The national healthcare improvement paradigm is shifting toward a more comprehensive, value‐focused, and patient‐centered approach. Reducing hospital readmissions has become a focal point as a policy strategy to improve care quality while reducing cost. Section 3025 of the Affordable Care Act mandated the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to make progressive reductions in Medicare payments to hospitals that have higher than expected readmission rates for 3 conditions (heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia), and expanding to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and total hip and knee arthroplasty in 2015.[1] In response, hospitals and systems are developing and implementing programs that coordinate care beyond hospital walls to reduce readmissions and healthcare costs.[2, 3] However, patients are readmitted for a variety of reasons, and programs that address the needs of some may not address the distinct needs of others. Understanding the characteristics of patients with frequent readmissions will permit the well‐informed creation of solutions specific to this population to reduce cost, free resources, and provide better care.

Although a solid body of literature already exists that describes the characteristics of patients who frequently visit the emergency department (ED),[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] it is not clear to what extent these characteristics also apply to patients with frequent hospital admissions. Frequent ED visitors have been found to be largely insured (85%) although with over‐representation of public insurance, and to be heavy users of the healthcare system overall.[6] A high disease burden associated with multiple chronic conditions has been found to predict frequent ED use.[4, 9, 11, 12] Some characteristics may vary by location; for example, alcohol abuse and psychiatric morbidity have been found to be associated with frequent ED use in New York and San Francisco, but it is not clear to what extent they are a factor in less urban areas.[4, 6, 12]

Several previous studies have investigated the characteristics of frequently admitted patients at single sites.[13, 14, 15, 16] Nguyen et al. (2013) studied patients with the highest costs and the most admissions at a large academic medical center in San Francisco.[13] High admit patients were defined as those responsible for the top decile of admissions, and were grouped into equal‐sized high‐ and low‐cost cohorts. The high‐admission/high‐cost group represented 5% of all patients, 25% of all costs, and 16% of all admissions. These patients were hospitalized primarily for medical conditions (78%) and had a high 30‐day readmission rate (47%). The high‐admission/low‐cost group accounted for 5% of all patients, 12% of all admissions, and 7% of all costs. These patients were also predominantly admitted for medical conditions (87%), with the most common admitting diagnoses representing respiratory, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular conditions.[13]

Hwa (2012) conducted an analysis of 29 patients admitted 6 or more times in 1 year to an inpatient medical service in San Francisco.[14] These patients represented just 1% of all patients, but 13% of readmissions. Fifty‐five percent of these patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, and 52% had chronic pain. Ninety percent had a primary care physician in the hospital system, 100% were insured either privately or publicly, and 93% had housing, although for 17% housing was described as marginal.[14]

In a third study, Boonyasai et al. (2012) identified 76 patients with 82 readmissions at a Baltimore, Maryland, hospital and classified them as isolated (1 readmission per 6‐month period) or serial (more than 1 readmission per 6‐month period) readmissions.[15] Patients with serial readmissions accounted for 70% of the total. Isolated readmissions were most likely to be related to suboptimal quality of care and care coordination, whereas serial readmissions were more likely to result from disease progression, psychiatric illness, and substance abuse.[15]

All of these studies were conducted at single‐site academic medical centers serving inner city populations. We undertook this study to identify patient and hospital‐level characteristics of frequently admitted patients in a broad sample of 101 US academic medical centers to determine whether previously reported findings are generalizable, and to identify characteristics of frequently admitted patients that can inform interventions designed to meet the needs of this relatively small but resource‐intensive group of patients.

METHODS

All data were obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) (Chicago, IL) Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager (CDB), a large administrative database to which UHC principal members submit comprehensive administrative data files. UHC's principal members include approximately 120 US academic medical centers delivering tertiary and quaternary care, with an average of 647 acute care beds. The CDB includes primary and secondary diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD‐9)[17] codes.

The data of 101 academic medical centers with complete datasets for the study period (October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2012) were included in this analysis. Frequently admitted patients were defined as patients admitted 5 or more times to the same facility in a 12‐month period; all admissions were included, even those more than 30 days apart. This definition was established based on a naturally occurring break in the frequency distribution (Figure 1) and our intention to focus on the unique characteristics of patients at the far right of the distribution. We excluded obstetric (MDC 14, ICD‐9)[17] admissions and pediatric (<18 years of age at index admission) patients, as well as admissions with principal diagnoses for chemotherapy (ICD‐9 diagnosis codes v5811v5812), dialysis (ICD‐9 diagnosis codes v560v568), and rehabilitation (ICD‐9 diagnosis codes v570v579), which are typically planned. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) comorbidity software was used to identify comorbid conditions,[18, 19] and a score based on the Elixhauser comorbidity measures was calculated using a modified acuity point system.[20] For comparisons based on safety net status, we used a definition of payer mix being 25% Medicaid or uninsured.

Figure 1

Our analyses included patient demographics, admission source and discharge status, clinical diagnoses, procedures, and comorbidities, cost, and length of stay. Patients defined as frequently admitted were compared in aggregate to all other hospitalized patients (all other admissions).

To evaluate associations, we used [2] tests for categorical variables and t tests for continuous variables. When comparing the non‐normally distributed comorbidities of the control group to the normally distributed comorbidities of the frequently admitted patients, we performed a Kruskal‐Wallis test on the medians.

RESULTS

During a 1‐year period (October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2012), 1,758,027 patients were admitted 2,388,124 times at 101 academic medical centers. Of these, 28,291 patients had 5 or more admissions during this period, resulting in 180,185 admissions. These frequently admitted patients represented 1.6% of all patients (Figure 1) and 7.6% of all inpatient admissions. By comparison, nonfrequently admitted patients were admitted once (79%), twice (14%), 3 times (4%), or 4 times (2%).

Among hospitals, the volume and impact of frequently admitted patients varied widely. The frequently admitted patient population ranged from 64 patients (0.7% of all patients) to 785 patients (3.5%), with an average of 280 patients (1.6%). To look for differences that might explain this range, we compared hospitals in the top and bottom deciles with respect to geographic region and to safety net status, but found no significant or meaningful differences. The average number of admissions per patient was 6.4, with a range of 5 to 76. Days per patient ranged from 5 to 434 days, with an average of 42. The average patient‐day percentage (frequently admitted patient days/total patient days) was 8.4%, and ranged from 3.2% to 15.4%.

Frequently admitted patients were more likely to be younger than all other patients (71.9% under the age of 65 years, as compared with 65.3% of all other patients (P<0.001)). They were also more likely to have either Medicaid or no healthcare insurance (27.6% compared with 21.6%, P<0.001), although nearly three‐quarters had either private insurance or Medicare coverage.

Eighty‐four percent of frequently admitted patient admissions were to medical services (vs 58% of all other patients (P<0.001)). The admission status for these patients was much less likely to be elective (9.1% of frequently admitted patient admissions vs 26.6% of all other patients' admissions [P<0.001]). Frequently admitted patients were more likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (9.3% vs 8.4%, [P<0.001]) or with home health services (19.7% vs 13.4% [P<0.001]).

The 10 most common primary diagnoses for patient admissions are shown in Table 1. No single primary diagnosis accounted for a large share of the admissions of these patients; the most common diagnosis, sickle cell disease with crisis, accounted for only about 4% of admissions. The 10 most common diagnoses accounted for <20% of all admissions. The remainder of the diagnoses was spread over more than 3000 diagnosis codes; only about 300 codes had more than 100 admissions each.

Secondary diagnoses were mainly chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, esophageal reflux, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (Table 1.) Combined, congestive heart failure and diabetes mellitus accounted for 43.3% of the secondary diagnoses of admissions of frequently admitted patients, but for only 28.6% of other patients. Acute kidney failure was more common in frequently admitted patients (13.8% vs 9.4% [P<0.001]). Psychiatric disorders accounted for <1% of primary diagnoses for both frequently admitted patients and all other patients. As a secondary diagnosis, depressive disorder appeared in the top 10 for both groups, although more commonly for frequently admitted patients (15.4% vs 10.3% [P<0.001]).

The most commonly performed principal procedures are also shown in Table 1. These include hemodialysis (6.32%) and packed cell transfusion (4.49%), nonoperating room procedures associated with chronic medical conditions.

Comorbidities were compared using the AHRQ comorbidity software.[18, 19] Comorbid conditions were counted once per patient, regardless of the number of admissions in which the condition was coded. Frequently admitted patients have a significantly higher mean number of comorbidities: 7.1 compared to 2.5 for all other patients (P<0.001; Figure 2). In an additional analysis using the Elixhauser comorbidity measures to determine acuity scores, the mean scores were 13.1 for frequently admitted patients and 3.17 for all others (P<0.001). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (74%), fluid and electrolyte disorders (73%), and deficiency anemias (66%). The only behavioral health comorbidity that affected more than a quarter of frequently admitted patients was depression (40% as compared to 13% for all others).

Figure 2

Additionally, frequently admitted patients were significantly more likely to have comorbidities of psychosis (18% vs 5% [P<0.001]), alcohol abuse (16% vs 7% [P<0.001]), and drug abuse (20% vs 7% [P<0.001]). Among hospitals, these comorbidities ranged widely: psychosis (3% 48%); alcohol abuse (3%46%); and drug abuse (3%58%). Hospitals with the highest rates (top decile) of frequently admitted patients with alcohol and drug abuse comorbidities were more likely to be safety net hospitals than those in the lowest decile (P<0.05 for each independently), but no such difference was found regarding rates of patients with psychosis.

Although the frequently admitted patient population accounted for only 1.6% of patients, they accounted for an average of 8.4% of all bed days and 7.1% of direct cost. The average cost per day was $1746, compared to $2144 for all other patients (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

An extensive analysis of the characteristics of frequently admitted patients at 101 US academic medical centers, from October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012, revealed that these patients comprised 1.6% of all patients, but accounted for 8% of all admissions and 7% of direct costs. Relative to all other hospitalized patients, frequently admitted patients were likely to be younger, of lower socioeconomic status, in poorer health, and more often affected by mental health or substance abuse conditions that may mediate their health behaviors. However, the prevalence of patients with psychiatric or behavior conditions varied widely among hospitals, and hospitals with the highest rates of patients with substance abuse comorbidities were more likely to be safety net hospitals. Frequently admitted patients' diagnoses and procedures suggest that their admissions were related to complex chronic diseases; more than three‐quarters were admitted to medicine services, and their average length of stay was nearly 7 days. No single primary diagnosis accounted for a predominant share of their admissions; the most common diagnosis, sickle cell disease with crisis, accounted for only about 4%. The cost of their care was lower than that of other patients, reflecting the preponderance of their admissions to medicine service lines.

In many ways, frequently admitted patients seem similar to frequent ED visitors. Their visits were driven by a high disease burden associated with multiple chronic conditions, and they were heavy users of the healthcare system overall.[4, 6] The majority of both groups were insured, although there was over‐representation of public insurance.[6] As with frequent ED users, some frequently admitted patients are affected by psychiatric morbidity and substance abuse.[4, 12]

Our results in some ways confirmed, and in some ways differed from, findings of prior studies of patients with frequent hospital admissions. Although each study performed to date has defined the population differently, comparison of findings is useful. Our population was similar to the high‐admission groups identified by Nguyen et al. (patients responsible for the top decile of admissions).[13] These patients were also predominantly admitted for medical conditions, with common admitting diagnoses representing respiratory, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular conditions. However, the median length of stay (3 days for the high‐admission/low‐cost group and 5 days for the high‐admission/high‐cost group) was lower than that of our population (5.5 days).

Hwa, who studied 29 patients admitted 6 or more times in 1 year to an inpatient medical service in San Francisco,[14] found that 55% of frequently admitted patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, higher than our patient population. Our findings are similar to those of Boonyasai et al.[15] whose serial readmitters had admissions resulting from disease progression, psychiatric illness, and substance abuse.

Our more nationally representative analysis documented a wide range of patient volumes and clinical characteristics, including psychiatric and substance abuse comorbidities, across study hospitals. It demonstrates that different approachesand resourcesare needed to meet the needs of these varied groups of patients. Each hospital must identify, evaluate, and understand its own population of frequently admitted patients to create well‐informed solutions to prevent repeat hospitalization for these patients.

Our ability to create a distinctive picture of the population of frequently admitted patients in US academic medical centers is based on access to an expansive dataset that captures complete diagnostic and demographic information on the universe of patients admitted to our member hospitals. The availability of clinical and administrative data for the entire population of patients permits both an accurate description of patient characteristics and a standardized comparison of groups. All data conform to accepted formats and definitions; their validity is universally recognized by contributing database participants.

CONCLUSION

The valuable information reported from analysis of nearly 2 million patients in the UHC Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager can be used to better understand the characteristics of frequently admitted patients. This important cohort of individuals has complex care needs that often result in hospitalization, but may be amenable to solutions that allow patients to remain in their communities. By understanding the demographic, social, and medical characteristics of these patients, hospitals can develop and implement solutions that address the needs of this small group of patients who consume a highly disproportionate share of healthcare resources.

The national healthcare improvement paradigm is shifting toward a more comprehensive, value‐focused, and patient‐centered approach. Reducing hospital readmissions has become a focal point as a policy strategy to improve care quality while reducing cost. Section 3025 of the Affordable Care Act mandated the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to make progressive reductions in Medicare payments to hospitals that have higher than expected readmission rates for 3 conditions (heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia), and expanding to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and total hip and knee arthroplasty in 2015.[1] In response, hospitals and systems are developing and implementing programs that coordinate care beyond hospital walls to reduce readmissions and healthcare costs.[2, 3] However, patients are readmitted for a variety of reasons, and programs that address the needs of some may not address the distinct needs of others. Understanding the characteristics of patients with frequent readmissions will permit the well‐informed creation of solutions specific to this population to reduce cost, free resources, and provide better care.

