The Transitions of Care Clinic: Demonstrating the Utility of the Single-Site Quality Improvement Study

Article Type
Changed
Mon, 10/04/2021 - 07:48
Display Headline
The Transitions of Care Clinic: Demonstrating the Utility of the Single-Site Quality Improvement Study

A significant literature describes efforts to reduce hospital readmissions through improving care transitions. Many approaches have been tried, alone or in combination, targeting different points across the spectrum of discharge activities. These approaches encompass interventions initiated prior to discharge, such as patient education and enhanced discharge planning; bridging interventions, such as transition coaches; and postdischarge interventions, such as home visits or early follow-up appointments. Transitions of care clinics (TOCC) attempt to improve posthospital care by providing dedicated, rapid follow-up for patients after discharge.1

The impact of care transitions interventions is mixed, with inconsistent results across interventions and contexts. More complex, multipronged, context- and patient-sensitive interventions, however, are more likely to be associated with lower readmission rates.2,3

In this issue of the journal, Griffin and colleagues4 report on their TOCC implementation. Their focus on a high-risk, rural veteran population is different from prior studies, as is their use of in-person or virtual follow-up options. While the authors describe their intervention as a TOCC, their model serves as an organizer for an interprofessional team, including hospitalists, that coordinates multiple activities that complement the postdischarge appointments: identification of high-risk patients, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation, dietary counseling, contingency planning for potential changes, follow-up on pending tests and studies, and coordination of primary care and specialty care appointments. The multipronged, patient-sensitive nature of their intervention makes their positive findings consistent with other care transition literature.

Griffin and colleagues’ reporting of their TOCC experience is worth highlighting, as they present their experience and results in a way that maximizes our ability to learn from their implementation. Unfortunately, reports of improvement initiatives often lack sufficient detail regarding the context or intervention to potentially apply their findings. Griffin and colleagues applied the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) guidelines, a standardized framework for describing improvement initiatives that captures critical contextual and intervention elements.5Griffin and colleagues describe their baseline readmission performance and how the TOCC model was relevant to this issue. They describe the context, including their patient population, and their intervention with sufficient detail for us to understand what they actually did. Importantly, Griffin and colleagues clearly delineate the dynamic phases of the implementation, their use of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to assess and improve their implementation, and the specific changes they made. The Figure clearly puts their results in the context of their program evolution, and their secondary outcomes support our understanding of program growth. Their use of a committee for ongoing monitoring could be important for ongoing adaptation and sustainability.

There are several limitations worth noting. There may have been subjectivity in teams’ decisions to refer specific patients with lower Care Assessment Need scores. We do not know why patients did not attend TOCC visits, or why they chose virtual vs in-person visits. This study was conducted within the Veterans Affairs system, where program supports, such as tablets for virtual visits and coordination among services, may be easier to implement than in other settings. Despite these limitations, we see that complex, high-risk patients benefit from a multidisciplinary, multipronged approach to care transitions. Moreover, we learned about barriers encountered during TOCC implementation and how these issues were successfully addressed. Finally, their work suggests that telehealth may be an appealing and promising component of care transition programs, but that patients may not choose this modality solely because of geography.

In this era of multisite collaborative studies and analyses of large administrative datasets, Griffin et al4 demonstrate that there is still much to learn from a well-done, single-site improvement study.

Funding: Drs Leykum and Penney reported funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

References

1. Nall RW, Herndon BB, Mramba LK, Vogel-Anderson K, Hagen MG. An interprofessional primary care-based transition of care clinic to reduce hospital readmission. J Am Med. 2019; 133(6):E260-E268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.10.040
2. Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Kessler M, et al. Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(7):1095-1107. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1608
3. Pugh J, Penney LS, Noel PH, Neller S, Mader M, Finley EP, Lanham HJ, Leykum LK. Evidence-based processes to prevent readmissions: more is better, a ten-site observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21:189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06193-x
4. Griffin BR, Agarwal N, Amberker R, et al. An initiative to improve 30-day readmission rates using a transitions-of-care clinic among a mixed urban and rural Veteran population. J Hosp Med. 2021;16(10):583-588. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.3659
5. Squire 2.0 guidelines. Accessed September 17, 2021. http://squire-statement.org

Article PDF
Author and Disclosure Information

1Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; 2The South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas; 3UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas.

Disclosures
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 16(10)
Publications
Topics
Page Number
637
Sections
Author and Disclosure Information

1Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; 2The South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas; 3UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas.

