient-level interventions increased over time. During the intervention, patients experienced a steady decline in their medication discrepancy rate from 2.85 discrepancies per patient to 0.98 discrepancies per patient. An interrupted time series analysis of the 17 sites with sufficient data for analysis showed the intervention was associated with a 5% relative decrease in discrepancies per month over baseline temporal trends (adjusted incidence rate ratio: 0.95, 95% CI 0.93 to 0.97, p<0.001). Receipt of patient-level interventions was associated with decreased discrepancy rates, and these associations increased over time as sites adopted more system-level interventions. CONCLUSION: A multicentre medication reconciliation QI initiative using mentored implementation of a refined best practices toolkit, including patient-level and system-level interventions, was associated with a substantial decrease in unintentional medication discrepancies over time. Future efforts should focus on sustainability and spread.

Mixed-Methods Evaluation of Real-Time Safety Reporting by Hospitalized Patients and Their Care Partners: The MySafeCare Application.

OBJECTIVE: The aims of the study were to evaluate the amount and content of data patients and care partners reported using a real-time electronic safety tool compared with other reporting mechanisms and to understand their perspectives on safety concerns and reporting in the hospital. METHODS: This study used mixed methods including 20-month preimplementation and postimplementation trial evaluating MySafeCare, a web-based application, which allows hospitalized patients/care partners to report safety concerns in real time. The study compared MySafeCare submission rates for three hospital units (oncology acute care, vascular intermediate care, medical intensive care) with submissions rates of Patient Family Relations (PFR) Department, a hospital service to address patient/family concerns. The study used triangulation of quantitative data with thematic analysis of safety concern submissions and patient/care partner interviews to understand submission content and perspectives on safety reporting. RESULTS: Thirty-two MySafeCare submissions were received with an average rate of 1.7 submissions per 1000 patient-days and a range of 0.3 to 4.8 submissions per 1000 patient-days across all units, indicating notable variation between units. MySafeCare submission rates were significantly higher than PFR submission rates during the postintervention period on the vascular unit (4.3 [95% confidence interval = 2.8-6.5] versus 1.5 [95% confidence interval = 0.7-3.1], Poisson) (P = 0.01). Overall trends indicated a decrease in PFR submissions after MySafeCare implementation. Triangulated data indicated patients preferred to report anonymously and did not want concerns submitted directly to their care team. CONCLUSIONS: MySafeCare evaluation confirmed the potential value of providing an electronic, anonymous reporting tool in the hospital to capture safety concerns in real time. Such applications should be tested further as part of patient safety programs.

Potential of an Electronic Health Record-Integrated Patient Portal for Improving Care Plan Concordance during Acute Care.

BACKGROUND: Care plan concordance among patients and clinicians during hospitalization is suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: This article determines whether an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated patient portal was associated with increased understanding of the care plan, including the key recovery goal, among patients and clinicians in acute care setting. METHODS: The intervention included (1) a patient portal configured to solicit a single patient-designated recovery goal and display the care plan from the EHR for participating patients; and (2) an electronic care plan for all unit-based nurses that displays patient-inputted information, accessible to all clinicians via the EHR. Patients admitted to an oncology unit, including their nurses and physicians, were enrolled before and after implementation. Main outcomes included mean concordance scores for the overall care plan and individual care plan elements. RESULTS: Of 457 and 283 eligible patients approached during pre- and postintervention periods, 55 and 46 participated in interviews, respectively, including their clinicians. Of 46 postintervention patients, 27 (58.7%) enrolled in the patient portal. The intention-to-treat analysis demonstrated a nonsignificant increase in the mean concordance score for the overall care plan (62.0-67.1, adjusted p = 0.13), and significant increases in mean concordance scores for the recovery goal (30.3-57.7, adjusted p < 0.01) and main reason for hospitalization (58.6-79.2, adjusted p < 0.01). The on-treatment analysis of patient portal enrollees demonstrated significant increases in mean concordance scores for the overall care plan (61.9-70.0, adjusted p < 0.01), the recovery goal (30.4-66.8, adjusted p < 0.01), and main reason for hospitalization (58.3-81.7, adjusted p < 0.01), comparable to the intention-to-treat analysis. CONCLUSION: Implementation of an EHR-integrated patient portal was associated with increased concordance for key care plan components. Future efforts should be directed at improving concordance for other care plan components and conducting larger, randomized studies to evaluate the impact on key outcomes during transitions of care. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER: NCT02258594.