Although a solid body of literature already exists that describes the characteristics of patients who frequently visit the emergency department (ED),[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] it is not clear to what extent these characteristics also apply to patients with frequent hospital admissions. Frequent ED visitors have been found to be largely insured (85%) although with over‐representation of public insurance, and to be heavy users of the healthcare system overall.[6] A high disease burden associated with multiple chronic conditions has been found to predict frequent ED use.[4, 9, 11, 12] Some characteristics may vary by location; for example, alcohol abuse and psychiatric morbidity have been found to be associated with frequent ED use in New York and San Francisco, but it is not clear to what extent they are a factor in less urban areas.[4, 6, 12]

Several previous studies have investigated the characteristics of frequently admitted patients at single sites.[13, 14, 15, 16] Nguyen et al. (2013) studied patients with the highest costs and the most admissions at a large academic medical center in San Francisco.[13] High admit patients were defined as those responsible for the top decile of admissions, and were grouped into equal‐sized high‐ and low‐cost cohorts. The high‐admission/high‐cost group represented 5% of all patients, 25% of all costs, and 16% of all admissions. These patients were hospitalized primarily for medical conditions (78%) and had a high 30‐day readmission rate (47%). The high‐admission/low‐cost group accounted for 5% of all patients, 12% of all admissions, and 7% of all costs. These patients were also predominantly admitted for medical conditions (87%), with the most common admitting diagnoses representing respiratory, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular conditions.[13]

Hwa (2012) conducted an analysis of 29 patients admitted 6 or more times in 1 year to an inpatient medical service in San Francisco.[14] These patients represented just 1% of all patients, but 13% of readmissions. Fifty‐five percent of these patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, and 52% had chronic pain. Ninety percent had a primary care physician in the hospital system, 100% were insured either privately or publicly, and 93% had housing, although for 17% housing was described as marginal.[14]

In a third study, Boonyasai et al. (2012) identified 76 patients with 82 readmissions at a Baltimore, Maryland, hospital and classified them as isolated (1 readmission per 6‐month period) or serial (more than 1 readmission per 6‐month period) readmissions.[15] Patients with serial readmissions accounted for 70% of the total. Isolated readmissions were most likely to be related to suboptimal quality of care and care coordination, whereas serial readmissions were more likely to result from disease progression, psychiatric illness, and substance abuse.[15]

All of these studies were conducted at single‐site academic medical centers serving inner city populations. We undertook this study to identify patient and hospital‐level characteristics of frequently admitted patients in a broad sample of 101 US academic medical centers to determine whether previously reported findings are generalizable, and to identify characteristics of frequently admitted patients that can inform interventions designed to meet the needs of this relatively small but resource‐intensive group of patients.

METHODS

All data were obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) (Chicago, IL) Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager (CDB), a large administrative database to which UHC principal members submit comprehensive administrative data files. UHC's principal members include approximately 120 US academic medical centers delivering tertiary and quaternary care, with an average of 647 acute care beds. The CDB includes primary and secondary diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD‐9)[17] codes.

The data of 101 academic medical centers with complete datasets for the study period (October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2012) were included in this analysis. Frequently admitted patients were defined as patients admitted 5 or more times to the same facility in a 12‐month period; all admissions were included, even those more than 30 days apart. This definition was established based on a naturally occurring break in the frequency distribution (Figure 1) and our intention to focus on the unique characteristics of patients at the far right of the distribution. We excluded obstetric (MDC 14, ICD‐9)[17] admissions and pediatric (<18 years of age at index admission) patients, as well as admissions with principal diagnoses for chemotherapy (ICD‐9 diagnosis codes v5811v5812), dialysis (ICD‐9 diagnosis codes v560v568), and rehabilitation (ICD‐9 diagnosis codes v570v579), which are typically planned. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) comorbidity software was used to identify comorbid conditions,[18, 19] and a score based on the Elixhauser comorbidity measures was calculated using a modified acuity point system.[20] For comparisons based on safety net status, we used a definition of payer mix being 25% Medicaid or uninsured.

Figure 1

Our analyses included patient demographics, admission source and discharge status, clinical diagnoses, procedures, and comorbidities, cost, and length of stay. Patients defined as frequently admitted were compared in aggregate to all other hospitalized patients (all other admissions).

To evaluate associations, we used [2] tests for categorical variables and t tests for continuous variables. When comparing the non‐normally distributed comorbidities of the control group to the normally distributed comorbidities of the frequently admitted patients, we performed a Kruskal‐Wallis test on the medians.

RESULTS

During a 1‐year period (October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2012), 1,758,027 patients were admitted 2,388,124 times at 101 academic medical centers. Of these, 28,291 patients had 5 or more admissions during this period, resulting in 180,185 admissions. These frequently admitted patients represented 1.6% of all patients (Figure 1) and 7.6% of all inpatient admissions. By comparison, nonfrequently admitted patients were admitted once (79%), twice (14%), 3 times (4%), or 4 times (2%).

Among hospitals, the volume and impact of frequently admitted patients varied widely. The frequently admitted patient population ranged from 64 patients (0.7% of all patients) to 785 patients (3.5%), with an average of 280 patients (1.6%). To look for differences that might explain this range, we compared hospitals in the top and bottom deciles with respect to geographic region and to safety net status, but found no significant or meaningful differences. The average number of admissions per patient was 6.4, with a range of 5 to 76. Days per patient ranged from 5 to 434 days, with an average of 42. The average patient‐day percentage (frequently admitted patient days/total patient days) was 8.4%, and ranged from 3.2% to 15.4%.

Frequently admitted patients were more likely to be younger than all other patients (71.9% under the age of 65 years, as compared with 65.3% of all other patients (P<0.001)). They were also more likely to have either Medicaid or no healthcare insurance (27.6% compared with 21.6%, P<0.001), although nearly three‐quarters had either private insurance or Medicare coverage.

Eighty‐four percent of frequently admitted patient admissions were to medical services (vs 58% of all other patients (P<0.001)). The admission status for these patients was much less likely to be elective (9.1% of frequently admitted patient admissions vs 26.6% of all other patients' admissions [P<0.001]). Frequently admitted patients were more likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (9.3% vs 8.4%, [P<0.001]) or with home health services (19.7% vs 13.4% [P<0.001]).

The 10 most common primary diagnoses for patient admissions are shown in Table 1. No single primary diagnosis accounted for a large share of the admissions of these patients; the most common diagnosis, sickle cell disease with crisis, accounted for only about 4% of admissions. The 10 most common diagnoses accounted for <20% of all admissions. The remainder of the diagnoses was spread over more than 3000 diagnosis codes; only about 300 codes had more than 100 admissions each.

Secondary diagnoses were mainly chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, esophageal reflux, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (Table 1.) Combined, congestive heart failure and diabetes mellitus accounted for 43.3% of the secondary diagnoses of admissions of frequently admitted patients, but for only 28.6% of other patients. Acute kidney failure was more common in frequently admitted patients (13.8% vs 9.4% [P<0.001]). Psychiatric disorders accounted for <1% of primary diagnoses for both frequently admitted patients and all other patients. As a secondary diagnosis, depressive disorder appeared in the top 10 for both groups, although more commonly for frequently admitted patients (15.4% vs 10.3% [P<0.001]).

The most commonly performed principal procedures are also shown in Table 1. These include hemodialysis (6.32%) and packed cell transfusion (4.49%), nonoperating room procedures associated with chronic medical conditions.

Comorbidities were compared using the AHRQ comorbidity software.[18, 19] Comorbid conditions were counted once per patient, regardless of the number of admissions in which the condition was coded. Frequently admitted patients have a significantly higher mean number of comorbidities: 7.1 compared to 2.5 for all other patients (P<0.001; Figure 2). In an additional analysis using the Elixhauser comorbidity measures to determine acuity scores, the mean scores were 13.1 for frequently admitted patients and 3.17 for all others (P<0.001). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (74%), fluid and electrolyte disorders (73%), and deficiency anemias (66%). The only behavioral health comorbidity that affected more than a quarter of frequently admitted patients was depression (40% as compared to 13% for all others).

Figure 2

Additionally, frequently admitted patients were significantly more likely to have comorbidities of psychosis (18% vs 5% [P<0.001]), alcohol abuse (16% vs 7% [P<0.001]), and drug abuse (20% vs 7% [P<0.001]). Among hospitals, these comorbidities ranged widely: psychosis (3% 48%); alcohol abuse (3%46%); and drug abuse (3%58%). Hospitals with the highest rates (top decile) of frequently admitted patients with alcohol and drug abuse comorbidities were more likely to be safety net hospitals than those in the lowest decile (P<0.05 for each independently), but no such difference was found regarding rates of patients with psychosis.

Although the frequently admitted patient population accounted for only 1.6% of patients, they accounted for an average of 8.4% of all bed days and 7.1% of direct cost. The average cost per day was $1746, compared to $2144 for all other patients (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

An extensive analysis of the characteristics of frequently admitted patients at 101 US academic medical centers, from October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012, revealed that these patients comprised 1.6% of all patients, but accounted for 8% of all admissions and 7% of direct costs. Relative to all other hospitalized patients, frequently admitted patients were likely to be younger, of lower socioeconomic status, in poorer health, and more often affected by mental health or substance abuse conditions that may mediate their health behaviors. However, the prevalence of patients with psychiatric or behavior conditions varied widely among hospitals, and hospitals with the highest rates of patients with substance abuse comorbidities were more likely to be safety net hospitals. Frequently admitted patients' diagnoses and procedures suggest that their admissions were related to complex chronic diseases; more than three‐quarters were admitted to medicine services, and their average length of stay was nearly 7 days. No single primary diagnosis accounted for a predominant share of their admissions; the most common diagnosis, sickle cell disease with crisis, accounted for only about 4%. The cost of their care was lower than that of other patients, reflecting the preponderance of their admissions to medicine service lines.

In many ways, frequently admitted patients seem similar to frequent ED visitors. Their visits were driven by a high disease burden associated with multiple chronic conditions, and they were heavy users of the healthcare system overall.[4, 6] The majority of both groups were insured, although there was over‐representation of public insurance.[6] As with frequent ED users, some frequently admitted patients are affected by psychiatric morbidity and substance abuse.[4, 12]

Our results in some ways confirmed, and in some ways differed from, findings of prior studies of patients with frequent hospital admissions. Although each study performed to date has defined the population differently, comparison of findings is useful. Our population was similar to the high‐admission groups identified by Nguyen et al. (patients responsible for the top decile of admissions).[13] These patients were also predominantly admitted for medical conditions, with common admitting diagnoses representing respiratory, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular conditions. However, the median length of stay (3 days for the high‐admission/low‐cost group and 5 days for the high‐admission/high‐cost group) was lower than that of our population (5.5 days).

Hwa, who studied 29 patients admitted 6 or more times in 1 year to an inpatient medical service in San Francisco,[14] found that 55% of frequently admitted patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, higher than our patient population. Our findings are similar to those of Boonyasai et al.[15] whose serial readmitters had admissions resulting from disease progression, psychiatric illness, and substance abuse.

Our more nationally representative analysis documented a wide range of patient volumes and clinical characteristics, including psychiatric and substance abuse comorbidities, across study hospitals. It demonstrates that different approachesand resourcesare needed to meet the needs of these varied groups of patients. Each hospital must identify, evaluate, and understand its own population of frequently admitted patients to create well‐informed solutions to prevent repeat hospitalization for these patients.

Our ability to create a distinctive picture of the population of frequently admitted patients in US academic medical centers is based on access to an expansive dataset that captures complete diagnostic and demographic information on the universe of patients admitted to our member hospitals. The availability of clinical and administrative data for the entire population of patients permits both an accurate description of patient characteristics and a standardized comparison of groups. All data conform to accepted formats and definitions; their validity is universally recognized by contributing database participants.

CONCLUSION

The valuable information reported from analysis of nearly 2 million patients in the UHC Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager can be used to better understand the characteristics of frequently admitted patients. This important cohort of individuals has complex care needs that often result in hospitalization, but may be amenable to solutions that allow patients to remain in their communities. By understanding the demographic, social, and medical characteristics of these patients, hospitals can develop and implement solutions that address the needs of this small group of patients who consume a highly disproportionate share of healthcare resources.

The national healthcare improvement paradigm is shifting toward a more comprehensive, value‐focused, and patient‐centered approach. Reducing hospital readmissions has become a focal point as a policy strategy to improve care quality while reducing cost. Section 3025 of the Affordable Care Act mandated the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to make progressive reductions in Medicare payments to hospitals that have higher than expected readmission rates for 3 conditions (heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia), and expanding to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and total hip and knee arthroplasty in 2015.[1] In response, hospitals and systems are developing and implementing programs that coordinate care beyond hospital walls to reduce readmissions and healthcare costs.[2, 3] However, patients are readmitted for a variety of reasons, and programs that address the needs of some may not address the distinct needs of others. Understanding the characteristics of patients with frequent readmissions will permit the well‐informed creation of solutions specific to this population to reduce cost, free resources, and provide better care.

Although a solid body of literature already exists that describes the characteristics of patients who frequently visit the emergency department (ED),[4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] it is not clear to what extent these characteristics also apply to patients with frequent hospital admissions. Frequent ED visitors have been found to be largely insured (85%) although with over‐representation of public insurance, and to be heavy users of the healthcare system overall.[6] A high disease burden associated with multiple chronic conditions has been found to predict frequent ED use.[4, 9, 11, 12] Some characteristics may vary by location; for example, alcohol abuse and psychiatric morbidity have been found to be associated with frequent ED use in New York and San Francisco, but it is not clear to what extent they are a factor in less urban areas.[4, 6, 12]

Several previous studies have investigated the characteristics of frequently admitted patients at single sites.[13, 14, 15, 16] Nguyen et al. (2013) studied patients with the highest costs and the most admissions at a large academic medical center in San Francisco.[13] High admit patients were defined as those responsible for the top decile of admissions, and were grouped into equal‐sized high‐ and low‐cost cohorts. The high‐admission/high‐cost group represented 5% of all patients, 25% of all costs, and 16% of all admissions. These patients were hospitalized primarily for medical conditions (78%) and had a high 30‐day readmission rate (47%). The high‐admission/low‐cost group accounted for 5% of all patients, 12% of all admissions, and 7% of all costs. These patients were also predominantly admitted for medical conditions (87%), with the most common admitting diagnoses representing respiratory, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular conditions.[13]

Hwa (2012) conducted an analysis of 29 patients admitted 6 or more times in 1 year to an inpatient medical service in San Francisco.[14] These patients represented just 1% of all patients, but 13% of readmissions. Fifty‐five percent of these patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, and 52% had chronic pain. Ninety percent had a primary care physician in the hospital system, 100% were insured either privately or publicly, and 93% had housing, although for 17% housing was described as marginal.[14]

In a third study, Boonyasai et al. (2012) identified 76 patients with 82 readmissions at a Baltimore, Maryland, hospital and classified them as isolated (1 readmission per 6‐month period) or serial (more than 1 readmission per 6‐month period) readmissions.[15] Patients with serial readmissions accounted for 70% of the total. Isolated readmissions were most likely to be related to suboptimal quality of care and care coordination, whereas serial readmissions were more likely to result from disease progression, psychiatric illness, and substance abuse.[15]

All of these studies were conducted at single‐site academic medical centers serving inner city populations. We undertook this study to identify patient and hospital‐level characteristics of frequently admitted patients in a broad sample of 101 US academic medical centers to determine whether previously reported findings are generalizable, and to identify characteristics of frequently admitted patients that can inform interventions designed to meet the needs of this relatively small but resource‐intensive group of patients.

