1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Assessment of Care Handoffs Among Hospitalist Physicians and 30-Day Mortality in Hospitalized Medicare Beneficiaries

      research-article
      , PhD 1 , , MD, PhD 2 , 3 , , MD, PhD 1 , 4 , 5 ,
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          What is the association between inpatient physician handoff and mortality among hospitalized Medicare patients?

          Findings

          In a national cross-sectional study of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with a general medical condition and treated by a hospitalist physician, physician handoff was not associated with increased mortality overall. In an exploratory analysis, among patients in the top quartile of estimated mortality, 30-day mortality was higher for patients with high vs low likelihood of handoff.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that among Medicare patients hospitalized with a general medical condition and treated by a hospitalist physician, inpatient physician handoffs appear safe overall but may be associated with slightly higher mortality among high-risk patients.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Inpatients treated by hospitalist physicians, who often work contiguous days, experience handoffs at the end of a scheduled shift block. Evidence suggests that transitions of patient care, or handoffs, among physician trainees are associated with adverse patient outcomes. However, little is known about the association between handoffs and patient outcomes among attending physicians, even though similar concerns apply.

          Objective

          To examine the association between inpatient handoffs of hospitalist physicians and patient mortality among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cross-sectional study analyzed a random sample of Medicare beneficiaries who were hospitalized with a general medical condition between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, and treated by a hospitalist. The study compared outcomes of patients with low vs high probability of physician handoff based on date of patient admission relative to the admitting hospitalist’s last working day in a scheduled block, hypothesizing that otherwise similar patients admitted toward the end of a physician’s shift block would be more likely to be handed off to another physician compared with patients admitted earlier in the shift block. Data analysis was performed from July 1, 2018, to January 12, 2021.

          Exposure

          High vs low probability of physician handoff.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The main outcome was patient 30-day mortality rate.

          Results

          A total of 1 074 000 patients (mean [SD] age, 75.9 [13.7] years; 57.4% female; 82.1% White) were studied. Multivariable regression models adjusted for beneficiary clinical and demographic characteristics and hospital fixed effects (a within-hospital analysis, effectively comparing patients treated at the same hospital). Among 597 288 hospitalizations, no overall difference in 30-day mortality was observed between patients admitted in the 2 days prior (days −1 and −2) to the treating hospitalist’s last working day (a high handoff probability) compared with days −6 and −7 (a low handoff probability) (adjusted rate, 10.6%; 95% CI, 10.5%-10.7% vs 10.6%; 95% CI, 10.5%-10.7%; adjusted difference, 0.0%; 95% CI, −0.2% to 0.1%). However, in an exploratory analysis, among patients with high illness severity, defined as those in the top quartile of estimated mortality, 30-day mortality was higher for those with high vs low likelihood of physician handoff (adjusted mortality, 27.8%; 95% CI, 27.6%-27.9% vs 26.8%; 95% CI, 26.6%-27.1%; absolute adjusted difference, 1.0%; 95% CI, 0.5%-1.4%).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          In this national analysis of Medicare beneficiaries hospitalized with a general medical condition and treated by a hospitalist physician, physician handoff was not associated with increased mortality overall.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study examines the association between inpatient handoffs among hospitalist physicians and patient mortality among hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparison of Hospital Mortality and Readmission Rates for Medicare Patients Treated by Male vs Female Physicians.

          Studies have found differences in practice patterns between male and female physicians, with female physicians more likely to adhere to clinical guidelines and evidence-based practice. However, whether patient outcomes differ between male and female physicians is largely unknown.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The care transitions intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial.

            Patients with complex care needs who require care across different health care settings are vulnerable to experiencing serious quality problems. A care transitions intervention designed to encourage patients and their caregivers to assert a more active role during care transitions may reduce rehospitalization rates. Randomized controlled trial. Between September 1, 2002, and August 31, 2003, patients were identified at the time of hospitalization and were randomized to receive the intervention or usual care. The setting was a large integrated delivery system located in Colorado. Subjects (N = 750) included community-dwelling adults 65 years or older admitted to the study hospital with 1 of 11 selected conditions. Intervention patients received (1) tools to promote cross-site communication, (2) encouragement to take a more active role in their care and to assert their preferences, and (3) continuity across settings and guidance from a "transition coach." Rates of rehospitalization were measured at 30, 90, and 180 days. Intervention patients had lower rehospitalization rates at 30 days (8.3 vs 11.9, P = .048) and at 90 days (16.7 vs 22.5, P = .04) than control subjects. Intervention patients had lower rehospitalization rates for the same condition that precipitated the index hospitalization at 90 days (5.3 vs 9.8, P = .04) and at 180 days (8.6 vs 13.9, P = .046) than controls. The mean hospital costs were lower for intervention patients ($2058) vs controls ($2546) at 180 days (log-transformed P = .049). Coaching chronically ill older patients and their caregivers to ensure that their needs are met during care transitions may reduce the rates of subsequent rehospitalization.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program.

              Miscommunications are a leading cause of serious medical errors. Data from multicenter studies assessing programs designed to improve handoff of information about patient care are lacking.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                24 March 2021
                March 2021
                24 March 2021
                : 4
                : 3
                : e213040
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
                [2 ]Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine, Los Angeles, California
                [3 ]Department of Health Policy Management, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, California
                [4 ]Department of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
                [5 ]National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: February 3, 2021.
                Published: March 24, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3040
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Farid M et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD, Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, 180 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115 ( jena@ 123456hcp.med.harvard.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Farid had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Farid, Jena.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Jena.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: All authors.
                Obtained funding: Jena.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Tsugawa.
                Supervision: Jena.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Jena reported receiving personal fees from Pfizer, Bioverativ, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck, Janssen, Edwards Life Sciences, Novartis, Amgen, Eli Lilly, Vertex, Astra Zeneca, Celgene, Tesaro, Sanofi Aventis, Precision Health Economics, and Analysis Group outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was funded by grant 1DP5OD017897 from the Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health (Dr Jena).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi210108
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.3040
                7991971
                33760093
                f70d906b-db99-489c-89df-e91345d51805
                Copyright 2021 Farid M et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 10 September 2020
                : 3 February 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Health Policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article