Hospitalist and Internal Medicine Leaders’ Perspectives of Early Discharge Challenges at Academic Medical Centers
Improving early discharges may improve patient flow and increase hospital capacity. We conducted a national survey of academic medical centers addressing the prevalence, importance, and effectiveness of early-discharge initiatives. We assembled a list of hospitalist and general internal medicine leaders at 115 US-based academic medical centers. We emailed each institutional representative a 30-item online survey regarding early-discharge initiatives. The survey included questions on discharge prioritization, the prevalence and effectiveness of early-discharge initiatives, and barriers to implementation. We received 61 responses from 115 institutions (53% response rate). Forty-seven (77%) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that early discharge was a priority. “Discharge by noon” was the most cited goal (n = 23; 38%) followed by “no set time but overall goal for improvement” (n = 13; 21%). The majority of respondents reported early discharge as more important than obtaining translators for non-English-speaking patients and equally important as reducing 30-day readmissions and improving patient satisfaction. The most commonly reported factors delaying discharge were availability of postacute care beds (n = 48; 79%) and patient-related transport complications (n = 44; 72%). The most effective early discharge initiatives reported involved changes to the rounding process, such as preemptive identification and early preparation of discharge paperwork (n = 34; 56%) and communication with patients about anticipated discharge (n = 29; 48%). There is a strong interest in increasing early discharges in an effort to improve hospital throughput and patient flow.
© 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine
The discharge process is a critical bottleneck for efficient patient flow through the hospital. Delayed discharges translate into delays in admissions and other patient transitions, often leading to excess costs, patient dissatisfaction, and even patient harm.1-3 The emergency department is particularly impacted by these delays; bottlenecks there lead to overcrowding, increased overall hospital length of stay, and increased risks for bad outcomes during hospitalization.2
Academic medical centers in particular may struggle with delayed discharges. In a typical teaching hospital, a team composed of an attending physician and housestaff share responsibility for determining the discharge plan. Additionally, clinical teaching activities may affect the process and quality of discharge.4-6
The prevalence and causes of delayed discharges vary greatly.7-9 To improve efficiency around discharge, many hospitals have launched initiatives designed to discharge patients earlier in the day, including goal setting (“discharge by noon”), scheduling discharge appointments, and using quality-improvement methods, such as Lean Methodology (LEAN), to remove inefficiencies within discharge processes.10-12 However, there are few data on the prevalence and effectiveness of different strategies.
The aim of this study was to survey academic hospitalist and general internal medicine physician leaders to elicit their perspectives on the factors contributing to discharge timing and the relative importance and effectiveness of early-discharge initiatives.
METHODS
Study Design, Participants, and Oversight
We obtained a list of 115 university-affiliated hospitals associated with a residency program and, in most cases, a medical school from Vizient Inc. (formerly University HealthSystem Consortium), an alliance of academic medical centers and affiliated hospitals. Each member institution submits clinical data to allow for the benchmarking of outcomes to drive transparency and quality improvement.13 More than 95% of the nation’s academic medical centers and affiliated hospitals participate in this collaborative. Vizient works with members but does not set nor promote quality metrics, such as discharge timeliness. E-mail addresses for hospital medicine physician leaders (eg, division chief) of major academic medical centers were obtained from each institution via publicly available data (eg, the institution’s website). When an institution did not have a hospital medicine section, we identified the division chief of general internal medicine. The University of California, San Francisco Institutional Review Board approved this study.
Survey Development and Domains
We developed a 30-item survey to evaluate 5 main domains of interest: current discharge practices, degree of prioritization of early discharge on the inpatient service, barriers to timely discharge, prevalence and perceived effectiveness of implemented early-discharge initiatives, and barriers to implementation of early-discharge initiatives.
Respondents were first asked to identify their institutions’ goals for discharge time. They were then asked to compare the priority of early-discharge initiatives to other departmental quality-improvement initiatives, such as reducing 30-day readmissions, improving interpreter use, and improving patient satisfaction. Next, respondents were asked to estimate the degree to which clinical or patient factors contributed to delays in discharge. Respondents were then asked whether specific early-discharge initiatives, such as changes to rounding practices or communication interventions, were implemented at their institutions and, if so, the perceived effectiveness of these initiatives at meeting discharge targets. We piloted the questions locally with physicians and researchers prior to finalizing the survey.
Data Collection
We sent surveys via an online platform (Research Electronic Data Capture).14 Nonresponders were sent 2 e-mail reminders and then a follow-up telephone call asking them to complete the survey. Only 1 survey per academic medical center was collected. Any respondent who completed the survey within 2 weeks of receiving it was entered to win a Kindle Fire.
Data Analysis
We summarized survey responses using descriptive statistics. Analysis was completed in IBM SPSS version 22 (Armonk, NY).
RESULTS
Survey Respondent and Institutional Characteristics
Of the 115 institutions surveyed, we received 61 responses (response rate of 53%), with 39 (64%) respondents from divisions of hospital medicine and 22 (36%) from divisions of general internal medicine. A majority (n = 53; 87%) stated their medicine services have a combination of teaching (with residents) and nonteaching (without residents) teams. Thirty-nine (64%) reported having daily multidisciplinary rounds.