METHODS

All data were obtained from the University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) (Chicago, IL) Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager (CDB), a large administrative database to which UHC principal members submit comprehensive administrative data files. UHC's principal members include approximately 120 US academic medical centers delivering tertiary and quaternary care, with an average of 647 acute care beds. The CDB includes primary and secondary diagnoses using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD‐9)[17] codes.

The data of 101 academic medical centers with complete datasets for the study period (October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2012) were included in this analysis. Frequently admitted patients were defined as patients admitted 5 or more times to the same facility in a 12‐month period; all admissions were included, even those more than 30 days apart. This definition was established based on a naturally occurring break in the frequency distribution (Figure 1) and our intention to focus on the unique characteristics of patients at the far right of the distribution. We excluded obstetric (MDC 14, ICD‐9)[17] admissions and pediatric (<18 years of age at index admission) patients, as well as admissions with principal diagnoses for chemotherapy (ICD‐9 diagnosis codes v5811v5812), dialysis (ICD‐9 diagnosis codes v560v568), and rehabilitation (ICD‐9 diagnosis codes v570v579), which are typically planned. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) comorbidity software was used to identify comorbid conditions,[18, 19] and a score based on the Elixhauser comorbidity measures was calculated using a modified acuity point system.[20] For comparisons based on safety net status, we used a definition of payer mix being 25% Medicaid or uninsured.

Figure 1

Our analyses included patient demographics, admission source and discharge status, clinical diagnoses, procedures, and comorbidities, cost, and length of stay. Patients defined as frequently admitted were compared in aggregate to all other hospitalized patients (all other admissions).

To evaluate associations, we used [2] tests for categorical variables and t tests for continuous variables. When comparing the non‐normally distributed comorbidities of the control group to the normally distributed comorbidities of the frequently admitted patients, we performed a Kruskal‐Wallis test on the medians.

RESULTS

During a 1‐year period (October 1, 2011, to September 30, 2012), 1,758,027 patients were admitted 2,388,124 times at 101 academic medical centers. Of these, 28,291 patients had 5 or more admissions during this period, resulting in 180,185 admissions. These frequently admitted patients represented 1.6% of all patients (Figure 1) and 7.6% of all inpatient admissions. By comparison, nonfrequently admitted patients were admitted once (79%), twice (14%), 3 times (4%), or 4 times (2%).

Among hospitals, the volume and impact of frequently admitted patients varied widely. The frequently admitted patient population ranged from 64 patients (0.7% of all patients) to 785 patients (3.5%), with an average of 280 patients (1.6%). To look for differences that might explain this range, we compared hospitals in the top and bottom deciles with respect to geographic region and to safety net status, but found no significant or meaningful differences. The average number of admissions per patient was 6.4, with a range of 5 to 76. Days per patient ranged from 5 to 434 days, with an average of 42. The average patient‐day percentage (frequently admitted patient days/total patient days) was 8.4%, and ranged from 3.2% to 15.4%.

Frequently admitted patients were more likely to be younger than all other patients (71.9% under the age of 65 years, as compared with 65.3% of all other patients (P<0.001)). They were also more likely to have either Medicaid or no healthcare insurance (27.6% compared with 21.6%, P<0.001), although nearly three‐quarters had either private insurance or Medicare coverage.

Eighty‐four percent of frequently admitted patient admissions were to medical services (vs 58% of all other patients (P<0.001)). The admission status for these patients was much less likely to be elective (9.1% of frequently admitted patient admissions vs 26.6% of all other patients' admissions [P<0.001]). Frequently admitted patients were more likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (9.3% vs 8.4%, [P<0.001]) or with home health services (19.7% vs 13.4% [P<0.001]).

The 10 most common primary diagnoses for patient admissions are shown in Table 1. No single primary diagnosis accounted for a large share of the admissions of these patients; the most common diagnosis, sickle cell disease with crisis, accounted for only about 4% of admissions. The 10 most common diagnoses accounted for <20% of all admissions. The remainder of the diagnoses was spread over more than 3000 diagnosis codes; only about 300 codes had more than 100 admissions each.

Secondary diagnoses were mainly chronic conditions, including hypertension, hyperlipidemia, esophageal reflux, and diabetes mellitus type 2 (Table 1.) Combined, congestive heart failure and diabetes mellitus accounted for 43.3% of the secondary diagnoses of admissions of frequently admitted patients, but for only 28.6% of other patients. Acute kidney failure was more common in frequently admitted patients (13.8% vs 9.4% [P<0.001]). Psychiatric disorders accounted for <1% of primary diagnoses for both frequently admitted patients and all other patients. As a secondary diagnosis, depressive disorder appeared in the top 10 for both groups, although more commonly for frequently admitted patients (15.4% vs 10.3% [P<0.001]).

The most commonly performed principal procedures are also shown in Table 1. These include hemodialysis (6.32%) and packed cell transfusion (4.49%), nonoperating room procedures associated with chronic medical conditions.

Comorbidities were compared using the AHRQ comorbidity software.[18, 19] Comorbid conditions were counted once per patient, regardless of the number of admissions in which the condition was coded. Frequently admitted patients have a significantly higher mean number of comorbidities: 7.1 compared to 2.5 for all other patients (P<0.001; Figure 2). In an additional analysis using the Elixhauser comorbidity measures to determine acuity scores, the mean scores were 13.1 for frequently admitted patients and 3.17 for all others (P<0.001). The most common comorbidities were hypertension (74%), fluid and electrolyte disorders (73%), and deficiency anemias (66%). The only behavioral health comorbidity that affected more than a quarter of frequently admitted patients was depression (40% as compared to 13% for all others).

Figure 2

Additionally, frequently admitted patients were significantly more likely to have comorbidities of psychosis (18% vs 5% [P<0.001]), alcohol abuse (16% vs 7% [P<0.001]), and drug abuse (20% vs 7% [P<0.001]). Among hospitals, these comorbidities ranged widely: psychosis (3% 48%); alcohol abuse (3%46%); and drug abuse (3%58%). Hospitals with the highest rates (top decile) of frequently admitted patients with alcohol and drug abuse comorbidities were more likely to be safety net hospitals than those in the lowest decile (P<0.05 for each independently), but no such difference was found regarding rates of patients with psychosis.

Although the frequently admitted patient population accounted for only 1.6% of patients, they accounted for an average of 8.4% of all bed days and 7.1% of direct cost. The average cost per day was $1746, compared to $2144 for all other patients (Table 2).

DISCUSSION

An extensive analysis of the characteristics of frequently admitted patients at 101 US academic medical centers, from October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012, revealed that these patients comprised 1.6% of all patients, but accounted for 8% of all admissions and 7% of direct costs. Relative to all other hospitalized patients, frequently admitted patients were likely to be younger, of lower socioeconomic status, in poorer health, and more often affected by mental health or substance abuse conditions that may mediate their health behaviors. However, the prevalence of patients with psychiatric or behavior conditions varied widely among hospitals, and hospitals with the highest rates of patients with substance abuse comorbidities were more likely to be safety net hospitals. Frequently admitted patients' diagnoses and procedures suggest that their admissions were related to complex chronic diseases; more than three‐quarters were admitted to medicine services, and their average length of stay was nearly 7 days. No single primary diagnosis accounted for a predominant share of their admissions; the most common diagnosis, sickle cell disease with crisis, accounted for only about 4%. The cost of their care was lower than that of other patients, reflecting the preponderance of their admissions to medicine service lines.

In many ways, frequently admitted patients seem similar to frequent ED visitors. Their visits were driven by a high disease burden associated with multiple chronic conditions, and they were heavy users of the healthcare system overall.[4, 6] The majority of both groups were insured, although there was over‐representation of public insurance.[6] As with frequent ED users, some frequently admitted patients are affected by psychiatric morbidity and substance abuse.[4, 12]

Our results in some ways confirmed, and in some ways differed from, findings of prior studies of patients with frequent hospital admissions. Although each study performed to date has defined the population differently, comparison of findings is useful. Our population was similar to the high‐admission groups identified by Nguyen et al. (patients responsible for the top decile of admissions).[13] These patients were also predominantly admitted for medical conditions, with common admitting diagnoses representing respiratory, gastrointestinal, and cardiovascular conditions. However, the median length of stay (3 days for the high‐admission/low‐cost group and 5 days for the high‐admission/high‐cost group) was lower than that of our population (5.5 days).

Hwa, who studied 29 patients admitted 6 or more times in 1 year to an inpatient medical service in San Francisco,[14] found that 55% of frequently admitted patients had a psychiatric diagnosis, higher than our patient population. Our findings are similar to those of Boonyasai et al.[15] whose serial readmitters had admissions resulting from disease progression, psychiatric illness, and substance abuse.

Our more nationally representative analysis documented a wide range of patient volumes and clinical characteristics, including psychiatric and substance abuse comorbidities, across study hospitals. It demonstrates that different approachesand resourcesare needed to meet the needs of these varied groups of patients. Each hospital must identify, evaluate, and understand its own population of frequently admitted patients to create well‐informed solutions to prevent repeat hospitalization for these patients.

Our ability to create a distinctive picture of the population of frequently admitted patients in US academic medical centers is based on access to an expansive dataset that captures complete diagnostic and demographic information on the universe of patients admitted to our member hospitals. The availability of clinical and administrative data for the entire population of patients permits both an accurate description of patient characteristics and a standardized comparison of groups. All data conform to accepted formats and definitions; their validity is universally recognized by contributing database participants.

CONCLUSION

The valuable information reported from analysis of nearly 2 million patients in the UHC Clinical Data Base/Resource Manager can be used to better understand the characteristics of frequently admitted patients. This important cohort of individuals has complex care needs that often result in hospitalization, but may be amenable to solutions that allow patients to remain in their communities. By understanding the demographic, social, and medical characteristics of these patients, hospitals can develop and implement solutions that address the needs of this small group of patients who consume a highly disproportionate share of healthcare resources.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects over 13% of the US population and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.[1] However, only 10% of individuals with CKD are aware of their diagnoses.[2] Even in those with stage 5 CKD, only 60% of individuals are aware of their CKD.[3] To our knowledge, no work has examined CKD awareness in a hospitalized patient population.

Patient awareness of their CKD diagnosis is important because progression of kidney disease can be slowed by patient self‐management of diabetes and hypertension.[4] Patient awareness of CKD may also increase acceptance of preend‐stage renal disease (ESRD) patient education and nephrology referral, which have been shown to delay CKD progression and improve clinical status at dialysis initiation.[5] However, only 60% of patients with advanced CKD have visited a nephrologist in the past year or have seen a nephrologist prior to dialysis initiation.[1]

The hospital is an important site for patient education and linkage to outpatient care for patients with CKD.[6] The hospital serves high‐risk patients who may not be well connected to outpatient care or who have lesswell‐controlled disease.[6, 7] Thus, hospitalization represents an opportunity to identify existing CKD and to use a multidisciplinary approach to preventative care, patient education, and patient‐provider planning for renal replacement therapy needs. In our cross‐sectional study in an urban, minority‐serving hospital, we sought to determine what patient factors were associated with hospitalized patients correctly self‐identifying as having CKD.

METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

Although prior work has examined CKD awareness in the general population and in high‐risk cohorts,[2, 3, 13] this is the first study examining CKD awareness in an urban, underserved hospitalized population. We found that overall patients' CKD awareness was low (32%), but increased as high as 63% for CKD stage 5, even after controlling for patient demographic, clinical characteristics, and healthcare use. Our overall rate of CKD awareness was higher than prior studies overall and at lower CKD stages.[2, 3, 13] Our work is consistent with prior literature that shows increasing CKD awareness with advancing CKD stage.[2, 3, 13]

Older patients (>80 years) had lower awareness of CKD. Older patients are more likely to have a near normal creatinine, despite a markedly reduced eGFR, so their CKD may go unnoticed.[14] Even with appropriate recognition, providers may also feel like their CKD is unlikely to progress to ESRD, given its stability and/or their competing risk of death.[15] Finally, older hospitalized patients may also be less likely to report a CKD diagnosis due to difficulty in recall due to denial, dementia, or delirium.

One limitation is that our case‐finding for CKD was physician ICD‐9 coding, which is highly specific but not sensitive.[9] The majority of patients with physician‐identified CKD were CKD unspecified, perhaps due to poor coding, physician underdocumentation, or physician under‐recognition of CKD stage. Although only 27% of the CKD unspecified group correctly self‐identified as having CKD, over 75% were found to be CKD stage 3 or higher, which should trigger additional monitoring or care based on guidelines.[10] In addition, despite statistical significance, we may not be able to make meaningful inferences about our small other group (nonwhite, non‐African American). Our sample was from 1 hospitalan urban, academic, tertiary care center with a large proportion of African American patientswhich may limit generalizability. The multivariable model will need to be tested in other populations for reproducibility.

Our study significantly contributes to the literature by examining patient awareness of CKD in a high‐risk, urban, hospitalized minority population. Other study strengths include use of basic demographic information, as well as survey and laboratory data for a richer examination of the associations between patient factors and CKD awareness.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized patients with CKD have a low CKD awareness. Patient awareness of their CKD is increased with physician documentation of CKD severity. Patient awareness of their CKD must be coupled with provider awareness and CKD documentation to link patients to multidisciplinary CKD education and care to slow CKD progression and reduce associated cardiovascular and metabolic complications. Further work is needed across hospitals to determineand improveCKD awareness among both patients and providers.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects over 13% of the US population and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.[1] However, only 10% of individuals with CKD are aware of their diagnoses.[2] Even in those with stage 5 CKD, only 60% of individuals are aware of their CKD.[3] To our knowledge, no work has examined CKD awareness in a hospitalized patient population.

Patient awareness of their CKD diagnosis is important because progression of kidney disease can be slowed by patient self‐management of diabetes and hypertension.[4] Patient awareness of CKD may also increase acceptance of preend‐stage renal disease (ESRD) patient education and nephrology referral, which have been shown to delay CKD progression and improve clinical status at dialysis initiation.[5] However, only 60% of patients with advanced CKD have visited a nephrologist in the past year or have seen a nephrologist prior to dialysis initiation.[1]

The hospital is an important site for patient education and linkage to outpatient care for patients with CKD.[6] The hospital serves high‐risk patients who may not be well connected to outpatient care or who have lesswell‐controlled disease.[6, 7] Thus, hospitalization represents an opportunity to identify existing CKD and to use a multidisciplinary approach to preventative care, patient education, and patient‐provider planning for renal replacement therapy needs. In our cross‐sectional study in an urban, minority‐serving hospital, we sought to determine what patient factors were associated with hospitalized patients correctly self‐identifying as having CKD.

METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

Although prior work has examined CKD awareness in the general population and in high‐risk cohorts,[2, 3, 13] this is the first study examining CKD awareness in an urban, underserved hospitalized population. We found that overall patients' CKD awareness was low (32%), but increased as high as 63% for CKD stage 5, even after controlling for patient demographic, clinical characteristics, and healthcare use. Our overall rate of CKD awareness was higher than prior studies overall and at lower CKD stages.[2, 3, 13] Our work is consistent with prior literature that shows increasing CKD awareness with advancing CKD stage.[2, 3, 13]

Older patients (>80 years) had lower awareness of CKD. Older patients are more likely to have a near normal creatinine, despite a markedly reduced eGFR, so their CKD may go unnoticed.[14] Even with appropriate recognition, providers may also feel like their CKD is unlikely to progress to ESRD, given its stability and/or their competing risk of death.[15] Finally, older hospitalized patients may also be less likely to report a CKD diagnosis due to difficulty in recall due to denial, dementia, or delirium.

One limitation is that our case‐finding for CKD was physician ICD‐9 coding, which is highly specific but not sensitive.[9] The majority of patients with physician‐identified CKD were CKD unspecified, perhaps due to poor coding, physician underdocumentation, or physician under‐recognition of CKD stage. Although only 27% of the CKD unspecified group correctly self‐identified as having CKD, over 75% were found to be CKD stage 3 or higher, which should trigger additional monitoring or care based on guidelines.[10] In addition, despite statistical significance, we may not be able to make meaningful inferences about our small other group (nonwhite, non‐African American). Our sample was from 1 hospitalan urban, academic, tertiary care center with a large proportion of African American patientswhich may limit generalizability. The multivariable model will need to be tested in other populations for reproducibility.

Our study significantly contributes to the literature by examining patient awareness of CKD in a high‐risk, urban, hospitalized minority population. Other study strengths include use of basic demographic information, as well as survey and laboratory data for a richer examination of the associations between patient factors and CKD awareness.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized patients with CKD have a low CKD awareness. Patient awareness of their CKD is increased with physician documentation of CKD severity. Patient awareness of their CKD must be coupled with provider awareness and CKD documentation to link patients to multidisciplinary CKD education and care to slow CKD progression and reduce associated cardiovascular and metabolic complications. Further work is needed across hospitals to determineand improveCKD awareness among both patients and providers.

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) affects over 13% of the US population and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs.[1] However, only 10% of individuals with CKD are aware of their diagnoses.[2] Even in those with stage 5 CKD, only 60% of individuals are aware of their CKD.[3] To our knowledge, no work has examined CKD awareness in a hospitalized patient population.

Patient awareness of their CKD diagnosis is important because progression of kidney disease can be slowed by patient self‐management of diabetes and hypertension.[4] Patient awareness of CKD may also increase acceptance of preend‐stage renal disease (ESRD) patient education and nephrology referral, which have been shown to delay CKD progression and improve clinical status at dialysis initiation.[5] However, only 60% of patients with advanced CKD have visited a nephrologist in the past year or have seen a nephrologist prior to dialysis initiation.[1]

The hospital is an important site for patient education and linkage to outpatient care for patients with CKD.[6] The hospital serves high‐risk patients who may not be well connected to outpatient care or who have lesswell‐controlled disease.[6, 7] Thus, hospitalization represents an opportunity to identify existing CKD and to use a multidisciplinary approach to preventative care, patient education, and patient‐provider planning for renal replacement therapy needs. In our cross‐sectional study in an urban, minority‐serving hospital, we sought to determine what patient factors were associated with hospitalized patients correctly self‐identifying as having CKD.

METHODS

RESULTS

DISCUSSION

Although prior work has examined CKD awareness in the general population and in high‐risk cohorts,[2, 3, 13] this is the first study examining CKD awareness in an urban, underserved hospitalized population. We found that overall patients' CKD awareness was low (32%), but increased as high as 63% for CKD stage 5, even after controlling for patient demographic, clinical characteristics, and healthcare use. Our overall rate of CKD awareness was higher than prior studies overall and at lower CKD stages.[2, 3, 13] Our work is consistent with prior literature that shows increasing CKD awareness with advancing CKD stage.[2, 3, 13]

Older patients (>80 years) had lower awareness of CKD. Older patients are more likely to have a near normal creatinine, despite a markedly reduced eGFR, so their CKD may go unnoticed.[14] Even with appropriate recognition, providers may also feel like their CKD is unlikely to progress to ESRD, given its stability and/or their competing risk of death.[15] Finally, older hospitalized patients may also be less likely to report a CKD diagnosis due to difficulty in recall due to denial, dementia, or delirium.

One limitation is that our case‐finding for CKD was physician ICD‐9 coding, which is highly specific but not sensitive.[9] The majority of patients with physician‐identified CKD were CKD unspecified, perhaps due to poor coding, physician underdocumentation, or physician under‐recognition of CKD stage. Although only 27% of the CKD unspecified group correctly self‐identified as having CKD, over 75% were found to be CKD stage 3 or higher, which should trigger additional monitoring or care based on guidelines.[10] In addition, despite statistical significance, we may not be able to make meaningful inferences about our small other group (nonwhite, non‐African American). Our sample was from 1 hospitalan urban, academic, tertiary care center with a large proportion of African American patientswhich may limit generalizability. The multivariable model will need to be tested in other populations for reproducibility.

Our study significantly contributes to the literature by examining patient awareness of CKD in a high‐risk, urban, hospitalized minority population. Other study strengths include use of basic demographic information, as well as survey and laboratory data for a richer examination of the associations between patient factors and CKD awareness.

CONCLUSION

Hospitalized patients with CKD have a low CKD awareness. Patient awareness of their CKD is increased with physician documentation of CKD severity. Patient awareness of their CKD must be coupled with provider awareness and CKD documentation to link patients to multidisciplinary CKD education and care to slow CKD progression and reduce associated cardiovascular and metabolic complications. Further work is needed across hospitals to determineand improveCKD awareness among both patients and providers.

Vasoactive medications (VMs) are often required to improve hemodynamic function in patients with shock. They are usually given through central venous catheter (CVC) access, primarily out of concern that extravasation of peripheral intravenous (PIV) access may result in local tissue injury due to the vasoconstrictive effect of the VM. However, insertion of CVC is associated with a variety of mechanical complications and risk of central lineassociated bacteremia. To examine the feasibility and safety of using VM via PIV access, we report on the administration of VM in the form of norepinephrine, dopamine, and phenylephrine via PIV access, with the rationale that this would be a method of reducing the need of CVC use. Our hypotheses are that VM via PIV access is both feasible and safe.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

RESULTS

Characteristics of patients who received VM via PIV access are presented in Table 3. During the study period, there were 2462 admissions to the MICU, and 267 CVCs were inserted by the MICU team, 170 of which were triple‐lumen catheters and 97 were large‐gauge catheters for hemodialysis or plasmapheresis. Of the total admissions, 953 cases received VM; 783/953 (82%) received VM via PIV access, and 170/953 received VM via CVC access (18%). For VM use, an 18‐gauge PIV catheter was used in 192/783 (25%), a 20‐gauge catheter was used in 590/783 (75%), and a 22‐gauge catheter was used in 1/783 of interventions. Catheter length was 30 mm, 45 mm, or 48 mm depending on availability. The 22‐gauge catheter, which was a deviation from standard protocol, infiltrated shortly following insertion. We did not formally record the anatomic position of the PIV access in the standard data‐collection sheet; anecdotally, the majority of PIV accesses were placed in the upper arm basilic or cephalic vein. The duration of VM via PIV access was 4922 hours. Central intravenous access was required in 95/734 (13%) of patients who initially had VM via PIV access. These catheters are included in the 170 triple‐lumen CVCs that were inserted by the MICU team during the study period. The type and highest dose of VM administered via PIV access are presented in Table 4.

A total of 734 patients received VM via PIV access during the 20‐month study period; 49 of these patients required 2 or more PIV access insertions, as the initial and/or subsequent site timed out at 72 hours, resulting in a total of 783 separate interventions. Infiltration of the PIV access site occurred in 19/783 (2%) of interventions. All of them were identified by nursing staff with prompt response using local injection of phentolamine and application of nitroglycerin paste at the site of the extravasation. There was no tissue injury at the site of VM extravasation. Sixteen of the extravasations occurred with norepinephrine infusions and 3 with dopamine infusions. There were no infections of the PIV access sites used for VM. Use of phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste was not associated with hypotension, as defined as mean arterial pressure less than 65 mm Hg.

DISCUSSION

Our study demonstrates that administration of VM via PIV access is feasible, carries a low rate of complications, and offers an alternative to CVC access. There are several elements that may have allowed safe use of VM via PIV access. We developed a protocol that involved a multidisciplinary team. The hospital pharmacy performed an extensive literature search and formulated the initial protocol with the MICU attending staff. The protocol was then subjected to iterative process improvement by a hospital committee and nursing leadership in the MICU. Before program rollout, the MICU nursing staff were educated and trained to use the protocol. This was a key component of the program, as the nurses were responsible for many of the line insertions, line maintenance, and identification of infiltration. Although we did not perform any formal measurement of the impact of PIV access use on nursing workflow, we note that leadership and frontline nurses have been enthusiastic about the implementation of VM via PIV access. The MICU housestaff teams were given an in‐service instruction concerning the importance of prompt initiation of local treatment in case of infiltration of the PIV access site. Specific elements of the protocol that may have improved safety were the use of ultrasonography to insert difficult PIV access and confirmation of all PIV access insertions using ultrasonography by the MICU housestaff. The requirement for frequent checks of PIV access function, prompt recognition of infiltration, and specific antidote to extravasation were important elements of safety. The low rate of PIV access extravasation (2%) may be related to the use of ultrasonography to guide PIV access insertion in patients who had challenging anatomy (eg, obesity, edema, recreational drug use, history of multiple PIV insertions), and ultrasonography was used to check that the PIV access was well positioned before VM infusion.

There were early literature reports that subcutaneous extravasation of catecholamines could result in local ischemic injury both in human patients and animal models.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Local phentolamine injection has been identified as a specific antidote to block the local ischemic injury.[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] More recently, there have been anecdotal reports showing that local application of nitroglycerin paste blocks ischemic injury in the pediatric population.[5, 16, 17] With this information, our protocol included the requirement of prompt treatment of local extravasation with phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste at the site of VM via PIV access extravasation. In theory, both phentolamine and nitroglycerin might cause hypotension. In our study, administration of both phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste was not associated with more hypotension nor did it increase requirements for VM.

Multilumen small bore CVCs may be used for several reasons, some of which need to be reconsidered. First, before introduction of the VM via PIV access protocol, a common indication for triple lumen CVC insertion in our MICU was the perception that VM could only be administered through CVC access, for fear of local tissue injury should extravasation of the VM occur through the PIV access site. Our results indicate that VM use is not an automatic indication for CVC insertion. Second, a possible indication for CVC insertion is to measure central venous pressure for the purpose of guiding volume resuscitation in patients with hemodynamic failure. As the utility of central venous pressure monitoring has been called into serious question,[18, 19, 20] we do not consider this indication for CVC use to be valid. Third, CVC access may be required due to anatomic constraints (ie, there is no suitable PIV site). Fourth, there may be need for such a large number of intravenous medications that PIV access cannot support. Fifth, there is occasional situation where the patient requires use of medications where extravasation of PIV access would cause local tissue injury without local antidote (eg, certain chemotherapeutic agents). The continued need for CVC access in some patients is reflected in the finding that 13% of our study patients who received VM via PIV access eventually required triple‐lumen CVC insertion. However, our results indicate that the rate of CVC use may be reduced by using PIV access for VM administration.

Our study has some methodological limitations. Study design was single center and observational. The focus of this study was to examine the safety of VM via PIV access. We cannot comment on its effectiveness, indications, or influence on patient outcome nor on why some patients required CVC insertion whereas others did not. The decision to administer VM was made by the clinical team, as was the route of its administration and concentration, without any input from the investigators. We did not collect data on who performed the PIV access insertion (medical or nursing staff), demographics, and disease characteristics of the CVC group, nor to what extent ultrasonography was used to guide PIV insertion. We did not attempt to define whether there were any factors that identified risk for PIV access extravasation, nor did we evaluate for any differences between the PIV and CVC group in terms of demographics and disease characteristics. Lacking a control group, we cannot say definitively that VM via PIV access is safer than VM via CVC. Being a single‐center study, it is not possible to say that the results are transferable to another clinical environment; this applies particularly to the use of ultrasonography, which is a user‐dependent skill. We cannot determine which, if any, component of the protocol was responsible for the safe use of VM via PIV access. The rate of PIV access extravasation was low, so it is possible that a larger sample size is required to identify incidents of tissue necrosis from extravasation of VM delivered via PIV access despite the use of local antidote.

