Christine D Jones, MD, MS

Earlier this year, the Journal of Hospital Medicine updated its author guidelines to include recommendations on addressing race and racism.¹ These recommendations include explicitly naming racism (rather than race) as a determinant of health. Operationalizing these recommendations into manuscripts represents a fundamental shift in how we ask research questions, structure analyses, and interpret results.

In this issue, Maxwell et al² illustrate how to disseminate research through this lens in their retrospective cohort study of children with type 1 diabetes hospitalized with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Using 6 years of data from a major academic pediatric medical center, the authors examine the association between risk for DKA admission and three factors: neighborhood poverty level, race, and type of insurance (public or private). Secondary outcomes include DKA severity and length of stay. In their unadjusted model, poverty, race, and insurance were all associated with increased hospitalizations. However, following adjustment, the association between race and hospitalizations disappeared.In line with the journal’s new guidelines, the authors point out that the statistically significant associations of poverty and insurance type with clinical outcomes suggest that racism, rather than race, is a social factor at work in their population. The authors provide further context regarding structural racism in the United States and the history of redlining, which has helped shape a society in which Black individuals are more likely to live in areas of concentrated poverty and be publicly insured.

Two other findings related to the impact of racism are notable. First, in both their univariate and multivariate models, the authors found significant A1c differences between Black and White children—higher than those of previous reports.³ These findings suggest the existence of structural factors at work in the health of their patients. Second, Black patients had longer lengths of stay when compared to White patients with the same severity of DKA. Neither poverty level nor insurance status were significantly associated with length of stay. While the analysis was limited to detecting this difference, rather than identifying its causes, the authors suggest factors at both individual and structural levels that may be impacting outcomes. Specifically, care team bias may impact discharge decisions, and factors such as less flexible times to complete diabetes education, transportation barriers, and childcare challenges could also impact discharge timing.

This work provides a template for how to address the impact of racism on health with intentionality. Moreover, individuals’ lived environments should be considered through alternative economic measurements and neighborhood definitions. The proportion of people within a census tract living below the federal poverty line is just one measure of the complex dynamics that contribute to an individual’s socioeconomic status. An alternative measure is the area deprivation index, which incorporates 17 indicators at the more granular census block group level to describe an individual’s environment⁴ and could be useful in this area of research.

Perhaps most relevant is the use of public insurance as a marker of socioeconomic status. Medicaid, although not without its flaws, provides fairly comprehensive coverage. However, many Americans have incomes too high to qualify for public insurance but too low to afford adequate insurance coverage. Theoretically, these individuals qualify for subsidies through the Affordable Care Act, yet underinsurance remains a significant issue.⁵ Future analyses to further understand and describe clinical outcomes could include this population of underinsured children as a distinct at-risk group. Maxwell et al² provide an excellent example of how we should address race and racism in disseminated literature. Although initially challenging, writing with intentionality regarding this fundamental determinant of health can provide rich and actionable information for practitioners and policy-makers.

Earlier this year, the Journal of Hospital Medicine updated its author guidelines to include recommendations on addressing race and racism.¹ These recommendations include explicitly naming racism (rather than race) as a determinant of health. Operationalizing these recommendations into manuscripts represents a fundamental shift in how we ask research questions, structure analyses, and interpret results.

In this issue, Maxwell et al² illustrate how to disseminate research through this lens in their retrospective cohort study of children with type 1 diabetes hospitalized with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Using 6 years of data from a major academic pediatric medical center, the authors examine the association between risk for DKA admission and three factors: neighborhood poverty level, race, and type of insurance (public or private). Secondary outcomes include DKA severity and length of stay. In their unadjusted model, poverty, race, and insurance were all associated with increased hospitalizations. However, following adjustment, the association between race and hospitalizations disappeared.In line with the journal’s new guidelines, the authors point out that the statistically significant associations of poverty and insurance type with clinical outcomes suggest that racism, rather than race, is a social factor at work in their population. The authors provide further context regarding structural racism in the United States and the history of redlining, which has helped shape a society in which Black individuals are more likely to live in areas of concentrated poverty and be publicly insured.

Two other findings related to the impact of racism are notable. First, in both their univariate and multivariate models, the authors found significant A1c differences between Black and White children—higher than those of previous reports.³ These findings suggest the existence of structural factors at work in the health of their patients. Second, Black patients had longer lengths of stay when compared to White patients with the same severity of DKA. Neither poverty level nor insurance status were significantly associated with length of stay. While the analysis was limited to detecting this difference, rather than identifying its causes, the authors suggest factors at both individual and structural levels that may be impacting outcomes. Specifically, care team bias may impact discharge decisions, and factors such as less flexible times to complete diabetes education, transportation barriers, and childcare challenges could also impact discharge timing.

This work provides a template for how to address the impact of racism on health with intentionality. Moreover, individuals’ lived environments should be considered through alternative economic measurements and neighborhood definitions. The proportion of people within a census tract living below the federal poverty line is just one measure of the complex dynamics that contribute to an individual’s socioeconomic status. An alternative measure is the area deprivation index, which incorporates 17 indicators at the more granular census block group level to describe an individual’s environment⁴ and could be useful in this area of research.

Perhaps most relevant is the use of public insurance as a marker of socioeconomic status. Medicaid, although not without its flaws, provides fairly comprehensive coverage. However, many Americans have incomes too high to qualify for public insurance but too low to afford adequate insurance coverage. Theoretically, these individuals qualify for subsidies through the Affordable Care Act, yet underinsurance remains a significant issue.⁵ Future analyses to further understand and describe clinical outcomes could include this population of underinsured children as a distinct at-risk group. Maxwell et al² provide an excellent example of how we should address race and racism in disseminated literature. Although initially challenging, writing with intentionality regarding this fundamental determinant of health can provide rich and actionable information for practitioners and policy-makers.

Earlier this year, the Journal of Hospital Medicine updated its author guidelines to include recommendations on addressing race and racism.¹ These recommendations include explicitly naming racism (rather than race) as a determinant of health. Operationalizing these recommendations into manuscripts represents a fundamental shift in how we ask research questions, structure analyses, and interpret results.

In this issue, Maxwell et al² illustrate how to disseminate research through this lens in their retrospective cohort study of children with type 1 diabetes hospitalized with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). Using 6 years of data from a major academic pediatric medical center, the authors examine the association between risk for DKA admission and three factors: neighborhood poverty level, race, and type of insurance (public or private). Secondary outcomes include DKA severity and length of stay. In their unadjusted model, poverty, race, and insurance were all associated with increased hospitalizations. However, following adjustment, the association between race and hospitalizations disappeared.In line with the journal’s new guidelines, the authors point out that the statistically significant associations of poverty and insurance type with clinical outcomes suggest that racism, rather than race, is a social factor at work in their population. The authors provide further context regarding structural racism in the United States and the history of redlining, which has helped shape a society in which Black individuals are more likely to live in areas of concentrated poverty and be publicly insured.

Two other findings related to the impact of racism are notable. First, in both their univariate and multivariate models, the authors found significant A1c differences between Black and White children—higher than those of previous reports.³ These findings suggest the existence of structural factors at work in the health of their patients. Second, Black patients had longer lengths of stay when compared to White patients with the same severity of DKA. Neither poverty level nor insurance status were significantly associated with length of stay. While the analysis was limited to detecting this difference, rather than identifying its causes, the authors suggest factors at both individual and structural levels that may be impacting outcomes. Specifically, care team bias may impact discharge decisions, and factors such as less flexible times to complete diabetes education, transportation barriers, and childcare challenges could also impact discharge timing.

This work provides a template for how to address the impact of racism on health with intentionality. Moreover, individuals’ lived environments should be considered through alternative economic measurements and neighborhood definitions. The proportion of people within a census tract living below the federal poverty line is just one measure of the complex dynamics that contribute to an individual’s socioeconomic status. An alternative measure is the area deprivation index, which incorporates 17 indicators at the more granular census block group level to describe an individual’s environment⁴ and could be useful in this area of research.

Perhaps most relevant is the use of public insurance as a marker of socioeconomic status. Medicaid, although not without its flaws, provides fairly comprehensive coverage. However, many Americans have incomes too high to qualify for public insurance but too low to afford adequate insurance coverage. Theoretically, these individuals qualify for subsidies through the Affordable Care Act, yet underinsurance remains a significant issue.⁵ Future analyses to further understand and describe clinical outcomes could include this population of underinsured children as a distinct at-risk group. Maxwell et al² provide an excellent example of how we should address race and racism in disseminated literature. Although initially challenging, writing with intentionality regarding this fundamental determinant of health can provide rich and actionable information for practitioners and policy-makers.

Studies continue to demonstrate persistent gaps in equity for women and underrepresented minorities (URMs)¹ throughout nearly all aspects of academic medicine, including rank,^2-4 tenure,⁵ authorship,^6,7 funding opportunities,^8,9 awards,¹⁰ speakership,¹¹ leadership,^12,13 and salaries.^2,14,15 Hospital medicine, despite being a newer field,¹⁶ has also seen these disparities^17,18; however, there are numerous efforts in place to actively change our specialty’s course.^19-22 Hospital medicine is a field known for being a change agent in healthcare delivery,²² and its novel approaches are well poised to fundamentally shatter the glass ceilings imposed on traditionally underrepresented groups in medicine. The importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in healthcare has never been clearer,^23,24 particularly as they relate to cultural competence^25-28 and cultural humility,^29,30 implicit and explicit bias,²⁷ expanding care for underserved patient populations, supporting our workforce, and broadening research agendas.²⁸

In this article, we report DEI efforts within our division, focusing on the development of our strategic plan and specific outcomes related to compensation, recruitment, and policies.

Our Division’s Framework to DEI—“It Takes a Village”

Our Division of Hospital Medicine (DHM), previously within the Division of General Internal Medicine, was founded in October 2017. The DHM at the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) is composed of 100 faculty members (70 physicians and 30 advanced-practice providers; 58% women and 42% men). In 2018, we implemented a stepwise approach to critically assess DEI within our group and to build a strategic plan to address the issues. Key areas of focus included institutional structures, our people, our environments, and our core missions (Figure 1 and Appendix Figure 1). DHM members helped drive our work and partnered with departmental, hospital, and school of medicine committees; national organizations; and collaborators to enhance implementation and dissemination efforts. In addition to stakeholder engagement, we utilized strategic planning and rapid Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to advance DEI work in our DHM.

Needs Assessment

As a new division, we sought stakeholder feedback from division members. All faculty within the division were invited to attend a meeting in which issues related to DEI were discussed. A literature review that spanned both medical and nonmedical fields was also completed. Search terms included salary equity, gender equity, diverse teams, diversity recruitment and retention, diversifying leadership, and diverse speakers. Salaries, internally funded time, and other processes, such as recruitment, promotion, and hiring for leadership positions, were evaluated during the first year we became a division.

Interventions

TThrough this work, and with stakeholder engagement, we developed a divisional strategic plan to address DEI globally. Our strategic plan included developing a DEI director role to assist with overseeing DEI efforts. We have highlighted the various methods utilized for each component (Figure 1). This work occurred from October 2017 to December 2018.

Our institutional structures

Using best practices from both medical and nonmedical fields, we developed evidence-based approaches to compensation,³¹ recruitment,³² and policies that support and foster a culture of DEI.³² These strategies were used to support the following initiatives:

Compensation: transparent and consistent approaches based upon benchmarking with a framework of equal pay for equal work and similar advanced training/academic rank. In conjunction with efforts within the School of Medicine (SOM), Department of Medicine (DOM), and the UCH, our division sought to study salaries across DHM faculty members. We had an open call for faculty to participate in a newly developed DHM Compensation Committee, with the intent of rigorously examining our compensation practices and goals. Through faculty feedback and committee work, salary equity was defined as equal pay (ie, base salary for one clinical full-time equivalent [FTE]) for equal work based on academic rank and/or years of practice/advanced training. We also compared DHM salaries to regional academic hospital medicine groups and concluded that DHM salaries were lower than local and national benchmarks. This information was used to create a two-phase approach to increasing salaries for all individuals below the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) benchmarks³³ for academic hospitalists. We also developed a stipend system for external roles that came with additional compensation and roles within our own division that came with additional pay (ie, nocturnist). Phase 1 focused on those whose salaries were furthest away from and below benchmark, and phase 2 targeted all remaining individuals below benchmark.

A similar review of FTEs (based on required number of shifts for a full-time hospitalist) tied to our internal DHM leadership positions was completed by the division head and director of DEI. Specifically, the mission for each of our internally funded roles, job descriptions, and responsibilities was reviewed to ensure equity in funding.

Recruitment and advancement: processes to ensure equity and diversity in recruitment, tracking, and reporting, working to eliminate/mitigate bias. In collaboration with members of the AAMC Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS) and coauthors from various institutions, we developed toolkits and checklists aimed at achieving equity and diversity within candidate pools and on major committees, including, but not limited to, search and promotion committees.³² Additionally, a checklist was developed to help recruit more diverse speakers, including women and URMs, for local, regional, and national conferences.

Policies: evidence-based approaches, tracking and reporting, standardized approaches to eliminate/mitigate bias, embracing nontraditional paths. In partnership with our departmental efforts, members of our team led data collection and reporting for salary benchmarking, leadership roles, and committee membership. This included developing surveys and reporting templates that can be used to identify disparities and inform future efforts. We worked to ensure that we have faculty representing our field at the department and SOM levels. Specifically, we made sure to nominate division members during open calls for departmental and schoolwide committees, including the promotions committee.

Our People

The faculty and staff within our division have been instrumental in moving efforts forward in the following important areas.

Leadership: develop the position of director of DEI as well as leadership structures to support and increase DEI. One of the first steps in our strategic plan was creating a director of DEI leadership role (Appendix Figure 2). The director is responsible for researching, applying, and promoting a broad scope of DEI initiatives and best practices within the DHM, DOM, and SOM (in collaboration with their leaders), including recruitment, retention, and promotion of medical students, residents, and faculty; educational program development; health disparities research; and community-engaged scholarship.

Support: develop family leave policies/develop flexible work policies. Several members of our division worked on departmental committees and served in leadership roles on staff and faculty council. Estimated costs were assessed. Through collective efforts of department leadership and division head support, the department approved parental leave to employees following the birth of an employee’s child or the placement of a child with an employee in connection with adoption or permanent foster care.

Mentorship/sponsorship: enhance faculty advancement programs/develop pipeline and trainings/collaborate with student groups and organizations/invest in all of our people. Faculty across our divisional sites have held important roles in developing pipeline programs for undergraduate students bound for health professions, as well as programs developed specifically for medical students and internal medicine residents. This includes two programs, the CU Hospitalist Scholars Program (CUHSP) and Leadership Education for Aspiring Doctors (LEAD), in which undergraduate students have the opportunity to round with hospital medicine teams, work on quality-improvement projects, and receive extensive mentorship and advising from a diverse faculty team. Additionally, our faculty advancement team within the DHM has grown and been restructured to include more defined goals and to ensure each faculty member has at least one mentor in their area of interest.

Supportive: lactation space and support/diverse space options/inclusive and diverse environments. We worked closely with hospital leadership to advocate for adequately equipped lactation spaces, including equipment such as pumps, refrigerators, and computer workstations. Additionally, our team members conducted environmental scans (eg, identified pictures, artwork, or other images that were not representative of a diverse and inclusive environment and raised concerns when the environment was not inclusive).

Measures

Our measures focused on (1) development and implementation of our DEI strategic plan, including new policies, processes, and practices related to key components of the DEI program; and (2) assessment of specific DEI programs, including pre-post salary data disparities based on rank and pre-post disparities for protected time for similar roles.

Analysis

Through rapid PDSA cycles, we evaluated salary equity, equity in leadership allotment, and committee membership. We have developed a tracking board to track progress of the multiple projects in the strategic plan.

Strategic Plan Development and Tracking

From October 2017 to December 2018, we developed a robust strategic plan and stepwise approach to DEI (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The director of DEI position was developed (see Appendix Figure 2 for job description) to help oversee these efforts. Figure 3 highlights the specific efforts and the progress made on implementation (ie, high-level dashboard or “tracking board”). While outcomes are still pending in the areas of recruitment and advancement and environment, we have made measurable improvements in compensation, as outlined in the following section.

Compensation

One year after the salary-equity interventions, all of our physician faculty’s salaries were at the goal benchmark (Table), and differences in salary for those in similar years of rank were nearly eliminated. Similarly, after implementing an internally consistent approach to assigning FTE for new and established positions within the division (ie, those that fall within the purview of the division), all faculty in similar types of roles had similar amounts of protected time.

Recruitment and Advancement

Toolkits³² and committee recommendations have been incorporated into division goals, though some aspects are still in implementation phases, as division-wide implicit bias training was delayed secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic. Key goals include: (1) implicit bias training for all members of major committees; (2) aiming for a goal of at least 40% representation of women and 40% URMs on committees; (3) having a diversity expert serve on each committee in order to identify and discuss any potential bias in the search and candidate-selection processes; and (4) careful tracking of diversity metrics in regard to diversity of candidates at each step of the interview and selection process.

Surveys and reporting templates for equity on committees and leadership positions have been developed and deployed. Data dashboards for our division have been developed as well (for compensation, leadership, and committee membership). A divisional dashboard to report recruitment efforts is in progress.

We have successfully nominated several faculty members to the SOM promotions committee and departmental committees during open calls for these positions. At the division level, we have also adapted internal policies to ensure promotion occurs on time and offers alternative pathways for faculty that may primarily focus on clinical pathways. All faculty who have gone up for promotion thus far have been successfully promoted in their desired pathway.

Environment

We successfully advocated and achieved adequately equipped lactation spaces, including equipment such as pumps, refrigerators, and computer workstations. This achievement was possible because of our hospital partners. Our efforts helped us acquire sufficient space and facilities such that nursing mothers can pump and still be able to answer phones, enter orders, and document visits.

Our team members conducted environmental scans and raised concerns when the environment was not inclusive, such as conference rooms with portraits of leadership that do not show diversity. The all-male pictures were removed from one frequently used departmental conference room, which will eventually house a diverse group of pictures and achievements.

