OBJECTIVE: To (1) measure hospitalist care for sepsis and heart failure patients using online simulated patients, (2) improve quality and reduce cost through customized feedback, and (3) compare patient-level outcomes between project participants and nonparticipants. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, quasi-controlled cohort study of hospitalists in eight hospitals matched with comparator hospitalists in six nonparticipating hospitals across the AdventHealth system. We provided measurement and feedback to participants using Clinical Performance and Value (CPV) vignettes to measure and track quality improvement. We then compared length of stay (LOS) and cost results between the two groups. RESULTS: 107 providers participated in the study. Over two years, participants improved CPV scores by nearly 8% (P < .001), with improvements in utilization of the three-hour sepsis bundle (46.0% vs 57.7%, P = .034) and ordering essential medical treatment elements for heart failure (58.2% vs 72.1%, P = .038). In study year one, average LOS observed/expected (O/E) rates dropped by 8% for participants, compared to 2.5% in the comparator group, equating to an additional 570 hospital days saved among project participants. In study year two, cost O/E rates improved from 1.16 to 0.98 for participants versus 1.14 to 1.01 in the comparator group. Based on these improvements, we calculated total cost savings of $6.2 million among study participants, with $3.8 million linked to system-wide improvements and an additional $2.4million in savings attributable to this project. CONCLUSIONS: CPV case simulation-based measurement and feedback helped drive improvements in evidence-based care that translated into lower costs and LOS, above-and-beyond other improvements at AdventHealth.
OBJECTIVE: To (1) measure hospitalist care for sepsis and heart failurepatients using online simulated patients, (2) improve quality and reduce cost through customized feedback, and (3) compare patient-level outcomes between project participants and nonparticipants. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, quasi-controlled cohort study of hospitalists in eight hospitals matched with comparator hospitalists in six nonparticipating hospitals across the AdventHealth system. We provided measurement and feedback to participants using Clinical Performance and Value (CPV) vignettes to measure and track quality improvement. We then compared length of stay (LOS) and cost results between the two groups. RESULTS: 107 providers participated in the study. Over two years, participants improved CPV scores by nearly 8% (P < .001), with improvements in utilization of the three-hour sepsis bundle (46.0% vs 57.7%, P = .034) and ordering essential medical treatment elements for heart failure (58.2% vs 72.1%, P = .038). In study year one, average LOS observed/expected (O/E) rates dropped by 8% for participants, compared to 2.5% in the comparator group, equating to an additional 570 hospital days saved among project participants. In study year two, cost O/E rates improved from 1.16 to 0.98 for participants versus 1.14 to 1.01 in the comparator group. Based on these improvements, we calculated total cost savings of $6.2 million among study participants, with $3.8 million linked to system-wide improvements and an additional $2.4million in savings attributable to this project. CONCLUSIONS:CPV case simulation-based measurement and feedback helped drive improvements in evidence-based care that translated into lower costs and LOS, above-and-beyond other improvements at AdventHealth.
Authors: Dariush Mozaffarian; Emelia J Benjamin; Alan S Go; Donna K Arnett; Michael J Blaha; Mary Cushman; Sandeep R Das; Sarah de Ferranti; Jean-Pierre Després; Heather J Fullerton; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Carmen R Isasi; Monik C Jiménez; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Simin Liu; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Paul Muntner; Michael E Mussolino; Khurram Nasir; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Latha Palaniappan; Dilip K Pandey; Mathew J Reeves; Carlos J Rodriguez; Wayne Rosamond; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Daniel Woo; Robert W Yeh; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Vincent Liu; Gabriel J Escobar; John D Greene; Jay Soule; Alan Whippy; Derek C Angus; Theodore J Iwashyna Journal: JAMA Date: 2014-07-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Clyde W Yancy; Mariell Jessup; Biykem Bozkurt; Javed Butler; Donald E Casey; Monica M Colvin; Mark H Drazner; Gerasimos Filippatos; Gregg C Fonarow; Michael M Givertz; Steven M Hollenberg; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Frederick A Masoudi; Patrick E McBride; Pamela N Peterson; Lynne Warner Stevenson; Cheryl Westlake Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-05-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Christopher W Seymour; Foster Gesten; Hallie C Prescott; Marcus E Friedrich; Theodore J Iwashyna; Gary S Phillips; Stanley Lemeshow; Tiffany Osborn; Kathleen M Terry; Mitchell M Levy Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: John W Peabody; Jeff Luck; Peter Glassman; Sharad Jain; Joyce Hansen; Maureen Spell; Martin Lee Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-11-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Joan I Warren; Maureen McLaughlin; Joan Bardsley; Joanne Eich; Carol Ann Esche; Lola Kropkowski; Stephen Risch Journal: Worldviews Evid Based Nurs Date: 2016-02 Impact factor: 2.931
Authors: John W Peabody; Riti Shimkhada; Stella Quimbo; Orville Solon; Xylee Javier; Charles McCulloch Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 3.547
Authors: Trever Burgon; Linda Casebeer; Holly Aasen; Czarlota Valdenor; Diana Tamondong-Lachica; Enrico de Belen; David Paculdo; John Peabody Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 5.428