Dataset Information

Quality of discharge practices and patient understanding at an academic medical center.

ABSTRACT: With growing national focus on reducing readmissions, there is a need to comprehensively assess the quality of transitional care, including discharge practices, patient perspectives, and patient understanding.To conduct a multifaceted evaluation of transitional care from a patient-centered perspective.Prospective observational cohort study, May 2009 through April 2010.Urban, academic medical center.Patients 65 years and older discharged home after hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, or pneumonia.Discharge practices, including presence of follow-up appointment and patient-friendly discharge instructions; patient understanding of diagnosis and follow-up appointment; and patient perceptions of and satisfaction with discharge care.The 395 enrolled patients (66.7% of those eligible) had a mean age of 77.2 years. Although 349 patients (95.6%) reported understanding the reason they had been in the hospital, only 218 patients (59.6%) were able to accurately describe their diagnosis in postdischarge interviews. Discharge instructions routinely included symptoms to watch out for (98.4%), activity instructions (97.3%), and diet advice (89.7%) in lay language; however, 99 written reasons for hospitalization (26.3%) did not use language likely to be intelligible to patients. Of the 123 patients (32.6%) discharged with a scheduled primary care or cardiology appointment, 54 (43.9%) accurately recalled details of either appointment. During postdischarge interviews, 118 patients (30.0%) reported receiving less than 1 day’s advance notice of discharge, and 246 (66.1%) reported that staff asked whether they would have the support they needed at home before discharge.Patient perceptions of discharge care quality and self-rated understanding were high, and written discharge instructions were generally comprehensive although not consistently clear. However, follow-up appointments and advance discharge planning were deficient, and patient understanding of key aspects of postdischarge care was poor. Patient perceptions and written documentation do not adequately reflect patient understanding of discharge care.

SUBMITTER: Horwitz LI

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3836871 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality of discharge practices and patient understanding at an academic medical center.

Horwitz Leora I LI Moriarty John P JP Chen Christine C Fogerty Robert L RL Brewster Ursula C UC Kanade Sandhya S Ziaeian Boback B Jenq Grace Y GY Krumholz Harlan M HM

JAMA internal medicine 20131001 18

<h4>Importance</h4>With growing national focus on reducing readmissions, there is a need to comprehensively assess the quality of transitional care, including discharge practices, patient perspectives, and patient understanding.<h4>Objective</h4>To conduct a multifaceted evaluation of transitional care from a patient-centered perspective.<h4>Design</h4>Prospective observational cohort study, May 2009 through April 2010.<h4>Setting</h4>Urban, academic medical center.<h4>Participants</h4>Patients ...[more]

PMID: 23958851

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLarge scale implementation of new strategies and healthcare delivery standards in academic medical centers (AMCs) requires training of healthcare workforce at different stages of their medical career. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model for healthcare delivery involves adoption by all members of the healthcare workforce, including seasoned professionals and trainees. Though widely known, the PCMH model has been implemented sporadically at large AMCs and methods to implement the model across healthcare workforce have not been well-documented.MethodsTo meet all PCMH standards and achieve sustainable level 3 recognition, the authors implemented in 2014-2015 a multi-pronged approach that capitalized on existing educational infrastructure among faculty, residents, and medical students. Within 18 months, the authors applied new interdisciplinary practices and policies, redesigned residency training in continuity practices and extensively modified medical school curricula.ResultsThese innovative transformational education efforts addressed the six PCMH standards for faculty, residents, and undergraduate medical students. Faculty played a major role as system change agents and facilitators of learning. Residents learned to better understand patients' cultural needs, identify 'at-risk' patients, ensure continuity of care, and assess and improve quality of care. Medical students were exposed to PCMH core standards throughout their training via simulations, training in the community and with patients, and evaluation tasks. By implementing these changes across the healthcare workforce, the AMC achieved PCMH status in a short time, changed practice culture and improved care for patients and the community. Since then, the AMC has been able to maintain PCMH recognition annually with minimal effort.ConclusionsSuccessful strategies that capitalize on existing strengths in infrastructure complemented by innovative educational offerings and inter-professional partnerships can be adapted by other organizations pursuing similar transformation efforts. This widespread transformation across the healthcare workforce facilitate a deep-rooted change that enabled our academic medical center to sustain PCMH recognition.

