BACKGROUND: Overall outcomes and the escalation rate for home hospital admissions for heart failure (HF) are not known. We report overall outcomes, predict escalation, and describe care provided after escalation among patients admitted to home hospital for HF.METHODS: Our retrospective analysis included all patients admitted for HF to 2 home hospital programs in Massachusetts between February 2020 and October 2022. Escalation of care was defined as transfer to an inpatient hospital setting (emergency department, inpatient medical unit) for at least 1 overnight stay. Unexpected mortality was defined as mortality excluding those who desired to pass away at home on admission or transitioned to hospice. We performed the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression to predict escalation.RESULTS: We included 437 hospitalizations; patients had a median age of 80 (interquartile range, 69-89) years, 58.1% were women, and 64.8% were White. Of the cohort, 29.2% had reduced ejection fraction, 50.9% had chronic kidney disease, and 60.6% had atrial fibrillation. Median admission Get With The Guidelines HF score was 39 (interquartile range, 35-45; 1%-5% predicted inpatient mortality). Escalation occurred in 10.3% of hospitalizations. Thirty-day readmission occurred in 15.1%, 90-day readmission occurred in 33.8%, and 6-month mortality occurred in 11.5%. There was no unexpected mortality during home hospitalization. Patients who experienced escalation had significantly longer median length of stays (19 versus 7.5 days, P<0.001). The most common reason for escalation was progressive renal dysfunction (36.2%). A low mean arterial pressure at the time of admission to home hospital was the most significant predictor of escalation in the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator regression.CONCLUSIONS: About 1 in 10 home hospital patients with HF required escalation; none had unexpected mortality. Patients requiring escalation had longer length of stays. A low mean arterial pressure at the time of admission to home hospital was the most important predictor of escalation of care in the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator logistic regression model.

BACKGROUND:Prior evaluation at our hospital demonstrated that, compared to White patients, Black and Latinx patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) were less likely to be admitted to the cardiology service rather than the general medicine service (GMS). Patients admitted to GMS (compared to cardiology) had inferior rates of cardiology follow-up and 30-day readmission. OBJECTIVE:To develop and test the feasibility and impacts of using quality improvement (QI) methods, in combination with the Public Health Critical Race Praxis (PHCRP) framework, to engage stakeholders in developing an intervention for ensuring guideline-concordant inpatient CHF care across all patient groups. METHODS:We compared measures for all patients admitted with CHF to GMS between September 2019 and March 2020 (intervention group) to CHF patients admitted to GMS in the previous year (pre-intervention group) and those admitted to cardiology during the pre-intervention and intervention periods (cardiology group). Our primary measures were 30-day readmissions and 14- and 30-day post-discharge cardiology follow-up. RESULTS:There were 79 patients admitted with CHF to GMS during the intervention period, all of whom received the intervention. There were similar rates of Black and Latinx patients across the three groups. Compared to pre-intervention, intervention patients had a significantly lower 30-day readmission rate (18.9% vs. 24.8%; p=0.024), though the cardiology group also had a decrease in 30-day readmissions from the pre-intervention to intervention period. Compared to pre-intervention, intervention patients had significantly higher 14-day and 30-day post-discharge follow-up visits scheduled with cardiology (36.7% vs. 24.8%, p=0.005; 55.7% vs. 42.3%, p=0.0029), but no improvement in appointment attendance. CONCLUSION:This study provides a first test of applying the PHCRP framework within a stakeholder-engaged QI initiative for improving CHF care across races and ethnicities. Our study design cannot evaluate causation. However, the improvements in 30-day readmission, as well as in processes of care that may affect it, provide optimism that inclusion of a racism-conscious framework in QI initiatives is feasible and may enhance QI measures.

