Hospital Medicine

Finding effective treatment or a vaccine for COVID-19, the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has placed significant strains on the global health care system. The National Library of Medicine database lists > 1,800 trials that are aimed at addressing COVID-19-related health care. Already, trials developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases have provided important data on effective treatment options. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of May 31, 2020 and have trial sites at VA and DoD facilities. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT)

This study is an adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of novel therapeutic agents in hospitalized adults diagnosed with COVID-19. The study will compare different investigational therapeutic agents to a control arm. ID: NCT04280705

Sponsor: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Contact: Central Contact (dmidclinicaltrials@niaid.nih.gov)
Locations: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California; Naval Medical Center San Diego, California; Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland; National Institutes of Health - Clinical Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory Of Immunoregulation, Bethesda, Maryland; Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington
 

Study to Evaluate the Safety and Antiviral Activity of Remdesivir (GS-5734) in Participants With Severe Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of 2 remdesivir (RDV) regimens with respect to clinical status assessed by a 7-point ordinal scale on Day 11 (NCT04292730) or Day 14 (NCT04292899).

ID: NCT04292730/NCT04292899
Sponsor: Gilead Sciences
Contact: Gilead Clinical Study Information Center (833-445-3230)
Location: James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, New York
 

Expanded Access Remdesivir (RDV; GS-5734)

The treatment of communicable Novel Coronavirus of 2019 with Remdesivir (RDV; GS-5734) also known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

ID: NCT04302766
Sponsor: US Army Medical Research and Development Command
Contact: Sandi Parriott (sandi.k.parriott.mil@mail.mil)
 

A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Tocilizumab in Patients With Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia (COVACTA)

This study will evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of tocilizumab (TCZ) compared with a matching placebo in combination with standard of care (SOC) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

ID: NCT04320615
Sponsor: Hoffmann-La Roche
Location: James J Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, New York
 

Administration of Intravenous Vitamin C in Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) and Decreased Oxygenation (AVoCaDO)

Previous research has shown that high dose intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) may benefit patients with sepsis, acute lung injury (ALI), and the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, it is not known if early administration of HDIVC could prevent progression to ARDS. We hypothesize that HDIVC is safe and tolerable in COVID-19 subjects given early or late in the disease course and may reduce the risk of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and development of ARDS along with reductions in supplemental oxygen demand and inflammatory markers.

ID: NCT04357782
Sponsor: Hunter Holmes Mcguire VA Medical CenterContact: Brian Davis (brian.davis5@va.gov)
Location: Hunter Holmes Mcguire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia

Treatment Of CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) With Anti-Sars-CoV-2 Convalescent Plasma (ASCoV2CP)

This is an expanded access open-label, single-arm, multi-site protocol to provide convalescent plasma as a treatment for patients diagnosed with severe, or life-threatening COVID-19.

ID: NCT04360486
Sponsor: US Army Medical Research and Development Command
Contact: Andrew Cap (andrew.p.cap.mil@mail.mil)
 

VA Remote and Equitable Access to COVID-19 Healthcare Delivery (VA-REACH TRIAL) (VA-REACH)

We propose a 3-arm randomized control trial to determine the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin in treating mild to moderate COVID-19 among veterans in the outpatient setting.

ID: NCT04363203
Sponsor: Salomeh Keyhani
Location: San Francisco VA Health Care System, California
 

A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of MSTT1041A (Astegolimab) or UTTR1147A in Patients With Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia (COVASTIL)

This is a Phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to assess the efficacy and safety of MSTT1041A (astegolimab) or UTTR1147A in combination with standard of care (SOC) compared with matching placebo in combination with SOC in patients hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

ID: NCT04386616
Sponsor: Genentech
Contact: Study ID Number: GA42469 (global-roche-genentech-trials@gene.com)
Location: Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans

Hormonal Intervention for the Treatment in Veterans With COVID-19 Requiring Hospitalization (HITCH)

The purpose of this study is to determine if temporary androgen suppression improves the clinical outcomes of veterans who are hospitalized to an acute care ward due to COVID-19.ID: NCT04397718

Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Contact: Matthew B Rettig (matthew.rettig@va.gov), Nicholas Nickols (nicholas.nickols@va.gov)
Locations: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, California; VA NY Harbor Healthcare System, New York; VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington
 

Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 2 (ACTT-II)

ACTT-II will evaluate the combination of baricitinib and remdesivir compared to remdesivir alone. Subjects will be assessed daily while hospitalized. If the subjects are discharged from the hospital, they will have a study visit at Days 15, 22, and 29.

ID: NCT04401579
Sponsor: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Contact: Central Contact (dmidclinicaltrials@niaid.nih.gov)
Locations: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California; Naval Medical Center San Diego, California; Rocky Mountain Regional Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado; Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland; National Institutes of Health - Clinical Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory Of Immunoregulation, Bethesda, Maryland; Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington

Finding effective treatment or a vaccine for COVID-19, the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has placed significant strains on the global health care system. The National Library of Medicine database lists > 1,800 trials that are aimed at addressing COVID-19-related health care. Already, trials developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases have provided important data on effective treatment options. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of May 31, 2020 and have trial sites at VA and DoD facilities. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT)

This study is an adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of novel therapeutic agents in hospitalized adults diagnosed with COVID-19. The study will compare different investigational therapeutic agents to a control arm. ID: NCT04280705

Sponsor: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Contact: Central Contact (dmidclinicaltrials@niaid.nih.gov)
Locations: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California; Naval Medical Center San Diego, California; Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland; National Institutes of Health - Clinical Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory Of Immunoregulation, Bethesda, Maryland; Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington
 

Study to Evaluate the Safety and Antiviral Activity of Remdesivir (GS-5734) in Participants With Severe Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of 2 remdesivir (RDV) regimens with respect to clinical status assessed by a 7-point ordinal scale on Day 11 (NCT04292730) or Day 14 (NCT04292899).

ID: NCT04292730/NCT04292899
Sponsor: Gilead Sciences
Contact: Gilead Clinical Study Information Center (833-445-3230)
Location: James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, New York
 

Expanded Access Remdesivir (RDV; GS-5734)

The treatment of communicable Novel Coronavirus of 2019 with Remdesivir (RDV; GS-5734) also known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

ID: NCT04302766
Sponsor: US Army Medical Research and Development Command
Contact: Sandi Parriott (sandi.k.parriott.mil@mail.mil)
 

A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Tocilizumab in Patients With Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia (COVACTA)

This study will evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of tocilizumab (TCZ) compared with a matching placebo in combination with standard of care (SOC) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

ID: NCT04320615
Sponsor: Hoffmann-La Roche
Location: James J Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, New York
 

Administration of Intravenous Vitamin C in Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) and Decreased Oxygenation (AVoCaDO)

Previous research has shown that high dose intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) may benefit patients with sepsis, acute lung injury (ALI), and the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, it is not known if early administration of HDIVC could prevent progression to ARDS. We hypothesize that HDIVC is safe and tolerable in COVID-19 subjects given early or late in the disease course and may reduce the risk of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and development of ARDS along with reductions in supplemental oxygen demand and inflammatory markers.

ID: NCT04357782
Sponsor: Hunter Holmes Mcguire VA Medical CenterContact: Brian Davis (brian.davis5@va.gov)
Location: Hunter Holmes Mcguire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia

Treatment Of CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) With Anti-Sars-CoV-2 Convalescent Plasma (ASCoV2CP)

This is an expanded access open-label, single-arm, multi-site protocol to provide convalescent plasma as a treatment for patients diagnosed with severe, or life-threatening COVID-19.

ID: NCT04360486
Sponsor: US Army Medical Research and Development Command
Contact: Andrew Cap (andrew.p.cap.mil@mail.mil)
 

VA Remote and Equitable Access to COVID-19 Healthcare Delivery (VA-REACH TRIAL) (VA-REACH)

We propose a 3-arm randomized control trial to determine the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin in treating mild to moderate COVID-19 among veterans in the outpatient setting.

ID: NCT04363203
Sponsor: Salomeh Keyhani
Location: San Francisco VA Health Care System, California
 

A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of MSTT1041A (Astegolimab) or UTTR1147A in Patients With Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia (COVASTIL)

This is a Phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to assess the efficacy and safety of MSTT1041A (astegolimab) or UTTR1147A in combination with standard of care (SOC) compared with matching placebo in combination with SOC in patients hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

ID: NCT04386616
Sponsor: Genentech
Contact: Study ID Number: GA42469 (global-roche-genentech-trials@gene.com)
Location: Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans

Hormonal Intervention for the Treatment in Veterans With COVID-19 Requiring Hospitalization (HITCH)

The purpose of this study is to determine if temporary androgen suppression improves the clinical outcomes of veterans who are hospitalized to an acute care ward due to COVID-19.ID: NCT04397718

Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Contact: Matthew B Rettig (matthew.rettig@va.gov), Nicholas Nickols (nicholas.nickols@va.gov)
Locations: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, California; VA NY Harbor Healthcare System, New York; VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington
 

Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 2 (ACTT-II)

ACTT-II will evaluate the combination of baricitinib and remdesivir compared to remdesivir alone. Subjects will be assessed daily while hospitalized. If the subjects are discharged from the hospital, they will have a study visit at Days 15, 22, and 29.

ID: NCT04401579
Sponsor: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Contact: Central Contact (dmidclinicaltrials@niaid.nih.gov)
Locations: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California; Naval Medical Center San Diego, California; Rocky Mountain Regional Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado; Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland; National Institutes of Health - Clinical Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory Of Immunoregulation, Bethesda, Maryland; Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington

Finding effective treatment or a vaccine for COVID-19, the disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has placed significant strains on the global health care system. The National Library of Medicine database lists > 1,800 trials that are aimed at addressing COVID-19-related health care. Already, trials developed by the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), US Department of Defense (DoD), and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases have provided important data on effective treatment options. The clinical trials listed below are all open as of May 31, 2020 and have trial sites at VA and DoD facilities. For additional information and full inclusion/exclusion criteria, please consult clinicaltrials.gov.

Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT)

This study is an adaptive, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of novel therapeutic agents in hospitalized adults diagnosed with COVID-19. The study will compare different investigational therapeutic agents to a control arm. ID: NCT04280705

Sponsor: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Contact: Central Contact (dmidclinicaltrials@niaid.nih.gov)
Locations: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California; Naval Medical Center San Diego, California; Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland; National Institutes of Health - Clinical Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory Of Immunoregulation, Bethesda, Maryland; Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington
 

Study to Evaluate the Safety and Antiviral Activity of Remdesivir (GS-5734) in Participants With Severe Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19)

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of 2 remdesivir (RDV) regimens with respect to clinical status assessed by a 7-point ordinal scale on Day 11 (NCT04292730) or Day 14 (NCT04292899).

ID: NCT04292730/NCT04292899
Sponsor: Gilead Sciences
Contact: Gilead Clinical Study Information Center (833-445-3230)
Location: James J. Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, New York
 

Expanded Access Remdesivir (RDV; GS-5734)

The treatment of communicable Novel Coronavirus of 2019 with Remdesivir (RDV; GS-5734) also known as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.

ID: NCT04302766
Sponsor: US Army Medical Research and Development Command
Contact: Sandi Parriott (sandi.k.parriott.mil@mail.mil)
 

A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of Tocilizumab in Patients With Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia (COVACTA)

This study will evaluate the efficacy, safety, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of tocilizumab (TCZ) compared with a matching placebo in combination with standard of care (SOC) in hospitalized patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

ID: NCT04320615
Sponsor: Hoffmann-La Roche
Location: James J Peters VA Medical Center, Bronx, New York
 

Administration of Intravenous Vitamin C in Novel Coronavirus Infection (COVID-19) and Decreased Oxygenation (AVoCaDO)

Previous research has shown that high dose intravenous vitamin C (HDIVC) may benefit patients with sepsis, acute lung injury (ALI), and the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, it is not known if early administration of HDIVC could prevent progression to ARDS. We hypothesize that HDIVC is safe and tolerable in COVID-19 subjects given early or late in the disease course and may reduce the risk of respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation and development of ARDS along with reductions in supplemental oxygen demand and inflammatory markers.

ID: NCT04357782
Sponsor: Hunter Holmes Mcguire VA Medical CenterContact: Brian Davis (brian.davis5@va.gov)
Location: Hunter Holmes Mcguire VA Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia

Treatment Of CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) With Anti-Sars-CoV-2 Convalescent Plasma (ASCoV2CP)

This is an expanded access open-label, single-arm, multi-site protocol to provide convalescent plasma as a treatment for patients diagnosed with severe, or life-threatening COVID-19.

ID: NCT04360486
Sponsor: US Army Medical Research and Development Command
Contact: Andrew Cap (andrew.p.cap.mil@mail.mil)
 

VA Remote and Equitable Access to COVID-19 Healthcare Delivery (VA-REACH TRIAL) (VA-REACH)

We propose a 3-arm randomized control trial to determine the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine or azithromycin in treating mild to moderate COVID-19 among veterans in the outpatient setting.

ID: NCT04363203
Sponsor: Salomeh Keyhani
Location: San Francisco VA Health Care System, California
 

A Study to Evaluate the Safety and Efficacy of MSTT1041A (Astegolimab) or UTTR1147A in Patients With Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia (COVASTIL)

This is a Phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study to assess the efficacy and safety of MSTT1041A (astegolimab) or UTTR1147A in combination with standard of care (SOC) compared with matching placebo in combination with SOC in patients hospitalized with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

ID: NCT04386616
Sponsor: Genentech
Contact: Study ID Number: GA42469 (global-roche-genentech-trials@gene.com)
Location: Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans

Hormonal Intervention for the Treatment in Veterans With COVID-19 Requiring Hospitalization (HITCH)

The purpose of this study is to determine if temporary androgen suppression improves the clinical outcomes of veterans who are hospitalized to an acute care ward due to COVID-19.ID: NCT04397718

Sponsor: VA Office of Research and Development
Contact: Matthew B Rettig (matthew.rettig@va.gov), Nicholas Nickols (nicholas.nickols@va.gov)
Locations: VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System, California; VA NY Harbor Healthcare System, New York; VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington
 

Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial 2 (ACTT-II)

ACTT-II will evaluate the combination of baricitinib and remdesivir compared to remdesivir alone. Subjects will be assessed daily while hospitalized. If the subjects are discharged from the hospital, they will have a study visit at Days 15, 22, and 29.

ID: NCT04401579
Sponsor: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
Contact: Central Contact (dmidclinicaltrials@niaid.nih.gov)
Locations: VA Palo Alto Health Care System, California; Naval Medical Center San Diego, California; Rocky Mountain Regional Veteran Affairs Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado; Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System, New Orleans; Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland; National Institutes of Health - Clinical Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Laboratory Of Immunoregulation, Bethesda, Maryland; Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, Texas; Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington

Statins are one of the most common medications dispensed in the US and are associated with clinically significant drug interactions.^1,2 The most common adverse drug reaction (ADR) of statin drug interactions is muscle-related toxicities.² Despite technology advances to alert clinicians to drug interactions, updated statin manufacturer labeling, and guideline recommendations, inappropriate prescribing and dispensing of statin drug interactions continues to occur in health care systems.^2-10

The medical literature has demonstrated many opportunities for pharmacists to prevent and mitigate drug interactions. At the points of prescribing and dispensing, pharmacists can reduce the number of potential drug interactions for the patient.^11-13 Pharmacists also have identified and resolved drug interactions through quality assurance review after dispensing to a patient.^7,8

Regardless of the time point of an intervention, the most common method pharmacists used to resolve drug interactions was through recommendations to a prescriber. The recommendations were generated through academic detailing, clinical decision support algorithms, drug conversions, or the pharmacist’s expertise. Regardless of the method the pharmacist used, the prescriber had the final authority to accept or decline the recommendation.^7,8,11-13 Although these interventions were effective, pharmacists could further streamline the process by autonomously resolving drug interactions. However, these types of interventions are not well described in the medical literature.

Background

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN), established the Safety Target of Polypharmacy (STOP) report in 2015. At each facility in the network, the report identified patients who were dispensed medications known to have drug interactions. The interactions were chosen by the VISN, and the severity of the interactions was based on coding parameters within the VA computerized order entry system, which uses a severity score based on First Databank data. At the Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital (Truman VA) in Columbia, Missouri, > 500 drug interactions were initially active on the STOP report. The most common drug interactions were statins with gemfibrozil and statins with niacin.1^4-18 The Truman VA Pharmacy Service was charged with resolving the interactions for the facility.

The Truman VA employs 3 Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) Clinical Pharmacy Specialists (CPS) practicing within primary care clinics. PACT is the patientcentered medical home model used by the VA. PACT CPS are ambulatory care pharmacists who assist providers in managing diseases using a scope of practice. Having a scope of practice would have allowed the PACT CPS to manage drug interactions with independent prescribing authority. However, due to the high volume of STOP report interactions and limited PACT CPS resources, the Pharmacy Service needed to develop an efficient, patient-centered method to resolve them. The intervention also needed to allow pharmacists, both with and without a scope of practice, to address the interactions.

Methods

The Truman VA Pharmacy Service developed protocols, approved by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, to manage the specific gemfibrozil-statin and niacinstatin interactions chosen for the VISN 15 STOP report (Figures 1 and 2). The protocols were designed to identify patients who did not have a clear indication for gemfibrozil or niacin, were likely to maintain triglycerides (TGs) < 500 mg/dL without these medications, and would not likely require close monitoring after discontinuation^.19 The protocols allowed pharmacists to autonomously discontinue gemfibrozil or niacin if patients did not have a history of pancreatitis, TGs ≥ 400 mg/dL or a nonlipid indication for niacin (eg, pellagra) after establishing care at Truman VA. Additionally, both interacting medications had to be dispensed by the VA. When pharmacists discontinued a medication, it was documented in a note in the patient electronic health record. The prescriber was notified through the note and the patient received a notification letter. Follow-up laboratory monitoring was not required as part of the protocol.

If patients met any of the exclusion criteria for discontinuation, the primary care provider (PCP) was notified to place a consult to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic for individualized interventions and close monitoring. Patients prescribed niacin for nonlipid indications were allowed to continue with their current drug regimen. At each encounter, the PACT CPS assessed for ADRs, made individualized medication changes, and arranged follow-up appointments. Once the interaction was resolved and treatment goals met, the PCP resumed monitoring of the patient’s lipid therapy.

Following all pharmacist interventions, a retrospective quality improvement analysis was conducted. The primary outcome was to evaluate the impact of discontinuing gemfibrozil and niacin by protocol on patients’ laboratory results. The coprimary endpoints were to describe the change in TG levels and the percentage of patients with TGs ≥ 500 mg/dL at least 5 weeks following the pharmacist-directed discontinuation by protocol. Secondary outcomes included the time required to resolve the interactions and a description of the PACT CPS pharmacologic interventions. Additionally, a quality assurance peer review was used to ensure the pharmacists appropriately utilized the protocols.

Data were collected from August 2016 to September 2017 for patients prescribed gemfibrozil and from May 2017 to January 2018 for patients prescribed niacin. The time spent resolving interactions was quantified based on encounter data. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic information and the endpoints associated with each outcome. The project was reviewed by the University of Missouri Institutional Review Board, Truman VA privacy and information security officers, and was determined to meet guidelines for quality improvement.

Results

The original STOP report included 397 drug interactions involving statins with gemfibrozil or niacin (Table 1). The majority of patients were white and male aged 60 to 79 years. Gemfibrozil was the most common drug involved in all interactions (79.8%). The most common statins were atorvastatin (40%) and simvastatin (36.5%).

Gemfibrozil-Statin Interactions

Pharmacists discontinued gemfibrozil by protocol for 94 patients (29.6%), and 107 patients (33.8%) were referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic (Figure 3). For the remaining 116 patients (36.6%), the drug interaction was addressed outside of the protocol for the following reasons: the drug interaction was resolved prior to pharmacist review; an interacting prescription was expired and not to be continued; the patient self-discontinued ≥ 1 interacting medications; the patient was deceased; the patient moved; the patient was receiving ≥ 1 interacting medications outside of the VA; or the prescriber resolved the interaction following notification by the pharmacist.

Ultimately, the interaction was resolved for all patients with a gemfibrozil-statin interaction on the STOP report. Following gemfibrozil discontinuation by protocol, 76 patients (80.9%) had TG laboratory results available and were included in the analysis. Sixty-two patients’ (82%) TG levels decreased or increased by < 100 mg/dL (Figure 4), and the TG levels of 1 patient (1.3%) increased above the threshold of 500 mg/dL. The mean (SD) time to the first laboratory result after the pharmacists mailed the notification letter was 6.5 (3.6) months (range, 1-17). The pharmacists spent a mean of 16 minutes per patient resolving each interaction.

Of the 107 patients referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic, 80 (74.8%) had TG laboratory results available and were included in the analysis. These patients were followed by the PACT CPS until the drug interaction was resolved and confirmed to have TG levels at goal (< 500 mg/dL). Gemfibrozil doses ranged from 300 mg daily to 600 mg twice daily, with 70% (n = 56) of patients taking 600 mg twice daily. The PACT CPS made 148 interventions (Table 2). Twenty-three (29%) patients required only gemfibrozil discontinuation. The remaining 57 patients (71%) required at least 2 medication interventions. The PACT CPS generated 213 encounters for resolving drug interactions with a median of 2 encounters per patient.

Quality assurance review identified 5 patients (5.3%) who underwent gemfibrozil discontinuation by protocol, despite having criteria that would have recommended against discontinuation. In accordance with the protocol criteria, these patients were later referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic. None of these patients experienced a TG increase at or above the threshold of 500 mg/dL after gemfibrozil was initially discontinued but were excluded from the earlier analysis.

Niacin-Statin Interactions

Pharmacists discontinued niacin by protocol for 48 patients (60.0%), and 22 patients (27.5%) were referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic (Figure 5). For the remaining 5 patients (6.3%), the interaction was either addressed outside the protocol prior to pharmacist review, or an interacting prescription was expired and not to be continued. Additionally, niacin was continued per prescriber preference in 5 patients (6.3%).

Thirty-six patients (75%) had TG laboratory results available following niacin discontinuation by protocol and were included in the analysis. Most patients’ (n = 33, 91.7%) TG levels decreased or increased by < 100 mg/dL. No patient had a TG level that increased higher than the threshold of 500 mg/dL. The mean (SD) time to the first laboratory result after the pharmacists mailed the notification letter, was 5.3 (2.5) months (range, 1.2-9.8). The pharmacists spent a mean of 15 minutes per patient resolving each interaction. The quality assurance review found no discrepancies in the pharmacists’ application of the protocol.

Of the 22 patients referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic, 16 (72.7%) patients had TG laboratory results available and were included in the analysis. As with the gemfibrozil interactions, these patients were followed by the PACT Pharmacy Clinic until the drug interaction was resolved and confirmed to have TGs at goal (< 500 mg/dL). Niacin doses ranged from 500 mg daily to 2,000 mg daily, with the majority of patients taking 1,000 mg daily. The PACT CPS made 23 interventions. The PACT CPS generated 46 encounters for resolving drug interactions with a median of 2 encounters per patient.

Discussion

Following gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation by protocol, most patients with available laboratory results experienced either a decrease or modest TG elevation. The proportion of patients experiencing a decrease in TGs was unexpected but potentially multifactorial. Individual causes for the decrease in TGs were beyond the scope of this analysis. The retrospective design limited the ability to identify variables that could have impacted TG levels when gemfibrozil or niacin were started and discontinued. Although the treatment of TG levels is not indicated until it is ≥ 500 mg/dL, due to an increased risk of pancreatitis, both protocols excluded patients with a history of TGs ≥ 400 mg/dL.¹⁹ The lower threshold was set to compensate for anticipated increase in TG levels, following gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation, and to minimize the number of patients with TG levels ≥ 500 mg/dL. The actual impact on patients’ TG levels supports the use of this lower threshold in the protocol.

When TG levels increased by 200 to 249 mg/dL after gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation, patients were evaluated for possible underlying causes, which occurred for 4 gemfibrozil and 1 niacin patient. One patient started a β-blocker after gemfibrozil was initiated, and 3 patients were taking gemfibrozil prior to establishing care at the VA. The TG levels of the patient taking niacin correlated with an increased hemoglobin A1c. The TG level for only 1 patient taking gemfibrozil increased above the 500 mg/dL threshold. The patient had several comorbidities known to increase TG levels, but the comorbidities were previously well controlled. No additional medication changes were made at that time, and the TG levels on the next fasting lipid panel decreased to goal. The patient did not experience any negative clinical sequelae from the elevated TG levels.

Thirty-five patients (36%) who were referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic required only either gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation. These patients were evaluated to identify whether adjustments to the protocols would have allowed for pharmacist discontinuation without referral to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic. Twenty-four of these patients (69%) had repeated TG levels ≥ 400 mg/dL prior to referral to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic. Additionally, there was no correlation between the gemfibrozil or niacin doses and the change in TG levels following discontinuation. These data indicate the protocols appropriately identified patients who did not have an indication for gemfibrozil or niacin.

In addition to drug interactions identified on the STOP report, the PACT CPS resolved 12 additional interactions involving simvastatin and gemfibrozil. Additionally, unnecessary lipid medications were deprescribed. The PACT CPS identified 13 patients who experienced myalgias, an ADR attributed to the gemfibrozil- statin interaction. Of those, 9 patients’ ADRs resolved after discontinuing gemfibrozil alone. For the remaining 4 patients, additional interventions to convert the patient to another statin were required to resolve the ADR.

Using pharmacists to address the drug interactions shifted workload from the prescribers and other primary care team members. The mean time spent to resolve both gemfibrozil and niacin interactions by protocol was 15.5 minutes. One hundred fortytwo patients (35.8%) had drug interactions resolved by protocol, saving the PACT CPS’ expertise for patients requiring individualized interventions. Drug interactions were resolved within 4 PACT CPS encounters for 93.8% of the patients taking gemfibrozil and within 3 PACT CPS encounters for 93.8% of the patients taking niacin.

The protocols allowed 12 additional pharmacists who did not have an ambulatory care scope of practice to assist the PACT CPS in mitigating the STOP drug interactions. These pharmacists otherwise would have been limited to making consultative recommendations. Simultaneously, the design allowed for the PACT pharmacists’ expertise to be allocated for patients most likely to require interventions beyond the protocols. This type of intraprofessional referral process is not well described in the medical literature. To the authors’ knowledge, the only studies described referrals from hospital pharmacists to community pharmacists during transitions of care on hospital discharge.^20,21

Limitations

The results of this study are derived from a retrospective chart review at a single VA facility. The autonomous nature of PACT CPS interventions may be difficult to replicate in other settings that do not permit pharmacists the same prescriptive authority. This analysis was designed to demonstrate the impact of the pharmacist in resolving major drug interactions. Patients referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic who also had their lipid medications adjusted by a nonpharmacist provider were excluded. However, this may have minimized the impact of the PACT CPS on the patient care provided. As postintervention laboratory results were not available for all patients, some patients’ TG levels could have increased above the 500 mg/dL threshold but were not identified. The time investment was extensive and likely underestimates the true cost of implementing the interventions.

Because notification letters were used to instruct patients to stop gemfibrozil or niacin, several considerations need to be addressed when interpreting the follow-up laboratory results. First, we cannot confirm whether the patients received the letter or the exact date the letter was received. Additionally, we cannot confirm whether the patients followed the instructions to stop the interacting medications or the date the medications were stopped. It is possible some patients were still taking the interacting medication when the first laboratory was drawn. Should a patient have continued the interacting medication, most would have run out and been unable to obtain a refill within 90 days of receiving the letter, as this is the maximum amount dispensed at one time. The mean time to the first laboratory result for both gemfibrozil and niacin was 6.5 and 5.3 months, respectively. Approximately 85% of patients completed the first laboratory test at least 3 months after the letter was mailed.

The protocols were designed to assess whether gemfibrozil or niacin was indicated and did not assess whether the statin was indicated. Therefore, discontinuing the statin also could have resolved the interaction appropriately. However, due to characteristics of the patient population and recommendations in current lipid guidelines, it was more likely the statin would be indicated.22,23 The protocols also assumed that patients eligible for gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation would not need additional changes to their lipid medications. The medication changes made by the PACT CPS may have gone beyond those minimally necessary to resolve the drug interaction and maintain TG goals. Patients who had gemfibrozil or niacin discontinued by protocol also may have benefited from additional optimization of their lipid medications.

Conclusions

This quality improvement analysis supports further evaluation of the complementary use of protocols and PACT CPS prescriptive authority to resolve statin drug interactions. The gemfibrozil and niacin protocols appropriately identified patients who were less likely to experience an adverse change in TG laboratory results. Patients more likely to require additional medication interventions were appropriately referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinics for individualized care. These data support expanded roles for pharmacists, across various settings, to mitigate select drug interactions at the Truman VA.

Acknowledgments
This quality improvement project is the result of work supported with resources and use of the Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital in Columbia, Missouri.

Statins are one of the most common medications dispensed in the US and are associated with clinically significant drug interactions.^1,2 The most common adverse drug reaction (ADR) of statin drug interactions is muscle-related toxicities.² Despite technology advances to alert clinicians to drug interactions, updated statin manufacturer labeling, and guideline recommendations, inappropriate prescribing and dispensing of statin drug interactions continues to occur in health care systems.^2-10

The medical literature has demonstrated many opportunities for pharmacists to prevent and mitigate drug interactions. At the points of prescribing and dispensing, pharmacists can reduce the number of potential drug interactions for the patient.^11-13 Pharmacists also have identified and resolved drug interactions through quality assurance review after dispensing to a patient.^7,8

Regardless of the time point of an intervention, the most common method pharmacists used to resolve drug interactions was through recommendations to a prescriber. The recommendations were generated through academic detailing, clinical decision support algorithms, drug conversions, or the pharmacist’s expertise. Regardless of the method the pharmacist used, the prescriber had the final authority to accept or decline the recommendation.^7,8,11-13 Although these interventions were effective, pharmacists could further streamline the process by autonomously resolving drug interactions. However, these types of interventions are not well described in the medical literature.

Background

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN), established the Safety Target of Polypharmacy (STOP) report in 2015. At each facility in the network, the report identified patients who were dispensed medications known to have drug interactions. The interactions were chosen by the VISN, and the severity of the interactions was based on coding parameters within the VA computerized order entry system, which uses a severity score based on First Databank data. At the Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital (Truman VA) in Columbia, Missouri, > 500 drug interactions were initially active on the STOP report. The most common drug interactions were statins with gemfibrozil and statins with niacin.1^4-18 The Truman VA Pharmacy Service was charged with resolving the interactions for the facility.

The Truman VA employs 3 Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) Clinical Pharmacy Specialists (CPS) practicing within primary care clinics. PACT is the patientcentered medical home model used by the VA. PACT CPS are ambulatory care pharmacists who assist providers in managing diseases using a scope of practice. Having a scope of practice would have allowed the PACT CPS to manage drug interactions with independent prescribing authority. However, due to the high volume of STOP report interactions and limited PACT CPS resources, the Pharmacy Service needed to develop an efficient, patient-centered method to resolve them. The intervention also needed to allow pharmacists, both with and without a scope of practice, to address the interactions.

Methods

The Truman VA Pharmacy Service developed protocols, approved by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, to manage the specific gemfibrozil-statin and niacinstatin interactions chosen for the VISN 15 STOP report (Figures 1 and 2). The protocols were designed to identify patients who did not have a clear indication for gemfibrozil or niacin, were likely to maintain triglycerides (TGs) < 500 mg/dL without these medications, and would not likely require close monitoring after discontinuation^.19 The protocols allowed pharmacists to autonomously discontinue gemfibrozil or niacin if patients did not have a history of pancreatitis, TGs ≥ 400 mg/dL or a nonlipid indication for niacin (eg, pellagra) after establishing care at Truman VA. Additionally, both interacting medications had to be dispensed by the VA. When pharmacists discontinued a medication, it was documented in a note in the patient electronic health record. The prescriber was notified through the note and the patient received a notification letter. Follow-up laboratory monitoring was not required as part of the protocol.

If patients met any of the exclusion criteria for discontinuation, the primary care provider (PCP) was notified to place a consult to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic for individualized interventions and close monitoring. Patients prescribed niacin for nonlipid indications were allowed to continue with their current drug regimen. At each encounter, the PACT CPS assessed for ADRs, made individualized medication changes, and arranged follow-up appointments. Once the interaction was resolved and treatment goals met, the PCP resumed monitoring of the patient’s lipid therapy.

Following all pharmacist interventions, a retrospective quality improvement analysis was conducted. The primary outcome was to evaluate the impact of discontinuing gemfibrozil and niacin by protocol on patients’ laboratory results. The coprimary endpoints were to describe the change in TG levels and the percentage of patients with TGs ≥ 500 mg/dL at least 5 weeks following the pharmacist-directed discontinuation by protocol. Secondary outcomes included the time required to resolve the interactions and a description of the PACT CPS pharmacologic interventions. Additionally, a quality assurance peer review was used to ensure the pharmacists appropriately utilized the protocols.

Data were collected from August 2016 to September 2017 for patients prescribed gemfibrozil and from May 2017 to January 2018 for patients prescribed niacin. The time spent resolving interactions was quantified based on encounter data. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic information and the endpoints associated with each outcome. The project was reviewed by the University of Missouri Institutional Review Board, Truman VA privacy and information security officers, and was determined to meet guidelines for quality improvement.

Results

The original STOP report included 397 drug interactions involving statins with gemfibrozil or niacin (Table 1). The majority of patients were white and male aged 60 to 79 years. Gemfibrozil was the most common drug involved in all interactions (79.8%). The most common statins were atorvastatin (40%) and simvastatin (36.5%).

Gemfibrozil-Statin Interactions

Pharmacists discontinued gemfibrozil by protocol for 94 patients (29.6%), and 107 patients (33.8%) were referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic (Figure 3). For the remaining 116 patients (36.6%), the drug interaction was addressed outside of the protocol for the following reasons: the drug interaction was resolved prior to pharmacist review; an interacting prescription was expired and not to be continued; the patient self-discontinued ≥ 1 interacting medications; the patient was deceased; the patient moved; the patient was receiving ≥ 1 interacting medications outside of the VA; or the prescriber resolved the interaction following notification by the pharmacist.

Ultimately, the interaction was resolved for all patients with a gemfibrozil-statin interaction on the STOP report. Following gemfibrozil discontinuation by protocol, 76 patients (80.9%) had TG laboratory results available and were included in the analysis. Sixty-two patients’ (82%) TG levels decreased or increased by < 100 mg/dL (Figure 4), and the TG levels of 1 patient (1.3%) increased above the threshold of 500 mg/dL. The mean (SD) time to the first laboratory result after the pharmacists mailed the notification letter was 6.5 (3.6) months (range, 1-17). The pharmacists spent a mean of 16 minutes per patient resolving each interaction.

Of the 107 patients referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic, 80 (74.8%) had TG laboratory results available and were included in the analysis. These patients were followed by the PACT CPS until the drug interaction was resolved and confirmed to have TG levels at goal (< 500 mg/dL). Gemfibrozil doses ranged from 300 mg daily to 600 mg twice daily, with 70% (n = 56) of patients taking 600 mg twice daily. The PACT CPS made 148 interventions (Table 2). Twenty-three (29%) patients required only gemfibrozil discontinuation. The remaining 57 patients (71%) required at least 2 medication interventions. The PACT CPS generated 213 encounters for resolving drug interactions with a median of 2 encounters per patient.

Quality assurance review identified 5 patients (5.3%) who underwent gemfibrozil discontinuation by protocol, despite having criteria that would have recommended against discontinuation. In accordance with the protocol criteria, these patients were later referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic. None of these patients experienced a TG increase at or above the threshold of 500 mg/dL after gemfibrozil was initially discontinued but were excluded from the earlier analysis.

Niacin-Statin Interactions

Pharmacists discontinued niacin by protocol for 48 patients (60.0%), and 22 patients (27.5%) were referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic (Figure 5). For the remaining 5 patients (6.3%), the interaction was either addressed outside the protocol prior to pharmacist review, or an interacting prescription was expired and not to be continued. Additionally, niacin was continued per prescriber preference in 5 patients (6.3%).

Thirty-six patients (75%) had TG laboratory results available following niacin discontinuation by protocol and were included in the analysis. Most patients’ (n = 33, 91.7%) TG levels decreased or increased by < 100 mg/dL. No patient had a TG level that increased higher than the threshold of 500 mg/dL. The mean (SD) time to the first laboratory result after the pharmacists mailed the notification letter, was 5.3 (2.5) months (range, 1.2-9.8). The pharmacists spent a mean of 15 minutes per patient resolving each interaction. The quality assurance review found no discrepancies in the pharmacists’ application of the protocol.