CONCLUSIONS

The delivery of VM via PIV access is safe and feasible. Tto reduce the risk of extravasation leading to possible local tissue injury, we developed a protocol that emphasized close cooperation between the nursing and medical staff, routine use of ultrasonography, rapid identification of extravasation of the PIV access, and prompt response to local extravasation of VM using phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste. This approach offers a means of reducing CVC use, in both intensive care unit (ICU) and non‐ICU settings, including hospital wards and emergency departments. Clinicians should no longer consider administration of norepinephrine, dopamine, or phenylephrine to be an automatic indication for CVC access. This study focused on the safety of VM administered via PIV access, with emphasis on local complications related to extravasation, and should be considered a preliminary single‐center study that demonstrates that administration of certain vasoactive medications may not universally require central venous access. A broader study regarding assessment of safety and efficacy will require a multicenter design.

Vasoactive medications (VMs) are often required to improve hemodynamic function in patients with shock. They are usually given through central venous catheter (CVC) access, primarily out of concern that extravasation of peripheral intravenous (PIV) access may result in local tissue injury due to the vasoconstrictive effect of the VM. However, insertion of CVC is associated with a variety of mechanical complications and risk of central lineassociated bacteremia. To examine the feasibility and safety of using VM via PIV access, we report on the administration of VM in the form of norepinephrine, dopamine, and phenylephrine via PIV access, with the rationale that this would be a method of reducing the need of CVC use. Our hypotheses are that VM via PIV access is both feasible and safe.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

RESULTS

Characteristics of patients who received VM via PIV access are presented in Table 3. During the study period, there were 2462 admissions to the MICU, and 267 CVCs were inserted by the MICU team, 170 of which were triple‐lumen catheters and 97 were large‐gauge catheters for hemodialysis or plasmapheresis. Of the total admissions, 953 cases received VM; 783/953 (82%) received VM via PIV access, and 170/953 received VM via CVC access (18%). For VM use, an 18‐gauge PIV catheter was used in 192/783 (25%), a 20‐gauge catheter was used in 590/783 (75%), and a 22‐gauge catheter was used in 1/783 of interventions. Catheter length was 30 mm, 45 mm, or 48 mm depending on availability. The 22‐gauge catheter, which was a deviation from standard protocol, infiltrated shortly following insertion. We did not formally record the anatomic position of the PIV access in the standard data‐collection sheet; anecdotally, the majority of PIV accesses were placed in the upper arm basilic or cephalic vein. The duration of VM via PIV access was 4922 hours. Central intravenous access was required in 95/734 (13%) of patients who initially had VM via PIV access. These catheters are included in the 170 triple‐lumen CVCs that were inserted by the MICU team during the study period. The type and highest dose of VM administered via PIV access are presented in Table 4.

A total of 734 patients received VM via PIV access during the 20‐month study period; 49 of these patients required 2 or more PIV access insertions, as the initial and/or subsequent site timed out at 72 hours, resulting in a total of 783 separate interventions. Infiltration of the PIV access site occurred in 19/783 (2%) of interventions. All of them were identified by nursing staff with prompt response using local injection of phentolamine and application of nitroglycerin paste at the site of the extravasation. There was no tissue injury at the site of VM extravasation. Sixteen of the extravasations occurred with norepinephrine infusions and 3 with dopamine infusions. There were no infections of the PIV access sites used for VM. Use of phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste was not associated with hypotension, as defined as mean arterial pressure less than 65 mm Hg.

DISCUSSION

Our study demonstrates that administration of VM via PIV access is feasible, carries a low rate of complications, and offers an alternative to CVC access. There are several elements that may have allowed safe use of VM via PIV access. We developed a protocol that involved a multidisciplinary team. The hospital pharmacy performed an extensive literature search and formulated the initial protocol with the MICU attending staff. The protocol was then subjected to iterative process improvement by a hospital committee and nursing leadership in the MICU. Before program rollout, the MICU nursing staff were educated and trained to use the protocol. This was a key component of the program, as the nurses were responsible for many of the line insertions, line maintenance, and identification of infiltration. Although we did not perform any formal measurement of the impact of PIV access use on nursing workflow, we note that leadership and frontline nurses have been enthusiastic about the implementation of VM via PIV access. The MICU housestaff teams were given an in‐service instruction concerning the importance of prompt initiation of local treatment in case of infiltration of the PIV access site. Specific elements of the protocol that may have improved safety were the use of ultrasonography to insert difficult PIV access and confirmation of all PIV access insertions using ultrasonography by the MICU housestaff. The requirement for frequent checks of PIV access function, prompt recognition of infiltration, and specific antidote to extravasation were important elements of safety. The low rate of PIV access extravasation (2%) may be related to the use of ultrasonography to guide PIV access insertion in patients who had challenging anatomy (eg, obesity, edema, recreational drug use, history of multiple PIV insertions), and ultrasonography was used to check that the PIV access was well positioned before VM infusion.

There were early literature reports that subcutaneous extravasation of catecholamines could result in local ischemic injury both in human patients and animal models.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Local phentolamine injection has been identified as a specific antidote to block the local ischemic injury.[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] More recently, there have been anecdotal reports showing that local application of nitroglycerin paste blocks ischemic injury in the pediatric population.[5, 16, 17] With this information, our protocol included the requirement of prompt treatment of local extravasation with phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste at the site of VM via PIV access extravasation. In theory, both phentolamine and nitroglycerin might cause hypotension. In our study, administration of both phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste was not associated with more hypotension nor did it increase requirements for VM.

Multilumen small bore CVCs may be used for several reasons, some of which need to be reconsidered. First, before introduction of the VM via PIV access protocol, a common indication for triple lumen CVC insertion in our MICU was the perception that VM could only be administered through CVC access, for fear of local tissue injury should extravasation of the VM occur through the PIV access site. Our results indicate that VM use is not an automatic indication for CVC insertion. Second, a possible indication for CVC insertion is to measure central venous pressure for the purpose of guiding volume resuscitation in patients with hemodynamic failure. As the utility of central venous pressure monitoring has been called into serious question,[18, 19, 20] we do not consider this indication for CVC use to be valid. Third, CVC access may be required due to anatomic constraints (ie, there is no suitable PIV site). Fourth, there may be need for such a large number of intravenous medications that PIV access cannot support. Fifth, there is occasional situation where the patient requires use of medications where extravasation of PIV access would cause local tissue injury without local antidote (eg, certain chemotherapeutic agents). The continued need for CVC access in some patients is reflected in the finding that 13% of our study patients who received VM via PIV access eventually required triple‐lumen CVC insertion. However, our results indicate that the rate of CVC use may be reduced by using PIV access for VM administration.

Our study has some methodological limitations. Study design was single center and observational. The focus of this study was to examine the safety of VM via PIV access. We cannot comment on its effectiveness, indications, or influence on patient outcome nor on why some patients required CVC insertion whereas others did not. The decision to administer VM was made by the clinical team, as was the route of its administration and concentration, without any input from the investigators. We did not collect data on who performed the PIV access insertion (medical or nursing staff), demographics, and disease characteristics of the CVC group, nor to what extent ultrasonography was used to guide PIV insertion. We did not attempt to define whether there were any factors that identified risk for PIV access extravasation, nor did we evaluate for any differences between the PIV and CVC group in terms of demographics and disease characteristics. Lacking a control group, we cannot say definitively that VM via PIV access is safer than VM via CVC. Being a single‐center study, it is not possible to say that the results are transferable to another clinical environment; this applies particularly to the use of ultrasonography, which is a user‐dependent skill. We cannot determine which, if any, component of the protocol was responsible for the safe use of VM via PIV access. The rate of PIV access extravasation was low, so it is possible that a larger sample size is required to identify incidents of tissue necrosis from extravasation of VM delivered via PIV access despite the use of local antidote.

CONCLUSIONS

The delivery of VM via PIV access is safe and feasible. Tto reduce the risk of extravasation leading to possible local tissue injury, we developed a protocol that emphasized close cooperation between the nursing and medical staff, routine use of ultrasonography, rapid identification of extravasation of the PIV access, and prompt response to local extravasation of VM using phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste. This approach offers a means of reducing CVC use, in both intensive care unit (ICU) and non‐ICU settings, including hospital wards and emergency departments. Clinicians should no longer consider administration of norepinephrine, dopamine, or phenylephrine to be an automatic indication for CVC access. This study focused on the safety of VM administered via PIV access, with emphasis on local complications related to extravasation, and should be considered a preliminary single‐center study that demonstrates that administration of certain vasoactive medications may not universally require central venous access. A broader study regarding assessment of safety and efficacy will require a multicenter design.

Vasoactive medications (VMs) are often required to improve hemodynamic function in patients with shock. They are usually given through central venous catheter (CVC) access, primarily out of concern that extravasation of peripheral intravenous (PIV) access may result in local tissue injury due to the vasoconstrictive effect of the VM. However, insertion of CVC is associated with a variety of mechanical complications and risk of central lineassociated bacteremia. To examine the feasibility and safety of using VM via PIV access, we report on the administration of VM in the form of norepinephrine, dopamine, and phenylephrine via PIV access, with the rationale that this would be a method of reducing the need of CVC use. Our hypotheses are that VM via PIV access is both feasible and safe.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

RESULTS

Characteristics of patients who received VM via PIV access are presented in Table 3. During the study period, there were 2462 admissions to the MICU, and 267 CVCs were inserted by the MICU team, 170 of which were triple‐lumen catheters and 97 were large‐gauge catheters for hemodialysis or plasmapheresis. Of the total admissions, 953 cases received VM; 783/953 (82%) received VM via PIV access, and 170/953 received VM via CVC access (18%). For VM use, an 18‐gauge PIV catheter was used in 192/783 (25%), a 20‐gauge catheter was used in 590/783 (75%), and a 22‐gauge catheter was used in 1/783 of interventions. Catheter length was 30 mm, 45 mm, or 48 mm depending on availability. The 22‐gauge catheter, which was a deviation from standard protocol, infiltrated shortly following insertion. We did not formally record the anatomic position of the PIV access in the standard data‐collection sheet; anecdotally, the majority of PIV accesses were placed in the upper arm basilic or cephalic vein. The duration of VM via PIV access was 4922 hours. Central intravenous access was required in 95/734 (13%) of patients who initially had VM via PIV access. These catheters are included in the 170 triple‐lumen CVCs that were inserted by the MICU team during the study period. The type and highest dose of VM administered via PIV access are presented in Table 4.

A total of 734 patients received VM via PIV access during the 20‐month study period; 49 of these patients required 2 or more PIV access insertions, as the initial and/or subsequent site timed out at 72 hours, resulting in a total of 783 separate interventions. Infiltration of the PIV access site occurred in 19/783 (2%) of interventions. All of them were identified by nursing staff with prompt response using local injection of phentolamine and application of nitroglycerin paste at the site of the extravasation. There was no tissue injury at the site of VM extravasation. Sixteen of the extravasations occurred with norepinephrine infusions and 3 with dopamine infusions. There were no infections of the PIV access sites used for VM. Use of phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste was not associated with hypotension, as defined as mean arterial pressure less than 65 mm Hg.

DISCUSSION

Our study demonstrates that administration of VM via PIV access is feasible, carries a low rate of complications, and offers an alternative to CVC access. There are several elements that may have allowed safe use of VM via PIV access. We developed a protocol that involved a multidisciplinary team. The hospital pharmacy performed an extensive literature search and formulated the initial protocol with the MICU attending staff. The protocol was then subjected to iterative process improvement by a hospital committee and nursing leadership in the MICU. Before program rollout, the MICU nursing staff were educated and trained to use the protocol. This was a key component of the program, as the nurses were responsible for many of the line insertions, line maintenance, and identification of infiltration. Although we did not perform any formal measurement of the impact of PIV access use on nursing workflow, we note that leadership and frontline nurses have been enthusiastic about the implementation of VM via PIV access. The MICU housestaff teams were given an in‐service instruction concerning the importance of prompt initiation of local treatment in case of infiltration of the PIV access site. Specific elements of the protocol that may have improved safety were the use of ultrasonography to insert difficult PIV access and confirmation of all PIV access insertions using ultrasonography by the MICU housestaff. The requirement for frequent checks of PIV access function, prompt recognition of infiltration, and specific antidote to extravasation were important elements of safety. The low rate of PIV access extravasation (2%) may be related to the use of ultrasonography to guide PIV access insertion in patients who had challenging anatomy (eg, obesity, edema, recreational drug use, history of multiple PIV insertions), and ultrasonography was used to check that the PIV access was well positioned before VM infusion.

There were early literature reports that subcutaneous extravasation of catecholamines could result in local ischemic injury both in human patients and animal models.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5] Local phentolamine injection has been identified as a specific antidote to block the local ischemic injury.[6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15] More recently, there have been anecdotal reports showing that local application of nitroglycerin paste blocks ischemic injury in the pediatric population.[5, 16, 17] With this information, our protocol included the requirement of prompt treatment of local extravasation with phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste at the site of VM via PIV access extravasation. In theory, both phentolamine and nitroglycerin might cause hypotension. In our study, administration of both phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste was not associated with more hypotension nor did it increase requirements for VM.

Multilumen small bore CVCs may be used for several reasons, some of which need to be reconsidered. First, before introduction of the VM via PIV access protocol, a common indication for triple lumen CVC insertion in our MICU was the perception that VM could only be administered through CVC access, for fear of local tissue injury should extravasation of the VM occur through the PIV access site. Our results indicate that VM use is not an automatic indication for CVC insertion. Second, a possible indication for CVC insertion is to measure central venous pressure for the purpose of guiding volume resuscitation in patients with hemodynamic failure. As the utility of central venous pressure monitoring has been called into serious question,[18, 19, 20] we do not consider this indication for CVC use to be valid. Third, CVC access may be required due to anatomic constraints (ie, there is no suitable PIV site). Fourth, there may be need for such a large number of intravenous medications that PIV access cannot support. Fifth, there is occasional situation where the patient requires use of medications where extravasation of PIV access would cause local tissue injury without local antidote (eg, certain chemotherapeutic agents). The continued need for CVC access in some patients is reflected in the finding that 13% of our study patients who received VM via PIV access eventually required triple‐lumen CVC insertion. However, our results indicate that the rate of CVC use may be reduced by using PIV access for VM administration.