We aim to eliminate bias by offering implicit bias training for our faculty. While this is presently required for those who serve on committees, in leadership positions, or those involved in recruitment and interviewing for the DOM, our goal is to eventually provide this training to all faculty and staff in the division. We have also incorporated DEI topics into our educational conferences for faculty, including sessions on recognizing bias in medicine, how to be an upstander/ally, and the impact of race and racism on medicine.

DISCUSSION

The important findings of this work are: (1) that successes in DEI can be achieved with strategic planning and stakeholder engagement; (2) through simple modification of processes, we can improve equity in compensation and FTE allotted to leadership; (3) though it takes time, diversity recruitment can be improved using sound, sustainable, evidence-based processes; (4) this work is time-intensive and challenging, requiring ongoing efforts to improve, modify, and enhance current efforts and future successes.

We have certainly made some progress with DEI initiatives within our division and have also learned a great deal from this experience. First, change is difficult for all parties involved, including those leading change and those affected by the changes. We purposely made an effort to facilitate discussions with all of the DHM faculty and staff to ensure that everyone felt included in this work and that everyone’s voice was heard. This was exemplified by inviting all faculty members to a feedback session in which we discussed DEI within our division and areas that we wanted to improve on. Early on, we were able to define what diversity, equity, and inclusion meant to us as a division and then use these definitions to develop tangible goals for all the areas of highest importance to the group.

By increasing faculty presence on key committees, such as the promotions committee, we now have faculty members who are well versed in promotions processes. We are fortunate to have a promotions process that supports faculty advancement for faculty with diverse interests that spans from supporting highly clinical faculty, clinician educators, as well as more traditional researchers.³⁴ By having hospitalists serve in these roles, we help to add to the diverse perspectives on these committees, including emphasizing the scholarship that is associated with quality improvement, as well as DEI efforts which can often be viewed as service as opposed to scholarship.

Clear communication and transparency were key to all of our DEI initiatives. We had monthly updates on our DEI efforts during business meetings and also held impromptu meetings (also known as flash mobs³⁵) to answer questions and discuss concerns in real time. As with all DEI work, it is important to know where you are starting (having accurate data and a clear understanding of the data) and be able to communicate that data to the group. For example, using AAMC salary benchmarking³³ as well as other benchmarks allowed us to accurately calculate variance among salaries and identify the appropriate goal salary for each of our faculty members. Likewise, by completing an in-depth inventory on the work being done by all of our faculty in leadership roles, we were able to standardize the compensation/FTE for each of these roles. Tracking these changes over time, via the use of dashboards in our case, allows for real-time measurements and accountability for all of those involved. Our end goal will be to have all of these initiatives feed into one large dashboard.

Collaborating with leadership and stakeholders in the DOM, SOM, and hospital helped to make our DEI initiatives successful. Much too often, we work in silos when it comes to DEI work. However, we tend to have similar goals and can achieve much more if we work together. Collaboration with multiple stakeholders allowed for wider dissemination and resulted in a larger impact to the campus and community at large. This has been exemplified by the committee composition guidance that has been utilized by the DOM, as well as implementation of campus-wide policies, specifically the parental leave policy, which our faculty members played an important role in creating. Likewise, it is important to look outside of our institutions and work with other hospital medicine groups around the country who are interested in promoting DEI.

We still have much work ahead of us. We are continuing to measure outcomes status postimplementation of the toolkit and checklists being used for diversity recruitment and committee composition. Additionally, we are actively working on several initiatives, including:

• Instituting implicit bias training for all of our faculty
• Partnering with national leaders and our hospital systems to develop zero-tolerance policies regarding abusive behaviors (verbal, physical, and other), racism, and sexism in the hospital and other work settings
• Development of specific recruitment strategies as a means of diversifying our healthcare workforce (of note, based on a 2020 survey of our faculty, in which there was a 70% response rate, 8.5% of our faculty identified as URMs)
• Completion of a diversity dashboard to track our progress in all of these efforts over time
• Development of a more robust pipeline to promotion and leadership for our URM faculty

This study has several strengths. Many of the plans and strategies described here can be used to guide others interested in implementing this work. Figure 2 provides a stepwise
approach to addressing DEI in hospital medicine groups and divisions. We conducted this work at a large academic medical center, and while it may not be generalizable, it does offer some ideas for others to consider in their own work to advance DEI at their institutions. There are also several limitations to this work. Eliminating salary inequities with our approach did take resources. We took advantage of already lower salaries and the need to increase salaries closer to benchmark and paired this effort with our DEI efforts to achieve salary equity. This required partnerships with the department and hospital. Efforts to advance DEI also take a lot of time and effort, and thus commitment from the division, department, and institution as a whole is key. While we have outcomes for our efforts related to salary equity, recruitment efforts should be realized over time, as currently it is too early to tell. We have highlighted the efforts that have been put in place at this time.

Using a systematic evidence-based approach with key stakeholder involvement, a division-wide DEI strategy was developed and implemented. While this work is still ongoing, short-term wins are possible, in particular around salary equity and development of policies and structures to promote DEI.

Studies continue to demonstrate persistent gaps in equity for women and underrepresented minorities (URMs)¹ throughout nearly all aspects of academic medicine, including rank,^2-4 tenure,⁵ authorship,^6,7 funding opportunities,^8,9 awards,¹⁰ speakership,¹¹ leadership,^12,13 and salaries.^2,14,15 Hospital medicine, despite being a newer field,¹⁶ has also seen these disparities^17,18; however, there are numerous efforts in place to actively change our specialty’s course.^19-22 Hospital medicine is a field known for being a change agent in healthcare delivery,²² and its novel approaches are well poised to fundamentally shatter the glass ceilings imposed on traditionally underrepresented groups in medicine. The importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in healthcare has never been clearer,^23,24 particularly as they relate to cultural competence^25-28 and cultural humility,^29,30 implicit and explicit bias,²⁷ expanding care for underserved patient populations, supporting our workforce, and broadening research agendas.²⁸

In this article, we report DEI efforts within our division, focusing on the development of our strategic plan and specific outcomes related to compensation, recruitment, and policies.

Our Division’s Framework to DEI—“It Takes a Village”

Our Division of Hospital Medicine (DHM), previously within the Division of General Internal Medicine, was founded in October 2017. The DHM at the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) is composed of 100 faculty members (70 physicians and 30 advanced-practice providers; 58% women and 42% men). In 2018, we implemented a stepwise approach to critically assess DEI within our group and to build a strategic plan to address the issues. Key areas of focus included institutional structures, our people, our environments, and our core missions (Figure 1 and Appendix Figure 1). DHM members helped drive our work and partnered with departmental, hospital, and school of medicine committees; national organizations; and collaborators to enhance implementation and dissemination efforts. In addition to stakeholder engagement, we utilized strategic planning and rapid Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to advance DEI work in our DHM.

Needs Assessment

As a new division, we sought stakeholder feedback from division members. All faculty within the division were invited to attend a meeting in which issues related to DEI were discussed. A literature review that spanned both medical and nonmedical fields was also completed. Search terms included salary equity, gender equity, diverse teams, diversity recruitment and retention, diversifying leadership, and diverse speakers. Salaries, internally funded time, and other processes, such as recruitment, promotion, and hiring for leadership positions, were evaluated during the first year we became a division.

Interventions

TThrough this work, and with stakeholder engagement, we developed a divisional strategic plan to address DEI globally. Our strategic plan included developing a DEI director role to assist with overseeing DEI efforts. We have highlighted the various methods utilized for each component (Figure 1). This work occurred from October 2017 to December 2018.

Our institutional structures

Using best practices from both medical and nonmedical fields, we developed evidence-based approaches to compensation,³¹ recruitment,³² and policies that support and foster a culture of DEI.³² These strategies were used to support the following initiatives:

Compensation: transparent and consistent approaches based upon benchmarking with a framework of equal pay for equal work and similar advanced training/academic rank. In conjunction with efforts within the School of Medicine (SOM), Department of Medicine (DOM), and the UCH, our division sought to study salaries across DHM faculty members. We had an open call for faculty to participate in a newly developed DHM Compensation Committee, with the intent of rigorously examining our compensation practices and goals. Through faculty feedback and committee work, salary equity was defined as equal pay (ie, base salary for one clinical full-time equivalent [FTE]) for equal work based on academic rank and/or years of practice/advanced training. We also compared DHM salaries to regional academic hospital medicine groups and concluded that DHM salaries were lower than local and national benchmarks. This information was used to create a two-phase approach to increasing salaries for all individuals below the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) benchmarks³³ for academic hospitalists. We also developed a stipend system for external roles that came with additional compensation and roles within our own division that came with additional pay (ie, nocturnist). Phase 1 focused on those whose salaries were furthest away from and below benchmark, and phase 2 targeted all remaining individuals below benchmark.

A similar review of FTEs (based on required number of shifts for a full-time hospitalist) tied to our internal DHM leadership positions was completed by the division head and director of DEI. Specifically, the mission for each of our internally funded roles, job descriptions, and responsibilities was reviewed to ensure equity in funding.

Recruitment and advancement: processes to ensure equity and diversity in recruitment, tracking, and reporting, working to eliminate/mitigate bias. In collaboration with members of the AAMC Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS) and coauthors from various institutions, we developed toolkits and checklists aimed at achieving equity and diversity within candidate pools and on major committees, including, but not limited to, search and promotion committees.³² Additionally, a checklist was developed to help recruit more diverse speakers, including women and URMs, for local, regional, and national conferences.

Policies: evidence-based approaches, tracking and reporting, standardized approaches to eliminate/mitigate bias, embracing nontraditional paths. In partnership with our departmental efforts, members of our team led data collection and reporting for salary benchmarking, leadership roles, and committee membership. This included developing surveys and reporting templates that can be used to identify disparities and inform future efforts. We worked to ensure that we have faculty representing our field at the department and SOM levels. Specifically, we made sure to nominate division members during open calls for departmental and schoolwide committees, including the promotions committee.

Our People

The faculty and staff within our division have been instrumental in moving efforts forward in the following important areas.

Leadership: develop the position of director of DEI as well as leadership structures to support and increase DEI. One of the first steps in our strategic plan was creating a director of DEI leadership role (Appendix Figure 2). The director is responsible for researching, applying, and promoting a broad scope of DEI initiatives and best practices within the DHM, DOM, and SOM (in collaboration with their leaders), including recruitment, retention, and promotion of medical students, residents, and faculty; educational program development; health disparities research; and community-engaged scholarship.

Support: develop family leave policies/develop flexible work policies. Several members of our division worked on departmental committees and served in leadership roles on staff and faculty council. Estimated costs were assessed. Through collective efforts of department leadership and division head support, the department approved parental leave to employees following the birth of an employee’s child or the placement of a child with an employee in connection with adoption or permanent foster care.

Mentorship/sponsorship: enhance faculty advancement programs/develop pipeline and trainings/collaborate with student groups and organizations/invest in all of our people. Faculty across our divisional sites have held important roles in developing pipeline programs for undergraduate students bound for health professions, as well as programs developed specifically for medical students and internal medicine residents. This includes two programs, the CU Hospitalist Scholars Program (CUHSP) and Leadership Education for Aspiring Doctors (LEAD), in which undergraduate students have the opportunity to round with hospital medicine teams, work on quality-improvement projects, and receive extensive mentorship and advising from a diverse faculty team. Additionally, our faculty advancement team within the DHM has grown and been restructured to include more defined goals and to ensure each faculty member has at least one mentor in their area of interest.

Supportive: lactation space and support/diverse space options/inclusive and diverse environments. We worked closely with hospital leadership to advocate for adequately equipped lactation spaces, including equipment such as pumps, refrigerators, and computer workstations. Additionally, our team members conducted environmental scans (eg, identified pictures, artwork, or other images that were not representative of a diverse and inclusive environment and raised concerns when the environment was not inclusive).

Measures

Our measures focused on (1) development and implementation of our DEI strategic plan, including new policies, processes, and practices related to key components of the DEI program; and (2) assessment of specific DEI programs, including pre-post salary data disparities based on rank and pre-post disparities for protected time for similar roles.

Analysis

Through rapid PDSA cycles, we evaluated salary equity, equity in leadership allotment, and committee membership. We have developed a tracking board to track progress of the multiple projects in the strategic plan.

Strategic Plan Development and Tracking

From October 2017 to December 2018, we developed a robust strategic plan and stepwise approach to DEI (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The director of DEI position was developed (see Appendix Figure 2 for job description) to help oversee these efforts. Figure 3 highlights the specific efforts and the progress made on implementation (ie, high-level dashboard or “tracking board”). While outcomes are still pending in the areas of recruitment and advancement and environment, we have made measurable improvements in compensation, as outlined in the following section.

Compensation

One year after the salary-equity interventions, all of our physician faculty’s salaries were at the goal benchmark (Table), and differences in salary for those in similar years of rank were nearly eliminated. Similarly, after implementing an internally consistent approach to assigning FTE for new and established positions within the division (ie, those that fall within the purview of the division), all faculty in similar types of roles had similar amounts of protected time.

Recruitment and Advancement

Toolkits³² and committee recommendations have been incorporated into division goals, though some aspects are still in implementation phases, as division-wide implicit bias training was delayed secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic. Key goals include: (1) implicit bias training for all members of major committees; (2) aiming for a goal of at least 40% representation of women and 40% URMs on committees; (3) having a diversity expert serve on each committee in order to identify and discuss any potential bias in the search and candidate-selection processes; and (4) careful tracking of diversity metrics in regard to diversity of candidates at each step of the interview and selection process.

Surveys and reporting templates for equity on committees and leadership positions have been developed and deployed. Data dashboards for our division have been developed as well (for compensation, leadership, and committee membership). A divisional dashboard to report recruitment efforts is in progress.

We have successfully nominated several faculty members to the SOM promotions committee and departmental committees during open calls for these positions. At the division level, we have also adapted internal policies to ensure promotion occurs on time and offers alternative pathways for faculty that may primarily focus on clinical pathways. All faculty who have gone up for promotion thus far have been successfully promoted in their desired pathway.

Environment

We successfully advocated and achieved adequately equipped lactation spaces, including equipment such as pumps, refrigerators, and computer workstations. This achievement was possible because of our hospital partners. Our efforts helped us acquire sufficient space and facilities such that nursing mothers can pump and still be able to answer phones, enter orders, and document visits.

Our team members conducted environmental scans and raised concerns when the environment was not inclusive, such as conference rooms with portraits of leadership that do not show diversity. The all-male pictures were removed from one frequently used departmental conference room, which will eventually house a diverse group of pictures and achievements.

We aim to eliminate bias by offering implicit bias training for our faculty. While this is presently required for those who serve on committees, in leadership positions, or those involved in recruitment and interviewing for the DOM, our goal is to eventually provide this training to all faculty and staff in the division. We have also incorporated DEI topics into our educational conferences for faculty, including sessions on recognizing bias in medicine, how to be an upstander/ally, and the impact of race and racism on medicine.

DISCUSSION

The important findings of this work are: (1) that successes in DEI can be achieved with strategic planning and stakeholder engagement; (2) through simple modification of processes, we can improve equity in compensation and FTE allotted to leadership; (3) though it takes time, diversity recruitment can be improved using sound, sustainable, evidence-based processes; (4) this work is time-intensive and challenging, requiring ongoing efforts to improve, modify, and enhance current efforts and future successes.

We have certainly made some progress with DEI initiatives within our division and have also learned a great deal from this experience. First, change is difficult for all parties involved, including those leading change and those affected by the changes. We purposely made an effort to facilitate discussions with all of the DHM faculty and staff to ensure that everyone felt included in this work and that everyone’s voice was heard. This was exemplified by inviting all faculty members to a feedback session in which we discussed DEI within our division and areas that we wanted to improve on. Early on, we were able to define what diversity, equity, and inclusion meant to us as a division and then use these definitions to develop tangible goals for all the areas of highest importance to the group.

By increasing faculty presence on key committees, such as the promotions committee, we now have faculty members who are well versed in promotions processes. We are fortunate to have a promotions process that supports faculty advancement for faculty with diverse interests that spans from supporting highly clinical faculty, clinician educators, as well as more traditional researchers.³⁴ By having hospitalists serve in these roles, we help to add to the diverse perspectives on these committees, including emphasizing the scholarship that is associated with quality improvement, as well as DEI efforts which can often be viewed as service as opposed to scholarship.

Clear communication and transparency were key to all of our DEI initiatives. We had monthly updates on our DEI efforts during business meetings and also held impromptu meetings (also known as flash mobs³⁵) to answer questions and discuss concerns in real time. As with all DEI work, it is important to know where you are starting (having accurate data and a clear understanding of the data) and be able to communicate that data to the group. For example, using AAMC salary benchmarking³³ as well as other benchmarks allowed us to accurately calculate variance among salaries and identify the appropriate goal salary for each of our faculty members. Likewise, by completing an in-depth inventory on the work being done by all of our faculty in leadership roles, we were able to standardize the compensation/FTE for each of these roles. Tracking these changes over time, via the use of dashboards in our case, allows for real-time measurements and accountability for all of those involved. Our end goal will be to have all of these initiatives feed into one large dashboard.

Collaborating with leadership and stakeholders in the DOM, SOM, and hospital helped to make our DEI initiatives successful. Much too often, we work in silos when it comes to DEI work. However, we tend to have similar goals and can achieve much more if we work together. Collaboration with multiple stakeholders allowed for wider dissemination and resulted in a larger impact to the campus and community at large. This has been exemplified by the committee composition guidance that has been utilized by the DOM, as well as implementation of campus-wide policies, specifically the parental leave policy, which our faculty members played an important role in creating. Likewise, it is important to look outside of our institutions and work with other hospital medicine groups around the country who are interested in promoting DEI.