Of the 22 patients referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic, 16 (72.7%) patients had TG laboratory results available and were included in the analysis. As with the gemfibrozil interactions, these patients were followed by the PACT Pharmacy Clinic until the drug interaction was resolved and confirmed to have TGs at goal (< 500 mg/dL). Niacin doses ranged from 500 mg daily to 2,000 mg daily, with the majority of patients taking 1,000 mg daily. The PACT CPS made 23 interventions. The PACT CPS generated 46 encounters for resolving drug interactions with a median of 2 encounters per patient.

Discussion

Following gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation by protocol, most patients with available laboratory results experienced either a decrease or modest TG elevation. The proportion of patients experiencing a decrease in TGs was unexpected but potentially multifactorial. Individual causes for the decrease in TGs were beyond the scope of this analysis. The retrospective design limited the ability to identify variables that could have impacted TG levels when gemfibrozil or niacin were started and discontinued. Although the treatment of TG levels is not indicated until it is ≥ 500 mg/dL, due to an increased risk of pancreatitis, both protocols excluded patients with a history of TGs ≥ 400 mg/dL.¹⁹ The lower threshold was set to compensate for anticipated increase in TG levels, following gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation, and to minimize the number of patients with TG levels ≥ 500 mg/dL. The actual impact on patients’ TG levels supports the use of this lower threshold in the protocol.

When TG levels increased by 200 to 249 mg/dL after gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation, patients were evaluated for possible underlying causes, which occurred for 4 gemfibrozil and 1 niacin patient. One patient started a β-blocker after gemfibrozil was initiated, and 3 patients were taking gemfibrozil prior to establishing care at the VA. The TG levels of the patient taking niacin correlated with an increased hemoglobin A1c. The TG level for only 1 patient taking gemfibrozil increased above the 500 mg/dL threshold. The patient had several comorbidities known to increase TG levels, but the comorbidities were previously well controlled. No additional medication changes were made at that time, and the TG levels on the next fasting lipid panel decreased to goal. The patient did not experience any negative clinical sequelae from the elevated TG levels.

Thirty-five patients (36%) who were referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic required only either gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation. These patients were evaluated to identify whether adjustments to the protocols would have allowed for pharmacist discontinuation without referral to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic. Twenty-four of these patients (69%) had repeated TG levels ≥ 400 mg/dL prior to referral to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic. Additionally, there was no correlation between the gemfibrozil or niacin doses and the change in TG levels following discontinuation. These data indicate the protocols appropriately identified patients who did not have an indication for gemfibrozil or niacin.

In addition to drug interactions identified on the STOP report, the PACT CPS resolved 12 additional interactions involving simvastatin and gemfibrozil. Additionally, unnecessary lipid medications were deprescribed. The PACT CPS identified 13 patients who experienced myalgias, an ADR attributed to the gemfibrozil- statin interaction. Of those, 9 patients’ ADRs resolved after discontinuing gemfibrozil alone. For the remaining 4 patients, additional interventions to convert the patient to another statin were required to resolve the ADR.

Using pharmacists to address the drug interactions shifted workload from the prescribers and other primary care team members. The mean time spent to resolve both gemfibrozil and niacin interactions by protocol was 15.5 minutes. One hundred fortytwo patients (35.8%) had drug interactions resolved by protocol, saving the PACT CPS’ expertise for patients requiring individualized interventions. Drug interactions were resolved within 4 PACT CPS encounters for 93.8% of the patients taking gemfibrozil and within 3 PACT CPS encounters for 93.8% of the patients taking niacin.

The protocols allowed 12 additional pharmacists who did not have an ambulatory care scope of practice to assist the PACT CPS in mitigating the STOP drug interactions. These pharmacists otherwise would have been limited to making consultative recommendations. Simultaneously, the design allowed for the PACT pharmacists’ expertise to be allocated for patients most likely to require interventions beyond the protocols. This type of intraprofessional referral process is not well described in the medical literature. To the authors’ knowledge, the only studies described referrals from hospital pharmacists to community pharmacists during transitions of care on hospital discharge.^20,21

Limitations

The results of this study are derived from a retrospective chart review at a single VA facility. The autonomous nature of PACT CPS interventions may be difficult to replicate in other settings that do not permit pharmacists the same prescriptive authority. This analysis was designed to demonstrate the impact of the pharmacist in resolving major drug interactions. Patients referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic who also had their lipid medications adjusted by a nonpharmacist provider were excluded. However, this may have minimized the impact of the PACT CPS on the patient care provided. As postintervention laboratory results were not available for all patients, some patients’ TG levels could have increased above the 500 mg/dL threshold but were not identified. The time investment was extensive and likely underestimates the true cost of implementing the interventions.

Because notification letters were used to instruct patients to stop gemfibrozil or niacin, several considerations need to be addressed when interpreting the follow-up laboratory results. First, we cannot confirm whether the patients received the letter or the exact date the letter was received. Additionally, we cannot confirm whether the patients followed the instructions to stop the interacting medications or the date the medications were stopped. It is possible some patients were still taking the interacting medication when the first laboratory was drawn. Should a patient have continued the interacting medication, most would have run out and been unable to obtain a refill within 90 days of receiving the letter, as this is the maximum amount dispensed at one time. The mean time to the first laboratory result for both gemfibrozil and niacin was 6.5 and 5.3 months, respectively. Approximately 85% of patients completed the first laboratory test at least 3 months after the letter was mailed.

The protocols were designed to assess whether gemfibrozil or niacin was indicated and did not assess whether the statin was indicated. Therefore, discontinuing the statin also could have resolved the interaction appropriately. However, due to characteristics of the patient population and recommendations in current lipid guidelines, it was more likely the statin would be indicated.22,23 The protocols also assumed that patients eligible for gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation would not need additional changes to their lipid medications. The medication changes made by the PACT CPS may have gone beyond those minimally necessary to resolve the drug interaction and maintain TG goals. Patients who had gemfibrozil or niacin discontinued by protocol also may have benefited from additional optimization of their lipid medications.

Conclusions

This quality improvement analysis supports further evaluation of the complementary use of protocols and PACT CPS prescriptive authority to resolve statin drug interactions. The gemfibrozil and niacin protocols appropriately identified patients who were less likely to experience an adverse change in TG laboratory results. Patients more likely to require additional medication interventions were appropriately referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinics for individualized care. These data support expanded roles for pharmacists, across various settings, to mitigate select drug interactions at the Truman VA.

Acknowledgments
This quality improvement project is the result of work supported with resources and use of the Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital in Columbia, Missouri.

Statins are one of the most common medications dispensed in the US and are associated with clinically significant drug interactions.^1,2 The most common adverse drug reaction (ADR) of statin drug interactions is muscle-related toxicities.² Despite technology advances to alert clinicians to drug interactions, updated statin manufacturer labeling, and guideline recommendations, inappropriate prescribing and dispensing of statin drug interactions continues to occur in health care systems.^2-10

The medical literature has demonstrated many opportunities for pharmacists to prevent and mitigate drug interactions. At the points of prescribing and dispensing, pharmacists can reduce the number of potential drug interactions for the patient.^11-13 Pharmacists also have identified and resolved drug interactions through quality assurance review after dispensing to a patient.^7,8

Regardless of the time point of an intervention, the most common method pharmacists used to resolve drug interactions was through recommendations to a prescriber. The recommendations were generated through academic detailing, clinical decision support algorithms, drug conversions, or the pharmacist’s expertise. Regardless of the method the pharmacist used, the prescriber had the final authority to accept or decline the recommendation.^7,8,11-13 Although these interventions were effective, pharmacists could further streamline the process by autonomously resolving drug interactions. However, these types of interventions are not well described in the medical literature.

Background

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN), established the Safety Target of Polypharmacy (STOP) report in 2015. At each facility in the network, the report identified patients who were dispensed medications known to have drug interactions. The interactions were chosen by the VISN, and the severity of the interactions was based on coding parameters within the VA computerized order entry system, which uses a severity score based on First Databank data. At the Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital (Truman VA) in Columbia, Missouri, > 500 drug interactions were initially active on the STOP report. The most common drug interactions were statins with gemfibrozil and statins with niacin.1^4-18 The Truman VA Pharmacy Service was charged with resolving the interactions for the facility.

The Truman VA employs 3 Patient Aligned Care Team (PACT) Clinical Pharmacy Specialists (CPS) practicing within primary care clinics. PACT is the patientcentered medical home model used by the VA. PACT CPS are ambulatory care pharmacists who assist providers in managing diseases using a scope of practice. Having a scope of practice would have allowed the PACT CPS to manage drug interactions with independent prescribing authority. However, due to the high volume of STOP report interactions and limited PACT CPS resources, the Pharmacy Service needed to develop an efficient, patient-centered method to resolve them. The intervention also needed to allow pharmacists, both with and without a scope of practice, to address the interactions.

Methods

The Truman VA Pharmacy Service developed protocols, approved by the Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, to manage the specific gemfibrozil-statin and niacinstatin interactions chosen for the VISN 15 STOP report (Figures 1 and 2). The protocols were designed to identify patients who did not have a clear indication for gemfibrozil or niacin, were likely to maintain triglycerides (TGs) < 500 mg/dL without these medications, and would not likely require close monitoring after discontinuation^.19 The protocols allowed pharmacists to autonomously discontinue gemfibrozil or niacin if patients did not have a history of pancreatitis, TGs ≥ 400 mg/dL or a nonlipid indication for niacin (eg, pellagra) after establishing care at Truman VA. Additionally, both interacting medications had to be dispensed by the VA. When pharmacists discontinued a medication, it was documented in a note in the patient electronic health record. The prescriber was notified through the note and the patient received a notification letter. Follow-up laboratory monitoring was not required as part of the protocol.

If patients met any of the exclusion criteria for discontinuation, the primary care provider (PCP) was notified to place a consult to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic for individualized interventions and close monitoring. Patients prescribed niacin for nonlipid indications were allowed to continue with their current drug regimen. At each encounter, the PACT CPS assessed for ADRs, made individualized medication changes, and arranged follow-up appointments. Once the interaction was resolved and treatment goals met, the PCP resumed monitoring of the patient’s lipid therapy.

Following all pharmacist interventions, a retrospective quality improvement analysis was conducted. The primary outcome was to evaluate the impact of discontinuing gemfibrozil and niacin by protocol on patients’ laboratory results. The coprimary endpoints were to describe the change in TG levels and the percentage of patients with TGs ≥ 500 mg/dL at least 5 weeks following the pharmacist-directed discontinuation by protocol. Secondary outcomes included the time required to resolve the interactions and a description of the PACT CPS pharmacologic interventions. Additionally, a quality assurance peer review was used to ensure the pharmacists appropriately utilized the protocols.

Data were collected from August 2016 to September 2017 for patients prescribed gemfibrozil and from May 2017 to January 2018 for patients prescribed niacin. The time spent resolving interactions was quantified based on encounter data. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze demographic information and the endpoints associated with each outcome. The project was reviewed by the University of Missouri Institutional Review Board, Truman VA privacy and information security officers, and was determined to meet guidelines for quality improvement.

Results

The original STOP report included 397 drug interactions involving statins with gemfibrozil or niacin (Table 1). The majority of patients were white and male aged 60 to 79 years. Gemfibrozil was the most common drug involved in all interactions (79.8%). The most common statins were atorvastatin (40%) and simvastatin (36.5%).

Gemfibrozil-Statin Interactions

Pharmacists discontinued gemfibrozil by protocol for 94 patients (29.6%), and 107 patients (33.8%) were referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic (Figure 3). For the remaining 116 patients (36.6%), the drug interaction was addressed outside of the protocol for the following reasons: the drug interaction was resolved prior to pharmacist review; an interacting prescription was expired and not to be continued; the patient self-discontinued ≥ 1 interacting medications; the patient was deceased; the patient moved; the patient was receiving ≥ 1 interacting medications outside of the VA; or the prescriber resolved the interaction following notification by the pharmacist.

Ultimately, the interaction was resolved for all patients with a gemfibrozil-statin interaction on the STOP report. Following gemfibrozil discontinuation by protocol, 76 patients (80.9%) had TG laboratory results available and were included in the analysis. Sixty-two patients’ (82%) TG levels decreased or increased by < 100 mg/dL (Figure 4), and the TG levels of 1 patient (1.3%) increased above the threshold of 500 mg/dL. The mean (SD) time to the first laboratory result after the pharmacists mailed the notification letter was 6.5 (3.6) months (range, 1-17). The pharmacists spent a mean of 16 minutes per patient resolving each interaction.

Of the 107 patients referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic, 80 (74.8%) had TG laboratory results available and were included in the analysis. These patients were followed by the PACT CPS until the drug interaction was resolved and confirmed to have TG levels at goal (< 500 mg/dL). Gemfibrozil doses ranged from 300 mg daily to 600 mg twice daily, with 70% (n = 56) of patients taking 600 mg twice daily. The PACT CPS made 148 interventions (Table 2). Twenty-three (29%) patients required only gemfibrozil discontinuation. The remaining 57 patients (71%) required at least 2 medication interventions. The PACT CPS generated 213 encounters for resolving drug interactions with a median of 2 encounters per patient.

Quality assurance review identified 5 patients (5.3%) who underwent gemfibrozil discontinuation by protocol, despite having criteria that would have recommended against discontinuation. In accordance with the protocol criteria, these patients were later referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic. None of these patients experienced a TG increase at or above the threshold of 500 mg/dL after gemfibrozil was initially discontinued but were excluded from the earlier analysis.

Niacin-Statin Interactions

Pharmacists discontinued niacin by protocol for 48 patients (60.0%), and 22 patients (27.5%) were referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic (Figure 5). For the remaining 5 patients (6.3%), the interaction was either addressed outside the protocol prior to pharmacist review, or an interacting prescription was expired and not to be continued. Additionally, niacin was continued per prescriber preference in 5 patients (6.3%).

Thirty-six patients (75%) had TG laboratory results available following niacin discontinuation by protocol and were included in the analysis. Most patients’ (n = 33, 91.7%) TG levels decreased or increased by < 100 mg/dL. No patient had a TG level that increased higher than the threshold of 500 mg/dL. The mean (SD) time to the first laboratory result after the pharmacists mailed the notification letter, was 5.3 (2.5) months (range, 1.2-9.8). The pharmacists spent a mean of 15 minutes per patient resolving each interaction. The quality assurance review found no discrepancies in the pharmacists’ application of the protocol.

Of the 22 patients referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic, 16 (72.7%) patients had TG laboratory results available and were included in the analysis. As with the gemfibrozil interactions, these patients were followed by the PACT Pharmacy Clinic until the drug interaction was resolved and confirmed to have TGs at goal (< 500 mg/dL). Niacin doses ranged from 500 mg daily to 2,000 mg daily, with the majority of patients taking 1,000 mg daily. The PACT CPS made 23 interventions. The PACT CPS generated 46 encounters for resolving drug interactions with a median of 2 encounters per patient.

Discussion

Following gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation by protocol, most patients with available laboratory results experienced either a decrease or modest TG elevation. The proportion of patients experiencing a decrease in TGs was unexpected but potentially multifactorial. Individual causes for the decrease in TGs were beyond the scope of this analysis. The retrospective design limited the ability to identify variables that could have impacted TG levels when gemfibrozil or niacin were started and discontinued. Although the treatment of TG levels is not indicated until it is ≥ 500 mg/dL, due to an increased risk of pancreatitis, both protocols excluded patients with a history of TGs ≥ 400 mg/dL.¹⁹ The lower threshold was set to compensate for anticipated increase in TG levels, following gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation, and to minimize the number of patients with TG levels ≥ 500 mg/dL. The actual impact on patients’ TG levels supports the use of this lower threshold in the protocol.

When TG levels increased by 200 to 249 mg/dL after gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation, patients were evaluated for possible underlying causes, which occurred for 4 gemfibrozil and 1 niacin patient. One patient started a β-blocker after gemfibrozil was initiated, and 3 patients were taking gemfibrozil prior to establishing care at the VA. The TG levels of the patient taking niacin correlated with an increased hemoglobin A1c. The TG level for only 1 patient taking gemfibrozil increased above the 500 mg/dL threshold. The patient had several comorbidities known to increase TG levels, but the comorbidities were previously well controlled. No additional medication changes were made at that time, and the TG levels on the next fasting lipid panel decreased to goal. The patient did not experience any negative clinical sequelae from the elevated TG levels.

Thirty-five patients (36%) who were referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic required only either gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation. These patients were evaluated to identify whether adjustments to the protocols would have allowed for pharmacist discontinuation without referral to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic. Twenty-four of these patients (69%) had repeated TG levels ≥ 400 mg/dL prior to referral to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic. Additionally, there was no correlation between the gemfibrozil or niacin doses and the change in TG levels following discontinuation. These data indicate the protocols appropriately identified patients who did not have an indication for gemfibrozil or niacin.

In addition to drug interactions identified on the STOP report, the PACT CPS resolved 12 additional interactions involving simvastatin and gemfibrozil. Additionally, unnecessary lipid medications were deprescribed. The PACT CPS identified 13 patients who experienced myalgias, an ADR attributed to the gemfibrozil- statin interaction. Of those, 9 patients’ ADRs resolved after discontinuing gemfibrozil alone. For the remaining 4 patients, additional interventions to convert the patient to another statin were required to resolve the ADR.

Using pharmacists to address the drug interactions shifted workload from the prescribers and other primary care team members. The mean time spent to resolve both gemfibrozil and niacin interactions by protocol was 15.5 minutes. One hundred fortytwo patients (35.8%) had drug interactions resolved by protocol, saving the PACT CPS’ expertise for patients requiring individualized interventions. Drug interactions were resolved within 4 PACT CPS encounters for 93.8% of the patients taking gemfibrozil and within 3 PACT CPS encounters for 93.8% of the patients taking niacin.

The protocols allowed 12 additional pharmacists who did not have an ambulatory care scope of practice to assist the PACT CPS in mitigating the STOP drug interactions. These pharmacists otherwise would have been limited to making consultative recommendations. Simultaneously, the design allowed for the PACT pharmacists’ expertise to be allocated for patients most likely to require interventions beyond the protocols. This type of intraprofessional referral process is not well described in the medical literature. To the authors’ knowledge, the only studies described referrals from hospital pharmacists to community pharmacists during transitions of care on hospital discharge.^20,21

Limitations

The results of this study are derived from a retrospective chart review at a single VA facility. The autonomous nature of PACT CPS interventions may be difficult to replicate in other settings that do not permit pharmacists the same prescriptive authority. This analysis was designed to demonstrate the impact of the pharmacist in resolving major drug interactions. Patients referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinic who also had their lipid medications adjusted by a nonpharmacist provider were excluded. However, this may have minimized the impact of the PACT CPS on the patient care provided. As postintervention laboratory results were not available for all patients, some patients’ TG levels could have increased above the 500 mg/dL threshold but were not identified. The time investment was extensive and likely underestimates the true cost of implementing the interventions.

Because notification letters were used to instruct patients to stop gemfibrozil or niacin, several considerations need to be addressed when interpreting the follow-up laboratory results. First, we cannot confirm whether the patients received the letter or the exact date the letter was received. Additionally, we cannot confirm whether the patients followed the instructions to stop the interacting medications or the date the medications were stopped. It is possible some patients were still taking the interacting medication when the first laboratory was drawn. Should a patient have continued the interacting medication, most would have run out and been unable to obtain a refill within 90 days of receiving the letter, as this is the maximum amount dispensed at one time. The mean time to the first laboratory result for both gemfibrozil and niacin was 6.5 and 5.3 months, respectively. Approximately 85% of patients completed the first laboratory test at least 3 months after the letter was mailed.

The protocols were designed to assess whether gemfibrozil or niacin was indicated and did not assess whether the statin was indicated. Therefore, discontinuing the statin also could have resolved the interaction appropriately. However, due to characteristics of the patient population and recommendations in current lipid guidelines, it was more likely the statin would be indicated.22,23 The protocols also assumed that patients eligible for gemfibrozil or niacin discontinuation would not need additional changes to their lipid medications. The medication changes made by the PACT CPS may have gone beyond those minimally necessary to resolve the drug interaction and maintain TG goals. Patients who had gemfibrozil or niacin discontinued by protocol also may have benefited from additional optimization of their lipid medications.

Conclusions

This quality improvement analysis supports further evaluation of the complementary use of protocols and PACT CPS prescriptive authority to resolve statin drug interactions. The gemfibrozil and niacin protocols appropriately identified patients who were less likely to experience an adverse change in TG laboratory results. Patients more likely to require additional medication interventions were appropriately referred to the PACT Pharmacy Clinics for individualized care. These data support expanded roles for pharmacists, across various settings, to mitigate select drug interactions at the Truman VA.

Acknowledgments
This quality improvement project is the result of work supported with resources and use of the Harry S. Truman Memorial Veterans’ Hospital in Columbia, Missouri.

“Hey there—just checking on you and letting you know I’m thinking of you.”

“I know words don’t suffice right now. You are in my thoughts.”

“If there’s any way that I can be of support or if there’s something you need, just let me know.”

The texts and emails have come in waves. Pinging into my already distracted headspace when, like them, I’m supposed to be focused on a Zoom or WebEx department meeting. These somber reminders underscore what I have known for years but struggled to describe with each new “justice for” hashtag accompanying the name of the latest unarmed Black person to die. This is grief.

With every headline in prior years, as Black Americans we have usually found solace in our collective fellowship of suffering. Social media timelines become flooded with our own amen choirs and outrage along with words of comfort and inspiration. We remind ourselves of the prior atrocities survived by our people. And like them, we vow to rally; clinging to one other and praying to make it to shore. Though intermittently joined by a smattering of allies, our suffering has mostly been a private, repetitive mourning.

The year 2020 ushered in a new decade along with the novel SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) global pandemic. In addition to the thousands of lives that have been lost in the United States alone, COVID-19 brought with it a disruption of life in ways never seen by most generations. Schools and businesses were closed to mitigate spread. Mandatory shelter-in-place orders coupled with physical distancing recommendations limited human interactions and cancelled everything from hospital visitations to graduations, intergenerational family gatherings, conferences, and weddings.¹ As the data expanded, it quickly became apparent that minorities, particularly Black Americans, shouldered a disproportionate burden of COVID-19.² Known health disparities were amplified.

While caring for our patients as Black physicians in the time of coronavirus, silently we mourned again. The connection and trust once found through racial concordance was now masked figuratively and literally by personal protective equipment (PPE). We ignored the sting of intimations that the staggering numbers of African Americans hospitalized and dying from COVID-19 could be explained by lack of discipline or, worse, genetic differences by race. Years of disenfranchisement and missed economic opportunities forced large numbers of our patients and loved ones out on the front lines to do essential jobs—but without the celebratory cheers or fanfare enjoyed by others. Frantic phone calls from family and acquaintances interrupted our quiet drives home from emotionally grueling shifts in the hospital—each conversation serving as our personal evidence of COVID-19 and her ruthless ravage of the Black community. Add to this trying to serve as cultural bridges between the complexities of medical distrust and patient advocacy along with wrestling with our own vulnerability as potential COVID-19 patients, these have been overwhelming times to say the least.

Then came the acute decompensation of the chronic racism we’d always known in the form of three recent killings of more unarmed African Americans. On March 13, 2020, 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was shot after police forcibly entered her home after midnight on a “no knock” warrant.³ The story was buried in the news of COVID-19—but we knew. Later we’d learn that 26-year-old Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed by armed neighbors while running through a Brunswick, Georgia, neighborhood. His death on February 23, 2020, initially yielded no criminal charges.⁴ Then, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old father arrested for suspected use of a counterfeit $20 bill, died after a law enforcement official kneeled with his full body weight upon Floyd’s neck for over 8 minutes.⁵ The deaths of Arbery and Floyd were captured by cell phone cameras which, aided by social media, quickly reached the eyes of the entire world.

At first, it seemed plausible that this would be like it always has been. A Black mother would stand before a podium filled with multiple microphones crying out in anguish. She would be flanked by community leaders and attorneys demanding justice. Hashtags would be formed. Our people would stand up or kneel down in solidarity—holding fast to our historic resilience. Evanescent allies would appear with signs on lawns and held high over heads. A few weeks would pass by and things would go back to normal. Black people would be left with what always remains: heads bowed and praying at dinner tables petitioning a higher power for protection followed by reaffirmations of what, if anything, could be done to keep our own mamas away from that podium. We’ve learned to treat the grief of racism as endemic to us alone, knowing that it has been a pandemic all along.

The intersection of the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic, complete with its social isolation and inordinate impact on minorities, and the acuity of the grief felt by the most recent events of abject racism have coalesced to form what feels like a pivotal point in the arc of justice. Like the bloated, disfigured face of lynched teenager Emmett Till lying lifeless in an open casket for the entire world to see in 1955,⁶ footage of these recent deaths typify a level of inhumanity that makes it too hard to turn away or carry on in indifference. The acute-on-chronic grief of racism felt by African Americans has risen into a tsunami, washing open the eyes of privileged persons belonging to all races, ethnicities, faiths, socioeconomic backgrounds, political views, and ages. The bulging neck veins, crackles, and thumping gallop rhythm of our hidden grief has declared itself: The rest of the world now knows that we can’t breathe.

Our moral outrage is pushing us to do something. Marches and demonstrations have occurred in nearly every major city. For those historically disenfranchised and let down by our societal contract, grief has, at times, met rage. Though we all feel an urgency, when we try to imagine ways to dismantle racism in the US it seems insurmountable. But as hospitalists and leaders, we will face black patients, colleagues, and neighbors navigating the pain of this exhausting collective trauma. While we won’t have all the answers immediately, we recognize the peculiar intersection between the COVID-19 crisis and the tipping point of grief felt by Black people with the recent deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, and it urges us to try.

Where can we start?

This is a time of deep sorrow for Black people. Recognizing it as such is an empathic place to begin. Everyone steers through grief differently, but a few things always hold true:

• Listen more than you talk—even if it’s uncomfortable. This isn’t a time to render opinions or draw suffering comparisons.
• Timely support is always appreciated. Leaders should feel the urgency to speak up early and often. Formal letters from leadership on behalf of organizations may feel like an echo chamber but they are worth the effort. Delays can be misunderstood as indifference and make the pain worse.
• The ministry of presence does not have to be physical. Those awkward text messages and emails create psychological safety in your organization and reduce loneliness. They also afford space to those who are still processing emotions and would prefer not to talk.
• Don’t place an expectation on the grieving to guide you through ways to help them heal. Though well-meaning, it can be overwhelming. This is particularly true in these current times.
• When in doubt, remember that support is a verb. Ultimately, sustained action or inaction will make your position clearer than any text message or email. Be sensitive to the unique intricacy of chronicity and missed opportunity when talking about racism.

Along with the pain we all feel from the impact of COVID-19, this is the time to recognize that your African American colleagues, patients, and friends have been navigating another tenacious and far more destructive pandemic at the same time. It is acute. It is chronic. It is acute-on-chronic. Perhaps 2020 will also be remembered for the opportunity it presented for the centuries old scourge of racism to no longer be our transparent cross to bear alone. Unlike COVID-19, this pandemic of racism is not “unprecedented.” We have been here before. It’s time we all grieve—and act—together.

“Hey there—just checking on you and letting you know I’m thinking of you.”

“I know words don’t suffice right now. You are in my thoughts.”

“If there’s any way that I can be of support or if there’s something you need, just let me know.”

The texts and emails have come in waves. Pinging into my already distracted headspace when, like them, I’m supposed to be focused on a Zoom or WebEx department meeting. These somber reminders underscore what I have known for years but struggled to describe with each new “justice for” hashtag accompanying the name of the latest unarmed Black person to die. This is grief.

With every headline in prior years, as Black Americans we have usually found solace in our collective fellowship of suffering. Social media timelines become flooded with our own amen choirs and outrage along with words of comfort and inspiration. We remind ourselves of the prior atrocities survived by our people. And like them, we vow to rally; clinging to one other and praying to make it to shore. Though intermittently joined by a smattering of allies, our suffering has mostly been a private, repetitive mourning.

The year 2020 ushered in a new decade along with the novel SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) global pandemic. In addition to the thousands of lives that have been lost in the United States alone, COVID-19 brought with it a disruption of life in ways never seen by most generations. Schools and businesses were closed to mitigate spread. Mandatory shelter-in-place orders coupled with physical distancing recommendations limited human interactions and cancelled everything from hospital visitations to graduations, intergenerational family gatherings, conferences, and weddings.¹ As the data expanded, it quickly became apparent that minorities, particularly Black Americans, shouldered a disproportionate burden of COVID-19.² Known health disparities were amplified.

While caring for our patients as Black physicians in the time of coronavirus, silently we mourned again. The connection and trust once found through racial concordance was now masked figuratively and literally by personal protective equipment (PPE). We ignored the sting of intimations that the staggering numbers of African Americans hospitalized and dying from COVID-19 could be explained by lack of discipline or, worse, genetic differences by race. Years of disenfranchisement and missed economic opportunities forced large numbers of our patients and loved ones out on the front lines to do essential jobs—but without the celebratory cheers or fanfare enjoyed by others. Frantic phone calls from family and acquaintances interrupted our quiet drives home from emotionally grueling shifts in the hospital—each conversation serving as our personal evidence of COVID-19 and her ruthless ravage of the Black community. Add to this trying to serve as cultural bridges between the complexities of medical distrust and patient advocacy along with wrestling with our own vulnerability as potential COVID-19 patients, these have been overwhelming times to say the least.

Then came the acute decompensation of the chronic racism we’d always known in the form of three recent killings of more unarmed African Americans. On March 13, 2020, 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was shot after police forcibly entered her home after midnight on a “no knock” warrant.³ The story was buried in the news of COVID-19—but we knew. Later we’d learn that 26-year-old Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed by armed neighbors while running through a Brunswick, Georgia, neighborhood. His death on February 23, 2020, initially yielded no criminal charges.⁴ Then, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old father arrested for suspected use of a counterfeit $20 bill, died after a law enforcement official kneeled with his full body weight upon Floyd’s neck for over 8 minutes.⁵ The deaths of Arbery and Floyd were captured by cell phone cameras which, aided by social media, quickly reached the eyes of the entire world.

At first, it seemed plausible that this would be like it always has been. A Black mother would stand before a podium filled with multiple microphones crying out in anguish. She would be flanked by community leaders and attorneys demanding justice. Hashtags would be formed. Our people would stand up or kneel down in solidarity—holding fast to our historic resilience. Evanescent allies would appear with signs on lawns and held high over heads. A few weeks would pass by and things would go back to normal. Black people would be left with what always remains: heads bowed and praying at dinner tables petitioning a higher power for protection followed by reaffirmations of what, if anything, could be done to keep our own mamas away from that podium. We’ve learned to treat the grief of racism as endemic to us alone, knowing that it has been a pandemic all along.

The intersection of the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic, complete with its social isolation and inordinate impact on minorities, and the acuity of the grief felt by the most recent events of abject racism have coalesced to form what feels like a pivotal point in the arc of justice. Like the bloated, disfigured face of lynched teenager Emmett Till lying lifeless in an open casket for the entire world to see in 1955,⁶ footage of these recent deaths typify a level of inhumanity that makes it too hard to turn away or carry on in indifference. The acute-on-chronic grief of racism felt by African Americans has risen into a tsunami, washing open the eyes of privileged persons belonging to all races, ethnicities, faiths, socioeconomic backgrounds, political views, and ages. The bulging neck veins, crackles, and thumping gallop rhythm of our hidden grief has declared itself: The rest of the world now knows that we can’t breathe.

Our moral outrage is pushing us to do something. Marches and demonstrations have occurred in nearly every major city. For those historically disenfranchised and let down by our societal contract, grief has, at times, met rage. Though we all feel an urgency, when we try to imagine ways to dismantle racism in the US it seems insurmountable. But as hospitalists and leaders, we will face black patients, colleagues, and neighbors navigating the pain of this exhausting collective trauma. While we won’t have all the answers immediately, we recognize the peculiar intersection between the COVID-19 crisis and the tipping point of grief felt by Black people with the recent deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, and it urges us to try.

Where can we start?

This is a time of deep sorrow for Black people. Recognizing it as such is an empathic place to begin. Everyone steers through grief differently, but a few things always hold true:

• Listen more than you talk—even if it’s uncomfortable. This isn’t a time to render opinions or draw suffering comparisons.
• Timely support is always appreciated. Leaders should feel the urgency to speak up early and often. Formal letters from leadership on behalf of organizations may feel like an echo chamber but they are worth the effort. Delays can be misunderstood as indifference and make the pain worse.
• The ministry of presence does not have to be physical. Those awkward text messages and emails create psychological safety in your organization and reduce loneliness. They also afford space to those who are still processing emotions and would prefer not to talk.
• Don’t place an expectation on the grieving to guide you through ways to help them heal. Though well-meaning, it can be overwhelming. This is particularly true in these current times.
• When in doubt, remember that support is a verb. Ultimately, sustained action or inaction will make your position clearer than any text message or email. Be sensitive to the unique intricacy of chronicity and missed opportunity when talking about racism.

Along with the pain we all feel from the impact of COVID-19, this is the time to recognize that your African American colleagues, patients, and friends have been navigating another tenacious and far more destructive pandemic at the same time. It is acute. It is chronic. It is acute-on-chronic. Perhaps 2020 will also be remembered for the opportunity it presented for the centuries old scourge of racism to no longer be our transparent cross to bear alone. Unlike COVID-19, this pandemic of racism is not “unprecedented.” We have been here before. It’s time we all grieve—and act—together.

“Hey there—just checking on you and letting you know I’m thinking of you.”

“I know words don’t suffice right now. You are in my thoughts.”

“If there’s any way that I can be of support or if there’s something you need, just let me know.”

The texts and emails have come in waves. Pinging into my already distracted headspace when, like them, I’m supposed to be focused on a Zoom or WebEx department meeting. These somber reminders underscore what I have known for years but struggled to describe with each new “justice for” hashtag accompanying the name of the latest unarmed Black person to die. This is grief.

With every headline in prior years, as Black Americans we have usually found solace in our collective fellowship of suffering. Social media timelines become flooded with our own amen choirs and outrage along with words of comfort and inspiration. We remind ourselves of the prior atrocities survived by our people. And like them, we vow to rally; clinging to one other and praying to make it to shore. Though intermittently joined by a smattering of allies, our suffering has mostly been a private, repetitive mourning.

The year 2020 ushered in a new decade along with the novel SARS-CoV2 (COVID-19) global pandemic. In addition to the thousands of lives that have been lost in the United States alone, COVID-19 brought with it a disruption of life in ways never seen by most generations. Schools and businesses were closed to mitigate spread. Mandatory shelter-in-place orders coupled with physical distancing recommendations limited human interactions and cancelled everything from hospital visitations to graduations, intergenerational family gatherings, conferences, and weddings.¹ As the data expanded, it quickly became apparent that minorities, particularly Black Americans, shouldered a disproportionate burden of COVID-19.² Known health disparities were amplified.

While caring for our patients as Black physicians in the time of coronavirus, silently we mourned again. The connection and trust once found through racial concordance was now masked figuratively and literally by personal protective equipment (PPE). We ignored the sting of intimations that the staggering numbers of African Americans hospitalized and dying from COVID-19 could be explained by lack of discipline or, worse, genetic differences by race. Years of disenfranchisement and missed economic opportunities forced large numbers of our patients and loved ones out on the front lines to do essential jobs—but without the celebratory cheers or fanfare enjoyed by others. Frantic phone calls from family and acquaintances interrupted our quiet drives home from emotionally grueling shifts in the hospital—each conversation serving as our personal evidence of COVID-19 and her ruthless ravage of the Black community. Add to this trying to serve as cultural bridges between the complexities of medical distrust and patient advocacy along with wrestling with our own vulnerability as potential COVID-19 patients, these have been overwhelming times to say the least.

Then came the acute decompensation of the chronic racism we’d always known in the form of three recent killings of more unarmed African Americans. On March 13, 2020, 26-year-old Breonna Taylor was shot after police forcibly entered her home after midnight on a “no knock” warrant.³ The story was buried in the news of COVID-19—but we knew. Later we’d learn that 26-year-old Ahmaud Arbery was shot and killed by armed neighbors while running through a Brunswick, Georgia, neighborhood. His death on February 23, 2020, initially yielded no criminal charges.⁴ Then, on May 25, 2020, George Floyd, a 46-year-old father arrested for suspected use of a counterfeit $20 bill, died after a law enforcement official kneeled with his full body weight upon Floyd’s neck for over 8 minutes.⁵ The deaths of Arbery and Floyd were captured by cell phone cameras which, aided by social media, quickly reached the eyes of the entire world.

At first, it seemed plausible that this would be like it always has been. A Black mother would stand before a podium filled with multiple microphones crying out in anguish. She would be flanked by community leaders and attorneys demanding justice. Hashtags would be formed. Our people would stand up or kneel down in solidarity—holding fast to our historic resilience. Evanescent allies would appear with signs on lawns and held high over heads. A few weeks would pass by and things would go back to normal. Black people would be left with what always remains: heads bowed and praying at dinner tables petitioning a higher power for protection followed by reaffirmations of what, if anything, could be done to keep our own mamas away from that podium. We’ve learned to treat the grief of racism as endemic to us alone, knowing that it has been a pandemic all along.

The intersection of the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic, complete with its social isolation and inordinate impact on minorities, and the acuity of the grief felt by the most recent events of abject racism have coalesced to form what feels like a pivotal point in the arc of justice. Like the bloated, disfigured face of lynched teenager Emmett Till lying lifeless in an open casket for the entire world to see in 1955,⁶ footage of these recent deaths typify a level of inhumanity that makes it too hard to turn away or carry on in indifference. The acute-on-chronic grief of racism felt by African Americans has risen into a tsunami, washing open the eyes of privileged persons belonging to all races, ethnicities, faiths, socioeconomic backgrounds, political views, and ages. The bulging neck veins, crackles, and thumping gallop rhythm of our hidden grief has declared itself: The rest of the world now knows that we can’t breathe.

Our moral outrage is pushing us to do something. Marches and demonstrations have occurred in nearly every major city. For those historically disenfranchised and let down by our societal contract, grief has, at times, met rage. Though we all feel an urgency, when we try to imagine ways to dismantle racism in the US it seems insurmountable. But as hospitalists and leaders, we will face black patients, colleagues, and neighbors navigating the pain of this exhausting collective trauma. While we won’t have all the answers immediately, we recognize the peculiar intersection between the COVID-19 crisis and the tipping point of grief felt by Black people with the recent deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, and it urges us to try.

Where can we start?

This is a time of deep sorrow for Black people. Recognizing it as such is an empathic place to begin. Everyone steers through grief differently, but a few things always hold true:

• Listen more than you talk—even if it’s uncomfortable. This isn’t a time to render opinions or draw suffering comparisons.
• Timely support is always appreciated. Leaders should feel the urgency to speak up early and often. Formal letters from leadership on behalf of organizations may feel like an echo chamber but they are worth the effort. Delays can be misunderstood as indifference and make the pain worse.
• The ministry of presence does not have to be physical. Those awkward text messages and emails create psychological safety in your organization and reduce loneliness. They also afford space to those who are still processing emotions and would prefer not to talk.
• Don’t place an expectation on the grieving to guide you through ways to help them heal. Though well-meaning, it can be overwhelming. This is particularly true in these current times.
• When in doubt, remember that support is a verb. Ultimately, sustained action or inaction will make your position clearer than any text message or email. Be sensitive to the unique intricacy of chronicity and missed opportunity when talking about racism.

Along with the pain we all feel from the impact of COVID-19, this is the time to recognize that your African American colleagues, patients, and friends have been navigating another tenacious and far more destructive pandemic at the same time. It is acute. It is chronic. It is acute-on-chronic. Perhaps 2020 will also be remembered for the opportunity it presented for the centuries old scourge of racism to no longer be our transparent cross to bear alone. Unlike COVID-19, this pandemic of racism is not “unprecedented.” We have been here before. It’s time we all grieve—and act—together.

Children hospitalized for bronchiolitis frequently require admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), with estimates as high as 18%^1,2 and 35%³ in two prospective, multicenter studies. The indication for ICU admission is nearly always a need for advanced respiratory support, which historically consisted of continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure (CPAP and BiPAP, respectively) or mechanical ventilation. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a recent addition to the respiratory support armamentarium, delivering heated and humidified oxygen at rates of up to 60 L/min and allowing for clinicians to titrate both flow rate and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂).⁴

Several studies have demonstrated that HFNC is capable of decreasing a child’s work of breathing,^5-8 and it has the potential advantage of being better tolerated than other forms of advanced respiratory support.^9,10 These case-series physiologic studies informed early ward-based HFNC protocols for bronchiolitis, which were adopted to decrease ICU utilization. Since then, single center observational studies examining the association between ward-based HFNC protocols and subsequent ICU utilization have come to discordant conclusions.^11-14 Studying the effect of employing HFNC outside of the ICU is challenging in the context of a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) because it is difficult to blind healthcare providers to the intervention and because crossover from the control group to HFNC is frequent. Two unblinded RCTs published in 2017 and 2018 found that children randomized to conventional nasal cannula were frequently escalated to HFNC (flow rates of 1-2 L/kg per minute), but neither trial found a difference in ICU admission.^15,16 Sample sizes substantially larger than those present in currently published or registered RCTs would be required to evaluate the impact of ward-based HFNC protocols on the outcome that inspired the protocols in the first place, namely ICU utilization.¹⁷

Children’s hospitals have adopted ward-based HFNC protocols at different time points over the last decade, which allows for a natural experiment—a promising alternative study design that avoids the challenges of blinding, crossover, and modest sample sizes. In order to have sufficient postadoption data for analyses, the present study is limited to ward-based HFNC protocols adopted prior to 2016, which we have termed “early” ward-based HFNC protocols. Among children with bronchiolitis, our objective was to measure the association between hospital-level adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol and subsequent ICU utilization, using a multicenter network of children’s hospitals.

We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. The PHIS database is operated by the Children’s Hospital Association (Lenexa, Kansas) and provides deidentified patient-level information for children who receive hospital care at 55 US children’s hospitals. Available data elements include patient demographic data, discharge diagnosis and procedure codes, and detailed billing information, such as laboratory, imaging, pharmacy, and supply charges. At the patient level, the use of HFNC vs standard oxygen therapy circuits cannot be discriminated.

Exposure

The study exposure was a hospital’s first ward-based HFNC protocol, with adoption measured at the hospital level at each PHIS site via direct communication with leaders in hospital medicine. In most cases, first contact was made with the pediatric hospital medicine division chief or fellowship program director, who then, if necessary, connected study investigators to local HFNC champions aware of site-specific historical HFNC protocol details. Contact with a hospital was made only if the hospital had contributed at least 6 consecutive years of data to PHIS. Hospitals were classified as “adopting” hospitals if their HFNC protocol met all of the following criteria: (a) allows initiation of HFNC outside of the ICU (on the floor or in the ED), (b) allows continued care outside of the ICU (on the floor), (c) not limited to a small unit like an intermediate care unit, and (d) adopted during a specific, known respiratory season. Hospitals for which ward-based HFNC protocols were adopted but did not meet these criteria were excluded from further analysis. Our intent was to identify large scale, programmatic protocol launches and exclude hospitals with exceptions that might preclude a sizable portion of our cohort from being eligible for the protocol. Hospitals for which inpatient use of HFNC remains limited to the ICU were defined as “nonadopting” hospitals. Respondents at adopting hospitals were asked to share details about their protocol, including patient eligibility criteria and maximum HFNC rates of flow permitted outside of the ICU.

Patient Characteristics

Patients aged 3 to 24 months who were hospitalized at adopting and nonadopting hospitals were included if an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) discharge diagnosis code for bronchiolitis (466.XX) was present in any position (not limited to a primary diagnosis). The lower age limit of 3 months was chosen to match the most restrictive age eligibility criteria of provided HFNC protocols (Appendix 1). A crosswalk available from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services¹⁸ was used to convert ICD-10 diagnosis and procedure codes from recent years to ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes. Patients were excluded if their encounter contained a diagnosis or procedure code signifying a complex chronic condition,¹⁹ if their hospitalization involved care in the neonatal ICU, or if their admission date occurred outside of the respiratory season. Respiratory season was defined as November 1 through April 30.

Outcomes

Outcomes were measured during three respiratory seasons leading up to adoption and during three respiratory seasons after adoption. The primary outcome was ICU utilization, including the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU and ICU length of stay, expressed as ICU days per 100 patients. Secondary outcomes included mean total length of stay and the proportion of patients who received mechanical ventilation. Lengths of stay were measured in days, the most granular unit of time provided in PHIS over the entire study period. As such, partial days of care are rounded up to 1 full day. A previously published strict definition for mechanical ventilation that limits false positives was used, requiring that patients have a procedure or supply code for mechanical ventilation and a pharmacy charge for a neuromuscular blocking agent.²⁰

Primary Analysis

The primary analysis was restricted to adopting hospitals. An interrupted time series approach was used to measure two possible types of change associated with HFNC protocol adoption: an immediate intervention effect and a change in the slope of an outcome.²¹ The immediate intervention effect represents the change in the level of the outcome that occurs in the period immediately following the introduction of the protocol. The change in slope is the extent to which the outcome changes on a per season basis, attributable to the protocol. Interrupted time series estimates were adjusted for patient age, gender, race, ethnicity, and insurance type; linear regression was used for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes. An ordinary least squares time series model was used to adjust for autocorrelation and Newey-West standard errors were employed.²² Analyses were performed using STATA version 14 (Stata-Corp, College Station, Texas).

Supplementary Analyses

Two preplanned supplementary analyses were conducted. Supplementary analysis 1 was identical to the primary analysis, with the exception that the first season after adoption was censored. The rationale for censoring the first adoption season was to account for a potential learning effect and/or delayed start to full protocol implementation. Supplementary analysis 2 used the nonadopting hospitals as a control group and subtracted the effects measured from an interrupted time series analysis among nonadopting hospitals from the effects measured among adopting hospitals. The rationale for this approach was to control for unmeasured secular (eg, availability of ICU beds) and temporal (eg, severity of a given bronchiolitis season) factors that may have coincidentally occurred with HFNC adoption seasons. The only modification to the interrupted time series approach for supplementary analysis 2 was to provide the nonadopting hospitals with an artificial interruption point because nonadopting hospitals, by definition, did not have an adoption season that could be used in an interrupted time series approach. The interruption point for nonadopting hospitals was set at the median adoption season for adopting hospitals.

Exposure

Leaders at 44 hospitals were contacted regarding their hospital’s use of HFNC outside of the ICU (Figure 1). Responses were obtained for 41 hospitals (93% response rate), 18 of which were classified as nonadopting hospitals. Of the 23 hospitals where the presence of ward-based HFNC protocols were reported, 12 met inclusion criteria and were classified as adopting hospitals. HFNC protocols were adopted at these hospitals in a staggered fashion between the 2010-2011 and 2015-2016 respiratory seasons (Figure 2). The median adoption season was the 2013-14 respiratory season.

Nine adopting hospitals were able to provide details about their first HFNC protocols (Appendix 1). No two protocols were identical, but they shared many similarities. Minimum age requirements ranged from birth to a few months of age. Exclusion criteria were particularly variable, with a history of chronic lung disease or apnea being the most common criteria. Maximum allowed rates of flow ranged from 4 to 10 liters per minute. Criteria for transfer to the ICU were consistently based on an elevated FiO₂ and duration of HFNC exposure.

Patient Characteristics

A total of 32,809 bronchiolitis encounters occurred at adopting hospitals during qualifying respiratory seasons, of which 6,556 (20%) involved patients with a complex chronic condition and were excluded. Of the 26,253 included bronchiolitis encounters, 12,495 encounters occurred prior to ward-based HFNC protocol adoption and 13,758 encounters occurred after adoption. The median age of patients was 8 months (interquartile range, 5-14 months). Most patients were on government insurance (64%), male (58%), of white (56%) or black (18%) race, and of non-Hispanic ethnicity (72%). Pre- and postadoption patient demographics were similar (Appendix 2).

Primary Analysis

Shifts in the level of ICU use and ICU length of stay were observed at the time of adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol (Figure 3). Specifically, ward-based HFNC protocol adoption was associated with an immediate 3.1% absolute increase (95% CI, 2.8%-3.4%) in the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU and a 9.1 days per 100 patients increase (95% CI, 5.1-13.2) in ICU length of stay (Table). The slope of ICU admissions per season was increasing after HFNC protocol adoption (1.0% increase per season; 95% CI, 0.8%-1.1%). When examined at the individual-hospital level (Appendix 3), seven hospitals were found to have significant increases in ICU admissions (immediate intervention effect or change in slope) after adoption, and one hospital was found to have a significant decrease in ICU admissions (change in slope only). Neither immediate intervention effects nor changes in the slopes of total length of stay and mechanical ventilation were observed, with mean total length of stay approximately 3 days and just over 1% of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (Figure 3).

Supplementary Analyses

Supplementary analyses were largely consistent with the primary analysis. Associations with increased ICU utilization were again observed, although the immediate change in ICU length of stay for supplementary analysis 1 was not significant and the slope for ICU length of stay in supplementary analysis 2 was down trending (Table). Changes in total length of stay and mechanical ventilation were not observed in either supplementary analysis, with the lone exception being an increase in the proportion of patients receiving mechanical ventilation per season (increase in slope) in supplementary analysis 1.

This is the largest multicenter study to date evaluating ICU utilization after adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol for patients with bronchiolitis. While a principal goal of allowing HFNC use outside of the ICU is to reduce the time that patients with bronchiolitis spend in the ICU, we found that early protocols were, paradoxically, associated with increased ICU utilization. Ward-based HFNC protocols were not associated with changes in hospital length of stay or need for mechanical ventilation. Our findings are particularly relevant given that the majority of children’s hospitals in our sample have adopted ward-based HFNC protocols to care for patients with bronchiolitis.

The increase in ICU utilization measured in our study is a novel finding, seemingly in contradiction to existing literature. Early pilot studies inspired hope that employing HFNC on the general ward might prevent a portion of children from needing ICU care.^11,12 Subsequent larger observational studies did not demonstrate decreases in ICU utilization after adoption of ward-based HFNC protocols.^13,14 The two RCTs comparing low-flow and high-flow nasal cannula use outside of the ICU did not measure a statistically significant effect on ICU utilization, an exploratory outcome in both trials.^15,16 However, the reported point estimates for absolute differences in ICU admission were 2% to 3% higher among patients randomized to HFNC, which is consistent with the 2% to 4% increase in ICU admission measured in the present study.

What might explain this surprising finding? While our observational study cannot speak to mechanism, the protocol details examined in the present study suggest that initial adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol is often coupled with specific ICU transfer criteria that were unlikely in place prior to protocol initiation. For example, most protocols recommended consideration of ICU transfer for elevated FiO₂ or prolonged duration of HFNC. Transfer to the ICU for prolonged HFNC duration is only possible in the setting of a ward-based HFNC protocol and transfer for elevated FiO₂ was probably unnecessary prior to protocol adoption given that low-flow nasal cannula generally delivers 100% FiO₂. It is also possible that with HFNC comes a perception of increased acuity. For example, medical providers may see patients on HFNC as sicker than patients with the same amount of work of breathing but off HFNC, which makes providers more likely to seek ICU admission for patients on HFNC. The combination of unchanged total length of stay and increased ICU utilization suggests that early ward-based HFNC protocols were an ineffective instrument to improve hospital bed availability during the peak census times that often occur in bronchiolitis season.

The large sample size afforded our study by its multicenter, retrospective design also allowed for a meaningful assessment of the association between a ward-based HFNC protocol and the need for mechanical ventilation. Early indications suggested a lack of substantial association between HFNC use outside of the ICU and rates of mechanical ventilation, but prior studies were limited by small numbers of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (<30 patients in each study).^13,14,16 The present study, in which 783 patients received mechanical ventilation, supports the lack of association between early ward-based HFNC protocols and the need for mechanical ventilation. It should be noted that other studies have measured decreases in mechanical ventilation in association with ICU-based HFNC use.^23-26 In addition to examining HFNC use in a different clinical context, decreases in mechanical ventilation measured after HFNC implementation in the ICU could be explained by preexisting practice trends to limit invasive ventilation and/or selection bias resulting from an increase in less severely ill patients being admitted to the ICU over time. The interrupted time series approach and the staggered adoption of HFNC protocols make the present study less susceptible to biases from preexisting trends and the inclusion of patients cared for both on the ward and within the ICU reduces selection bias.

Our study has several important limitations. First, all hospitals included in the analysis were US children’s hospitals and these findings may not generalize to other practice environments, including community hospitals and other countries. Second, our cohort and outcomes were defined using administrative billing data, which have been incompletely validated, making some degree of misclassification likely. Third, we measured HFNC exposure at the hospital level, but could not examine the extent to which individual patients were exposed to HFNC because such data are not present in PHIS. Even if we had access to patient-level HFNC exposure data, we would have still compared outcomes among all patients with bronchiolitis (not just those who received HFNC), to avoid selection bias. However, knowing HFNC exposure status at the patient level would have allowed for weighting of the effects measured at each hospital according to the extent of HFNC exposure. Fourth, there are likely other, unmeasured secular and temporal factors that could affect study outcomes. To some degree, the interrupted time series approach, observed staggered adoption of protocols, and nonadopting hospital supplementary analysis mitigate this risk of bias. Fifth, while the pre- and postadoption populations appeared demographically similar, it is possible that the populations might have differed by other unmeasured factors. Finally, early ward-based HFNC protocols have likely undergone iterative changes since adoption. We compared pre- and postadoption outcome slopes and censored the first adoption season in a supplementary analysis to attempt to account for this potential limitation.

In conclusion, our findings suggest that initial implementation of ward-based HFNC protocols were not successful at reducing ICU utilization for children with bronchiolitis. Future research should examine whether more evolved HFNC protocols that use higher flow rates, more generous ICU transfer criteria, and more rapid weaning criteria can reduce ICU utilization.

We thank Dr Vineeta Mittal (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center) for providing feedback regarding the manuscript.

Children hospitalized for bronchiolitis frequently require admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), with estimates as high as 18%^1,2 and 35%³ in two prospective, multicenter studies. The indication for ICU admission is nearly always a need for advanced respiratory support, which historically consisted of continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure (CPAP and BiPAP, respectively) or mechanical ventilation. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a recent addition to the respiratory support armamentarium, delivering heated and humidified oxygen at rates of up to 60 L/min and allowing for clinicians to titrate both flow rate and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂).⁴

Several studies have demonstrated that HFNC is capable of decreasing a child’s work of breathing,^5-8 and it has the potential advantage of being better tolerated than other forms of advanced respiratory support.^9,10 These case-series physiologic studies informed early ward-based HFNC protocols for bronchiolitis, which were adopted to decrease ICU utilization. Since then, single center observational studies examining the association between ward-based HFNC protocols and subsequent ICU utilization have come to discordant conclusions.^11-14 Studying the effect of employing HFNC outside of the ICU is challenging in the context of a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) because it is difficult to blind healthcare providers to the intervention and because crossover from the control group to HFNC is frequent. Two unblinded RCTs published in 2017 and 2018 found that children randomized to conventional nasal cannula were frequently escalated to HFNC (flow rates of 1-2 L/kg per minute), but neither trial found a difference in ICU admission.^15,16 Sample sizes substantially larger than those present in currently published or registered RCTs would be required to evaluate the impact of ward-based HFNC protocols on the outcome that inspired the protocols in the first place, namely ICU utilization.¹⁷

Children’s hospitals have adopted ward-based HFNC protocols at different time points over the last decade, which allows for a natural experiment—a promising alternative study design that avoids the challenges of blinding, crossover, and modest sample sizes. In order to have sufficient postadoption data for analyses, the present study is limited to ward-based HFNC protocols adopted prior to 2016, which we have termed “early” ward-based HFNC protocols. Among children with bronchiolitis, our objective was to measure the association between hospital-level adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol and subsequent ICU utilization, using a multicenter network of children’s hospitals.

We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. The PHIS database is operated by the Children’s Hospital Association (Lenexa, Kansas) and provides deidentified patient-level information for children who receive hospital care at 55 US children’s hospitals. Available data elements include patient demographic data, discharge diagnosis and procedure codes, and detailed billing information, such as laboratory, imaging, pharmacy, and supply charges. At the patient level, the use of HFNC vs standard oxygen therapy circuits cannot be discriminated.

Exposure

The study exposure was a hospital’s first ward-based HFNC protocol, with adoption measured at the hospital level at each PHIS site via direct communication with leaders in hospital medicine. In most cases, first contact was made with the pediatric hospital medicine division chief or fellowship program director, who then, if necessary, connected study investigators to local HFNC champions aware of site-specific historical HFNC protocol details. Contact with a hospital was made only if the hospital had contributed at least 6 consecutive years of data to PHIS. Hospitals were classified as “adopting” hospitals if their HFNC protocol met all of the following criteria: (a) allows initiation of HFNC outside of the ICU (on the floor or in the ED), (b) allows continued care outside of the ICU (on the floor), (c) not limited to a small unit like an intermediate care unit, and (d) adopted during a specific, known respiratory season. Hospitals for which ward-based HFNC protocols were adopted but did not meet these criteria were excluded from further analysis. Our intent was to identify large scale, programmatic protocol launches and exclude hospitals with exceptions that might preclude a sizable portion of our cohort from being eligible for the protocol. Hospitals for which inpatient use of HFNC remains limited to the ICU were defined as “nonadopting” hospitals. Respondents at adopting hospitals were asked to share details about their protocol, including patient eligibility criteria and maximum HFNC rates of flow permitted outside of the ICU.

Patient Characteristics

Patients aged 3 to 24 months who were hospitalized at adopting and nonadopting hospitals were included if an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) discharge diagnosis code for bronchiolitis (466.XX) was present in any position (not limited to a primary diagnosis). The lower age limit of 3 months was chosen to match the most restrictive age eligibility criteria of provided HFNC protocols (Appendix 1). A crosswalk available from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services¹⁸ was used to convert ICD-10 diagnosis and procedure codes from recent years to ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes. Patients were excluded if their encounter contained a diagnosis or procedure code signifying a complex chronic condition,¹⁹ if their hospitalization involved care in the neonatal ICU, or if their admission date occurred outside of the respiratory season. Respiratory season was defined as November 1 through April 30.

Outcomes

Outcomes were measured during three respiratory seasons leading up to adoption and during three respiratory seasons after adoption. The primary outcome was ICU utilization, including the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU and ICU length of stay, expressed as ICU days per 100 patients. Secondary outcomes included mean total length of stay and the proportion of patients who received mechanical ventilation. Lengths of stay were measured in days, the most granular unit of time provided in PHIS over the entire study period. As such, partial days of care are rounded up to 1 full day. A previously published strict definition for mechanical ventilation that limits false positives was used, requiring that patients have a procedure or supply code for mechanical ventilation and a pharmacy charge for a neuromuscular blocking agent.²⁰

Primary Analysis

The primary analysis was restricted to adopting hospitals. An interrupted time series approach was used to measure two possible types of change associated with HFNC protocol adoption: an immediate intervention effect and a change in the slope of an outcome.²¹ The immediate intervention effect represents the change in the level of the outcome that occurs in the period immediately following the introduction of the protocol. The change in slope is the extent to which the outcome changes on a per season basis, attributable to the protocol. Interrupted time series estimates were adjusted for patient age, gender, race, ethnicity, and insurance type; linear regression was used for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes. An ordinary least squares time series model was used to adjust for autocorrelation and Newey-West standard errors were employed.²² Analyses were performed using STATA version 14 (Stata-Corp, College Station, Texas).

Supplementary Analyses

Two preplanned supplementary analyses were conducted. Supplementary analysis 1 was identical to the primary analysis, with the exception that the first season after adoption was censored. The rationale for censoring the first adoption season was to account for a potential learning effect and/or delayed start to full protocol implementation. Supplementary analysis 2 used the nonadopting hospitals as a control group and subtracted the effects measured from an interrupted time series analysis among nonadopting hospitals from the effects measured among adopting hospitals. The rationale for this approach was to control for unmeasured secular (eg, availability of ICU beds) and temporal (eg, severity of a given bronchiolitis season) factors that may have coincidentally occurred with HFNC adoption seasons. The only modification to the interrupted time series approach for supplementary analysis 2 was to provide the nonadopting hospitals with an artificial interruption point because nonadopting hospitals, by definition, did not have an adoption season that could be used in an interrupted time series approach. The interruption point for nonadopting hospitals was set at the median adoption season for adopting hospitals.

Exposure

Leaders at 44 hospitals were contacted regarding their hospital’s use of HFNC outside of the ICU (Figure 1). Responses were obtained for 41 hospitals (93% response rate), 18 of which were classified as nonadopting hospitals. Of the 23 hospitals where the presence of ward-based HFNC protocols were reported, 12 met inclusion criteria and were classified as adopting hospitals. HFNC protocols were adopted at these hospitals in a staggered fashion between the 2010-2011 and 2015-2016 respiratory seasons (Figure 2). The median adoption season was the 2013-14 respiratory season.

Nine adopting hospitals were able to provide details about their first HFNC protocols (Appendix 1). No two protocols were identical, but they shared many similarities. Minimum age requirements ranged from birth to a few months of age. Exclusion criteria were particularly variable, with a history of chronic lung disease or apnea being the most common criteria. Maximum allowed rates of flow ranged from 4 to 10 liters per minute. Criteria for transfer to the ICU were consistently based on an elevated FiO₂ and duration of HFNC exposure.

Patient Characteristics

A total of 32,809 bronchiolitis encounters occurred at adopting hospitals during qualifying respiratory seasons, of which 6,556 (20%) involved patients with a complex chronic condition and were excluded. Of the 26,253 included bronchiolitis encounters, 12,495 encounters occurred prior to ward-based HFNC protocol adoption and 13,758 encounters occurred after adoption. The median age of patients was 8 months (interquartile range, 5-14 months). Most patients were on government insurance (64%), male (58%), of white (56%) or black (18%) race, and of non-Hispanic ethnicity (72%). Pre- and postadoption patient demographics were similar (Appendix 2).

Primary Analysis

Shifts in the level of ICU use and ICU length of stay were observed at the time of adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol (Figure 3). Specifically, ward-based HFNC protocol adoption was associated with an immediate 3.1% absolute increase (95% CI, 2.8%-3.4%) in the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU and a 9.1 days per 100 patients increase (95% CI, 5.1-13.2) in ICU length of stay (Table). The slope of ICU admissions per season was increasing after HFNC protocol adoption (1.0% increase per season; 95% CI, 0.8%-1.1%). When examined at the individual-hospital level (Appendix 3), seven hospitals were found to have significant increases in ICU admissions (immediate intervention effect or change in slope) after adoption, and one hospital was found to have a significant decrease in ICU admissions (change in slope only). Neither immediate intervention effects nor changes in the slopes of total length of stay and mechanical ventilation were observed, with mean total length of stay approximately 3 days and just over 1% of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (Figure 3).

Supplementary Analyses

Supplementary analyses were largely consistent with the primary analysis. Associations with increased ICU utilization were again observed, although the immediate change in ICU length of stay for supplementary analysis 1 was not significant and the slope for ICU length of stay in supplementary analysis 2 was down trending (Table). Changes in total length of stay and mechanical ventilation were not observed in either supplementary analysis, with the lone exception being an increase in the proportion of patients receiving mechanical ventilation per season (increase in slope) in supplementary analysis 1.

This is the largest multicenter study to date evaluating ICU utilization after adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol for patients with bronchiolitis. While a principal goal of allowing HFNC use outside of the ICU is to reduce the time that patients with bronchiolitis spend in the ICU, we found that early protocols were, paradoxically, associated with increased ICU utilization. Ward-based HFNC protocols were not associated with changes in hospital length of stay or need for mechanical ventilation. Our findings are particularly relevant given that the majority of children’s hospitals in our sample have adopted ward-based HFNC protocols to care for patients with bronchiolitis.

The increase in ICU utilization measured in our study is a novel finding, seemingly in contradiction to existing literature. Early pilot studies inspired hope that employing HFNC on the general ward might prevent a portion of children from needing ICU care.^11,12 Subsequent larger observational studies did not demonstrate decreases in ICU utilization after adoption of ward-based HFNC protocols.^13,14 The two RCTs comparing low-flow and high-flow nasal cannula use outside of the ICU did not measure a statistically significant effect on ICU utilization, an exploratory outcome in both trials.^15,16 However, the reported point estimates for absolute differences in ICU admission were 2% to 3% higher among patients randomized to HFNC, which is consistent with the 2% to 4% increase in ICU admission measured in the present study.

What might explain this surprising finding? While our observational study cannot speak to mechanism, the protocol details examined in the present study suggest that initial adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol is often coupled with specific ICU transfer criteria that were unlikely in place prior to protocol initiation. For example, most protocols recommended consideration of ICU transfer for elevated FiO₂ or prolonged duration of HFNC. Transfer to the ICU for prolonged HFNC duration is only possible in the setting of a ward-based HFNC protocol and transfer for elevated FiO₂ was probably unnecessary prior to protocol adoption given that low-flow nasal cannula generally delivers 100% FiO₂. It is also possible that with HFNC comes a perception of increased acuity. For example, medical providers may see patients on HFNC as sicker than patients with the same amount of work of breathing but off HFNC, which makes providers more likely to seek ICU admission for patients on HFNC. The combination of unchanged total length of stay and increased ICU utilization suggests that early ward-based HFNC protocols were an ineffective instrument to improve hospital bed availability during the peak census times that often occur in bronchiolitis season.

The large sample size afforded our study by its multicenter, retrospective design also allowed for a meaningful assessment of the association between a ward-based HFNC protocol and the need for mechanical ventilation. Early indications suggested a lack of substantial association between HFNC use outside of the ICU and rates of mechanical ventilation, but prior studies were limited by small numbers of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (<30 patients in each study).^13,14,16 The present study, in which 783 patients received mechanical ventilation, supports the lack of association between early ward-based HFNC protocols and the need for mechanical ventilation. It should be noted that other studies have measured decreases in mechanical ventilation in association with ICU-based HFNC use.^23-26 In addition to examining HFNC use in a different clinical context, decreases in mechanical ventilation measured after HFNC implementation in the ICU could be explained by preexisting practice trends to limit invasive ventilation and/or selection bias resulting from an increase in less severely ill patients being admitted to the ICU over time. The interrupted time series approach and the staggered adoption of HFNC protocols make the present study less susceptible to biases from preexisting trends and the inclusion of patients cared for both on the ward and within the ICU reduces selection bias.

Our study has several important limitations. First, all hospitals included in the analysis were US children’s hospitals and these findings may not generalize to other practice environments, including community hospitals and other countries. Second, our cohort and outcomes were defined using administrative billing data, which have been incompletely validated, making some degree of misclassification likely. Third, we measured HFNC exposure at the hospital level, but could not examine the extent to which individual patients were exposed to HFNC because such data are not present in PHIS. Even if we had access to patient-level HFNC exposure data, we would have still compared outcomes among all patients with bronchiolitis (not just those who received HFNC), to avoid selection bias. However, knowing HFNC exposure status at the patient level would have allowed for weighting of the effects measured at each hospital according to the extent of HFNC exposure. Fourth, there are likely other, unmeasured secular and temporal factors that could affect study outcomes. To some degree, the interrupted time series approach, observed staggered adoption of protocols, and nonadopting hospital supplementary analysis mitigate this risk of bias. Fifth, while the pre- and postadoption populations appeared demographically similar, it is possible that the populations might have differed by other unmeasured factors. Finally, early ward-based HFNC protocols have likely undergone iterative changes since adoption. We compared pre- and postadoption outcome slopes and censored the first adoption season in a supplementary analysis to attempt to account for this potential limitation.

In conclusion, our findings suggest that initial implementation of ward-based HFNC protocols were not successful at reducing ICU utilization for children with bronchiolitis. Future research should examine whether more evolved HFNC protocols that use higher flow rates, more generous ICU transfer criteria, and more rapid weaning criteria can reduce ICU utilization.

We thank Dr Vineeta Mittal (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center) for providing feedback regarding the manuscript.

Children hospitalized for bronchiolitis frequently require admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), with estimates as high as 18%^1,2 and 35%³ in two prospective, multicenter studies. The indication for ICU admission is nearly always a need for advanced respiratory support, which historically consisted of continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure (CPAP and BiPAP, respectively) or mechanical ventilation. High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a recent addition to the respiratory support armamentarium, delivering heated and humidified oxygen at rates of up to 60 L/min and allowing for clinicians to titrate both flow rate and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂).⁴

Several studies have demonstrated that HFNC is capable of decreasing a child’s work of breathing,^5-8 and it has the potential advantage of being better tolerated than other forms of advanced respiratory support.^9,10 These case-series physiologic studies informed early ward-based HFNC protocols for bronchiolitis, which were adopted to decrease ICU utilization. Since then, single center observational studies examining the association between ward-based HFNC protocols and subsequent ICU utilization have come to discordant conclusions.^11-14 Studying the effect of employing HFNC outside of the ICU is challenging in the context of a randomized, controlled trial (RCT) because it is difficult to blind healthcare providers to the intervention and because crossover from the control group to HFNC is frequent. Two unblinded RCTs published in 2017 and 2018 found that children randomized to conventional nasal cannula were frequently escalated to HFNC (flow rates of 1-2 L/kg per minute), but neither trial found a difference in ICU admission.^15,16 Sample sizes substantially larger than those present in currently published or registered RCTs would be required to evaluate the impact of ward-based HFNC protocols on the outcome that inspired the protocols in the first place, namely ICU utilization.¹⁷

Children’s hospitals have adopted ward-based HFNC protocols at different time points over the last decade, which allows for a natural experiment—a promising alternative study design that avoids the challenges of blinding, crossover, and modest sample sizes. In order to have sufficient postadoption data for analyses, the present study is limited to ward-based HFNC protocols adopted prior to 2016, which we have termed “early” ward-based HFNC protocols. Among children with bronchiolitis, our objective was to measure the association between hospital-level adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol and subsequent ICU utilization, using a multicenter network of children’s hospitals.

We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study using the Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) database. The PHIS database is operated by the Children’s Hospital Association (Lenexa, Kansas) and provides deidentified patient-level information for children who receive hospital care at 55 US children’s hospitals. Available data elements include patient demographic data, discharge diagnosis and procedure codes, and detailed billing information, such as laboratory, imaging, pharmacy, and supply charges. At the patient level, the use of HFNC vs standard oxygen therapy circuits cannot be discriminated.

Exposure

The study exposure was a hospital’s first ward-based HFNC protocol, with adoption measured at the hospital level at each PHIS site via direct communication with leaders in hospital medicine. In most cases, first contact was made with the pediatric hospital medicine division chief or fellowship program director, who then, if necessary, connected study investigators to local HFNC champions aware of site-specific historical HFNC protocol details. Contact with a hospital was made only if the hospital had contributed at least 6 consecutive years of data to PHIS. Hospitals were classified as “adopting” hospitals if their HFNC protocol met all of the following criteria: (a) allows initiation of HFNC outside of the ICU (on the floor or in the ED), (b) allows continued care outside of the ICU (on the floor), (c) not limited to a small unit like an intermediate care unit, and (d) adopted during a specific, known respiratory season. Hospitals for which ward-based HFNC protocols were adopted but did not meet these criteria were excluded from further analysis. Our intent was to identify large scale, programmatic protocol launches and exclude hospitals with exceptions that might preclude a sizable portion of our cohort from being eligible for the protocol. Hospitals for which inpatient use of HFNC remains limited to the ICU were defined as “nonadopting” hospitals. Respondents at adopting hospitals were asked to share details about their protocol, including patient eligibility criteria and maximum HFNC rates of flow permitted outside of the ICU.

Patient Characteristics

Patients aged 3 to 24 months who were hospitalized at adopting and nonadopting hospitals were included if an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) discharge diagnosis code for bronchiolitis (466.XX) was present in any position (not limited to a primary diagnosis). The lower age limit of 3 months was chosen to match the most restrictive age eligibility criteria of provided HFNC protocols (Appendix 1). A crosswalk available from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services¹⁸ was used to convert ICD-10 diagnosis and procedure codes from recent years to ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes. Patients were excluded if their encounter contained a diagnosis or procedure code signifying a complex chronic condition,¹⁹ if their hospitalization involved care in the neonatal ICU, or if their admission date occurred outside of the respiratory season. Respiratory season was defined as November 1 through April 30.

Outcomes

Outcomes were measured during three respiratory seasons leading up to adoption and during three respiratory seasons after adoption. The primary outcome was ICU utilization, including the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU and ICU length of stay, expressed as ICU days per 100 patients. Secondary outcomes included mean total length of stay and the proportion of patients who received mechanical ventilation. Lengths of stay were measured in days, the most granular unit of time provided in PHIS over the entire study period. As such, partial days of care are rounded up to 1 full day. A previously published strict definition for mechanical ventilation that limits false positives was used, requiring that patients have a procedure or supply code for mechanical ventilation and a pharmacy charge for a neuromuscular blocking agent.²⁰

Primary Analysis

The primary analysis was restricted to adopting hospitals. An interrupted time series approach was used to measure two possible types of change associated with HFNC protocol adoption: an immediate intervention effect and a change in the slope of an outcome.²¹ The immediate intervention effect represents the change in the level of the outcome that occurs in the period immediately following the introduction of the protocol. The change in slope is the extent to which the outcome changes on a per season basis, attributable to the protocol. Interrupted time series estimates were adjusted for patient age, gender, race, ethnicity, and insurance type; linear regression was used for continuous outcomes and logistic regression for dichotomous outcomes. An ordinary least squares time series model was used to adjust for autocorrelation and Newey-West standard errors were employed.²² Analyses were performed using STATA version 14 (Stata-Corp, College Station, Texas).

Supplementary Analyses

Two preplanned supplementary analyses were conducted. Supplementary analysis 1 was identical to the primary analysis, with the exception that the first season after adoption was censored. The rationale for censoring the first adoption season was to account for a potential learning effect and/or delayed start to full protocol implementation. Supplementary analysis 2 used the nonadopting hospitals as a control group and subtracted the effects measured from an interrupted time series analysis among nonadopting hospitals from the effects measured among adopting hospitals. The rationale for this approach was to control for unmeasured secular (eg, availability of ICU beds) and temporal (eg, severity of a given bronchiolitis season) factors that may have coincidentally occurred with HFNC adoption seasons. The only modification to the interrupted time series approach for supplementary analysis 2 was to provide the nonadopting hospitals with an artificial interruption point because nonadopting hospitals, by definition, did not have an adoption season that could be used in an interrupted time series approach. The interruption point for nonadopting hospitals was set at the median adoption season for adopting hospitals.

Exposure

Leaders at 44 hospitals were contacted regarding their hospital’s use of HFNC outside of the ICU (Figure 1). Responses were obtained for 41 hospitals (93% response rate), 18 of which were classified as nonadopting hospitals. Of the 23 hospitals where the presence of ward-based HFNC protocols were reported, 12 met inclusion criteria and were classified as adopting hospitals. HFNC protocols were adopted at these hospitals in a staggered fashion between the 2010-2011 and 2015-2016 respiratory seasons (Figure 2). The median adoption season was the 2013-14 respiratory season.

Nine adopting hospitals were able to provide details about their first HFNC protocols (Appendix 1). No two protocols were identical, but they shared many similarities. Minimum age requirements ranged from birth to a few months of age. Exclusion criteria were particularly variable, with a history of chronic lung disease or apnea being the most common criteria. Maximum allowed rates of flow ranged from 4 to 10 liters per minute. Criteria for transfer to the ICU were consistently based on an elevated FiO₂ and duration of HFNC exposure.

Patient Characteristics

A total of 32,809 bronchiolitis encounters occurred at adopting hospitals during qualifying respiratory seasons, of which 6,556 (20%) involved patients with a complex chronic condition and were excluded. Of the 26,253 included bronchiolitis encounters, 12,495 encounters occurred prior to ward-based HFNC protocol adoption and 13,758 encounters occurred after adoption. The median age of patients was 8 months (interquartile range, 5-14 months). Most patients were on government insurance (64%), male (58%), of white (56%) or black (18%) race, and of non-Hispanic ethnicity (72%). Pre- and postadoption patient demographics were similar (Appendix 2).

Primary Analysis

Shifts in the level of ICU use and ICU length of stay were observed at the time of adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol (Figure 3). Specifically, ward-based HFNC protocol adoption was associated with an immediate 3.1% absolute increase (95% CI, 2.8%-3.4%) in the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU and a 9.1 days per 100 patients increase (95% CI, 5.1-13.2) in ICU length of stay (Table). The slope of ICU admissions per season was increasing after HFNC protocol adoption (1.0% increase per season; 95% CI, 0.8%-1.1%). When examined at the individual-hospital level (Appendix 3), seven hospitals were found to have significant increases in ICU admissions (immediate intervention effect or change in slope) after adoption, and one hospital was found to have a significant decrease in ICU admissions (change in slope only). Neither immediate intervention effects nor changes in the slopes of total length of stay and mechanical ventilation were observed, with mean total length of stay approximately 3 days and just over 1% of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (Figure 3).

Supplementary Analyses

Supplementary analyses were largely consistent with the primary analysis. Associations with increased ICU utilization were again observed, although the immediate change in ICU length of stay for supplementary analysis 1 was not significant and the slope for ICU length of stay in supplementary analysis 2 was down trending (Table). Changes in total length of stay and mechanical ventilation were not observed in either supplementary analysis, with the lone exception being an increase in the proportion of patients receiving mechanical ventilation per season (increase in slope) in supplementary analysis 1.

This is the largest multicenter study to date evaluating ICU utilization after adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol for patients with bronchiolitis. While a principal goal of allowing HFNC use outside of the ICU is to reduce the time that patients with bronchiolitis spend in the ICU, we found that early protocols were, paradoxically, associated with increased ICU utilization. Ward-based HFNC protocols were not associated with changes in hospital length of stay or need for mechanical ventilation. Our findings are particularly relevant given that the majority of children’s hospitals in our sample have adopted ward-based HFNC protocols to care for patients with bronchiolitis.

The increase in ICU utilization measured in our study is a novel finding, seemingly in contradiction to existing literature. Early pilot studies inspired hope that employing HFNC on the general ward might prevent a portion of children from needing ICU care.^11,12 Subsequent larger observational studies did not demonstrate decreases in ICU utilization after adoption of ward-based HFNC protocols.^13,14 The two RCTs comparing low-flow and high-flow nasal cannula use outside of the ICU did not measure a statistically significant effect on ICU utilization, an exploratory outcome in both trials.^15,16 However, the reported point estimates for absolute differences in ICU admission were 2% to 3% higher among patients randomized to HFNC, which is consistent with the 2% to 4% increase in ICU admission measured in the present study.

What might explain this surprising finding? While our observational study cannot speak to mechanism, the protocol details examined in the present study suggest that initial adoption of a ward-based HFNC protocol is often coupled with specific ICU transfer criteria that were unlikely in place prior to protocol initiation. For example, most protocols recommended consideration of ICU transfer for elevated FiO₂ or prolonged duration of HFNC. Transfer to the ICU for prolonged HFNC duration is only possible in the setting of a ward-based HFNC protocol and transfer for elevated FiO₂ was probably unnecessary prior to protocol adoption given that low-flow nasal cannula generally delivers 100% FiO₂. It is also possible that with HFNC comes a perception of increased acuity. For example, medical providers may see patients on HFNC as sicker than patients with the same amount of work of breathing but off HFNC, which makes providers more likely to seek ICU admission for patients on HFNC. The combination of unchanged total length of stay and increased ICU utilization suggests that early ward-based HFNC protocols were an ineffective instrument to improve hospital bed availability during the peak census times that often occur in bronchiolitis season.

The large sample size afforded our study by its multicenter, retrospective design also allowed for a meaningful assessment of the association between a ward-based HFNC protocol and the need for mechanical ventilation. Early indications suggested a lack of substantial association between HFNC use outside of the ICU and rates of mechanical ventilation, but prior studies were limited by small numbers of patients receiving mechanical ventilation (<30 patients in each study).^13,14,16 The present study, in which 783 patients received mechanical ventilation, supports the lack of association between early ward-based HFNC protocols and the need for mechanical ventilation. It should be noted that other studies have measured decreases in mechanical ventilation in association with ICU-based HFNC use.^23-26 In addition to examining HFNC use in a different clinical context, decreases in mechanical ventilation measured after HFNC implementation in the ICU could be explained by preexisting practice trends to limit invasive ventilation and/or selection bias resulting from an increase in less severely ill patients being admitted to the ICU over time. The interrupted time series approach and the staggered adoption of HFNC protocols make the present study less susceptible to biases from preexisting trends and the inclusion of patients cared for both on the ward and within the ICU reduces selection bias.

Our study has several important limitations. First, all hospitals included in the analysis were US children’s hospitals and these findings may not generalize to other practice environments, including community hospitals and other countries. Second, our cohort and outcomes were defined using administrative billing data, which have been incompletely validated, making some degree of misclassification likely. Third, we measured HFNC exposure at the hospital level, but could not examine the extent to which individual patients were exposed to HFNC because such data are not present in PHIS. Even if we had access to patient-level HFNC exposure data, we would have still compared outcomes among all patients with bronchiolitis (not just those who received HFNC), to avoid selection bias. However, knowing HFNC exposure status at the patient level would have allowed for weighting of the effects measured at each hospital according to the extent of HFNC exposure. Fourth, there are likely other, unmeasured secular and temporal factors that could affect study outcomes. To some degree, the interrupted time series approach, observed staggered adoption of protocols, and nonadopting hospital supplementary analysis mitigate this risk of bias. Fifth, while the pre- and postadoption populations appeared demographically similar, it is possible that the populations might have differed by other unmeasured factors. Finally, early ward-based HFNC protocols have likely undergone iterative changes since adoption. We compared pre- and postadoption outcome slopes and censored the first adoption season in a supplementary analysis to attempt to account for this potential limitation.

In conclusion, our findings suggest that initial implementation of ward-based HFNC protocols were not successful at reducing ICU utilization for children with bronchiolitis. Future research should examine whether more evolved HFNC protocols that use higher flow rates, more generous ICU transfer criteria, and more rapid weaning criteria can reduce ICU utilization.

We thank Dr Vineeta Mittal (University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center) for providing feedback regarding the manuscript.

Thirty-six million people are hospitalized annually in the United States,¹ and a significant proportion of these patients are rehospitalized within 30 days.² Gaps in hospital care are many and well documented, including high rates of adverse events, hospital-acquired conditions, and suboptimal care transitions.^3-5 Despite significant efforts to improve the care of hospitalized patients and some incremental improvement in the safety of hospital care, hospital care remains suboptimal.^6-9 Importantly, hospitalization remains a challenging and vulnerable time for patients and caregivers.

Despite research efforts to improve hospital care, there remains very little data regarding what patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders believe are the most important priorities for improving hospital care, experiences, and outcomes. Small studies described in brief reports provide limited insights into what aspects of hospital care are most important to patients and to their families.^10-13 These small studies suggest that communication and the comfort of caregivers and of patient family members are important priorities, as are the provision of adequate sleeping arrangements, food choices, and psychosocial support. However, the limited nature of these studies precludes the possibility of larger conclusions regarding patient priorities.^10-13

The evolution of patient-centered care has led to increasing efforts to engage, and partner, with patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders to obtain their input on healthcare, research, and improvement efforts.¹⁴ The guiding principle of this engagement is that patients and their caregivers are uniquely positioned to share their lived experiences of care and that their involvement ensures their voices are represented.^15-17 Therefore to obtain greater insight into priority areas from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and other healthcare stakeholders, we undertook a systematic engagement process to create a patient-partnered and stakeholder-­partnered research agenda for improving the care of hospitalized adult patients.

Guiding Frameworks for Study Methods

We used two established, validated methods to guide our collaborative, inclusive, and consultative approach to patient and stakeholder engagement and research prioritization:

• The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) standards for formulating patient-centered research questions,¹⁸ which includes methods for stakeholder engagement that ensures the representativeness of engaged groups and dissemination of study results.¹⁸
• The James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach to “priority setting partnerships,” through which patients, caregivers, and clinicians partner to identify and prioritize unanswered questions.¹⁹

The Improving Hospital Outcomes through Patient Engagement (i-HOPE) study included eight stepwise phases to formulate and prioritize a set of patient-centered research questions to improve the care and experiences of hospitalized patients and their families.²⁰ Our process is described below and summarized in Table 1.

Phases of Question Development

Phase 1: Steering Committee Formation

Nine clinical researchers, nine patients and/or caregivers, and two administrators from eight academic and community hospitals from across the United States formed a steering committee to participate in teleconferences every other week to manage all stages of the project including design, implementation, and dissemination. At the time of the project conceptualization, the researchers were a subgroup of the Society of Hospital Medicine Research Committee.²¹ Patient partners on the steering committee were identified from local patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) of the researchers’ institutions. Patients partners had previously participated in research or improvement initiatives with their hospitalist partners. Patient partners received stipends throughout the project in recognition of their participation and expertise. Included in the committee was a representative from the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM)—our supporting and dissemination partner.

Phase 2: Stakeholder Identification

We created a list of potential stakeholder organizations to participate in the study based on the following:

• Organizations with which SHM has worked on initiatives related to the care of hospitalized adult patients
• Organizations with which steering committee members had worked
• Internet searches of organizations participating in similar PCORI-funded projects and of other professional societies that represented patients or providers who work in hospital or post-acute care settings
• Suggestions from stakeholders identified through the first two approaches as described above

We intended to have a broad representation of stakeholders to ensure diverse perspectives were included in the study. Stakeholder organizations included patient advocacy groups, providers, researchers, payers, policy makers and funding agencies.

Phase 3: Stakeholder Engagement and Awareness Training

Representatives from 39 stakeholder organizations who agreed to participate in the study were further orientated to the study rationale and methods via a series of interactive online webinars. This included reminding organziations that everyone’s input and perspective were valued and that we had a flat organization structure that ensured all stakeholders were equal.

Phase 4: Survey Development and Administration

We chose a survey approach to solicit input on identifying gaps in patient care and to generate research questions. The steering committee developed an online survey collaboratively with stakeholder organization representatives. We used survey pretesting with patient and researcher members from the steering committee. The goal of pretesting was to ensure accessibility and comprehension for all potential respondents, particularly patients and caregivers. The final survey asked respondents to record up to three questions that they thought would improve the care of hospitalized adult patients and their families. The specific wording of the survey is shown in the Figure and the entire survey in Appendix Document 1.

We chose three questions because that is the number of entries per participant that is recommended by JLA; it also minimizes responder burden.¹⁹ We asked respondents to identify the stakeholder group they represented (eg, patient, caregiver, healthcare provider, researcher) and for providers to identify where they primarily worked (eg, acute care hospital, post-acute care, advocacy group).

Survey Administration. We administered the survey electronically using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure web-based application used for collecting research data.²² Stakeholders were asked to disseminate the survey broadly using whatever methods that they felt was appropriate to their leadership or members.

Phase 5: Initial Question Categorization Using Qualitative Content Analysis

Six members of the steering committee independently performed qualitative content analysis to categorize all submitted questions.^23,24 This analytic approach identifies, analyzes, and reports patterns within the data.^23,24 We hypothesized that some of the submitted questions would relate to already-­known problems with hospitalization. Therefore the steering committee developed an a priori codebook of 48 categories using common systems-based issues and diseases related to the care of hospitalized patients based on the hospitalist core competency topics developed by hospitalists and the SHM Education Committee,²⁵ personal and clinical knowledge and experience related to the care of hospitalized adult patients, and published literature on the topic. These a priori categories and their definitions are shown in Appendix Document 2 and were the basis for our initial theory-driven (deductive) approach to data analysis.²³

Once coding began, we identified 32 new and additional categories based on our review of the submitted questions, and these were the basis of our data-driven (inductive) approach to analysis.²³ All proposed new codes and definitions were discussed with and approved by the entire steering committee prior to being added to the codebook (Appendix Document 2).

While coding categories were mutually exclusive, multiple codes could be attributed to a question depending on the content and meaning of a question. To ensure methodological rigor, reviewers met regularly via teleconference or communicated via email throughout the analysis to iteratively refine and define coding categories. All questions were reviewed independently, and then discussed, by at least two members of the analysis team. Any coding disparities were discussed and resolved by negotiated consensus.²⁶ Analysis was conducted using Dedoose V8.0.35 (Sociocultural Research Consultants, Los Angeles, California).

Phase 6: Initial Question Identification Using Quantitative Content Analysis

Following thematic categorization, all steering committee members then reviewed each category to identify and quantify the most commonly submitted questions.²⁷ A question was determined to be a commonly submitted question when it appeared at least 10 times.

Phase 7: Interim Priority Setting

We sent the list of the most commonly submitted questions (Appendix Document 3) to stakeholder organizations and patient partner networks for review and evaluation. Each organization was asked to engage with their constituents and leaders to collectively decide on which of these questions resonated and was most important. These preferences would then be used during the in-person meeting (Phase 8). We did not provide stakeholder organizations with information about how many times each question was submitted by respondents because we felt this could potentially bias their decision-making processes such that true importance and relevance would not obtained.

Phase 8: In-person Meeting for Final Question Prioritization and Refinement

Representatives from all 39 participating stakeholder organizations were invited to participate in a 2-day, in-person meeting to create a final prioritized list of questions to be used to guide patient-centered research seeking to improve the care of hospitalized adult patients and their caregivers. This meeting was attended by 43 stakeholders (26 stakeholder organization representatives and 17 steering committee members) from 37 unique stakeholder organizations. To facilitate the inclusiveness and to ensure a consensus-driven process, we used nominal group technique (NGT) to allow all of the meeting participants to discuss the list of prioritized questions in small groups.²⁸ NGT allows participants to comprehend each other’s point of view to ensure no perpsectives are excluded.²⁸ The NGT was followed by two rounds of individual voting. Stakeholders were then asked to frame their discussions and their votes based on the perspectives of their organizations or PFACs that they represent. The voting process required participants to make choices regarding the relative importance of all of the questions, which therefore makes the resulting list a true prioritized list. In the first round of voting, participants voted for up to five questions for inclusion on the prioritized list. Based on the distribution of votes, where one vote equals one point, each of the 36 questions was then ranked in order of the assigned points. The rank-ordering process resulted in a natural cut point or delineated point, resulting in the 11 questions considered to be the highest prioritized questions. Following this, a second round of voting took place with the same parameters as the first round and allowed us to rank order questions by order of importance and priority. Finally, during small and large group discussions, the original text of each question was edited, refined, and reformatted into questions that could drive a research agenda.

Ethical Oversight

This study was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and deemed not to be human subject research (UT Health San Antonio IRB Protocol Number: HSC20170058N).

In total, 499 respondents from 39 unique stakeholder organizations responded to our survey. Respondents self-identified into multiple categorizes resulting in 267 healthcare providers, 244 patients and caregivers, and 63 researchers. Characteristics of respondents to the survey are shown in Table 2.

An overview of study results is shown in Table 1. Respondents submitted a total of 782 questions related to improving the care of hospitalized patients. These questions were categorized during thematic analysis into 70 distinct categories—52 that were health system related and 18 that were disease specific (Appendix 2). The most frequently used health system–related categories were related to discharge care transitions, medications, patient understanding, and patient-family-care team communication (Appendix 2).

From these categories, 36 questions met our criteria for “commonly identified,” ie, submitted at least 10 times (Appendix Document 3). Notably, these 36 questions were derived from 67 different coding categories, of which 24 (36%) were a priori (theory-driven) categories²³ created by the Steering Committee before analysis began and 43 (64%) categories were created as a result of this study’s stakeholder-engaged process and a data-driven approach²³ to analysis (Appendix Document 3). These groups of questions were then presented during the 2-day, in-person meeting and reduced to a final 11 questions that were identified in rank order as top priorities (Table 3). The questions considered highest priority related to ensuring shared treatment and goals of care decision making, improving hospital discharge handoff to other care facilities and providers, and reducing the confusion related to education on medications, conditions, hospital care, and discharge.

Using a dynamic and collaborative stakeholder engagement process, we identified 11 questions prioritized in order of importance by patients, caregivers, and other healthcare stakeholders to improve the care of hospitalized adult patients. While some of the topics identified are already well-known topics in need of research and improvement, our findings frame these topics according to the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and stakeholders. This unique perspective adds a level of richness and nuance that provides insight into how to better address these topics and ultimately inform research and quality improvement efforts.

The question considered to be the highest priority area for future research and improvement surmised how it may be possible to implement interventions that engage patients in shared decision making. Shared decision making involves patients and their care team working together to make decisions about treatment, and other aspects of care based on sound clinical evidence that balances the risks and outcomes with patient preferences and values. Although considered critically important,²⁹ a recent evaluation of shared decision making practices in over 250 inpatient encounters identified significant gaps in physicians’ abilities to perform key elements of a shared decision making approach and reinforced the need to identify what strategies can best promote widespread shared decision making.³⁰ While there has been considerable effort to faciliate shared decision making in practice, there remains mixed evidence regarding the sustainability and impact of tools seeking to support shared decision making, such as decision aids, question prompt lists, and coaches.³¹ This suggests that new approaches to shared decision making may be required and likely explains why this question was rated as a top priority by stakeholders in the current study.

Respondents frequently framed their questions in terms of their lived experiences, providing stories and scenarios to illustrate the importance of the questions they submitted. This personal framing highlighted to us the need to think about improving care delivery from the end-user perspective. For example, respondents framed questions about care transitions not with regard to early appointments, instructions, or medication lists, but rather in terms of whom to call with questions or how best to reach their physician, nurse, or other identified provider. These perspectives suggest that strategies and approaches to improvement that start with patient and caregiver experiences, such as design thinking,³² may be important to continued efforts to improve hospital care. Additionally, the focus on the interpersonal aspects of care delivery highlights the need to focus on the patient-provider relationship and communication.

Questions submitted by respondents demonstrated a stark difference between “patient education” and “patient understanding,” which suggests that being provided with education or education materials regarding care did not necessarily lead to a clear patient understanding. The potential for lack of understanding was particularly prominent in the context of care plan development and during times of care transition—topics that were encompassed in 9 out of 11 of our prioritized research questions. This may suggest that approaches that improve the ability for healthcare providers to deliver information may not be sufficient to meet the needs of patients and caregivers. Rather, partnering to develop a shared understanding—whether about prognosis, medications, hospital, or discharge care plans—is critical. Improved communication practices are not an endpoint for information delivery, but rather a starting point leading to a shared understanding.

Several of the priority areas identified in our study reflect the immensely complex intersections among patients, caregivers, clinicians, and the healthcare delivery system. Addressing these gaps in order to reach the goal of ideal hospital care and an improved patient experience will likely require coordinated approaches and strong involvement and buy-in from multiple stakeholders including the voices of patients and caregivers. Creating patient-centered and stakeholder-driven research has been an increasing priority nationally.³³ Yet to realize this, we must continue to understand the foundations and best practices of authentic stakeholder engagement so that it can be achieved in practice.³⁴ We intend for this prioritized list of questions to galvanize funders, researchers, clinicians, professional societies, and patient and caregiver advocacy groups to work together to address these topics through the creation of new research evidence or the sustainable implementation of existing evidence.

Our findings provide a foundation for stakeholder groups to work in partnership to find research and improvement solutions to the problems identified. Our efforts demonstrate the value and importance of a systematic and broad engagement process to ensure that the voices of patients, caregivers, and other healthcare stakeholders are included in guiding hospital research and quality improvement efforts. This is highlighted by the fact our results of prioritized category areas for research were largely only uncovered following the creation of coding categories during the analysis process and were not captured using a priori catgeories that were expected by the steering committee.

The strengths of this study include our attempts to systematically identify and engage a wide range of perspectives in hospital medicine, including perspectives from patients and their caregivers. There are also acknowledged limitations in our study. While we included patients and PFACs from across the country, the opinions of the people we included may not be representative of all patients. Similarly, the perspectives of the other participants may not have completely represented their stakeholder organizations. While we attempted to include a broad range of organizations, there may be other relevant groups who were not represented in our sample.

In summary, our findings provide direction for the multiple stakeholders involved in improving hospital care. The results will allow the research community to focus on questions that are most important to patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders, reframing them in ways that are more relevant to patients’ lived experiences and that reflect the complexity of the issues. Our findings can also be used by healthcare providers and delivery organizations to target local improvement efforts. We hope that patients and caregivers will use our results to advocate for research and improvement in areas that matter the most to them. We hope that policy makers and funding agencies use our results to promote work in these areas and drive a national conversation about how to most effectively improve hospital care.

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) provided additional administrative, logistical, and technical support.

The authors would like to thank all patients, caregivers, and stakeholders who completed the survey. The authors also would like to acknowledge the organizations and individuals who participated in this study (see Appendix Document 4 for full list). At SHM, the authors would like to specifically thank Claudia Stahl, Jenna Goldstein, Kevin Vuernick, Dr Brad Sharpe, and Dr Larry Wellikson for their support.

The statements presented in this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee.

Thirty-six million people are hospitalized annually in the United States,¹ and a significant proportion of these patients are rehospitalized within 30 days.² Gaps in hospital care are many and well documented, including high rates of adverse events, hospital-acquired conditions, and suboptimal care transitions.^3-5 Despite significant efforts to improve the care of hospitalized patients and some incremental improvement in the safety of hospital care, hospital care remains suboptimal.^6-9 Importantly, hospitalization remains a challenging and vulnerable time for patients and caregivers.

Despite research efforts to improve hospital care, there remains very little data regarding what patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders believe are the most important priorities for improving hospital care, experiences, and outcomes. Small studies described in brief reports provide limited insights into what aspects of hospital care are most important to patients and to their families.^10-13 These small studies suggest that communication and the comfort of caregivers and of patient family members are important priorities, as are the provision of adequate sleeping arrangements, food choices, and psychosocial support. However, the limited nature of these studies precludes the possibility of larger conclusions regarding patient priorities.^10-13

The evolution of patient-centered care has led to increasing efforts to engage, and partner, with patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders to obtain their input on healthcare, research, and improvement efforts.¹⁴ The guiding principle of this engagement is that patients and their caregivers are uniquely positioned to share their lived experiences of care and that their involvement ensures their voices are represented.^15-17 Therefore to obtain greater insight into priority areas from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and other healthcare stakeholders, we undertook a systematic engagement process to create a patient-partnered and stakeholder-­partnered research agenda for improving the care of hospitalized adult patients.

Guiding Frameworks for Study Methods

We used two established, validated methods to guide our collaborative, inclusive, and consultative approach to patient and stakeholder engagement and research prioritization:

• The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) standards for formulating patient-centered research questions,¹⁸ which includes methods for stakeholder engagement that ensures the representativeness of engaged groups and dissemination of study results.¹⁸
• The James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach to “priority setting partnerships,” through which patients, caregivers, and clinicians partner to identify and prioritize unanswered questions.¹⁹

The Improving Hospital Outcomes through Patient Engagement (i-HOPE) study included eight stepwise phases to formulate and prioritize a set of patient-centered research questions to improve the care and experiences of hospitalized patients and their families.²⁰ Our process is described below and summarized in Table 1.

Phases of Question Development

Phase 1: Steering Committee Formation

Nine clinical researchers, nine patients and/or caregivers, and two administrators from eight academic and community hospitals from across the United States formed a steering committee to participate in teleconferences every other week to manage all stages of the project including design, implementation, and dissemination. At the time of the project conceptualization, the researchers were a subgroup of the Society of Hospital Medicine Research Committee.²¹ Patient partners on the steering committee were identified from local patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) of the researchers’ institutions. Patients partners had previously participated in research or improvement initiatives with their hospitalist partners. Patient partners received stipends throughout the project in recognition of their participation and expertise. Included in the committee was a representative from the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM)—our supporting and dissemination partner.

Phase 2: Stakeholder Identification

We created a list of potential stakeholder organizations to participate in the study based on the following:

• Organizations with which SHM has worked on initiatives related to the care of hospitalized adult patients
• Organizations with which steering committee members had worked
• Internet searches of organizations participating in similar PCORI-funded projects and of other professional societies that represented patients or providers who work in hospital or post-acute care settings
• Suggestions from stakeholders identified through the first two approaches as described above

We intended to have a broad representation of stakeholders to ensure diverse perspectives were included in the study. Stakeholder organizations included patient advocacy groups, providers, researchers, payers, policy makers and funding agencies.

Phase 3: Stakeholder Engagement and Awareness Training

Representatives from 39 stakeholder organizations who agreed to participate in the study were further orientated to the study rationale and methods via a series of interactive online webinars. This included reminding organziations that everyone’s input and perspective were valued and that we had a flat organization structure that ensured all stakeholders were equal.

Phase 4: Survey Development and Administration

We chose a survey approach to solicit input on identifying gaps in patient care and to generate research questions. The steering committee developed an online survey collaboratively with stakeholder organization representatives. We used survey pretesting with patient and researcher members from the steering committee. The goal of pretesting was to ensure accessibility and comprehension for all potential respondents, particularly patients and caregivers. The final survey asked respondents to record up to three questions that they thought would improve the care of hospitalized adult patients and their families. The specific wording of the survey is shown in the Figure and the entire survey in Appendix Document 1.

We chose three questions because that is the number of entries per participant that is recommended by JLA; it also minimizes responder burden.¹⁹ We asked respondents to identify the stakeholder group they represented (eg, patient, caregiver, healthcare provider, researcher) and for providers to identify where they primarily worked (eg, acute care hospital, post-acute care, advocacy group).

Survey Administration. We administered the survey electronically using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure web-based application used for collecting research data.²² Stakeholders were asked to disseminate the survey broadly using whatever methods that they felt was appropriate to their leadership or members.

Phase 5: Initial Question Categorization Using Qualitative Content Analysis

Six members of the steering committee independently performed qualitative content analysis to categorize all submitted questions.^23,24 This analytic approach identifies, analyzes, and reports patterns within the data.^23,24 We hypothesized that some of the submitted questions would relate to already-­known problems with hospitalization. Therefore the steering committee developed an a priori codebook of 48 categories using common systems-based issues and diseases related to the care of hospitalized patients based on the hospitalist core competency topics developed by hospitalists and the SHM Education Committee,²⁵ personal and clinical knowledge and experience related to the care of hospitalized adult patients, and published literature on the topic. These a priori categories and their definitions are shown in Appendix Document 2 and were the basis for our initial theory-driven (deductive) approach to data analysis.²³

Once coding began, we identified 32 new and additional categories based on our review of the submitted questions, and these were the basis of our data-driven (inductive) approach to analysis.²³ All proposed new codes and definitions were discussed with and approved by the entire steering committee prior to being added to the codebook (Appendix Document 2).

While coding categories were mutually exclusive, multiple codes could be attributed to a question depending on the content and meaning of a question. To ensure methodological rigor, reviewers met regularly via teleconference or communicated via email throughout the analysis to iteratively refine and define coding categories. All questions were reviewed independently, and then discussed, by at least two members of the analysis team. Any coding disparities were discussed and resolved by negotiated consensus.²⁶ Analysis was conducted using Dedoose V8.0.35 (Sociocultural Research Consultants, Los Angeles, California).

Phase 6: Initial Question Identification Using Quantitative Content Analysis

Following thematic categorization, all steering committee members then reviewed each category to identify and quantify the most commonly submitted questions.²⁷ A question was determined to be a commonly submitted question when it appeared at least 10 times.

Phase 7: Interim Priority Setting

We sent the list of the most commonly submitted questions (Appendix Document 3) to stakeholder organizations and patient partner networks for review and evaluation. Each organization was asked to engage with their constituents and leaders to collectively decide on which of these questions resonated and was most important. These preferences would then be used during the in-person meeting (Phase 8). We did not provide stakeholder organizations with information about how many times each question was submitted by respondents because we felt this could potentially bias their decision-making processes such that true importance and relevance would not obtained.

Phase 8: In-person Meeting for Final Question Prioritization and Refinement

Representatives from all 39 participating stakeholder organizations were invited to participate in a 2-day, in-person meeting to create a final prioritized list of questions to be used to guide patient-centered research seeking to improve the care of hospitalized adult patients and their caregivers. This meeting was attended by 43 stakeholders (26 stakeholder organization representatives and 17 steering committee members) from 37 unique stakeholder organizations. To facilitate the inclusiveness and to ensure a consensus-driven process, we used nominal group technique (NGT) to allow all of the meeting participants to discuss the list of prioritized questions in small groups.²⁸ NGT allows participants to comprehend each other’s point of view to ensure no perpsectives are excluded.²⁸ The NGT was followed by two rounds of individual voting. Stakeholders were then asked to frame their discussions and their votes based on the perspectives of their organizations or PFACs that they represent. The voting process required participants to make choices regarding the relative importance of all of the questions, which therefore makes the resulting list a true prioritized list. In the first round of voting, participants voted for up to five questions for inclusion on the prioritized list. Based on the distribution of votes, where one vote equals one point, each of the 36 questions was then ranked in order of the assigned points. The rank-ordering process resulted in a natural cut point or delineated point, resulting in the 11 questions considered to be the highest prioritized questions. Following this, a second round of voting took place with the same parameters as the first round and allowed us to rank order questions by order of importance and priority. Finally, during small and large group discussions, the original text of each question was edited, refined, and reformatted into questions that could drive a research agenda.

Ethical Oversight

This study was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and deemed not to be human subject research (UT Health San Antonio IRB Protocol Number: HSC20170058N).

In total, 499 respondents from 39 unique stakeholder organizations responded to our survey. Respondents self-identified into multiple categorizes resulting in 267 healthcare providers, 244 patients and caregivers, and 63 researchers. Characteristics of respondents to the survey are shown in Table 2.

An overview of study results is shown in Table 1. Respondents submitted a total of 782 questions related to improving the care of hospitalized patients. These questions were categorized during thematic analysis into 70 distinct categories—52 that were health system related and 18 that were disease specific (Appendix 2). The most frequently used health system–related categories were related to discharge care transitions, medications, patient understanding, and patient-family-care team communication (Appendix 2).

From these categories, 36 questions met our criteria for “commonly identified,” ie, submitted at least 10 times (Appendix Document 3). Notably, these 36 questions were derived from 67 different coding categories, of which 24 (36%) were a priori (theory-driven) categories²³ created by the Steering Committee before analysis began and 43 (64%) categories were created as a result of this study’s stakeholder-engaged process and a data-driven approach²³ to analysis (Appendix Document 3). These groups of questions were then presented during the 2-day, in-person meeting and reduced to a final 11 questions that were identified in rank order as top priorities (Table 3). The questions considered highest priority related to ensuring shared treatment and goals of care decision making, improving hospital discharge handoff to other care facilities and providers, and reducing the confusion related to education on medications, conditions, hospital care, and discharge.

Using a dynamic and collaborative stakeholder engagement process, we identified 11 questions prioritized in order of importance by patients, caregivers, and other healthcare stakeholders to improve the care of hospitalized adult patients. While some of the topics identified are already well-known topics in need of research and improvement, our findings frame these topics according to the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and stakeholders. This unique perspective adds a level of richness and nuance that provides insight into how to better address these topics and ultimately inform research and quality improvement efforts.

The question considered to be the highest priority area for future research and improvement surmised how it may be possible to implement interventions that engage patients in shared decision making. Shared decision making involves patients and their care team working together to make decisions about treatment, and other aspects of care based on sound clinical evidence that balances the risks and outcomes with patient preferences and values. Although considered critically important,²⁹ a recent evaluation of shared decision making practices in over 250 inpatient encounters identified significant gaps in physicians’ abilities to perform key elements of a shared decision making approach and reinforced the need to identify what strategies can best promote widespread shared decision making.³⁰ While there has been considerable effort to faciliate shared decision making in practice, there remains mixed evidence regarding the sustainability and impact of tools seeking to support shared decision making, such as decision aids, question prompt lists, and coaches.³¹ This suggests that new approaches to shared decision making may be required and likely explains why this question was rated as a top priority by stakeholders in the current study.

Respondents frequently framed their questions in terms of their lived experiences, providing stories and scenarios to illustrate the importance of the questions they submitted. This personal framing highlighted to us the need to think about improving care delivery from the end-user perspective. For example, respondents framed questions about care transitions not with regard to early appointments, instructions, or medication lists, but rather in terms of whom to call with questions or how best to reach their physician, nurse, or other identified provider. These perspectives suggest that strategies and approaches to improvement that start with patient and caregiver experiences, such as design thinking,³² may be important to continued efforts to improve hospital care. Additionally, the focus on the interpersonal aspects of care delivery highlights the need to focus on the patient-provider relationship and communication.

Questions submitted by respondents demonstrated a stark difference between “patient education” and “patient understanding,” which suggests that being provided with education or education materials regarding care did not necessarily lead to a clear patient understanding. The potential for lack of understanding was particularly prominent in the context of care plan development and during times of care transition—topics that were encompassed in 9 out of 11 of our prioritized research questions. This may suggest that approaches that improve the ability for healthcare providers to deliver information may not be sufficient to meet the needs of patients and caregivers. Rather, partnering to develop a shared understanding—whether about prognosis, medications, hospital, or discharge care plans—is critical. Improved communication practices are not an endpoint for information delivery, but rather a starting point leading to a shared understanding.

Several of the priority areas identified in our study reflect the immensely complex intersections among patients, caregivers, clinicians, and the healthcare delivery system. Addressing these gaps in order to reach the goal of ideal hospital care and an improved patient experience will likely require coordinated approaches and strong involvement and buy-in from multiple stakeholders including the voices of patients and caregivers. Creating patient-centered and stakeholder-driven research has been an increasing priority nationally.³³ Yet to realize this, we must continue to understand the foundations and best practices of authentic stakeholder engagement so that it can be achieved in practice.³⁴ We intend for this prioritized list of questions to galvanize funders, researchers, clinicians, professional societies, and patient and caregiver advocacy groups to work together to address these topics through the creation of new research evidence or the sustainable implementation of existing evidence.

Our findings provide a foundation for stakeholder groups to work in partnership to find research and improvement solutions to the problems identified. Our efforts demonstrate the value and importance of a systematic and broad engagement process to ensure that the voices of patients, caregivers, and other healthcare stakeholders are included in guiding hospital research and quality improvement efforts. This is highlighted by the fact our results of prioritized category areas for research were largely only uncovered following the creation of coding categories during the analysis process and were not captured using a priori catgeories that were expected by the steering committee.

The strengths of this study include our attempts to systematically identify and engage a wide range of perspectives in hospital medicine, including perspectives from patients and their caregivers. There are also acknowledged limitations in our study. While we included patients and PFACs from across the country, the opinions of the people we included may not be representative of all patients. Similarly, the perspectives of the other participants may not have completely represented their stakeholder organizations. While we attempted to include a broad range of organizations, there may be other relevant groups who were not represented in our sample.

In summary, our findings provide direction for the multiple stakeholders involved in improving hospital care. The results will allow the research community to focus on questions that are most important to patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders, reframing them in ways that are more relevant to patients’ lived experiences and that reflect the complexity of the issues. Our findings can also be used by healthcare providers and delivery organizations to target local improvement efforts. We hope that patients and caregivers will use our results to advocate for research and improvement in areas that matter the most to them. We hope that policy makers and funding agencies use our results to promote work in these areas and drive a national conversation about how to most effectively improve hospital care.

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) provided additional administrative, logistical, and technical support.

The authors would like to thank all patients, caregivers, and stakeholders who completed the survey. The authors also would like to acknowledge the organizations and individuals who participated in this study (see Appendix Document 4 for full list). At SHM, the authors would like to specifically thank Claudia Stahl, Jenna Goldstein, Kevin Vuernick, Dr Brad Sharpe, and Dr Larry Wellikson for their support.

The statements presented in this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee.

Thirty-six million people are hospitalized annually in the United States,¹ and a significant proportion of these patients are rehospitalized within 30 days.² Gaps in hospital care are many and well documented, including high rates of adverse events, hospital-acquired conditions, and suboptimal care transitions.^3-5 Despite significant efforts to improve the care of hospitalized patients and some incremental improvement in the safety of hospital care, hospital care remains suboptimal.^6-9 Importantly, hospitalization remains a challenging and vulnerable time for patients and caregivers.

Despite research efforts to improve hospital care, there remains very little data regarding what patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders believe are the most important priorities for improving hospital care, experiences, and outcomes. Small studies described in brief reports provide limited insights into what aspects of hospital care are most important to patients and to their families.^10-13 These small studies suggest that communication and the comfort of caregivers and of patient family members are important priorities, as are the provision of adequate sleeping arrangements, food choices, and psychosocial support. However, the limited nature of these studies precludes the possibility of larger conclusions regarding patient priorities.^10-13

The evolution of patient-centered care has led to increasing efforts to engage, and partner, with patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders to obtain their input on healthcare, research, and improvement efforts.¹⁴ The guiding principle of this engagement is that patients and their caregivers are uniquely positioned to share their lived experiences of care and that their involvement ensures their voices are represented.^15-17 Therefore to obtain greater insight into priority areas from the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and other healthcare stakeholders, we undertook a systematic engagement process to create a patient-partnered and stakeholder-­partnered research agenda for improving the care of hospitalized adult patients.

Guiding Frameworks for Study Methods

We used two established, validated methods to guide our collaborative, inclusive, and consultative approach to patient and stakeholder engagement and research prioritization:

• The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) standards for formulating patient-centered research questions,¹⁸ which includes methods for stakeholder engagement that ensures the representativeness of engaged groups and dissemination of study results.¹⁸
• The James Lind Alliance (JLA) approach to “priority setting partnerships,” through which patients, caregivers, and clinicians partner to identify and prioritize unanswered questions.¹⁹

The Improving Hospital Outcomes through Patient Engagement (i-HOPE) study included eight stepwise phases to formulate and prioritize a set of patient-centered research questions to improve the care and experiences of hospitalized patients and their families.²⁰ Our process is described below and summarized in Table 1.

Phases of Question Development

Phase 1: Steering Committee Formation

Nine clinical researchers, nine patients and/or caregivers, and two administrators from eight academic and community hospitals from across the United States formed a steering committee to participate in teleconferences every other week to manage all stages of the project including design, implementation, and dissemination. At the time of the project conceptualization, the researchers were a subgroup of the Society of Hospital Medicine Research Committee.²¹ Patient partners on the steering committee were identified from local patient and family advisory councils (PFACs) of the researchers’ institutions. Patients partners had previously participated in research or improvement initiatives with their hospitalist partners. Patient partners received stipends throughout the project in recognition of their participation and expertise. Included in the committee was a representative from the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM)—our supporting and dissemination partner.

Phase 2: Stakeholder Identification

We created a list of potential stakeholder organizations to participate in the study based on the following:

• Organizations with which SHM has worked on initiatives related to the care of hospitalized adult patients
• Organizations with which steering committee members had worked
• Internet searches of organizations participating in similar PCORI-funded projects and of other professional societies that represented patients or providers who work in hospital or post-acute care settings
• Suggestions from stakeholders identified through the first two approaches as described above

We intended to have a broad representation of stakeholders to ensure diverse perspectives were included in the study. Stakeholder organizations included patient advocacy groups, providers, researchers, payers, policy makers and funding agencies.

Phase 3: Stakeholder Engagement and Awareness Training

Representatives from 39 stakeholder organizations who agreed to participate in the study were further orientated to the study rationale and methods via a series of interactive online webinars. This included reminding organziations that everyone’s input and perspective were valued and that we had a flat organization structure that ensured all stakeholders were equal.

Phase 4: Survey Development and Administration

We chose a survey approach to solicit input on identifying gaps in patient care and to generate research questions. The steering committee developed an online survey collaboratively with stakeholder organization representatives. We used survey pretesting with patient and researcher members from the steering committee. The goal of pretesting was to ensure accessibility and comprehension for all potential respondents, particularly patients and caregivers. The final survey asked respondents to record up to three questions that they thought would improve the care of hospitalized adult patients and their families. The specific wording of the survey is shown in the Figure and the entire survey in Appendix Document 1.

We chose three questions because that is the number of entries per participant that is recommended by JLA; it also minimizes responder burden.¹⁹ We asked respondents to identify the stakeholder group they represented (eg, patient, caregiver, healthcare provider, researcher) and for providers to identify where they primarily worked (eg, acute care hospital, post-acute care, advocacy group).

Survey Administration. We administered the survey electronically using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap), a secure web-based application used for collecting research data.²² Stakeholders were asked to disseminate the survey broadly using whatever methods that they felt was appropriate to their leadership or members.

Phase 5: Initial Question Categorization Using Qualitative Content Analysis

Six members of the steering committee independently performed qualitative content analysis to categorize all submitted questions.^23,24 This analytic approach identifies, analyzes, and reports patterns within the data.^23,24 We hypothesized that some of the submitted questions would relate to already-­known problems with hospitalization. Therefore the steering committee developed an a priori codebook of 48 categories using common systems-based issues and diseases related to the care of hospitalized patients based on the hospitalist core competency topics developed by hospitalists and the SHM Education Committee,²⁵ personal and clinical knowledge and experience related to the care of hospitalized adult patients, and published literature on the topic. These a priori categories and their definitions are shown in Appendix Document 2 and were the basis for our initial theory-driven (deductive) approach to data analysis.²³

Once coding began, we identified 32 new and additional categories based on our review of the submitted questions, and these were the basis of our data-driven (inductive) approach to analysis.²³ All proposed new codes and definitions were discussed with and approved by the entire steering committee prior to being added to the codebook (Appendix Document 2).

While coding categories were mutually exclusive, multiple codes could be attributed to a question depending on the content and meaning of a question. To ensure methodological rigor, reviewers met regularly via teleconference or communicated via email throughout the analysis to iteratively refine and define coding categories. All questions were reviewed independently, and then discussed, by at least two members of the analysis team. Any coding disparities were discussed and resolved by negotiated consensus.²⁶ Analysis was conducted using Dedoose V8.0.35 (Sociocultural Research Consultants, Los Angeles, California).

Phase 6: Initial Question Identification Using Quantitative Content Analysis

Following thematic categorization, all steering committee members then reviewed each category to identify and quantify the most commonly submitted questions.²⁷ A question was determined to be a commonly submitted question when it appeared at least 10 times.

Phase 7: Interim Priority Setting

We sent the list of the most commonly submitted questions (Appendix Document 3) to stakeholder organizations and patient partner networks for review and evaluation. Each organization was asked to engage with their constituents and leaders to collectively decide on which of these questions resonated and was most important. These preferences would then be used during the in-person meeting (Phase 8). We did not provide stakeholder organizations with information about how many times each question was submitted by respondents because we felt this could potentially bias their decision-making processes such that true importance and relevance would not obtained.

Phase 8: In-person Meeting for Final Question Prioritization and Refinement

Representatives from all 39 participating stakeholder organizations were invited to participate in a 2-day, in-person meeting to create a final prioritized list of questions to be used to guide patient-centered research seeking to improve the care of hospitalized adult patients and their caregivers. This meeting was attended by 43 stakeholders (26 stakeholder organization representatives and 17 steering committee members) from 37 unique stakeholder organizations. To facilitate the inclusiveness and to ensure a consensus-driven process, we used nominal group technique (NGT) to allow all of the meeting participants to discuss the list of prioritized questions in small groups.²⁸ NGT allows participants to comprehend each other’s point of view to ensure no perpsectives are excluded.²⁸ The NGT was followed by two rounds of individual voting. Stakeholders were then asked to frame their discussions and their votes based on the perspectives of their organizations or PFACs that they represent. The voting process required participants to make choices regarding the relative importance of all of the questions, which therefore makes the resulting list a true prioritized list. In the first round of voting, participants voted for up to five questions for inclusion on the prioritized list. Based on the distribution of votes, where one vote equals one point, each of the 36 questions was then ranked in order of the assigned points. The rank-ordering process resulted in a natural cut point or delineated point, resulting in the 11 questions considered to be the highest prioritized questions. Following this, a second round of voting took place with the same parameters as the first round and allowed us to rank order questions by order of importance and priority. Finally, during small and large group discussions, the original text of each question was edited, refined, and reformatted into questions that could drive a research agenda.

Ethical Oversight

This study was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio and deemed not to be human subject research (UT Health San Antonio IRB Protocol Number: HSC20170058N).

In total, 499 respondents from 39 unique stakeholder organizations responded to our survey. Respondents self-identified into multiple categorizes resulting in 267 healthcare providers, 244 patients and caregivers, and 63 researchers. Characteristics of respondents to the survey are shown in Table 2.

An overview of study results is shown in Table 1. Respondents submitted a total of 782 questions related to improving the care of hospitalized patients. These questions were categorized during thematic analysis into 70 distinct categories—52 that were health system related and 18 that were disease specific (Appendix 2). The most frequently used health system–related categories were related to discharge care transitions, medications, patient understanding, and patient-family-care team communication (Appendix 2).

From these categories, 36 questions met our criteria for “commonly identified,” ie, submitted at least 10 times (Appendix Document 3). Notably, these 36 questions were derived from 67 different coding categories, of which 24 (36%) were a priori (theory-driven) categories²³ created by the Steering Committee before analysis began and 43 (64%) categories were created as a result of this study’s stakeholder-engaged process and a data-driven approach²³ to analysis (Appendix Document 3). These groups of questions were then presented during the 2-day, in-person meeting and reduced to a final 11 questions that were identified in rank order as top priorities (Table 3). The questions considered highest priority related to ensuring shared treatment and goals of care decision making, improving hospital discharge handoff to other care facilities and providers, and reducing the confusion related to education on medications, conditions, hospital care, and discharge.

Using a dynamic and collaborative stakeholder engagement process, we identified 11 questions prioritized in order of importance by patients, caregivers, and other healthcare stakeholders to improve the care of hospitalized adult patients. While some of the topics identified are already well-known topics in need of research and improvement, our findings frame these topics according to the perspectives of patients, caregivers, and stakeholders. This unique perspective adds a level of richness and nuance that provides insight into how to better address these topics and ultimately inform research and quality improvement efforts.

The question considered to be the highest priority area for future research and improvement surmised how it may be possible to implement interventions that engage patients in shared decision making. Shared decision making involves patients and their care team working together to make decisions about treatment, and other aspects of care based on sound clinical evidence that balances the risks and outcomes with patient preferences and values. Although considered critically important,²⁹ a recent evaluation of shared decision making practices in over 250 inpatient encounters identified significant gaps in physicians’ abilities to perform key elements of a shared decision making approach and reinforced the need to identify what strategies can best promote widespread shared decision making.³⁰ While there has been considerable effort to faciliate shared decision making in practice, there remains mixed evidence regarding the sustainability and impact of tools seeking to support shared decision making, such as decision aids, question prompt lists, and coaches.³¹ This suggests that new approaches to shared decision making may be required and likely explains why this question was rated as a top priority by stakeholders in the current study.

Respondents frequently framed their questions in terms of their lived experiences, providing stories and scenarios to illustrate the importance of the questions they submitted. This personal framing highlighted to us the need to think about improving care delivery from the end-user perspective. For example, respondents framed questions about care transitions not with regard to early appointments, instructions, or medication lists, but rather in terms of whom to call with questions or how best to reach their physician, nurse, or other identified provider. These perspectives suggest that strategies and approaches to improvement that start with patient and caregiver experiences, such as design thinking,³² may be important to continued efforts to improve hospital care. Additionally, the focus on the interpersonal aspects of care delivery highlights the need to focus on the patient-provider relationship and communication.

Questions submitted by respondents demonstrated a stark difference between “patient education” and “patient understanding,” which suggests that being provided with education or education materials regarding care did not necessarily lead to a clear patient understanding. The potential for lack of understanding was particularly prominent in the context of care plan development and during times of care transition—topics that were encompassed in 9 out of 11 of our prioritized research questions. This may suggest that approaches that improve the ability for healthcare providers to deliver information may not be sufficient to meet the needs of patients and caregivers. Rather, partnering to develop a shared understanding—whether about prognosis, medications, hospital, or discharge care plans—is critical. Improved communication practices are not an endpoint for information delivery, but rather a starting point leading to a shared understanding.

Several of the priority areas identified in our study reflect the immensely complex intersections among patients, caregivers, clinicians, and the healthcare delivery system. Addressing these gaps in order to reach the goal of ideal hospital care and an improved patient experience will likely require coordinated approaches and strong involvement and buy-in from multiple stakeholders including the voices of patients and caregivers. Creating patient-centered and stakeholder-driven research has been an increasing priority nationally.³³ Yet to realize this, we must continue to understand the foundations and best practices of authentic stakeholder engagement so that it can be achieved in practice.³⁴ We intend for this prioritized list of questions to galvanize funders, researchers, clinicians, professional societies, and patient and caregiver advocacy groups to work together to address these topics through the creation of new research evidence or the sustainable implementation of existing evidence.

Our findings provide a foundation for stakeholder groups to work in partnership to find research and improvement solutions to the problems identified. Our efforts demonstrate the value and importance of a systematic and broad engagement process to ensure that the voices of patients, caregivers, and other healthcare stakeholders are included in guiding hospital research and quality improvement efforts. This is highlighted by the fact our results of prioritized category areas for research were largely only uncovered following the creation of coding categories during the analysis process and were not captured using a priori catgeories that were expected by the steering committee.

The strengths of this study include our attempts to systematically identify and engage a wide range of perspectives in hospital medicine, including perspectives from patients and their caregivers. There are also acknowledged limitations in our study. While we included patients and PFACs from across the country, the opinions of the people we included may not be representative of all patients. Similarly, the perspectives of the other participants may not have completely represented their stakeholder organizations. While we attempted to include a broad range of organizations, there may be other relevant groups who were not represented in our sample.

In summary, our findings provide direction for the multiple stakeholders involved in improving hospital care. The results will allow the research community to focus on questions that are most important to patients, caregivers, and other stakeholders, reframing them in ways that are more relevant to patients’ lived experiences and that reflect the complexity of the issues. Our findings can also be used by healthcare providers and delivery organizations to target local improvement efforts. We hope that patients and caregivers will use our results to advocate for research and improvement in areas that matter the most to them. We hope that policy makers and funding agencies use our results to promote work in these areas and drive a national conversation about how to most effectively improve hospital care.

The Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) provided additional administrative, logistical, and technical support.

The authors would like to thank all patients, caregivers, and stakeholders who completed the survey. The authors also would like to acknowledge the organizations and individuals who participated in this study (see Appendix Document 4 for full list). At SHM, the authors would like to specifically thank Claudia Stahl, Jenna Goldstein, Kevin Vuernick, Dr Brad Sharpe, and Dr Larry Wellikson for their support.

The statements presented in this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), its Board of Governors, or Methodology Committee.

Geographic cohorting (GCh, also known as “localization” or “regionalization”) refers to the practice wherein hospitalists are assigned to a single inpatient unit. Its adoption is increasing and in 2017, 30% of surveyed United States hospital medicine group leaders reported that their clinicians rounded on 1-2 units daily.¹ As a component of intervention bundles, GCh is associated with reductions in mortality, length of stay, and costs.^2,3

However, details on how GCh affects the hospitalist workday are unknown. Most time-motion studies of inpatient clinicians have reported the experiences of physicians in training with few specifically evaluating the workflow of attending hospitalists.⁴ Three studies of the attending hospitalist’s workday that were performed a decade ago excluded teams with learners, had patient loads as low as 9.4 per day, and did not differentiate between GCh and non-GCh models.^5-7

The objective of this observational study was to describe and compare the workday of GCh and non-GCh hospitalists by using automated geographical-tracking methods supplemented by in-person observations.

Setting and Participants

This work was conducted at a large academic center in the Midwestern US which adopted GCh in 2012. During the study, hospitalists staffed 11 GCh and four non-GCh teams. GCh teams aim to maintain ≥80% of their patients on their assigned unit and conduct interprofessional huddles on weekdays.³ Some units specialize in the care of specific populations (eg, patients with oncologic diagnoses), while others serve as general medical or surgical units. Non-GCh teams are assigned patients without regard to location. Resident housestaff are assigned only to GCh teams and residents and advanced practice providers (APPs) are never assigned to the same team. Based on team members, this yielded five distinct team types: GCh-hospitalist, GCh-hospitalist with APP, GCh-hospitalist with resident, non-GCh-hospitalist, and non-GCh-hospitalist with APP. Hospitalists provided verbal consent to participate. The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board. Two complementary observation modalities were used. Locator badges were used to quantify direct and indirect time unobtrusively over long periods. In-person observations were conducted to examine the workday in greater detail. Data were collected between October 2017 and May 2018.

Observations by Locator Badges

Our institution uses a system designed by Hill-Rom^® (Cary, North Carolina) to facilitate staff communication. Staff wear the I-Badge^® Locator Badge, which emits an infra-red signal.⁸ Centrally located receivers tabulate time spent by the badge wearer in each location (Appendix Figure 1). Each hospitalist was given a badge to wear at work for a minimum of six weeks, after which the I-Badge^® data were downloaded.

Schedules detailing each team’s members and assigned units (if cohorted) were retrieved. For each observed day, the hospitalist was linked to his or her team type and unit. Team lists were retrieved to ascertain patient load at the start of the day. Data sources were merged to categorize observations.

Observation Categories for Locator Badge Data

The I-Badge^® data provided details of how much time the hospitalist spent in each location (eg, nursing station, hallways, patient rooms). All observations in patient rooms were considered “direct care” while all other locations were categorized as “Indirect Care”. Observations were also categorized by the intensity of care provided on that unit, which included the Emergency Department (ED), Progressive Care Units (PCU), Medical-Surgical + PCU units (for units having a mixture of Medical-Surgical and PCU beds), and Medical-Surgical units.

In-person Observations

Four research assistants (RAs) were trained until interrater reliability using task times achieved an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.98. Task categories included direct care (all time with patients), indirect care (computer interactions, communication), professional development, and travel and personal time. Interruptions were defined as “an unplanned and unscheduled task, causing a discontinuation, a noticeable break, or task switch behavior”.⁹ “Electronic interruptions” were caused by pagers or phones whereas in-person interruptions were “face-to-face” interruptions. When at least two tasks were performed simultaneously, it was considered multitasking. A data collection form created in REDCap was accessed on computer tablets or smartphones¹⁰ (Appendix Table 1). To limit each observation period to five hours, two RAs were scheduled each day. Observations were continued until the hospitalist reported that work activities were complete or until 5 pm.

Statistical Analysis

Due to the nested structure of the locator badge data, multilevel models that permit predictors to vary at more than one level were used.¹¹ The distribution of the duration of direct care observations was log normal for which the parameters were estimated using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM). The GLMM estimates were converted using a nonlinear transformation to predict the mean duration of interactions. The GLMM estimates were then used to predict time allocations for hospitalists with various workloads and contexts. The five team types were captured in a single categorical variable.

Univariate three-level models predicting minutes spent in direct care were tested for each predictor. Predictors, described below, were selected due to their hypothesized relation to time spent in direct patient care, or to account statistically for differences among teams due to the observational nature of the study.¹² Predictors were: Level 3, hospitalist characteristics (years since medical school, age, gender, international graduate, years at current hospital); Level 2, work day characteristics (number of units visited, number of patients visited, team type, weekday); and Level 1, individual observation characteristics (intensity of care on unit, number of visits to the same patient room per day). Predictors that were significantly related to the duration of direct care at P value <.05 and whose inclusion resulted in better model fit based on likelihood ratio tests were retained in a multivariate model. Additionally, a logistic regression model with random effects was tested to determine whether hospitalists working in GCh vs non-GCh teams (including teams with APPs and residents) made more than one visit to the same patient in a day. For duration of direct care encounters, the amount of variation explained (intraclass correlation) at the hospitalist level was .05, and at the day level was .03.

For total daily indirect care, a similar modeling process was used. A log normal distribution was used because the data was right-skewed and contained positive values. The restricted maximum likelihood method was used to calculate final estimates for models. Least square mean values for independent variables were subjected to backward transformation for interpretation. Post hoc pairwise comparisons between team types were conducted using Tukey–Kramer tests for direct and indirect care time. Analyses were conducted using SAS software version 9.4 (Cary, North Carolina).

The in-person observations were summarized using descriptive statistics. Exploratory analyses were performed using t-tests and Fisher’s exact tests to compare continuous and categorical variables respectively.

Locator Badge Observations

Participants

The 17 hospitalists had a mean (SD) age of 38 years (6.4); 10 (59%) were male, 7 (41%) were international medical graduates, and 10 (59%) had worked at the hospital ≥5 years. The duration of observation was <45 days for 7 hospitalists, 46-55 days for 4, and >55 days for 6, yielding observations for 666 hospitalist workdays. The mean time since medical school graduation was 13 years. Seven hospitalists were observed only in the GCh model, one was observed only in the non-GCh model, and nine were observed in both.

Team Characteristics

On average, non-GCh teams visited more units per day than GCh teams. Teams with APPs had higher patient loads (Table 1).

Time Observed in Direct and Indirect Care

In total, 10,522 observations were recorded in providing direct care. The average duration of a direct care encounter ranged from 4.1 to 5.8 minutes. The ratio of indirect to direct time ranged from 2.7 to 3.7 (Table 2).

The number of times that a hospitalist visited the same patient room in one day ranged from 1 to 9. Most (84%) of the patient rooms were visited once per day. The odds that a GCh hospitalist would visit a patient more than once per day were 1.8 times higher (95% CI: 1.37, 2.34; P < .0001) than for a non-GCh hospitalist (data not shown).

Predictors Associated with Time Expenditure

Predictors significantly associated with both the duration of direct care encounters and total daily indirect care time included team type and patient count. Predicted time in direct care encounters was highest for the GCh-hospitalist team (9.5 minutes) and lowest for the GCh-hospitalist with residents team (7 minutes). Predicted total indirect care time was highest for the GCh-hospitalist with APP team (160 minutes) while the lowest expenditure in indirect care time was predicted for the non-GCh-hospitalist team (102 minutes). Increasing patient load from 10 to 20 was predicted to decrease the duration of a direct care encounter by one minute (14%) and increase the total indirect care time by a larger amount (39 min, 24%).

The duration of direct care encounters was also inversely related with years since medical school and number of visits made to same patient room. Finally, acuity of care was associated with the duration of direct care encounters with the longest predicted encounters in the ED (9.4 minutes). Physician gender and age, international graduation, years at current hospital, weekday, and the number of units visited in a day were neither associated with direct care time at P value < .05 nor improved model fit and therefore were not retained in the final model (Table 3).

In-person Observations

Four hospitalists cohorted to general medical units and four non-GCh hospitalists were observed for one day each, yielding a total of 3,032 minutes of data. These hospitalists were on teams without residents or APPs. On average, GCh hospitalists had 78% of their patients on their assigned unit, rounded on fewer units (3 vs 6) and had two more patients at the start of the day than non-GCh hospitalists (14 vs 12). Age and gender distribution of the GCh and non-GCh hospitalists were similar.

As a percentage of total observed time, GCh hospitalists were noted to spend a larger proportion of the workday in computer interactions vs non-GCh hospitalists (56% vs 39%; P = .005). The proportion of time in other activities or locations was not statistically different between GCh and non-GCh hospitalists, including face-to-face communication (21% vs 15%), multitasking (18% vs 14%), time spent at the nursing station (58% vs 34%), direct care (15% vs 20%), and time traveling (4% vs 11%). The most frequently observed combination of multitasking was computer and phone use (59% of all multitasking) followed by computer use and face-to-face communication (17%; Appendix Figure 2).

The mean duration of an interruption was 1.3 minutes. More interruptions were observed in the GCh group than the non-GCh group (139 vs 102). Interruptions in the GCh group were face-to-face in 62% of instances and electronic in 25%. The remaining 13% were instances in which electronic and face-to-face interruptions occurred simultaneously. In the non-GCh group, 51% of interruptions were face-to-face; 47% were electronic; and 2% were simultaneous. GCh hospitalists were interrupted once every 14 minutes in the morning, with interruption frequency increasing to once every eight minutes in the afternoon. Non-GCh hospitalists were interrupted once every 13 minutes in the morning and saw interruption frequency decrease to once every 17 minutes in the afternoon. The task most frequently interrupted was computer use.

DISCUSSION

Previous investigations have studied the impact of cohorting on outcomes, including the facilitation of bedside rounding, adverse events, agreement between nurses and physicians on the plan of care, productivity, and the number of pages received.^13-16 Cohorting’s benefits are theorized to include increased hospitalist time with patients, while its downsides are perceived to include increased interruptions.^17,18 Neither has previously been evaluated by direct observation.

Our findings support cohorting’s association with increased hospitalist–patient time. While GCh hospitalists were observed spending 5% less time in direct care than non-GCh hospitalists by in-person observations, this difference did not achieve statistical significance and was unadjusted for hospitalist, patient load, team or patient characteristics. Using the larger badge dataset, the predicted values for time spent in direct care encounters were higher in cohorted teams. Pairwise comparisons consistently trended toward longer durations in cohorted vs noncohorted teams. The notable exception was in cohorted teams with residents, which had the shortest predicted patient visits; however, we did not have noncohorted teams with residents in our study, limiting interpretation. Additionally, the odds of repeat visits to a patient in a single day were almost twice as high in the cohorted vs noncohorted group. The magnitude of this gain, however, is estimated to be a modest 1.2 minutes for a hospitalist only team and 1.7 minutes for a hospitalist with APP team and may be insufficient to provide compassionate, patient-centered care.¹⁹

Furthermore, these gains may be eroded if patient loads are high: similar to a previous study, we found that the duration of each patient visit decreased by 14% when the load increased from 10 to 20 patients.⁶ The expected gains in efficiency from cohorting leads to an expectation that hospitalists can manage more patients, but such reflexive increases should be carefully considered.¹⁸

Similar to earlier investigations where hospitalists were found to spend 60 to 69% of the day in indirect care activities,^5,6 hospitalists in both cohorted and noncohorted models spent approximately three times more time in indirect than direct care. Cohorting was associated with increased indirect care time. This association was expected as interdisciplinary huddles and increased nursing and physician communication are both related to cohorting.^3,14 However, similar to previous reports, in-person observations revealed that the bulk of this indirect time was spent in computer interactions, rather than in interprofessional communication. Interactions with the electronic health record (EHR) consume between one-third to one-half of the day in inpatient settings.^20,21 While EHRs are intended to enhance safety, they also fulfill multiple, nonclinical purposes and increase time spent on documentation.^22,23 Nonclinical tasks may contribute to clinician burnout and detract from patient centeredness.²² Our findings suggest that cohorting may not offset the burden of these time-intensive EHR tasks. The larger expenditure of time spent in computer interactions observed in the GCh group may be partially explained both by the higher number of patients and the higher frequency of interruptions observed in this group; computer use was the task most frequently observed to be interrupted. While longer tasks are more likely to be interrupted, the interruption in turn further increases the time taken to complete the task.²⁴

The interruption rates we observed are concerning. The hospitalist workday emerges as cognitively intense. GCh hospitalists were noted to be interrupted as frequently as once every eight minutes, a rate more than double that of an earlier investigation and approaching that of ED physicians.^5,25,26 Interruptions and multitasking contribute to errors and a perception of increased workload and frustration for clinicians.^9,27-29 Although interruptions were pervasive, GCh hospitalists were interrupted more frequently, corroborating a national survey in which hospitalists perceived that cohorting increased face-to-face interruptions.³⁰ The prolonged availability of the cohorted hospitalist on the unit may require different strategies for promoting timely interactions while preserving uninterrupted work time. Our work, however, does not allow us to quantify appropriate and urgent interruptions that reflect improved teamwork and patient safety. Interruptions increase as patient loads increase.²⁵ The contribution to interruptions by the higher patient census on the GCh teams cannot be quantified in this work, but without attention to these details, potential benefits from GCh may be attenuated.

Previous work has delineated variables important in determining hospitalist workload,³¹ and our work contributes additional considerations. Hospitalist experience and resident presence on cohorted teams was associated with shorter patient visits, while ED encounters were predicted to be the most time intensive. Increasing numbers of units visited in a day was associated with more indirect time, while weekends were associated with a lower burden of indirect care. As expected, APP presence was associated with more time in indirect care as the hospitalist spends time in providing oversight. As noted, cohorting was associated with increases in both direct and indirect care time. These findings may help inform hospital medicine groups. Additionally, attention should be paid to the fact that while support for cohorting stems from investigations in which it was used as part of a bundle of interventions,^2,3 in practice, it is often implemented incompletely, with cohorted hospitalists dispersed over several units, or in isolation from other interventions.¹

Our work has several limitations. As a single-center investigation, our findings may not be generalizable to other institutions. Second, we did not evaluate clinical outcomes, clinician, patient or nursing satisfaction to assess the effect of cohorting. Third, we cannot comment on whether the observed interruptions were beneficial or detrimental. Finally, while we used statistical control for the measured imbalanced variables between groups, unmeasured confounding factors between team types including differences in patient populations, pathologies and severity of illness, or the unit’s work environment and processes may have affected results.

Our work underscores the importance of paying careful attention to specific components and monitoring for unintended consequences in a complex intervention such as cohorting to allow subsequent refinement. Further studies to assess the interplay between models of care, their impact on interruptions, multitasking, errors and clinician burnout may be necessary. Such investigations will be critical to support the evolution of hospital medicine that enables it to be the driver of excellence in care.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participating hospitalists, research assistants, Shelly Harrison, Joni Godfrey, Mark Luetkemeyer, Deanne Kashiwagi, Tammy Kemlage, Dustin Hertel and Adeel Zaidi for their enthusiasm and support. The authors also thank Ann Cottingham, Rich Frankel and Greg Sachs from the ASPIRE program for their guidance and vision. Dr. Weiner is Chief of Health Services Research and Development at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Geographic cohorting (GCh, also known as “localization” or “regionalization”) refers to the practice wherein hospitalists are assigned to a single inpatient unit. Its adoption is increasing and in 2017, 30% of surveyed United States hospital medicine group leaders reported that their clinicians rounded on 1-2 units daily.¹ As a component of intervention bundles, GCh is associated with reductions in mortality, length of stay, and costs.^2,3

However, details on how GCh affects the hospitalist workday are unknown. Most time-motion studies of inpatient clinicians have reported the experiences of physicians in training with few specifically evaluating the workflow of attending hospitalists.⁴ Three studies of the attending hospitalist’s workday that were performed a decade ago excluded teams with learners, had patient loads as low as 9.4 per day, and did not differentiate between GCh and non-GCh models.^5-7

The objective of this observational study was to describe and compare the workday of GCh and non-GCh hospitalists by using automated geographical-tracking methods supplemented by in-person observations.

Setting and Participants

This work was conducted at a large academic center in the Midwestern US which adopted GCh in 2012. During the study, hospitalists staffed 11 GCh and four non-GCh teams. GCh teams aim to maintain ≥80% of their patients on their assigned unit and conduct interprofessional huddles on weekdays.³ Some units specialize in the care of specific populations (eg, patients with oncologic diagnoses), while others serve as general medical or surgical units. Non-GCh teams are assigned patients without regard to location. Resident housestaff are assigned only to GCh teams and residents and advanced practice providers (APPs) are never assigned to the same team. Based on team members, this yielded five distinct team types: GCh-hospitalist, GCh-hospitalist with APP, GCh-hospitalist with resident, non-GCh-hospitalist, and non-GCh-hospitalist with APP. Hospitalists provided verbal consent to participate. The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board. Two complementary observation modalities were used. Locator badges were used to quantify direct and indirect time unobtrusively over long periods. In-person observations were conducted to examine the workday in greater detail. Data were collected between October 2017 and May 2018.

Observations by Locator Badges

Our institution uses a system designed by Hill-Rom^® (Cary, North Carolina) to facilitate staff communication. Staff wear the I-Badge^® Locator Badge, which emits an infra-red signal.⁸ Centrally located receivers tabulate time spent by the badge wearer in each location (Appendix Figure 1). Each hospitalist was given a badge to wear at work for a minimum of six weeks, after which the I-Badge^® data were downloaded.

Schedules detailing each team’s members and assigned units (if cohorted) were retrieved. For each observed day, the hospitalist was linked to his or her team type and unit. Team lists were retrieved to ascertain patient load at the start of the day. Data sources were merged to categorize observations.

Observation Categories for Locator Badge Data

The I-Badge^® data provided details of how much time the hospitalist spent in each location (eg, nursing station, hallways, patient rooms). All observations in patient rooms were considered “direct care” while all other locations were categorized as “Indirect Care”. Observations were also categorized by the intensity of care provided on that unit, which included the Emergency Department (ED), Progressive Care Units (PCU), Medical-Surgical + PCU units (for units having a mixture of Medical-Surgical and PCU beds), and Medical-Surgical units.

In-person Observations

Four research assistants (RAs) were trained until interrater reliability using task times achieved an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.98. Task categories included direct care (all time with patients), indirect care (computer interactions, communication), professional development, and travel and personal time. Interruptions were defined as “an unplanned and unscheduled task, causing a discontinuation, a noticeable break, or task switch behavior”.⁹ “Electronic interruptions” were caused by pagers or phones whereas in-person interruptions were “face-to-face” interruptions. When at least two tasks were performed simultaneously, it was considered multitasking. A data collection form created in REDCap was accessed on computer tablets or smartphones¹⁰ (Appendix Table 1). To limit each observation period to five hours, two RAs were scheduled each day. Observations were continued until the hospitalist reported that work activities were complete or until 5 pm.

Statistical Analysis

Due to the nested structure of the locator badge data, multilevel models that permit predictors to vary at more than one level were used.¹¹ The distribution of the duration of direct care observations was log normal for which the parameters were estimated using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM). The GLMM estimates were converted using a nonlinear transformation to predict the mean duration of interactions. The GLMM estimates were then used to predict time allocations for hospitalists with various workloads and contexts. The five team types were captured in a single categorical variable.

Univariate three-level models predicting minutes spent in direct care were tested for each predictor. Predictors, described below, were selected due to their hypothesized relation to time spent in direct patient care, or to account statistically for differences among teams due to the observational nature of the study.¹² Predictors were: Level 3, hospitalist characteristics (years since medical school, age, gender, international graduate, years at current hospital); Level 2, work day characteristics (number of units visited, number of patients visited, team type, weekday); and Level 1, individual observation characteristics (intensity of care on unit, number of visits to the same patient room per day). Predictors that were significantly related to the duration of direct care at P value <.05 and whose inclusion resulted in better model fit based on likelihood ratio tests were retained in a multivariate model. Additionally, a logistic regression model with random effects was tested to determine whether hospitalists working in GCh vs non-GCh teams (including teams with APPs and residents) made more than one visit to the same patient in a day. For duration of direct care encounters, the amount of variation explained (intraclass correlation) at the hospitalist level was .05, and at the day level was .03.

For total daily indirect care, a similar modeling process was used. A log normal distribution was used because the data was right-skewed and contained positive values. The restricted maximum likelihood method was used to calculate final estimates for models. Least square mean values for independent variables were subjected to backward transformation for interpretation. Post hoc pairwise comparisons between team types were conducted using Tukey–Kramer tests for direct and indirect care time. Analyses were conducted using SAS software version 9.4 (Cary, North Carolina).

The in-person observations were summarized using descriptive statistics. Exploratory analyses were performed using t-tests and Fisher’s exact tests to compare continuous and categorical variables respectively.

Locator Badge Observations

Participants

The 17 hospitalists had a mean (SD) age of 38 years (6.4); 10 (59%) were male, 7 (41%) were international medical graduates, and 10 (59%) had worked at the hospital ≥5 years. The duration of observation was <45 days for 7 hospitalists, 46-55 days for 4, and >55 days for 6, yielding observations for 666 hospitalist workdays. The mean time since medical school graduation was 13 years. Seven hospitalists were observed only in the GCh model, one was observed only in the non-GCh model, and nine were observed in both.

Team Characteristics

On average, non-GCh teams visited more units per day than GCh teams. Teams with APPs had higher patient loads (Table 1).

Time Observed in Direct and Indirect Care

In total, 10,522 observations were recorded in providing direct care. The average duration of a direct care encounter ranged from 4.1 to 5.8 minutes. The ratio of indirect to direct time ranged from 2.7 to 3.7 (Table 2).

The number of times that a hospitalist visited the same patient room in one day ranged from 1 to 9. Most (84%) of the patient rooms were visited once per day. The odds that a GCh hospitalist would visit a patient more than once per day were 1.8 times higher (95% CI: 1.37, 2.34; P < .0001) than for a non-GCh hospitalist (data not shown).

Predictors Associated with Time Expenditure

Predictors significantly associated with both the duration of direct care encounters and total daily indirect care time included team type and patient count. Predicted time in direct care encounters was highest for the GCh-hospitalist team (9.5 minutes) and lowest for the GCh-hospitalist with residents team (7 minutes). Predicted total indirect care time was highest for the GCh-hospitalist with APP team (160 minutes) while the lowest expenditure in indirect care time was predicted for the non-GCh-hospitalist team (102 minutes). Increasing patient load from 10 to 20 was predicted to decrease the duration of a direct care encounter by one minute (14%) and increase the total indirect care time by a larger amount (39 min, 24%).

The duration of direct care encounters was also inversely related with years since medical school and number of visits made to same patient room. Finally, acuity of care was associated with the duration of direct care encounters with the longest predicted encounters in the ED (9.4 minutes). Physician gender and age, international graduation, years at current hospital, weekday, and the number of units visited in a day were neither associated with direct care time at P value < .05 nor improved model fit and therefore were not retained in the final model (Table 3).

In-person Observations

Four hospitalists cohorted to general medical units and four non-GCh hospitalists were observed for one day each, yielding a total of 3,032 minutes of data. These hospitalists were on teams without residents or APPs. On average, GCh hospitalists had 78% of their patients on their assigned unit, rounded on fewer units (3 vs 6) and had two more patients at the start of the day than non-GCh hospitalists (14 vs 12). Age and gender distribution of the GCh and non-GCh hospitalists were similar.

As a percentage of total observed time, GCh hospitalists were noted to spend a larger proportion of the workday in computer interactions vs non-GCh hospitalists (56% vs 39%; P = .005). The proportion of time in other activities or locations was not statistically different between GCh and non-GCh hospitalists, including face-to-face communication (21% vs 15%), multitasking (18% vs 14%), time spent at the nursing station (58% vs 34%), direct care (15% vs 20%), and time traveling (4% vs 11%). The most frequently observed combination of multitasking was computer and phone use (59% of all multitasking) followed by computer use and face-to-face communication (17%; Appendix Figure 2).

The mean duration of an interruption was 1.3 minutes. More interruptions were observed in the GCh group than the non-GCh group (139 vs 102). Interruptions in the GCh group were face-to-face in 62% of instances and electronic in 25%. The remaining 13% were instances in which electronic and face-to-face interruptions occurred simultaneously. In the non-GCh group, 51% of interruptions were face-to-face; 47% were electronic; and 2% were simultaneous. GCh hospitalists were interrupted once every 14 minutes in the morning, with interruption frequency increasing to once every eight minutes in the afternoon. Non-GCh hospitalists were interrupted once every 13 minutes in the morning and saw interruption frequency decrease to once every 17 minutes in the afternoon. The task most frequently interrupted was computer use.

DISCUSSION

Previous investigations have studied the impact of cohorting on outcomes, including the facilitation of bedside rounding, adverse events, agreement between nurses and physicians on the plan of care, productivity, and the number of pages received.^13-16 Cohorting’s benefits are theorized to include increased hospitalist time with patients, while its downsides are perceived to include increased interruptions.^17,18 Neither has previously been evaluated by direct observation.

Our findings support cohorting’s association with increased hospitalist–patient time. While GCh hospitalists were observed spending 5% less time in direct care than non-GCh hospitalists by in-person observations, this difference did not achieve statistical significance and was unadjusted for hospitalist, patient load, team or patient characteristics. Using the larger badge dataset, the predicted values for time spent in direct care encounters were higher in cohorted teams. Pairwise comparisons consistently trended toward longer durations in cohorted vs noncohorted teams. The notable exception was in cohorted teams with residents, which had the shortest predicted patient visits; however, we did not have noncohorted teams with residents in our study, limiting interpretation. Additionally, the odds of repeat visits to a patient in a single day were almost twice as high in the cohorted vs noncohorted group. The magnitude of this gain, however, is estimated to be a modest 1.2 minutes for a hospitalist only team and 1.7 minutes for a hospitalist with APP team and may be insufficient to provide compassionate, patient-centered care.¹⁹

Furthermore, these gains may be eroded if patient loads are high: similar to a previous study, we found that the duration of each patient visit decreased by 14% when the load increased from 10 to 20 patients.⁶ The expected gains in efficiency from cohorting leads to an expectation that hospitalists can manage more patients, but such reflexive increases should be carefully considered.¹⁸

Similar to earlier investigations where hospitalists were found to spend 60 to 69% of the day in indirect care activities,^5,6 hospitalists in both cohorted and noncohorted models spent approximately three times more time in indirect than direct care. Cohorting was associated with increased indirect care time. This association was expected as interdisciplinary huddles and increased nursing and physician communication are both related to cohorting.^3,14 However, similar to previous reports, in-person observations revealed that the bulk of this indirect time was spent in computer interactions, rather than in interprofessional communication. Interactions with the electronic health record (EHR) consume between one-third to one-half of the day in inpatient settings.^20,21 While EHRs are intended to enhance safety, they also fulfill multiple, nonclinical purposes and increase time spent on documentation.^22,23 Nonclinical tasks may contribute to clinician burnout and detract from patient centeredness.²² Our findings suggest that cohorting may not offset the burden of these time-intensive EHR tasks. The larger expenditure of time spent in computer interactions observed in the GCh group may be partially explained both by the higher number of patients and the higher frequency of interruptions observed in this group; computer use was the task most frequently observed to be interrupted. While longer tasks are more likely to be interrupted, the interruption in turn further increases the time taken to complete the task.²⁴

The interruption rates we observed are concerning. The hospitalist workday emerges as cognitively intense. GCh hospitalists were noted to be interrupted as frequently as once every eight minutes, a rate more than double that of an earlier investigation and approaching that of ED physicians.^5,25,26 Interruptions and multitasking contribute to errors and a perception of increased workload and frustration for clinicians.^9,27-29 Although interruptions were pervasive, GCh hospitalists were interrupted more frequently, corroborating a national survey in which hospitalists perceived that cohorting increased face-to-face interruptions.³⁰ The prolonged availability of the cohorted hospitalist on the unit may require different strategies for promoting timely interactions while preserving uninterrupted work time. Our work, however, does not allow us to quantify appropriate and urgent interruptions that reflect improved teamwork and patient safety. Interruptions increase as patient loads increase.²⁵ The contribution to interruptions by the higher patient census on the GCh teams cannot be quantified in this work, but without attention to these details, potential benefits from GCh may be attenuated.

Previous work has delineated variables important in determining hospitalist workload,³¹ and our work contributes additional considerations. Hospitalist experience and resident presence on cohorted teams was associated with shorter patient visits, while ED encounters were predicted to be the most time intensive. Increasing numbers of units visited in a day was associated with more indirect time, while weekends were associated with a lower burden of indirect care. As expected, APP presence was associated with more time in indirect care as the hospitalist spends time in providing oversight. As noted, cohorting was associated with increases in both direct and indirect care time. These findings may help inform hospital medicine groups. Additionally, attention should be paid to the fact that while support for cohorting stems from investigations in which it was used as part of a bundle of interventions,^2,3 in practice, it is often implemented incompletely, with cohorted hospitalists dispersed over several units, or in isolation from other interventions.¹

Our work has several limitations. As a single-center investigation, our findings may not be generalizable to other institutions. Second, we did not evaluate clinical outcomes, clinician, patient or nursing satisfaction to assess the effect of cohorting. Third, we cannot comment on whether the observed interruptions were beneficial or detrimental. Finally, while we used statistical control for the measured imbalanced variables between groups, unmeasured confounding factors between team types including differences in patient populations, pathologies and severity of illness, or the unit’s work environment and processes may have affected results.

Our work underscores the importance of paying careful attention to specific components and monitoring for unintended consequences in a complex intervention such as cohorting to allow subsequent refinement. Further studies to assess the interplay between models of care, their impact on interruptions, multitasking, errors and clinician burnout may be necessary. Such investigations will be critical to support the evolution of hospital medicine that enables it to be the driver of excellence in care.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participating hospitalists, research assistants, Shelly Harrison, Joni Godfrey, Mark Luetkemeyer, Deanne Kashiwagi, Tammy Kemlage, Dustin Hertel and Adeel Zaidi for their enthusiasm and support. The authors also thank Ann Cottingham, Rich Frankel and Greg Sachs from the ASPIRE program for their guidance and vision. Dr. Weiner is Chief of Health Services Research and Development at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Geographic cohorting (GCh, also known as “localization” or “regionalization”) refers to the practice wherein hospitalists are assigned to a single inpatient unit. Its adoption is increasing and in 2017, 30% of surveyed United States hospital medicine group leaders reported that their clinicians rounded on 1-2 units daily.¹ As a component of intervention bundles, GCh is associated with reductions in mortality, length of stay, and costs.^2,3

However, details on how GCh affects the hospitalist workday are unknown. Most time-motion studies of inpatient clinicians have reported the experiences of physicians in training with few specifically evaluating the workflow of attending hospitalists.⁴ Three studies of the attending hospitalist’s workday that were performed a decade ago excluded teams with learners, had patient loads as low as 9.4 per day, and did not differentiate between GCh and non-GCh models.^5-7

The objective of this observational study was to describe and compare the workday of GCh and non-GCh hospitalists by using automated geographical-tracking methods supplemented by in-person observations.

Setting and Participants

This work was conducted at a large academic center in the Midwestern US which adopted GCh in 2012. During the study, hospitalists staffed 11 GCh and four non-GCh teams. GCh teams aim to maintain ≥80% of their patients on their assigned unit and conduct interprofessional huddles on weekdays.³ Some units specialize in the care of specific populations (eg, patients with oncologic diagnoses), while others serve as general medical or surgical units. Non-GCh teams are assigned patients without regard to location. Resident housestaff are assigned only to GCh teams and residents and advanced practice providers (APPs) are never assigned to the same team. Based on team members, this yielded five distinct team types: GCh-hospitalist, GCh-hospitalist with APP, GCh-hospitalist with resident, non-GCh-hospitalist, and non-GCh-hospitalist with APP. Hospitalists provided verbal consent to participate. The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Indiana University Institutional Review Board. Two complementary observation modalities were used. Locator badges were used to quantify direct and indirect time unobtrusively over long periods. In-person observations were conducted to examine the workday in greater detail. Data were collected between October 2017 and May 2018.

Observations by Locator Badges

Our institution uses a system designed by Hill-Rom^® (Cary, North Carolina) to facilitate staff communication. Staff wear the I-Badge^® Locator Badge, which emits an infra-red signal.⁸ Centrally located receivers tabulate time spent by the badge wearer in each location (Appendix Figure 1). Each hospitalist was given a badge to wear at work for a minimum of six weeks, after which the I-Badge^® data were downloaded.

Schedules detailing each team’s members and assigned units (if cohorted) were retrieved. For each observed day, the hospitalist was linked to his or her team type and unit. Team lists were retrieved to ascertain patient load at the start of the day. Data sources were merged to categorize observations.

Observation Categories for Locator Badge Data

The I-Badge^® data provided details of how much time the hospitalist spent in each location (eg, nursing station, hallways, patient rooms). All observations in patient rooms were considered “direct care” while all other locations were categorized as “Indirect Care”. Observations were also categorized by the intensity of care provided on that unit, which included the Emergency Department (ED), Progressive Care Units (PCU), Medical-Surgical + PCU units (for units having a mixture of Medical-Surgical and PCU beds), and Medical-Surgical units.

In-person Observations

Four research assistants (RAs) were trained until interrater reliability using task times achieved an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.98. Task categories included direct care (all time with patients), indirect care (computer interactions, communication), professional development, and travel and personal time. Interruptions were defined as “an unplanned and unscheduled task, causing a discontinuation, a noticeable break, or task switch behavior”.⁹ “Electronic interruptions” were caused by pagers or phones whereas in-person interruptions were “face-to-face” interruptions. When at least two tasks were performed simultaneously, it was considered multitasking. A data collection form created in REDCap was accessed on computer tablets or smartphones¹⁰ (Appendix Table 1). To limit each observation period to five hours, two RAs were scheduled each day. Observations were continued until the hospitalist reported that work activities were complete or until 5 pm.

Statistical Analysis

Due to the nested structure of the locator badge data, multilevel models that permit predictors to vary at more than one level were used.¹¹ The distribution of the duration of direct care observations was log normal for which the parameters were estimated using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM). The GLMM estimates were converted using a nonlinear transformation to predict the mean duration of interactions. The GLMM estimates were then used to predict time allocations for hospitalists with various workloads and contexts. The five team types were captured in a single categorical variable.

Univariate three-level models predicting minutes spent in direct care were tested for each predictor. Predictors, described below, were selected due to their hypothesized relation to time spent in direct patient care, or to account statistically for differences among teams due to the observational nature of the study.¹² Predictors were: Level 3, hospitalist characteristics (years since medical school, age, gender, international graduate, years at current hospital); Level 2, work day characteristics (number of units visited, number of patients visited, team type, weekday); and Level 1, individual observation characteristics (intensity of care on unit, number of visits to the same patient room per day). Predictors that were significantly related to the duration of direct care at P value <.05 and whose inclusion resulted in better model fit based on likelihood ratio tests were retained in a multivariate model. Additionally, a logistic regression model with random effects was tested to determine whether hospitalists working in GCh vs non-GCh teams (including teams with APPs and residents) made more than one visit to the same patient in a day. For duration of direct care encounters, the amount of variation explained (intraclass correlation) at the hospitalist level was .05, and at the day level was .03.

For total daily indirect care, a similar modeling process was used. A log normal distribution was used because the data was right-skewed and contained positive values. The restricted maximum likelihood method was used to calculate final estimates for models. Least square mean values for independent variables were subjected to backward transformation for interpretation. Post hoc pairwise comparisons between team types were conducted using Tukey–Kramer tests for direct and indirect care time. Analyses were conducted using SAS software version 9.4 (Cary, North Carolina).

The in-person observations were summarized using descriptive statistics. Exploratory analyses were performed using t-tests and Fisher’s exact tests to compare continuous and categorical variables respectively.

Locator Badge Observations

Participants

The 17 hospitalists had a mean (SD) age of 38 years (6.4); 10 (59%) were male, 7 (41%) were international medical graduates, and 10 (59%) had worked at the hospital ≥5 years. The duration of observation was <45 days for 7 hospitalists, 46-55 days for 4, and >55 days for 6, yielding observations for 666 hospitalist workdays. The mean time since medical school graduation was 13 years. Seven hospitalists were observed only in the GCh model, one was observed only in the non-GCh model, and nine were observed in both.

Team Characteristics

On average, non-GCh teams visited more units per day than GCh teams. Teams with APPs had higher patient loads (Table 1).

Time Observed in Direct and Indirect Care

In total, 10,522 observations were recorded in providing direct care. The average duration of a direct care encounter ranged from 4.1 to 5.8 minutes. The ratio of indirect to direct time ranged from 2.7 to 3.7 (Table 2).

The number of times that a hospitalist visited the same patient room in one day ranged from 1 to 9. Most (84%) of the patient rooms were visited once per day. The odds that a GCh hospitalist would visit a patient more than once per day were 1.8 times higher (95% CI: 1.37, 2.34; P < .0001) than for a non-GCh hospitalist (data not shown).

Predictors Associated with Time Expenditure

Predictors significantly associated with both the duration of direct care encounters and total daily indirect care time included team type and patient count. Predicted time in direct care encounters was highest for the GCh-hospitalist team (9.5 minutes) and lowest for the GCh-hospitalist with residents team (7 minutes). Predicted total indirect care time was highest for the GCh-hospitalist with APP team (160 minutes) while the lowest expenditure in indirect care time was predicted for the non-GCh-hospitalist team (102 minutes). Increasing patient load from 10 to 20 was predicted to decrease the duration of a direct care encounter by one minute (14%) and increase the total indirect care time by a larger amount (39 min, 24%).

The duration of direct care encounters was also inversely related with years since medical school and number of visits made to same patient room. Finally, acuity of care was associated with the duration of direct care encounters with the longest predicted encounters in the ED (9.4 minutes). Physician gender and age, international graduation, years at current hospital, weekday, and the number of units visited in a day were neither associated with direct care time at P value < .05 nor improved model fit and therefore were not retained in the final model (Table 3).

In-person Observations

Four hospitalists cohorted to general medical units and four non-GCh hospitalists were observed for one day each, yielding a total of 3,032 minutes of data. These hospitalists were on teams without residents or APPs. On average, GCh hospitalists had 78% of their patients on their assigned unit, rounded on fewer units (3 vs 6) and had two more patients at the start of the day than non-GCh hospitalists (14 vs 12). Age and gender distribution of the GCh and non-GCh hospitalists were similar.

As a percentage of total observed time, GCh hospitalists were noted to spend a larger proportion of the workday in computer interactions vs non-GCh hospitalists (56% vs 39%; P = .005). The proportion of time in other activities or locations was not statistically different between GCh and non-GCh hospitalists, including face-to-face communication (21% vs 15%), multitasking (18% vs 14%), time spent at the nursing station (58% vs 34%), direct care (15% vs 20%), and time traveling (4% vs 11%). The most frequently observed combination of multitasking was computer and phone use (59% of all multitasking) followed by computer use and face-to-face communication (17%; Appendix Figure 2).

The mean duration of an interruption was 1.3 minutes. More interruptions were observed in the GCh group than the non-GCh group (139 vs 102). Interruptions in the GCh group were face-to-face in 62% of instances and electronic in 25%. The remaining 13% were instances in which electronic and face-to-face interruptions occurred simultaneously. In the non-GCh group, 51% of interruptions were face-to-face; 47% were electronic; and 2% were simultaneous. GCh hospitalists were interrupted once every 14 minutes in the morning, with interruption frequency increasing to once every eight minutes in the afternoon. Non-GCh hospitalists were interrupted once every 13 minutes in the morning and saw interruption frequency decrease to once every 17 minutes in the afternoon. The task most frequently interrupted was computer use.

DISCUSSION

Previous investigations have studied the impact of cohorting on outcomes, including the facilitation of bedside rounding, adverse events, agreement between nurses and physicians on the plan of care, productivity, and the number of pages received.^13-16 Cohorting’s benefits are theorized to include increased hospitalist time with patients, while its downsides are perceived to include increased interruptions.^17,18 Neither has previously been evaluated by direct observation.

Our findings support cohorting’s association with increased hospitalist–patient time. While GCh hospitalists were observed spending 5% less time in direct care than non-GCh hospitalists by in-person observations, this difference did not achieve statistical significance and was unadjusted for hospitalist, patient load, team or patient characteristics. Using the larger badge dataset, the predicted values for time spent in direct care encounters were higher in cohorted teams. Pairwise comparisons consistently trended toward longer durations in cohorted vs noncohorted teams. The notable exception was in cohorted teams with residents, which had the shortest predicted patient visits; however, we did not have noncohorted teams with residents in our study, limiting interpretation. Additionally, the odds of repeat visits to a patient in a single day were almost twice as high in the cohorted vs noncohorted group. The magnitude of this gain, however, is estimated to be a modest 1.2 minutes for a hospitalist only team and 1.7 minutes for a hospitalist with APP team and may be insufficient to provide compassionate, patient-centered care.¹⁹

Furthermore, these gains may be eroded if patient loads are high: similar to a previous study, we found that the duration of each patient visit decreased by 14% when the load increased from 10 to 20 patients.⁶ The expected gains in efficiency from cohorting leads to an expectation that hospitalists can manage more patients, but such reflexive increases should be carefully considered.¹⁸

Similar to earlier investigations where hospitalists were found to spend 60 to 69% of the day in indirect care activities,^5,6 hospitalists in both cohorted and noncohorted models spent approximately three times more time in indirect than direct care. Cohorting was associated with increased indirect care time. This association was expected as interdisciplinary huddles and increased nursing and physician communication are both related to cohorting.^3,14 However, similar to previous reports, in-person observations revealed that the bulk of this indirect time was spent in computer interactions, rather than in interprofessional communication. Interactions with the electronic health record (EHR) consume between one-third to one-half of the day in inpatient settings.^20,21 While EHRs are intended to enhance safety, they also fulfill multiple, nonclinical purposes and increase time spent on documentation.^22,23 Nonclinical tasks may contribute to clinician burnout and detract from patient centeredness.²² Our findings suggest that cohorting may not offset the burden of these time-intensive EHR tasks. The larger expenditure of time spent in computer interactions observed in the GCh group may be partially explained both by the higher number of patients and the higher frequency of interruptions observed in this group; computer use was the task most frequently observed to be interrupted. While longer tasks are more likely to be interrupted, the interruption in turn further increases the time taken to complete the task.²⁴

The interruption rates we observed are concerning. The hospitalist workday emerges as cognitively intense. GCh hospitalists were noted to be interrupted as frequently as once every eight minutes, a rate more than double that of an earlier investigation and approaching that of ED physicians.^5,25,26 Interruptions and multitasking contribute to errors and a perception of increased workload and frustration for clinicians.^9,27-29 Although interruptions were pervasive, GCh hospitalists were interrupted more frequently, corroborating a national survey in which hospitalists perceived that cohorting increased face-to-face interruptions.³⁰ The prolonged availability of the cohorted hospitalist on the unit may require different strategies for promoting timely interactions while preserving uninterrupted work time. Our work, however, does not allow us to quantify appropriate and urgent interruptions that reflect improved teamwork and patient safety. Interruptions increase as patient loads increase.²⁵ The contribution to interruptions by the higher patient census on the GCh teams cannot be quantified in this work, but without attention to these details, potential benefits from GCh may be attenuated.

Previous work has delineated variables important in determining hospitalist workload,³¹ and our work contributes additional considerations. Hospitalist experience and resident presence on cohorted teams was associated with shorter patient visits, while ED encounters were predicted to be the most time intensive. Increasing numbers of units visited in a day was associated with more indirect time, while weekends were associated with a lower burden of indirect care. As expected, APP presence was associated with more time in indirect care as the hospitalist spends time in providing oversight. As noted, cohorting was associated with increases in both direct and indirect care time. These findings may help inform hospital medicine groups. Additionally, attention should be paid to the fact that while support for cohorting stems from investigations in which it was used as part of a bundle of interventions,^2,3 in practice, it is often implemented incompletely, with cohorted hospitalists dispersed over several units, or in isolation from other interventions.¹

Our work has several limitations. As a single-center investigation, our findings may not be generalizable to other institutions. Second, we did not evaluate clinical outcomes, clinician, patient or nursing satisfaction to assess the effect of cohorting. Third, we cannot comment on whether the observed interruptions were beneficial or detrimental. Finally, while we used statistical control for the measured imbalanced variables between groups, unmeasured confounding factors between team types including differences in patient populations, pathologies and severity of illness, or the unit’s work environment and processes may have affected results.

Our work underscores the importance of paying careful attention to specific components and monitoring for unintended consequences in a complex intervention such as cohorting to allow subsequent refinement. Further studies to assess the interplay between models of care, their impact on interruptions, multitasking, errors and clinician burnout may be necessary. Such investigations will be critical to support the evolution of hospital medicine that enables it to be the driver of excellence in care.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the participating hospitalists, research assistants, Shelly Harrison, Joni Godfrey, Mark Luetkemeyer, Deanne Kashiwagi, Tammy Kemlage, Dustin Hertel and Adeel Zaidi for their enthusiasm and support. The authors also thank Ann Cottingham, Rich Frankel and Greg Sachs from the ASPIRE program for their guidance and vision. Dr. Weiner is Chief of Health Services Research and Development at the Richard L. Roudebush Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Healthcare delivery in rural America faces unique, growing challenges related to health and emergency care access.¹ Telemedicine approaches have the potential to increase rural hospitals’ ability to deliver efficient emergency care and reduce clinician shortages.² While initial evidence of telemedicine success exists, more quality research is needed to understand telemedicine patient and care team experiences,³ especially with real-time, clinician-initiated video conferencing in critical access hospital (CAH) emergency departments (ED). Some experience studies exist,⁴ but results are primarily quantitative⁵ and lack the nuanced qualitative depth needed to understand topics such as satisfaction and communication.⁶ Additionally, few explore combined patient and care team perspectives.⁵ The lack of breadth and depth makes it difficult to provide actionable recommendations for improvements and affects the feasibility of continuing this work and improving telemedicine care quality. To address these gaps, we evaluated a real-time, clinician-­initiated video conferencing program with overnight clinicians servicing ED patients in three Midwestern care system CAHs. This evaluation assessed patient and care team (nurse and clinician) experience with telemedicine using quantitative and qualitative survey data analysis.

Because this evaluation was designed to measure and improve program quality in a single healthcare system, it was deemed non-human subjects research by the organization’s institutional review board. This brief report follows telemedicine reporting guidelines.⁷

Setting and Telemedicine Program

This program, designed to reduce the need for on-call hospitalist clinicians to be onsite at CAHs overnight, was implemented in a large Midwestern nonprofit integrated healthcare system with three rural CAHs (combined capacity for 75 inpatient admissions, with full-time onsite ED clinicians and nurses, as well as on-call hospitalist clinicians) and a large metropolitan tertiary-care hospital. All adult patients presenting to CAH EDs between 6 pm and 8 am were evaluated, as usual, by an onsite ED clinician. If the admitting ED clinician and charge nurse determined that admission was appropriate, patients were signed out to remote hospitalist clinicians and roomed by onsite nurses. Nurses facilitated live audio-video telemedicine “history and physical” visits with remote clinicians via telemedicine carts (AmericanWell C750, Boston, Massachusetts, and ThinkLabs One Electronic Stethoscope, Centennial, Colorado). Already-­hospitalized patients, as well as patients admitted to a remote clinician, were cared for by the remote clinician and onsite nurse for the remainder of the night, which eliminated the need for local on-call clinicians. The onsite ED clinician responded to emergencies of already-hospitalized patients, but often consulted with remote clinicians to assist virtually with necessary orders and documentation. Remote clinicians were located at the metropolitan tertiary care hospital or home work stations.

Following a pilot period, the full-scale program was implemented in September 2017 and included 14 remote clinicians and 60 onsite nurses.

Survey Administration and Design

A postimplementation survey was designed to explore patient and care team experience with telemedicine. Patients who received a telemedicine visit between September 2017 and April 2018 were mailed a paper survey. Nonresponders were called by professional interviewers affiliated with the healthcare system. All participating clinicians (N = 14, all MDs) and nurses (N = 60, all RNs) were emailed an online care team survey with phone-in option. Care team nonresponders were sent up to two reminder emails.

Surveys captured the following five constructs: communication, workflow integration, telemedicine technology, quality of care, and general satisfaction. Existing questionnaires were used where possible; additional items were designed with clinical experts following survey design best practices.⁸ Patient-perceived communication was assessed via three Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Outpatient and Ambulatory Surgery Survey items.⁹ Five additional program-developed patient survey items included satisfaction with clinician-nurse communication, satisfaction with technology, telemedicine quality of care overall and in comparison with traditional care, and whether or not patients would recommend telemedicine (Table). Four open-ended questions asked patients about improvement opportunities and general satisfaction.

Care team surveys included two items regarding ability to effectively communicate, two about satisfaction with workflow integration, one about technical problems, two about quality of care, and one about general satisfaction. Open-ended questions gathered further information and recommendations to improve communication, workflow integration, technology issues, and general satisfaction.

Analysis

Closed-ended items were dichotomized (satisfied yes/no); descriptive statistics (frequencies/percents) are presented to quantify patient and care team experience. Quantitative analyses were conducted in SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Open-ended responses were coded separately for patient and care team experience, following qualitative content analysis best practices.¹⁰ A lead coder read all responses, created a coding framework of identified themes, and coded individual responses. A second coder independently coded responses using the same framework. Interrater reliability was calculated for each major theme using percent agreement and prevalence- and bias-adjusted k (PABAK) statistic. A single representative quote was selected and lightly edited for each subtheme to deepen understanding and provide respondent voice.¹¹

Of eligible patients mailed a survey (N = 408), 3% self-reported as ineligible, and 54% completed the survey. This is a maximum response rate (response rate 6) according to the American Association for Public Opinion Research.¹² Patients were 67 years old on average (SD = 15), they were primarily white (97%), and 54% were female. All clinicians and 63% of nurses completed the survey.¹² Clinicians and nurses were 29% and 95% female, respectively.

Quantitative results (Table) show generally positive experience across patient and care team respondents. Over 90% were satisfied with all measures of communication. Care teams had high satisfaction with admissions processes and reported telemedicine improved cross-coverage. Patient-reported technology experience was positive but was less positive from the care team perspective. Care teams reported lower absolute quality of care than did patients but were more likely to perceive telemedicine as high quality, compared with traditional care. Most patients, clinicians, and nurses would recommend telemedicine.

Qualitatively, four major themes were identified in open-­ended responses with high interrater reliability (PABAK ranging from 0.92 to 0.98 in patient responses and 0.88 to 0.95 in care team responses) and aligned with the quantitative survey constructs: clinician-nurse communication, clinician-patient communication, workflow integration, and telemedicine technology. Patients reported satisfaction with communication with remote clinicians:

“[The clinician] was extremely attentive to me and what was going on. She was articulate and clear. I understood what was going to happen.” –Patient

Care teams suggested concrete improvement opportunities:

“I’d prefer to have some time with nursing staff both before and (sometimes) after the patient encounter.” –Clinician

“Since we cannot hear what [the clinicians] are hearing with the stethoscope, it’s nice when they tell us when to move it to the next spot.” –Nurse

Clinicians and nurses gave favorable responses regarding workflow integration, though time (both admissions wait time and session duration) was a reported opportunity:

“It would be helpful if we could speed up the time from admit request to screen time.” –Clinician

“When the [clinicians] get swamped, they’re hard to get a hold of, and admissions can take a long time. They may have too much on their plates dealing with several locations.” –Nurse

Technology issues—internet connection, stethoscope, sound, and screen or camera—were mentioned by patients and care teams, though technology was reviewed favorably overall by most patients:

“I was fascinated by the technology. Visiting someone over a television was impressive. ... The picture, the sound clarity, and the connection itself was flawless.” –Patient

Some patients commented that telemedicine was the best option given the situation, but still preferred an in-person doctor:

“If a doctor wasn’t available, telemedicine is better than nothing.” –Patient

Nurses who would not recommend telemedicine noted the need for personal connection:

“[I] still prefer [an] in-person MD for more personal contact. The older patients often state they wish the doctor would come and see them.” –Nurse

Patients who would not recommend telemedicine also desired personal connection:

“I would sooner talk to a person than a machine.” –Patient

A few clinicians noted the connection with patients would be improved if they knew about others in the room:

“It’d be nice if everyone in the room was introduced. Sometimes people are sitting out of view of the camera and I don’t realize they’re there until later.” –Clinician

These results make important contributions to understanding and improving the telemedicine experience in rural emergency hospital medicine. While the predominantly white patient respondent population limits generalizability, these demographics are representative of the overall population of the participating hospitals. A strength of this evaluation is its contemporaneous consideration of patient and care team experience with both quantitative and rich, qualitative analysis. Patients and care teams alike thought overnight telemedicine was better than the status quo. While our quality of care findings align with some previous literature,¹³ care teams in the current analysis overwhelmingly would recommend telemedicine, whereas some clinicians in prior work would not recommend telemedicine.¹⁴

In terms of communication, in line with existing literature, some patients still preferred in-person visits,¹⁵ a view also shared by some care team members. Workflow and technology barriers were raised, corroborating existing work,¹³ but actionable solutions (eg, adding care team–only time before visits or verbalizing when to move stethoscopes) were also identified.

Embedding patient and care team experience surveys and sharing results is critical in advancing telemedicine. Findings from this evaluation strengthen the case for payer reimbursement of telemedicine in rural acute care. Continued work to improve, test, and publish findings on patient and care team experience with telemedicine is critical to providing quality services in often-underserved communities.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Ann Werner in identifying the patient survey sample, Brian Barklind in identifying source data for the analysis, and both Brian Barklind and Rachael Rivard for conducting the analyses and summarizing results. We would also like to thank Kelly Logue for her involvement in conceptualizing the telemedicine evaluation described here, as well as Larisa Polynskaya for her help preparing the manuscript for publication, and the care teams and patients who provided valuable input.

Healthcare delivery in rural America faces unique, growing challenges related to health and emergency care access.¹ Telemedicine approaches have the potential to increase rural hospitals’ ability to deliver efficient emergency care and reduce clinician shortages.² While initial evidence of telemedicine success exists, more quality research is needed to understand telemedicine patient and care team experiences,³ especially with real-time, clinician-initiated video conferencing in critical access hospital (CAH) emergency departments (ED). Some experience studies exist,⁴ but results are primarily quantitative⁵ and lack the nuanced qualitative depth needed to understand topics such as satisfaction and communication.⁶ Additionally, few explore combined patient and care team perspectives.⁵ The lack of breadth and depth makes it difficult to provide actionable recommendations for improvements and affects the feasibility of continuing this work and improving telemedicine care quality. To address these gaps, we evaluated a real-time, clinician-­initiated video conferencing program with overnight clinicians servicing ED patients in three Midwestern care system CAHs. This evaluation assessed patient and care team (nurse and clinician) experience with telemedicine using quantitative and qualitative survey data analysis.

Because this evaluation was designed to measure and improve program quality in a single healthcare system, it was deemed non-human subjects research by the organization’s institutional review board. This brief report follows telemedicine reporting guidelines.⁷

Setting and Telemedicine Program

This program, designed to reduce the need for on-call hospitalist clinicians to be onsite at CAHs overnight, was implemented in a large Midwestern nonprofit integrated healthcare system with three rural CAHs (combined capacity for 75 inpatient admissions, with full-time onsite ED clinicians and nurses, as well as on-call hospitalist clinicians) and a large metropolitan tertiary-care hospital. All adult patients presenting to CAH EDs between 6 pm and 8 am were evaluated, as usual, by an onsite ED clinician. If the admitting ED clinician and charge nurse determined that admission was appropriate, patients were signed out to remote hospitalist clinicians and roomed by onsite nurses. Nurses facilitated live audio-video telemedicine “history and physical” visits with remote clinicians via telemedicine carts (AmericanWell C750, Boston, Massachusetts, and ThinkLabs One Electronic Stethoscope, Centennial, Colorado). Already-­hospitalized patients, as well as patients admitted to a remote clinician, were cared for by the remote clinician and onsite nurse for the remainder of the night, which eliminated the need for local on-call clinicians. The onsite ED clinician responded to emergencies of already-hospitalized patients, but often consulted with remote clinicians to assist virtually with necessary orders and documentation. Remote clinicians were located at the metropolitan tertiary care hospital or home work stations.

Following a pilot period, the full-scale program was implemented in September 2017 and included 14 remote clinicians and 60 onsite nurses.

Survey Administration and Design

A postimplementation survey was designed to explore patient and care team experience with telemedicine. Patients who received a telemedicine visit between September 2017 and April 2018 were mailed a paper survey. Nonresponders were called by professional interviewers affiliated with the healthcare system. All participating clinicians (N = 14, all MDs) and nurses (N = 60, all RNs) were emailed an online care team survey with phone-in option. Care team nonresponders were sent up to two reminder emails.

Surveys captured the following five constructs: communication, workflow integration, telemedicine technology, quality of care, and general satisfaction. Existing questionnaires were used where possible; additional items were designed with clinical experts following survey design best practices.⁸ Patient-perceived communication was assessed via three Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Outpatient and Ambulatory Surgery Survey items.⁹ Five additional program-developed patient survey items included satisfaction with clinician-nurse communication, satisfaction with technology, telemedicine quality of care overall and in comparison with traditional care, and whether or not patients would recommend telemedicine (Table). Four open-ended questions asked patients about improvement opportunities and general satisfaction.

Care team surveys included two items regarding ability to effectively communicate, two about satisfaction with workflow integration, one about technical problems, two about quality of care, and one about general satisfaction. Open-ended questions gathered further information and recommendations to improve communication, workflow integration, technology issues, and general satisfaction.

Analysis

Closed-ended items were dichotomized (satisfied yes/no); descriptive statistics (frequencies/percents) are presented to quantify patient and care team experience. Quantitative analyses were conducted in SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Open-ended responses were coded separately for patient and care team experience, following qualitative content analysis best practices.¹⁰ A lead coder read all responses, created a coding framework of identified themes, and coded individual responses. A second coder independently coded responses using the same framework. Interrater reliability was calculated for each major theme using percent agreement and prevalence- and bias-adjusted k (PABAK) statistic. A single representative quote was selected and lightly edited for each subtheme to deepen understanding and provide respondent voice.¹¹

Of eligible patients mailed a survey (N = 408), 3% self-reported as ineligible, and 54% completed the survey. This is a maximum response rate (response rate 6) according to the American Association for Public Opinion Research.¹² Patients were 67 years old on average (SD = 15), they were primarily white (97%), and 54% were female. All clinicians and 63% of nurses completed the survey.¹² Clinicians and nurses were 29% and 95% female, respectively.

Quantitative results (Table) show generally positive experience across patient and care team respondents. Over 90% were satisfied with all measures of communication. Care teams had high satisfaction with admissions processes and reported telemedicine improved cross-coverage. Patient-reported technology experience was positive but was less positive from the care team perspective. Care teams reported lower absolute quality of care than did patients but were more likely to perceive telemedicine as high quality, compared with traditional care. Most patients, clinicians, and nurses would recommend telemedicine.

Qualitatively, four major themes were identified in open-­ended responses with high interrater reliability (PABAK ranging from 0.92 to 0.98 in patient responses and 0.88 to 0.95 in care team responses) and aligned with the quantitative survey constructs: clinician-nurse communication, clinician-patient communication, workflow integration, and telemedicine technology. Patients reported satisfaction with communication with remote clinicians:

“[The clinician] was extremely attentive to me and what was going on. She was articulate and clear. I understood what was going to happen.” –Patient

Care teams suggested concrete improvement opportunities:

“I’d prefer to have some time with nursing staff both before and (sometimes) after the patient encounter.” –Clinician

“Since we cannot hear what [the clinicians] are hearing with the stethoscope, it’s nice when they tell us when to move it to the next spot.” –Nurse

Clinicians and nurses gave favorable responses regarding workflow integration, though time (both admissions wait time and session duration) was a reported opportunity:

“It would be helpful if we could speed up the time from admit request to screen time.” –Clinician

“When the [clinicians] get swamped, they’re hard to get a hold of, and admissions can take a long time. They may have too much on their plates dealing with several locations.” –Nurse

Technology issues—internet connection, stethoscope, sound, and screen or camera—were mentioned by patients and care teams, though technology was reviewed favorably overall by most patients:

“I was fascinated by the technology. Visiting someone over a television was impressive. ... The picture, the sound clarity, and the connection itself was flawless.” –Patient

Some patients commented that telemedicine was the best option given the situation, but still preferred an in-person doctor:

“If a doctor wasn’t available, telemedicine is better than nothing.” –Patient

Nurses who would not recommend telemedicine noted the need for personal connection:

“[I] still prefer [an] in-person MD for more personal contact. The older patients often state they wish the doctor would come and see them.” –Nurse

Patients who would not recommend telemedicine also desired personal connection:

“I would sooner talk to a person than a machine.” –Patient

A few clinicians noted the connection with patients would be improved if they knew about others in the room:

“It’d be nice if everyone in the room was introduced. Sometimes people are sitting out of view of the camera and I don’t realize they’re there until later.” –Clinician

These results make important contributions to understanding and improving the telemedicine experience in rural emergency hospital medicine. While the predominantly white patient respondent population limits generalizability, these demographics are representative of the overall population of the participating hospitals. A strength of this evaluation is its contemporaneous consideration of patient and care team experience with both quantitative and rich, qualitative analysis. Patients and care teams alike thought overnight telemedicine was better than the status quo. While our quality of care findings align with some previous literature,¹³ care teams in the current analysis overwhelmingly would recommend telemedicine, whereas some clinicians in prior work would not recommend telemedicine.¹⁴

In terms of communication, in line with existing literature, some patients still preferred in-person visits,¹⁵ a view also shared by some care team members. Workflow and technology barriers were raised, corroborating existing work,¹³ but actionable solutions (eg, adding care team–only time before visits or verbalizing when to move stethoscopes) were also identified.

Embedding patient and care team experience surveys and sharing results is critical in advancing telemedicine. Findings from this evaluation strengthen the case for payer reimbursement of telemedicine in rural acute care. Continued work to improve, test, and publish findings on patient and care team experience with telemedicine is critical to providing quality services in often-underserved communities.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Ann Werner in identifying the patient survey sample, Brian Barklind in identifying source data for the analysis, and both Brian Barklind and Rachael Rivard for conducting the analyses and summarizing results. We would also like to thank Kelly Logue for her involvement in conceptualizing the telemedicine evaluation described here, as well as Larisa Polynskaya for her help preparing the manuscript for publication, and the care teams and patients who provided valuable input.

Healthcare delivery in rural America faces unique, growing challenges related to health and emergency care access.¹ Telemedicine approaches have the potential to increase rural hospitals’ ability to deliver efficient emergency care and reduce clinician shortages.² While initial evidence of telemedicine success exists, more quality research is needed to understand telemedicine patient and care team experiences,³ especially with real-time, clinician-initiated video conferencing in critical access hospital (CAH) emergency departments (ED). Some experience studies exist,⁴ but results are primarily quantitative⁵ and lack the nuanced qualitative depth needed to understand topics such as satisfaction and communication.⁶ Additionally, few explore combined patient and care team perspectives.⁵ The lack of breadth and depth makes it difficult to provide actionable recommendations for improvements and affects the feasibility of continuing this work and improving telemedicine care quality. To address these gaps, we evaluated a real-time, clinician-­initiated video conferencing program with overnight clinicians servicing ED patients in three Midwestern care system CAHs. This evaluation assessed patient and care team (nurse and clinician) experience with telemedicine using quantitative and qualitative survey data analysis.

Because this evaluation was designed to measure and improve program quality in a single healthcare system, it was deemed non-human subjects research by the organization’s institutional review board. This brief report follows telemedicine reporting guidelines.⁷

Setting and Telemedicine Program

This program, designed to reduce the need for on-call hospitalist clinicians to be onsite at CAHs overnight, was implemented in a large Midwestern nonprofit integrated healthcare system with three rural CAHs (combined capacity for 75 inpatient admissions, with full-time onsite ED clinicians and nurses, as well as on-call hospitalist clinicians) and a large metropolitan tertiary-care hospital. All adult patients presenting to CAH EDs between 6 pm and 8 am were evaluated, as usual, by an onsite ED clinician. If the admitting ED clinician and charge nurse determined that admission was appropriate, patients were signed out to remote hospitalist clinicians and roomed by onsite nurses. Nurses facilitated live audio-video telemedicine “history and physical” visits with remote clinicians via telemedicine carts (AmericanWell C750, Boston, Massachusetts, and ThinkLabs One Electronic Stethoscope, Centennial, Colorado). Already-­hospitalized patients, as well as patients admitted to a remote clinician, were cared for by the remote clinician and onsite nurse for the remainder of the night, which eliminated the need for local on-call clinicians. The onsite ED clinician responded to emergencies of already-hospitalized patients, but often consulted with remote clinicians to assist virtually with necessary orders and documentation. Remote clinicians were located at the metropolitan tertiary care hospital or home work stations.

Following a pilot period, the full-scale program was implemented in September 2017 and included 14 remote clinicians and 60 onsite nurses.

Survey Administration and Design

A postimplementation survey was designed to explore patient and care team experience with telemedicine. Patients who received a telemedicine visit between September 2017 and April 2018 were mailed a paper survey. Nonresponders were called by professional interviewers affiliated with the healthcare system. All participating clinicians (N = 14, all MDs) and nurses (N = 60, all RNs) were emailed an online care team survey with phone-in option. Care team nonresponders were sent up to two reminder emails.

Surveys captured the following five constructs: communication, workflow integration, telemedicine technology, quality of care, and general satisfaction. Existing questionnaires were used where possible; additional items were designed with clinical experts following survey design best practices.⁸ Patient-perceived communication was assessed via three Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems Outpatient and Ambulatory Surgery Survey items.⁹ Five additional program-developed patient survey items included satisfaction with clinician-nurse communication, satisfaction with technology, telemedicine quality of care overall and in comparison with traditional care, and whether or not patients would recommend telemedicine (Table). Four open-ended questions asked patients about improvement opportunities and general satisfaction.

Care team surveys included two items regarding ability to effectively communicate, two about satisfaction with workflow integration, one about technical problems, two about quality of care, and one about general satisfaction. Open-ended questions gathered further information and recommendations to improve communication, workflow integration, technology issues, and general satisfaction.

Analysis

Closed-ended items were dichotomized (satisfied yes/no); descriptive statistics (frequencies/percents) are presented to quantify patient and care team experience. Quantitative analyses were conducted in SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina). Open-ended responses were coded separately for patient and care team experience, following qualitative content analysis best practices.¹⁰ A lead coder read all responses, created a coding framework of identified themes, and coded individual responses. A second coder independently coded responses using the same framework. Interrater reliability was calculated for each major theme using percent agreement and prevalence- and bias-adjusted k (PABAK) statistic. A single representative quote was selected and lightly edited for each subtheme to deepen understanding and provide respondent voice.¹¹

Of eligible patients mailed a survey (N = 408), 3% self-reported as ineligible, and 54% completed the survey. This is a maximum response rate (response rate 6) according to the American Association for Public Opinion Research.¹² Patients were 67 years old on average (SD = 15), they were primarily white (97%), and 54% were female. All clinicians and 63% of nurses completed the survey.¹² Clinicians and nurses were 29% and 95% female, respectively.

Quantitative results (Table) show generally positive experience across patient and care team respondents. Over 90% were satisfied with all measures of communication. Care teams had high satisfaction with admissions processes and reported telemedicine improved cross-coverage. Patient-reported technology experience was positive but was less positive from the care team perspective. Care teams reported lower absolute quality of care than did patients but were more likely to perceive telemedicine as high quality, compared with traditional care. Most patients, clinicians, and nurses would recommend telemedicine.

Qualitatively, four major themes were identified in open-­ended responses with high interrater reliability (PABAK ranging from 0.92 to 0.98 in patient responses and 0.88 to 0.95 in care team responses) and aligned with the quantitative survey constructs: clinician-nurse communication, clinician-patient communication, workflow integration, and telemedicine technology. Patients reported satisfaction with communication with remote clinicians:

“[The clinician] was extremely attentive to me and what was going on. She was articulate and clear. I understood what was going to happen.” –Patient

Care teams suggested concrete improvement opportunities:

“I’d prefer to have some time with nursing staff both before and (sometimes) after the patient encounter.” –Clinician

“Since we cannot hear what [the clinicians] are hearing with the stethoscope, it’s nice when they tell us when to move it to the next spot.” –Nurse

Clinicians and nurses gave favorable responses regarding workflow integration, though time (both admissions wait time and session duration) was a reported opportunity:

“It would be helpful if we could speed up the time from admit request to screen time.” –Clinician

“When the [clinicians] get swamped, they’re hard to get a hold of, and admissions can take a long time. They may have too much on their plates dealing with several locations.” –Nurse

Technology issues—internet connection, stethoscope, sound, and screen or camera—were mentioned by patients and care teams, though technology was reviewed favorably overall by most patients:

“I was fascinated by the technology. Visiting someone over a television was impressive. ... The picture, the sound clarity, and the connection itself was flawless.” –Patient

Some patients commented that telemedicine was the best option given the situation, but still preferred an in-person doctor:

“If a doctor wasn’t available, telemedicine is better than nothing.” –Patient

Nurses who would not recommend telemedicine noted the need for personal connection:

“[I] still prefer [an] in-person MD for more personal contact. The older patients often state they wish the doctor would come and see them.” –Nurse

Patients who would not recommend telemedicine also desired personal connection:

“I would sooner talk to a person than a machine.” –Patient

A few clinicians noted the connection with patients would be improved if they knew about others in the room:

“It’d be nice if everyone in the room was introduced. Sometimes people are sitting out of view of the camera and I don’t realize they’re there until later.” –Clinician

These results make important contributions to understanding and improving the telemedicine experience in rural emergency hospital medicine. While the predominantly white patient respondent population limits generalizability, these demographics are representative of the overall population of the participating hospitals. A strength of this evaluation is its contemporaneous consideration of patient and care team experience with both quantitative and rich, qualitative analysis. Patients and care teams alike thought overnight telemedicine was better than the status quo. While our quality of care findings align with some previous literature,¹³ care teams in the current analysis overwhelmingly would recommend telemedicine, whereas some clinicians in prior work would not recommend telemedicine.¹⁴

In terms of communication, in line with existing literature, some patients still preferred in-person visits,¹⁵ a view also shared by some care team members. Workflow and technology barriers were raised, corroborating existing work,¹³ but actionable solutions (eg, adding care team–only time before visits or verbalizing when to move stethoscopes) were also identified.

Embedding patient and care team experience surveys and sharing results is critical in advancing telemedicine. Findings from this evaluation strengthen the case for payer reimbursement of telemedicine in rural acute care. Continued work to improve, test, and publish findings on patient and care team experience with telemedicine is critical to providing quality services in often-underserved communities.

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Ann Werner in identifying the patient survey sample, Brian Barklind in identifying source data for the analysis, and both Brian Barklind and Rachael Rivard for conducting the analyses and summarizing results. We would also like to thank Kelly Logue for her involvement in conceptualizing the telemedicine evaluation described here, as well as Larisa Polynskaya for her help preparing the manuscript for publication, and the care teams and patients who provided valuable input.

Sleep disturbance is common in hospitals, and both the quality and quantity of sleep are negatively affected in hospitalized patients.¹ Sleep disturbances in hospitals are associated with hyperglycemia,² delirium,³ lower patient satisfaction,⁴ and increased risk of readmission.⁵

A significant proportion of hospitalized patients receive sleep medications (ie, hypnotic medication) despite limited evidence.^6,7 Sleep medications have adverse effects including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and delirium.⁸ Commonly used nonbenzodiazepine sleep medications (eg, zopiclone) are perceived as safer but may have similar risks.⁹

Melatonin is increasingly used to treat insomnia, although evidence for its efficacy and safety is lacking.¹⁰ While melatonin use doubled between 2007 and 2012 in the United States,¹¹ previous hospital-based studies have not included melatonin.⁷ It is not known if increased melatonin use in the hospital mitigates use of higher-risk medications. Melatonin preparations can also have quality issues, including deviations from labelled dosage and contamination with compounds such as serotonin,¹² and patients continuing melatonin after discharge could have adverse effects if switched to different preparations.

In this study, we aimed to determine temporal trends in melatonin use in hospitalized patients, and compare them with trends in use of other sleep medications.

We conducted the study at two urban academic hospitals with a total of 706 acute care beds in the same network in Toronto, Canada. This study was approved by the University Health Network’s research ethics board.

We abstracted pharmacy dispensing data on melatonin, zopiclone, and lorazepam from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. We included oral medications dispensed to inpatient units or admitted patients in the emergency department (ED). Zopiclone is the most commonly used nonbenzodiazepine sleep medication in Canada.¹³ Lorazepam is the most commonly used benzodiazepine at our institution (97% of all oral benzodiazepine doses). While lorazepam is prescribed for many nonsleep indications, we included it to assess the impact of melatonin. We did not include antipsychotics or trazodone, which are rarely newly initiated for insomnia at our institution.

We abstracted the monthly number of doses dispensed by unit and hospital. We categorized units based on the primary patient population as either internal medicine, critical care, or other. Admitted patients in the ED were counted as “other” regardless of service. As the focus of our study was on internal medicine and critical care, we did not analyze by type of unit in the “other” group, which is heterogeneous.

Each medication-dispensing event was counted as one dose, regardless of the number or strength of tablets (eg, a patient dispensed two 3-mg tablets of melatonin, for a total of 6 mg, would be counted as a single dose). Most unused doses are credited back (ie, if a medication was refused and returned to pharmacy, it was not counted). Lorazepam and zopiclone are on hospital formulary, while melatonin is not. To order melatonin, clinicians must select “Nonformulary medication” in the electronic health record and manually enter medication name, dose, route, and frequency, as well as select a justification for use. The hospital supplies nonformulary medications such as melatonin to patients.

To account for changes in patient volumes, we standardized medication dispensing rates per 1,000 inpatient days. We discovered rare instances in which the monthly number of doses was a negative number because of pharmacy inventory accounting. This issue affected only 0.13% of observations and the magnitude was small (8 doses or fewer); in these cases, we assumed the number of doses was zero.

We used line charts to visualize changes in medication dispensing over time by medication and hospital. We compared rates of medications use between unit type and hospital with use of relative difference and rate difference. Statistical analysis was performed with R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018) using lubridate (2011), dplyr (2018), ggplot2 (2016), fmsb (2019), and forcats (2018).

A total of 1,542,225 inpatient days were analyzed, of which 60.4% were at hospital A. Internal medicine accounted for 23.5% of inpatient days, critical care for 11.7%, and other units for 64.8%.

Overall Trends in Sleep Medication Use

There were 351,131 dispensed doses of study medications (13% melatonin, 43% lorazepam, and 44% zopiclone). Overall use of the three study medications per 1,000 inpatient days increased by 25.7% during the study.

Melatonin use increased by 71.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days during 2013-2018, while zopiclone use decreased by 20.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days (Table). Lorazepam use increased slightly by 3.5 doses per 1,000 inpatient days. All rate differences reported in the results are statistically significant (Appendix Table).

Unit Type Comparison

Melatonin use was highest in critical care and internal medicine (50.9 and 48.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days, respectively), compared with that in other units (19.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days). Among critical care units, melatonin use was highest in medical-surgical units (67.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days) and lower in cardiac and cardiovascular surgery units (24.6 and 18.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days respectively). Zopiclone use was highest in critical care and other units (117.9 and 112.2 doses per 1,000 inpatient days, respectively) and lowest in internal medicine (57.0 doses per 1,000 inpatient days).

Hospital Site Comparison

Overall melatonin use was 65.4% higher at hospital B than at hospital A (42.4 vs 21.5 doses per 1,000 inpatient days; Figure). Zopiclone use was 81.7% lower at hospital B (54.6 vs 130.0 doses per 1,000 inpatient days).

When similar units were compared between hospitals, the trends were similar. For example, among internal medicine units, melatonin use was 66.7% higher at hospital B than at hospital A (64.4 vs 32.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days).

During this 6-year study period of sleep medication use at two academic hospitals, overall use of melatonin, zopiclone, and lorazepam increased by 25.7%. Melatonin increased from almost no use to more than 70 doses per 1,000 inpatient days. The increase in melatonin was not accompanied by a proportional decline in zopiclone, which only decreased by 20.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days. Lorazepam use increased slightly. This suggests that melatonin is not simply being substituted for higher-risk sleep medications and is instead being given to patients who might not have received sleep medications otherwise.

There are a few potential explanations for the disproportionate increase in melatonin. Providers may be more liberal in prescribing melatonin for insomnia because of perceived greater safety, compared with other medications. Melatonin may also be prescribed for delirium, despite a lack of high-quality evidence.¹⁴ Interestingly, melatonin use has increased despite a paucity of evidence for its efficacy or safety in hospital.⁶ Considering the additional barriers that exist to ordering melatonin, a nonformulary medication at our institution, the magnitude of increase is even more striking.

Melatonin use was highest on internal medicine and critical care units. This may reflect patient differences (eg, older patients with more comorbid conditions might leave prescribers reluctant to use benzodiazepines), differences in the physical environment (eg, noise/lighting), differences in nursing practices (eg, intensity of monitoring or medication administration), or differences in prescribing.

Melatonin use was almost twice as high at hospital B as it was at hospital A. While the services differ at each hospital, the results were similar when comparing the same unit type (eg, internal medicine). Internal medicine units have similar (though not identical) patient populations and team structures at both hospitals, and residents rotate between hospitals. Attendings and nurses are based primarily at one hospital and their practice patterns might differ. Geriatricians have a stronger presence at hospital B. Higher zopiclone use at hospital A could explain lower melatonin use. Lastly, improvement initiatives may have contributed (eg, one unit at hospital B promoted melatonin in 2017).

Our study has potential limitations. We studied dispensed rather than administered medications; however, numbers of doses dispensed but not administered are expected to be low because most unused doses are accounted for. By studying dispensing data, we might have underestimated the number of prescriptions (eg, if a patient was prescribed but refused a medication, this would not be captured). Our study did not examine medications after hospital discharge, although medications started in a hospital are often continued at discharge.^7,15 Our study could not determine indications for medication prescribing, and melatonin and lorazepam are both used for nonsleep indications. Our study could not differentiate between continuation of home medications and new prescriptions. Finally, the results may not be generalizable to other settings.

In this 6-year study of sleep medication use at two academic hospitals, we found that overall use of melatonin, zopiclone, and lorazepam increased by 25%, predominantly because of markedly increased melatonin use. Given the current lack of high-quality evidence, further research on the use of melatonin in hospitalized patients is needed.

Sleep disturbance is common in hospitals, and both the quality and quantity of sleep are negatively affected in hospitalized patients.¹ Sleep disturbances in hospitals are associated with hyperglycemia,² delirium,³ lower patient satisfaction,⁴ and increased risk of readmission.⁵

A significant proportion of hospitalized patients receive sleep medications (ie, hypnotic medication) despite limited evidence.^6,7 Sleep medications have adverse effects including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and delirium.⁸ Commonly used nonbenzodiazepine sleep medications (eg, zopiclone) are perceived as safer but may have similar risks.⁹

Melatonin is increasingly used to treat insomnia, although evidence for its efficacy and safety is lacking.¹⁰ While melatonin use doubled between 2007 and 2012 in the United States,¹¹ previous hospital-based studies have not included melatonin.⁷ It is not known if increased melatonin use in the hospital mitigates use of higher-risk medications. Melatonin preparations can also have quality issues, including deviations from labelled dosage and contamination with compounds such as serotonin,¹² and patients continuing melatonin after discharge could have adverse effects if switched to different preparations.

In this study, we aimed to determine temporal trends in melatonin use in hospitalized patients, and compare them with trends in use of other sleep medications.

We conducted the study at two urban academic hospitals with a total of 706 acute care beds in the same network in Toronto, Canada. This study was approved by the University Health Network’s research ethics board.

We abstracted pharmacy dispensing data on melatonin, zopiclone, and lorazepam from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. We included oral medications dispensed to inpatient units or admitted patients in the emergency department (ED). Zopiclone is the most commonly used nonbenzodiazepine sleep medication in Canada.¹³ Lorazepam is the most commonly used benzodiazepine at our institution (97% of all oral benzodiazepine doses). While lorazepam is prescribed for many nonsleep indications, we included it to assess the impact of melatonin. We did not include antipsychotics or trazodone, which are rarely newly initiated for insomnia at our institution.

We abstracted the monthly number of doses dispensed by unit and hospital. We categorized units based on the primary patient population as either internal medicine, critical care, or other. Admitted patients in the ED were counted as “other” regardless of service. As the focus of our study was on internal medicine and critical care, we did not analyze by type of unit in the “other” group, which is heterogeneous.

Each medication-dispensing event was counted as one dose, regardless of the number or strength of tablets (eg, a patient dispensed two 3-mg tablets of melatonin, for a total of 6 mg, would be counted as a single dose). Most unused doses are credited back (ie, if a medication was refused and returned to pharmacy, it was not counted). Lorazepam and zopiclone are on hospital formulary, while melatonin is not. To order melatonin, clinicians must select “Nonformulary medication” in the electronic health record and manually enter medication name, dose, route, and frequency, as well as select a justification for use. The hospital supplies nonformulary medications such as melatonin to patients.

To account for changes in patient volumes, we standardized medication dispensing rates per 1,000 inpatient days. We discovered rare instances in which the monthly number of doses was a negative number because of pharmacy inventory accounting. This issue affected only 0.13% of observations and the magnitude was small (8 doses or fewer); in these cases, we assumed the number of doses was zero.

We used line charts to visualize changes in medication dispensing over time by medication and hospital. We compared rates of medications use between unit type and hospital with use of relative difference and rate difference. Statistical analysis was performed with R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018) using lubridate (2011), dplyr (2018), ggplot2 (2016), fmsb (2019), and forcats (2018).

A total of 1,542,225 inpatient days were analyzed, of which 60.4% were at hospital A. Internal medicine accounted for 23.5% of inpatient days, critical care for 11.7%, and other units for 64.8%.

Overall Trends in Sleep Medication Use

There were 351,131 dispensed doses of study medications (13% melatonin, 43% lorazepam, and 44% zopiclone). Overall use of the three study medications per 1,000 inpatient days increased by 25.7% during the study.

Melatonin use increased by 71.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days during 2013-2018, while zopiclone use decreased by 20.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days (Table). Lorazepam use increased slightly by 3.5 doses per 1,000 inpatient days. All rate differences reported in the results are statistically significant (Appendix Table).

Unit Type Comparison

Melatonin use was highest in critical care and internal medicine (50.9 and 48.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days, respectively), compared with that in other units (19.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days). Among critical care units, melatonin use was highest in medical-surgical units (67.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days) and lower in cardiac and cardiovascular surgery units (24.6 and 18.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days respectively). Zopiclone use was highest in critical care and other units (117.9 and 112.2 doses per 1,000 inpatient days, respectively) and lowest in internal medicine (57.0 doses per 1,000 inpatient days).

Hospital Site Comparison

Overall melatonin use was 65.4% higher at hospital B than at hospital A (42.4 vs 21.5 doses per 1,000 inpatient days; Figure). Zopiclone use was 81.7% lower at hospital B (54.6 vs 130.0 doses per 1,000 inpatient days).

When similar units were compared between hospitals, the trends were similar. For example, among internal medicine units, melatonin use was 66.7% higher at hospital B than at hospital A (64.4 vs 32.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days).

During this 6-year study period of sleep medication use at two academic hospitals, overall use of melatonin, zopiclone, and lorazepam increased by 25.7%. Melatonin increased from almost no use to more than 70 doses per 1,000 inpatient days. The increase in melatonin was not accompanied by a proportional decline in zopiclone, which only decreased by 20.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days. Lorazepam use increased slightly. This suggests that melatonin is not simply being substituted for higher-risk sleep medications and is instead being given to patients who might not have received sleep medications otherwise.

There are a few potential explanations for the disproportionate increase in melatonin. Providers may be more liberal in prescribing melatonin for insomnia because of perceived greater safety, compared with other medications. Melatonin may also be prescribed for delirium, despite a lack of high-quality evidence.¹⁴ Interestingly, melatonin use has increased despite a paucity of evidence for its efficacy or safety in hospital.⁶ Considering the additional barriers that exist to ordering melatonin, a nonformulary medication at our institution, the magnitude of increase is even more striking.

Melatonin use was highest on internal medicine and critical care units. This may reflect patient differences (eg, older patients with more comorbid conditions might leave prescribers reluctant to use benzodiazepines), differences in the physical environment (eg, noise/lighting), differences in nursing practices (eg, intensity of monitoring or medication administration), or differences in prescribing.

Melatonin use was almost twice as high at hospital B as it was at hospital A. While the services differ at each hospital, the results were similar when comparing the same unit type (eg, internal medicine). Internal medicine units have similar (though not identical) patient populations and team structures at both hospitals, and residents rotate between hospitals. Attendings and nurses are based primarily at one hospital and their practice patterns might differ. Geriatricians have a stronger presence at hospital B. Higher zopiclone use at hospital A could explain lower melatonin use. Lastly, improvement initiatives may have contributed (eg, one unit at hospital B promoted melatonin in 2017).

Our study has potential limitations. We studied dispensed rather than administered medications; however, numbers of doses dispensed but not administered are expected to be low because most unused doses are accounted for. By studying dispensing data, we might have underestimated the number of prescriptions (eg, if a patient was prescribed but refused a medication, this would not be captured). Our study did not examine medications after hospital discharge, although medications started in a hospital are often continued at discharge.^7,15 Our study could not determine indications for medication prescribing, and melatonin and lorazepam are both used for nonsleep indications. Our study could not differentiate between continuation of home medications and new prescriptions. Finally, the results may not be generalizable to other settings.

In this 6-year study of sleep medication use at two academic hospitals, we found that overall use of melatonin, zopiclone, and lorazepam increased by 25%, predominantly because of markedly increased melatonin use. Given the current lack of high-quality evidence, further research on the use of melatonin in hospitalized patients is needed.

Sleep disturbance is common in hospitals, and both the quality and quantity of sleep are negatively affected in hospitalized patients.¹ Sleep disturbances in hospitals are associated with hyperglycemia,² delirium,³ lower patient satisfaction,⁴ and increased risk of readmission.⁵

A significant proportion of hospitalized patients receive sleep medications (ie, hypnotic medication) despite limited evidence.^6,7 Sleep medications have adverse effects including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and delirium.⁸ Commonly used nonbenzodiazepine sleep medications (eg, zopiclone) are perceived as safer but may have similar risks.⁹

Melatonin is increasingly used to treat insomnia, although evidence for its efficacy and safety is lacking.¹⁰ While melatonin use doubled between 2007 and 2012 in the United States,¹¹ previous hospital-based studies have not included melatonin.⁷ It is not known if increased melatonin use in the hospital mitigates use of higher-risk medications. Melatonin preparations can also have quality issues, including deviations from labelled dosage and contamination with compounds such as serotonin,¹² and patients continuing melatonin after discharge could have adverse effects if switched to different preparations.

In this study, we aimed to determine temporal trends in melatonin use in hospitalized patients, and compare them with trends in use of other sleep medications.

We conducted the study at two urban academic hospitals with a total of 706 acute care beds in the same network in Toronto, Canada. This study was approved by the University Health Network’s research ethics board.

We abstracted pharmacy dispensing data on melatonin, zopiclone, and lorazepam from January 1, 2013, to December 31, 2018. We included oral medications dispensed to inpatient units or admitted patients in the emergency department (ED). Zopiclone is the most commonly used nonbenzodiazepine sleep medication in Canada.¹³ Lorazepam is the most commonly used benzodiazepine at our institution (97% of all oral benzodiazepine doses). While lorazepam is prescribed for many nonsleep indications, we included it to assess the impact of melatonin. We did not include antipsychotics or trazodone, which are rarely newly initiated for insomnia at our institution.

We abstracted the monthly number of doses dispensed by unit and hospital. We categorized units based on the primary patient population as either internal medicine, critical care, or other. Admitted patients in the ED were counted as “other” regardless of service. As the focus of our study was on internal medicine and critical care, we did not analyze by type of unit in the “other” group, which is heterogeneous.

Each medication-dispensing event was counted as one dose, regardless of the number or strength of tablets (eg, a patient dispensed two 3-mg tablets of melatonin, for a total of 6 mg, would be counted as a single dose). Most unused doses are credited back (ie, if a medication was refused and returned to pharmacy, it was not counted). Lorazepam and zopiclone are on hospital formulary, while melatonin is not. To order melatonin, clinicians must select “Nonformulary medication” in the electronic health record and manually enter medication name, dose, route, and frequency, as well as select a justification for use. The hospital supplies nonformulary medications such as melatonin to patients.

To account for changes in patient volumes, we standardized medication dispensing rates per 1,000 inpatient days. We discovered rare instances in which the monthly number of doses was a negative number because of pharmacy inventory accounting. This issue affected only 0.13% of observations and the magnitude was small (8 doses or fewer); in these cases, we assumed the number of doses was zero.

We used line charts to visualize changes in medication dispensing over time by medication and hospital. We compared rates of medications use between unit type and hospital with use of relative difference and rate difference. Statistical analysis was performed with R (The R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2018) using lubridate (2011), dplyr (2018), ggplot2 (2016), fmsb (2019), and forcats (2018).

A total of 1,542,225 inpatient days were analyzed, of which 60.4% were at hospital A. Internal medicine accounted for 23.5% of inpatient days, critical care for 11.7%, and other units for 64.8%.

Overall Trends in Sleep Medication Use

There were 351,131 dispensed doses of study medications (13% melatonin, 43% lorazepam, and 44% zopiclone). Overall use of the three study medications per 1,000 inpatient days increased by 25.7% during the study.

Melatonin use increased by 71.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days during 2013-2018, while zopiclone use decreased by 20.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days (Table). Lorazepam use increased slightly by 3.5 doses per 1,000 inpatient days. All rate differences reported in the results are statistically significant (Appendix Table).

Unit Type Comparison

Melatonin use was highest in critical care and internal medicine (50.9 and 48.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days, respectively), compared with that in other units (19.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days). Among critical care units, melatonin use was highest in medical-surgical units (67.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days) and lower in cardiac and cardiovascular surgery units (24.6 and 18.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days respectively). Zopiclone use was highest in critical care and other units (117.9 and 112.2 doses per 1,000 inpatient days, respectively) and lowest in internal medicine (57.0 doses per 1,000 inpatient days).

Hospital Site Comparison

Overall melatonin use was 65.4% higher at hospital B than at hospital A (42.4 vs 21.5 doses per 1,000 inpatient days; Figure). Zopiclone use was 81.7% lower at hospital B (54.6 vs 130.0 doses per 1,000 inpatient days).

When similar units were compared between hospitals, the trends were similar. For example, among internal medicine units, melatonin use was 66.7% higher at hospital B than at hospital A (64.4 vs 32.3 doses per 1,000 inpatient days).

During this 6-year study period of sleep medication use at two academic hospitals, overall use of melatonin, zopiclone, and lorazepam increased by 25.7%. Melatonin increased from almost no use to more than 70 doses per 1,000 inpatient days. The increase in melatonin was not accompanied by a proportional decline in zopiclone, which only decreased by 20.4 doses per 1,000 inpatient days. Lorazepam use increased slightly. This suggests that melatonin is not simply being substituted for higher-risk sleep medications and is instead being given to patients who might not have received sleep medications otherwise.

There are a few potential explanations for the disproportionate increase in melatonin. Providers may be more liberal in prescribing melatonin for insomnia because of perceived greater safety, compared with other medications. Melatonin may also be prescribed for delirium, despite a lack of high-quality evidence.¹⁴ Interestingly, melatonin use has increased despite a paucity of evidence for its efficacy or safety in hospital.⁶ Considering the additional barriers that exist to ordering melatonin, a nonformulary medication at our institution, the magnitude of increase is even more striking.

Melatonin use was highest on internal medicine and critical care units. This may reflect patient differences (eg, older patients with more comorbid conditions might leave prescribers reluctant to use benzodiazepines), differences in the physical environment (eg, noise/lighting), differences in nursing practices (eg, intensity of monitoring or medication administration), or differences in prescribing.

Melatonin use was almost twice as high at hospital B as it was at hospital A. While the services differ at each hospital, the results were similar when comparing the same unit type (eg, internal medicine). Internal medicine units have similar (though not identical) patient populations and team structures at both hospitals, and residents rotate between hospitals. Attendings and nurses are based primarily at one hospital and their practice patterns might differ. Geriatricians have a stronger presence at hospital B. Higher zopiclone use at hospital A could explain lower melatonin use. Lastly, improvement initiatives may have contributed (eg, one unit at hospital B promoted melatonin in 2017).

Our study has potential limitations. We studied dispensed rather than administered medications; however, numbers of doses dispensed but not administered are expected to be low because most unused doses are accounted for. By studying dispensing data, we might have underestimated the number of prescriptions (eg, if a patient was prescribed but refused a medication, this would not be captured). Our study did not examine medications after hospital discharge, although medications started in a hospital are often continued at discharge.^7,15 Our study could not determine indications for medication prescribing, and melatonin and lorazepam are both used for nonsleep indications. Our study could not differentiate between continuation of home medications and new prescriptions. Finally, the results may not be generalizable to other settings.

In this 6-year study of sleep medication use at two academic hospitals, we found that overall use of melatonin, zopiclone, and lorazepam increased by 25%, predominantly because of markedly increased melatonin use. Given the current lack of high-quality evidence, further research on the use of melatonin in hospitalized patients is needed.

“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”—Aristotle

On the wards, your white coat and stethoscope signal your role as a healthcare provider. These external symbols of your work represent your expertise, experience, and commitment to service, and your patients look to these signals for comfort and reassurance. But when you are running a meeting, managing projects, or leading people in your organization, how do others know what you have to offer? Although signaling your values, skills, and intentions is as important in leadership as it is in the clinical setting, few clinicians spend time reflecting on how best to do this. Crafting a strong, consistent personal leadership brand can help.

As described by Norm Smallwood and Dave Ulrich, a personal leadership brand is the external projection of your strengths and interests, which demonstrates how you create value for others.^1,2 In other words, a personal leadership brand helps constituents, stakeholders, and potential partners understand what you offer as a leader. Having a brand keeps you on track as a leader and helps get you noticed for future opportunities by helping you shape and meet expectations in a way that is deliberate, dynamic, and authentic.

Building your personal leadership brand is an exercise in reflection. Leaders should challenge themselves to answer the following questions:

• What do I have to offer, and what do others appreciate about me?
• What are my values?
• Where am I trying to go?
• How does my path align with organizational goals?

The answers to these simple questions can help you create your personal leadership brand. First, reflect on what you want to be known for, your values, and how you are currently perceived. Then, identify the results you are aiming to produce, aligning them with your strengths and organizational goals. Write these down, and share your reflections with trusted peers and your mentoring team. Shape your thoughts into a personal vision statement with a focus on what you put out into the world to help you stay true to yourself while producing the desired results. For example, a vision statement for a gifted communicator with a background in quality improvement may be: “I will use my strong communication skills to address complex problems impacting our hospital to reduce cost and improve quality with the goal of building a career as a health system leader.” Finally, be authentic, and share your personal brand in an articulate and succinct way to help others understand your place in the structure and narrative of an organization.

Your personal leadership brand should not be static; rather, it is a process that should iterate over time. Ask for direct feedback from trusted advisers and allies at regular intervals. Investigate whether your organization offers a formal structure, such as a “360 Evaluation,” to get perspective on how your unique strengths, skills, and goals are perceived. Then, explore and clarify discrepancies between where you think you are and how others see you. Approaching these conversations with humility will keep you aligned with your values, which makes it easier for others to be invested in your development.

A strong personal leadership brand is a force multiplier, providing clarity within teams and helping align a leader’s assets and values with organizational goals. It is a solid external signal of what others can expect from your work and will help you focus on your strengths while identifying areas for growth. A personal leadership brand is formed through reflection and, at its core, its authenticity. In the words of Paracelsus, a Renaissance physician, astrologer, and alchemist, “Be not another, if you can be yourself.”³

“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”—Aristotle

On the wards, your white coat and stethoscope signal your role as a healthcare provider. These external symbols of your work represent your expertise, experience, and commitment to service, and your patients look to these signals for comfort and reassurance. But when you are running a meeting, managing projects, or leading people in your organization, how do others know what you have to offer? Although signaling your values, skills, and intentions is as important in leadership as it is in the clinical setting, few clinicians spend time reflecting on how best to do this. Crafting a strong, consistent personal leadership brand can help.

As described by Norm Smallwood and Dave Ulrich, a personal leadership brand is the external projection of your strengths and interests, which demonstrates how you create value for others.^1,2 In other words, a personal leadership brand helps constituents, stakeholders, and potential partners understand what you offer as a leader. Having a brand keeps you on track as a leader and helps get you noticed for future opportunities by helping you shape and meet expectations in a way that is deliberate, dynamic, and authentic.

Building your personal leadership brand is an exercise in reflection. Leaders should challenge themselves to answer the following questions:

• What do I have to offer, and what do others appreciate about me?
• What are my values?
• Where am I trying to go?
• How does my path align with organizational goals?

The answers to these simple questions can help you create your personal leadership brand. First, reflect on what you want to be known for, your values, and how you are currently perceived. Then, identify the results you are aiming to produce, aligning them with your strengths and organizational goals. Write these down, and share your reflections with trusted peers and your mentoring team. Shape your thoughts into a personal vision statement with a focus on what you put out into the world to help you stay true to yourself while producing the desired results. For example, a vision statement for a gifted communicator with a background in quality improvement may be: “I will use my strong communication skills to address complex problems impacting our hospital to reduce cost and improve quality with the goal of building a career as a health system leader.” Finally, be authentic, and share your personal brand in an articulate and succinct way to help others understand your place in the structure and narrative of an organization.

Your personal leadership brand should not be static; rather, it is a process that should iterate over time. Ask for direct feedback from trusted advisers and allies at regular intervals. Investigate whether your organization offers a formal structure, such as a “360 Evaluation,” to get perspective on how your unique strengths, skills, and goals are perceived. Then, explore and clarify discrepancies between where you think you are and how others see you. Approaching these conversations with humility will keep you aligned with your values, which makes it easier for others to be invested in your development.

A strong personal leadership brand is a force multiplier, providing clarity within teams and helping align a leader’s assets and values with organizational goals. It is a solid external signal of what others can expect from your work and will help you focus on your strengths while identifying areas for growth. A personal leadership brand is formed through reflection and, at its core, its authenticity. In the words of Paracelsus, a Renaissance physician, astrologer, and alchemist, “Be not another, if you can be yourself.”³

“Knowing yourself is the beginning of all wisdom.”—Aristotle

On the wards, your white coat and stethoscope signal your role as a healthcare provider. These external symbols of your work represent your expertise, experience, and commitment to service, and your patients look to these signals for comfort and reassurance. But when you are running a meeting, managing projects, or leading people in your organization, how do others know what you have to offer? Although signaling your values, skills, and intentions is as important in leadership as it is in the clinical setting, few clinicians spend time reflecting on how best to do this. Crafting a strong, consistent personal leadership brand can help.

As described by Norm Smallwood and Dave Ulrich, a personal leadership brand is the external projection of your strengths and interests, which demonstrates how you create value for others.^1,2 In other words, a personal leadership brand helps constituents, stakeholders, and potential partners understand what you offer as a leader. Having a brand keeps you on track as a leader and helps get you noticed for future opportunities by helping you shape and meet expectations in a way that is deliberate, dynamic, and authentic.

Building your personal leadership brand is an exercise in reflection. Leaders should challenge themselves to answer the following questions:

• What do I have to offer, and what do others appreciate about me?
• What are my values?
• Where am I trying to go?
• How does my path align with organizational goals?

The answers to these simple questions can help you create your personal leadership brand. First, reflect on what you want to be known for, your values, and how you are currently perceived. Then, identify the results you are aiming to produce, aligning them with your strengths and organizational goals. Write these down, and share your reflections with trusted peers and your mentoring team. Shape your thoughts into a personal vision statement with a focus on what you put out into the world to help you stay true to yourself while producing the desired results. For example, a vision statement for a gifted communicator with a background in quality improvement may be: “I will use my strong communication skills to address complex problems impacting our hospital to reduce cost and improve quality with the goal of building a career as a health system leader.” Finally, be authentic, and share your personal brand in an articulate and succinct way to help others understand your place in the structure and narrative of an organization.

Your personal leadership brand should not be static; rather, it is a process that should iterate over time. Ask for direct feedback from trusted advisers and allies at regular intervals. Investigate whether your organization offers a formal structure, such as a “360 Evaluation,” to get perspective on how your unique strengths, skills, and goals are perceived. Then, explore and clarify discrepancies between where you think you are and how others see you. Approaching these conversations with humility will keep you aligned with your values, which makes it easier for others to be invested in your development.

A strong personal leadership brand is a force multiplier, providing clarity within teams and helping align a leader’s assets and values with organizational goals. It is a solid external signal of what others can expect from your work and will help you focus on your strengths while identifying areas for growth. A personal leadership brand is formed through reflection and, at its core, its authenticity. In the words of Paracelsus, a Renaissance physician, astrologer, and alchemist, “Be not another, if you can be yourself.”³

COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, was declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Although most patients (81%) develop mild illness, 14% develop severe illness, and 5% develop critical illness, including acute respiratory failure, septic shock, and multiorgan dysfunction.¹

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), or bedside ultrasound performed by a clinician caring for the patient, is being used to support the diagnosis and serially monitor patients with COVID-19. We performed a literature search of electronically discoverable peer-reviewed publications on POCUS use in COVID-19 from December 1, 2019, to April 10, 2020. We review key POCUS applications that are most relevant to frontline providers in the care of COVID-19 patients.

Diagnosing COVID-19 disease by polymerase chain reaction is limited by availability of testing, delays in test positivity (mean 5.1 days), and high false-negative rate early in the course of the disease (sensitivity 81%).² Chest computed tomography (CT) scans are often requested during the initial evaluation of suspected COVID-19, but the American College of Radiology has recommend against the routine use of CT scans for diagnosing COVID-19.³

The diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound (LUS) has been shown to be similar to chest CT scans in patients presenting with respiratory complaints, such as dyspnea and hypoxemia, caused by non–COVID-19 pneumonia (sensitivity, 85%; specificity, 93%).⁴ Normal LUS findings correlate well with CT chest scans showing absence of typical ground glass opacities. This negative predictive value is very important.⁵ However, early in the course of COVID-19, similar to CT scans, LUS may be normal during the first 5 days or in patients with mild disease.² Unique advantages of LUS in COVID-19 include immediate availability of results, repeatability over time, and performance at the bedside, which avoids transportation of patients to radiology suites and disinfection of large imaging equipment.

LUS findings in COVID-19 include (a) an irregular, thickened pleural line, (b) B-lines in various patterns (discrete and confluent), (c) small subpleural consolidations, and (d) absence of pleural effusions (Figure). Bilateral, multifocal disease is common, while lobar alveolar consolidation is less common.^6,7 In addition to supporting the initial diagnosis, LUS is being used to serially monitor hospitalized COVID-19 patients. As lung interstitial fluid content increases, discrete B-lines become confluent, and the number of affected lung zones increases, which can guide decisions about escalation of care. LUS is often used to guide decisions about prone ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and weaning from mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory failure of non–COVID-19 patients,⁸ and these concepts are being applied to COVID-19 patients. During recovery, reappearance of A-lines can be seen, but normalization of the LUS pattern is gradual over several weeks based on our experience and one report.⁹ Multiple LUS protocols examining 6 to 12 lung zones have been published prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We recommend continuing to use an institutional protocol and evaluating at least one to two rib interspaces on the anterior, lateral, and posterior chest wall.

Myriad cardiac complications have been described in COVID-19 – including acute coronary syndrome, myocarditis, cardiomyopathy with heart failure, and arrhythmias – secondary to increased cardiac stress from hypoxia, direct myocardial infection, or indirect injury from a hyperinflammatory response. Mortality is higher in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.^10,11 Cardiac POCUS is being used to evaluate COVID-19 patients when troponin and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) are elevated or when there are hemodynamic or electrocardiogram changes. Given the high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19,¹² cardiac POCUS is being used to rapidly assess for right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and acute pulmonary hypertension.

The American Society of Echocardiography has recommended the use of cardiac POCUS by frontline providers for detection or characterization of preexisting cardiovascular disease, early identification of worsening cardiac function, serial monitoring and examination, and elucidation of cardiovascular pathologies associated with COVID-19.¹³ Sharing cardiac POCUS images in real time or through an image archive can reduce the need for consultative echocardiography, which ultimately reduces staff exposure, conserves personal protective equipment, and reduces need for decontamination of echocardiographic equipment.

The minimum cardiac POCUS views recommended in COVID-19 patients include the parasternal long-axis and short-axis views (midventricular level), either the apical or subcostal four-chamber view, and the subcostal long-axis view of the inferior vena cava.¹³ The goal of a cardiac POCUS exam is to qualitatively assess left ventricular (LV) systolic function, RV size and contractility, gross valvular and regional wall motion abnormalities, and pericardial effusion. In prone position ventilation, the swimmer’s position with one arm elevated above the shoulder may permit acquisition of apical views. Finally, integrated cardiopulmonary ultrasonography, including evaluation for deep vein thrombosis (DVT; see below), is ideal for proper characterization of underlying LV and RV function, volume status, and titration of vasopressor and inotropic support.

COVID-19 has been associated with a proinflammatory and hypercoagulable state with elevated d-dimer and higher-than-­expected incidence of VTE (27%) in critically ill patients.^12,14 Previous studies have demonstrated that frontline providers, including hospitalists, can detect lower extremity (LE) DVTs with high diagnostic accuracy using POCUS.¹⁵ Given the high incidence of DVTs despite prophylactic anticoagulation, some reports have suggested screening or serially monitoring for LE DVT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.¹⁶ In patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), POCUS can rapidly detect venous thrombosis that justifies prompt initiation of anticoagulation (eg, finding DVT or clot-in-transit), supportive findings of PE (eg, acute RV dysfunction, pulmonary infarcts), or alternative diagnoses (eg, bacterial pneumonia). However, it is important to recognize POCUS cannot definitively rule out PE. Additionally, subpleural consolidations are common in COVID-19 patients and could be caused by either infection or infarction. The American Society of Hematology has endorsed the use of POCUS, LE compression ultrasonography, and echocardiography in COVID-19 patients with suspected PE when availability of CT pulmonary angiography or ventilation-perfusion lung scans is limited.¹⁴

A POCUS exam for LE DVT consists of two-dimensional venous compression alone and yields results similar to formal vascular studies in both critically ill and noncritically ill patients. Because proximal LE thrombi have the highest risk of embolization, evaluation of the common femoral vein, femoral vein, and popliteal vein is most important.¹⁵ Either inability to compress a vein completely with wall-to-wall apposition or visualization of echogenic thrombus within the vein is diagnostic of DVT. Acute thrombi are gelatinous and may appear anechoic, while subacute or chronic thrombi are echogenic, but all veins with a DVT will not compress completely.

Ultrasound guidance for central venous catheter (CVC) insertion has been shown to increase procedure success rates and decrease mechanical complications, primarily arterial puncture and pneumothorax. Similarly, higher success rates and fewer insertion attempts have been observed with ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous line and arterial line placement.¹⁷ Ultrasound-­guided PIV placement can reduce referrals for midlines and peripherally inserted central catheters in hospitalized patients.¹⁸

In COVID-19 patients, use of ultrasound guidance for vascular access has distinct advantages. First, given the high incidence of DVT in COVID-19 patients,¹² POCUS allows preprocedural evaluation of the target vessel for thrombosis, as well as anatomic variations and stenosis. Second, visualizing the needle tip and guidewire within the target vein prior to dilation nearly eliminates the risk of arterial puncture and inadvertent arterial dilation, which is particularly important in COVID-19 patients receiving high-dose prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. Third, when inserting internal jugular and subclavian CVCs, visualization of normal lung sliding before and after the procedure safely rules out pneumothorax. However, if lung sliding is not seen before the procedure, it cannot be used to rule out pneumothorax afterward. Additionally, visualizing absence of the catheter tip in the right atrium and presence of a rapid atrial swirl sign within 2 seconds of briskly injecting 10 mL of saline confirms catheter tip placement near the superior vena cava/right atrial junction, which can eliminate the need for a postprocedure chest radiograph.¹⁷

POCUS can be used to rapidly confirm endotracheal tube (ETT) placement, which can reduce reliance on postintubation chest radiographs. A meta-analysis of prospective and randomized trials showed transtracheal ultrasonography had high sensitivity (98.7%) and specificity (97.1%) for confirming tracheal placement of ETTs.¹⁹ Confirming endotracheal intubation involves two steps: First, a linear transducer is placed transversely over the suprasternal notch to visualize the ETT passing through the trachea, and not the esophagus, during insertion. Second, after the ETT cuff has been inflated, bilateral lung sliding should be seen in sync with the respiratory cycle if the ETT is in the trachea. Absent lung sliding, but preserved lung pulse, on the anterior hemithorax is likely caused by main stem bronchial intubation, and withdrawing the ETT until bilateral lung sliding is seen confirms tracheal placement. Additionally, the following steps are recommended to reduce the risk of exposure to healthcare workers: minimizing use of bag-valve-mask ventilation, performing rapid sequence intubation using video laryngoscopy, and connecting the ETT to the ventilator immediately.

Important considerations when selecting an ultrasound machine for use in COVID-19 patients include image quality, portability, functionality, and ease of disinfection. Advantages of handheld devices include portability and ease of disinfection, whereas cart-based systems generally have better image quality and functionality. To minimize the risk of cross contamination, an ultrasound machine should be dedicated exclusively for use on patients with confirmed COVID-19 and not shared with patients with suspected COVID-19.²⁰ To minimize exposure to COVID-19 patients, frontline providers should perform POCUS exams only when findings may change management, and timing of the exam and views acquired should be selected deliberately.

Ultrasound machine disinfection should be integrated into routine donning and doffing procedures. When possible, both handheld and cart-based machines should be draped with protective covers during aerosol-generating procedures. Single use ultrasound gel packets are recommended in order to decrease the risk of nosocomial infection.²⁰ After every use of an ultrasound machine on intact skin or for percutaneous procedures, low-level disinfection should be performed with an Environmental Protection Agency–recommended product that is effective against coronavirus.

Some ultrasound manufacturers have added teleultrasound software that allows remote training of novice POCUS users and remote guidance in actual patient care. Teleultrasound can be utilized to share images in real time with consultants or expert providers.

POCUS is uniquely poised to improve patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic. POCUS can be used to support the diagnosis of COVID-19 patients and monitor patients with confirmed disease. Common POCUS applications used in COVID-19 patients include evaluation of the lungs, heart, and deep veins, as well as performance of bedside procedures. Ultrasound machine portability and disinfection are important considerations in COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, was declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Although most patients (81%) develop mild illness, 14% develop severe illness, and 5% develop critical illness, including acute respiratory failure, septic shock, and multiorgan dysfunction.¹

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), or bedside ultrasound performed by a clinician caring for the patient, is being used to support the diagnosis and serially monitor patients with COVID-19. We performed a literature search of electronically discoverable peer-reviewed publications on POCUS use in COVID-19 from December 1, 2019, to April 10, 2020. We review key POCUS applications that are most relevant to frontline providers in the care of COVID-19 patients.

Diagnosing COVID-19 disease by polymerase chain reaction is limited by availability of testing, delays in test positivity (mean 5.1 days), and high false-negative rate early in the course of the disease (sensitivity 81%).² Chest computed tomography (CT) scans are often requested during the initial evaluation of suspected COVID-19, but the American College of Radiology has recommend against the routine use of CT scans for diagnosing COVID-19.³

The diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound (LUS) has been shown to be similar to chest CT scans in patients presenting with respiratory complaints, such as dyspnea and hypoxemia, caused by non–COVID-19 pneumonia (sensitivity, 85%; specificity, 93%).⁴ Normal LUS findings correlate well with CT chest scans showing absence of typical ground glass opacities. This negative predictive value is very important.⁵ However, early in the course of COVID-19, similar to CT scans, LUS may be normal during the first 5 days or in patients with mild disease.² Unique advantages of LUS in COVID-19 include immediate availability of results, repeatability over time, and performance at the bedside, which avoids transportation of patients to radiology suites and disinfection of large imaging equipment.

LUS findings in COVID-19 include (a) an irregular, thickened pleural line, (b) B-lines in various patterns (discrete and confluent), (c) small subpleural consolidations, and (d) absence of pleural effusions (Figure). Bilateral, multifocal disease is common, while lobar alveolar consolidation is less common.^6,7 In addition to supporting the initial diagnosis, LUS is being used to serially monitor hospitalized COVID-19 patients. As lung interstitial fluid content increases, discrete B-lines become confluent, and the number of affected lung zones increases, which can guide decisions about escalation of care. LUS is often used to guide decisions about prone ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and weaning from mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory failure of non–COVID-19 patients,⁸ and these concepts are being applied to COVID-19 patients. During recovery, reappearance of A-lines can be seen, but normalization of the LUS pattern is gradual over several weeks based on our experience and one report.⁹ Multiple LUS protocols examining 6 to 12 lung zones have been published prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We recommend continuing to use an institutional protocol and evaluating at least one to two rib interspaces on the anterior, lateral, and posterior chest wall.

Myriad cardiac complications have been described in COVID-19 – including acute coronary syndrome, myocarditis, cardiomyopathy with heart failure, and arrhythmias – secondary to increased cardiac stress from hypoxia, direct myocardial infection, or indirect injury from a hyperinflammatory response. Mortality is higher in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.^10,11 Cardiac POCUS is being used to evaluate COVID-19 patients when troponin and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) are elevated or when there are hemodynamic or electrocardiogram changes. Given the high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19,¹² cardiac POCUS is being used to rapidly assess for right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and acute pulmonary hypertension.

The American Society of Echocardiography has recommended the use of cardiac POCUS by frontline providers for detection or characterization of preexisting cardiovascular disease, early identification of worsening cardiac function, serial monitoring and examination, and elucidation of cardiovascular pathologies associated with COVID-19.¹³ Sharing cardiac POCUS images in real time or through an image archive can reduce the need for consultative echocardiography, which ultimately reduces staff exposure, conserves personal protective equipment, and reduces need for decontamination of echocardiographic equipment.

The minimum cardiac POCUS views recommended in COVID-19 patients include the parasternal long-axis and short-axis views (midventricular level), either the apical or subcostal four-chamber view, and the subcostal long-axis view of the inferior vena cava.¹³ The goal of a cardiac POCUS exam is to qualitatively assess left ventricular (LV) systolic function, RV size and contractility, gross valvular and regional wall motion abnormalities, and pericardial effusion. In prone position ventilation, the swimmer’s position with one arm elevated above the shoulder may permit acquisition of apical views. Finally, integrated cardiopulmonary ultrasonography, including evaluation for deep vein thrombosis (DVT; see below), is ideal for proper characterization of underlying LV and RV function, volume status, and titration of vasopressor and inotropic support.

COVID-19 has been associated with a proinflammatory and hypercoagulable state with elevated d-dimer and higher-than-­expected incidence of VTE (27%) in critically ill patients.^12,14 Previous studies have demonstrated that frontline providers, including hospitalists, can detect lower extremity (LE) DVTs with high diagnostic accuracy using POCUS.¹⁵ Given the high incidence of DVTs despite prophylactic anticoagulation, some reports have suggested screening or serially monitoring for LE DVT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.¹⁶ In patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), POCUS can rapidly detect venous thrombosis that justifies prompt initiation of anticoagulation (eg, finding DVT or clot-in-transit), supportive findings of PE (eg, acute RV dysfunction, pulmonary infarcts), or alternative diagnoses (eg, bacterial pneumonia). However, it is important to recognize POCUS cannot definitively rule out PE. Additionally, subpleural consolidations are common in COVID-19 patients and could be caused by either infection or infarction. The American Society of Hematology has endorsed the use of POCUS, LE compression ultrasonography, and echocardiography in COVID-19 patients with suspected PE when availability of CT pulmonary angiography or ventilation-perfusion lung scans is limited.¹⁴

A POCUS exam for LE DVT consists of two-dimensional venous compression alone and yields results similar to formal vascular studies in both critically ill and noncritically ill patients. Because proximal LE thrombi have the highest risk of embolization, evaluation of the common femoral vein, femoral vein, and popliteal vein is most important.¹⁵ Either inability to compress a vein completely with wall-to-wall apposition or visualization of echogenic thrombus within the vein is diagnostic of DVT. Acute thrombi are gelatinous and may appear anechoic, while subacute or chronic thrombi are echogenic, but all veins with a DVT will not compress completely.

Ultrasound guidance for central venous catheter (CVC) insertion has been shown to increase procedure success rates and decrease mechanical complications, primarily arterial puncture and pneumothorax. Similarly, higher success rates and fewer insertion attempts have been observed with ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous line and arterial line placement.¹⁷ Ultrasound-­guided PIV placement can reduce referrals for midlines and peripherally inserted central catheters in hospitalized patients.¹⁸

In COVID-19 patients, use of ultrasound guidance for vascular access has distinct advantages. First, given the high incidence of DVT in COVID-19 patients,¹² POCUS allows preprocedural evaluation of the target vessel for thrombosis, as well as anatomic variations and stenosis. Second, visualizing the needle tip and guidewire within the target vein prior to dilation nearly eliminates the risk of arterial puncture and inadvertent arterial dilation, which is particularly important in COVID-19 patients receiving high-dose prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. Third, when inserting internal jugular and subclavian CVCs, visualization of normal lung sliding before and after the procedure safely rules out pneumothorax. However, if lung sliding is not seen before the procedure, it cannot be used to rule out pneumothorax afterward. Additionally, visualizing absence of the catheter tip in the right atrium and presence of a rapid atrial swirl sign within 2 seconds of briskly injecting 10 mL of saline confirms catheter tip placement near the superior vena cava/right atrial junction, which can eliminate the need for a postprocedure chest radiograph.¹⁷

POCUS can be used to rapidly confirm endotracheal tube (ETT) placement, which can reduce reliance on postintubation chest radiographs. A meta-analysis of prospective and randomized trials showed transtracheal ultrasonography had high sensitivity (98.7%) and specificity (97.1%) for confirming tracheal placement of ETTs.¹⁹ Confirming endotracheal intubation involves two steps: First, a linear transducer is placed transversely over the suprasternal notch to visualize the ETT passing through the trachea, and not the esophagus, during insertion. Second, after the ETT cuff has been inflated, bilateral lung sliding should be seen in sync with the respiratory cycle if the ETT is in the trachea. Absent lung sliding, but preserved lung pulse, on the anterior hemithorax is likely caused by main stem bronchial intubation, and withdrawing the ETT until bilateral lung sliding is seen confirms tracheal placement. Additionally, the following steps are recommended to reduce the risk of exposure to healthcare workers: minimizing use of bag-valve-mask ventilation, performing rapid sequence intubation using video laryngoscopy, and connecting the ETT to the ventilator immediately.

Important considerations when selecting an ultrasound machine for use in COVID-19 patients include image quality, portability, functionality, and ease of disinfection. Advantages of handheld devices include portability and ease of disinfection, whereas cart-based systems generally have better image quality and functionality. To minimize the risk of cross contamination, an ultrasound machine should be dedicated exclusively for use on patients with confirmed COVID-19 and not shared with patients with suspected COVID-19.²⁰ To minimize exposure to COVID-19 patients, frontline providers should perform POCUS exams only when findings may change management, and timing of the exam and views acquired should be selected deliberately.

Ultrasound machine disinfection should be integrated into routine donning and doffing procedures. When possible, both handheld and cart-based machines should be draped with protective covers during aerosol-generating procedures. Single use ultrasound gel packets are recommended in order to decrease the risk of nosocomial infection.²⁰ After every use of an ultrasound machine on intact skin or for percutaneous procedures, low-level disinfection should be performed with an Environmental Protection Agency–recommended product that is effective against coronavirus.

Some ultrasound manufacturers have added teleultrasound software that allows remote training of novice POCUS users and remote guidance in actual patient care. Teleultrasound can be utilized to share images in real time with consultants or expert providers.

POCUS is uniquely poised to improve patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic. POCUS can be used to support the diagnosis of COVID-19 patients and monitor patients with confirmed disease. Common POCUS applications used in COVID-19 patients include evaluation of the lungs, heart, and deep veins, as well as performance of bedside procedures. Ultrasound machine portability and disinfection are important considerations in COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, was declared a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Although most patients (81%) develop mild illness, 14% develop severe illness, and 5% develop critical illness, including acute respiratory failure, septic shock, and multiorgan dysfunction.¹

Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS), or bedside ultrasound performed by a clinician caring for the patient, is being used to support the diagnosis and serially monitor patients with COVID-19. We performed a literature search of electronically discoverable peer-reviewed publications on POCUS use in COVID-19 from December 1, 2019, to April 10, 2020. We review key POCUS applications that are most relevant to frontline providers in the care of COVID-19 patients.

Diagnosing COVID-19 disease by polymerase chain reaction is limited by availability of testing, delays in test positivity (mean 5.1 days), and high false-negative rate early in the course of the disease (sensitivity 81%).² Chest computed tomography (CT) scans are often requested during the initial evaluation of suspected COVID-19, but the American College of Radiology has recommend against the routine use of CT scans for diagnosing COVID-19.³

The diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasound (LUS) has been shown to be similar to chest CT scans in patients presenting with respiratory complaints, such as dyspnea and hypoxemia, caused by non–COVID-19 pneumonia (sensitivity, 85%; specificity, 93%).⁴ Normal LUS findings correlate well with CT chest scans showing absence of typical ground glass opacities. This negative predictive value is very important.⁵ However, early in the course of COVID-19, similar to CT scans, LUS may be normal during the first 5 days or in patients with mild disease.² Unique advantages of LUS in COVID-19 include immediate availability of results, repeatability over time, and performance at the bedside, which avoids transportation of patients to radiology suites and disinfection of large imaging equipment.

LUS findings in COVID-19 include (a) an irregular, thickened pleural line, (b) B-lines in various patterns (discrete and confluent), (c) small subpleural consolidations, and (d) absence of pleural effusions (Figure). Bilateral, multifocal disease is common, while lobar alveolar consolidation is less common.^6,7 In addition to supporting the initial diagnosis, LUS is being used to serially monitor hospitalized COVID-19 patients. As lung interstitial fluid content increases, discrete B-lines become confluent, and the number of affected lung zones increases, which can guide decisions about escalation of care. LUS is often used to guide decisions about prone ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and weaning from mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory failure of non–COVID-19 patients,⁸ and these concepts are being applied to COVID-19 patients. During recovery, reappearance of A-lines can be seen, but normalization of the LUS pattern is gradual over several weeks based on our experience and one report.⁹ Multiple LUS protocols examining 6 to 12 lung zones have been published prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We recommend continuing to use an institutional protocol and evaluating at least one to two rib interspaces on the anterior, lateral, and posterior chest wall.

Myriad cardiac complications have been described in COVID-19 – including acute coronary syndrome, myocarditis, cardiomyopathy with heart failure, and arrhythmias – secondary to increased cardiac stress from hypoxia, direct myocardial infection, or indirect injury from a hyperinflammatory response. Mortality is higher in patients with hypertension, diabetes, and coronary artery disease.^10,11 Cardiac POCUS is being used to evaluate COVID-19 patients when troponin and B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) are elevated or when there are hemodynamic or electrocardiogram changes. Given the high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in COVID-19,¹² cardiac POCUS is being used to rapidly assess for right ventricular (RV) dysfunction and acute pulmonary hypertension.

The American Society of Echocardiography has recommended the use of cardiac POCUS by frontline providers for detection or characterization of preexisting cardiovascular disease, early identification of worsening cardiac function, serial monitoring and examination, and elucidation of cardiovascular pathologies associated with COVID-19.¹³ Sharing cardiac POCUS images in real time or through an image archive can reduce the need for consultative echocardiography, which ultimately reduces staff exposure, conserves personal protective equipment, and reduces need for decontamination of echocardiographic equipment.

The minimum cardiac POCUS views recommended in COVID-19 patients include the parasternal long-axis and short-axis views (midventricular level), either the apical or subcostal four-chamber view, and the subcostal long-axis view of the inferior vena cava.¹³ The goal of a cardiac POCUS exam is to qualitatively assess left ventricular (LV) systolic function, RV size and contractility, gross valvular and regional wall motion abnormalities, and pericardial effusion. In prone position ventilation, the swimmer’s position with one arm elevated above the shoulder may permit acquisition of apical views. Finally, integrated cardiopulmonary ultrasonography, including evaluation for deep vein thrombosis (DVT; see below), is ideal for proper characterization of underlying LV and RV function, volume status, and titration of vasopressor and inotropic support.

COVID-19 has been associated with a proinflammatory and hypercoagulable state with elevated d-dimer and higher-than-­expected incidence of VTE (27%) in critically ill patients.^12,14 Previous studies have demonstrated that frontline providers, including hospitalists, can detect lower extremity (LE) DVTs with high diagnostic accuracy using POCUS.¹⁵ Given the high incidence of DVTs despite prophylactic anticoagulation, some reports have suggested screening or serially monitoring for LE DVT in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.¹⁶ In patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), POCUS can rapidly detect venous thrombosis that justifies prompt initiation of anticoagulation (eg, finding DVT or clot-in-transit), supportive findings of PE (eg, acute RV dysfunction, pulmonary infarcts), or alternative diagnoses (eg, bacterial pneumonia). However, it is important to recognize POCUS cannot definitively rule out PE. Additionally, subpleural consolidations are common in COVID-19 patients and could be caused by either infection or infarction. The American Society of Hematology has endorsed the use of POCUS, LE compression ultrasonography, and echocardiography in COVID-19 patients with suspected PE when availability of CT pulmonary angiography or ventilation-perfusion lung scans is limited.¹⁴

A POCUS exam for LE DVT consists of two-dimensional venous compression alone and yields results similar to formal vascular studies in both critically ill and noncritically ill patients. Because proximal LE thrombi have the highest risk of embolization, evaluation of the common femoral vein, femoral vein, and popliteal vein is most important.¹⁵ Either inability to compress a vein completely with wall-to-wall apposition or visualization of echogenic thrombus within the vein is diagnostic of DVT. Acute thrombi are gelatinous and may appear anechoic, while subacute or chronic thrombi are echogenic, but all veins with a DVT will not compress completely.

Ultrasound guidance for central venous catheter (CVC) insertion has been shown to increase procedure success rates and decrease mechanical complications, primarily arterial puncture and pneumothorax. Similarly, higher success rates and fewer insertion attempts have been observed with ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous line and arterial line placement.¹⁷ Ultrasound-­guided PIV placement can reduce referrals for midlines and peripherally inserted central catheters in hospitalized patients.¹⁸

In COVID-19 patients, use of ultrasound guidance for vascular access has distinct advantages. First, given the high incidence of DVT in COVID-19 patients,¹² POCUS allows preprocedural evaluation of the target vessel for thrombosis, as well as anatomic variations and stenosis. Second, visualizing the needle tip and guidewire within the target vein prior to dilation nearly eliminates the risk of arterial puncture and inadvertent arterial dilation, which is particularly important in COVID-19 patients receiving high-dose prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation. Third, when inserting internal jugular and subclavian CVCs, visualization of normal lung sliding before and after the procedure safely rules out pneumothorax. However, if lung sliding is not seen before the procedure, it cannot be used to rule out pneumothorax afterward. Additionally, visualizing absence of the catheter tip in the right atrium and presence of a rapid atrial swirl sign within 2 seconds of briskly injecting 10 mL of saline confirms catheter tip placement near the superior vena cava/right atrial junction, which can eliminate the need for a postprocedure chest radiograph.¹⁷

POCUS can be used to rapidly confirm endotracheal tube (ETT) placement, which can reduce reliance on postintubation chest radiographs. A meta-analysis of prospective and randomized trials showed transtracheal ultrasonography had high sensitivity (98.7%) and specificity (97.1%) for confirming tracheal placement of ETTs.¹⁹ Confirming endotracheal intubation involves two steps: First, a linear transducer is placed transversely over the suprasternal notch to visualize the ETT passing through the trachea, and not the esophagus, during insertion. Second, after the ETT cuff has been inflated, bilateral lung sliding should be seen in sync with the respiratory cycle if the ETT is in the trachea. Absent lung sliding, but preserved lung pulse, on the anterior hemithorax is likely caused by main stem bronchial intubation, and withdrawing the ETT until bilateral lung sliding is seen confirms tracheal placement. Additionally, the following steps are recommended to reduce the risk of exposure to healthcare workers: minimizing use of bag-valve-mask ventilation, performing rapid sequence intubation using video laryngoscopy, and connecting the ETT to the ventilator immediately.

Important considerations when selecting an ultrasound machine for use in COVID-19 patients include image quality, portability, functionality, and ease of disinfection. Advantages of handheld devices include portability and ease of disinfection, whereas cart-based systems generally have better image quality and functionality. To minimize the risk of cross contamination, an ultrasound machine should be dedicated exclusively for use on patients with confirmed COVID-19 and not shared with patients with suspected COVID-19.²⁰ To minimize exposure to COVID-19 patients, frontline providers should perform POCUS exams only when findings may change management, and timing of the exam and views acquired should be selected deliberately.

Ultrasound machine disinfection should be integrated into routine donning and doffing procedures. When possible, both handheld and cart-based machines should be draped with protective covers during aerosol-generating procedures. Single use ultrasound gel packets are recommended in order to decrease the risk of nosocomial infection.²⁰ After every use of an ultrasound machine on intact skin or for percutaneous procedures, low-level disinfection should be performed with an Environmental Protection Agency–recommended product that is effective against coronavirus.

Some ultrasound manufacturers have added teleultrasound software that allows remote training of novice POCUS users and remote guidance in actual patient care. Teleultrasound can be utilized to share images in real time with consultants or expert providers.

POCUS is uniquely poised to improve patient care during the COVID-19 pandemic. POCUS can be used to support the diagnosis of COVID-19 patients and monitor patients with confirmed disease. Common POCUS applications used in COVID-19 patients include evaluation of the lungs, heart, and deep veins, as well as performance of bedside procedures. Ultrasound machine portability and disinfection are important considerations in COVID-19 patients.