Innovations in Healthcare

Offering palliative care early to hospitalized patients with multiple serious conditions could improve care and help reduce healthcare spending, according to “Palliative Care Teams’ Cost-Saving Effect Is Larger for Cancer Patients with Higher Numbers of Comorbidities,” published in Health Affairs. When adults with advanced cancer (excluding those with dementia) received a palliative care consultation within two days of admission, costs were 22% lower for patients with a comorbidity score of 2 to 3 and 32% lower for those with a score of 4 or higher.

Reference

1. May P, Garrido MM, Cassel JB, et al. Palliative care teams’ cost-saving effect is larger for cancer patients with higher numbers of comorbidities. Health Aff. 2016;35(1):44-53.

Quick Byte

Efforts to shift provider payment from fee-for-service to more risk-based alternatives are proceeding slowly: Nearly 95% of all 2013 physician office visits were reimbursed as fee-for-service.

Reference

1. Zuvekas SH, Cohen JW. Fee-for-service, while much maligned, remains the dominant payment method for physician visits. Health Aff. 2016;35(3):411-414. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1291.

Offering palliative care early to hospitalized patients with multiple serious conditions could improve care and help reduce healthcare spending, according to “Palliative Care Teams’ Cost-Saving Effect Is Larger for Cancer Patients with Higher Numbers of Comorbidities,” published in Health Affairs. When adults with advanced cancer (excluding those with dementia) received a palliative care consultation within two days of admission, costs were 22% lower for patients with a comorbidity score of 2 to 3 and 32% lower for those with a score of 4 or higher.

Reference

1. May P, Garrido MM, Cassel JB, et al. Palliative care teams’ cost-saving effect is larger for cancer patients with higher numbers of comorbidities. Health Aff. 2016;35(1):44-53.

Quick Byte

Efforts to shift provider payment from fee-for-service to more risk-based alternatives are proceeding slowly: Nearly 95% of all 2013 physician office visits were reimbursed as fee-for-service.

Reference

1. Zuvekas SH, Cohen JW. Fee-for-service, while much maligned, remains the dominant payment method for physician visits. Health Aff. 2016;35(3):411-414. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1291.

Offering palliative care early to hospitalized patients with multiple serious conditions could improve care and help reduce healthcare spending, according to “Palliative Care Teams’ Cost-Saving Effect Is Larger for Cancer Patients with Higher Numbers of Comorbidities,” published in Health Affairs. When adults with advanced cancer (excluding those with dementia) received a palliative care consultation within two days of admission, costs were 22% lower for patients with a comorbidity score of 2 to 3 and 32% lower for those with a score of 4 or higher.

Reference

1. May P, Garrido MM, Cassel JB, et al. Palliative care teams’ cost-saving effect is larger for cancer patients with higher numbers of comorbidities. Health Aff. 2016;35(1):44-53.

Quick Byte

Efforts to shift provider payment from fee-for-service to more risk-based alternatives are proceeding slowly: Nearly 95% of all 2013 physician office visits were reimbursed as fee-for-service.

Reference

1. Zuvekas SH, Cohen JW. Fee-for-service, while much maligned, remains the dominant payment method for physician visits. Health Aff. 2016;35(3):411-414. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1291.

Alert emails can be a simple, low-cost means of improving quality in a hospital, as the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston learned. The trial there is summarized in “Alert Emails Improve Quality in a Large Academic Hospitalist Group,” an abstract by Warren Chuang, MD, and Bijay Acharya, MD.

When each of the hospital’s divisions was asked to designate important quality goals, the Hospital Medicine Division chose pre-noon discharge rate and discharge summary completion timeliness. Group emails were deployed first: Monthly alerts went to the entire unit emphasizing target numbers, reporting the group’s current performance, and outlining future performance needed to meet the targets. This led to an improvement in discharge summary completion rate from 89.1% to 94.8%.

The same improvement was not seen in the pre-noon discharge rate, so the next step was to send individual emails to every attending whose pre-noon discharge rate was below target levels. This resulted in dramatic improvement: Having fallen to 16.0%, the rate rose to 19.5% after the email campaign.

The authors’ conclusion? Periodic individual email alerts that make individual performance transparent may prove to be the most effective way to achieve quality improvement in operational measures.

Reference

1. Chuang W, Acharya B. Alert emails improve quality in a large academic hospitalist group [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(suppl2). Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/alert-emails-improve-quality-in-a-large-academic-hospitalist-group/. Accessed February 14, 2016.

Alert emails can be a simple, low-cost means of improving quality in a hospital, as the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston learned. The trial there is summarized in “Alert Emails Improve Quality in a Large Academic Hospitalist Group,” an abstract by Warren Chuang, MD, and Bijay Acharya, MD.

When each of the hospital’s divisions was asked to designate important quality goals, the Hospital Medicine Division chose pre-noon discharge rate and discharge summary completion timeliness. Group emails were deployed first: Monthly alerts went to the entire unit emphasizing target numbers, reporting the group’s current performance, and outlining future performance needed to meet the targets. This led to an improvement in discharge summary completion rate from 89.1% to 94.8%.

The same improvement was not seen in the pre-noon discharge rate, so the next step was to send individual emails to every attending whose pre-noon discharge rate was below target levels. This resulted in dramatic improvement: Having fallen to 16.0%, the rate rose to 19.5% after the email campaign.

The authors’ conclusion? Periodic individual email alerts that make individual performance transparent may prove to be the most effective way to achieve quality improvement in operational measures.

Reference

1. Chuang W, Acharya B. Alert emails improve quality in a large academic hospitalist group [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(suppl2). Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/alert-emails-improve-quality-in-a-large-academic-hospitalist-group/. Accessed February 14, 2016.

