Despite high post-implementation adherence, clinicians may have unresolved questions or concerns regarding use of a protocol to standardize routine daily coordination of the spontaneous awakening trial (SAT) and spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) on ventilated patients. Unresolved questions or concerns may unwittingly curtail practice normalization, impacting practice sustainment when implementation support is withdrawn. The objective of this study was to identify unresolved questions or concerns that may persist following successful implementation of a coordinated SAT/SBT (C-SAT/SBT) protocol. We used an attributed, cross-sectional survey of physicians, advanced practice providers, nurses and respiratory therapists likely to have participated in a C-SAT/SBT in 12 hospitals (15 intensive care units) in Utah and Idaho. We evaluated clinician perceptions of acceptability, including ease of use, usefulness and confidence, along with perceived practice normalization, six months post implementation of a protocol to routinize C-SAT/SBT use. C-SAT/SBT adherence was 83.1

INTRODUCTION:We conducted an explanatory, sequential mixed-methods study to measure variation in the use of imaging and physical therapy (PT) for acute low back pain (LBP) and to identify implementation determinants that might explain variation in use across 22 EDs and 27 urgent cares in urban and rural locations within a community-based health system. METHODS:We described the patient population and measured concordance with LBP guideline recommendations on imaging and PT referral from January-June 2023. We conducted key informant interviews with physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs), n = 30, from these 49 sites between July - September 2023 and performed content analysis to identify implementation determinants to guideline concordance. RESULTS:From January-June 30, 2023, 1047 Intermountain Health employed or affiliated physicians and APPs at the 22 adult EDs and 27 adult UCs cared for 8047 patient encounters involving acute LBP with no red flags. 29% of acute LBP patient encounters included an imaging order (ED: 43%; UC: 18%) and 5% included a PT order (ED: 7%; UC: 4%). 17 ED and 13 UC physicians and APPs participated in semi-structured interviews. Their patient encounters represent 6% of the overall study population (ED: 5%; UC: 7%) with order rates and patient population characteristics similar to the full study population. ED and UC clinicians were generally familiar with LBP guideline recommendations but varied significantly in their knowledge and beliefs of the appropriate application of guidelines in evaluation and treatment plans. DISCUSSION:Guideline concordance for use of imaging and PT varied substantially across physicians and advance practice providers providing care at EDs and UC centers within a community-based health system. Implementation strategies that address barriers identified by this study, including varied understanding of the PT discipline, complex workflows for placing PT referrals, the medico-legal assurance that imaging provides, and the lack of feedback loops in ED and UC centers should be tested in future hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials to increase concordance to LBP guidelines and minimize harm related to overuse of imaging and underuse of conservative first-line treatment approaches.

ImportanceThere is a lack of randomized clinical trial (RCT) data to guide many routine decisions in the care of children hospitalized for common conditions. A first step in addressing the shortage of RCTs for this population is to identify the most pressing RCT questions for children hospitalized with common conditions.ObjectiveTo identify the most important and feasible RCT questions for children hospitalized with common conditions.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsFor this consensus statement, a 3-stage modified Delphi process was used in a virtual conference series spanning January 1 to September 29, 2022. Forty-six individuals from 30 different institutions participated in the process. Stage 1 involved construction of RCT questions for the 10 most common pediatric conditions leading to hospitalization. Participants used condition-specific guidelines and reviews from a structured literature search to inform their development of RCT questions. During stage 2, RCT questions were refined and scored according to importance. Stage 3 incorporated public comment and feasibility with the prioritization of RCT questions.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcome was RCT questions framed in a PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcome) format and ranked according to importance and feasibility; score choices ranged from 1 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater importance and feasibility.ResultsForty-six individuals (38 who shared demographic data; 24 women [63%]) from 30 different institutions participated in our modified Delphi process. Participants included children’s hospital (n = 14) and community hospital (n = 13) pediatricians, parents of hospitalized children (n = 4), other clinicians (n = 2), biostatisticians (n = 2), and other researchers (n = 11). The process yielded 62 unique RCT questions, most of which are pragmatic, comparing interventions in widespread use for which definitive effectiveness data are lacking. Overall scores for importance and feasibility of the RCT questions ranged from 1 to 9, with a median of 5 (IQR, 4-7). Six of the top 10 selected questions focused on determining optimal antibiotic regimens for 3 common infections (pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and cellulitis).Conclusions and RelevanceThis consensus statementhas identified the most important and feasible RCT questions for children hospitalized with common conditions. This list of RCT questions can guide investigators and funders in conducting impactful trials to improve care and outcomes for hospitalized children.