Project description:Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening reduces lung cancer-specific and overall mortality. We sought to assess lung cancer screening practices and attitudes among primary care providers (PCPs) in the era of new LDCT screening guidelines.In 2013, we surveyed PCPs at an academic medical center (60% response) and assessed: lung cancer screening use, perceived screening effectiveness, knowledge of screening guidelines, perceived barriers to LDCT use, and interest in LDCT screening education.Few PCPs (n = 212) reported ordering lung cancer screening: chest X-ray (21%), LDCT (12%), and sputum cytology (3%). Only 47% of providers knew three or more of six guideline components for LDCT screening; 24% did not know any guideline components. In multiple logistic regression analysis, providers who knew three or more guideline components were more likely to order LDCT (OR, 7.1; 95% confidence intervals, 2.0-25.6). Many providers (30%) were unsure of the effectiveness of LDCT. Mammography, colonoscopy, and Pap smear were rated more frequently as effective in reducing cancer mortality compared with LDCT (all P values < 0.0001). Common perceived barriers included patient cost (86.9% major or minor barrier), harm from false positives (82.7%), patients' lack of awareness (81.3%), risk of incidental findings (81.3%), and insurance coverage (80.1%).LDCT lung cancer screening is currently an uncommon practice at an academic medical center. PCPs report ordering chest X-ray, a nonrecommended screening test, more often than LDCT. PCPs had a limited understanding of lung cancer screening guidelines and LDCT effectiveness. Provider educational interventions are needed to facilitate shared decision-making with patients.This study describes some of the first data available about PCPs' use of lung cancer screening tests since the publication of multiple professional guidelines endorsing LDCT. Knowledge gaps were identified that may hinder the uptake of evidence-based lung cancer screening guidelines.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS) survey is the first publicly reported nationwide survey to evaluate and compare hospitals. Increasing patient satisfaction is an important goal as it aims to achieve a more effective and efficient healthcare delivery system. In this study, we develop and apply an integrative, data-driven approach to identify clinical risk factors that associate with patient satisfaction outcomes. METHODS:We included 1,771 unique adult patients who completed the HCAHPS survey and were discharged from the inpatient Medicine service from 2010 to 2012. We collected 266 clinical features including patient demographics, lab measurements, medications, disease categories, and procedures. We developed and applied a data-driven approach to identify risk factors that associate with patient satisfaction outcomes. FINDINGS:We identify 102 significant risk factors associating with 18 surveyed questions. The most significantly recurrent clinical risk factors were: self-evaluation of health, education level, Asian, White, treatment in BMT oncology division, being prescribed a new medication. Patients who were prescribed pregabalin were less satisfied particularly in relation to communication with nurses and pain management. Explanation of medication usage was associated with communication with nurses (q = 0.001); however, explanation of medication side effects was associated with communication with doctors (q = 0.003). Overall hospital rating was associated with hospital environment, communication with doctors, and communication about medicines. However, patient likelihood to recommend hospital was associated with hospital environment, communication about medicines, pain management, and communication with nurse. CONCLUSIONS:Our study identified a number of putatively novel clinical risk factors for patient satisfaction that suggest new opportunities to better understand and manage patient satisfaction. Hospitals can use a data-driven approach to identify clinical risk factors for poor patient satisfaction to support development of specific interventions to improve patients' experience of care.

Project description:BackgroundAcademic Medical Centers (AMCs) must simultaneously serve different purposes: Delivery of high quality healthcare services to patients, as the main mission, supported by other core missions such as academic activities, i.e., researching, teaching and tutoring, while maintaining solvency. This study aims to develop a methodology for constructing models evaluating the academic value provided by AMCs and implementing it at the largest AMC in Israel.MethodsThirty five practiced educators and researchers, academic experts, faculty members and executives, all employed by a metropolitan 1500-bed AMC, were involved in developing academic quality indicators. First, an initial list of AMCs' academic quality indicators was drafted, using a literature review and consulting scholars. Afterwards, additional data and preferences were collected by conducting semi-structured interviews, complemented by a three-round Delphi Panel. Finally, the methodology for constructing a model evaluating the academic value provided by the AMC was developed.ResultsThe composite academic quality indicators methodology consists of nine indicators (relative weight in parentheses): 'Scientific Publications Value' (18.7%), 'Completed Studies' (13.5%), 'Authors Value' (13.0%), 'Residents Quality' (11.3%), 'Competitive Grants Budget' (10.2%), 'Academic Training' (8.7%), 'Academic Positions' (8.3%), 'Number of Studies' (8.3%) and 'Academic Supervision' (8.0%). These indicators were grouped into three core categories: 'Education', 'Research' and 'Publications', having almost the same importance on a scale from zero to one (0-1), i.e., 0.363, 0.320, and 0.317, respectively. The results demonstrated a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach-alpha range: 0.79-0.86).ConclusionsWe have found a gap in the ability to measure academic value provided by AMCs. The main contribution of this research is the development of methodology for constructing evaluation models for AMCs academic performance. Further studies are needed to further test the validity and reliability of the proposed methodology at other sites.

Dataset Information

Quality of discharge practices and patient understanding at an academic medical center.

Publications

Quality of discharge practices and patient understanding at an academic medical center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets