Dataset Information

Reducing unnecessary hospital days to improve quality of care through physician accountability: a cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: Over 20% of hospital bed use is inappropriate, implying a waste of resources and the increase of patient iatrogenic risk.This is a cluster, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, carried out in a large University Hospital of Northern Italy, aiming to evaluate the effect of a strategy to reduce unnecessary hospital days. The primary outcome was the percentage of patient-days compatible with discharge. Among secondary objectives, to describe the strategy's effect in the long-term, as well as on hospital readmissions, considered to be a marker of the quality of hospital care. The 12 medical wards with the longest length of stay participated. Effectiveness was measured at the individual level on 3498 eligible patients during monthly index days. Patients admitted or discharged on index days, or with stay >90 days, were excluded. All ward staff was blinded to the index days, while staff in the control arm and data analysts were blinded to the trial's objectives and interventions. The strategy comprised the distribution to physicians of the list of their patients whose hospital stay was compatible with discharge according to a validated Delay Tool, and of physician length of stay profiles, followed by audits managed autonomously by the physicians of the ward.During the 12 months of data collection, over 50% of patient-days were judged to be compatible with discharge. Delays were mainly due to problems with activities under medical staff control. Multivariate analysis considering clustering showed that the strategy reduced patient-days compatible with discharge by 16% in the intervention vs control group, (OR=0.841; 95% CI, 0.735 to 0.963; P=0.012). Follow-up at 1 year did not yield a statistically significant difference between the percentages of patient-days judged to be compatible with discharge between the two arms (OR=0.818; 95% CI, 0.476 to 1.405; P=0.47). There was no significant difference in 30-day readmission and mortality rates for all eligible patients (N=3498) between the two arms.Results indicate that a strategy, involving physician direct accountability, can reduce unnecessary hospital days. Relatively simple interventions, like the one assessed in this study, should be implemented in all hospitals with excessive lengths of stay, since unnecessary prolongation may be harmful to patients.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01422811.

SUBMITTER: Caminiti C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3577481 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Reducing unnecessary hospital days to improve quality of care through physician accountability: a cluster randomised trial.

Caminiti Caterina C Meschi Tiziana T Braglia Luca L Diodati Francesca F Iezzi Elisa E Marcomini Barbara B Nouvenne Antonio A Palermo Eliana E Prati Beatrice B Schianchi Tania T Borghi Loris L

BMC health services research 20130110

<h4>Background</h4>Over 20% of hospital bed use is inappropriate, implying a waste of resources and the increase of patient iatrogenic risk.<h4>Methods</h4>This is a cluster, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial, carried out in a large University Hospital of Northern Italy, aiming to evaluate the effect of a strategy to reduce unnecessary hospital days. The primary outcome was the percentage of patient-days compatible with discharge. Among secondary objectives, to describe the strategy's effec ...[more]

PMID: 23305251

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo study the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial testing the effectiveness of a medication review at hospital discharge combined with a communication stimulus between hospital physicians (HPs) and general practitioners (GPs) on rehospitalisation of multimorbid older patients.DesignExtension of Grant's mixed method process evaluation framework to trials with multilevel clustering.SettingGeneral internal medicine wards in Swiss hospitals.ParticipantsConvenience samples of 15 chief physicians (of 21 hospitals participating in the effectiveness trial), 60 (74) senior HPs, 65 (164) junior HPs and 187 (411) GPs.Implementation strategyTwo-hour teaching sessions for senior HPs on a patient-centred, checklist-guided discharge routine.Process evaluation componentsData collection on recruitment, delivery and response from chief physicians (semistructured interviews), senior HPs, junior HPs, GPs (surveys) and patients (via HPs). Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis.Outcome measuresIntervention dose (quantitative), implementation fidelity (qualitative), feasibility and acceptability, facilitators and barriers, implementation support strategies.ResultsRecruitment of hospitals was laborious but successful, with 21 hospitals recruited. Minimal workload and a perceived benefit for the clinic were crucial factors for participation. Intervention dose was high (95% of checklist activities carried out), but intervention fidelity was limited (discharge letters) or unknown (medication review). Recruitment and retention of patients was challenging, partly due to patient characteristics (old, frail) and the COVID-19 pandemic: Only 612 of the anticipated 2100 patients were recruited, and 31% were lost to follow-up within the first month after discharge. The intervention was deemed feasible and helpful by HPs, and the relevance of the topic appreciated by both HPs and GPs.ConclusionsThe results from this evaluation will support interpretation of the findings of the effectiveness study and may inform researchers and policy makers who aim at improving hospital discharge.Trial registration numberISRCTN18427377.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:A model of general practitioner (GP) and pharmacist collaboration in primary care may be an effective strategy to reduce medication-related problems and provide better support to patients after discharge. The aim of this study is to investigate whether a model of structured pharmacist and GP care reduces hospital readmissions in high-risk patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This protocol details a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial that will recruit participants over 9 months with a 12-month follow-up. There will be 14 clusters each representing a different general practice medical centre. A total of 2240 participants will be recruited from hospital who attend an enrolled medical centre, take five or more long-term medicines or whose reason for admission was related to heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.The intervention is a multifaceted service, involving a pharmacist integrated into a medical centre to assist patients after hospitalisation. Participants will meet with the practice pharmacist and their GP after discharge to review and reconcile their medicines and discuss changes made in hospital. The pharmacist will follow-up with the participant and liaise with other health professionals involved in the participant's care. The control will be usual care, which usually involves a patient self-organising a visit to their GP after hospital discharge.The primary outcome is the rate of unplanned, all-cause hospital readmissions over 12 months, which will be analysed using a mixed effects Poisson regression model with a random effect for cluster and a fixed effect to account for any temporal trend. A cost analysis will be undertaken to compare the healthcare costs associated with the intervention to those of usual care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has received ethical approval (HREC/16/QRBW/410). The study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and reports to key stakeholders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN12616001627448.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious reviews of cluster randomised trials have been critical of the quality of the trials reviewed, but none has explored determinants of the quality of these trials in a specific field over an extended period of time. Recent work suggests that correct conduct and reporting of these trials may require more than published guidelines. In this review, our aim was to assess the quality of cluster randomised trials conducted in residential facilities for older people, and to determine whether (1) statistician involvement in the trial and (2) strength of journal endorsement of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement influence quality.MethodsWe systematically identified trials randomising residential facilities for older people, or parts thereof, without language restrictions, up to the end of 2010, using National Library of Medicine (Medline) via PubMed and hand-searching. We based quality assessment criteria largely on the extended CONSORT statement for cluster randomised trials. We assessed statistician involvement based on statistician co-authorship, and strength of journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement from journal websites.Results73 trials met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 20 (27%) reported accounting for clustering in sample size calculations and 54 (74%) in the analyses. In 29 trials (40%), methods used to identify/recruit participants were judged by us to have potentially caused bias or reporting was unclear to reach a conclusion. Some elements of quality improved over time but this appeared not to be related to the publication of the extended CONSORT statement for these trials. Trials with statistician/epidemiologist co-authors were more likely to account for clustering in sample size calculations (unadjusted odds ratio 5.4, 95% confidence interval 1.1 to 26.0) and analyses (unadjusted OR 3.2, 1.2 to 8.5). Journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement was not associated with trial quality.ConclusionsDespite international attempts to improve methods in cluster randomised trials, important quality limitations remain amongst these trials in residential facilities. Statistician involvement on trial teams may be more effective in promoting quality than further journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement. Funding bodies and journals should promote statistician involvement and co-authorship in addition to adherence to CONSORT guidelines.

Project description:PurposeTo assess the impact of personalised physician learning (PPL) interventions using simulated learning cases on control of hypertension and dyslipidaemia in primary care settings.MethodsA total of 132 primary care physicians, 4568 eligible patients with uncontrolled hypertension, and 15 392 eligible patients with uncontrolled dyslipidaemia were cluster-randomised to one of three conditions: (a) no intervention, (b) PPL-electronic medical record (EMR) intervention in which 12 PPL cases were assigned to each physician based on observed patterns of care in the EMR in the previous year, or (c) PPL-ASSESS intervention in which 12 PPL cases were assigned to each physician based on their performance on four standardised assessment cases. General and generalised linear mixed models were used to account for clustering and to model differences in patient outcomes in the study arms.ResultsAmong patients with uncontrolled hypertension at baseline, 49.1%, 46.6% and 47.3% (p=0.43) achieved blood pressure (BP) targets at follow-up. Among patients with uncontrolled dyslipidaemia at baseline, 37.5%, 37.3% and 38.1% (p=0.72) achieved low density lipoprotein cholesterol targets at follow-up in PPL-EMR, PPL-ASSESS and the control group, respectively. Although systolic (BP) (p<0.001) and lipid (p<0.001) values significantly improved during the study, the group-by-time interaction term showed no differential change in systolic BP values (p=0.51) or lipid values (p=0.61) among the three study arms. No difference in intervention effect was noted when comparing the PPL-EMR with the PPL-ASSESS intervention (p=0.47).ConclusionsThe two PPL interventions tested in this study did not lead to improved control of hypertension or dyslipidaemia in primary care clinics during a mean 14-month follow-up period. This null result may have been due in part to substantial overall improvement in BP and lipid control at the study sites during the study.Trial registration numberNCT00903071.