IMPORTANCE Home hospital care is the substitutive provision of home-based acute care services usually associated with a traditional inpatient hospital. Many home hospital models require a physician to see patients at home daily, which may hinder scalability. Whether remote physician visits can safely substitute for most in-home visits is unknown. OBJECTIVE To compare remote and in-home physician care. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized clinical trial assessed 172 adult patients at an academic medical center and community hospital who required hospital-level care for select acute conditions, including infection, heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and asthma, between August 3, 2019, and March 26, 2020; follow-up ended April 26, 2020. INTERVENTIONS All patients received acute care at home, including in-home nurse or paramedic visits, intravenous medications, remote monitoring, and point-of-care testing. Patients were randomized to receive physician care remotely (initial in-home visit followed by daily video visit facilitated by the home hospital nurse) vs in-home care (daily in-home physician visit). In the remote care group, the physician could choose to see the patient at home beyond the first visit if it was felt to be medically necessary. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was the number of adverse events, compared using multivariable Poisson regression at a noninferiority threshold of 10 events per 100 patients. Adverse events included a fall, pressure injury, and delirium. Secondary outcomes included the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score (scale of 0-15, with 0 indicating worst patient experience and 15 indicating best patient experience) and 30-day readmission rates. RESULTS A total of 172 patients (84 receiving remote care and 88 receiving in-home physician care [control group]) were randomized; enrollment was terminated early because of COVID-19. The mean (SD) age was 69.3 (18.0) years, 97 patients (56.4%) were female, 77 (45.0%) were White, and 42 (24.4%) lived alone. Mean adjusted adverse event count was 6.8 per 100 patients for remote care patients vs 3.9 per 100 patients for control patients, for a difference of 2.8 (95% CI, -3.3 to 8.9), supporting noninferiority. For remote care vs control patients, the mean adjusted Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire 15 score difference was -0.22 (95% CI, -1.00 to 0.56), supporting noninferiority. The mean adjusted 30-day readmission absolute rate difference was 2.28% (95% CI, -3.23% to 7.79%), which was inconclusive. Of patients in the remote group, 16 (19.0%) required in-home visits beyond the first visit. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this study, remote physician visits were noninferior to in-home physician visits during home hospital care for adverse events and patient experience, although in-home physician care was necessary to support many patients receiving remote care. Our findings may allow for a more efficient, scalable home hospital approach but require further research.

BACKGROUND: Home hospital (HH) care is hospital-level substitutive care delivered at home for acutely ill patients who traditionally would be cared for in the hospital. Despite HH care programs operating successfully for years and scientific evidence of similar or better out-comes compared with bricks-and-mortar care, HH care outcomes in the United States for respiratory disease have not been evaluated.RESEARCH QUESTION: Do outcomes differ between patients admitted to HH care with acute respiratory illness vs those with other acute general medical conditions?STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective evaluation of prospectively collected data of patients admitted to HH care (2017-2021). We compared patients requiring admission with respiratory disease (asthma exacerbation [26%], acute exacerbation of COPD [33%], and non-COVID-19 pneumonia [41%]) to all other patients admitted to HH care. During HH care, patients received two nurse and one physician visit daily, IV medications, advanced respiratory therapies, and continuous heart and respiratory rate monitoring. Main outcomes were acute and postacute health care use and safety.RESULTS: We analyzed 1,031 patients; 24% were admitted for respiratory disease. Patients with and without respiratory disease were similar: mean age, 68 +/- 17 years, 62% women, and 48% White. Patients with respiratory disease more often were active smokers (21% vs 9%; P < .001). Eighty percent of patients showed an FEV1 to FVC ratio of # 70; 28% showed a severe or very severe obstructive pattern (n = 118). During HH care, patients with respiratory disease showed less health care use: length of stay (mean, 3.4 vs 4.6 days), laboratory orders (median, 0 vs 2), IV medication (43% vs 73%), and specialist consultation (2% vs 7%; P < .001 for all). Ninety-six percent of patients completed the full admission at home with no mortality in the respiratory group. Within 30 days of discharge, both groups showed similar readmission, ED presentation, and mortality rates.INTERPRETATION: HH care is as safe and effective for patients with acute respiratory disease as for those with other acute general medical conditions. If scaled, it can generate significant high-value capacity for health systems and communities, with opportunities to advance the complexity of care delivered. CHEST 2023; 163(4):891-901

To determine the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on neurology rounding, including resident education and nursing participation.

Dr. Solomon and colleagues reported their findings of a single-center prospective, randomized time-motion study of bedside vs hallway rounding. The investigators found no difference in rounding efficiency, although bedside rounds led to significantly greater time spent by providers with their patients. Nurses and patients responded more favorably to the bedside strategy, whereas residents felt that hallway rounds were more educational and permitted more accurate review of medical data (using an electronic medical record). Each rounding technique has its own advantages and disadvantages. As Dr. Sethi recounts from his training experience, bedside rounds may fuel trainee anxiety as they are simultaneously questioned by senior team members and scrutinized by patients during oral presentations. In conclusion, as with all medical management strategies, the optimal rounding paradigm is likely the one that is tailored to each unique clinical scenario.

To compare bedside rounding with hallway rounding on an academic neurology inpatient service and assess efficiency, educational, and patient care outcomes.

Objective We deployed a Remote Patient Monitoring (RPM) program to monitor patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) upon hospital discharge. We describe the patient characteristics, program characteristics, and clinical outcomes of patients in our RPM program. Methods We enrolled COVID-19 patients being discharged home from the hospital. Enrolled patients had an app, and were provided with a pulse oximeter and thermometer. Patients self-reported symptoms, O (2) saturation, and temperature daily. Abnormal symptoms or vital signs were flagged and assessed by a pool of nurses. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient and program characteristics. A mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to determine the odds of a combined endpoint of emergency department (ED) or hospital readmission. Results A total of 295 patients were referred for RPM from five participating hospitals, and 225 patients were enrolled. A majority of enrolled patients (66%) completed the monitoring period without triggering an abnormal alert. Enrollment was associated with a decreased odds of ED or hospital readmission (adjusted odds ratio: 0.54; 95% confidence interval: 0.3-0.97; p =0.039). Referral without enrollment was not associated with a reduced odds of ED or hospital readmission. Conclusion RPM for COVID-19 provides a mechanism to monitor patients in their home environment and reduce hospital utilization. Our work suggests that RPM reduces readmissions for patients with COVID-19 and provides scalable remote monitoring capabilities upon hospital discharge. RPM for postdischarge patients with COVID-19 was associated with a decreased risk of readmission to the ED or hospital, and provided a scalable mechanism to monitor patients in their home environment.

Objective: To compare bedside rounding with hallway and conference room rounding on the neurology inpatient ward service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and identify best practices associated with educational and patient care outcomes. Background: Despite increasing focus on patient-centered care and evidence showing higher patient satisfaction with bedside presentations, trainees and attending physicians express concerns for bedside rounding and often prefer hallway rounding. The use of the common styles of rounding has not been assessed within neurology and best practices are unclear. Design/Methods: The inpatient neurology service at Brigham and Women’s Hospital consists of two teams. During a two-week attending rotation, one of the teams will be designated the “bedside rounding team” and the other team the “hallway and conference room rounding team”, serving as the control group. The bedside rounding team will present patients at the bedside, with nursing involvement in each patient’s room. The hallway rounding team will present patients outside of the patient’s room, with nurse participation in the hallway. Our planned study period is an 8 week period, with anticipated sample size of 150–200 patients. To evaluate the two approaches, we will survey patients (or their families if the patient is unable), residents, attending physicians, and nurses on both teams. For collection of data, a research assistant will accompany the neurology teams during morning rounds and record data about the composition and timing of rounds. The primary outcome measures will be resident educational experience and patient satisfaction with rounds. Secondary outcome measures will be the proportion of rounding time spent at the patient’s bedside and total duration of rounds. Results: The proposed educational trial provides a pragmatic approach to evaluating effects of different rounding styles on patient satisfaction and resident educational experience. Conclusions: This will be the first randomized trial of different rounding structures within neurology. Disclosure: Dr. Schulman has nothing to disclose. Dr. Bhattacharyya has received personal compensation for consulting, serving on a scientific advisory board, speaking, or other activities with Advance Medical, American Academy of Neurology. Dr. Bhattacharyya has received personal compensation in an editorial capacity for Springer. Dr. Boxer has nothing to disclose. Dr. Sajawal Ali has nothing to disclose. Dr. Cleary has nothing to disclose. Dr. Milligan has nothing to disclose.

BACKGROUND:Preventable adverse events continue to be a threat to hospitalized patients. Clinical decision support in the form of dashboards may improve compliance with evidence-based safety practices. However, limited research describes providers' experiences with dashboards integrated into vendor electronic health record (EHR) systems. OBJECTIVE:This study was aimed to describe providers' use and perceived usability of the Patient Safety Dashboard and discuss barriers and facilitators to implementation. METHODS:The Patient Safety Dashboard was implemented in a cluster-randomized stepped wedge trial on 12 units in neurology, oncology, and general medicine services over an 18-month period. Use of the Dashboard was tracked during the implementation period and analyzed in-depth for two 1-week periods to gather a detailed representation of use. Providers' perceptions of tool usability were measured using the Health Information Technology Usability Evaluation Scale (rated 1-5). Research assistants conducted field observations throughout the duration of the study to describe use and provide insight into tool adoption. RESULTS:The Dashboard was used 70% of days the tool was available, with use varying by role, service, and time of day. On general medicine units, nurses logged in throughout the day, with many logins occurring during morning rounds, when not rounding with the care team. Prescribers logged in typically before and after morning rounds. On neurology units, physician assistants accounted for most logins, accessing the Dashboard during daily brief interdisciplinary rounding sessions. Use on oncology units was rare. Satisfaction with the tool was highest for perceived ease of use, with attendings giving the highest rating (4.23). The overall lowest rating was for quality of work life, with nurses rating the tool lowest (2.88). CONCLUSION:This mixed methods analysis provides insight into the use and usability of a dashboard tool integrated within a vendor EHR and can guide future improvements and more successful implementation of these types of tools.

BACKGROUND:Poor discharge preparation during hospitalization may lead to adverse events after discharge. Checklists and videos that systematically engage patients in preparing for discharge have the potential to improve safety, especially when integrated into clinician workflow via the electronic health record (EHR).OBJECTIVE:This study aims to evaluate the implementation of a suite of digital health tools integrated with the EHR to engage hospitalized patients, caregivers, and their care team in preparing for discharge.METHODS:We used the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework to identify pertinent research questions related to implementation. We iteratively refined patient and clinician-facing intervention components using a participatory process involving end users and institutional stakeholders. The intervention was implemented at a large academic medical center from December 2017 to July 2018. Patients who agreed to participate were coached to watch a discharge video, complete a checklist assessing discharge readiness, and request postdischarge text messaging with a physician 24 to 48 hours before their expected discharge date, which was displayed via a patient portal and bedside display. Clinicians could view concerns reported by patients based on their checklist responses in real time via a safety dashboard integrated with the EHR and choose to open a secure messaging thread with the patient for up to 7 days after discharge. We used mixed methods to evaluate our implementation experience.RESULTS:Of 752 patient admissions, 510 (67.8%) patients or caregivers participated: 416 (55.3%) watched the video and completed the checklist, and 94 (12.5%) completed the checklist alone. On average, 4.24 concerns were reported per each of the 510 checklist submissions, most commonly about medications (664/2164, 30.7%) and follow-up (656/2164, 30.3%). Of the 510 completed checklists, a member of the care team accessed the safety dashboard to view 210 (41.2%) patient-reported concerns. For 422 patient admissions where postdischarge messaging was available, 141 (33.4%) patients requested this service; of these, a physician initiated secure messaging for 3 (2.1%) discharges. Most patient survey participants perceived that the intervention promoted self-management and communication with their care team. Patient interview participants endorsed gaps in communication with their care team and thought that the video and checklist would be useful closer toward discharge. Clinicians participating in focus groups perceived the value for patients but suggested that low awareness and variable workflow regarding the intervention, lack of technical optimization, and inconsistent clinician leadership limited the use of clinician-facing components.CONCLUSIONS:A suite of EHR-integrated digital health tools to engage patients, caregivers, and clinicians in discharge preparation during hospitalization was feasible, acceptable, and valuable; however, important challenges were identified during implementation. We offer strategies to address implementation barriers and promote adoption of these tools.TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03116074; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03116074.