Alert emails can be a simple, low-cost means of improving quality in a hospital, as the Department of Medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston learned. The trial there is summarized in “Alert Emails Improve Quality in a Large Academic Hospitalist Group,” an abstract by Warren Chuang, MD, and Bijay Acharya, MD.

When each of the hospital’s divisions was asked to designate important quality goals, the Hospital Medicine Division chose pre-noon discharge rate and discharge summary completion timeliness. Group emails were deployed first: Monthly alerts went to the entire unit emphasizing target numbers, reporting the group’s current performance, and outlining future performance needed to meet the targets. This led to an improvement in discharge summary completion rate from 89.1% to 94.8%.

The same improvement was not seen in the pre-noon discharge rate, so the next step was to send individual emails to every attending whose pre-noon discharge rate was below target levels. This resulted in dramatic improvement: Having fallen to 16.0%, the rate rose to 19.5% after the email campaign.

The authors’ conclusion? Periodic individual email alerts that make individual performance transparent may prove to be the most effective way to achieve quality improvement in operational measures.

Reference

1. Chuang W, Acharya B. Alert emails improve quality in a large academic hospitalist group [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2015;10(suppl2). Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/alert-emails-improve-quality-in-a-large-academic-hospitalist-group/. Accessed February 14, 2016.

To promote achievable solutions in the ongoing debate on drug financing, Anthem, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company are offering two policy proposals, which are detailed in “Discovering New Medicines and New Ways to Pay for Them,” published on the Health Affairs blog.

The first proposal calls for clarifying federal regulation to reduce perceived barriers impeding conversations between health benefit companies and biopharmaceutical companies about drugs prior to the drugs being approved for sale.

The second proposal calls for changes to federal laws and regulations to mitigate the barriers that make it difficult to move toward value-based contracting.

“A change in policies could open the door to new opportunities for hospitalists and their employers to create more high-value care,” says Sam Nussbaum, MD, Anthem clinical advisor. “Today, hospitals are paid for seeing patients. What if hospitals participated in a value-based arrangement with manufacturers and insurers that included treating patients with a specific condition with a new therapy proven to be more effective in producing better health outcomes, including keeping patients out of the hospital?”

Reference

1. Nussbaum S, Ricks D. Discovering new medicines and new ways to pay for them. Health Policy Lab. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/01/29/discovering-new-medicines-and-new-ways-to-pay-for-them/. Accessed February 15, 2016.

To promote achievable solutions in the ongoing debate on drug financing, Anthem, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company are offering two policy proposals, which are detailed in “Discovering New Medicines and New Ways to Pay for Them,” published on the Health Affairs blog.

The first proposal calls for clarifying federal regulation to reduce perceived barriers impeding conversations between health benefit companies and biopharmaceutical companies about drugs prior to the drugs being approved for sale.

The second proposal calls for changes to federal laws and regulations to mitigate the barriers that make it difficult to move toward value-based contracting.

“A change in policies could open the door to new opportunities for hospitalists and their employers to create more high-value care,” says Sam Nussbaum, MD, Anthem clinical advisor. “Today, hospitals are paid for seeing patients. What if hospitals participated in a value-based arrangement with manufacturers and insurers that included treating patients with a specific condition with a new therapy proven to be more effective in producing better health outcomes, including keeping patients out of the hospital?”

Reference

1. Nussbaum S, Ricks D. Discovering new medicines and new ways to pay for them. Health Policy Lab. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/01/29/discovering-new-medicines-and-new-ways-to-pay-for-them/. Accessed February 15, 2016.

To promote achievable solutions in the ongoing debate on drug financing, Anthem, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company are offering two policy proposals, which are detailed in “Discovering New Medicines and New Ways to Pay for Them,” published on the Health Affairs blog.

The first proposal calls for clarifying federal regulation to reduce perceived barriers impeding conversations between health benefit companies and biopharmaceutical companies about drugs prior to the drugs being approved for sale.

The second proposal calls for changes to federal laws and regulations to mitigate the barriers that make it difficult to move toward value-based contracting.

“A change in policies could open the door to new opportunities for hospitalists and their employers to create more high-value care,” says Sam Nussbaum, MD, Anthem clinical advisor. “Today, hospitals are paid for seeing patients. What if hospitals participated in a value-based arrangement with manufacturers and insurers that included treating patients with a specific condition with a new therapy proven to be more effective in producing better health outcomes, including keeping patients out of the hospital?”

Reference

1. Nussbaum S, Ricks D. Discovering new medicines and new ways to pay for them. Health Policy Lab. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2016/01/29/discovering-new-medicines-and-new-ways-to-pay-for-them/. Accessed February 15, 2016.

Procedures are the most expensive item in healthcare, but tremendous variation remains in quality.

“In part that’ s because we have weak systems of peer support and in part because medicine sanctions a physician to do procedures, and then for the next 40 or 50 years, a surgeon can receive no input and not change their technique even though the field changes,” says Martin Makary, MD, MPH, professor of surgery and health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Video could be used to address this, he suggests in an editorial called “Video Transparency: A Powerful Tool for Patient Safety and Quality Improvement” in the January 2016 BMJ Quality & Safety.

“In areas of excellence outside of medicine—football, aviation—they use video and video feedback for educational purposes. In healthcare, we can also use video to learn,” he says. “In surgical care, we can actually predict outcomes based on independent review of procedure video, but we just choose not to record videos because we don’ t have the infrastructure set up to provide feedback.”

When it has been done, he says, it’ s been received with enthusiasm. This doesn’ t mean cameras in primary-care clinics monitoring physicians.

“We’ re talking about the video-based procedures being recorded, not being erased with the next procedure that’ s done,” he says. “In the past, we couldn’ t do this with videotapes, but now with the capacity of memory and video data storage, there’ s an opportunity to leave the ‘ record’ button on on the video-based procedures that are already taking place.”

