INTRODUCTION: Adverse events (AEs) are poor outcomes caused by medical care. They occur in 20% of medical patients following hospital discharge. We designed an interactive voice response system (IVRS) with the intent of identifying patients who might be experiencing an AE following discharge or were at risk of developing one. OBJECTIVES: We determined the proportion of post-discharge patients requiring an intervention after identifying potential problems using the IVRS, the relationship between IVRS responses and AE occurrence, and patients' opinions of the IVRS call. METHODS: We studied patients discharged from the general medical service of an academic hospital. The IVRS called patients 2 days post-discharge and asked three questions to determine the need for nurse follow-up. We contacted patients 30 days later to elicit AE status and perceptions of the IVRS. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 270 elderly patients [median 64 years (IQR 50-76)] with multiple co-morbidities. Responses to the IVRS identified 57 patients (21%, 95% CI 17%-27%) for follow-up. When contacted by a nurse, 25 patients (9%, 95% CI 6%-13%) actually required an intervention. At 30-day follow-up, AEs occurred in 33 patients (12%, 95% CI 8%-17%). Only three AEs (9%) were identified by the IVRS; the remainder occurred before or after the IVRS call. Patients remembering the IVRS call found it easy to use (97%), and a minority would prefer a person to call (8%). CONCLUSION: An IVRS-based method of monitoring was acceptable to patients and identified a significant proportion requiring changes in management. However, the method identified only a minority of AEs. To have a significant improvement in care, this method will need to be combined with other interventions.
INTRODUCTION: Adverse events (AEs) are poor outcomes caused by medical care. They occur in 20% of medical patients following hospital discharge. We designed an interactive voice response system (IVRS) with the intent of identifying patients who might be experiencing an AE following discharge or were at risk of developing one. OBJECTIVES: We determined the proportion of post-discharge patients requiring an intervention after identifying potential problems using the IVRS, the relationship between IVRS responses and AE occurrence, and patients' opinions of the IVRS call. METHODS: We studied patients discharged from the general medical service of an academic hospital. The IVRS called patients 2 days post-discharge and asked three questions to determine the need for nurse follow-up. We contacted patients 30 days later to elicit AE status and perceptions of the IVRS. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 270 elderly patients [median 64 years (IQR 50-76)] with multiple co-morbidities. Responses to the IVRS identified 57 patients (21%, 95% CI 17%-27%) for follow-up. When contacted by a nurse, 25 patients (9%, 95% CI 6%-13%) actually required an intervention. At 30-day follow-up, AEs occurred in 33 patients (12%, 95% CI 8%-17%). Only three AEs (9%) were identified by the IVRS; the remainder occurred before or after the IVRS call. Patients remembering the IVRS call found it easy to use (97%), and a minority would prefer a person to call (8%). CONCLUSION: An IVRS-based method of monitoring was acceptable to patients and identified a significant proportion requiring changes in management. However, the method identified only a minority of AEs. To have a significant improvement in care, this method will need to be combined with other interventions.
Authors: Alan J Forster; Heather D Clark; Alex Menard; Natalie Dupuis; Robert Chernish; Natasha Chandok; Asmat Khan; Megan Letourneau; Carl van Walraven Journal: Am J Med Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Christopher L Roy; Eric G Poon; Andrew S Karson; Zahra Ladak-Merchant; Robin E Johnson; Saverio M Maviglia; Tejal K Gandhi Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2005-07-19 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Jeffrey L Schnipper; Jennifer L Kirwin; Michael C Cotugno; Stephanie A Wahlstrom; Brandon A Brown; Emily Tarvin; Allen Kachalia; Mark Horng; Christopher L Roy; Sylvia C McKean; David W Bates Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2006-03-13
Authors: Nancy A Rigotti; Yuchiao Chang; Lisa C Rosenfeld; Sandra J Japuntich; Elyse R Park; Hilary A Tindle; Douglas E Levy; Zachary Z Reid; Joanna Streck; Timothy Gomperts; Jennifer H K Kelley; Daniel E Singer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: John D Piette; Bree Holtz; Ashley J Beard; Caroline Blaum; C Leo Greenstone; Sarah L Krein; Adam Tremblay; Jane Forman; Eve A Kerr Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Nancy A Rigotti; Susan Regan; Douglas E Levy; Sandra Japuntich; Yuchiao Chang; Elyse R Park; Joseph C Viana; Jennifer H K Kelley; Michele Reyen; Daniel E Singer Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-08-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John D Piette; Dana Striplin; Lawrence Fisher; James E Aikens; Aaron Lee; Nicolle Marinec; Madhura Mansabdar; Jenny Chen; Lynn A Gregory; Christopher S Kim Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2019-12-04
Authors: Susan Regan; Michele Reyen; Abigail C Lockhart; Ann E Richards; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2011-01-17 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Gail L Rose; Charles D MacLean; Joan Skelly; Gary J Badger; Tonya A Ferraro; John E Helzer Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-02-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Shannon H Houser; Midge N Ray; Richard Maisiak; Anantachai Panjamapirom; James Willing; Gordon D Schiff; Thomas English; Christa Nevin; Eta S Berner Journal: Stud Health Technol Inform Date: 2013
Authors: Courtney R Lyles; Dean Schillinger; Andrea Lopez; Margaret Handley; Neda Ratanawongsa; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2013-05-01
Authors: Sandra J Japuntich; Susan Regan; Joseph Viana; Justyna Tymoszczuk; Michele Reyen; Douglas E Levy; Daniel E Singer; Elyse R Park; Yuchiao Chang; Nancy A Rigotti Journal: Trials Date: 2012-08-01 Impact factor: 2.279