Heart failure (HF) patients receiving specialty cardiologist care during a hospital admission have been shown to have better HF outcomes. It is unclear if racial differences in triage to a general medicine or cardiology service is an intra-hospital driver of racial inequities in HF care. We

Background: Racial inequities for patients with heart failure (HF) have been widely documented. HF patients who receive cardiology care during a hospital admission have better outcomes. It is unknown whether there are differences in admission to a cardiology or general medicine service by race. This study examined the relationship between race and admission service, and its effect on 30-day readmission and mortality Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study from September 2008 to November 2017 at a single large urban academic referral center of all patients self-referred to the emergency department and admitted to either the cardiology or general medicine service with a principal diagnosis of HF, who self-identified as white, black, or Latinx. We used multivariable generalized estimating equation models to assess the relationship between race and admission to the cardiology service. We used Cox regression to assess the association between race, admission service, and 30-day readmission and mortality. Results: Among 1967 unique patients (66.7% white, 23.6% black, and 9.7% Latinx), black and Latinx patients had lower rates of admission to the cardiology service than white patients (adjusted rate ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98, for black; adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.97 for Latinx). Female sex and age >75 years were also independently associated with lower rates of admission to the cardiology service. Admission to the cardiology service was independently associated with decreased readmission within 30 days, independent of race. Conclusions: Black and Latinx patients were less likely to be admitted to cardiology for HF care. This inequity may, in part, drive racial inequities in HF outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:To investigate the effects of adjusting the default order set settings on telemetry usage. MATERIALS AND METHODS:We performed a retrospective, controlled, before-after study of patients admitted to a house staff medicine service at an academic medical center examining the effect of changing whether the admission telemetry order was pre-selected or not. Telemetry orders on admission and subsequent orders for telemetry were monitored pre- and post-change. Two other order sets that had no change in their default settings were used as controls. RESULTS:Between January 1, 2017 and May 1, 2018, there were 1, 163 patients admitted using the residency-customized version of the admission order set which initially had telemetry pre-selected. In this group of patients, there was a significant decrease in telemetry ordering in the post-intervention period: from 79.1% of patients in the 8.5 months prior ordered to have telemetry to 21.3% of patients ordered in the 7.5 months after (χ2 = 382; P < .001). There was no significant change in telemetry usage among patients admitted using the two control order sets. DISCUSSION:Default settings have been shown to affect clinician ordering behavior in multiple domains. Consistent with prior findings, our study shows that changing the order set settings can significantly affect ordering practices. Our study was limited in that we were unable to determine if the change in ordering behavior had significant impact on patient care or safety. CONCLUSION:Decisions about default selections in electronic health record order sets can have significant consequences on ordering behavior.

BACKGROUNDAttending rounds at academic medical centers are often disconnected from patients and team members who are not physicians. Regionalization of care teams may facilitate bedside rounding and more frequent interactions among doctors, nurses, and patients.OBJECTIVEWe used time–motion analysis to investigate how regionalization of medical teams and encouragement of bedside rounds affect participants on rounds and rounding time.DESIGN AND SETTINGWe used pre–post analysis to study the effects of care redesign on teams' daily rounds on a general medicine service at an academic medical center.PARTICIPANTSFour general medical teams were evaluated before the intervention and 5 teams afterward.INTERVENTIONSGeneral medical teams were regionalized to specific units, the admitting structure was changed to facilitate regionalization, and teams were encouraged to round bedside.MEASUREMENTSPrimary outcomes included proportion of time each team member was present on rounds and proportion of bedside rounding time. Secondary outcomes included round duration and non‐patient time during rounds.RESULTSProportion of time the nurse was present on rounds increased from 24.1% to 67.8% (P < 0.001), and proportion of total bedside rounding time increased from 39.9% to 55.8% (P < 0.001). Mean total rounding time decreased from 3.0 hours to 2.4 hours (P = 0.01), despite a higher patient census.CONCLUSIONSCreating regionalized care teams and encouraging interdisciplinary bedside rounds increased the proportion of bedside rounding time and the presence of nurses on rounds while decreasing total rounding time.