Our study has some methodological limitations. Study design was single center and observational. The focus of this study was to examine the safety of VM via PIV access. We cannot comment on its effectiveness, indications, or influence on patient outcome nor on why some patients required CVC insertion whereas others did not. The decision to administer VM was made by the clinical team, as was the route of its administration and concentration, without any input from the investigators. We did not collect data on who performed the PIV access insertion (medical or nursing staff), demographics, and disease characteristics of the CVC group, nor to what extent ultrasonography was used to guide PIV insertion. We did not attempt to define whether there were any factors that identified risk for PIV access extravasation, nor did we evaluate for any differences between the PIV and CVC group in terms of demographics and disease characteristics. Lacking a control group, we cannot say definitively that VM via PIV access is safer than VM via CVC. Being a single‐center study, it is not possible to say that the results are transferable to another clinical environment; this applies particularly to the use of ultrasonography, which is a user‐dependent skill. We cannot determine which, if any, component of the protocol was responsible for the safe use of VM via PIV access. The rate of PIV access extravasation was low, so it is possible that a larger sample size is required to identify incidents of tissue necrosis from extravasation of VM delivered via PIV access despite the use of local antidote.

CONCLUSIONS

The delivery of VM via PIV access is safe and feasible. Tto reduce the risk of extravasation leading to possible local tissue injury, we developed a protocol that emphasized close cooperation between the nursing and medical staff, routine use of ultrasonography, rapid identification of extravasation of the PIV access, and prompt response to local extravasation of VM using phentolamine and nitroglycerin paste. This approach offers a means of reducing CVC use, in both intensive care unit (ICU) and non‐ICU settings, including hospital wards and emergency departments. Clinicians should no longer consider administration of norepinephrine, dopamine, or phenylephrine to be an automatic indication for CVC access. This study focused on the safety of VM administered via PIV access, with emphasis on local complications related to extravasation, and should be considered a preliminary single‐center study that demonstrates that administration of certain vasoactive medications may not universally require central venous access. A broader study regarding assessment of safety and efficacy will require a multicenter design.

Handoffs among hospital providers are highly error prone and can result in serious morbidity and mortality. Best practices for verbal handoffs have been described[1, 2, 3, 4] and include conducting verbal handoffs face to face, providing opportunities for questions, having the receiver perform a readback, as well as specific content recommendations including action items. Far less research has focused on best practices for printed handoff documents,[5, 6] despite the routine use of written handoff tools as a reference by on‐call physicians.[7, 8] Erroneous or outdated information on the written handoff can mislead on‐call providers, potentially leading to serious medical errors.

In their most basic form, printed handoff documents list patients for whom a provider is responsible. Typically, they also contain demographic information, reason for hospital admission, and a task list for each patient. They may also contain more detailed information on patient history, hospital course, and/or care plan, and may vary among specialties.[9] They come in various forms, ranging from index cards with handwritten notes, to word‐processor or spreadsheet documents, to printed documents that are autopopulated from the electronic health record (EHR).[2] Importantly, printed handoff documents supplement the verbal handoff by allowing receivers to follow along as patients are presented. The concurrent use of written and verbal handoffs may improve retention of clinical information as compared with either alone.[10, 11]

The Joint Commission requires an institutional approach to patient handoffs.[12] The requirements state that handoff communication solutions should take a standardized form, but they do not provide details regarding what data elements should be included in printed or verbal handoffs. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Common Program Requirements likewise require that residents must become competent in patient handoffs[13] but do not provide specific details or measurement tools. Absent widely accepted guidelines, decisions regarding which elements to include in printed handoff documents are currently made at an individual or institutional level.

The I‐PASS study is a federally funded multi‐institutional project that demonstrated a decrease in medical errors and preventable adverse events after implementation of a standardized resident handoff bundle.[14, 15] The I‐PASS Study Group developed a bundle of handoff interventions, beginning with a handoff and teamwork training program (based in part on TeamSTEPPS [Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety]),[16] a novel verbal mnemonic, I‐PASS (Illness Severity, Patient Summary, Action List, Situation Awareness and Contingency Planning, and Synthesis by Receiver),[17] and changes to the verbal handoff process, in addition to several other elements.

We hypothesized that developing a standardized printed handoff template would reinforce the handoff training and enhance the value of the verbal handoff process changes. Given the paucity of data on best printed handoff practices, however, we first conducted a needs assessment to identify which data elements were currently contained in printed handoffs across sites, and to allow an expert panel to make recommendations for best practices.

METHODS

I‐PASS Study sites included 9 pediatric residency programs at academic medical centers from across North America. Programs were identified through professional networks and invited to participate. The nonintensive care unit hospitalist services at these medical centers are primarily staffed by residents and medical students with attending supervision. At 1 site, nurse practitioners also participate in care. Additional details about study sites can be found in the study descriptions previously published.[14, 15] All sites received local institutional review board approval.

We began by inviting members of the I‐PASS Education Executive Committee (EEC)[14] to build a collective, comprehensive list of possible data elements for printed handoff documents. This committee included pediatric residency program directors, pediatric hospitalists, education researchers, health services researchers, and patient safety experts. We obtained sample handoff documents from pediatric hospitalist services at each of 9 institutions in the United States and Canada (with protected health information redacted). We reviewed these sample handoff documents to characterize their format and to determine what discrete data elements appeared in each site's printed handoff document. Presence or absence of each data element across sites was tabulated. We also queried sites to determine the feasibility of including elements that were not presently included.

Subsequently, I‐PASS site investigators led structured group interviews at participating sites to gather additional information about handoff practices at each site. These structured group interviews included diverse representation from residents, faculty, and residency program leadership, as well as hospitalists and medical students, to ensure the comprehensive acquisition of information regarding site‐specific characteristics. Each group provided answers to a standardized set of open‐ended questions that addressed current practices, handoff education, simulation use, team structure, and the nature of current written handoff tools, if applicable, at each site. One member of the structured group interview served as a scribe and created a document that summarized the content of the structured group interview meeting and answers to the standardized questions.

RESULTS

Nine programs (100%) provided data on the structure and contents of their printed handoff documents. We found wide variation in structure across the 9 sites. Three sites used a word‐processorbased document that required manual entry of all data elements. The other 6 institutions had a direct link with the EHR to enable autopopulation of between 10 and 20 elements on the printed handoff document.

The content of written handoff documents, as well as the sources of data included in them (present or future), likewise varied substantially across sites (Table 1). Only 4 data elements (name, age, weight, and a list of medications) were universally included at all 9 sites. Among the 6 institutions that linked the printed handoff to the EHR, there was also substantial variation in which elements were autoimported. Only 7 elements were universally autoimported at these 6 sites: patient name, medical record number, room number, weight, date of birth, age, and date of admission. Two elements from the original brainstorming were not presently included in any sites' documents (emergency contact and primary language).

Nine institutions (100%) conducted structured group interviews, ranging in size from 4 to 27 individuals with a median of 5 participants. The documents containing information from each site were provided to the authors. The authors then tabulated categorical information, reviewed narrative comments to understand current institutional practices, and conducted simple content analysis to identify areas of concordance or discordance, particularly with respect to data elements and EHR usage. Based on the results of the printed handoff document review and structured group interviews, with additional perspectives provided by the I‐PASS EEC, the expert panel came to consensus on a list of 23 elements that should be included in printed handoff documents, including 15 essential data elements and 8 additional recommended elements (Table 2).

Evidence ratings[19] of these elements are included. Several elements are classified as I‐B (effective, nonrandomized studies) based on either studies of individual elements, or greater than 1 study of bundled elements that could reasonably be extrapolated. These include Illness severity,[20, 21] patient summary,[21, 22] action items[21, 22] (to do lists), situation awareness and contingency plan,[21, 22] and medications[22, 23, 24] with attention to importing from the EHR. Medications entered as free text were classified as IIa‐C because of risk and potential significance of errors; in particular there was concern that transcription errors, errors of omission, or errors of commission could potentially lead to patient harms. The remaining essential elements are classified as I‐C (effective, expert consensus). Of note, date of birth was specifically included as a patient identifier, distinct from age, which was felt to be useful as a descriptor (often within a one‐liner or as part of the patient summary).

The 8 recommended elements were elements for which there was not unanimous agreement on inclusion, but the majority of the panel felt they should be included. These elements were classified as IIa‐C, with 1 exception. Code status generated significant controversy among the group. After extensive discussion among the group and consideration of safety, supervision, educational, and pediatric‐specific considerations, all members of the group agreed on the categorization as a recommended element; it is classified as IIb‐C.

All members of the group agreed that data elements should be directly imported from the EHR whenever possible. Finally, members agreed that the elements that make up the I‐PASS mnemonic (illness severity, patient summary, action items, situation awareness/contingency planning) should be listed in that order whenever possible. A sample I‐PASS‐compliant printed handoff document is shown Figure 1.

Figure 1

DISCUSSION

We identified substantial variability in the structure and content of printed handoff documents used by 9 pediatric hospitalist teaching services, reflective of a lack of standardization. We found that institutional printed handoff documents shared some demographic elements (eg, name, room, medical record number) but also varied in clinical content (eg, vital signs, lab tests, code status). Our expert panel developed a list of 15 essential and 8 recommended data elements for printed handoff documents. Although this is a large number of fields, the majority of the essential fields were already included by most sites, and many are basic demographic identifiers. Illness severity is the 1 essential field that was not routinely included; however, including this type of overview is consistently recommended[2, 4] and supported by evidence,[20, 21] and contributes to building a shared mental model.[16] We recommend the categories of stable/watcher/unstable.[17]

Several prior single‐center studies have found that introducing a printed handoff document can lead to improvements in workflow, communication, and patient safety. In an early study, Petersen et al.[25] showed an association between use of a computerized sign‐out program and reduced odds of preventable adverse events during periods of cross‐coverage. Wayne et al.[26] reported fewer perceived inaccuracies in handoff documents as well as improved clarity at the time of transfer, supporting the role for standardization. Van Eaton et al.[27] demonstrated rapid uptake and desirability of a computerized handoff document, which combined autoimportation of information from an EHR with resident‐entered patient details, reflecting the importance of both data sources. In addition, they demonstrated improvements in both the rounding and sign‐out processes.[28]

Two studies specifically reported the increased use of specific fields after implementation. Payne et al. implemented a Web‐based handoff tool and documented significant increases in the number of handoffs containing problem lists, medication lists, and code status, accompanied by perceived improvements in quality of handoffs and fewer near‐miss events.[24] Starmer et al. found that introduction of a resident handoff bundle that included a printed handoff tool led to reduction in medical errors and adverse events.[22] The study group using the tool populated 11 data elements more often after implementation, and introduction of this printed handoff tool in particular was associated with reductions in written handoff miscommunications. Neither of these studies included subanalysis to indicate which data elements may have been most important.

In contrast to previous single‐institution studies, our recommendations for a printed handoff template come from evaluations of tools and discussions with front line providers across 9 institutions. We had substantial overlap with data elements recommended by Van Eaton et al.[27] However, there were several areas in which we did not have overlap with published templates including weight, ins/outs, primary language, emergency contact information, or primary care provider. Other published handoff tools have been highly specialized (eg, for cardiac intensive care) or included many fewer data elements than our group felt were essential. These differences may reflect the unique aspects of caring for pediatric patients (eg, need for weights) and the absence of defined protocols for many pediatric conditions. In addition, the level of detail needed for contingency planning may vary between teaching and nonteaching services.

Resident physicians may provide valuable information in the development of standardized handoff documents. Clark et al.,[29] at Virginia Mason University, utilized resident‐driven continuous quality improvement processes including real‐time feedback to implement an electronic template. They found that engagement of both senior leaders and front‐line users was an important component of their success in uptake. Our study utilized residents as essential members of structured group interviews to ensure that front‐line users' needs were represented as recommendations for a printed handoff tool template were developed.

As previously described,[17] our study group had identified several key data elements that should be included in verbal handoffs: illness severity, a patient summary, a discrete action list, situation awareness/contingency planning, and a synthesis by receiver. With consideration of the multivoting results as well as known best practices,[1, 4, 12] the expert panel for this study agreed that each of these elements should also be highlighted in the printed template to ensure consistency between the printed document and the verbal handoff, and to have each reinforce the other. On the printed handoff tool, the final S in the I‐PASS mnemonic (synthesis by receiver) cannot be prepopulated, but considering the importance of this step,[16, 30, 31, 32] it should be printed as synthesis by receiver to serve as a text‐reminder to both givers and receivers.

The panel also felt, however, that the printed handoff document should provide additional background information not routinely included in a verbal handoff. It should serve as a reference tool both at the time of verbal handoff and throughout the day and night, and therefore should include more comprehensive information than is necessary or appropriate to convey during the verbal handoff. We identified 10 data elements that are essential in a printed handoff document in addition to the I‐PASS elements (Table 2).

Patient demographic data elements, as well as team assignments and attending physician, were uniformly supported for inclusion. The medication list was viewed as essential; however, the panel also recognized the potential for medical errors due to inaccuracies in the medication list. In particular, there was concern that including all fields of a medication order (drug, dose, route, frequency) would result in handoffs containing a high proportion of inaccurate information, particularly for complex patients whose medication regimens may vary over the course of hospitalization. Therefore, the panel agreed that if medication lists were entered manually, then only the medication name should be included as they did not wish to perpetuate inaccurate or potentially harmful information. If medication lists were autoimported from an EHR, then they should include drug name, dose, route, and frequency if possible.

In the I‐PASS study,[15] all institutions implemented printed handoff documents that included fields for the essential data elements. After implementation, there was a significant increase in completion of all essential fields. Although there is limited evidence to support any individual data element, increased usage of these elements was associated with the overall study finding of decreased rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events.

EHRs have the potential to help standardize printed handoff documents[5, 6, 33, 34, 35]; all participants in our study agreed that printed handoff documents should ideally be linked with the EHR and should autoimport data wherever appropriate. Manually populated (eg, word processor‐ or spreadsheet‐based) handoff tools have important limitations, particularly related to the potential for typographical errors as well as accidental omission of data fields, and lead to unnecessary duplication of work (eg, re‐entering data already included in a progress note) that can waste providers' time. It was also acknowledged that word processor‐ or spreadsheet‐based documents may have flexibility that is lacking in EHR‐based handoff documents. For example, formatting can more easily be adjusted to increase the number of patients per printed page. As technology advances, printed documents may be phased out in favor of EHR‐based on‐screen reports, which by their nature would be more accurate due to real‐time autoupdates.