Reference

1. Joo S, Xu T, Makary MA. Video transparency: a powerful tool for patient safety and quality improvement [published online ahead of print January 12, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf,doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005058.

Procedures are the most expensive item in healthcare, but tremendous variation remains in quality.

“In part that’ s because we have weak systems of peer support and in part because medicine sanctions a physician to do procedures, and then for the next 40 or 50 years, a surgeon can receive no input and not change their technique even though the field changes,” says Martin Makary, MD, MPH, professor of surgery and health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Video could be used to address this, he suggests in an editorial called “Video Transparency: A Powerful Tool for Patient Safety and Quality Improvement” in the January 2016 BMJ Quality & Safety.

“In areas of excellence outside of medicine—football, aviation—they use video and video feedback for educational purposes. In healthcare, we can also use video to learn,” he says. “In surgical care, we can actually predict outcomes based on independent review of procedure video, but we just choose not to record videos because we don’ t have the infrastructure set up to provide feedback.”

When it has been done, he says, it’ s been received with enthusiasm. This doesn’ t mean cameras in primary-care clinics monitoring physicians.

“We’ re talking about the video-based procedures being recorded, not being erased with the next procedure that’ s done,” he says. “In the past, we couldn’ t do this with videotapes, but now with the capacity of memory and video data storage, there’ s an opportunity to leave the ‘ record’ button on on the video-based procedures that are already taking place.”

Reference

1. Joo S, Xu T, Makary MA. Video transparency: a powerful tool for patient safety and quality improvement [published online ahead of print January 12, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf,doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005058.

Procedures are the most expensive item in healthcare, but tremendous variation remains in quality.

“In part that’ s because we have weak systems of peer support and in part because medicine sanctions a physician to do procedures, and then for the next 40 or 50 years, a surgeon can receive no input and not change their technique even though the field changes,” says Martin Makary, MD, MPH, professor of surgery and health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore.

Video could be used to address this, he suggests in an editorial called “Video Transparency: A Powerful Tool for Patient Safety and Quality Improvement” in the January 2016 BMJ Quality & Safety.

“In areas of excellence outside of medicine—football, aviation—they use video and video feedback for educational purposes. In healthcare, we can also use video to learn,” he says. “In surgical care, we can actually predict outcomes based on independent review of procedure video, but we just choose not to record videos because we don’ t have the infrastructure set up to provide feedback.”

When it has been done, he says, it’ s been received with enthusiasm. This doesn’ t mean cameras in primary-care clinics monitoring physicians.

“We’ re talking about the video-based procedures being recorded, not being erased with the next procedure that’ s done,” he says. “In the past, we couldn’ t do this with videotapes, but now with the capacity of memory and video data storage, there’ s an opportunity to leave the ‘ record’ button on on the video-based procedures that are already taking place.”

Reference

1. Joo S, Xu T, Makary MA. Video transparency: a powerful tool for patient safety and quality improvement [published online ahead of print January 12, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf,doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005058.

The healthcare industry is not yet at zero when it comes to healthcare-associated infections—and that’s a problem. Hand hygiene compliance remains a major cause.

The Joint Commission addresses that problem with the Hand Hygiene Targeted Solutions Tool (TST), an online application that guides the user through collecting and analyzing data, with suggested solutions based on the root causes revealed. “It’s based on robust process improvement, what we refer to as RPI, that brings in Lean, Six Sigma, and change management,” says Erin DuPree, MD, chief medical officer and vice president, The Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare.

The tool was tested in a pilot program summarized in an article in the January 2016 issue of The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety, “Hand Hygiene Tool Linked to Decrease in Health Care-Associated Infections at Memorial Hermann Health System,” by M. Michael Shabot, MD, of Memorial Hermann Health System, Mark R. Chassin, MD, MPP, MPH, of The Joint Commission, and their co-authors. In more than 31,600 observations, the organization’s average hand hygiene compliance improved from 58.1% to 95.6%. Rates of central line–associated bloodstream infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia in adult ICUs decreased by 49% and 45%, respectively.

Dr. DuPree encourages hospitalists to champion hand hygiene at their own organizations. “The more physicians lead and participate, the higher performing the organization is.”

The healthcare industry is not yet at zero when it comes to healthcare-associated infections—and that’s a problem. Hand hygiene compliance remains a major cause.

The Joint Commission addresses that problem with the Hand Hygiene Targeted Solutions Tool (TST), an online application that guides the user through collecting and analyzing data, with suggested solutions based on the root causes revealed. “It’s based on robust process improvement, what we refer to as RPI, that brings in Lean, Six Sigma, and change management,” says Erin DuPree, MD, chief medical officer and vice president, The Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare.

The tool was tested in a pilot program summarized in an article in the January 2016 issue of The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety, “Hand Hygiene Tool Linked to Decrease in Health Care-Associated Infections at Memorial Hermann Health System,” by M. Michael Shabot, MD, of Memorial Hermann Health System, Mark R. Chassin, MD, MPP, MPH, of The Joint Commission, and their co-authors. In more than 31,600 observations, the organization’s average hand hygiene compliance improved from 58.1% to 95.6%. Rates of central line–associated bloodstream infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia in adult ICUs decreased by 49% and 45%, respectively.

Dr. DuPree encourages hospitalists to champion hand hygiene at their own organizations. “The more physicians lead and participate, the higher performing the organization is.”

The healthcare industry is not yet at zero when it comes to healthcare-associated infections—and that’s a problem. Hand hygiene compliance remains a major cause.

The Joint Commission addresses that problem with the Hand Hygiene Targeted Solutions Tool (TST), an online application that guides the user through collecting and analyzing data, with suggested solutions based on the root causes revealed. “It’s based on robust process improvement, what we refer to as RPI, that brings in Lean, Six Sigma, and change management,” says Erin DuPree, MD, chief medical officer and vice president, The Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare.

The tool was tested in a pilot program summarized in an article in the January 2016 issue of The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Safety, “Hand Hygiene Tool Linked to Decrease in Health Care-Associated Infections at Memorial Hermann Health System,” by M. Michael Shabot, MD, of Memorial Hermann Health System, Mark R. Chassin, MD, MPP, MPH, of The Joint Commission, and their co-authors. In more than 31,600 observations, the organization’s average hand hygiene compliance improved from 58.1% to 95.6%. Rates of central line–associated bloodstream infections and ventilator-associated pneumonia in adult ICUs decreased by 49% and 45%, respectively.

Dr. DuPree encourages hospitalists to champion hand hygiene at their own organizations. “The more physicians lead and participate, the higher performing the organization is.”

“We are missing an important opportunity to learn from what is going on in health systems every day that could tell us how to make healthcare better and cheaper,” says Dr. Fisher, lead author of a January 2016 JAMA “Viewpoint” called “Implementation Science: A Potential Catalyst for Delivery System Reform.” “That’s the argument for the the field of implementation science.”

Implementation science studies ways to promote the integration of research findings and evidence into the healthcare system. Dr. Fisher says that integration is influenced by multiple factors: the characteristic of the innovation itself, the organizational setting, and the policy or community environment within which that organization is working. Context matters.

“We tend to think about adopting innovations like a new blood pressure medication or a new device,” Dr. Fisher says. “Those decisions rest almost entirely on the shoulders of physicians, so adoption requires thinking about the attributes of biomedical innovations and how physicians think.”

With care delivery innovations—for example, how to provide optimal care for people with heart failure across home, hospital, and nursing home—those are often developed with clinical input but by people who are fundamentally managers.

“It’s a more complex set of actors,” he says, “so you have to think about those decision makers if you’re going to get the best evidence-based practice into their setting.”

A third category of innovation focuses on individual behavior change, where the decision makers are the clinician and the patient and family. “You’ve got to persuade the patient the innovation is worth doing, so different factors may influence the successful adoptions of those interventions,” Dr. Fisher says.

Reference

1. Fisher ES, Shortell SM, Savitz LA. Implementation science: a potential catalyst for delivery system reform. JAMA. 2016;315(4):339-340. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.17949.

“We are missing an important opportunity to learn from what is going on in health systems every day that could tell us how to make healthcare better and cheaper,” says Dr. Fisher, lead author of a January 2016 JAMA “Viewpoint” called “Implementation Science: A Potential Catalyst for Delivery System Reform.” “That’s the argument for the the field of implementation science.”

Implementation science studies ways to promote the integration of research findings and evidence into the healthcare system. Dr. Fisher says that integration is influenced by multiple factors: the characteristic of the innovation itself, the organizational setting, and the policy or community environment within which that organization is working. Context matters.

“We tend to think about adopting innovations like a new blood pressure medication or a new device,” Dr. Fisher says. “Those decisions rest almost entirely on the shoulders of physicians, so adoption requires thinking about the attributes of biomedical innovations and how physicians think.”

With care delivery innovations—for example, how to provide optimal care for people with heart failure across home, hospital, and nursing home—those are often developed with clinical input but by people who are fundamentally managers.

“It’s a more complex set of actors,” he says, “so you have to think about those decision makers if you’re going to get the best evidence-based practice into their setting.”

A third category of innovation focuses on individual behavior change, where the decision makers are the clinician and the patient and family. “You’ve got to persuade the patient the innovation is worth doing, so different factors may influence the successful adoptions of those interventions,” Dr. Fisher says.

Reference

1. Fisher ES, Shortell SM, Savitz LA. Implementation science: a potential catalyst for delivery system reform. JAMA. 2016;315(4):339-340. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.17949.

“We are missing an important opportunity to learn from what is going on in health systems every day that could tell us how to make healthcare better and cheaper,” says Dr. Fisher, lead author of a January 2016 JAMA “Viewpoint” called “Implementation Science: A Potential Catalyst for Delivery System Reform.” “That’s the argument for the the field of implementation science.”

Implementation science studies ways to promote the integration of research findings and evidence into the healthcare system. Dr. Fisher says that integration is influenced by multiple factors: the characteristic of the innovation itself, the organizational setting, and the policy or community environment within which that organization is working. Context matters.

“We tend to think about adopting innovations like a new blood pressure medication or a new device,” Dr. Fisher says. “Those decisions rest almost entirely on the shoulders of physicians, so adoption requires thinking about the attributes of biomedical innovations and how physicians think.”

With care delivery innovations—for example, how to provide optimal care for people with heart failure across home, hospital, and nursing home—those are often developed with clinical input but by people who are fundamentally managers.

“It’s a more complex set of actors,” he says, “so you have to think about those decision makers if you’re going to get the best evidence-based practice into their setting.”

A third category of innovation focuses on individual behavior change, where the decision makers are the clinician and the patient and family. “You’ve got to persuade the patient the innovation is worth doing, so different factors may influence the successful adoptions of those interventions,” Dr. Fisher says.

Reference

1. Fisher ES, Shortell SM, Savitz LA. Implementation science: a potential catalyst for delivery system reform. JAMA. 2016;315(4):339-340. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.17949.

Patient falls are a national issue, creating costs for every player in the healthcare system.

“Patient falls negatively impact patient outcomes, hospital costs, and costs for insurance and health systems,” says Jennifer Hefner, PhD, MPH, lead author of “A Falls Wheel in a Large Academic Medical Center: An Intervention to Reduce Patient Falls with Harm,” published in the Journal of Healthcare Quality.