INTRODUCTION:Health systems are increasingly pursuing efforts to screen for and address social drivers of health (SDOH), the nonmedical factors that contribute to health outcomes and inequities. A large integrated health system (Intermountain Health) launched a program in 2019 to universally screen for and address SDOH. METHODS:Five primary care clinics within Intermountain were purposefully chosen for diversity of setting and practice type (family medicine and pediatric). We conducted 20 semistructured interviews with frontline clinicians and staff from 7/1/2020 to 9/1/2020 to explore attitudes related to feasibility, workflow processes, and facilitators and barriers to successful implementation. We conducted an inductive-deductive analysis to identify key themes and best practices. RESULTS:Five clinics conducted 16,659 SDOH patient screenings from 12/1/2019 to 11/30/2020 (705 to 7,723 screens per clinic with rates ranging from 7.4% to 52.8% per clinic). Respondent perspectives about the program were mixed. Dominant implementation barriers included staff time constraints, limited availability of social services, and reduced morale. Key facilitators included triage protocols for positive screens independent of the primary care clinician, standardizing previsit digital screening, and instilling a culture of shared ownership through education and team SDOH-focused huddles. CONCLUSIONS:This evaluation of an early systemwide SDOH program implementation called into question the feasibility of universal screening in primary care given staff time constraints and social service availability. Future investigations should explore the impact of targeted screening approaches in diverse clinical settings and quantifying trade offs between SDOH programs and other clinical and organizational priorities.

This cross-sectional study explores characteristics of patients who are screened and who screen positive for social determinants of health (SDOH) needs in different clinical settings within a large integrated health system.

Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, no effective treatment existed to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19 among recently diagnosed outpatients. Hydroxychloroquine received attention as a possible early treatment; however, quality prospective studies were lacking. We conducted a clinical trial to test the ability of hydroxychloroquine to prevent clinical worsening of COVID-19.

Measuring adherence to the 2015 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) diabetes prevention guidelines can inform implementation efforts to prevent or delay Type 2 diabetes. A retrospective cohort was used to study patients without a diagnosis of diabetes attributed to primary care clinics within two large healthcare systems in our state to study adherence to the following: (1) screening at-risk patients and (2) referring individuals with confirmed prediabetes to participate in an intensive behavioral counseling intervention, defined as a Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-recognized Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP). Among 461,866 adults attributed to 79 primary care clinics, 45.7% of patients were screened, yet variability at the level of the clinic ranged from 14.5% to 83.2%. Very few patients participated in a CDC-recognized DPP (0.52%; range 0%-3.53%). These findings support the importance of a systematic implementation strategy to specifically target barriers to diabetes prevention screening and referral to treatment.