In making recommendations about essential versus recommended items for inclusion in the printed handoff template, the only data element that generated controversy among our experts was code status. Some felt that it should be included as an essential element, whereas others did not. We believe that this was unique to our practice in pediatric hospital ward settings, as codes in most pediatric ward settings are rare. Among the concerns expressed with including code status for all patients were that residents might assume patients were full‐code without verifying. The potential inaccuracy created by this might have severe implications. Alternatively, residents might feel obligated to have code discussions with all patients regardless of severity of illness, which may be inappropriate in a pediatric population. Several educators expressed concerns about trainees having unsupervised code‐status conversations with families of pediatric patients. Conversely, although codes are rare in pediatric ward settings, concerns were raised that not including code status could be problematic during these rare but critically important events. Other fields, such as weight, might have less relevance for an adult population in which emergency drug doses are standardized.

CONCLUSIONS

In this article we describe the results of a needs assessment that informed expert consensus‐based recommendations for data elements to include in a printed handoff document. We recommend that pediatric programs include the elements identified as part of a standardized written handoff tool. Although many of these elements are also applicable to other specialties, future work should be conducted to adapt the printed handoff document elements described here for use in other specialties and settings. Future studies should work to validate the importance of these elements, studying the manner in which their inclusion affects the quality of written handoffs, and ultimately patient safety.

Handoffs among hospital providers are highly error prone and can result in serious morbidity and mortality. Best practices for verbal handoffs have been described[1, 2, 3, 4] and include conducting verbal handoffs face to face, providing opportunities for questions, having the receiver perform a readback, as well as specific content recommendations including action items. Far less research has focused on best practices for printed handoff documents,[5, 6] despite the routine use of written handoff tools as a reference by on‐call physicians.[7, 8] Erroneous or outdated information on the written handoff can mislead on‐call providers, potentially leading to serious medical errors.

In their most basic form, printed handoff documents list patients for whom a provider is responsible. Typically, they also contain demographic information, reason for hospital admission, and a task list for each patient. They may also contain more detailed information on patient history, hospital course, and/or care plan, and may vary among specialties.[9] They come in various forms, ranging from index cards with handwritten notes, to word‐processor or spreadsheet documents, to printed documents that are autopopulated from the electronic health record (EHR).[2] Importantly, printed handoff documents supplement the verbal handoff by allowing receivers to follow along as patients are presented. The concurrent use of written and verbal handoffs may improve retention of clinical information as compared with either alone.[10, 11]

The Joint Commission requires an institutional approach to patient handoffs.[12] The requirements state that handoff communication solutions should take a standardized form, but they do not provide details regarding what data elements should be included in printed or verbal handoffs. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Common Program Requirements likewise require that residents must become competent in patient handoffs[13] but do not provide specific details or measurement tools. Absent widely accepted guidelines, decisions regarding which elements to include in printed handoff documents are currently made at an individual or institutional level.

The I‐PASS study is a federally funded multi‐institutional project that demonstrated a decrease in medical errors and preventable adverse events after implementation of a standardized resident handoff bundle.[14, 15] The I‐PASS Study Group developed a bundle of handoff interventions, beginning with a handoff and teamwork training program (based in part on TeamSTEPPS [Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety]),[16] a novel verbal mnemonic, I‐PASS (Illness Severity, Patient Summary, Action List, Situation Awareness and Contingency Planning, and Synthesis by Receiver),[17] and changes to the verbal handoff process, in addition to several other elements.

We hypothesized that developing a standardized printed handoff template would reinforce the handoff training and enhance the value of the verbal handoff process changes. Given the paucity of data on best printed handoff practices, however, we first conducted a needs assessment to identify which data elements were currently contained in printed handoffs across sites, and to allow an expert panel to make recommendations for best practices.

METHODS

I‐PASS Study sites included 9 pediatric residency programs at academic medical centers from across North America. Programs were identified through professional networks and invited to participate. The nonintensive care unit hospitalist services at these medical centers are primarily staffed by residents and medical students with attending supervision. At 1 site, nurse practitioners also participate in care. Additional details about study sites can be found in the study descriptions previously published.[14, 15] All sites received local institutional review board approval.

We began by inviting members of the I‐PASS Education Executive Committee (EEC)[14] to build a collective, comprehensive list of possible data elements for printed handoff documents. This committee included pediatric residency program directors, pediatric hospitalists, education researchers, health services researchers, and patient safety experts. We obtained sample handoff documents from pediatric hospitalist services at each of 9 institutions in the United States and Canada (with protected health information redacted). We reviewed these sample handoff documents to characterize their format and to determine what discrete data elements appeared in each site's printed handoff document. Presence or absence of each data element across sites was tabulated. We also queried sites to determine the feasibility of including elements that were not presently included.

Subsequently, I‐PASS site investigators led structured group interviews at participating sites to gather additional information about handoff practices at each site. These structured group interviews included diverse representation from residents, faculty, and residency program leadership, as well as hospitalists and medical students, to ensure the comprehensive acquisition of information regarding site‐specific characteristics. Each group provided answers to a standardized set of open‐ended questions that addressed current practices, handoff education, simulation use, team structure, and the nature of current written handoff tools, if applicable, at each site. One member of the structured group interview served as a scribe and created a document that summarized the content of the structured group interview meeting and answers to the standardized questions.

RESULTS

Nine programs (100%) provided data on the structure and contents of their printed handoff documents. We found wide variation in structure across the 9 sites. Three sites used a word‐processorbased document that required manual entry of all data elements. The other 6 institutions had a direct link with the EHR to enable autopopulation of between 10 and 20 elements on the printed handoff document.

The content of written handoff documents, as well as the sources of data included in them (present or future), likewise varied substantially across sites (Table 1). Only 4 data elements (name, age, weight, and a list of medications) were universally included at all 9 sites. Among the 6 institutions that linked the printed handoff to the EHR, there was also substantial variation in which elements were autoimported. Only 7 elements were universally autoimported at these 6 sites: patient name, medical record number, room number, weight, date of birth, age, and date of admission. Two elements from the original brainstorming were not presently included in any sites' documents (emergency contact and primary language).

Nine institutions (100%) conducted structured group interviews, ranging in size from 4 to 27 individuals with a median of 5 participants. The documents containing information from each site were provided to the authors. The authors then tabulated categorical information, reviewed narrative comments to understand current institutional practices, and conducted simple content analysis to identify areas of concordance or discordance, particularly with respect to data elements and EHR usage. Based on the results of the printed handoff document review and structured group interviews, with additional perspectives provided by the I‐PASS EEC, the expert panel came to consensus on a list of 23 elements that should be included in printed handoff documents, including 15 essential data elements and 8 additional recommended elements (Table 2).

Evidence ratings[19] of these elements are included. Several elements are classified as I‐B (effective, nonrandomized studies) based on either studies of individual elements, or greater than 1 study of bundled elements that could reasonably be extrapolated. These include Illness severity,[20, 21] patient summary,[21, 22] action items[21, 22] (to do lists), situation awareness and contingency plan,[21, 22] and medications[22, 23, 24] with attention to importing from the EHR. Medications entered as free text were classified as IIa‐C because of risk and potential significance of errors; in particular there was concern that transcription errors, errors of omission, or errors of commission could potentially lead to patient harms. The remaining essential elements are classified as I‐C (effective, expert consensus). Of note, date of birth was specifically included as a patient identifier, distinct from age, which was felt to be useful as a descriptor (often within a one‐liner or as part of the patient summary).

The 8 recommended elements were elements for which there was not unanimous agreement on inclusion, but the majority of the panel felt they should be included. These elements were classified as IIa‐C, with 1 exception. Code status generated significant controversy among the group. After extensive discussion among the group and consideration of safety, supervision, educational, and pediatric‐specific considerations, all members of the group agreed on the categorization as a recommended element; it is classified as IIb‐C.

All members of the group agreed that data elements should be directly imported from the EHR whenever possible. Finally, members agreed that the elements that make up the I‐PASS mnemonic (illness severity, patient summary, action items, situation awareness/contingency planning) should be listed in that order whenever possible. A sample I‐PASS‐compliant printed handoff document is shown Figure 1.

Figure 1

DISCUSSION

We identified substantial variability in the structure and content of printed handoff documents used by 9 pediatric hospitalist teaching services, reflective of a lack of standardization. We found that institutional printed handoff documents shared some demographic elements (eg, name, room, medical record number) but also varied in clinical content (eg, vital signs, lab tests, code status). Our expert panel developed a list of 15 essential and 8 recommended data elements for printed handoff documents. Although this is a large number of fields, the majority of the essential fields were already included by most sites, and many are basic demographic identifiers. Illness severity is the 1 essential field that was not routinely included; however, including this type of overview is consistently recommended[2, 4] and supported by evidence,[20, 21] and contributes to building a shared mental model.[16] We recommend the categories of stable/watcher/unstable.[17]

Several prior single‐center studies have found that introducing a printed handoff document can lead to improvements in workflow, communication, and patient safety. In an early study, Petersen et al.[25] showed an association between use of a computerized sign‐out program and reduced odds of preventable adverse events during periods of cross‐coverage. Wayne et al.[26] reported fewer perceived inaccuracies in handoff documents as well as improved clarity at the time of transfer, supporting the role for standardization. Van Eaton et al.[27] demonstrated rapid uptake and desirability of a computerized handoff document, which combined autoimportation of information from an EHR with resident‐entered patient details, reflecting the importance of both data sources. In addition, they demonstrated improvements in both the rounding and sign‐out processes.[28]

Two studies specifically reported the increased use of specific fields after implementation. Payne et al. implemented a Web‐based handoff tool and documented significant increases in the number of handoffs containing problem lists, medication lists, and code status, accompanied by perceived improvements in quality of handoffs and fewer near‐miss events.[24] Starmer et al. found that introduction of a resident handoff bundle that included a printed handoff tool led to reduction in medical errors and adverse events.[22] The study group using the tool populated 11 data elements more often after implementation, and introduction of this printed handoff tool in particular was associated with reductions in written handoff miscommunications. Neither of these studies included subanalysis to indicate which data elements may have been most important.

In contrast to previous single‐institution studies, our recommendations for a printed handoff template come from evaluations of tools and discussions with front line providers across 9 institutions. We had substantial overlap with data elements recommended by Van Eaton et al.[27] However, there were several areas in which we did not have overlap with published templates including weight, ins/outs, primary language, emergency contact information, or primary care provider. Other published handoff tools have been highly specialized (eg, for cardiac intensive care) or included many fewer data elements than our group felt were essential. These differences may reflect the unique aspects of caring for pediatric patients (eg, need for weights) and the absence of defined protocols for many pediatric conditions. In addition, the level of detail needed for contingency planning may vary between teaching and nonteaching services.

Resident physicians may provide valuable information in the development of standardized handoff documents. Clark et al.,[29] at Virginia Mason University, utilized resident‐driven continuous quality improvement processes including real‐time feedback to implement an electronic template. They found that engagement of both senior leaders and front‐line users was an important component of their success in uptake. Our study utilized residents as essential members of structured group interviews to ensure that front‐line users' needs were represented as recommendations for a printed handoff tool template were developed.

As previously described,[17] our study group had identified several key data elements that should be included in verbal handoffs: illness severity, a patient summary, a discrete action list, situation awareness/contingency planning, and a synthesis by receiver. With consideration of the multivoting results as well as known best practices,[1, 4, 12] the expert panel for this study agreed that each of these elements should also be highlighted in the printed template to ensure consistency between the printed document and the verbal handoff, and to have each reinforce the other. On the printed handoff tool, the final S in the I‐PASS mnemonic (synthesis by receiver) cannot be prepopulated, but considering the importance of this step,[16, 30, 31, 32] it should be printed as synthesis by receiver to serve as a text‐reminder to both givers and receivers.

The panel also felt, however, that the printed handoff document should provide additional background information not routinely included in a verbal handoff. It should serve as a reference tool both at the time of verbal handoff and throughout the day and night, and therefore should include more comprehensive information than is necessary or appropriate to convey during the verbal handoff. We identified 10 data elements that are essential in a printed handoff document in addition to the I‐PASS elements (Table 2).

Patient demographic data elements, as well as team assignments and attending physician, were uniformly supported for inclusion. The medication list was viewed as essential; however, the panel also recognized the potential for medical errors due to inaccuracies in the medication list. In particular, there was concern that including all fields of a medication order (drug, dose, route, frequency) would result in handoffs containing a high proportion of inaccurate information, particularly for complex patients whose medication regimens may vary over the course of hospitalization. Therefore, the panel agreed that if medication lists were entered manually, then only the medication name should be included as they did not wish to perpetuate inaccurate or potentially harmful information. If medication lists were autoimported from an EHR, then they should include drug name, dose, route, and frequency if possible.

In the I‐PASS study,[15] all institutions implemented printed handoff documents that included fields for the essential data elements. After implementation, there was a significant increase in completion of all essential fields. Although there is limited evidence to support any individual data element, increased usage of these elements was associated with the overall study finding of decreased rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events.

EHRs have the potential to help standardize printed handoff documents[5, 6, 33, 34, 35]; all participants in our study agreed that printed handoff documents should ideally be linked with the EHR and should autoimport data wherever appropriate. Manually populated (eg, word processor‐ or spreadsheet‐based) handoff tools have important limitations, particularly related to the potential for typographical errors as well as accidental omission of data fields, and lead to unnecessary duplication of work (eg, re‐entering data already included in a progress note) that can waste providers' time. It was also acknowledged that word processor‐ or spreadsheet‐based documents may have flexibility that is lacking in EHR‐based handoff documents. For example, formatting can more easily be adjusted to increase the number of patients per printed page. As technology advances, printed documents may be phased out in favor of EHR‐based on‐screen reports, which by their nature would be more accurate due to real‐time autoupdates.

In making recommendations about essential versus recommended items for inclusion in the printed handoff template, the only data element that generated controversy among our experts was code status. Some felt that it should be included as an essential element, whereas others did not. We believe that this was unique to our practice in pediatric hospital ward settings, as codes in most pediatric ward settings are rare. Among the concerns expressed with including code status for all patients were that residents might assume patients were full‐code without verifying. The potential inaccuracy created by this might have severe implications. Alternatively, residents might feel obligated to have code discussions with all patients regardless of severity of illness, which may be inappropriate in a pediatric population. Several educators expressed concerns about trainees having unsupervised code‐status conversations with families of pediatric patients. Conversely, although codes are rare in pediatric ward settings, concerns were raised that not including code status could be problematic during these rare but critically important events. Other fields, such as weight, might have less relevance for an adult population in which emergency drug doses are standardized.