“Patients are negatively impacted by falls in terms of outcomes like loss of confidence and readmission risks,” Dr. Hefner says. “Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2008 declared they wouldn’t reimburse hospitals for treatment of fall injuries if they occurred during a patient’s stay and they could be prevented by hospitals. In terms of the cost to society, the length of stay is longer if there’s been a fall with harm, and the total charges are 60% higher between those who fell and sustained an injury and those who didn’t.”

In the researchers’ yearlong study, a falls wheel—a tool that categorized each patient on two dimensions: risk of fall and risk of injury from fall—was placed on every patient’s door. During the year, the rate of falls with harm dropped by almost 50%.

The falls wheel was just one element—the main innovative element—of the hospital’s multifaceted approach to falls prevention. The hospital also enhanced staff education and focus on the issue, launched a resource website, and sent a daily email reporting the number of falls.

“The most important thing we learned is that falls are not a nurse-sensitive indicator,” says co-author Susan Moffatt-Bruce, MD, PhD. “Falls are a team-sensitive indicator. It’s only when you realize falls are not just a nurse’s responsibility but everybody’s responsibility can you actually impact them and reduce them.”

Focusing on the problem and developing specific, multifaceted interventions was the key, the authors say.

“I don’t think everybody needs to use a falls wheel, but you need some kind of system or program,” Dr. Moffatt-Bruce says. “Just putting a wristband on someone to say they’re at high risk is great, but so what? What are you going to do about it? What are the actual items you’re asking the team to do to prevent falls?”

Reference

1. Hefner JL, McAlearney AS, Mansfield J, Knupp AM, Moffatt-Bruce SD. A falls wheel in a large academic medical center: an intervention to reduce patient falls with harm. J Healthc Qual. 2015;37(6):374-380.

Fast Fact

Sepsis is the ninth leading cause of disease-related deaths. According to the CDC, more than 1 million cases of sepsis occur each year, and up to half of people who get sepsis will die. Now CMS has added the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle to the fiscal year 2016 Inpatient Prospective Payment System Final Rule.

Reference

1. Barnet S, Green M, Punke H. 10 top patient safety issues for 2016. Becker’s Infection Control and Clinical Quality website. Available at: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/10-top-patient-safety-issues-for-2016.html. Published January 12, 2016. Accessed January 28, 2016.

Patient falls are a national issue, creating costs for every player in the healthcare system.

“Patient falls negatively impact patient outcomes, hospital costs, and costs for insurance and health systems,” says Jennifer Hefner, PhD, MPH, lead author of “A Falls Wheel in a Large Academic Medical Center: An Intervention to Reduce Patient Falls with Harm,” published in the Journal of Healthcare Quality.

“Patients are negatively impacted by falls in terms of outcomes like loss of confidence and readmission risks,” Dr. Hefner says. “Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2008 declared they wouldn’t reimburse hospitals for treatment of fall injuries if they occurred during a patient’s stay and they could be prevented by hospitals. In terms of the cost to society, the length of stay is longer if there’s been a fall with harm, and the total charges are 60% higher between those who fell and sustained an injury and those who didn’t.”

In the researchers’ yearlong study, a falls wheel—a tool that categorized each patient on two dimensions: risk of fall and risk of injury from fall—was placed on every patient’s door. During the year, the rate of falls with harm dropped by almost 50%.

The falls wheel was just one element—the main innovative element—of the hospital’s multifaceted approach to falls prevention. The hospital also enhanced staff education and focus on the issue, launched a resource website, and sent a daily email reporting the number of falls.

“The most important thing we learned is that falls are not a nurse-sensitive indicator,” says co-author Susan Moffatt-Bruce, MD, PhD. “Falls are a team-sensitive indicator. It’s only when you realize falls are not just a nurse’s responsibility but everybody’s responsibility can you actually impact them and reduce them.”

Focusing on the problem and developing specific, multifaceted interventions was the key, the authors say.

“I don’t think everybody needs to use a falls wheel, but you need some kind of system or program,” Dr. Moffatt-Bruce says. “Just putting a wristband on someone to say they’re at high risk is great, but so what? What are you going to do about it? What are the actual items you’re asking the team to do to prevent falls?”

Reference

1. Hefner JL, McAlearney AS, Mansfield J, Knupp AM, Moffatt-Bruce SD. A falls wheel in a large academic medical center: an intervention to reduce patient falls with harm. J Healthc Qual. 2015;37(6):374-380.

Fast Fact

Sepsis is the ninth leading cause of disease-related deaths. According to the CDC, more than 1 million cases of sepsis occur each year, and up to half of people who get sepsis will die. Now CMS has added the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle to the fiscal year 2016 Inpatient Prospective Payment System Final Rule.

Reference

1. Barnet S, Green M, Punke H. 10 top patient safety issues for 2016. Becker’s Infection Control and Clinical Quality website. Available at: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/10-top-patient-safety-issues-for-2016.html. Published January 12, 2016. Accessed January 28, 2016.

Patient falls are a national issue, creating costs for every player in the healthcare system.

“Patient falls negatively impact patient outcomes, hospital costs, and costs for insurance and health systems,” says Jennifer Hefner, PhD, MPH, lead author of “A Falls Wheel in a Large Academic Medical Center: An Intervention to Reduce Patient Falls with Harm,” published in the Journal of Healthcare Quality.

“Patients are negatively impacted by falls in terms of outcomes like loss of confidence and readmission risks,” Dr. Hefner says. “Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2008 declared they wouldn’t reimburse hospitals for treatment of fall injuries if they occurred during a patient’s stay and they could be prevented by hospitals. In terms of the cost to society, the length of stay is longer if there’s been a fall with harm, and the total charges are 60% higher between those who fell and sustained an injury and those who didn’t.”

In the researchers’ yearlong study, a falls wheel—a tool that categorized each patient on two dimensions: risk of fall and risk of injury from fall—was placed on every patient’s door. During the year, the rate of falls with harm dropped by almost 50%.