The Impact of Automated Notification on Follow-up of Actionable Tests Pending at Discharge: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Follow-up of tests pending at discharge (TPADs) is poor. We previously demonstrated a twofold increase in awareness of any TPAD by attendings and primary care physicians (PCPs) using an automated email intervention OBJECTIVE: To determine whether automated notification improves documented follow-up for actionable TPADs DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial SUBJECTS: Attendings and PCPs caring for adult patients discharged from general medicine and cardiology services with at least one actionable TPAD between June 2011 and May 2012 INTERVENTION: An automated system that notifies discharging attendings and network PCPs of finalized TPADs by email MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of actionable TPADs with documented action determined by independent physician review of the electronic health record (EHR). Secondary outcomes included documented acknowledgment, 30-day readmissions, and adjusted median days to documented follow-up. KEY RESULTS: Of the 3378 TPADs sampled, 253 (7.5%) were determined to be actionable by physician review. Of these, 150 (123 patients discharged by 53 attendings) and 103 (90 patients discharged by 44 attendings) were assigned to intervention and usual care groups, respectively, and underwent chart review. The proportion of actionable TPADs with documented action was 60.7 vs. 56.3% (p = 0.82) in the intervention vs. usual care groups, similar for documented acknowledgment. The proportion of patients with actionable TPADs readmitted within 30 days was 22.8 vs. 31.1% in the intervention vs. usual care groups (p = 0.24). The adjusted median days [95% CI] to documented action was 9 [6.2, 11.8] vs. 14 [10.2, 17.8] (p = 0.04) in the intervention vs. usual care groups, similar for documented acknowledgment. In sub-group analysis, the intervention had greater impact on documented action for patients with network PCPs compared with usual care (70 vs. 50%, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Automated notification of actionable TPADs shortened time to action but did not significantly improve documented follow-up, except for network-affiliated patients. The high proportion of actionable TPADs without any documented follow-up (~ 40%) represents an ongoing safety concern. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER: NCT01153451.

Towards Analytics of the Patient and Family Perspective: A Case Study and Recommendations for Data Capture of Safety and Quality Concerns.

Safety reporting systems are improving our current understanding of safety in hospital settings, although mostly from the clinician perspective. Patient Family Relations (PFR) programs provide the opportunity to capture patient/family concerns in the hospital. Descriptive statistics were completed of PFR concern submissions over a 20 month period, as well as a comparison of structured data fields to those of the AHRQ Common Format. We identified statistically significant differences in rates of concern submissions, methods of submission, and role of submitter across patient populations. Overall, the most frequent concerns submitted to PFR were care/treatment and communication concerns. There was very little overlap of the PFR data elements with those of the AHRQ Common Format (overall rate of mismatch approached 80%). These results emphasize both the unique information that PFR data provides, as well as the need for enhancement and continuity of reporting systems for more effective analysis of safety data.

