University:
Boston University
Course:
SAR HP 151 | Introduction to Health Professions
Academic year:

2023
Views:

291

Pages:

14
Author:

Debreczinzhsj

Re-engineering the Hospital Discharge: An Example of а Multifaceted Process Evaluation lntroduction According to the Institute ofMedicine's (IOM's) 1999 report, То Err /s Нитап: Building а Safer Health System, 1 the number of deaths due to iatrogenic errors of omission and commission in hospitals is estimated to Ье between 44,000 and 98,000 per year. More people die each year from medical errors than from car accidents (43,458), breast cancer (42,297) or AIDS (16,515). 2 In 2001, а second IOM report, Crossing the Quality Chasm: А New Health Systemfor the 21st Century,3 noted: "Effective methods of communication, both among caregivers and between caregivers and patients, are critical to providing high-quality care. Personal health information must accompany patients as they transition from home to clinical office setting to nursing home and back." In an effort to improve the care of our patients, we are studying the transition from the inpatient service at Boston Medical Center (ВМС) to community care. In our inner-city, safety-net environment, we ha\·e identified the high rate of unnecessary rehospitalization as а major proЫem that has existed (at least anecdotally) for the institution's 150-year history. Investigating the sources of the high rate of rehospitalization has made it clear that the hospital discharge process is characterized Ьу fragmented, nonstandardized, and haphazard care. The proЫems inherent in such care are compounded because the 15-minute post-hospital follow-up visit scheduled Ьу primary care physicians (PCPs) does not allO\\' the physician adequate time to become familiar with the details of the hospitalization. Most such visits must Ье added to already overbooked schedules at the time of discharge. Increasingly, as hospitalists provide more inpatient care, it is difficult for PCPs to Ье aware of all the complexities of а hospitalization. Thus, the transition from hospital care to primary care is а hand-off that provides an opportunity for а high rate of medical 4 errors. Forster, et al. provide data demonstrating that many adverse events occur at the time of hospital discharge. Many ofthese events were deemed preventaЫe and thus could Ье viewed as errors, while others were simply previously undetected adverse events. It is likely, therefore, that carefully designed interventions that target the discharge process could successfully reduce medical errors, adverse events, and rates of subsequent hospital utilization. However, before such interventions can Ье devised, it is essential to diagnose the proЫem systematically. 5 The Structure-Process-Outcome model can Ье applied to hospital discharge since there are risks and hazards embedded \Yithin the structure and process of care that can potentially cause injury or harm to patients. There is also potential for active failure among the "sharp end" (i.e., direct patient care) providers responsiЫe for the discharge. In order to produce an effective intervention, we have used а multifaceted approach to perform а comprehensive process evaluation. With this work, we are developing tools that can now Ье tested, allowing us to measure their impact; ultimately, these tools will Ье used as part of an outcome evaluation in an interventional trial. Our conceptual model of the components related to high rates of rehospitalization is shown in Figure 1. Hospital discharge as а dangerous situation The IOM report То Err Is Human argued that the majority of medical errors are а result of systemic proЫems rather than poor performance Ьу individual 1 providers. Hospital discharge is an example of а systemic proЫem that can Ье characterized as а dangerous situation in which latent conditions exist such that sharp end individuals are set up to fail. While knowledge-based, rule-based, and Figure 1. Conceptual model of the components affecting rates of re-hospitallzation Conceptual Mode\ of Re-hospitalizatlon Dlsch11rge Process skill-based behaviors are needed for optimal care, there are many opportunities for slips, lapses, mistakes, and adverse events. Re-engineering clinical systems requires an understanding of the causes of errors and the use of safety design concepts to prevent or minimize errors Ьу 6 detecting them before haпn occurs. Our analysis considers both active and latent errors occurring at the time of hospital discharge. Active errors include, for example, those occurring at the time of hospital discharge during knowledge 7 based decisionmaking perfoпned at