PURPOSE:Medical assistants (MAs) have seen their roles expand as a result of team-based primary care models. Unlike their physician counterparts, MAs rarely receive financial incentives as a part of their compensation. This exploratory study aims to understand MA acceptability of financial incentives and perceived MA control over common population health measures.METHODS:We conducted semistructured focus groups between August and December of 2019 across 10 clinics affiliated with 3 institutions in California and Utah. MAs' perceptions of experienced and hypothetical financial incentives, their potential influence on workflow processes, and perceived levels of control over population health measures were discussed, recorded, and qualitatively analyzed for emerging themes. Perceived levels of control were further quantified using a Likert survey; measures were grouped into factors representing vaccinations, and workflow completed in the same day or multiple days (multiday). Mean scores for each factor were compared using repeated 1-way ANOVA with Tukey-Kramer adjustment.RESULTS:MAs reported little direct experience with financial incentives. They indicated that a hypothetical bonus representing 2% to 3% of their average annual base pay would be acceptable and influential in improving consistent performance during patient rooming workflow. MAs reported having greater perceived control over vaccinations (P <.001) and same-day measures (P <.001) as compared with multiday measures.CONCLUSIONS:MAs perceived that relatively small financial incentives would increase their motivation and quality of care. Our findings suggests target measures should focus on MA work processes that are completed in the same day as the patient encounter, particularly vaccinations. Future investigation is needed to understand the effectiveness of MA financial incentives in practice.

Objective The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of high-deductible health plans on elective surgery (tonsillectomy) in the pediatric population. Study Design Cross-sectional study. Setting Health claims database from a third-party payer. Methods Data were reviewed for children up to 18 years of age who underwent tonsillectomy or arm fracture repair (nonelective control) from 2016 to 2019. Incidence of surgery by health plan deductible (high, low, or government insured) and met or unmet status of deductibles were compared. Results A total of 10,047 tonsillectomy claims and 9903 arm fracture repair claims met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The incidence of tonsillectomy was significantly different across deductible plan types. Patients with met deductibles were more likely to undergo tonsillectomy. In patients with deductibles ≥$4000, a 1.75-fold increase in tonsillectomy was observed in those who had met their deductible as compared with those who had not. These findings were not observed in controls (nonelective arm fracture). For those with met deductibles, those with high deductibles were much more likely to undergo tonsillectomy than those with low, moderate, and government deductibles. Unmet high deductibles were least likely to undergo tonsillectomy. Conclusions Health insurance plan type influences the incidence of pediatric elective surgery such as tonsillectomy but not procedures such as nonelective repair of arm fracture. High deductibles may discourage elective surgery for those deductibles that are unmet, risking inappropriate care of vulnerable pediatric patients. However, meeting the deductible may increase incidence, raising the question of overutilization.

Research ObjectiveThe risk of serious intracranial injury in pediatric patients with minor head trauma (MHT) is less than 5%; most computerized tomography (CT) scans in MHT are normal or contribute little to management, yet expose children to unnecessary radiation. Despite evidence‐based risk classification criteria from the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) for assessing appropriate CT use during emergency department (ED) visits, barriers persist to replacing unnecessary scans with structured observation. Field readiness assessments at Intermountain Healthcare suggest that physicians often believe they know the risk factors for traumatic brain injury (TBI) but sometimes misremember elements. Information retrieval when delivering ED care can be cumbersome. Many physicians also perceive ordering CT scans is the safest course of action despite a lack of significant symptoms. We theorized that targeting evidence‐based education at the individual scan decision point, coupled with timely performance feedback, would increase cognitive support for assessing risk of clinically‐important TBI (ciTBI), reducing potentially unnecessary scans.Study DesignWe conducted a prospective pre‐post comparison implementation study. The primary implementation strategies were two‐fold. First, we embedded an alert containing an easy‐to‐understand, information‐rich graphic providing current PECARN risk stratification criteria and supporting evidence for classifying ciTBI, along with a risk assessment prompt linked to a CT order. Second, we provided timely feedback on performance and local prompting to educate physicians. Uptake and effectiveness measures included % adherence change in PECARN guidelines and the CT scan rate. Safety was evaluated by counting 48‐hour readmissions with clinical evidence of ciTBI confirmed via chart review. Acceptability, fidelity and feasibility were assessed using qualitative analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using tests of proportions.Population StudiedApproximately 14,000 pediatric patients presenting with MHT at 22 EDs from January 2019–December 2020 within a single, integrated delivery system including urban, rural and frontier locations and a children's hospital.Principal FindingsYear 1 adherence to PECARN guidelines was 98.7% with a 14% reduction in the CT scan rate for pediatric MHT patients across geographies with no readmissions for ciTBI (Table). Results were sustained in Year 2 despite increased patient acuity in 2020 due to the novel coronavirus pandemic. Subsequent field discussions found good acceptance by physicians noting the alert was relevant, timely and easy to understand. Implementation fidelity was high given routinization of the alert into clinical workflow.ConclusionsCombining local performance feedback with use of an information‐rich text alert was associated with significant improvements in adherence to PECARN guidelines and a reduction in the CT scan order rate for diagnosis of clinically‐important TBI in MHT patients without impacting safety. The routinized nature of the alert was associated with good practice sustainment over multiple years across geographies.Implications for Policy or PracticeSimple, information‐rich text alerts may prove useful as an implementation strategy for updating physicians on changes in evidence‐based triage and risk classification criteria often associated with de‐implementation of legacy clinical practices. Measure Baseline‐Dec2018 Rolling‐6mo Uptake‐Dec2019 Rolling‐12mo Sustainment‐Dec2020 Rolling‐12mo z‐score/p‐value % adherence to PECARN guidelines 95.66% 98.74% 99.32% z = −10.3; p < 0.001 CT scan rate 33% 29% 29% z = 6.0; p < 0.001 48‐hour readmission for ciTBI 0 0 0