CONCLUSIONS

In this article we describe the results of a needs assessment that informed expert consensus‐based recommendations for data elements to include in a printed handoff document. We recommend that pediatric programs include the elements identified as part of a standardized written handoff tool. Although many of these elements are also applicable to other specialties, future work should be conducted to adapt the printed handoff document elements described here for use in other specialties and settings. Future studies should work to validate the importance of these elements, studying the manner in which their inclusion affects the quality of written handoffs, and ultimately patient safety.

Handoffs among hospital providers are highly error prone and can result in serious morbidity and mortality. Best practices for verbal handoffs have been described[1, 2, 3, 4] and include conducting verbal handoffs face to face, providing opportunities for questions, having the receiver perform a readback, as well as specific content recommendations including action items. Far less research has focused on best practices for printed handoff documents,[5, 6] despite the routine use of written handoff tools as a reference by on‐call physicians.[7, 8] Erroneous or outdated information on the written handoff can mislead on‐call providers, potentially leading to serious medical errors.

In their most basic form, printed handoff documents list patients for whom a provider is responsible. Typically, they also contain demographic information, reason for hospital admission, and a task list for each patient. They may also contain more detailed information on patient history, hospital course, and/or care plan, and may vary among specialties.[9] They come in various forms, ranging from index cards with handwritten notes, to word‐processor or spreadsheet documents, to printed documents that are autopopulated from the electronic health record (EHR).[2] Importantly, printed handoff documents supplement the verbal handoff by allowing receivers to follow along as patients are presented. The concurrent use of written and verbal handoffs may improve retention of clinical information as compared with either alone.[10, 11]

The Joint Commission requires an institutional approach to patient handoffs.[12] The requirements state that handoff communication solutions should take a standardized form, but they do not provide details regarding what data elements should be included in printed or verbal handoffs. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Common Program Requirements likewise require that residents must become competent in patient handoffs[13] but do not provide specific details or measurement tools. Absent widely accepted guidelines, decisions regarding which elements to include in printed handoff documents are currently made at an individual or institutional level.

The I‐PASS study is a federally funded multi‐institutional project that demonstrated a decrease in medical errors and preventable adverse events after implementation of a standardized resident handoff bundle.[14, 15] The I‐PASS Study Group developed a bundle of handoff interventions, beginning with a handoff and teamwork training program (based in part on TeamSTEPPS [Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety]),[16] a novel verbal mnemonic, I‐PASS (Illness Severity, Patient Summary, Action List, Situation Awareness and Contingency Planning, and Synthesis by Receiver),[17] and changes to the verbal handoff process, in addition to several other elements.

We hypothesized that developing a standardized printed handoff template would reinforce the handoff training and enhance the value of the verbal handoff process changes. Given the paucity of data on best printed handoff practices, however, we first conducted a needs assessment to identify which data elements were currently contained in printed handoffs across sites, and to allow an expert panel to make recommendations for best practices.

METHODS

I‐PASS Study sites included 9 pediatric residency programs at academic medical centers from across North America. Programs were identified through professional networks and invited to participate. The nonintensive care unit hospitalist services at these medical centers are primarily staffed by residents and medical students with attending supervision. At 1 site, nurse practitioners also participate in care. Additional details about study sites can be found in the study descriptions previously published.[14, 15] All sites received local institutional review board approval.

We began by inviting members of the I‐PASS Education Executive Committee (EEC)[14] to build a collective, comprehensive list of possible data elements for printed handoff documents. This committee included pediatric residency program directors, pediatric hospitalists, education researchers, health services researchers, and patient safety experts. We obtained sample handoff documents from pediatric hospitalist services at each of 9 institutions in the United States and Canada (with protected health information redacted). We reviewed these sample handoff documents to characterize their format and to determine what discrete data elements appeared in each site's printed handoff document. Presence or absence of each data element across sites was tabulated. We also queried sites to determine the feasibility of including elements that were not presently included.

Subsequently, I‐PASS site investigators led structured group interviews at participating sites to gather additional information about handoff practices at each site. These structured group interviews included diverse representation from residents, faculty, and residency program leadership, as well as hospitalists and medical students, to ensure the comprehensive acquisition of information regarding site‐specific characteristics. Each group provided answers to a standardized set of open‐ended questions that addressed current practices, handoff education, simulation use, team structure, and the nature of current written handoff tools, if applicable, at each site. One member of the structured group interview served as a scribe and created a document that summarized the content of the structured group interview meeting and answers to the standardized questions.

RESULTS

Nine programs (100%) provided data on the structure and contents of their printed handoff documents. We found wide variation in structure across the 9 sites. Three sites used a word‐processorbased document that required manual entry of all data elements. The other 6 institutions had a direct link with the EHR to enable autopopulation of between 10 and 20 elements on the printed handoff document.

The content of written handoff documents, as well as the sources of data included in them (present or future), likewise varied substantially across sites (Table 1). Only 4 data elements (name, age, weight, and a list of medications) were universally included at all 9 sites. Among the 6 institutions that linked the printed handoff to the EHR, there was also substantial variation in which elements were autoimported. Only 7 elements were universally autoimported at these 6 sites: patient name, medical record number, room number, weight, date of birth, age, and date of admission. Two elements from the original brainstorming were not presently included in any sites' documents (emergency contact and primary language).

Nine institutions (100%) conducted structured group interviews, ranging in size from 4 to 27 individuals with a median of 5 participants. The documents containing information from each site were provided to the authors. The authors then tabulated categorical information, reviewed narrative comments to understand current institutional practices, and conducted simple content analysis to identify areas of concordance or discordance, particularly with respect to data elements and EHR usage. Based on the results of the printed handoff document review and structured group interviews, with additional perspectives provided by the I‐PASS EEC, the expert panel came to consensus on a list of 23 elements that should be included in printed handoff documents, including 15 essential data elements and 8 additional recommended elements (Table 2).

Evidence ratings[19] of these elements are included. Several elements are classified as I‐B (effective, nonrandomized studies) based on either studies of individual elements, or greater than 1 study of bundled elements that could reasonably be extrapolated. These include Illness severity,[20, 21] patient summary,[21, 22] action items[21, 22] (to do lists), situation awareness and contingency plan,[21, 22] and medications[22, 23, 24] with attention to importing from the EHR. Medications entered as free text were classified as IIa‐C because of risk and potential significance of errors; in particular there was concern that transcription errors, errors of omission, or errors of commission could potentially lead to patient harms. The remaining essential elements are classified as I‐C (effective, expert consensus). Of note, date of birth was specifically included as a patient identifier, distinct from age, which was felt to be useful as a descriptor (often within a one‐liner or as part of the patient summary).

The 8 recommended elements were elements for which there was not unanimous agreement on inclusion, but the majority of the panel felt they should be included. These elements were classified as IIa‐C, with 1 exception. Code status generated significant controversy among the group. After extensive discussion among the group and consideration of safety, supervision, educational, and pediatric‐specific considerations, all members of the group agreed on the categorization as a recommended element; it is classified as IIb‐C.

All members of the group agreed that data elements should be directly imported from the EHR whenever possible. Finally, members agreed that the elements that make up the I‐PASS mnemonic (illness severity, patient summary, action items, situation awareness/contingency planning) should be listed in that order whenever possible. A sample I‐PASS‐compliant printed handoff document is shown Figure 1.

Figure 1

DISCUSSION

We identified substantial variability in the structure and content of printed handoff documents used by 9 pediatric hospitalist teaching services, reflective of a lack of standardization. We found that institutional printed handoff documents shared some demographic elements (eg, name, room, medical record number) but also varied in clinical content (eg, vital signs, lab tests, code status). Our expert panel developed a list of 15 essential and 8 recommended data elements for printed handoff documents. Although this is a large number of fields, the majority of the essential fields were already included by most sites, and many are basic demographic identifiers. Illness severity is the 1 essential field that was not routinely included; however, including this type of overview is consistently recommended[2, 4] and supported by evidence,[20, 21] and contributes to building a shared mental model.[16] We recommend the categories of stable/watcher/unstable.[17]

Several prior single‐center studies have found that introducing a printed handoff document can lead to improvements in workflow, communication, and patient safety. In an early study, Petersen et al.[25] showed an association between use of a computerized sign‐out program and reduced odds of preventable adverse events during periods of cross‐coverage. Wayne et al.[26] reported fewer perceived inaccuracies in handoff documents as well as improved clarity at the time of transfer, supporting the role for standardization. Van Eaton et al.[27] demonstrated rapid uptake and desirability of a computerized handoff document, which combined autoimportation of information from an EHR with resident‐entered patient details, reflecting the importance of both data sources. In addition, they demonstrated improvements in both the rounding and sign‐out processes.[28]

Two studies specifically reported the increased use of specific fields after implementation. Payne et al. implemented a Web‐based handoff tool and documented significant increases in the number of handoffs containing problem lists, medication lists, and code status, accompanied by perceived improvements in quality of handoffs and fewer near‐miss events.[24] Starmer et al. found that introduction of a resident handoff bundle that included a printed handoff tool led to reduction in medical errors and adverse events.[22] The study group using the tool populated 11 data elements more often after implementation, and introduction of this printed handoff tool in particular was associated with reductions in written handoff miscommunications. Neither of these studies included subanalysis to indicate which data elements may have been most important.

In contrast to previous single‐institution studies, our recommendations for a printed handoff template come from evaluations of tools and discussions with front line providers across 9 institutions. We had substantial overlap with data elements recommended by Van Eaton et al.[27] However, there were several areas in which we did not have overlap with published templates including weight, ins/outs, primary language, emergency contact information, or primary care provider. Other published handoff tools have been highly specialized (eg, for cardiac intensive care) or included many fewer data elements than our group felt were essential. These differences may reflect the unique aspects of caring for pediatric patients (eg, need for weights) and the absence of defined protocols for many pediatric conditions. In addition, the level of detail needed for contingency planning may vary between teaching and nonteaching services.

Resident physicians may provide valuable information in the development of standardized handoff documents. Clark et al.,[29] at Virginia Mason University, utilized resident‐driven continuous quality improvement processes including real‐time feedback to implement an electronic template. They found that engagement of both senior leaders and front‐line users was an important component of their success in uptake. Our study utilized residents as essential members of structured group interviews to ensure that front‐line users' needs were represented as recommendations for a printed handoff tool template were developed.

As previously described,[17] our study group had identified several key data elements that should be included in verbal handoffs: illness severity, a patient summary, a discrete action list, situation awareness/contingency planning, and a synthesis by receiver. With consideration of the multivoting results as well as known best practices,[1, 4, 12] the expert panel for this study agreed that each of these elements should also be highlighted in the printed template to ensure consistency between the printed document and the verbal handoff, and to have each reinforce the other. On the printed handoff tool, the final S in the I‐PASS mnemonic (synthesis by receiver) cannot be prepopulated, but considering the importance of this step,[16, 30, 31, 32] it should be printed as synthesis by receiver to serve as a text‐reminder to both givers and receivers.

The panel also felt, however, that the printed handoff document should provide additional background information not routinely included in a verbal handoff. It should serve as a reference tool both at the time of verbal handoff and throughout the day and night, and therefore should include more comprehensive information than is necessary or appropriate to convey during the verbal handoff. We identified 10 data elements that are essential in a printed handoff document in addition to the I‐PASS elements (Table 2).

Patient demographic data elements, as well as team assignments and attending physician, were uniformly supported for inclusion. The medication list was viewed as essential; however, the panel also recognized the potential for medical errors due to inaccuracies in the medication list. In particular, there was concern that including all fields of a medication order (drug, dose, route, frequency) would result in handoffs containing a high proportion of inaccurate information, particularly for complex patients whose medication regimens may vary over the course of hospitalization. Therefore, the panel agreed that if medication lists were entered manually, then only the medication name should be included as they did not wish to perpetuate inaccurate or potentially harmful information. If medication lists were autoimported from an EHR, then they should include drug name, dose, route, and frequency if possible.

In the I‐PASS study,[15] all institutions implemented printed handoff documents that included fields for the essential data elements. After implementation, there was a significant increase in completion of all essential fields. Although there is limited evidence to support any individual data element, increased usage of these elements was associated with the overall study finding of decreased rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events.

EHRs have the potential to help standardize printed handoff documents[5, 6, 33, 34, 35]; all participants in our study agreed that printed handoff documents should ideally be linked with the EHR and should autoimport data wherever appropriate. Manually populated (eg, word processor‐ or spreadsheet‐based) handoff tools have important limitations, particularly related to the potential for typographical errors as well as accidental omission of data fields, and lead to unnecessary duplication of work (eg, re‐entering data already included in a progress note) that can waste providers' time. It was also acknowledged that word processor‐ or spreadsheet‐based documents may have flexibility that is lacking in EHR‐based handoff documents. For example, formatting can more easily be adjusted to increase the number of patients per printed page. As technology advances, printed documents may be phased out in favor of EHR‐based on‐screen reports, which by their nature would be more accurate due to real‐time autoupdates.

In making recommendations about essential versus recommended items for inclusion in the printed handoff template, the only data element that generated controversy among our experts was code status. Some felt that it should be included as an essential element, whereas others did not. We believe that this was unique to our practice in pediatric hospital ward settings, as codes in most pediatric ward settings are rare. Among the concerns expressed with including code status for all patients were that residents might assume patients were full‐code without verifying. The potential inaccuracy created by this might have severe implications. Alternatively, residents might feel obligated to have code discussions with all patients regardless of severity of illness, which may be inappropriate in a pediatric population. Several educators expressed concerns about trainees having unsupervised code‐status conversations with families of pediatric patients. Conversely, although codes are rare in pediatric ward settings, concerns were raised that not including code status could be problematic during these rare but critically important events. Other fields, such as weight, might have less relevance for an adult population in which emergency drug doses are standardized.

CONCLUSIONS

In this article we describe the results of a needs assessment that informed expert consensus‐based recommendations for data elements to include in a printed handoff document. We recommend that pediatric programs include the elements identified as part of a standardized written handoff tool. Although many of these elements are also applicable to other specialties, future work should be conducted to adapt the printed handoff document elements described here for use in other specialties and settings. Future studies should work to validate the importance of these elements, studying the manner in which their inclusion affects the quality of written handoffs, and ultimately patient safety.