Impact of an automated email notification system for results of tests pending at discharge: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Physician awareness of the results of tests pending at discharge (TPADs) is poor. We developed an automated system that notifies responsible physicians of TPAD results via secure, network email. We sought to evaluate the impact of this system on self-reported awareness of TPAD results by responsible physicians, a necessary intermediary step to improve management of TPAD results. METHODS: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial at a major hospital affiliated with an integrated healthcare delivery network in Boston, Massachusetts. Adult patients with TPADs who were discharged from inpatient general medicine and cardiology services were assigned to the intervention or usual care arm if their inpatient attending physician and primary care physician (PCP) were both randomized to the same study arm. Patients of physicians randomized to discordant study arms were excluded. We surveyed these physicians 72 h after all TPAD results were finalized. The primary outcome was awareness of TPAD results by attending physicians. Secondary outcomes included awareness of TPAD results by PCPs, awareness of actionable TPAD results, and provider satisfaction. RESULTS: We analyzed data on 441 patients. We sent 441 surveys to attending physicians and 353 surveys to PCPs and received 275 and 152 responses from 83 different attending physicians and 112 different PCPs, respectively (attending physician survey response rate of 63%). Intervention attending physicians and PCPs were significantly more aware of TPAD results (76% vs 38%, adjusted/clustered OR 6.30 (95% CI 3.02 to 13.16), p<0.001; 57% vs 33%, adjusted/clustered OR 3.08 (95% CI 1.43 to 6.66), p=0.004, respectively). Intervention attending physicians tended to be more aware of actionable TPAD results (59% vs 29%, adjusted/clustered OR 4.25 (0.65, 27.85), p=0.13). One hundred and eighteen (85%) and 43 (63%) intervention attending physician and PCP survey respondents, respectively, were satisfied with this intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Automated email notification represents a promising strategy for managing TPAD results, potentially mitigating an unresolved patient safety concern. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01153451).

Use and perceived benefits of handheld computer-based clinical references.

OBJECTIVE: Clinicians are increasingly using handheld computers (HC) during patient care. We sought to assess the role of HC-based clinical reference software in medical practice by conducting a survey and assessing actual usage behavior. DESIGN: During a 2-week period in February 2005, 3600 users of a HC-based clinical reference application were asked by e-mail to complete a survey and permit analysis of their usage patterns. The software includes a pharmacopeia, an infectious disease reference, a medical diagnostic and therapeutic reference and transmits medical alerts and other notifications during HC synchronizations. Software usage data were captured during HC synchronization for the 4 weeks prior to survey completion. MEASUREMENTS: Survey responses and software usage data. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 42% (n = 1501). Physicians reported using the clinical reference software for a mean of 4 years and 39% reported using the software during more than half of patient encounters. Physicians who synchronized their HC during the data collection period (n = 1249; 83%) used the pharmacopeia for unique drug lookups a mean of 6.3 times per day (SD 12.4). The majority of users (61%) believed that in the prior 4 weeks, use of the clinical reference prevented adverse drug events or medication errors 3 or more times. Physicians also believed that alerts and other notifications improved patient care if they were public health warnings (e.g. about influenza), new immunization guidelines or drug alert warnings (e.g. rofecoxib withdrawal). CONCLUSION: Current adopters of HC-based medical references use these tools frequently, and found them to improve patient care and be valuable in learning of recent alerts and warnings.

Prescription of antipsychotic drugs by office-based physicians in the United States, 1989-1997.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined trends in the prescription of antipsychotic drugs in a nationally representative sample of physicians in nonfederal office-based clinical practice during the 1990s. METHODS: The authors analyzed physician-reported data from annual National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys between 1989 and 1997 using weighted national estimates of physician visits during which antipsychotic drugs were prescribed. Prescription rates for antipsychotic drugs were compared between periods and among demographic, organizational, and clinical subgroups. RESULTS: Prescription of antipsychotic drugs in office-based practice increased significantly between 1989 and 1997. In 1989 antipsychotics were prescribed during 3.2 million office visits (.46 percent of all visits), compared with 6.9 million visits in 1997 (.88 percent). The atypical antipsychotics risperidone and olanzapine were the most widely prescribed antipsychotics in 1997. Risperidone was prescribed during 22.8 percent of all visits that involved prescription of an antipsychotic, and olanzapine during 17.1 percent. Psychiatrists were more likely than other physicians to prescribe an atypical agent (37.1 percent of visits involving prescription of an antipsychotic compared with 14.2 percent). Psychiatrists were also more likely than other physicians to schedule a follow-up visit after prescribing an antipsychotic (96.6 percent of visits compared with 73 percent). No evidence was found of a broadening of diagnostic indications for use over time. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of prescription of antipsychotic drugs among office-based physicians increased sharply during the 1990s after a nine-year decline. The increase was accounted for by growth in the use of atypical antipsychotics; the overall prescription rate of conventional agents did not change. Psychiatrists were more likely to prescribe atypical agents and to monitor more closely patients who were taking antipsychotics.