Christine Bryson1,2, Greta Boynton3, Anna Stepczynski4, Jane Garb1, Reva Kleppel1, Farzan Irani1,2, Siva Natanasabapathy1,2, Mihaela S Stefan1,2. 1. a Department of Medicine, Division of Hospital Medicine , Baystate Medical Center , Springfield , MA , USA. 2. b Department of Medicine , Tufts University School of Medicine , Boston , MA , USA. 3. c Sound Physicians , Tacoma , WA , USA. 4. d Department of Medicine, Division of Geriatrics, General Medicine and Palliative Care , University of Arizona , Tucson , AZ , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether implementation of a geographic model of assigning hospitalists is feasible and sustainable in a large hospitalist program and assess its impact on provider satisfaction, perceived efficiency and patient outcomes. METHODS: Pre (3 months) - post (12 months) intervention study conducted from June 2014 through September 2015 at a tertiary care medical center with a large hospitalist program caring for patients scattered in 4 buildings and 16 floors. Hospitalists were assigned to a particular nursing unit (geographic assignment) with a goal of having over 80% of their assigned patients located on their assigned unit. Satisfaction and perceived efficiency were assessed through a survey administered before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Geographic assignment percentage increased from an average of 60% in the pre-intervention period to 93% post-intervention. The number of hospitalists covering a 32 bed unit decreased from 8-10 pre to 2-3 post-intervention. A majority of physicians (87%) thought that geography had a positive impact on the overall quality of care. Respondents reported that they felt that geography increased time spent with patient/caregivers to discuss plan of care (p < 0.001); improved communication with nurses (p = 0.0009); and increased sense of teamwork with nurses/case managers (p < 0.001). Mean length of stay (4.54 vs 4.62 days), 30-day readmission rates (16.0% vs 16.6%) and patient satisfaction (79.9 vs 77.3) did not change significantly between the pre- and post-implementation period. The discharge before noon rate improved slightly (47.5% - 54.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a unit-based model in a large hospitalist program is feasible and sustainable with appropriate planning and support. The geographical model of care increased provider satisfaction and perceived efficiency; it also facilitated the implementation of other key interventions such as interdisciplinary rounds.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether implementation of a geographic model of assigning hospitalists is feasible and sustainable in a large hospitalist program and assess its impact on provider satisfaction, perceived efficiency and patient outcomes. METHODS: Pre (3 months) - post (12 months) intervention study conducted from June 2014 through September 2015 at a tertiary care medical center with a large hospitalist program caring for patients scattered in 4 buildings and 16 floors. Hospitalists were assigned to a particular nursing unit (geographic assignment) with a goal of having over 80% of their assigned patients located on their assigned unit. Satisfaction and perceived efficiency were assessed through a survey administered before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Geographic assignment percentage increased from an average of 60% in the pre-intervention period to 93% post-intervention. The number of hospitalists covering a 32 bed unit decreased from 8-10 pre to 2-3 post-intervention. A majority of physicians (87%) thought that geography had a positive impact on the overall quality of care. Respondents reported that they felt that geography increased time spent with patient/caregivers to discuss plan of care (p < 0.001); improved communication with nurses (p = 0.0009); and increased sense of teamwork with nurses/case managers (p < 0.001). Mean length of stay (4.54 vs 4.62 days), 30-day readmission rates (16.0% vs 16.6%) and patient satisfaction (79.9 vs 77.3) did not change significantly between the pre- and post-implementation period. The discharge before noon rate improved slightly (47.5% - 54.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a unit-based model in a large hospitalist program is feasible and sustainable with appropriate planning and support. The geographical model of care increased provider satisfaction and perceived efficiency; it also facilitated the implementation of other key interventions such as interdisciplinary rounds.
Entities:
Keywords:
Geographic assignment; hospitalist deployment; provider satisfaction with rounding; unit based rounding
Authors: Kevin J O'Leary; Corinne Haviley; Maureen E Slade; Hiren M Shah; Jungwha Lee; Mark V Williams Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Andrew W Artenstein; Thomas L Higgins; Adrianne Seiler; Debra Meyer; Alexander B Knee; Greta Boynton; Michael Picchioni; Bonnie Geld; Winthrop F Whitcomb Journal: Br J Hosp Med (Lond) Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 0.825
Authors: Christopher S Kim; Emmanuel King; Jason Stein; Edmondo Robinson; Mohammad Salameh; Kevin J O'Leary Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2014-05-05 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Benjamin Wertheimer; Ramon E A Jacobs; Martha Bailey; Sandy Holstein; Steven Chatfield; Brenda Ohta; Amy Horrocks; Katherine Hochman Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2014-01-20 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Kristin T L Huang; Jacquelyn Minahan; Patricia Brita-Rossi; Patricia Aylward; Joel T Katz; Christopher Roy; Jeffrey L Schnipper; Robert Boxer Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Andrew S Dunn; Maria Reyna; Brian Radbill; Michael Parides; Claudia Colgan; Tobi Osio; Ari Benson; Nicole Brown; Joy Cambe; Margo Zwerling; Natalia Egorova; Harold Kaplan Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2017-03 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Siddhartha Singh; Sergey Tarima; Vipulkumar Rana; David S Marks; Mary Conti; Kathleen Idstein; Lee A Biblo; Kathlyn E Fletcher Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2012-07-12 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Andrew J Klein; Clark Veet; Amy Lu; Amy J Kennedy; Etsemaye Agonafer; Thomas Grau; Scott D Rothenberger; Jennifer Corbelli Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 6.473