Allen, Lauren MAS; Knighton, Andrew J. PhD, CPA; Brunisholz, Kimberly D. PhD, MST; Wolfe, Doug MBA; Kean, Jacob PhD; Belnap, Thomas W. MS; Grissom, Colin MD; Srivastava, Raj MD, FRPC(C), MPH Author Information

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is a potentially fatal illness with no proven therapy beyond excellent supportive care. Treatments are urgently sought. Adaptations to traditional trial logistics and design to allow rapid implementation, evaluation of trials within a global trials context, flexible interim monitoring, and access outside traditional research hospitals (even in settings where formal placebos are unavailable) may be helpful. Thoughtful adaptations to traditional trial designs, especially within the global context of related studies, may also foster collaborative relationships among government, community, and the research enterprise. Here, we describe the protocol for a pragmatic, active comparator trial in as many as 300 patients comparing two current "off-label" treatments for COVID-19—hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin—in academic and nonacademic hospitals in Utah. We developed the trial in response to local pressures for widespread, indiscriminate off-label use of these medications. We used a hybrid Bayesian-frequentist design for interim monitoring to allow rapid, contextual assessment of the available evidence. We also developed an inference grid for interpreting the range of possible results from this trial within the context of parallel trials and prepared for a network meta-analysis of the resulting data. This trial was prospectively registered (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04329832) before enrollment of the first patient.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04329832).

Introduction: ePNa open loop, electronic clinical decision support improved mortality and disposition for emergency department (ED) community-acquired pneumonia patients in 4 intervention hospitals vs 3 usual care hospitals (Annals EM 2015 66:511). ePNa provides ED clinicians with support for diagnosis and objective severity measurement, then disposition and antibiotic recommendations based on the DRIP score. We rolled out ePNa across 16 additional Intermountain Healthcare (Utah, USA) Hospitals beginning 2018 in a stepwise implementation trial. Objectives: Evaluate whether ePNa might improve clinical outcomes in a diverse group of non-teaching hospitals. Methods: 7293 ED patients >18 years 2017 to 2019 with complete data were identified electronically by ICD-10 codes; patients without confirmatory chest imaging (CheXED, Stanford AI model) were excluded. Results: Median age was 67 (IQR 52-79) years, 48% female. ePNa: use by clinicians averaged 47.4% after rollout but varied from 10% to 92% by month and hospital. Intention to treat analysis showed 30-day mortality of 5% (146/3101) vs 10% (417/4192) before rollout; outpatient disposition increased from 21% vs 48%. 7-day secondary hospitalization was 1% vs 3% after rollout. 30-day all-cause mortality was significantly lower after severity adjustment (electronicCURB, age, PaO2/FiO2, pleural effusion, HCAP, gender) by logistic regression (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.46,0.69, p <.001). Conclusions: Rollout of ePNa clinical decision support into 16 hospital ED was associated with decreased mortality and hospital admission among pneumonia patients. We plan further interventions to increase ePNa use by ED clinicians.