The falls wheel was just one element—the main innovative element—of the hospital’s multifaceted approach to falls prevention. The hospital also enhanced staff education and focus on the issue, launched a resource website, and sent a daily email reporting the number of falls.

“The most important thing we learned is that falls are not a nurse-sensitive indicator,” says co-author Susan Moffatt-Bruce, MD, PhD. “Falls are a team-sensitive indicator. It’s only when you realize falls are not just a nurse’s responsibility but everybody’s responsibility can you actually impact them and reduce them.”

Focusing on the problem and developing specific, multifaceted interventions was the key, the authors say.

“I don’t think everybody needs to use a falls wheel, but you need some kind of system or program,” Dr. Moffatt-Bruce says. “Just putting a wristband on someone to say they’re at high risk is great, but so what? What are you going to do about it? What are the actual items you’re asking the team to do to prevent falls?”

Reference

1. Hefner JL, McAlearney AS, Mansfield J, Knupp AM, Moffatt-Bruce SD. A falls wheel in a large academic medical center: an intervention to reduce patient falls with harm. J Healthc Qual. 2015;37(6):374-380.

Fast Fact

Sepsis is the ninth leading cause of disease-related deaths. According to the CDC, more than 1 million cases of sepsis occur each year, and up to half of people who get sepsis will die. Now CMS has added the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Early Management Bundle to the fiscal year 2016 Inpatient Prospective Payment System Final Rule.

Reference

1. Barnet S, Green M, Punke H. 10 top patient safety issues for 2016. Becker’s Infection Control and Clinical Quality website. Available at: http://www.beckershospitalreview.com/quality/10-top-patient-safety-issues-for-2016.html. Published January 12, 2016. Accessed January 28, 2016.

Healthcare is changing rapidly, shifting focus from volume to value, says Jeffrey Glasheen, MD, SFHM, lead author of the abstract “Developing Frontline Teams to Drive Health System Transformation.” To support this transformation, frontline clinical leaders need to be able to build and manage teams and care processes—skills not taught in traditional health professional training.

That’s why the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus launched the Certificate Training Program (CTP). The CTP curriculum focuses on enhancing team performance, leadership development, and process improvement. Participants meet weekly and receive support from a coach, a process-improvement specialist, and a data analyst.

Following the yearlong program, participants showed significant improvements in self-perception of leadership (37% to 75% able to manage change), quality improvement (23% to 78% able to use QI tools), and efficiency (31% to 69% able to reduce operational waste) skills. The participants’ work resulted in measurable improvements for the hospital: multiday reductions in length of stays, more than $200,000 in antibiotic cost avoidance for hospitalized pediatric patients, and improvement in pain and symptom scores for palliative care patients. Overall cost avoidance and revenue benefit exceeded $5 million.\

“We aimed to demonstrate that the work that we all need to accomplish—improving the value equation—can best be accomplished through the creation, development, and resourcing of high-functioning teams,” says Dr. Glasheen, an SHM board member. “Most important, we showed that a comprehensive training and development program aimed at creating, resourcing, and supporting high-functioning clinical leadership teams can facilitate academic medical centers’ efforts to pursue high-value care and achieve measurable improvement.”

Reference

1. Glasheen J, Cumbler E, Kneeland P, et al. Developing frontline teams to drive health system transformation [abstract]. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2015;10(suppl 2). Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/developing-frontline-teams-to-drive-health-system-transformation/. Accessed January 28, 2016.

Healthcare is changing rapidly, shifting focus from volume to value, says Jeffrey Glasheen, MD, SFHM, lead author of the abstract “Developing Frontline Teams to Drive Health System Transformation.” To support this transformation, frontline clinical leaders need to be able to build and manage teams and care processes—skills not taught in traditional health professional training.

That’s why the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus launched the Certificate Training Program (CTP). The CTP curriculum focuses on enhancing team performance, leadership development, and process improvement. Participants meet weekly and receive support from a coach, a process-improvement specialist, and a data analyst.

Following the yearlong program, participants showed significant improvements in self-perception of leadership (37% to 75% able to manage change), quality improvement (23% to 78% able to use QI tools), and efficiency (31% to 69% able to reduce operational waste) skills. The participants’ work resulted in measurable improvements for the hospital: multiday reductions in length of stays, more than $200,000 in antibiotic cost avoidance for hospitalized pediatric patients, and improvement in pain and symptom scores for palliative care patients. Overall cost avoidance and revenue benefit exceeded $5 million.\

“We aimed to demonstrate that the work that we all need to accomplish—improving the value equation—can best be accomplished through the creation, development, and resourcing of high-functioning teams,” says Dr. Glasheen, an SHM board member. “Most important, we showed that a comprehensive training and development program aimed at creating, resourcing, and supporting high-functioning clinical leadership teams can facilitate academic medical centers’ efforts to pursue high-value care and achieve measurable improvement.”

Reference

1. Glasheen J, Cumbler E, Kneeland P, et al. Developing frontline teams to drive health system transformation [abstract]. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2015;10(suppl 2). Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/developing-frontline-teams-to-drive-health-system-transformation/. Accessed January 28, 2016.

Healthcare is changing rapidly, shifting focus from volume to value, says Jeffrey Glasheen, MD, SFHM, lead author of the abstract “Developing Frontline Teams to Drive Health System Transformation.” To support this transformation, frontline clinical leaders need to be able to build and manage teams and care processes—skills not taught in traditional health professional training.

That’s why the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus launched the Certificate Training Program (CTP). The CTP curriculum focuses on enhancing team performance, leadership development, and process improvement. Participants meet weekly and receive support from a coach, a process-improvement specialist, and a data analyst.

