OBJECTIVE: Length of stay fails to completely capture the clinical and economic effects of patient progression through the phases of inpatient care, such as admission, room placement, procedures, and discharge. Delayed hospital throughput has been linked to increased time spent in the emergency department and postanesthesia care unit, delayed time to treatment, increased in-hospital mortality, decreased patient satisfaction, and lost hospital revenue. We identified barriers to vascular surgery inpatient care progression and instituted defined measures to positively impact standardized metrics. METHODS: The study was divided into three periods: preintervention, "wash-in," and postintervention. During the preintervention phase, barriers to patient flow were quantified by an interdisciplinary team. Suboptimal provider communication emerged as the key barrier. An enhanced communication intervention consisting of face-to-face and mobile application-based education on key patient flow metrics, explicit discussion of individual patient barriers to progression at rounds and interdisciplinary huddles, and communication of projected discharge and potential barriers via e-mail was developed with input from all stakeholders. Following a 4-week wash-in implementation phase, data collection was repeated. RESULTS: The pre- and postintervention patient cohorts accounted for 244.3 and 238.1 inpatient days, respectively. Both groups had similar baseline demographic, clinical characteristics, and procedures performed during hospitalization. The postintervention group was discharged 78 minutes earlier (14:00:32 vs 15:18:37; P = .03) with a trend toward increased discharge by noon (94% vs 88%; P = .09). Readmission rates did not differ (P = .44). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a focused, interdisciplinary, frontline provider-driven, enhanced communication program can be feasibly incorporated into existing specialty surgical workflow. The program resulted in improved timeliness of discharge and projected cost savings, without increasing readmission rates.
OBJECTIVE: Length of stay fails to completely capture the clinical and economic effects of patient progression through the phases of inpatient care, such as admission, room placement, procedures, and discharge. Delayed hospital throughput has been linked to increased time spent in the emergency department and postanesthesia care unit, delayed time to treatment, increased in-hospital mortality, decreased patient satisfaction, and lost hospital revenue. We identified barriers to vascular surgery inpatient care progression and instituted defined measures to positively impact standardized metrics. METHODS: The study was divided into three periods: preintervention, "wash-in," and postintervention. During the preintervention phase, barriers to patient flow were quantified by an interdisciplinary team. Suboptimal provider communication emerged as the key barrier. An enhanced communication intervention consisting of face-to-face and mobile application-based education on key patient flow metrics, explicit discussion of individual patient barriers to progression at rounds and interdisciplinary huddles, and communication of projected discharge and potential barriers via e-mail was developed with input from all stakeholders. Following a 4-week wash-in implementation phase, data collection was repeated. RESULTS: The pre- and postintervention patient cohorts accounted for 244.3 and 238.1 inpatient days, respectively. Both groups had similar baseline demographic, clinical characteristics, and procedures performed during hospitalization. The postintervention group was discharged 78 minutes earlier (14:00:32 vs 15:18:37; P = .03) with a trend toward increased discharge by noon (94% vs 88%; P = .09). Readmission rates did not differ (P = .44). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a focused, interdisciplinary, frontline provider-driven, enhanced communication program can be feasibly incorporated into existing specialty surgical workflow. The program resulted in improved timeliness of discharge and projected cost savings, without increasing readmission rates.
Authors: Eugene Litvak; Peter I Buerhaus; Frank Davidoff; Michael C Long; Michael L McManus; Donald M Berwick Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2005-06
Authors: Matthew D Bayley; J Sanford Schwartz; Frances S Shofer; Mark Weiner; Frank D Sites; K Bobbi Traber; Judd E Hollander Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Héctor Bueno; Joseph S Ross; Yun Wang; Jersey Chen; María T Vidán; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Jeptha P Curtis; Elizabeth E Drye; Judith H Lichtman; Patricia S Keenan; Mikhail Kosiborod; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-06-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Peter C Sprivulis; Julie-Ann Da Silva; Ian G Jacobs; Amanda R L Frazer; George A Jelinek Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2006-03-06 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Camilla B Pimentel; A Lynn Snow; Sarah L Carnes; Nishant R Shah; Julia R Loup; Tatiana M Vallejo-Luces; Caroline Madrigal; Christine W Hartmann Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-02-08 Impact factor: 6.473