Allen, Lauren MAS; Knighton, Andrew J. PhD, CPA; Wolfe, Doug MBA; Belnap, Tom MS; Brunisholz, Kimberly D. PhD, MST; Carmichael, Harris MD; Allen, Todd MD; Peltan, Ithan MD; Grissom, Colin MD; Srivastava, Raj MD, MPH Author Information

This article reviews the industrial underpinnings of the quality improvement (QI) movement and describes how QI became integrated within the larger health care landscape, including hospital medicine. QI methodologies and a framework for using them are described. Key components that make up a successful QI clinical project are outlined, with a focus on the essential role of pediatric hospitalists and practical professional tips to be successful. QI training opportunities are reviewed with opportunities for hospitalists to get involved in QI on a national level. National QI networks are showcased, with multiple examples of advanced improvement projects that have significantly improved patient outcomes highlighted.

Journal of Hospital MedicineVolume 14, Issue 9 p. 577-578 Editorial The Hospitalist Imperative: Standardizing Best Practice across Expanding Healthcare Networks Linda Venner MD, Linda Venner MD Hospitalist Medicine, Medical Surgery Operations, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UtahSearch for more papers by this authorNathan Starr DO, Nathan Starr DO Hospitalist Medicine, Medical Surgery Operations, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UtahSearch for more papers by this authorRaj Srivastava MD, FRCP(C), MPH, Corresponding Author Raj Srivastava MD, FRCP(C), MPH raj.srivastava@imail.org Healthcare Delivery Institute, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah Division of Inpatient Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine and Primary Children's Hospital, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UtahCorresponding Author: Raj Srivastava, MD, MPH; Email: raj.srivastava@imail.org; Telephone: 801-507-8703; Twitter: @RajSrivastavaMDSearch for more papers by this author Linda Venner MD, Linda Venner MD Hospitalist Medicine, Medical Surgery Operations, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UtahSearch for more papers by this authorNathan Starr DO, Nathan Starr DO Hospitalist Medicine, Medical Surgery Operations, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UtahSearch for more papers by this authorRaj Srivastava MD, FRCP(C), MPH, Corresponding Author Raj Srivastava MD, FRCP(C), MPH raj.srivastava@imail.org Healthcare Delivery Institute, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, Utah Division of Inpatient Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Utah School of Medicine and Primary Children's Hospital, Intermountain Healthcare, Salt Lake City, UtahCorresponding Author: Raj Srivastava, MD, MPH; Email: raj.srivastava@imail.org; Telephone: 801-507-8703; Twitter: @RajSrivastavaMDSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 September 2019 https://doi.org/10.12788/jhm.3257Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume14, Issue9September 2019Pages 577-578 RelatedInformation

Improving antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings is a public health priority. In the United States, urgent care (UC) encounters are increasing and have high rates of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. Our objective was to characterize antibiotic prescribing practices during UC encounters, with a focus on respiratory tract conditions. This was a retrospective cohort study of UC encounters in the Intermountain Healthcare network. Among 1.16 million UC encounters, antibiotics were prescribed during 34% of UC encounters and respiratory conditions accounted for 61% of all antibiotics prescribed. Of respiratory encounters, 50% resulted in antibiotic prescriptions, yet the variability at the level of the provider ranged from 3% to 94%. Similar variability between providers was observed for respiratory conditions where antibiotics were not indicated and in first-line antibiotic selection for sinusitis, otitis media, and pharyngitis. These findings support the importance of developing antibiotic stewardship interventions specifically targeting UC settings.