We still have much work ahead of us. We are continuing to measure outcomes status postimplementation of the toolkit and checklists being used for diversity recruitment and committee composition. Additionally, we are actively working on several initiatives, including:

• Instituting implicit bias training for all of our faculty
• Partnering with national leaders and our hospital systems to develop zero-tolerance policies regarding abusive behaviors (verbal, physical, and other), racism, and sexism in the hospital and other work settings
• Development of specific recruitment strategies as a means of diversifying our healthcare workforce (of note, based on a 2020 survey of our faculty, in which there was a 70% response rate, 8.5% of our faculty identified as URMs)
• Completion of a diversity dashboard to track our progress in all of these efforts over time
• Development of a more robust pipeline to promotion and leadership for our URM faculty

This study has several strengths. Many of the plans and strategies described here can be used to guide others interested in implementing this work. Figure 2 provides a stepwise
approach to addressing DEI in hospital medicine groups and divisions. We conducted this work at a large academic medical center, and while it may not be generalizable, it does offer some ideas for others to consider in their own work to advance DEI at their institutions. There are also several limitations to this work. Eliminating salary inequities with our approach did take resources. We took advantage of already lower salaries and the need to increase salaries closer to benchmark and paired this effort with our DEI efforts to achieve salary equity. This required partnerships with the department and hospital. Efforts to advance DEI also take a lot of time and effort, and thus commitment from the division, department, and institution as a whole is key. While we have outcomes for our efforts related to salary equity, recruitment efforts should be realized over time, as currently it is too early to tell. We have highlighted the efforts that have been put in place at this time.

Using a systematic evidence-based approach with key stakeholder involvement, a division-wide DEI strategy was developed and implemented. While this work is still ongoing, short-term wins are possible, in particular around salary equity and development of policies and structures to promote DEI.

Studies continue to demonstrate persistent gaps in equity for women and underrepresented minorities (URMs)¹ throughout nearly all aspects of academic medicine, including rank,^2-4 tenure,⁵ authorship,^6,7 funding opportunities,^8,9 awards,¹⁰ speakership,¹¹ leadership,^12,13 and salaries.^2,14,15 Hospital medicine, despite being a newer field,¹⁶ has also seen these disparities^17,18; however, there are numerous efforts in place to actively change our specialty’s course.^19-22 Hospital medicine is a field known for being a change agent in healthcare delivery,²² and its novel approaches are well poised to fundamentally shatter the glass ceilings imposed on traditionally underrepresented groups in medicine. The importance of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in healthcare has never been clearer,^23,24 particularly as they relate to cultural competence^25-28 and cultural humility,^29,30 implicit and explicit bias,²⁷ expanding care for underserved patient populations, supporting our workforce, and broadening research agendas.²⁸

In this article, we report DEI efforts within our division, focusing on the development of our strategic plan and specific outcomes related to compensation, recruitment, and policies.

Our Division’s Framework to DEI—“It Takes a Village”

Our Division of Hospital Medicine (DHM), previously within the Division of General Internal Medicine, was founded in October 2017. The DHM at the University of Colorado Hospital (UCH) is composed of 100 faculty members (70 physicians and 30 advanced-practice providers; 58% women and 42% men). In 2018, we implemented a stepwise approach to critically assess DEI within our group and to build a strategic plan to address the issues. Key areas of focus included institutional structures, our people, our environments, and our core missions (Figure 1 and Appendix Figure 1). DHM members helped drive our work and partnered with departmental, hospital, and school of medicine committees; national organizations; and collaborators to enhance implementation and dissemination efforts. In addition to stakeholder engagement, we utilized strategic planning and rapid Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to advance DEI work in our DHM.

Needs Assessment

As a new division, we sought stakeholder feedback from division members. All faculty within the division were invited to attend a meeting in which issues related to DEI were discussed. A literature review that spanned both medical and nonmedical fields was also completed. Search terms included salary equity, gender equity, diverse teams, diversity recruitment and retention, diversifying leadership, and diverse speakers. Salaries, internally funded time, and other processes, such as recruitment, promotion, and hiring for leadership positions, were evaluated during the first year we became a division.

Interventions

TThrough this work, and with stakeholder engagement, we developed a divisional strategic plan to address DEI globally. Our strategic plan included developing a DEI director role to assist with overseeing DEI efforts. We have highlighted the various methods utilized for each component (Figure 1). This work occurred from October 2017 to December 2018.

Our institutional structures

Using best practices from both medical and nonmedical fields, we developed evidence-based approaches to compensation,³¹ recruitment,³² and policies that support and foster a culture of DEI.³² These strategies were used to support the following initiatives:

Compensation: transparent and consistent approaches based upon benchmarking with a framework of equal pay for equal work and similar advanced training/academic rank. In conjunction with efforts within the School of Medicine (SOM), Department of Medicine (DOM), and the UCH, our division sought to study salaries across DHM faculty members. We had an open call for faculty to participate in a newly developed DHM Compensation Committee, with the intent of rigorously examining our compensation practices and goals. Through faculty feedback and committee work, salary equity was defined as equal pay (ie, base salary for one clinical full-time equivalent [FTE]) for equal work based on academic rank and/or years of practice/advanced training. We also compared DHM salaries to regional academic hospital medicine groups and concluded that DHM salaries were lower than local and national benchmarks. This information was used to create a two-phase approach to increasing salaries for all individuals below the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) benchmarks³³ for academic hospitalists. We also developed a stipend system for external roles that came with additional compensation and roles within our own division that came with additional pay (ie, nocturnist). Phase 1 focused on those whose salaries were furthest away from and below benchmark, and phase 2 targeted all remaining individuals below benchmark.

A similar review of FTEs (based on required number of shifts for a full-time hospitalist) tied to our internal DHM leadership positions was completed by the division head and director of DEI. Specifically, the mission for each of our internally funded roles, job descriptions, and responsibilities was reviewed to ensure equity in funding.

Recruitment and advancement: processes to ensure equity and diversity in recruitment, tracking, and reporting, working to eliminate/mitigate bias. In collaboration with members of the AAMC Group on Women in Medicine and Science (GWIMS) and coauthors from various institutions, we developed toolkits and checklists aimed at achieving equity and diversity within candidate pools and on major committees, including, but not limited to, search and promotion committees.³² Additionally, a checklist was developed to help recruit more diverse speakers, including women and URMs, for local, regional, and national conferences.

Policies: evidence-based approaches, tracking and reporting, standardized approaches to eliminate/mitigate bias, embracing nontraditional paths. In partnership with our departmental efforts, members of our team led data collection and reporting for salary benchmarking, leadership roles, and committee membership. This included developing surveys and reporting templates that can be used to identify disparities and inform future efforts. We worked to ensure that we have faculty representing our field at the department and SOM levels. Specifically, we made sure to nominate division members during open calls for departmental and schoolwide committees, including the promotions committee.

Our People

The faculty and staff within our division have been instrumental in moving efforts forward in the following important areas.

Leadership: develop the position of director of DEI as well as leadership structures to support and increase DEI. One of the first steps in our strategic plan was creating a director of DEI leadership role (Appendix Figure 2). The director is responsible for researching, applying, and promoting a broad scope of DEI initiatives and best practices within the DHM, DOM, and SOM (in collaboration with their leaders), including recruitment, retention, and promotion of medical students, residents, and faculty; educational program development; health disparities research; and community-engaged scholarship.

Support: develop family leave policies/develop flexible work policies. Several members of our division worked on departmental committees and served in leadership roles on staff and faculty council. Estimated costs were assessed. Through collective efforts of department leadership and division head support, the department approved parental leave to employees following the birth of an employee’s child or the placement of a child with an employee in connection with adoption or permanent foster care.

Mentorship/sponsorship: enhance faculty advancement programs/develop pipeline and trainings/collaborate with student groups and organizations/invest in all of our people. Faculty across our divisional sites have held important roles in developing pipeline programs for undergraduate students bound for health professions, as well as programs developed specifically for medical students and internal medicine residents. This includes two programs, the CU Hospitalist Scholars Program (CUHSP) and Leadership Education for Aspiring Doctors (LEAD), in which undergraduate students have the opportunity to round with hospital medicine teams, work on quality-improvement projects, and receive extensive mentorship and advising from a diverse faculty team. Additionally, our faculty advancement team within the DHM has grown and been restructured to include more defined goals and to ensure each faculty member has at least one mentor in their area of interest.

Supportive: lactation space and support/diverse space options/inclusive and diverse environments. We worked closely with hospital leadership to advocate for adequately equipped lactation spaces, including equipment such as pumps, refrigerators, and computer workstations. Additionally, our team members conducted environmental scans (eg, identified pictures, artwork, or other images that were not representative of a diverse and inclusive environment and raised concerns when the environment was not inclusive).

Measures

Our measures focused on (1) development and implementation of our DEI strategic plan, including new policies, processes, and practices related to key components of the DEI program; and (2) assessment of specific DEI programs, including pre-post salary data disparities based on rank and pre-post disparities for protected time for similar roles.

Analysis

Through rapid PDSA cycles, we evaluated salary equity, equity in leadership allotment, and committee membership. We have developed a tracking board to track progress of the multiple projects in the strategic plan.

Strategic Plan Development and Tracking

From October 2017 to December 2018, we developed a robust strategic plan and stepwise approach to DEI (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The director of DEI position was developed (see Appendix Figure 2 for job description) to help oversee these efforts. Figure 3 highlights the specific efforts and the progress made on implementation (ie, high-level dashboard or “tracking board”). While outcomes are still pending in the areas of recruitment and advancement and environment, we have made measurable improvements in compensation, as outlined in the following section.

Compensation

One year after the salary-equity interventions, all of our physician faculty’s salaries were at the goal benchmark (Table), and differences in salary for those in similar years of rank were nearly eliminated. Similarly, after implementing an internally consistent approach to assigning FTE for new and established positions within the division (ie, those that fall within the purview of the division), all faculty in similar types of roles had similar amounts of protected time.

Recruitment and Advancement

Toolkits³² and committee recommendations have been incorporated into division goals, though some aspects are still in implementation phases, as division-wide implicit bias training was delayed secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic. Key goals include: (1) implicit bias training for all members of major committees; (2) aiming for a goal of at least 40% representation of women and 40% URMs on committees; (3) having a diversity expert serve on each committee in order to identify and discuss any potential bias in the search and candidate-selection processes; and (4) careful tracking of diversity metrics in regard to diversity of candidates at each step of the interview and selection process.

Surveys and reporting templates for equity on committees and leadership positions have been developed and deployed. Data dashboards for our division have been developed as well (for compensation, leadership, and committee membership). A divisional dashboard to report recruitment efforts is in progress.

We have successfully nominated several faculty members to the SOM promotions committee and departmental committees during open calls for these positions. At the division level, we have also adapted internal policies to ensure promotion occurs on time and offers alternative pathways for faculty that may primarily focus on clinical pathways. All faculty who have gone up for promotion thus far have been successfully promoted in their desired pathway.

Environment

We successfully advocated and achieved adequately equipped lactation spaces, including equipment such as pumps, refrigerators, and computer workstations. This achievement was possible because of our hospital partners. Our efforts helped us acquire sufficient space and facilities such that nursing mothers can pump and still be able to answer phones, enter orders, and document visits.

Our team members conducted environmental scans and raised concerns when the environment was not inclusive, such as conference rooms with portraits of leadership that do not show diversity. The all-male pictures were removed from one frequently used departmental conference room, which will eventually house a diverse group of pictures and achievements.

We aim to eliminate bias by offering implicit bias training for our faculty. While this is presently required for those who serve on committees, in leadership positions, or those involved in recruitment and interviewing for the DOM, our goal is to eventually provide this training to all faculty and staff in the division. We have also incorporated DEI topics into our educational conferences for faculty, including sessions on recognizing bias in medicine, how to be an upstander/ally, and the impact of race and racism on medicine.

DISCUSSION

The important findings of this work are: (1) that successes in DEI can be achieved with strategic planning and stakeholder engagement; (2) through simple modification of processes, we can improve equity in compensation and FTE allotted to leadership; (3) though it takes time, diversity recruitment can be improved using sound, sustainable, evidence-based processes; (4) this work is time-intensive and challenging, requiring ongoing efforts to improve, modify, and enhance current efforts and future successes.

We have certainly made some progress with DEI initiatives within our division and have also learned a great deal from this experience. First, change is difficult for all parties involved, including those leading change and those affected by the changes. We purposely made an effort to facilitate discussions with all of the DHM faculty and staff to ensure that everyone felt included in this work and that everyone’s voice was heard. This was exemplified by inviting all faculty members to a feedback session in which we discussed DEI within our division and areas that we wanted to improve on. Early on, we were able to define what diversity, equity, and inclusion meant to us as a division and then use these definitions to develop tangible goals for all the areas of highest importance to the group.

By increasing faculty presence on key committees, such as the promotions committee, we now have faculty members who are well versed in promotions processes. We are fortunate to have a promotions process that supports faculty advancement for faculty with diverse interests that spans from supporting highly clinical faculty, clinician educators, as well as more traditional researchers.³⁴ By having hospitalists serve in these roles, we help to add to the diverse perspectives on these committees, including emphasizing the scholarship that is associated with quality improvement, as well as DEI efforts which can often be viewed as service as opposed to scholarship.

Clear communication and transparency were key to all of our DEI initiatives. We had monthly updates on our DEI efforts during business meetings and also held impromptu meetings (also known as flash mobs³⁵) to answer questions and discuss concerns in real time. As with all DEI work, it is important to know where you are starting (having accurate data and a clear understanding of the data) and be able to communicate that data to the group. For example, using AAMC salary benchmarking³³ as well as other benchmarks allowed us to accurately calculate variance among salaries and identify the appropriate goal salary for each of our faculty members. Likewise, by completing an in-depth inventory on the work being done by all of our faculty in leadership roles, we were able to standardize the compensation/FTE for each of these roles. Tracking these changes over time, via the use of dashboards in our case, allows for real-time measurements and accountability for all of those involved. Our end goal will be to have all of these initiatives feed into one large dashboard.

Collaborating with leadership and stakeholders in the DOM, SOM, and hospital helped to make our DEI initiatives successful. Much too often, we work in silos when it comes to DEI work. However, we tend to have similar goals and can achieve much more if we work together. Collaboration with multiple stakeholders allowed for wider dissemination and resulted in a larger impact to the campus and community at large. This has been exemplified by the committee composition guidance that has been utilized by the DOM, as well as implementation of campus-wide policies, specifically the parental leave policy, which our faculty members played an important role in creating. Likewise, it is important to look outside of our institutions and work with other hospital medicine groups around the country who are interested in promoting DEI.

We still have much work ahead of us. We are continuing to measure outcomes status postimplementation of the toolkit and checklists being used for diversity recruitment and committee composition. Additionally, we are actively working on several initiatives, including:

• Instituting implicit bias training for all of our faculty
• Partnering with national leaders and our hospital systems to develop zero-tolerance policies regarding abusive behaviors (verbal, physical, and other), racism, and sexism in the hospital and other work settings
• Development of specific recruitment strategies as a means of diversifying our healthcare workforce (of note, based on a 2020 survey of our faculty, in which there was a 70% response rate, 8.5% of our faculty identified as URMs)
• Completion of a diversity dashboard to track our progress in all of these efforts over time
• Development of a more robust pipeline to promotion and leadership for our URM faculty

This study has several strengths. Many of the plans and strategies described here can be used to guide others interested in implementing this work. Figure 2 provides a stepwise
approach to addressing DEI in hospital medicine groups and divisions. We conducted this work at a large academic medical center, and while it may not be generalizable, it does offer some ideas for others to consider in their own work to advance DEI at their institutions. There are also several limitations to this work. Eliminating salary inequities with our approach did take resources. We took advantage of already lower salaries and the need to increase salaries closer to benchmark and paired this effort with our DEI efforts to achieve salary equity. This required partnerships with the department and hospital. Efforts to advance DEI also take a lot of time and effort, and thus commitment from the division, department, and institution as a whole is key. While we have outcomes for our efforts related to salary equity, recruitment efforts should be realized over time, as currently it is too early to tell. We have highlighted the efforts that have been put in place at this time.

Using a systematic evidence-based approach with key stakeholder involvement, a division-wide DEI strategy was developed and implemented. While this work is still ongoing, short-term wins are possible, in particular around salary equity and development of policies and structures to promote DEI.

The early days of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic were fraught with uncertainty as hospitalists struggled to develop standards of care for noncritically ill patients. Although data were available from intensive care units (ICUs) in Asia and Europe, it was unclear whether these findings applied to the acute but noncritically ill patients who would ultimately make up most coronavirus admissions. Which therapeutics could benefit these patients? Who needs continuous cardiopulmonary monitoring? And perhaps most importantly, which patients are at risk for clinical deterioration?

In this issue, Nemer et al begin to answer these questions using a retrospective analysis of 350 noncritically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to non-ICU care at Cleveland Clinic hospitals in Ohio and Florida between March 13 and May 1, 2020.¹ The primary outcome was a composite of three endpoints: increased respiratory support (high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or intubation), ICU transfer, or death. The primary outcome occurred in 18% of all patients and the risk was greatest among patients with high admission levels of C-reactive protein (CRP). This analysis found that while clinically significant arrhythmias occurred in 14% of patients, 90% of those were in patients with either known cardiac disease or an elevated admission troponin T level and in only one case (<1%) necessitated transition to a higher level of care. Overall mortality for COVID-19 patients initially admitted to non-ICU settings was 3%.

While several tests have been proposed as clinically relevant to coronavirus disease, those recommendations are based on studies performed on critically ill patients outside of the US and have focused on survival, not clinical deterioration.^2,3 In their cohort of noncritically ill patients in the US, Nemer et al found that not only is CRP associated with clinical worsening, but that increasing levels of CRP are associated with increasing risk of deterioration. Perhaps even more interesting was the finding that no patient with a normal CRP suffered the composite outcome, including death. The authors did not report levels of other laboratory tests that have been associated with severe coronavirus disease, such as platelets, fibrin degradation products, or prolonged prothrombin time/activated partial thromboplastin time. As many clinicians will note, CRP’s lack of specificity may be its Achilles heel, potentially lowering its prognostic value. Still, given its wide availability, low cost, and rapid turnaround, CRP could serve as a screening tool to risk stratify admitted coronavirus patients, while also providing reassurance when it is normal.

The results of this study could also impact use of hospital resources. The findings regarding the low risk of arrhythmias provide support for limiting the use of continuous cardiac monitoring in noncritically ill patients without previous histories of cardiac disease or elevated admission troponin levels. Patients with normal admission CRP levels could potentially be monitored safely with intermittent pulse oximetry. Continuous pulse oximetry and cardiac monitoring are already overused in many hospitals, and in the case of coronavirus the implications are even more significant given the importance of minimizing unnecessary healthcare worker exposures.

The vast majority (79% to 90%) of patients hospitalized for coronavirus will be cared for in non–ICU settings,^4,5 yet most research has thus far focused on ICU patients. Nemer et al provide much-needed information on how to care for the noncritically ill coronavirus patients whom hospitalists are most likely to treat. As a resurgence of infections is expected this winter, this work has the potential to help physicians identify not only those who have the highest probability of deteriorating, but also those who may not. In a world of limited resources, knowing which patient is unlikely to deteriorate may be just as important as recognizing which one is.

The early days of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic were fraught with uncertainty as hospitalists struggled to develop standards of care for noncritically ill patients. Although data were available from intensive care units (ICUs) in Asia and Europe, it was unclear whether these findings applied to the acute but noncritically ill patients who would ultimately make up most coronavirus admissions. Which therapeutics could benefit these patients? Who needs continuous cardiopulmonary monitoring? And perhaps most importantly, which patients are at risk for clinical deterioration?

In this issue, Nemer et al begin to answer these questions using a retrospective analysis of 350 noncritically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to non-ICU care at Cleveland Clinic hospitals in Ohio and Florida between March 13 and May 1, 2020.¹ The primary outcome was a composite of three endpoints: increased respiratory support (high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or intubation), ICU transfer, or death. The primary outcome occurred in 18% of all patients and the risk was greatest among patients with high admission levels of C-reactive protein (CRP). This analysis found that while clinically significant arrhythmias occurred in 14% of patients, 90% of those were in patients with either known cardiac disease or an elevated admission troponin T level and in only one case (<1%) necessitated transition to a higher level of care. Overall mortality for COVID-19 patients initially admitted to non-ICU settings was 3%.

While several tests have been proposed as clinically relevant to coronavirus disease, those recommendations are based on studies performed on critically ill patients outside of the US and have focused on survival, not clinical deterioration.^2,3 In their cohort of noncritically ill patients in the US, Nemer et al found that not only is CRP associated with clinical worsening, but that increasing levels of CRP are associated with increasing risk of deterioration. Perhaps even more interesting was the finding that no patient with a normal CRP suffered the composite outcome, including death. The authors did not report levels of other laboratory tests that have been associated with severe coronavirus disease, such as platelets, fibrin degradation products, or prolonged prothrombin time/activated partial thromboplastin time. As many clinicians will note, CRP’s lack of specificity may be its Achilles heel, potentially lowering its prognostic value. Still, given its wide availability, low cost, and rapid turnaround, CRP could serve as a screening tool to risk stratify admitted coronavirus patients, while also providing reassurance when it is normal.

The results of this study could also impact use of hospital resources. The findings regarding the low risk of arrhythmias provide support for limiting the use of continuous cardiac monitoring in noncritically ill patients without previous histories of cardiac disease or elevated admission troponin levels. Patients with normal admission CRP levels could potentially be monitored safely with intermittent pulse oximetry. Continuous pulse oximetry and cardiac monitoring are already overused in many hospitals, and in the case of coronavirus the implications are even more significant given the importance of minimizing unnecessary healthcare worker exposures.

The vast majority (79% to 90%) of patients hospitalized for coronavirus will be cared for in non–ICU settings,^4,5 yet most research has thus far focused on ICU patients. Nemer et al provide much-needed information on how to care for the noncritically ill coronavirus patients whom hospitalists are most likely to treat. As a resurgence of infections is expected this winter, this work has the potential to help physicians identify not only those who have the highest probability of deteriorating, but also those who may not. In a world of limited resources, knowing which patient is unlikely to deteriorate may be just as important as recognizing which one is.

The early days of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic were fraught with uncertainty as hospitalists struggled to develop standards of care for noncritically ill patients. Although data were available from intensive care units (ICUs) in Asia and Europe, it was unclear whether these findings applied to the acute but noncritically ill patients who would ultimately make up most coronavirus admissions. Which therapeutics could benefit these patients? Who needs continuous cardiopulmonary monitoring? And perhaps most importantly, which patients are at risk for clinical deterioration?

In this issue, Nemer et al begin to answer these questions using a retrospective analysis of 350 noncritically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to non-ICU care at Cleveland Clinic hospitals in Ohio and Florida between March 13 and May 1, 2020.¹ The primary outcome was a composite of three endpoints: increased respiratory support (high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, or intubation), ICU transfer, or death. The primary outcome occurred in 18% of all patients and the risk was greatest among patients with high admission levels of C-reactive protein (CRP). This analysis found that while clinically significant arrhythmias occurred in 14% of patients, 90% of those were in patients with either known cardiac disease or an elevated admission troponin T level and in only one case (<1%) necessitated transition to a higher level of care. Overall mortality for COVID-19 patients initially admitted to non-ICU settings was 3%.

While several tests have been proposed as clinically relevant to coronavirus disease, those recommendations are based on studies performed on critically ill patients outside of the US and have focused on survival, not clinical deterioration.^2,3 In their cohort of noncritically ill patients in the US, Nemer et al found that not only is CRP associated with clinical worsening, but that increasing levels of CRP are associated with increasing risk of deterioration. Perhaps even more interesting was the finding that no patient with a normal CRP suffered the composite outcome, including death. The authors did not report levels of other laboratory tests that have been associated with severe coronavirus disease, such as platelets, fibrin degradation products, or prolonged prothrombin time/activated partial thromboplastin time. As many clinicians will note, CRP’s lack of specificity may be its Achilles heel, potentially lowering its prognostic value. Still, given its wide availability, low cost, and rapid turnaround, CRP could serve as a screening tool to risk stratify admitted coronavirus patients, while also providing reassurance when it is normal.

The results of this study could also impact use of hospital resources. The findings regarding the low risk of arrhythmias provide support for limiting the use of continuous cardiac monitoring in noncritically ill patients without previous histories of cardiac disease or elevated admission troponin levels. Patients with normal admission CRP levels could potentially be monitored safely with intermittent pulse oximetry. Continuous pulse oximetry and cardiac monitoring are already overused in many hospitals, and in the case of coronavirus the implications are even more significant given the importance of minimizing unnecessary healthcare worker exposures.

The vast majority (79% to 90%) of patients hospitalized for coronavirus will be cared for in non–ICU settings,^4,5 yet most research has thus far focused on ICU patients. Nemer et al provide much-needed information on how to care for the noncritically ill coronavirus patients whom hospitalists are most likely to treat. As a resurgence of infections is expected this winter, this work has the potential to help physicians identify not only those who have the highest probability of deteriorating, but also those who may not. In a world of limited resources, knowing which patient is unlikely to deteriorate may be just as important as recognizing which one is.

Almost all specialties in internal medicine have a sound scientific research base through which clinical practice is informed.¹ For the field of Hospital Medicine (HM), this evidence has largely comprised research generated from fields outside of the specialty. The need to develop, invest, and grow investigators in hospital-based medicine remains unmet as HM and its footprint in hospital systems continue to grow.^2,3

Despite this fact, little is known about the current state of research in HM. A 2014 survey of the members of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) found that research output across the field of HM, as measured on the basis of peer-reviewed publications, was growing.⁴ Since then, however, the numbers of individuals engaged in research activities, their background and training, publication output, or funding sources have not been quantified. Similarly, little is known about which institutions support the development of junior investigators (ie, HM research fellowships), how these programs are funded, and whether or not matriculants enter the field as investigators. These gaps must be measured, evaluated, and ideally addressed through strategic policy and funding initiatives to advance the state of science within HM.

Members of the SHM Research Committee developed, designed, and deployed a survey to improve the understanding of the state of research in HM. In this study, we aimed to establish the baseline of research in HM to enable the measurement of progress through periodic waves of data collection. Specifically, we sought to quantify and describe the characteristics of existing research programs, the sources and types of funding, the number and background of faculty, and the availability of resources for training researchers in HM.

Study Setting and Participants

Given that no defined list, database, or external resource that identifies research programs and contacts in HM exists, we began by creating a strategy to identify and sample adult HM programs and their leaders engaged in research activity. We iteratively developed a two-step approach to maximize inclusivity. First, we partnered with SHM to identify programs and leaders actively engaging in research activities. SHM is the largest professional organization within HM and maintains an extensive membership database that includes the titles, e-mail addresses, and affiliations of hospitalists in the United States, including academic and nonacademic sites. This list was manually scanned, and the leaders of academic and research programs in adult HM were identified by examining their titles (eg, Division Chief, Research Lead, etc.) and academic affiliations. During this step, members of the committee noticed that certain key individuals were either missing, no longer occupying their role/title, or had been replaced by others. Therefore, we performed a second step and asked the members of the SHM Research Committee to identify academic and research leaders by using current personal contacts, publication history, and social networks. We asked members to identify individuals and programs that had received grant funding, were actively presenting research at SHM (or other major national venues), and/or were producing peer-reviewed publications related to HM. These programs were purposefully chosen (ie, over HM programs known for clinical activities) to create an enriched sample of those engaged in research in HM. The research committee performed the “second pass” to ensure that established investigators who may not be accurately captured within the SHM database were included to maximize yield for the survey. Finally, these two sources were merged to ensure the absence of duplicate contacts and the identification of a primary respondent for each affiliate. As a result, a convenience sample of 100 programs and corresponding individuals was compiled for the purposes of this survey.

Survey Development

A workgroup within the SHM Research Committee was tasked to create a survey that would achieve four distinct goals: (1) identify institutions currently engaging in hospital-based research; (2) define the characteristics, including sources of research funding, training opportunities, criteria for promotion, and grant support, of research programs within institutions; (3) understand the prevalence of research fellowship programs, including size, training curricula, and funding sources; and (4) evaluate the productivity and funding sources of HM investigators at each site.

Survey questions that target each of these domains were drafted by the workgroup. Questions were pretested with colleagues outside the workgroup focused on this project (ie, from the main research committee). The instrument was refined and edited to improve the readability and clarity of questions on the basis of the feedback obtained through the iterative process. The revised instrument was then programmed into an online survey administration tool (SurveyMonkey^®) to facilitate electronic dissemination. Finally, the members of the workgroup tested the online survey to ensure functionality. No identifiable information was collected from respondents, and no monetary incentive was offered for the completion of the survey. An invitation to participate in the survey was sent via e-mail to each of the program contacts identified.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics, including proportions, means, and percentages, were used to tabulate results. All analyses were conducted using Stata 13 MP/SE (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).

Ethical and Regulatory Considerations

The study was reviewed and deemed exempt from regulation by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board (HUM000138628).

General Characteristics of Research Programs and Faculty

Out of 100 program contacts, 28 (representing 1,586 faculty members) responded and were included in the survey (program response rate = 28%). When comparing programs that did respond with those that did not, a greater proportion of programs in university settings were noted among respondents (79% vs 21%). Respondents represented programs from all regions of the United States, with most representing university-based (79%), university-affiliated (14%) or Veterans Health Administration (VHA; 11%) programs. Most respondents were in leadership roles, including division chiefs (32%), research directors/leads (21%), section chiefs (18%), and related titles, such as program director. Respondents indicated that the total number of faculty members in their programs (including nonclinicians and advance practice providers) varied from eight to 152 (mean [SD] = 57 [36]) members, with physicians representing the majority of faculty members (Table 1).

Among the 1,586 faculty members within the 28 programs, respondents identified 192 faculty members (12%) as currently receiving extra- or intramural support for research activities. Of these faculty, over half (58%) received <25% of effort from intra or extramural sources, and 28 (15%) and 52 (27%) faculty members received 25%-50% or >50% of support for their effort, respectively. The number of investigators who received funding across programs ranged from 0 to 28 faculty members. Compared with the 192 funded investigators, respondents indicated that a larger number of faculty in their programs (n = 656 or 41%) were involved in local quality improvement (QI) efforts. Of the 656 faculty members involved in QI efforts, 241 individuals (37%) were internally funded and received protected time/effort for their work.

Key Attributes of Research Programs

In the evaluation of the amount of total grant funding, respondents from 17 programs indicated that they received $500,000 in annual extra and intramural funding, and those from three programs stated that they received $500,000 to $999,999 in funding. Five respondents indicated that their programs currently received $1 million to $5 million in grant funding, and three reported >$5 million in research support. The sources of research funding included several divisions within the National Institute of Health (NIH, 12 programs), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, four programs), foundations (four programs), and internal grants (six programs). Additionally, six programs indicated “other” sources of funding that included the VHA, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and industry sources.

A range of grants, including career development awards (11 programs); small grants, such as R21 and R03s (eight programs); R-level grants, including VA merit awards (five programs); program series grants, such as P and U grants (five programs), and foundation grants (eight programs), were reported as types of awards. Respondents from 16 programs indicated that they provided internal pilot grants. Amounts for such grants ranged from <$50,000 (14 programs) to $50,000-$100,000 (two programs).

Research Fellowship Programs/Training Programs

Only five of the 28 surveyed programs indicated that they currently had a research training or fellowship program for developing hospitalist investigators. The age of these programs varied from <1 year to 10 years. Three of the five programs stated that they had two fellows per year, and two stated they had spots for one trainee annually. All respondents indicated that fellows received training on study design, research methods, quantitative (eg, large database and secondary analyses) and qualitative data analysis. In addition, two programs included training in systematic review and meta-analyses, and three included focused courses on healthcare policy. Four of the five programs included training in QI tools, such as LEAN and Six Sigma. Funding for four of the five fellowship programs came from internal sources (eg, department and CTSA). However, two programs added they received some support from extramural funding and philanthropy. Following training, respondents from programs indicated that the majority of their graduates (60%) went on to hybrid research/QI roles (50/50 research/clinical effort), whereas 40% obtained dedicated research investigator (80/20) positions (Table 2).

The 23 institutions without research training programs cited that the most important barrier for establishing such programs was lack of funding (12 programs) and the lack of a pipeline of hospitalists seeking such training (six programs). However, 15 programs indicated that opportunities for hospitalists to gain research training in the form of courses were available internally (eg, courses in the department or medical school) or externally (eg, School of Public Health). Seven programs indicated that they were planning to start a HM research fellowship within the next five years.

Research Faculty

Among the 28 respondents, 15 stated that they have faculty members who conduct research as their main professional activity (ie, >50% effort). The number of faculty members in each program in such roles varied from one to 10. Respondents indicated that faculty members in this category were most often midcareer assistant or associate professors with few full professors. All programs indicated that scholarship in the form of peer-reviewed publications was required for the promotion of faculty. Faculty members who performed research as their main activity had all received formal fellowship training and consequently had dual degrees (MD with MPH or MD, with MSc being the two most common combinations). With respect to clinical activities, most respondents indicated that research faculty spent 10% to 49% of their effort on clinical work. However, five respondents indicated that research faculty had <10% effort on clinical duties (Table 3).

Eleven respondents (39%) identified the main focus of faculty as health service research, where four (14%) identified their main focus as clinical trials. Regardless of funding status, all respondents stated that their faculty were interested in studying quality and process improvement efforts (eg, transitions or readmissions, n = 19), patient safety initiatives (eg, hospital-acquired complications, n = 17), and disease-specific areas (eg, thrombosis, n = 15).

In terms of research output, 12 respondents stated that their research/QI faculty collectively published 11-50 peer-reviewed papers during the academic year, and 10 programs indicated that their faculty published 0-10 papers per year. Only three programs reported that their faculty collectively published 50-99 peer-reviewed papers per year. With respect to abstract presentations at national conferences, 13 programs indicated that they presented 0-10 abstracts, and 12 indicated that they presented 11-50.

In this first survey quantifying research activities in HM, respondents from 28 programs shared important insights into research activities at their institutions. Although our sample size was small, substantial variation in the size, composition, and structure of research programs in HM among respondents was observed. For example, few respondents indicated the availability of training programs for research in HM at their institutions. Similarly, among faculty who focused mainly on research, variation in funding streams and effort protection was observed. A preponderance of midcareer faculty with a range of funding sources, including NIH, AHRQ, VHA, CMS, and CDC was reported. Collectively, these data not only provide a unique glimpse into the state of research in HM but also help establish a baseline of the status of the field at large.

Some findings of our study are intuitive given our sampling strategy and the types of programs that responded. For example, the fact that most respondents for research programs represented university-based or affiliated institutions is expected given the tripartite academic mission. However, even within our sample of highly motivated programs, some findings are surprising and merit further exploration. For example, the observation that some respondents identified HM investigators within their program with <25% in intra- or extramural funding was unexpected. On the other extreme, we were surprised to find that three programs reported >$5 million in research funding. Understanding whether specific factors, such as the availability of experienced mentors within and outside departments or assistance from support staff (eg, statisticians and project managers), are associated with success and funding within these programs are important questions to answer. By focusing on these issues, we will be well poised as a field to understand what works, what does not work, and why.

Likewise, the finding that few programs within our sample offer formal training in the form of fellowships to research investigators represents an improvement opportunity. A pipeline for growing investigators is critical for the specialty that is HM. Notably, this call is not new; rather, previous investigators have highlighted the importance of developing academically oriented hospitalists for the future of the field.⁵ The implementation of faculty scholarship development programs has improved the scholarly output, mentoring activities, and succession planning of academics within HM.^6,7 Conversely, lack of adequate mentorship and support for academic activities remains a challenge and as a factor associated with the failure to produce academic work.⁸ Without a cadre of investigators asking critical questions related to care delivery, the legitimacy of our field may be threatened.

While extrapolating to the field is difficult given the small number of our respondents, highlighting the progress that has been made is important. For example, while misalignment between funding and clinical and research mission persists, our survey found that several programs have been successful in securing extramural funding for their investigators. Additionally, internal funding for QI work appears to be increasing, with hospitalists receiving dedicated effort for much of this work. Innovation in how best to support and develop these types of efforts have also emerged. For example, the University of Michigan Specialist Hospitalist Allied Research Program offers dedicated effort and funding for hospitalists tackling projects germane to HM (eg, ordering of blood cultures for febrile inpatients) that overlap with subspecialists (eg, infectious diseases).⁹ Thus, hospitalists are linked with other specialties in the development of research agendas and academic products. Similarly, the launch of the HOMERUN network, a coalition of investigators who bridge health systems to study problems central to HM, has helped usher in a new era of research opportunities in the specialty.¹⁰ Fundamentally, the culture of HM has begun to place an emphasis on academic and scholarly productivity in addition to clinical prowess.^11-13 Increased support and funding for training programs geared toward innovation and research in HM is needed to continue this mission. The Society for General Internal Medicine, American College of Physicians, and SHM have important roles to play as the largest professional organizations for generalists in this respect. Support for research, QI, and investigators in HM remains an urgent and largely unmet need.

Our study has limitations. First, our response rate was low at 28% but is consistent with the response rates of other surveys of physician groups.¹⁴ Caution in making inferences to the field at large is necessary given the potential for selection and nonresponse bias. However, we expect that respondents are likely biased toward programs actively conducting research and engaged in QI, thus better reflecting the state of these activities in HM. Second, given that we did not ask for any identifying information, we have no way of establishing the accuracy of the data provided by respondents. However, we have no reason to believe that responses would be altered in a systematic fashion. Future studies that link our findings to publicly available data (eg, databases of active grants and funding) might be useful. Third, while our survey instrument was created and internally validated by hospitalist researchers, its lack of external validation could limit findings. Finally, our results vary on the basis of how respondents answered questions related to effort and time allocation given that these measures differ across programs.

In summary, the findings from this study highlight substantial variations in the number, training, and funding of research faculty across HM programs. Understanding the factors behind the success of some programs and the failures of others appears important in informing and growing the research in the field. Future studies that aim to expand survey participation, raise the awareness of the state of research in HM, and identify barriers and facilitators to academic success in HM are needed.

Disclosures

Dr. Chopra discloses grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), VA Health Services and Research Department, and Centers for Disease Control. Dr. Jones discloses grant funding from AHRQ. All other authors disclose no conflicts of interest.

Almost all specialties in internal medicine have a sound scientific research base through which clinical practice is informed.¹ For the field of Hospital Medicine (HM), this evidence has largely comprised research generated from fields outside of the specialty. The need to develop, invest, and grow investigators in hospital-based medicine remains unmet as HM and its footprint in hospital systems continue to grow.^2,3

Despite this fact, little is known about the current state of research in HM. A 2014 survey of the members of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) found that research output across the field of HM, as measured on the basis of peer-reviewed publications, was growing.⁴ Since then, however, the numbers of individuals engaged in research activities, their background and training, publication output, or funding sources have not been quantified. Similarly, little is known about which institutions support the development of junior investigators (ie, HM research fellowships), how these programs are funded, and whether or not matriculants enter the field as investigators. These gaps must be measured, evaluated, and ideally addressed through strategic policy and funding initiatives to advance the state of science within HM.

Members of the SHM Research Committee developed, designed, and deployed a survey to improve the understanding of the state of research in HM. In this study, we aimed to establish the baseline of research in HM to enable the measurement of progress through periodic waves of data collection. Specifically, we sought to quantify and describe the characteristics of existing research programs, the sources and types of funding, the number and background of faculty, and the availability of resources for training researchers in HM.

Study Setting and Participants

Given that no defined list, database, or external resource that identifies research programs and contacts in HM exists, we began by creating a strategy to identify and sample adult HM programs and their leaders engaged in research activity. We iteratively developed a two-step approach to maximize inclusivity. First, we partnered with SHM to identify programs and leaders actively engaging in research activities. SHM is the largest professional organization within HM and maintains an extensive membership database that includes the titles, e-mail addresses, and affiliations of hospitalists in the United States, including academic and nonacademic sites. This list was manually scanned, and the leaders of academic and research programs in adult HM were identified by examining their titles (eg, Division Chief, Research Lead, etc.) and academic affiliations. During this step, members of the committee noticed that certain key individuals were either missing, no longer occupying their role/title, or had been replaced by others. Therefore, we performed a second step and asked the members of the SHM Research Committee to identify academic and research leaders by using current personal contacts, publication history, and social networks. We asked members to identify individuals and programs that had received grant funding, were actively presenting research at SHM (or other major national venues), and/or were producing peer-reviewed publications related to HM. These programs were purposefully chosen (ie, over HM programs known for clinical activities) to create an enriched sample of those engaged in research in HM. The research committee performed the “second pass” to ensure that established investigators who may not be accurately captured within the SHM database were included to maximize yield for the survey. Finally, these two sources were merged to ensure the absence of duplicate contacts and the identification of a primary respondent for each affiliate. As a result, a convenience sample of 100 programs and corresponding individuals was compiled for the purposes of this survey.

Survey Development

A workgroup within the SHM Research Committee was tasked to create a survey that would achieve four distinct goals: (1) identify institutions currently engaging in hospital-based research; (2) define the characteristics, including sources of research funding, training opportunities, criteria for promotion, and grant support, of research programs within institutions; (3) understand the prevalence of research fellowship programs, including size, training curricula, and funding sources; and (4) evaluate the productivity and funding sources of HM investigators at each site.

Survey questions that target each of these domains were drafted by the workgroup. Questions were pretested with colleagues outside the workgroup focused on this project (ie, from the main research committee). The instrument was refined and edited to improve the readability and clarity of questions on the basis of the feedback obtained through the iterative process. The revised instrument was then programmed into an online survey administration tool (SurveyMonkey^®) to facilitate electronic dissemination. Finally, the members of the workgroup tested the online survey to ensure functionality. No identifiable information was collected from respondents, and no monetary incentive was offered for the completion of the survey. An invitation to participate in the survey was sent via e-mail to each of the program contacts identified.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics, including proportions, means, and percentages, were used to tabulate results. All analyses were conducted using Stata 13 MP/SE (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).

Ethical and Regulatory Considerations

The study was reviewed and deemed exempt from regulation by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board (HUM000138628).

General Characteristics of Research Programs and Faculty

Out of 100 program contacts, 28 (representing 1,586 faculty members) responded and were included in the survey (program response rate = 28%). When comparing programs that did respond with those that did not, a greater proportion of programs in university settings were noted among respondents (79% vs 21%). Respondents represented programs from all regions of the United States, with most representing university-based (79%), university-affiliated (14%) or Veterans Health Administration (VHA; 11%) programs. Most respondents were in leadership roles, including division chiefs (32%), research directors/leads (21%), section chiefs (18%), and related titles, such as program director. Respondents indicated that the total number of faculty members in their programs (including nonclinicians and advance practice providers) varied from eight to 152 (mean [SD] = 57 [36]) members, with physicians representing the majority of faculty members (Table 1).

Among the 1,586 faculty members within the 28 programs, respondents identified 192 faculty members (12%) as currently receiving extra- or intramural support for research activities. Of these faculty, over half (58%) received <25% of effort from intra or extramural sources, and 28 (15%) and 52 (27%) faculty members received 25%-50% or >50% of support for their effort, respectively. The number of investigators who received funding across programs ranged from 0 to 28 faculty members. Compared with the 192 funded investigators, respondents indicated that a larger number of faculty in their programs (n = 656 or 41%) were involved in local quality improvement (QI) efforts. Of the 656 faculty members involved in QI efforts, 241 individuals (37%) were internally funded and received protected time/effort for their work.

Key Attributes of Research Programs

In the evaluation of the amount of total grant funding, respondents from 17 programs indicated that they received $500,000 in annual extra and intramural funding, and those from three programs stated that they received $500,000 to $999,999 in funding. Five respondents indicated that their programs currently received $1 million to $5 million in grant funding, and three reported >$5 million in research support. The sources of research funding included several divisions within the National Institute of Health (NIH, 12 programs), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, four programs), foundations (four programs), and internal grants (six programs). Additionally, six programs indicated “other” sources of funding that included the VHA, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and industry sources.

A range of grants, including career development awards (11 programs); small grants, such as R21 and R03s (eight programs); R-level grants, including VA merit awards (five programs); program series grants, such as P and U grants (five programs), and foundation grants (eight programs), were reported as types of awards. Respondents from 16 programs indicated that they provided internal pilot grants. Amounts for such grants ranged from <$50,000 (14 programs) to $50,000-$100,000 (two programs).

Research Fellowship Programs/Training Programs

Only five of the 28 surveyed programs indicated that they currently had a research training or fellowship program for developing hospitalist investigators. The age of these programs varied from <1 year to 10 years. Three of the five programs stated that they had two fellows per year, and two stated they had spots for one trainee annually. All respondents indicated that fellows received training on study design, research methods, quantitative (eg, large database and secondary analyses) and qualitative data analysis. In addition, two programs included training in systematic review and meta-analyses, and three included focused courses on healthcare policy. Four of the five programs included training in QI tools, such as LEAN and Six Sigma. Funding for four of the five fellowship programs came from internal sources (eg, department and CTSA). However, two programs added they received some support from extramural funding and philanthropy. Following training, respondents from programs indicated that the majority of their graduates (60%) went on to hybrid research/QI roles (50/50 research/clinical effort), whereas 40% obtained dedicated research investigator (80/20) positions (Table 2).

The 23 institutions without research training programs cited that the most important barrier for establishing such programs was lack of funding (12 programs) and the lack of a pipeline of hospitalists seeking such training (six programs). However, 15 programs indicated that opportunities for hospitalists to gain research training in the form of courses were available internally (eg, courses in the department or medical school) or externally (eg, School of Public Health). Seven programs indicated that they were planning to start a HM research fellowship within the next five years.

Research Faculty

Among the 28 respondents, 15 stated that they have faculty members who conduct research as their main professional activity (ie, >50% effort). The number of faculty members in each program in such roles varied from one to 10. Respondents indicated that faculty members in this category were most often midcareer assistant or associate professors with few full professors. All programs indicated that scholarship in the form of peer-reviewed publications was required for the promotion of faculty. Faculty members who performed research as their main activity had all received formal fellowship training and consequently had dual degrees (MD with MPH or MD, with MSc being the two most common combinations). With respect to clinical activities, most respondents indicated that research faculty spent 10% to 49% of their effort on clinical work. However, five respondents indicated that research faculty had <10% effort on clinical duties (Table 3).

Eleven respondents (39%) identified the main focus of faculty as health service research, where four (14%) identified their main focus as clinical trials. Regardless of funding status, all respondents stated that their faculty were interested in studying quality and process improvement efforts (eg, transitions or readmissions, n = 19), patient safety initiatives (eg, hospital-acquired complications, n = 17), and disease-specific areas (eg, thrombosis, n = 15).

In terms of research output, 12 respondents stated that their research/QI faculty collectively published 11-50 peer-reviewed papers during the academic year, and 10 programs indicated that their faculty published 0-10 papers per year. Only three programs reported that their faculty collectively published 50-99 peer-reviewed papers per year. With respect to abstract presentations at national conferences, 13 programs indicated that they presented 0-10 abstracts, and 12 indicated that they presented 11-50.

In this first survey quantifying research activities in HM, respondents from 28 programs shared important insights into research activities at their institutions. Although our sample size was small, substantial variation in the size, composition, and structure of research programs in HM among respondents was observed. For example, few respondents indicated the availability of training programs for research in HM at their institutions. Similarly, among faculty who focused mainly on research, variation in funding streams and effort protection was observed. A preponderance of midcareer faculty with a range of funding sources, including NIH, AHRQ, VHA, CMS, and CDC was reported. Collectively, these data not only provide a unique glimpse into the state of research in HM but also help establish a baseline of the status of the field at large.

Some findings of our study are intuitive given our sampling strategy and the types of programs that responded. For example, the fact that most respondents for research programs represented university-based or affiliated institutions is expected given the tripartite academic mission. However, even within our sample of highly motivated programs, some findings are surprising and merit further exploration. For example, the observation that some respondents identified HM investigators within their program with <25% in intra- or extramural funding was unexpected. On the other extreme, we were surprised to find that three programs reported >$5 million in research funding. Understanding whether specific factors, such as the availability of experienced mentors within and outside departments or assistance from support staff (eg, statisticians and project managers), are associated with success and funding within these programs are important questions to answer. By focusing on these issues, we will be well poised as a field to understand what works, what does not work, and why.

Likewise, the finding that few programs within our sample offer formal training in the form of fellowships to research investigators represents an improvement opportunity. A pipeline for growing investigators is critical for the specialty that is HM. Notably, this call is not new; rather, previous investigators have highlighted the importance of developing academically oriented hospitalists for the future of the field.⁵ The implementation of faculty scholarship development programs has improved the scholarly output, mentoring activities, and succession planning of academics within HM.^6,7 Conversely, lack of adequate mentorship and support for academic activities remains a challenge and as a factor associated with the failure to produce academic work.⁸ Without a cadre of investigators asking critical questions related to care delivery, the legitimacy of our field may be threatened.

While extrapolating to the field is difficult given the small number of our respondents, highlighting the progress that has been made is important. For example, while misalignment between funding and clinical and research mission persists, our survey found that several programs have been successful in securing extramural funding for their investigators. Additionally, internal funding for QI work appears to be increasing, with hospitalists receiving dedicated effort for much of this work. Innovation in how best to support and develop these types of efforts have also emerged. For example, the University of Michigan Specialist Hospitalist Allied Research Program offers dedicated effort and funding for hospitalists tackling projects germane to HM (eg, ordering of blood cultures for febrile inpatients) that overlap with subspecialists (eg, infectious diseases).⁹ Thus, hospitalists are linked with other specialties in the development of research agendas and academic products. Similarly, the launch of the HOMERUN network, a coalition of investigators who bridge health systems to study problems central to HM, has helped usher in a new era of research opportunities in the specialty.¹⁰ Fundamentally, the culture of HM has begun to place an emphasis on academic and scholarly productivity in addition to clinical prowess.^11-13 Increased support and funding for training programs geared toward innovation and research in HM is needed to continue this mission. The Society for General Internal Medicine, American College of Physicians, and SHM have important roles to play as the largest professional organizations for generalists in this respect. Support for research, QI, and investigators in HM remains an urgent and largely unmet need.

Our study has limitations. First, our response rate was low at 28% but is consistent with the response rates of other surveys of physician groups.¹⁴ Caution in making inferences to the field at large is necessary given the potential for selection and nonresponse bias. However, we expect that respondents are likely biased toward programs actively conducting research and engaged in QI, thus better reflecting the state of these activities in HM. Second, given that we did not ask for any identifying information, we have no way of establishing the accuracy of the data provided by respondents. However, we have no reason to believe that responses would be altered in a systematic fashion. Future studies that link our findings to publicly available data (eg, databases of active grants and funding) might be useful. Third, while our survey instrument was created and internally validated by hospitalist researchers, its lack of external validation could limit findings. Finally, our results vary on the basis of how respondents answered questions related to effort and time allocation given that these measures differ across programs.

In summary, the findings from this study highlight substantial variations in the number, training, and funding of research faculty across HM programs. Understanding the factors behind the success of some programs and the failures of others appears important in informing and growing the research in the field. Future studies that aim to expand survey participation, raise the awareness of the state of research in HM, and identify barriers and facilitators to academic success in HM are needed.

Disclosures

Dr. Chopra discloses grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), VA Health Services and Research Department, and Centers for Disease Control. Dr. Jones discloses grant funding from AHRQ. All other authors disclose no conflicts of interest.

Almost all specialties in internal medicine have a sound scientific research base through which clinical practice is informed.¹ For the field of Hospital Medicine (HM), this evidence has largely comprised research generated from fields outside of the specialty. The need to develop, invest, and grow investigators in hospital-based medicine remains unmet as HM and its footprint in hospital systems continue to grow.^2,3

Despite this fact, little is known about the current state of research in HM. A 2014 survey of the members of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) found that research output across the field of HM, as measured on the basis of peer-reviewed publications, was growing.⁴ Since then, however, the numbers of individuals engaged in research activities, their background and training, publication output, or funding sources have not been quantified. Similarly, little is known about which institutions support the development of junior investigators (ie, HM research fellowships), how these programs are funded, and whether or not matriculants enter the field as investigators. These gaps must be measured, evaluated, and ideally addressed through strategic policy and funding initiatives to advance the state of science within HM.

Members of the SHM Research Committee developed, designed, and deployed a survey to improve the understanding of the state of research in HM. In this study, we aimed to establish the baseline of research in HM to enable the measurement of progress through periodic waves of data collection. Specifically, we sought to quantify and describe the characteristics of existing research programs, the sources and types of funding, the number and background of faculty, and the availability of resources for training researchers in HM.

Study Setting and Participants

Given that no defined list, database, or external resource that identifies research programs and contacts in HM exists, we began by creating a strategy to identify and sample adult HM programs and their leaders engaged in research activity. We iteratively developed a two-step approach to maximize inclusivity. First, we partnered with SHM to identify programs and leaders actively engaging in research activities. SHM is the largest professional organization within HM and maintains an extensive membership database that includes the titles, e-mail addresses, and affiliations of hospitalists in the United States, including academic and nonacademic sites. This list was manually scanned, and the leaders of academic and research programs in adult HM were identified by examining their titles (eg, Division Chief, Research Lead, etc.) and academic affiliations. During this step, members of the committee noticed that certain key individuals were either missing, no longer occupying their role/title, or had been replaced by others. Therefore, we performed a second step and asked the members of the SHM Research Committee to identify academic and research leaders by using current personal contacts, publication history, and social networks. We asked members to identify individuals and programs that had received grant funding, were actively presenting research at SHM (or other major national venues), and/or were producing peer-reviewed publications related to HM. These programs were purposefully chosen (ie, over HM programs known for clinical activities) to create an enriched sample of those engaged in research in HM. The research committee performed the “second pass” to ensure that established investigators who may not be accurately captured within the SHM database were included to maximize yield for the survey. Finally, these two sources were merged to ensure the absence of duplicate contacts and the identification of a primary respondent for each affiliate. As a result, a convenience sample of 100 programs and corresponding individuals was compiled for the purposes of this survey.

Survey Development

A workgroup within the SHM Research Committee was tasked to create a survey that would achieve four distinct goals: (1) identify institutions currently engaging in hospital-based research; (2) define the characteristics, including sources of research funding, training opportunities, criteria for promotion, and grant support, of research programs within institutions; (3) understand the prevalence of research fellowship programs, including size, training curricula, and funding sources; and (4) evaluate the productivity and funding sources of HM investigators at each site.

Survey questions that target each of these domains were drafted by the workgroup. Questions were pretested with colleagues outside the workgroup focused on this project (ie, from the main research committee). The instrument was refined and edited to improve the readability and clarity of questions on the basis of the feedback obtained through the iterative process. The revised instrument was then programmed into an online survey administration tool (SurveyMonkey^®) to facilitate electronic dissemination. Finally, the members of the workgroup tested the online survey to ensure functionality. No identifiable information was collected from respondents, and no monetary incentive was offered for the completion of the survey. An invitation to participate in the survey was sent via e-mail to each of the program contacts identified.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics, including proportions, means, and percentages, were used to tabulate results. All analyses were conducted using Stata 13 MP/SE (StataCorp, College Station, Texas).

Ethical and Regulatory Considerations

The study was reviewed and deemed exempt from regulation by the University of Michigan Institutional Review Board (HUM000138628).

General Characteristics of Research Programs and Faculty

Out of 100 program contacts, 28 (representing 1,586 faculty members) responded and were included in the survey (program response rate = 28%). When comparing programs that did respond with those that did not, a greater proportion of programs in university settings were noted among respondents (79% vs 21%). Respondents represented programs from all regions of the United States, with most representing university-based (79%), university-affiliated (14%) or Veterans Health Administration (VHA; 11%) programs. Most respondents were in leadership roles, including division chiefs (32%), research directors/leads (21%), section chiefs (18%), and related titles, such as program director. Respondents indicated that the total number of faculty members in their programs (including nonclinicians and advance practice providers) varied from eight to 152 (mean [SD] = 57 [36]) members, with physicians representing the majority of faculty members (Table 1).

Among the 1,586 faculty members within the 28 programs, respondents identified 192 faculty members (12%) as currently receiving extra- or intramural support for research activities. Of these faculty, over half (58%) received <25% of effort from intra or extramural sources, and 28 (15%) and 52 (27%) faculty members received 25%-50% or >50% of support for their effort, respectively. The number of investigators who received funding across programs ranged from 0 to 28 faculty members. Compared with the 192 funded investigators, respondents indicated that a larger number of faculty in their programs (n = 656 or 41%) were involved in local quality improvement (QI) efforts. Of the 656 faculty members involved in QI efforts, 241 individuals (37%) were internally funded and received protected time/effort for their work.

Key Attributes of Research Programs

In the evaluation of the amount of total grant funding, respondents from 17 programs indicated that they received $500,000 in annual extra and intramural funding, and those from three programs stated that they received $500,000 to $999,999 in funding. Five respondents indicated that their programs currently received $1 million to $5 million in grant funding, and three reported >$5 million in research support. The sources of research funding included several divisions within the National Institute of Health (NIH, 12 programs), Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ, four programs), foundations (four programs), and internal grants (six programs). Additionally, six programs indicated “other” sources of funding that included the VHA, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and industry sources.

A range of grants, including career development awards (11 programs); small grants, such as R21 and R03s (eight programs); R-level grants, including VA merit awards (five programs); program series grants, such as P and U grants (five programs), and foundation grants (eight programs), were reported as types of awards. Respondents from 16 programs indicated that they provided internal pilot grants. Amounts for such grants ranged from <$50,000 (14 programs) to $50,000-$100,000 (two programs).

Research Fellowship Programs/Training Programs

Only five of the 28 surveyed programs indicated that they currently had a research training or fellowship program for developing hospitalist investigators. The age of these programs varied from <1 year to 10 years. Three of the five programs stated that they had two fellows per year, and two stated they had spots for one trainee annually. All respondents indicated that fellows received training on study design, research methods, quantitative (eg, large database and secondary analyses) and qualitative data analysis. In addition, two programs included training in systematic review and meta-analyses, and three included focused courses on healthcare policy. Four of the five programs included training in QI tools, such as LEAN and Six Sigma. Funding for four of the five fellowship programs came from internal sources (eg, department and CTSA). However, two programs added they received some support from extramural funding and philanthropy. Following training, respondents from programs indicated that the majority of their graduates (60%) went on to hybrid research/QI roles (50/50 research/clinical effort), whereas 40% obtained dedicated research investigator (80/20) positions (Table 2).

The 23 institutions without research training programs cited that the most important barrier for establishing such programs was lack of funding (12 programs) and the lack of a pipeline of hospitalists seeking such training (six programs). However, 15 programs indicated that opportunities for hospitalists to gain research training in the form of courses were available internally (eg, courses in the department or medical school) or externally (eg, School of Public Health). Seven programs indicated that they were planning to start a HM research fellowship within the next five years.

Research Faculty

Among the 28 respondents, 15 stated that they have faculty members who conduct research as their main professional activity (ie, >50% effort). The number of faculty members in each program in such roles varied from one to 10. Respondents indicated that faculty members in this category were most often midcareer assistant or associate professors with few full professors. All programs indicated that scholarship in the form of peer-reviewed publications was required for the promotion of faculty. Faculty members who performed research as their main activity had all received formal fellowship training and consequently had dual degrees (MD with MPH or MD, with MSc being the two most common combinations). With respect to clinical activities, most respondents indicated that research faculty spent 10% to 49% of their effort on clinical work. However, five respondents indicated that research faculty had <10% effort on clinical duties (Table 3).

Eleven respondents (39%) identified the main focus of faculty as health service research, where four (14%) identified their main focus as clinical trials. Regardless of funding status, all respondents stated that their faculty were interested in studying quality and process improvement efforts (eg, transitions or readmissions, n = 19), patient safety initiatives (eg, hospital-acquired complications, n = 17), and disease-specific areas (eg, thrombosis, n = 15).

In terms of research output, 12 respondents stated that their research/QI faculty collectively published 11-50 peer-reviewed papers during the academic year, and 10 programs indicated that their faculty published 0-10 papers per year. Only three programs reported that their faculty collectively published 50-99 peer-reviewed papers per year. With respect to abstract presentations at national conferences, 13 programs indicated that they presented 0-10 abstracts, and 12 indicated that they presented 11-50.

In this first survey quantifying research activities in HM, respondents from 28 programs shared important insights into research activities at their institutions. Although our sample size was small, substantial variation in the size, composition, and structure of research programs in HM among respondents was observed. For example, few respondents indicated the availability of training programs for research in HM at their institutions. Similarly, among faculty who focused mainly on research, variation in funding streams and effort protection was observed. A preponderance of midcareer faculty with a range of funding sources, including NIH, AHRQ, VHA, CMS, and CDC was reported. Collectively, these data not only provide a unique glimpse into the state of research in HM but also help establish a baseline of the status of the field at large.

Some findings of our study are intuitive given our sampling strategy and the types of programs that responded. For example, the fact that most respondents for research programs represented university-based or affiliated institutions is expected given the tripartite academic mission. However, even within our sample of highly motivated programs, some findings are surprising and merit further exploration. For example, the observation that some respondents identified HM investigators within their program with <25% in intra- or extramural funding was unexpected. On the other extreme, we were surprised to find that three programs reported >$5 million in research funding. Understanding whether specific factors, such as the availability of experienced mentors within and outside departments or assistance from support staff (eg, statisticians and project managers), are associated with success and funding within these programs are important questions to answer. By focusing on these issues, we will be well poised as a field to understand what works, what does not work, and why.

Likewise, the finding that few programs within our sample offer formal training in the form of fellowships to research investigators represents an improvement opportunity. A pipeline for growing investigators is critical for the specialty that is HM. Notably, this call is not new; rather, previous investigators have highlighted the importance of developing academically oriented hospitalists for the future of the field.⁵ The implementation of faculty scholarship development programs has improved the scholarly output, mentoring activities, and succession planning of academics within HM.^6,7 Conversely, lack of adequate mentorship and support for academic activities remains a challenge and as a factor associated with the failure to produce academic work.⁸ Without a cadre of investigators asking critical questions related to care delivery, the legitimacy of our field may be threatened.

While extrapolating to the field is difficult given the small number of our respondents, highlighting the progress that has been made is important. For example, while misalignment between funding and clinical and research mission persists, our survey found that several programs have been successful in securing extramural funding for their investigators. Additionally, internal funding for QI work appears to be increasing, with hospitalists receiving dedicated effort for much of this work. Innovation in how best to support and develop these types of efforts have also emerged. For example, the University of Michigan Specialist Hospitalist Allied Research Program offers dedicated effort and funding for hospitalists tackling projects germane to HM (eg, ordering of blood cultures for febrile inpatients) that overlap with subspecialists (eg, infectious diseases).⁹ Thus, hospitalists are linked with other specialties in the development of research agendas and academic products. Similarly, the launch of the HOMERUN network, a coalition of investigators who bridge health systems to study problems central to HM, has helped usher in a new era of research opportunities in the specialty.¹⁰ Fundamentally, the culture of HM has begun to place an emphasis on academic and scholarly productivity in addition to clinical prowess.^11-13 Increased support and funding for training programs geared toward innovation and research in HM is needed to continue this mission. The Society for General Internal Medicine, American College of Physicians, and SHM have important roles to play as the largest professional organizations for generalists in this respect. Support for research, QI, and investigators in HM remains an urgent and largely unmet need.

Our study has limitations. First, our response rate was low at 28% but is consistent with the response rates of other surveys of physician groups.¹⁴ Caution in making inferences to the field at large is necessary given the potential for selection and nonresponse bias. However, we expect that respondents are likely biased toward programs actively conducting research and engaged in QI, thus better reflecting the state of these activities in HM. Second, given that we did not ask for any identifying information, we have no way of establishing the accuracy of the data provided by respondents. However, we have no reason to believe that responses would be altered in a systematic fashion. Future studies that link our findings to publicly available data (eg, databases of active grants and funding) might be useful. Third, while our survey instrument was created and internally validated by hospitalist researchers, its lack of external validation could limit findings. Finally, our results vary on the basis of how respondents answered questions related to effort and time allocation given that these measures differ across programs.

In summary, the findings from this study highlight substantial variations in the number, training, and funding of research faculty across HM programs. Understanding the factors behind the success of some programs and the failures of others appears important in informing and growing the research in the field. Future studies that aim to expand survey participation, raise the awareness of the state of research in HM, and identify barriers and facilitators to academic success in HM are needed.

Disclosures

Dr. Chopra discloses grant funding from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), VA Health Services and Research Department, and Centers for Disease Control. Dr. Jones discloses grant funding from AHRQ. All other authors disclose no conflicts of interest.

Patients who are discharged from the hospital with home healthcare (HHC) are older, sicker, and more likely to be readmitted to the hospital than patients discharged home without HHC.^1-3 Communication between clinicians in different settings is a key factor in successful transitions. In prior work, we focused on communication between primary care providers, hospitalists, and HHC nurses to inform efforts to improve care transitions.^4,5 In one study, HHC nurses described that patients frequently have expectations beyond the scope of what skilled HHC provides,⁵ which prompted us to also question experiences of patients and caregivers after discharge with skilled HHC (eg, nursing and physical therapy).

In a prior qualitative study by Foust and colleagues, HHC patients and caregivers described disparate experiences around preparation for hospital discharge—patients expressed knowing about the timing and plans for discharge, and the caregivers frequently felt left out of this discussion.⁶ In other studies, caregivers of recently discharged patients have described feeling excluded from interactions with clinicians both before and after discharge.^7,8 In another recent qualitative study, caregivers described uncertainty about their role compared with the HHC role in caring for the patient.⁹

As of 2016, a majority of states had passed the Caregiver Advise, Record, and Enable (CARE) Act, which requires hospitals to (1) record a family caregiver in the medical record, (2) inform this caregiver about discharge, and (3) deliver instructions with education about medical tasks that they will need to complete after discharge.¹⁰In the context of the CARE Act, hospitals are encouraged to increase caregiver engagement to prepare for discharge, but it is unclear whether this engagement is occurring for patients in general and HHC patients in particular. Because more than 80% of HHC patients have a primary caregiver outside of HHC, caregiver engagement around the time of discharge could be a key factor in care transitions.¹¹

The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare expectations for HHC from the patient, caregiver, and HHC perspectives after hospital discharge. By combining all three groups into a case study, we aim to build on our prior work with HHC nurses to explore how expectations for HHC compare within and across cases of patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians.

Study Design

In this qualitative descriptive case study, we interviewed HHC patients, an involved caregiver, and the HHC clinician completing the first HHC visit within 7-14 days following hospital discharge. We chose this timeframe to allow patients to receive one or more HHC visits following hospital discharge.

Population

A convenience sampling strategy was employed to recruit a sample that would reflect a national sample of Medicare HHC patients based on age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Because a majority of HHC users in the United States are Medicare beneficiaries

• >65 years old,¹² eligibility was initially limited to patients
• >65 years old. Due to recruitment challenges, the age range was broadened to
• >50 years old in October 2017. Because our goal was to better understand the experience of general medicine patients with multiple comorbidities, we recruited patients from one general medicine unit at an academic hospital in Colorado. Patients on this unit were screened for eligibility Monday-Friday (excluding weekends and holidays) based on research assistant availability.

Criteria included are as follows: HHC referral, three or more comorbidities, resides in the community prior to admission (ie, not in a facility), cognitively intact, English speaking, and able to identify a caregiver participating in their care. Eligible patients were approached for written consent prior to discharge to allow us to contact them 7-14 days after discharge for an interview by phone or in their home, per their preference. At the time of consent, patients provided contact information for their informal caregiver. Caregiver eligibility criteria included the following: age ≥18 years and provides caregiving at least one hour a week before hospital discharge. HHC clinicians approached for interviews had completed the first HHC visit for the patient following discharge. Both caregivers and HHC clinicians provided verbal consent for interviews. All participants received a $25 gift card for participation in the study.

Framework and Data Collection

Our interview guides were organized by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Care Coordination Framework, an approach we have taken in prior work.^4,5,13 We added questions about patient preparation and self-management support to build on findings from a prior study with HHC nurses and on prior work by Coleman and colleagues.^5,14 Sample questions from the interview guides for patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians within key analysis domains are included in Appendix 1. The patient and caregiver interviews were completed by an individual with prior experience in social work and healthcare (SS). The HHC clinician interviews were completed by either this individual (SS) or a physician-researcher with experience in qualitative methods (CJ). Patients and caregivers could choose to be interviewed individually or together. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the clarity of expectations related to HHC after discharge within and across cases. We primarily explored domains of patient preparation, assessing needs and goals, and creating a plan of care for skilled HHC from patient and caregiver perspectives. Because qualitative work had been completed previously with HHC clinicians, HHC perspectives were used primarily for triangulation of perspectives about expectations where possible. The analysis team was composed of the two interviewers (SS and CDJ) and a qualitative methods expert (JJ). We used our established team-based inductive approach to develop themes around patient expectations and preparation for HHC, with deductive connections to the framework as applicable.^15,16 Two team members completed the initial coding after every one to three interviews to ensure the themes were developing iteratively. Group discussions including the third team member were used to resolve discrepancies and to complete a team-based iterative analysis until informational saturation for expectations after discharge was reached from the patient and caregiver perspectives (ie, no new codes were identified).¹⁷ Once the team reached informational saturation with codes, we recruited three additional patients to ensure no new codes were identified in key domains before concluding recruitment. ATLAS.ti version 7.5.17 (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany) was used to facilitate coding and analysis. This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (protocol 17-0553).

Between July 2017 and February 2018, patients were recruited for participation in this study. Because the discharge destination plans could change multiple times in a hospitalization, the eligibility of patients for the study could change throughout hospitalization. To give further context about patients on this unit during the study timeframe, we completed a retrospective review of the 1,024 patient discharges from the unit and found that 38 patients met the eligibility criteria. Overall, 15 patients provided written consent (11 women and four men), and 11 completed interviews. The remaining four were unable to complete interviews due to a change in postdischarge plans that no longer included HHC (two patients) and hospital readmissions prior to interviews (two patients). In total, interviews were completed with 27 individuals: 11 patients, eight caregivers, and eight HHC clinicians (five nurses and three physical therapists). For five of the interviews, the patient and the caregiver requested to be interviewed together. In four cases, interviews were missing from the caregiver (one case), the HHC clinician (one case), or both the caregiver and the HHC clinician (two cases). Overall, perspectives were available from the complete triad of patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians in seven cases, and perspectives were available from the patient and at least one other individual (ie, caregiver or HHC clinician) in two additional cases.

Patient interviews lasted an average of 43 minutes, caregiver interviews an average of 41 minutes, and HHC clinician interviews an average of 25 minutes. Patients were on average 66 years old (range 52-85 years), and most were women and white. Six of the patients had prior experience with HHC services, and five were new HHC patients. Primary diagnoses for patients included the following: sepsis (three cases), urinary tract or kidney infections (two cases), bone/hardware infections (two cases), Clostridium difficile infection (one case), acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (one case), aortic stenosis (one case), and acute pancreatitis (one case). For caregivers, the average age was 61 years, all were women, and they had a spouse or other family member in six cases and a nonfamily caregiver in two cases. HHC clinicians were an average of 40 years old, half were women, and the average time providing HHC was 4.4 years (Table 1).

Clear Expectations within Cases

Clear expectations for HHC were identified across perspectives in three cases, with sample quotes provided in Table 2. In the case of patient 1, the patient and HHC nurse had known each other for over two years because the patient had a wound requiring long-term HHC services. A caregiver did not complete an interview in this case. With patient 2, the patient, caregiver, and HHC physical therapist (PT) all describe that the patient had clear expectations for HHC. In this case, the patient and caregiver describe feeling prepared because of previously receiving HHC, prior work experience in the healthcare field, and a caregiver with experience working in HHC. In the case of patient 3, the patient had previously received HHC from the same HHC nurse.

Unclear Expectations across Cases

For the three cases in which unclear expectations were described across perspectives, two of the patients described being new to HHC, with representative quotes in Table 2. Patient 4 and her caregiver are new to HHC and describe unclear expectations for both the HHC referral and the HHC role, which was also noted by the HHC clinician. Of note, the caregiver for patient 4 further described that she was unable to be present for the first HHC visit. In the case of patient 5, although the patient had previously received HHC, the patient describes not knowing why the HHC PT needs to see her after discharge, which is also noted by the HHC PT. Finally, both patient 6 and her HHC PT describe that the patient was not sure about their expectations for HHC and that HHC was a new experience for them.

Discordant Expectation Clarity across Cases

In three of the cases, the description of clear and unclear expectations was discrepant across roles. In case 7, the caregiver and patient are new to HHC and express different perspectives about expectations for HHC. The HHC clinician, in this case, did not complete an interview. The caregiver describes not being present for the first HHC visit and no awareness that the patient was being discharged with HHC:

Caregiver: Well, we didn’t even know she had home health until she got home.

The same caregiver also expresses unclear expectations for HHC:

Caregiver: It’s pretty cloudy. They (the HHC clinicians) don’t help her with her laundry, they don’t help with the housekeeping, they don’t help… with her showers so somebody is there when she showers. They don’t do anything. The only two things like I said is the…home healthcare comes in on Wednesdays to see what she needs and then the therapy comes in one day a week.

However, the patient expresses more clear expectations that are being met by HHC.

Patient: They (HHC) have met my expectations. They come in twice a week. They do vitals, take vitals and discuss with me, you know, what my feelings are, how I’m doing and I know they have met my expectations.

In case 8, although the patient describes knowing about the HHC PT involvement in her care, she expresses some unclear expectations about an HHC nurse after discharge.

Patient: As far as home health, I didn’t have a real …plan there at the hospital… They knew about (the HHC PT) coming once a week but as far as, you know, a nurse coming by to check on me, no.

However, the HHC PT describes feeling that the patient had clear expectations for HHC after discharge:

Interviewer: Can you reflect on whether she was prepared to receive home healthcare?

HHC PT: Yeah, she was ready.

Interviewer: …do you feel like she was prepared to know what to expect from you?

HHC PT: Yeah, but I think that comes from being a previous patient also.

Finally, in case 9, the patient describes clear expectations for HHC even though they were new to HHC:

Patient: …I knew what the PT was going to do and …I still need her because I’ve lost so much weight so she’s been really good, instrumental, at giving me exercises… Occupational therapist…she’s going to teach me how to shave, she’s going to teach me how to get ready for the day.

The HHC PT describes that although the patient knew the PT role, they reflect that the patient may have been somewhat unclear about expectations for the first HHC visit:

HHC PT: He knew all that it entailed with the exception of he didn’t really know what the first day was going to be like and the first day I don’t usually do treatment because it does take a long time to get all the paperwork signed, to do the evaluation and the fact that it takes two hours to do that note.

In this qualitative case study with HHC patients, caregivers, and clinicians, the participants described varying levels of expectation clarity for HHC after discharge. We triangulated across and within cases and found three cases with clear expectations and three cases with unclear expectations for HHC across perspectives. In three additional cases, we found discordant expectations across perspectives: patients and HHC clinician expectations differed in two of the cases and a patient and caregiver differed in one case. Of interest, in all three cases of clear expectations across perspectives, the patients and/or caregivers had prior HHC or healthcare work experience. In contrast, in the cases of two caregivers with unclear expectations, neither had prior HHC experience and both described expectations for assistance with personal care or housekeeping. Our findings suggest the need to improve caregiver engagement in HHC decision-making and care delivery, even in the time following the passage of the CARE Act. In addition, our findings suggest that patients and caregivers with unclear expectations for HHC may benefit from enhanced education about HHC services.

Prior studies in this area have included a qualitative study HHC patients, caregivers, and clinicians by Foust and colleagues in which multiple caregivers described finding out about the discharge from the patient or other caregivers, rather than being actively engaged by clinicians.⁶ In another recent qualitative study by Arbaje and colleagues, a majority of caregivers described “mismatched expectations” about HHC services, in which caregivers were unclear about their role compared with the HHC role in caring for the patient.⁹ Of interest, HHC clinicians in the Arbaje study described one of their key tasks to be “expectation management” for receipt of HHC services.⁹ In our study, the caregivers who described unclear expectations were not able to be present for the first HHC visit, which may have been a missed opportunity for the HHC clinician to clarify and manage expectations. Overall, findings from each of these studies support that consistent engagement and education from the hospital and HHC clinicians are needed to prepare patients and caregivers to know what to expect from HHC.

When caregivers have unclear expectations for HHC, they could be expressing the need for more support after hospital discharge, which suggests an active role for hospital teams to assess and address additional support needs with the patients and caregivers. For example, if the patient or caregiver request additional personal care services, a home health aide could help to reduce caregiver burden and improve the support network for the patient. In a prior study in which patients were asked what would help them to make informed decisions about postacute care options, the patients described wanting to receive practical information that could describe how it would apply to their specific situation and perceived needs.¹⁸ To provide this for patients and caregivers, it would follow that hospitals could provide information about skilled HHC nursing and therapies and information about services that could meet additional needs, such as home health aides.

In the context of the CARE Act, in which hospitals are encouraged to increase family caregiver engagement to prepare for discharge, findings from this and other studies suggest an opportunity to improve caregiver partnership in HHC transitions. As a result of this work, we recommend intentionally engaging and including caregivers in addition to patients in both the hospital and HHC settings to clarify expectations. Steps to clarify expectations with both patients and caregivers should include the following: (1) providing education and clear expectations for HHC through verbal interactions and written materials, and (2) assessing and addressing additional needs (eg, personal care) that patients and caregivers may have. To support these efforts, multidisciplinary teams could use previously studied interventions and tools for guidance as they engage caregivers throughout care transitions processes.^10,19

Limitations of this study include that it was a small qualitative case study of patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians from one medical unit at one academic medical center. Most patients in this study had Medicare insurance, were 65 years and older, white, and female. A recent analysis of Medicare HHC users found that 63% were female and 75% were white, which shows that females were overrepresented in our study.^1,2,11 The perspective of Black and non-English speaking patients are missing from our study. Finally, we only interviewed individuals in three roles of complex transitions to HHC, and there are likely many additional perspectives on each of these transitions, which could provide additional insights. Results are not generalizable or transferable beyond this context.

In conclusion, to improve care transitions for HHC patients and their caregivers, emphasizing engagement of caregivers is key to ensure that they are educated about HHC, provided with additional support as needed, and included in initial HHC visits once the patients are at home. Even though patients and caregivers with prior HHC experience often had clear expectations for HHC, a strategy to uniformly engage caregivers across a range of experience can ensure caregivers have all the information and support needed to optimize care transitions to HHC.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

Dr. Christine Jones is supported by grant number K08HS024569 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Jason Falvey was supported by grant F31AG056069 from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health and is currently supported by T32AG019134. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the National Institutes of Health.

Patients who are discharged from the hospital with home healthcare (HHC) are older, sicker, and more likely to be readmitted to the hospital than patients discharged home without HHC.^1-3 Communication between clinicians in different settings is a key factor in successful transitions. In prior work, we focused on communication between primary care providers, hospitalists, and HHC nurses to inform efforts to improve care transitions.^4,5 In one study, HHC nurses described that patients frequently have expectations beyond the scope of what skilled HHC provides,⁵ which prompted us to also question experiences of patients and caregivers after discharge with skilled HHC (eg, nursing and physical therapy).

In a prior qualitative study by Foust and colleagues, HHC patients and caregivers described disparate experiences around preparation for hospital discharge—patients expressed knowing about the timing and plans for discharge, and the caregivers frequently felt left out of this discussion.⁶ In other studies, caregivers of recently discharged patients have described feeling excluded from interactions with clinicians both before and after discharge.^7,8 In another recent qualitative study, caregivers described uncertainty about their role compared with the HHC role in caring for the patient.⁹

As of 2016, a majority of states had passed the Caregiver Advise, Record, and Enable (CARE) Act, which requires hospitals to (1) record a family caregiver in the medical record, (2) inform this caregiver about discharge, and (3) deliver instructions with education about medical tasks that they will need to complete after discharge.¹⁰In the context of the CARE Act, hospitals are encouraged to increase caregiver engagement to prepare for discharge, but it is unclear whether this engagement is occurring for patients in general and HHC patients in particular. Because more than 80% of HHC patients have a primary caregiver outside of HHC, caregiver engagement around the time of discharge could be a key factor in care transitions.¹¹

The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare expectations for HHC from the patient, caregiver, and HHC perspectives after hospital discharge. By combining all three groups into a case study, we aim to build on our prior work with HHC nurses to explore how expectations for HHC compare within and across cases of patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians.

Study Design

In this qualitative descriptive case study, we interviewed HHC patients, an involved caregiver, and the HHC clinician completing the first HHC visit within 7-14 days following hospital discharge. We chose this timeframe to allow patients to receive one or more HHC visits following hospital discharge.

Population

A convenience sampling strategy was employed to recruit a sample that would reflect a national sample of Medicare HHC patients based on age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Because a majority of HHC users in the United States are Medicare beneficiaries

• >65 years old,¹² eligibility was initially limited to patients
• >65 years old. Due to recruitment challenges, the age range was broadened to
• >50 years old in October 2017. Because our goal was to better understand the experience of general medicine patients with multiple comorbidities, we recruited patients from one general medicine unit at an academic hospital in Colorado. Patients on this unit were screened for eligibility Monday-Friday (excluding weekends and holidays) based on research assistant availability.

Criteria included are as follows: HHC referral, three or more comorbidities, resides in the community prior to admission (ie, not in a facility), cognitively intact, English speaking, and able to identify a caregiver participating in their care. Eligible patients were approached for written consent prior to discharge to allow us to contact them 7-14 days after discharge for an interview by phone or in their home, per their preference. At the time of consent, patients provided contact information for their informal caregiver. Caregiver eligibility criteria included the following: age ≥18 years and provides caregiving at least one hour a week before hospital discharge. HHC clinicians approached for interviews had completed the first HHC visit for the patient following discharge. Both caregivers and HHC clinicians provided verbal consent for interviews. All participants received a $25 gift card for participation in the study.

Framework and Data Collection

Our interview guides were organized by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Care Coordination Framework, an approach we have taken in prior work.^4,5,13 We added questions about patient preparation and self-management support to build on findings from a prior study with HHC nurses and on prior work by Coleman and colleagues.^5,14 Sample questions from the interview guides for patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians within key analysis domains are included in Appendix 1. The patient and caregiver interviews were completed by an individual with prior experience in social work and healthcare (SS). The HHC clinician interviews were completed by either this individual (SS) or a physician-researcher with experience in qualitative methods (CJ). Patients and caregivers could choose to be interviewed individually or together. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the clarity of expectations related to HHC after discharge within and across cases. We primarily explored domains of patient preparation, assessing needs and goals, and creating a plan of care for skilled HHC from patient and caregiver perspectives. Because qualitative work had been completed previously with HHC clinicians, HHC perspectives were used primarily for triangulation of perspectives about expectations where possible. The analysis team was composed of the two interviewers (SS and CDJ) and a qualitative methods expert (JJ). We used our established team-based inductive approach to develop themes around patient expectations and preparation for HHC, with deductive connections to the framework as applicable.^15,16 Two team members completed the initial coding after every one to three interviews to ensure the themes were developing iteratively. Group discussions including the third team member were used to resolve discrepancies and to complete a team-based iterative analysis until informational saturation for expectations after discharge was reached from the patient and caregiver perspectives (ie, no new codes were identified).¹⁷ Once the team reached informational saturation with codes, we recruited three additional patients to ensure no new codes were identified in key domains before concluding recruitment. ATLAS.ti version 7.5.17 (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany) was used to facilitate coding and analysis. This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (protocol 17-0553).

Between July 2017 and February 2018, patients were recruited for participation in this study. Because the discharge destination plans could change multiple times in a hospitalization, the eligibility of patients for the study could change throughout hospitalization. To give further context about patients on this unit during the study timeframe, we completed a retrospective review of the 1,024 patient discharges from the unit and found that 38 patients met the eligibility criteria. Overall, 15 patients provided written consent (11 women and four men), and 11 completed interviews. The remaining four were unable to complete interviews due to a change in postdischarge plans that no longer included HHC (two patients) and hospital readmissions prior to interviews (two patients). In total, interviews were completed with 27 individuals: 11 patients, eight caregivers, and eight HHC clinicians (five nurses and three physical therapists). For five of the interviews, the patient and the caregiver requested to be interviewed together. In four cases, interviews were missing from the caregiver (one case), the HHC clinician (one case), or both the caregiver and the HHC clinician (two cases). Overall, perspectives were available from the complete triad of patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians in seven cases, and perspectives were available from the patient and at least one other individual (ie, caregiver or HHC clinician) in two additional cases.

Patient interviews lasted an average of 43 minutes, caregiver interviews an average of 41 minutes, and HHC clinician interviews an average of 25 minutes. Patients were on average 66 years old (range 52-85 years), and most were women and white. Six of the patients had prior experience with HHC services, and five were new HHC patients. Primary diagnoses for patients included the following: sepsis (three cases), urinary tract or kidney infections (two cases), bone/hardware infections (two cases), Clostridium difficile infection (one case), acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (one case), aortic stenosis (one case), and acute pancreatitis (one case). For caregivers, the average age was 61 years, all were women, and they had a spouse or other family member in six cases and a nonfamily caregiver in two cases. HHC clinicians were an average of 40 years old, half were women, and the average time providing HHC was 4.4 years (Table 1).

Clear Expectations within Cases

Clear expectations for HHC were identified across perspectives in three cases, with sample quotes provided in Table 2. In the case of patient 1, the patient and HHC nurse had known each other for over two years because the patient had a wound requiring long-term HHC services. A caregiver did not complete an interview in this case. With patient 2, the patient, caregiver, and HHC physical therapist (PT) all describe that the patient had clear expectations for HHC. In this case, the patient and caregiver describe feeling prepared because of previously receiving HHC, prior work experience in the healthcare field, and a caregiver with experience working in HHC. In the case of patient 3, the patient had previously received HHC from the same HHC nurse.

Unclear Expectations across Cases

For the three cases in which unclear expectations were described across perspectives, two of the patients described being new to HHC, with representative quotes in Table 2. Patient 4 and her caregiver are new to HHC and describe unclear expectations for both the HHC referral and the HHC role, which was also noted by the HHC clinician. Of note, the caregiver for patient 4 further described that she was unable to be present for the first HHC visit. In the case of patient 5, although the patient had previously received HHC, the patient describes not knowing why the HHC PT needs to see her after discharge, which is also noted by the HHC PT. Finally, both patient 6 and her HHC PT describe that the patient was not sure about their expectations for HHC and that HHC was a new experience for them.

Discordant Expectation Clarity across Cases

In three of the cases, the description of clear and unclear expectations was discrepant across roles. In case 7, the caregiver and patient are new to HHC and express different perspectives about expectations for HHC. The HHC clinician, in this case, did not complete an interview. The caregiver describes not being present for the first HHC visit and no awareness that the patient was being discharged with HHC:

Caregiver: Well, we didn’t even know she had home health until she got home.

The same caregiver also expresses unclear expectations for HHC:

Caregiver: It’s pretty cloudy. They (the HHC clinicians) don’t help her with her laundry, they don’t help with the housekeeping, they don’t help… with her showers so somebody is there when she showers. They don’t do anything. The only two things like I said is the…home healthcare comes in on Wednesdays to see what she needs and then the therapy comes in one day a week.

However, the patient expresses more clear expectations that are being met by HHC.

Patient: They (HHC) have met my expectations. They come in twice a week. They do vitals, take vitals and discuss with me, you know, what my feelings are, how I’m doing and I know they have met my expectations.

In case 8, although the patient describes knowing about the HHC PT involvement in her care, she expresses some unclear expectations about an HHC nurse after discharge.

Patient: As far as home health, I didn’t have a real …plan there at the hospital… They knew about (the HHC PT) coming once a week but as far as, you know, a nurse coming by to check on me, no.

However, the HHC PT describes feeling that the patient had clear expectations for HHC after discharge:

Interviewer: Can you reflect on whether she was prepared to receive home healthcare?

HHC PT: Yeah, she was ready.

Interviewer: …do you feel like she was prepared to know what to expect from you?

HHC PT: Yeah, but I think that comes from being a previous patient also.

Finally, in case 9, the patient describes clear expectations for HHC even though they were new to HHC:

Patient: …I knew what the PT was going to do and …I still need her because I’ve lost so much weight so she’s been really good, instrumental, at giving me exercises… Occupational therapist…she’s going to teach me how to shave, she’s going to teach me how to get ready for the day.

The HHC PT describes that although the patient knew the PT role, they reflect that the patient may have been somewhat unclear about expectations for the first HHC visit:

HHC PT: He knew all that it entailed with the exception of he didn’t really know what the first day was going to be like and the first day I don’t usually do treatment because it does take a long time to get all the paperwork signed, to do the evaluation and the fact that it takes two hours to do that note.

In this qualitative case study with HHC patients, caregivers, and clinicians, the participants described varying levels of expectation clarity for HHC after discharge. We triangulated across and within cases and found three cases with clear expectations and three cases with unclear expectations for HHC across perspectives. In three additional cases, we found discordant expectations across perspectives: patients and HHC clinician expectations differed in two of the cases and a patient and caregiver differed in one case. Of interest, in all three cases of clear expectations across perspectives, the patients and/or caregivers had prior HHC or healthcare work experience. In contrast, in the cases of two caregivers with unclear expectations, neither had prior HHC experience and both described expectations for assistance with personal care or housekeeping. Our findings suggest the need to improve caregiver engagement in HHC decision-making and care delivery, even in the time following the passage of the CARE Act. In addition, our findings suggest that patients and caregivers with unclear expectations for HHC may benefit from enhanced education about HHC services.