Following the yearlong program, participants showed significant improvements in self-perception of leadership (37% to 75% able to manage change), quality improvement (23% to 78% able to use QI tools), and efficiency (31% to 69% able to reduce operational waste) skills. The participants’ work resulted in measurable improvements for the hospital: multiday reductions in length of stays, more than $200,000 in antibiotic cost avoidance for hospitalized pediatric patients, and improvement in pain and symptom scores for palliative care patients. Overall cost avoidance and revenue benefit exceeded $5 million.\

“We aimed to demonstrate that the work that we all need to accomplish—improving the value equation—can best be accomplished through the creation, development, and resourcing of high-functioning teams,” says Dr. Glasheen, an SHM board member. “Most important, we showed that a comprehensive training and development program aimed at creating, resourcing, and supporting high-functioning clinical leadership teams can facilitate academic medical centers’ efforts to pursue high-value care and achieve measurable improvement.”

Reference

1. Glasheen J, Cumbler E, Kneeland P, et al. Developing frontline teams to drive health system transformation [abstract]. Journal of Hospital Medicine. 2015;10(suppl 2). Available at: http://www.shmabstracts.com/abstract/developing-frontline-teams-to-drive-health-system-transformation/. Accessed January 28, 2016.

Sound clinical reasoning is the foundation of patient safety, yet discussions of a physician’s raw thinking ability have become a “third rail” in hospitals, according to “Incorporating Metacognition into Morbidity and Mortality Rounds: The Next Frontier in Quality Improvement,” published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Authors David Katz, MD, MSc, and Allan S. Detsky, MD, PhD, suggest introducing concepts from cognitive psychology could help address this issue.

The underlying problem is that the search for causes of medical error focuses on systems-based issues—medication administration and dosing, communication, physician handover, etc. There’s a reluctance to talk about human decision making. In fact, in the authors’ own hospitals, improving diagnostic accuracy is almost never discussed; they suspect the same is true at other institutions.

But cognitive errors occur predictably and often, especially at times of high cognitive load (i.e., when many complex decisions are being made in a short period of time), according to research from cognitive psychology. The authors therefore suggest that introducing metacognition (or “thinking about thinking”) discussions during morbidity and mortality rounds (MMRs) might help expand the discussions so that human error can be recognized and addressed.

They suggest that cognitive heuristics be introduced to MMRs by experienced and respected clinicians who can tell stories of their own errors and the shortcuts in thinking that may have caused them.

“Thereafter, the traditional MMR format can be used: presenting a case, describing how an experienced clinician might manage the case, and then asking the audience members for comment,” they write. “Incorporating discussions of cognitive missteps, in medical and nonmedical contexts, would help normalize the understanding that even the most experienced and smartest people fall prey to them. The tone must be positive.”

Reference

1. Katz D, Detsky AS. Incorporating metacognition into morbidity and mortality rounds: the next frontier in quality improvement. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(2):120-122. doi:10.1002/jhm.2505.

Sound clinical reasoning is the foundation of patient safety, yet discussions of a physician’s raw thinking ability have become a “third rail” in hospitals, according to “Incorporating Metacognition into Morbidity and Mortality Rounds: The Next Frontier in Quality Improvement,” published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Authors David Katz, MD, MSc, and Allan S. Detsky, MD, PhD, suggest introducing concepts from cognitive psychology could help address this issue.

The underlying problem is that the search for causes of medical error focuses on systems-based issues—medication administration and dosing, communication, physician handover, etc. There’s a reluctance to talk about human decision making. In fact, in the authors’ own hospitals, improving diagnostic accuracy is almost never discussed; they suspect the same is true at other institutions.

But cognitive errors occur predictably and often, especially at times of high cognitive load (i.e., when many complex decisions are being made in a short period of time), according to research from cognitive psychology. The authors therefore suggest that introducing metacognition (or “thinking about thinking”) discussions during morbidity and mortality rounds (MMRs) might help expand the discussions so that human error can be recognized and addressed.

They suggest that cognitive heuristics be introduced to MMRs by experienced and respected clinicians who can tell stories of their own errors and the shortcuts in thinking that may have caused them.

“Thereafter, the traditional MMR format can be used: presenting a case, describing how an experienced clinician might manage the case, and then asking the audience members for comment,” they write. “Incorporating discussions of cognitive missteps, in medical and nonmedical contexts, would help normalize the understanding that even the most experienced and smartest people fall prey to them. The tone must be positive.”

Reference

1. Katz D, Detsky AS. Incorporating metacognition into morbidity and mortality rounds: the next frontier in quality improvement. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(2):120-122. doi:10.1002/jhm.2505.

Sound clinical reasoning is the foundation of patient safety, yet discussions of a physician’s raw thinking ability have become a “third rail” in hospitals, according to “Incorporating Metacognition into Morbidity and Mortality Rounds: The Next Frontier in Quality Improvement,” published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Authors David Katz, MD, MSc, and Allan S. Detsky, MD, PhD, suggest introducing concepts from cognitive psychology could help address this issue.

The underlying problem is that the search for causes of medical error focuses on systems-based issues—medication administration and dosing, communication, physician handover, etc. There’s a reluctance to talk about human decision making. In fact, in the authors’ own hospitals, improving diagnostic accuracy is almost never discussed; they suspect the same is true at other institutions.

But cognitive errors occur predictably and often, especially at times of high cognitive load (i.e., when many complex decisions are being made in a short period of time), according to research from cognitive psychology. The authors therefore suggest that introducing metacognition (or “thinking about thinking”) discussions during morbidity and mortality rounds (MMRs) might help expand the discussions so that human error can be recognized and addressed.

They suggest that cognitive heuristics be introduced to MMRs by experienced and respected clinicians who can tell stories of their own errors and the shortcuts in thinking that may have caused them.

“Thereafter, the traditional MMR format can be used: presenting a case, describing how an experienced clinician might manage the case, and then asking the audience members for comment,” they write. “Incorporating discussions of cognitive missteps, in medical and nonmedical contexts, would help normalize the understanding that even the most experienced and smartest people fall prey to them. The tone must be positive.”