the point of care. Needing а conceptual model from which to start our analysis, we developed а taxonomy ofthe types of errors that can occur at the time of hospital discharge to guide our work (Figure 2). This taxonomy demonstrates how latent and active errors interrelate, and highlights the importance of rule-based decisionmaking. One such rule to Ье followed at the time of discharge is scheduling an appointment with а primary care provider at а time convenient to the patient. Errors occur when latent conditions or system failures occur that are the consequences of failures in technical design or organization. For instance, in many hospitals, nurses and first year residents are responsiЫe for the discharge process. The harried nature of their work, as well as competing interests (e.g., new admissions requiring attention), results in the discharge of а patient not being considered а high priority, and can lead to an incomplete discharge process. Patient discharge is also fragmented among various caregivers, including first-year residents, nurses, trainees in both fields, and support staff. А clear delineation of discharge responsibllities often does not exist and lack of communication results in repetition and gaps. Clearly, the hospital discharge is а time when accidents and adverse events happen because latent conditions or system failures are comblned with active failures. Figure 2. Taxonomy of errors at time of hospltal dlscharge Discharge Health Care System Lapse of conmnication New Medical ProЫe:n Deteriorization oflaюwn medical proЬ!em DiscЬarge sunmi,y to РСР Inpatient team to РСР Cormшty services with РСР lndadequate Patient Education i\fl!dkation ЕП'Оr Lack of timely foOow-up l.ap· ,; ;: -�·; в1: а:. вз ;''7':ЭО.1:30-И.аш,сR,,роn ;> • � ( �,:э8;.1а:15-� ·.� :..-.-;1,,is-ii,,,;: (,11. ......;ir.;.;..,' - �1 • �•�•..,.pцTram -� .;.\ '}. t·�; ii4T�'�,-�ofi •Ut ·, ,7,».■ :30 • М.DWЧtRqort �·- -:,,��:31,.11� :- а...Ь·. � - ,,15.1:30•• с-.�� : 1 -� ..... .zоь..в.� ':- ,:.�-:,� The elements displayed pertain to the decision about а patient's readiness for discharge. The full process map is availaЫe Ьу request from the corresponding author. Interviews with key infoпnants comprise one domain of qualitative research and inquiry. One-on-one interviews can vary in teпns of structure and the latitude 37 the interviewee has in responding to questions. Interviewing is а useful way to get large amounts of infoпnation quickly. Infoпnation about complex or ambiguous topics may Ье immed·iately addressed with followup and clarification. Therefore, using this technique to study the processes of hospital discharge offers many advantages. / As а pilot test of interviewing, \Ve conducted focus groups with physicians who admit their patients to the inpatient service, as well as semi-structured, open ended interviews with 12 patients on the inpatient service who have been rehospitalized within 90 days of а prior admission. The following themes have emerged as contributing to rehospitalization: ( 1) lack of adequate support (social, familial, financial); (2) premature discharge from hospital; (3) nonadherence with medication; (4) nonadherence with follo,vup procedures or instructions; (5) substance abuse; (6) homelessness; (7) events extemal to the patient that were out of their control; (8) incarcerated patients, \Vho thus have limited control over dietary restrictions and activity level; and (9) delay in seeking medical treatment at the first sign of recurring symptoms. These data suggest that there are generic issues related to rehospitalization that go beyond the diagnosis or the clinical and demographic variaЫes. We are now commencing а more detailed qualitative investigation of rehospitalized patients, in which we will design an interview template to explore the key conceptual domains identified in the pilot study. The template will Ье revised on the basis of our initial results to maximize reliability and technical and conceptual validity. Indepth interviews with subjects and with one family member or support person will Ье �onducted. From these interviews, а richness of detail about intemal experiences and beliefs will Ье extracted. Тhis exploration of attitudes and beliefs will inform the development of more quantifiaЫe indices regarding hospital discharge processes, through which we will explore belief systems and self-reported behaviors regarding а person's understanding of his or her illness, help-seeking behavior, and the rationale for andjustification of behaviors (e.g., medication taking, follow-through with self-care, appointments, and self-monitoring) that might lead to or prevent rehospitalization. We view these efforts as indispensaЫe in guiding our investigation of the discharge process, as they allow а perspective not achieved through our research teams. Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) is an ongoing quality improvement process that stems from the work of Reason and may Ье carried out in health care organizations.38 FMEA is а proactive process that acknowledges that eпors are inevitaЫe and predictaЫe, anticipates their occurrence, and designs systems that will minimize their impact. If employed before new processes are implemented, FMEA can identify potential failure modes. As а result, the process might reveal that specific steps must Ье put in place to address and avoid potential errors with 39 4 significant impact-eпors that are intoleraЫe. • FMEA is used extensively in the aerospace, nuclear, manufacturing, and chemical industries as а proactive, systematic way of examining processes for possiЫe ways in which failure can occur. With patient safety now а priority, the technique recently has seen application in health care. FMEA, \vhich is widely used at NASA, is now а requirement under the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare 41 42 Organizations' Patient Safety Standards. ' The NASA model includes the identification, selection, and screening of potential initiation events (IEs) that would lead to eпors, and the modeling of scenarios linking each IE, Ьу way of pivotal events (PEs). ° We analyzed the expected and unexpected eпors occurring at the hospital discharge using the process map. The project team scheduled t\vo 4-hour sessions in an area away from the activities of daily patient care to brainstorm the potential eпors highlighted Ьу the process map, giving particular focus on IEs and PEs. The team identified and categorized all potential sources of medical error associated with the hospital discharge processes, using event and fault trees. Once the failure modes were identified, the staff deteпnined the likelihood of making а ТаЫе 1. А por1ion of the failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA)* Ffqtё'бti�iJ • ••, 1. • / \.,.:;.s ""'" Patient not assigned to same inpatient team for each admission. Discontinuity Work with Admitting/Residency Office: Readmit to same physician team / Readmit to same nursing team/unit; Talk with Administration regarding ways to work with ргоЫеm patients, i.e., in ER, proЫem patients аге readmitted to the same nursing unit. 2. lricomplete information оп transfer between services З. Тоо many people involved in discharge decision Роог communication and роог follow-up саге Prolonged hospitalization Co-authors оп discharge summary; Standardize transfer summary. Develop process to streamline voices instead of eliminating them; Electronic check-out form to coordinate discharge readiness decision; Need соггесt information and patient knowfedge. 4. Тоо many people involved in discharge notification: Chaotic, repetitive process with various gaps Excludes any input from patient regarding their perceived readiness for discharge 5. When making РСР follow-up appointment, no one checks with patient to see if time is convenient/possiЫe Some providers not informed of discharge decision; inappropriate placement; delays in discharge process; or inappropriately early discharge Create centralized electronic service fог communication; Develop appropriate, сlеаг assignment/delineation of responsibllities; Оп centralized electronic form, clarify who's responsiЫe with checklist as each team member completes components they аге responsiЫe fог; Discharge coordinators сап serve as liaison between patient and various providers of patient саге. No appointment Patients not сараЫе, need quick appointment, etc.; New system is having patient schedule their own appointment if they're аЫе Coordination between unit clerk and patient regarding availabllity/ abllity to make appointment; AII appointments not made Ьу patient, are made Ьу unit clerk; Dedicated schedulers to make follow-up appointments efficiently; Give coupon, go to "schedulers," and make all appointments before leaving; Provide access to computing systems to outpatient clinics to make appointments directly; Laptops availaЫe to make appointment process more efficient; Have office оп inpatient floor to schedule appointments. /\.) ТаЫе 1. А portion of the failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA)*, cont. P6t; �� ,1; ,. • н , • . · ..- ·; .t

Re-engineering the Hospital Discharge

Related Documents

Recommended Documents

Description

Related Documents

Free up your schedule!

Take 5 seconds to unlock