Prior studies in this area have included a qualitative study HHC patients, caregivers, and clinicians by Foust and colleagues in which multiple caregivers described finding out about the discharge from the patient or other caregivers, rather than being actively engaged by clinicians.⁶ In another recent qualitative study by Arbaje and colleagues, a majority of caregivers described “mismatched expectations” about HHC services, in which caregivers were unclear about their role compared with the HHC role in caring for the patient.⁹ Of interest, HHC clinicians in the Arbaje study described one of their key tasks to be “expectation management” for receipt of HHC services.⁹ In our study, the caregivers who described unclear expectations were not able to be present for the first HHC visit, which may have been a missed opportunity for the HHC clinician to clarify and manage expectations. Overall, findings from each of these studies support that consistent engagement and education from the hospital and HHC clinicians are needed to prepare patients and caregivers to know what to expect from HHC.

When caregivers have unclear expectations for HHC, they could be expressing the need for more support after hospital discharge, which suggests an active role for hospital teams to assess and address additional support needs with the patients and caregivers. For example, if the patient or caregiver request additional personal care services, a home health aide could help to reduce caregiver burden and improve the support network for the patient. In a prior study in which patients were asked what would help them to make informed decisions about postacute care options, the patients described wanting to receive practical information that could describe how it would apply to their specific situation and perceived needs.¹⁸ To provide this for patients and caregivers, it would follow that hospitals could provide information about skilled HHC nursing and therapies and information about services that could meet additional needs, such as home health aides.

In the context of the CARE Act, in which hospitals are encouraged to increase family caregiver engagement to prepare for discharge, findings from this and other studies suggest an opportunity to improve caregiver partnership in HHC transitions. As a result of this work, we recommend intentionally engaging and including caregivers in addition to patients in both the hospital and HHC settings to clarify expectations. Steps to clarify expectations with both patients and caregivers should include the following: (1) providing education and clear expectations for HHC through verbal interactions and written materials, and (2) assessing and addressing additional needs (eg, personal care) that patients and caregivers may have. To support these efforts, multidisciplinary teams could use previously studied interventions and tools for guidance as they engage caregivers throughout care transitions processes.^10,19

Limitations of this study include that it was a small qualitative case study of patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians from one medical unit at one academic medical center. Most patients in this study had Medicare insurance, were 65 years and older, white, and female. A recent analysis of Medicare HHC users found that 63% were female and 75% were white, which shows that females were overrepresented in our study.^1,2,11 The perspective of Black and non-English speaking patients are missing from our study. Finally, we only interviewed individuals in three roles of complex transitions to HHC, and there are likely many additional perspectives on each of these transitions, which could provide additional insights. Results are not generalizable or transferable beyond this context.

In conclusion, to improve care transitions for HHC patients and their caregivers, emphasizing engagement of caregivers is key to ensure that they are educated about HHC, provided with additional support as needed, and included in initial HHC visits once the patients are at home. Even though patients and caregivers with prior HHC experience often had clear expectations for HHC, a strategy to uniformly engage caregivers across a range of experience can ensure caregivers have all the information and support needed to optimize care transitions to HHC.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

Dr. Christine Jones is supported by grant number K08HS024569 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Jason Falvey was supported by grant F31AG056069 from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health and is currently supported by T32AG019134. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the National Institutes of Health.

Patients who are discharged from the hospital with home healthcare (HHC) are older, sicker, and more likely to be readmitted to the hospital than patients discharged home without HHC.^1-3 Communication between clinicians in different settings is a key factor in successful transitions. In prior work, we focused on communication between primary care providers, hospitalists, and HHC nurses to inform efforts to improve care transitions.^4,5 In one study, HHC nurses described that patients frequently have expectations beyond the scope of what skilled HHC provides,⁵ which prompted us to also question experiences of patients and caregivers after discharge with skilled HHC (eg, nursing and physical therapy).

In a prior qualitative study by Foust and colleagues, HHC patients and caregivers described disparate experiences around preparation for hospital discharge—patients expressed knowing about the timing and plans for discharge, and the caregivers frequently felt left out of this discussion.⁶ In other studies, caregivers of recently discharged patients have described feeling excluded from interactions with clinicians both before and after discharge.^7,8 In another recent qualitative study, caregivers described uncertainty about their role compared with the HHC role in caring for the patient.⁹

As of 2016, a majority of states had passed the Caregiver Advise, Record, and Enable (CARE) Act, which requires hospitals to (1) record a family caregiver in the medical record, (2) inform this caregiver about discharge, and (3) deliver instructions with education about medical tasks that they will need to complete after discharge.¹⁰In the context of the CARE Act, hospitals are encouraged to increase caregiver engagement to prepare for discharge, but it is unclear whether this engagement is occurring for patients in general and HHC patients in particular. Because more than 80% of HHC patients have a primary caregiver outside of HHC, caregiver engagement around the time of discharge could be a key factor in care transitions.¹¹

The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare expectations for HHC from the patient, caregiver, and HHC perspectives after hospital discharge. By combining all three groups into a case study, we aim to build on our prior work with HHC nurses to explore how expectations for HHC compare within and across cases of patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians.

Study Design

In this qualitative descriptive case study, we interviewed HHC patients, an involved caregiver, and the HHC clinician completing the first HHC visit within 7-14 days following hospital discharge. We chose this timeframe to allow patients to receive one or more HHC visits following hospital discharge.

Population

A convenience sampling strategy was employed to recruit a sample that would reflect a national sample of Medicare HHC patients based on age, sex, race, and ethnicity. Because a majority of HHC users in the United States are Medicare beneficiaries

• >65 years old,¹² eligibility was initially limited to patients
• >65 years old. Due to recruitment challenges, the age range was broadened to
• >50 years old in October 2017. Because our goal was to better understand the experience of general medicine patients with multiple comorbidities, we recruited patients from one general medicine unit at an academic hospital in Colorado. Patients on this unit were screened for eligibility Monday-Friday (excluding weekends and holidays) based on research assistant availability.

Criteria included are as follows: HHC referral, three or more comorbidities, resides in the community prior to admission (ie, not in a facility), cognitively intact, English speaking, and able to identify a caregiver participating in their care. Eligible patients were approached for written consent prior to discharge to allow us to contact them 7-14 days after discharge for an interview by phone or in their home, per their preference. At the time of consent, patients provided contact information for their informal caregiver. Caregiver eligibility criteria included the following: age ≥18 years and provides caregiving at least one hour a week before hospital discharge. HHC clinicians approached for interviews had completed the first HHC visit for the patient following discharge. Both caregivers and HHC clinicians provided verbal consent for interviews. All participants received a $25 gift card for participation in the study.

Framework and Data Collection

Our interview guides were organized by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Care Coordination Framework, an approach we have taken in prior work.^4,5,13 We added questions about patient preparation and self-management support to build on findings from a prior study with HHC nurses and on prior work by Coleman and colleagues.^5,14 Sample questions from the interview guides for patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians within key analysis domains are included in Appendix 1. The patient and caregiver interviews were completed by an individual with prior experience in social work and healthcare (SS). The HHC clinician interviews were completed by either this individual (SS) or a physician-researcher with experience in qualitative methods (CJ). Patients and caregivers could choose to be interviewed individually or together. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim.

Analysis

This study aimed to evaluate the clarity of expectations related to HHC after discharge within and across cases. We primarily explored domains of patient preparation, assessing needs and goals, and creating a plan of care for skilled HHC from patient and caregiver perspectives. Because qualitative work had been completed previously with HHC clinicians, HHC perspectives were used primarily for triangulation of perspectives about expectations where possible. The analysis team was composed of the two interviewers (SS and CDJ) and a qualitative methods expert (JJ). We used our established team-based inductive approach to develop themes around patient expectations and preparation for HHC, with deductive connections to the framework as applicable.^15,16 Two team members completed the initial coding after every one to three interviews to ensure the themes were developing iteratively. Group discussions including the third team member were used to resolve discrepancies and to complete a team-based iterative analysis until informational saturation for expectations after discharge was reached from the patient and caregiver perspectives (ie, no new codes were identified).¹⁷ Once the team reached informational saturation with codes, we recruited three additional patients to ensure no new codes were identified in key domains before concluding recruitment. ATLAS.ti version 7.5.17 (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Germany) was used to facilitate coding and analysis. This study was approved by the Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board (protocol 17-0553).

Between July 2017 and February 2018, patients were recruited for participation in this study. Because the discharge destination plans could change multiple times in a hospitalization, the eligibility of patients for the study could change throughout hospitalization. To give further context about patients on this unit during the study timeframe, we completed a retrospective review of the 1,024 patient discharges from the unit and found that 38 patients met the eligibility criteria. Overall, 15 patients provided written consent (11 women and four men), and 11 completed interviews. The remaining four were unable to complete interviews due to a change in postdischarge plans that no longer included HHC (two patients) and hospital readmissions prior to interviews (two patients). In total, interviews were completed with 27 individuals: 11 patients, eight caregivers, and eight HHC clinicians (five nurses and three physical therapists). For five of the interviews, the patient and the caregiver requested to be interviewed together. In four cases, interviews were missing from the caregiver (one case), the HHC clinician (one case), or both the caregiver and the HHC clinician (two cases). Overall, perspectives were available from the complete triad of patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians in seven cases, and perspectives were available from the patient and at least one other individual (ie, caregiver or HHC clinician) in two additional cases.

Patient interviews lasted an average of 43 minutes, caregiver interviews an average of 41 minutes, and HHC clinician interviews an average of 25 minutes. Patients were on average 66 years old (range 52-85 years), and most were women and white. Six of the patients had prior experience with HHC services, and five were new HHC patients. Primary diagnoses for patients included the following: sepsis (three cases), urinary tract or kidney infections (two cases), bone/hardware infections (two cases), Clostridium difficile infection (one case), acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (one case), aortic stenosis (one case), and acute pancreatitis (one case). For caregivers, the average age was 61 years, all were women, and they had a spouse or other family member in six cases and a nonfamily caregiver in two cases. HHC clinicians were an average of 40 years old, half were women, and the average time providing HHC was 4.4 years (Table 1).

Clear Expectations within Cases

Clear expectations for HHC were identified across perspectives in three cases, with sample quotes provided in Table 2. In the case of patient 1, the patient and HHC nurse had known each other for over two years because the patient had a wound requiring long-term HHC services. A caregiver did not complete an interview in this case. With patient 2, the patient, caregiver, and HHC physical therapist (PT) all describe that the patient had clear expectations for HHC. In this case, the patient and caregiver describe feeling prepared because of previously receiving HHC, prior work experience in the healthcare field, and a caregiver with experience working in HHC. In the case of patient 3, the patient had previously received HHC from the same HHC nurse.

Unclear Expectations across Cases

For the three cases in which unclear expectations were described across perspectives, two of the patients described being new to HHC, with representative quotes in Table 2. Patient 4 and her caregiver are new to HHC and describe unclear expectations for both the HHC referral and the HHC role, which was also noted by the HHC clinician. Of note, the caregiver for patient 4 further described that she was unable to be present for the first HHC visit. In the case of patient 5, although the patient had previously received HHC, the patient describes not knowing why the HHC PT needs to see her after discharge, which is also noted by the HHC PT. Finally, both patient 6 and her HHC PT describe that the patient was not sure about their expectations for HHC and that HHC was a new experience for them.

Discordant Expectation Clarity across Cases

In three of the cases, the description of clear and unclear expectations was discrepant across roles. In case 7, the caregiver and patient are new to HHC and express different perspectives about expectations for HHC. The HHC clinician, in this case, did not complete an interview. The caregiver describes not being present for the first HHC visit and no awareness that the patient was being discharged with HHC:

Caregiver: Well, we didn’t even know she had home health until she got home.

The same caregiver also expresses unclear expectations for HHC:

Caregiver: It’s pretty cloudy. They (the HHC clinicians) don’t help her with her laundry, they don’t help with the housekeeping, they don’t help… with her showers so somebody is there when she showers. They don’t do anything. The only two things like I said is the…home healthcare comes in on Wednesdays to see what she needs and then the therapy comes in one day a week.

However, the patient expresses more clear expectations that are being met by HHC.

Patient: They (HHC) have met my expectations. They come in twice a week. They do vitals, take vitals and discuss with me, you know, what my feelings are, how I’m doing and I know they have met my expectations.

In case 8, although the patient describes knowing about the HHC PT involvement in her care, she expresses some unclear expectations about an HHC nurse after discharge.

Patient: As far as home health, I didn’t have a real …plan there at the hospital… They knew about (the HHC PT) coming once a week but as far as, you know, a nurse coming by to check on me, no.

However, the HHC PT describes feeling that the patient had clear expectations for HHC after discharge:

Interviewer: Can you reflect on whether she was prepared to receive home healthcare?

HHC PT: Yeah, she was ready.

Interviewer: …do you feel like she was prepared to know what to expect from you?

HHC PT: Yeah, but I think that comes from being a previous patient also.

Finally, in case 9, the patient describes clear expectations for HHC even though they were new to HHC:

Patient: …I knew what the PT was going to do and …I still need her because I’ve lost so much weight so she’s been really good, instrumental, at giving me exercises… Occupational therapist…she’s going to teach me how to shave, she’s going to teach me how to get ready for the day.

The HHC PT describes that although the patient knew the PT role, they reflect that the patient may have been somewhat unclear about expectations for the first HHC visit:

HHC PT: He knew all that it entailed with the exception of he didn’t really know what the first day was going to be like and the first day I don’t usually do treatment because it does take a long time to get all the paperwork signed, to do the evaluation and the fact that it takes two hours to do that note.

In this qualitative case study with HHC patients, caregivers, and clinicians, the participants described varying levels of expectation clarity for HHC after discharge. We triangulated across and within cases and found three cases with clear expectations and three cases with unclear expectations for HHC across perspectives. In three additional cases, we found discordant expectations across perspectives: patients and HHC clinician expectations differed in two of the cases and a patient and caregiver differed in one case. Of interest, in all three cases of clear expectations across perspectives, the patients and/or caregivers had prior HHC or healthcare work experience. In contrast, in the cases of two caregivers with unclear expectations, neither had prior HHC experience and both described expectations for assistance with personal care or housekeeping. Our findings suggest the need to improve caregiver engagement in HHC decision-making and care delivery, even in the time following the passage of the CARE Act. In addition, our findings suggest that patients and caregivers with unclear expectations for HHC may benefit from enhanced education about HHC services.

Prior studies in this area have included a qualitative study HHC patients, caregivers, and clinicians by Foust and colleagues in which multiple caregivers described finding out about the discharge from the patient or other caregivers, rather than being actively engaged by clinicians.⁶ In another recent qualitative study by Arbaje and colleagues, a majority of caregivers described “mismatched expectations” about HHC services, in which caregivers were unclear about their role compared with the HHC role in caring for the patient.⁹ Of interest, HHC clinicians in the Arbaje study described one of their key tasks to be “expectation management” for receipt of HHC services.⁹ In our study, the caregivers who described unclear expectations were not able to be present for the first HHC visit, which may have been a missed opportunity for the HHC clinician to clarify and manage expectations. Overall, findings from each of these studies support that consistent engagement and education from the hospital and HHC clinicians are needed to prepare patients and caregivers to know what to expect from HHC.

When caregivers have unclear expectations for HHC, they could be expressing the need for more support after hospital discharge, which suggests an active role for hospital teams to assess and address additional support needs with the patients and caregivers. For example, if the patient or caregiver request additional personal care services, a home health aide could help to reduce caregiver burden and improve the support network for the patient. In a prior study in which patients were asked what would help them to make informed decisions about postacute care options, the patients described wanting to receive practical information that could describe how it would apply to their specific situation and perceived needs.¹⁸ To provide this for patients and caregivers, it would follow that hospitals could provide information about skilled HHC nursing and therapies and information about services that could meet additional needs, such as home health aides.

In the context of the CARE Act, in which hospitals are encouraged to increase family caregiver engagement to prepare for discharge, findings from this and other studies suggest an opportunity to improve caregiver partnership in HHC transitions. As a result of this work, we recommend intentionally engaging and including caregivers in addition to patients in both the hospital and HHC settings to clarify expectations. Steps to clarify expectations with both patients and caregivers should include the following: (1) providing education and clear expectations for HHC through verbal interactions and written materials, and (2) assessing and addressing additional needs (eg, personal care) that patients and caregivers may have. To support these efforts, multidisciplinary teams could use previously studied interventions and tools for guidance as they engage caregivers throughout care transitions processes.^10,19

Limitations of this study include that it was a small qualitative case study of patients, caregivers, and HHC clinicians from one medical unit at one academic medical center. Most patients in this study had Medicare insurance, were 65 years and older, white, and female. A recent analysis of Medicare HHC users found that 63% were female and 75% were white, which shows that females were overrepresented in our study.^1,2,11 The perspective of Black and non-English speaking patients are missing from our study. Finally, we only interviewed individuals in three roles of complex transitions to HHC, and there are likely many additional perspectives on each of these transitions, which could provide additional insights. Results are not generalizable or transferable beyond this context.

In conclusion, to improve care transitions for HHC patients and their caregivers, emphasizing engagement of caregivers is key to ensure that they are educated about HHC, provided with additional support as needed, and included in initial HHC visits once the patients are at home. Even though patients and caregivers with prior HHC experience often had clear expectations for HHC, a strategy to uniformly engage caregivers across a range of experience can ensure caregivers have all the information and support needed to optimize care transitions to HHC.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

Dr. Christine Jones is supported by grant number K08HS024569 from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Jason Falvey was supported by grant F31AG056069 from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health and is currently supported by T32AG019134. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the National Institutes of Health.