Reference

1. Katz D, Detsky AS. Incorporating metacognition into morbidity and mortality rounds: the next frontier in quality improvement. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(2):120-122. doi:10.1002/jhm.2505.

Excellent communication between physicians and patients is a crucial element of hospital quality, but it’s also an ongoing challenge for many institutions. One physician wondered whether letting patients read their physicians’ notes could help.

“I wanted to find new methods to improve patient understanding of their medical care plan,” says Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, medical director for adult inpatient services at the University of Minnesota Medical Center and author of “Giving Doctors’ Daily Progress Notes to Hospitalized Patients and Families to Improve Patient Experience” in the American Journal of Medical Quality. “It seemed logical to me that giving patients access to the same information that all the other members of the healthcare team were reading would improve communication. This is the overall hypothesis of the Open Notes movement.”

Another reason Dr. Weinert pursued the study: In his clinical job as an intensivist, he encounters frequent disagreements with patients’ families regarding prognosis and goals of care.

“No one has figured out how to increase the alignment of prognosis between the family and the medical team,” Dr. Weinert says. “I think having the families read the doctors’ notes, where the issues with poor-prognosis multi-organ failure are repeatedly spelled out, might help families more quickly grasp the futility of continuing care.”

During the study, hospitalized patients or family members on six wards of a university hospital received a printed copy of their medical team’s daily progress notes. Surveys afterward showed 74% to 86% of patients and family members responded favorably. Physicians were mostly satisfied, too.

“Most doctors, at the end of the study, thought that Open Notes went better than they had predicted,” Dr. Weinert says.

Complete transparency of medical records is the future of medicine, he says. It’s what patients want, “especially the younger generation.”

“Over the next 10 years,” he says, “I predict ... all [electronic medical record] vendors will have electronic portals that allow clinic and hospitalized patients access to almost everything in the EMR.”

Reference

1. Weinert C. Giving doctors’ daily progress notes to hospitalized patients and families to improve patient experience. Am J Med Qual. 2015. doi:10.1177/1062860615610424.

Excellent communication between physicians and patients is a crucial element of hospital quality, but it’s also an ongoing challenge for many institutions. One physician wondered whether letting patients read their physicians’ notes could help.

“I wanted to find new methods to improve patient understanding of their medical care plan,” says Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, medical director for adult inpatient services at the University of Minnesota Medical Center and author of “Giving Doctors’ Daily Progress Notes to Hospitalized Patients and Families to Improve Patient Experience” in the American Journal of Medical Quality. “It seemed logical to me that giving patients access to the same information that all the other members of the healthcare team were reading would improve communication. This is the overall hypothesis of the Open Notes movement.”

Another reason Dr. Weinert pursued the study: In his clinical job as an intensivist, he encounters frequent disagreements with patients’ families regarding prognosis and goals of care.

“No one has figured out how to increase the alignment of prognosis between the family and the medical team,” Dr. Weinert says. “I think having the families read the doctors’ notes, where the issues with poor-prognosis multi-organ failure are repeatedly spelled out, might help families more quickly grasp the futility of continuing care.”

During the study, hospitalized patients or family members on six wards of a university hospital received a printed copy of their medical team’s daily progress notes. Surveys afterward showed 74% to 86% of patients and family members responded favorably. Physicians were mostly satisfied, too.

“Most doctors, at the end of the study, thought that Open Notes went better than they had predicted,” Dr. Weinert says.

Complete transparency of medical records is the future of medicine, he says. It’s what patients want, “especially the younger generation.”

“Over the next 10 years,” he says, “I predict ... all [electronic medical record] vendors will have electronic portals that allow clinic and hospitalized patients access to almost everything in the EMR.”

Reference

1. Weinert C. Giving doctors’ daily progress notes to hospitalized patients and families to improve patient experience. Am J Med Qual. 2015. doi:10.1177/1062860615610424.

Excellent communication between physicians and patients is a crucial element of hospital quality, but it’s also an ongoing challenge for many institutions. One physician wondered whether letting patients read their physicians’ notes could help.

“I wanted to find new methods to improve patient understanding of their medical care plan,” says Craig Weinert, MD, MPH, medical director for adult inpatient services at the University of Minnesota Medical Center and author of “Giving Doctors’ Daily Progress Notes to Hospitalized Patients and Families to Improve Patient Experience” in the American Journal of Medical Quality. “It seemed logical to me that giving patients access to the same information that all the other members of the healthcare team were reading would improve communication. This is the overall hypothesis of the Open Notes movement.”

Another reason Dr. Weinert pursued the study: In his clinical job as an intensivist, he encounters frequent disagreements with patients’ families regarding prognosis and goals of care.

“No one has figured out how to increase the alignment of prognosis between the family and the medical team,” Dr. Weinert says. “I think having the families read the doctors’ notes, where the issues with poor-prognosis multi-organ failure are repeatedly spelled out, might help families more quickly grasp the futility of continuing care.”

During the study, hospitalized patients or family members on six wards of a university hospital received a printed copy of their medical team’s daily progress notes. Surveys afterward showed 74% to 86% of patients and family members responded favorably. Physicians were mostly satisfied, too.

“Most doctors, at the end of the study, thought that Open Notes went better than they had predicted,” Dr. Weinert says.

Complete transparency of medical records is the future of medicine, he says. It’s what patients want, “especially the younger generation.”

“Over the next 10 years,” he says, “I predict ... all [electronic medical record] vendors will have electronic portals that allow clinic and hospitalized patients access to almost everything in the EMR.”

Reference

1. Weinert C. Giving doctors’ daily progress notes to hospitalized patients and families to improve patient experience. Am J Med Qual. 2015. doi:10.1177/1062860615610424.