Disclosures
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Author and Disclosure Information

1Dell Medical School, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas; 2The South Texas Veterans Health Care System, San Antonio, Texas; 3UT Health San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas.

Disclosures
The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Article PDF
Article PDF
Related Articles

A significant literature describes efforts to reduce hospital readmissions through improving care transitions. Many approaches have been tried, alone or in combination, targeting different points across the spectrum of discharge activities. These approaches encompass interventions initiated prior to discharge, such as patient education and enhanced discharge planning; bridging interventions, such as transition coaches; and postdischarge interventions, such as home visits or early follow-up appointments. Transitions of care clinics (TOCC) attempt to improve posthospital care by providing dedicated, rapid follow-up for patients after discharge.1

The impact of care transitions interventions is mixed, with inconsistent results across interventions and contexts. More complex, multipronged, context- and patient-sensitive interventions, however, are more likely to be associated with lower readmission rates.2,3

In this issue of the journal, Griffin and colleagues4 report on their TOCC implementation. Their focus on a high-risk, rural veteran population is different from prior studies, as is their use of in-person or virtual follow-up options. While the authors describe their intervention as a TOCC, their model serves as an organizer for an interprofessional team, including hospitalists, that coordinates multiple activities that complement the postdischarge appointments: identification of high-risk patients, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation, dietary counseling, contingency planning for potential changes, follow-up on pending tests and studies, and coordination of primary care and specialty care appointments. The multipronged, patient-sensitive nature of their intervention makes their positive findings consistent with other care transition literature.

Griffin and colleagues’ reporting of their TOCC experience is worth highlighting, as they present their experience and results in a way that maximizes our ability to learn from their implementation. Unfortunately, reports of improvement initiatives often lack sufficient detail regarding the context or intervention to potentially apply their findings. Griffin and colleagues applied the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) guidelines, a standardized framework for describing improvement initiatives that captures critical contextual and intervention elements.5Griffin and colleagues describe their baseline readmission performance and how the TOCC model was relevant to this issue. They describe the context, including their patient population, and their intervention with sufficient detail for us to understand what they actually did. Importantly, Griffin and colleagues clearly delineate the dynamic phases of the implementation, their use of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to assess and improve their implementation, and the specific changes they made. The Figure clearly puts their results in the context of their program evolution, and their secondary outcomes support our understanding of program growth. Their use of a committee for ongoing monitoring could be important for ongoing adaptation and sustainability.

There are several limitations worth noting. There may have been subjectivity in teams’ decisions to refer specific patients with lower Care Assessment Need scores. We do not know why patients did not attend TOCC visits, or why they chose virtual vs in-person visits. This study was conducted within the Veterans Affairs system, where program supports, such as tablets for virtual visits and coordination among services, may be easier to implement than in other settings. Despite these limitations, we see that complex, high-risk patients benefit from a multidisciplinary, multipronged approach to care transitions. Moreover, we learned about barriers encountered during TOCC implementation and how these issues were successfully addressed. Finally, their work suggests that telehealth may be an appealing and promising component of care transition programs, but that patients may not choose this modality solely because of geography.

In this era of multisite collaborative studies and analyses of large administrative datasets, Griffin et al4 demonstrate that there is still much to learn from a well-done, single-site improvement study.

Funding: Drs Leykum and Penney reported funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

A significant literature describes efforts to reduce hospital readmissions through improving care transitions. Many approaches have been tried, alone or in combination, targeting different points across the spectrum of discharge activities. These approaches encompass interventions initiated prior to discharge, such as patient education and enhanced discharge planning; bridging interventions, such as transition coaches; and postdischarge interventions, such as home visits or early follow-up appointments. Transitions of care clinics (TOCC) attempt to improve posthospital care by providing dedicated, rapid follow-up for patients after discharge.1

The impact of care transitions interventions is mixed, with inconsistent results across interventions and contexts. More complex, multipronged, context- and patient-sensitive interventions, however, are more likely to be associated with lower readmission rates.2,3

In this issue of the journal, Griffin and colleagues4 report on their TOCC implementation. Their focus on a high-risk, rural veteran population is different from prior studies, as is their use of in-person or virtual follow-up options. While the authors describe their intervention as a TOCC, their model serves as an organizer for an interprofessional team, including hospitalists, that coordinates multiple activities that complement the postdischarge appointments: identification of high-risk patients, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation, dietary counseling, contingency planning for potential changes, follow-up on pending tests and studies, and coordination of primary care and specialty care appointments. The multipronged, patient-sensitive nature of their intervention makes their positive findings consistent with other care transition literature.

Griffin and colleagues’ reporting of their TOCC experience is worth highlighting, as they present their experience and results in a way that maximizes our ability to learn from their implementation. Unfortunately, reports of improvement initiatives often lack sufficient detail regarding the context or intervention to potentially apply their findings. Griffin and colleagues applied the Revised Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE 2.0) guidelines, a standardized framework for describing improvement initiatives that captures critical contextual and intervention elements.5Griffin and colleagues describe their baseline readmission performance and how the TOCC model was relevant to this issue. They describe the context, including their patient population, and their intervention with sufficient detail for us to understand what they actually did. Importantly, Griffin and colleagues clearly delineate the dynamic phases of the implementation, their use of Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to assess and improve their implementation, and the specific changes they made. The Figure clearly puts their results in the context of their program evolution, and their secondary outcomes support our understanding of program growth. Their use of a committee for ongoing monitoring could be important for ongoing adaptation and sustainability.

There are several limitations worth noting. There may have been subjectivity in teams’ decisions to refer specific patients with lower Care Assessment Need scores. We do not know why patients did not attend TOCC visits, or why they chose virtual vs in-person visits. This study was conducted within the Veterans Affairs system, where program supports, such as tablets for virtual visits and coordination among services, may be easier to implement than in other settings. Despite these limitations, we see that complex, high-risk patients benefit from a multidisciplinary, multipronged approach to care transitions. Moreover, we learned about barriers encountered during TOCC implementation and how these issues were successfully addressed. Finally, their work suggests that telehealth may be an appealing and promising component of care transition programs, but that patients may not choose this modality solely because of geography.

In this era of multisite collaborative studies and analyses of large administrative datasets, Griffin et al4 demonstrate that there is still much to learn from a well-done, single-site improvement study.

Funding: Drs Leykum and Penney reported funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs.

References

1. Nall RW, Herndon BB, Mramba LK, Vogel-Anderson K, Hagen MG. An interprofessional primary care-based transition of care clinic to reduce hospital readmission. J Am Med. 2019; 133(6):E260-E268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.10.040
2. Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Kessler M, et al. Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(7):1095-1107. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1608
3. Pugh J, Penney LS, Noel PH, Neller S, Mader M, Finley EP, Lanham HJ, Leykum LK. Evidence-based processes to prevent readmissions: more is better, a ten-site observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21:189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06193-x
4. Griffin BR, Agarwal N, Amberker R, et al. An initiative to improve 30-day readmission rates using a transitions-of-care clinic among a mixed urban and rural Veteran population. J Hosp Med. 2021;16(10):583-588. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.3659
5. Squire 2.0 guidelines. Accessed September 17, 2021. http://squire-statement.org

References

1. Nall RW, Herndon BB, Mramba LK, Vogel-Anderson K, Hagen MG. An interprofessional primary care-based transition of care clinic to reduce hospital readmission. J Am Med. 2019; 133(6):E260-E268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2019.10.040
2. Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Kessler M, et al. Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(7):1095-1107. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1608
3. Pugh J, Penney LS, Noel PH, Neller S, Mader M, Finley EP, Lanham HJ, Leykum LK. Evidence-based processes to prevent readmissions: more is better, a ten-site observational study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21:189. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06193-x
4. Griffin BR, Agarwal N, Amberker R, et al. An initiative to improve 30-day readmission rates using a transitions-of-care clinic among a mixed urban and rural Veteran population. J Hosp Med. 2021;16(10):583-588. https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.3659
5. Squire 2.0 guidelines. Accessed September 17, 2021. http://squire-statement.org

Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 16(10)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine 16(10)
Page Number
637
Page Number
637
Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Display Headline
The Transitions of Care Clinic: Demonstrating the Utility of the Single-Site Quality Improvement Study
Display Headline
The Transitions of Care Clinic: Demonstrating the Utility of the Single-Site Quality Improvement Study
Sections
Article Source

© 2021 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Luci K Leykum, MD, MBA, MSc; Email: Luci.Leykum@austin.utexas.edu; Telephone: 210-563-4527.
Content Gating
Gated (full article locked unless allowed per User)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.
Conference Recap Checkbox
Not Conference Recap
Clinical Edge
Display the Slideshow in this Article
Gating Strategy
First Page Free
Medscape Article
Display survey writer
Reuters content
Disable Inline Native ads
WebMD Article
Article PDF Media