Project description:BackgroundStarting in 2005, Germany's health law required hospital quality reports to be published every two years by all acute care hospitals. The reports were intended to help patients and physicians make informed choices of hospitals. However, while establishing the quality indicators that form the content of the reports, the information needs of the target groups were not explicitly taken into account. Therefore, the aim of our study was to determine patient and physician opinion of the relevance of the reported quality indicators for choosing or referring to a hospital.MethodsConvenience samples of 50 patients and 50 physicians were asked to rate the understandability (patients), suitability (physicians) and relevance (both groups) of a set of 29 quality indicators. The set was drawn from the reports (24 indicators) and supplemented by five indicators commonly used in hospital quality reports. We analysed the differences in patient and physician ratings of relevance of all indicators by applying descriptive statistics, t-tests and Wilcoxon tests.ResultsOnly three indicators were considered not understandable by the interviewed patients and unsuitable by the interviewed physicians. The patients rated 19 indicators as highly or very relevant, whereas the physicians chose 15 indicators. The most relevant indicator for the patients was "qualification of doctors", and for the physicians "volume of specified surgical procedures". Patient and physician rankings of individual indicators differed for 25 indicators. However, three groups of indicators could be differentiated, in which the relevance ratings of patients and physicians differed only within the groups. Four of the five indicators that were added to the existing set of reported indicators ranked in the first or second group ("kindness of staff", "patient satisfaction", "recommendation", and "distance to place of living").ConclusionMost of the content of Germany's hospital quality reports seems to be useful for patients and physicians and influence their choice of hospitals. However, the target groups revealed that approximately one third of the indicators (mostly hospital structural characteristics), were not useful and hence could have been omitted from the reports. To enhance the usefulness of the reports, indicators on patient experiences should be added.

Project description:BackgroundHigh levels of maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity remain a daunting reality in many low-income countries. Several interventions delivered during antenatal care have been shown to improve maternal and newborn outcomes, but stockouts of medical supplies at point of care can prevent implementation of these services. We aimed to evaluate whether a supply chain strategy based on the provision of kits could improve quality of care.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial at ten antenatal care clinics in Mozambique. Clinics were eligible if they were not already implementing the proposed antenatal care package; they served at least 200 new pregnant women per year; they had Maternal and Child Health (MCH) nurses; and they were willing to participate. All women attending antenatal care visits at the participating clinics were included in the trial. Participating clinics were randomly assigned to shift from control to intervention on prespecified start dates. The intervention involved four components (kits with medical supplies, a cupboard to store these supplies, a tracking sheet to monitor stocks, and a one-day training session). The primary outcomes were the proportion of women screened for anaemia and proteinuria, and the proportion of women who received mebendazole in the first antenatal care visit. The intervention was delivered under routine care conditions, and analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, number PACTR201306000550192.FindingsBetween March, 2014, and January, 2016, 218 277 antenatal care visits were registered, with 68 598 first and 149 679 follow-up visits. We found significant improvements in all three primary outcomes. In first visits, 5519 (14·6%) of 37 826 women were screened for anaemia in the control period, compared with 30 057 (97·7%) of 30 772 in the intervention period (adjusted odds ratio 832·40; 99% CI 666·81-1039·11; p<0·0001); 3739 (9·9%) of 37 826 women were screened for proteinuria in the control period, compared with 29 874 (97·1%) of 30 772 in the intervention period (1875·18; 1447·56-2429·11; p<0·0001); and 17 926 (51·4%) of 34 842 received mebendazole in the control period, compared with 24 960 (88·2%) of 28 294 in the intervention period (1·88; 1·70-2·09; p<0·0001). The effect was immediate and sustained over time, with negligible heterogeneity between sites.InterpretationA supply chain strategy that resolves stockouts at point of care can result in a vast improvement in quality during antenatal care visits, when compared with the routine national process for procurement and distribution of supplies.FundingGovernment of Flanders and the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction.

Dataset Information

Reducing unnecessary hospital days to improve quality of care through physician accountability: a cluster randomised trial.

Publications

Reducing unnecessary hospital days to improve quality of care through physician accountability: a cluster randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets