Health Policy

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and 13 health care systems have signed a pledge for interoperability—to securely share data on veteran health care, regardless of whether it is provided inside the VA or not.

“This pledge will improve veteran health care by giving us seamless, immediate access to a patient’s medical history, which will help us make timely and accurate treatment decisions,” said VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA. “It will also empower VA to send helpful information to our partner health systems that they can then offer to veterans in their care—including information about new benefits we are offering under the PACT Act, no-cost emergency suicide care, and more.”

The pledge will allow the health systems to access local, state, and federal health resources and will provide the VA access to health system clinical and administrative data for quality assessment and care coordination. The pledge signers are committed to developing and providing capabilities that: (1) Accurately identify veterans when they seek care from clinicians in [the signers’] communities; (2) Connect veterans with VA and community resources that promote health and health care—especially VA services that lower veterans’ out-of-pocket expenses; and (3) Responsively and reliably coordinate care for shared patients—including exchanging care information requested and provided.

In addition to helping reduce the financial burden for veterans, the VA says, the information sharing could help clinicians outside the VA system to provide more targeted care: “[I]t will also allow us to send helpful information to our partner health systems that they can then offer to veterans in their care,” Elnahal said, “to include information about new benefits we are offering under the PACT Act and other resources that assist with suicide prevention and identifying social risk factors."

The first pledge partners are Emory Healthcare, Inova, Jefferson Health, Sanford Health, University of California Davis Health, Intermountain Health, Mass General Brigham, Rush Health, Tufts Medicine, Marshfield Clinic, Kaiser Permanente Health Plan and Hospitals, University of Pittsburg Medical Center, and Atrium Health. Any health system or clinician that supports the pledge’s objectives is encouraged to participate, the VA says. Signers have begun work, and aim to provide proof-of-concept in early 2024.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and 13 health care systems have signed a pledge for interoperability—to securely share data on veteran health care, regardless of whether it is provided inside the VA or not.

“This pledge will improve veteran health care by giving us seamless, immediate access to a patient’s medical history, which will help us make timely and accurate treatment decisions,” said VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA. “It will also empower VA to send helpful information to our partner health systems that they can then offer to veterans in their care—including information about new benefits we are offering under the PACT Act, no-cost emergency suicide care, and more.”

The pledge will allow the health systems to access local, state, and federal health resources and will provide the VA access to health system clinical and administrative data for quality assessment and care coordination. The pledge signers are committed to developing and providing capabilities that: (1) Accurately identify veterans when they seek care from clinicians in [the signers’] communities; (2) Connect veterans with VA and community resources that promote health and health care—especially VA services that lower veterans’ out-of-pocket expenses; and (3) Responsively and reliably coordinate care for shared patients—including exchanging care information requested and provided.

In addition to helping reduce the financial burden for veterans, the VA says, the information sharing could help clinicians outside the VA system to provide more targeted care: “[I]t will also allow us to send helpful information to our partner health systems that they can then offer to veterans in their care,” Elnahal said, “to include information about new benefits we are offering under the PACT Act and other resources that assist with suicide prevention and identifying social risk factors."

The first pledge partners are Emory Healthcare, Inova, Jefferson Health, Sanford Health, University of California Davis Health, Intermountain Health, Mass General Brigham, Rush Health, Tufts Medicine, Marshfield Clinic, Kaiser Permanente Health Plan and Hospitals, University of Pittsburg Medical Center, and Atrium Health. Any health system or clinician that supports the pledge’s objectives is encouraged to participate, the VA says. Signers have begun work, and aim to provide proof-of-concept in early 2024.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and 13 health care systems have signed a pledge for interoperability—to securely share data on veteran health care, regardless of whether it is provided inside the VA or not.

“This pledge will improve veteran health care by giving us seamless, immediate access to a patient’s medical history, which will help us make timely and accurate treatment decisions,” said VA Under Secretary for Health Shereef Elnahal, MD, MBA. “It will also empower VA to send helpful information to our partner health systems that they can then offer to veterans in their care—including information about new benefits we are offering under the PACT Act, no-cost emergency suicide care, and more.”

The pledge will allow the health systems to access local, state, and federal health resources and will provide the VA access to health system clinical and administrative data for quality assessment and care coordination. The pledge signers are committed to developing and providing capabilities that: (1) Accurately identify veterans when they seek care from clinicians in [the signers’] communities; (2) Connect veterans with VA and community resources that promote health and health care—especially VA services that lower veterans’ out-of-pocket expenses; and (3) Responsively and reliably coordinate care for shared patients—including exchanging care information requested and provided.

In addition to helping reduce the financial burden for veterans, the VA says, the information sharing could help clinicians outside the VA system to provide more targeted care: “[I]t will also allow us to send helpful information to our partner health systems that they can then offer to veterans in their care,” Elnahal said, “to include information about new benefits we are offering under the PACT Act and other resources that assist with suicide prevention and identifying social risk factors."

The first pledge partners are Emory Healthcare, Inova, Jefferson Health, Sanford Health, University of California Davis Health, Intermountain Health, Mass General Brigham, Rush Health, Tufts Medicine, Marshfield Clinic, Kaiser Permanente Health Plan and Hospitals, University of Pittsburg Medical Center, and Atrium Health. Any health system or clinician that supports the pledge’s objectives is encouraged to participate, the VA says. Signers have begun work, and aim to provide proof-of-concept in early 2024.

From the Division of Hospital Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Drs. Bartlett, Pizanis, Angeli, Lacy, and Rogers), Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Dr. Scott), and University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque (Ms. Baca).

ABSTRACT

Background: Emergency department (ED) crowding is associated with deleterious consequences for patient care and throughput. Admission delays worsen ED crowding. Time to admission (TTA)—the time between an ED admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders—can be shortened through implementation of a triage hospitalist role. Limited research is available highlighting the impact of triage hospitalists on throughput, care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care.

Methods: A triage hospitalist role was piloted and implemented. Run charts were interpreted using accepted rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions. Statistical analysis was applied to interprofessional practice and clinician experience-of-care survey results.

Results: Following implementation, TTA decreased from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Emergency department crowding increased from baseline. The reduction in TTA was associated with decreased time from ED arrival to IM admission request, no change in critical care transfers during the initial 24 hours, and increased admissions to inpatient status. Additionally, decreased TTA was associated with no change in referring hospital transfer rates and no change in hospital medicine length of stay. Interprofessional practice attitudes improved among ED clinicians but not IM clinicians. Clinician experience-of-care results were mixed.

Conclusion: A triage hospitalist role is an effective approach for mitigating admission delays, with no evident adverse clinical consequences. A triage hospitalist alone was incapable of resolving ED crowding issues without a complementary focus on downstream bottlenecks.

Keywords: triage hospitalist, admission delay, quality improvement.

Excess time to admission (TTA), defined as the time between an emergency department (ED) admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders, contributes to ED crowding, which is associated with deleterious impacts on patient care and throughput. Prior research has correlated ED crowding with an increase in length of stay (LOS)^1-3 and total inpatient cost,¹ as well as increased inpatient mortality, higher left-without-being-seen rates,⁴ delays in clinically meaningful care,^5,6 and poor patient and clinician satisfaction.^6,7 While various solutions have been proposed to alleviate ED crowding,⁸ excess TTA is one aspect that IM can directly address.

Like many institutions, ours is challenged by ED crowding. Time to admission is a known bottleneck. Underlying factors that contribute to excess TTA include varied admission request volumes in relation to fixed admitting capacity; learner-focused admitting processes; and unreliable strategies for determining whether patients are eligible for ED observation, transfer to an alternative facility, or admission to an alternative primary service.

To address excess TTA, we piloted then implemented a triage hospitalist role, envisioned as responsible for evaluating ED admission requests to IM, making timely determinations of admission appropriateness, and distributing patients to admitting teams. This intervention was selected because of its strengths, including the ability to standardize admission processes, improve the proximity of clinical decision-makers to patient care to reduce delays, and decrease hierarchical imbalances experienced by trainees, and also because the institution expressed a willingness to mitigate its primary weakness (ie, ongoing financial support for sustainability) should it prove successful.

Previously, a triage hospitalist has been defined as “a physician who assesses patients for admission, actively supporting the transition of the patient from the outpatient to the inpatient setting.”⁹ Velásquez et al surveyed 10 academic medical centers and identified significant heterogeneity in the roles and responsibilities of a triage hospitalist.⁹ Limited research addresses the impact of this role on throughput. One report described the volume and source of requests evaluated by a triage hospitalist and the frequency with which the triage hospitalists’ assessment of admission appropriateness aligned with that of the referring clinicians.¹⁰ No prior research is available demonstrating the impact of this role on care quality, interprofessional practice, or clinician experience of care. This article is intended to address these gaps in the literature.

Methods

Setting

The University of New Mexico Hospital has 537 beds and is the only level-1 trauma and academic medical center in the state. On average, approximately 8000 patients register to be seen in the ED per month. Roughly 600 are admitted to IM per month. This study coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, with low patient volumes in April 2020, overcapacity census starting in May 2020, and markedly high patient volumes in May/June 2020 and November/December 2020. All authors participated in project development, implementation, and analysis.

Preintervention IM Admission Process

When requesting IM admission, ED clinicians (resident, advanced practice provider [APP], or attending) contacted the IM triage person (typically an IM resident physician) by phone or in person. The IM triage person would then assess whether the patient needed critical care consultation (a unique and separate admission pathway), was eligible for ED observation or transfer to an outside hospital, or was clinically appropriate for IM subacute and floor admission. Pending admissions were evaluated in order of severity of illness or based on wait time if severity of illness was equal. Transfers from the intensive care unit (ICU) and referring hospitals were prioritized. Between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, patients were typically evaluated by junior team members, with subsequent presentation to an attending, at which time a final admission decision was made. At night, between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, 2 IM residents managed triage, admissions, and transfers with an on-call attending physician.

Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Key changes made during the pilot included scheduling an IM attending to serve as triage hospitalist for all IM admission requests from the ED between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM; requiring that all IM admission requests be initiated by the ED attending and directed to the triage hospitalist; requiring ED attendings to enter into the electronic medical record (EMR) an admission request order (subsequently referred to as ED admission request [EDAR] order); and encouraging bedside handoffs. Eight pilot shifts were completed in November and December 2019.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Data collected included request type (new vs overflow from night) and patient details (name, medical record number). Two time points were recorded: when the EDAR order was entered and when admission orders were entered. Process indicators, including whether the EDAR order was entered and the final triage decision (eg, discharge, IM), were recorded. General feedback was requested at the end of each shift.

Phased Implementation of Triage Hospitalist Role

Triage hospitalist role implementation was approved following the pilot, with additional salary support funded by the institution. A new performance measure (time from admission request to admission order, self-identified goal < 3 hours) was approved by all parties.

In January 2020, the role was scheduled from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM daily. All hospitalists participated. Based on pilot feedback, IM admission requests could be initiated by an ED attending or an ED APP. In addition to admissions from the ED, the triage hospitalist was tasked with managing ICU, subspecialty, and referring facility transfer requests, as well as staffing some admissions with residents.

In March 2020, to create a single communication pathway while simultaneously hardwiring our measurement strategy, the EDAR order was modified such that it would automatically prompt a 1-way communication to the triage hospitalist using the institution’s secure messaging software. The message included patient name, medical record number, location, ED attending, reason for admission, and consultation priority, as well as 2 questions prompting ED clinicians to reflect on the most common reasons for the triage hospitalist to recommend against IM admission (eligible for admission to other primary service, transfer to alternative hospital).

In July 2020, the triage hospitalist role was scheduled 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to meet an institutional request. The schedule was divided into a daytime 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift, a 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM shift covered by a resident ward team IM attending with additional cross-cover responsibility, and a 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift covered by a nocturnist.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Role

The primary outcome measure was TTA, defined as the time between EDAR (operationalized using EDAR order timestamp) and IM admission decision (operationalized using inpatient bed request order timestamp). Additional outcome measures included the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Electronic Clinical Quality Measure ED-2 (eCQM ED-2), defined as the median time from admit decision to departure from the ED for patients admitted to inpatient status.

Process measures included time between patient arrival to the ED (operationalized using ED registration timestamp) and EDAR and percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order. Balancing measures included time between bed request order (referred to as the IM admission order) and subsequent admission orders. While the IM admission order prompts an inpatient clinical encounter and inpatient bed assignment, subsequent admission orders are necessary for clinical care. Additional balancing measures included ICU transfer rate within the first 24 hours, referring facility transfer frequency to IM (an indicator of access for patients at outside hospitals), average hospital medicine LOS (operationalized using ED registration timestamp to discharge timestamp), and admission status (inpatient vs observation).

An anonymous preintervention (December 2019) and postintervention (August 2020) survey focusing on interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care was used to obtain feedback from ED and IM attendings, APPs, and trainees. Emergency department clinicians were asked questions pertaining to their IM colleagues and vice versa. A Likert 5-point scale was used to respond.

Data Analysis

The preintervention period was June 1, 2019, to October 31, 2019; the pilot period was November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019; the staged implementation period was January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020; and the postintervention period was July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Run charts for outcome, process, and balancing measures were interpreted using rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions.¹¹ Statistical analysis using a t test assuming unequal variances with P < . 05 to indicate statistical significance was applied to experience-of-care results. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

 

 

Results

Triage Hospitalist Pilot Time Period

Seventy-four entries were recorded, 56 (75.7%) reflecting new admission requests. Average time between EDAR order and IM admission order was 40 minutes. The EDAR order was entered into the EMR without prompting in 22 (29.7%) cases. In 56 (75.7%) cases, the final triage decision was IM admission. Other dispositions included 3 discharges, 4 transfers, 3 alternative primary service admissions, 1 ED observation, and 7 triage deferrals pending additional workup or stabilization.

Feedback substantiated several benefits, including improved coordination among IM, ED, and consultant clinicians, as well as early admission of seriously ill patients. Feedback also confirmed several expected challenges, including evidence of communication lapses, difficulty with transfer coordinator integration, difficulty hardwiring elements of the verbal and bedside handoff, and perceived high cognitive load for the triage hospitalist. Several unexpected issues included whether ED APPs can request admission independently and how reconsultation is expected to occur if admission is initially deferred.

Triage Hospitalist Implementation Time Period

Time to admission decreased from a baseline pre-pilot average of 5 hours 19 minutes (median, 4 hours 45 minutes) to a postintervention average of 2 hours 8 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention (Figure 1).

ED-2 increased from a baseline average of 3 hours 40 minutes (median, 2 hours 39 minutes), with a statistically significant upward shift starting in May 2020 (Figure 2). Time between patient arrival to the ED and EDAR order decreased from a baseline average of 8 hours 47 minutes (median, 8 hours 37 minutes) to a postintervention average of 5 hours 57 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention. Percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order increased from a baseline average of 47% (median, 47%) to 97%, with a statistically significant upward shift starting in January 2020 (Figure 3).

There was no change in observed average time between IM admission order and subsequent admission orders pre and post intervention (16 minutes vs 18 minutes). However, there was a statistically significant shift up to an average of 40 minutes from January through June 2020, which then resolved. The percentage of patients transferred to the ICU within 24 hours of admission to IM did not change (1.1% pre vs 1.4% post intervention). Frequency of patients transferred in from a referring facility also did not change (26/month vs 22/month). Average hospital medicine LOS did not change to a statistically significant degree (6.48 days vs 6.62 days). The percentage of inpatient admissions relative to short stays increased from a baseline of 74.0% (median, 73.6%) to a postintervention average of 82.4%, with a statistically significant shift upward starting March 2020.

Regarding interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care, 122 of 309 preintervention surveys (39.5% response rate) and 98 of 309 postintervention surveys (31.7% response rate) were completed. Pre- and postintervention responses were not linked.

Regarding interprofessional practice, EM residents and EM attendings experienced statistically significant improvements in all interprofessional practice domains (Table 1). Emergency medicine APPs experienced statistically significant improvements post intervention with “I am satisfied with the level of communication with IM hospitalist clinicians” and “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are collaborative” and nonstatistically significant improvement in “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are professional” and “IM hospitalist clinicians treat me with respect.” All EM groups experienced a small but not statistically significant worsening for “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care.” Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains. Internal medicine attendings experienced nonstatistically significant improvements for “My interactions with ED clinicians are professional,” “EM clinicians treat me with respect,” and “Interactions with EM clinicians are collaborative,” but a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with level of communication with EM clinicians.” Internal medicine residents experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening in “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care,” while IM attendings experienced a nonstatistically significant improvement.

For clinician experience of care, EM residents (P < .001) and attendings (P < .001) experienced statistically significant improvements in “Patients are well informed and involved in the decision to admit,” whereas IM residents and attendings, as well as EM APPs, experienced nonstatistically significant improvements (Table 2). All groups except IM attendings experienced a statistically significant improvement (IM resident P = .011, EM resident P < .001, EM APP P = .001, EM attending P < .001) in “I believe that my patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Internal medicine attendings felt that this indicator worsened to a nonstatistically significant degree. Post intervention, EM groups experienced a statistically significant worsening in “The process of admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult,” while IM groups experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening.

Discussion

Implementation of the triage hospitalist role led to a significant reduction in average TTA, from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Performance has been sustained at 1 hour 42 minutes on average over the past 6 months. The triage hospitalist was successful at reducing TTA because of their focus on evaluating new admission and transfer requests, deferring other admission responsibilities to on-call admitting teams. Early admission led to no increase in ICU transfers or hospitalist LOS. To ensure that earlier admission reflected improved timeliness of care and that new sources of delay were not being created, we measured the time between IM admission and subsequent admission orders. A statistically significant increase to 40 minutes from January through June 2020 was attributable to the hospitalist acclimating to their new role and the need to standardize workflow. This delay subsequently resolved. An additional benefit of the triage hospitalist was an increase in the proportion of inpatient admissions compared with short stays.

ED-2, an indicator of ED crowding, increased from 3 hours 40 minutes, with a statistically significant upward shift starting May 2020. Increasing ED-2 associated with the triage hospitalist role makes intuitive sense. Patients are admitted 2 hours 40 minutes earlier in their hospital course while downstream bottlenecks preventing patient movement to an inpatient bed remained unchanged. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic complicates interpretation of ED-2 because the measure reflects institutional capacity to match demand for inpatient beds. Fewer ED registrations and lower hospital medicine census (and resulting inpatient bed availability) in April 2020 during the first COVID-19 surge coincided with an ED-2 nadir of 1 hour 46 minutes. The statistically significant upward shift from May onward reflects ongoing and unprecedented patient volumes. It remains difficult to tease apart the presumed lesser contribution of the triage hospitalist role and presumed larger contribution of high patient volumes on ED-2 increases.

An important complementary change was linkage between the EDAR order and our secure messaging software, creating a single source of admission and transfer requests, prompting early ED clinician consideration of factors that could result in alternative disposition, and ensuring a sustainable data source for TTA. The order did not replace direct communication and included guidance for how triage hospitalists should connect with their ED colleagues. Percentage of IM admissions with the EDAR order increased to 97%. Fallouts are attributed to admissions from non-ED sources (eg, referring facility, endoscopy suite transfers). This communication strategy has been expanded as the primary mechanism of initiating consultation requests between IM and all consulting services.

This intervention was successful from the perspective of ED clinicians. Improvements can be attributed to the simplified admission process, timely patient assessment, a perception that patients are better informed of the decision to admit, and the ability to communicate with the triage hospitalist. Emergency medicine APPs may not have experienced similar improvements due to ongoing perceptions of a hierarchical imbalance. Unfortunately, the small but not statistically significant worsening perspective among ED clinicians that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” and the statistically significant worsening perspective that “admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult” may be due to the triage hospitalist responsibility for identifying the roughly 25% of patients who are safe for an alternative disposition.

Internal medicine clinicians experienced no significant changes in attitudes. Underlying causes are likely multifactorial and a focus of ongoing work. Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains, likely because the intervention enabled them to focus on clinical care rather than the administrative tasks and decision-making complexities inherent to the IM admission process. Internal medicine attendings reported a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians,” which is possibly attributable to challenges connecting with ED attendings after being notified that a new admission is pending. Unfortunately, bedside handoff was not hardwired and is done sporadically. Independent of the data, we believe that the triage hospitalist role has facilitated closer ED-IM relationships by aligning clinical priorities, standardizing processes, improving communication, and reducing sources of hierarchical imbalance and conflict. We expected IM attendings and residents to experience some degree of resolution of the perception that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” because of the addition of a dedicated triage role. Our data also suggest that IM attendings are less likely to agree that “patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Both concerns may be linked to the triage hospitalist facing multiple admission and transfer sources with variable arrival rates and variable patient complexity, resulting in high cognitive load and the perception that individual tasks are not completed to the best of their abilities.

To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the impact of the triage hospitalist role on throughput, clinical care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care. In the cross-sectional survey of 10 academic medical centers, 8 had defined triage roles filled by IM attendings, while the remainder had IM attendings supervising trainees.⁹ A complete picture of the prevalence and varying approaches of triage hospitalists models is unknown. Howell et al¹² reported on an approach that reduced admission delays without a resulting increase in mortality or LOS. Our approach differed in several ways, with greater involvement of the triage hospitalist in determining a final admission decision, incorporation of EMR communication, and presence of existing throughput challenges preventing patients from moving seamlessly to an inpatient unit.

Conclusion

We believe this effort was successful for several reasons, including adherence to quality improvement best practices, such as engagement of stakeholders early on, the use of data to inform decision-making, the application of technology to hardwire process, and alignment with institutional priorities. Spread of this intervention will be limited by the financial investment required to start and maintain a triage hospitalist role. A primary limitation of this study is the confounding effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on our analysis. Next steps include identification of clinicians wishing to specialize in triage and expanding triage to include non-IM primary services. Additional research to optimize the triage hospitalist experience of care, as well as to measure improvements in patient-centered outcomes, is necessary.

Corresponding author: Christopher Bartlett, MD, MPH; MSC10 5550, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

From the Division of Hospital Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Drs. Bartlett, Pizanis, Angeli, Lacy, and Rogers), Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Dr. Scott), and University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque (Ms. Baca).

ABSTRACT

Background: Emergency department (ED) crowding is associated with deleterious consequences for patient care and throughput. Admission delays worsen ED crowding. Time to admission (TTA)—the time between an ED admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders—can be shortened through implementation of a triage hospitalist role. Limited research is available highlighting the impact of triage hospitalists on throughput, care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care.

Methods: A triage hospitalist role was piloted and implemented. Run charts were interpreted using accepted rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions. Statistical analysis was applied to interprofessional practice and clinician experience-of-care survey results.

Results: Following implementation, TTA decreased from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Emergency department crowding increased from baseline. The reduction in TTA was associated with decreased time from ED arrival to IM admission request, no change in critical care transfers during the initial 24 hours, and increased admissions to inpatient status. Additionally, decreased TTA was associated with no change in referring hospital transfer rates and no change in hospital medicine length of stay. Interprofessional practice attitudes improved among ED clinicians but not IM clinicians. Clinician experience-of-care results were mixed.

Conclusion: A triage hospitalist role is an effective approach for mitigating admission delays, with no evident adverse clinical consequences. A triage hospitalist alone was incapable of resolving ED crowding issues without a complementary focus on downstream bottlenecks.

Keywords: triage hospitalist, admission delay, quality improvement.

Excess time to admission (TTA), defined as the time between an emergency department (ED) admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders, contributes to ED crowding, which is associated with deleterious impacts on patient care and throughput. Prior research has correlated ED crowding with an increase in length of stay (LOS)^1-3 and total inpatient cost,¹ as well as increased inpatient mortality, higher left-without-being-seen rates,⁴ delays in clinically meaningful care,^5,6 and poor patient and clinician satisfaction.^6,7 While various solutions have been proposed to alleviate ED crowding,⁸ excess TTA is one aspect that IM can directly address.

Like many institutions, ours is challenged by ED crowding. Time to admission is a known bottleneck. Underlying factors that contribute to excess TTA include varied admission request volumes in relation to fixed admitting capacity; learner-focused admitting processes; and unreliable strategies for determining whether patients are eligible for ED observation, transfer to an alternative facility, or admission to an alternative primary service.

To address excess TTA, we piloted then implemented a triage hospitalist role, envisioned as responsible for evaluating ED admission requests to IM, making timely determinations of admission appropriateness, and distributing patients to admitting teams. This intervention was selected because of its strengths, including the ability to standardize admission processes, improve the proximity of clinical decision-makers to patient care to reduce delays, and decrease hierarchical imbalances experienced by trainees, and also because the institution expressed a willingness to mitigate its primary weakness (ie, ongoing financial support for sustainability) should it prove successful.

Previously, a triage hospitalist has been defined as “a physician who assesses patients for admission, actively supporting the transition of the patient from the outpatient to the inpatient setting.”⁹ Velásquez et al surveyed 10 academic medical centers and identified significant heterogeneity in the roles and responsibilities of a triage hospitalist.⁹ Limited research addresses the impact of this role on throughput. One report described the volume and source of requests evaluated by a triage hospitalist and the frequency with which the triage hospitalists’ assessment of admission appropriateness aligned with that of the referring clinicians.¹⁰ No prior research is available demonstrating the impact of this role on care quality, interprofessional practice, or clinician experience of care. This article is intended to address these gaps in the literature.

Methods

Setting

The University of New Mexico Hospital has 537 beds and is the only level-1 trauma and academic medical center in the state. On average, approximately 8000 patients register to be seen in the ED per month. Roughly 600 are admitted to IM per month. This study coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, with low patient volumes in April 2020, overcapacity census starting in May 2020, and markedly high patient volumes in May/June 2020 and November/December 2020. All authors participated in project development, implementation, and analysis.

Preintervention IM Admission Process

When requesting IM admission, ED clinicians (resident, advanced practice provider [APP], or attending) contacted the IM triage person (typically an IM resident physician) by phone or in person. The IM triage person would then assess whether the patient needed critical care consultation (a unique and separate admission pathway), was eligible for ED observation or transfer to an outside hospital, or was clinically appropriate for IM subacute and floor admission. Pending admissions were evaluated in order of severity of illness or based on wait time if severity of illness was equal. Transfers from the intensive care unit (ICU) and referring hospitals were prioritized. Between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, patients were typically evaluated by junior team members, with subsequent presentation to an attending, at which time a final admission decision was made. At night, between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, 2 IM residents managed triage, admissions, and transfers with an on-call attending physician.

Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Key changes made during the pilot included scheduling an IM attending to serve as triage hospitalist for all IM admission requests from the ED between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM; requiring that all IM admission requests be initiated by the ED attending and directed to the triage hospitalist; requiring ED attendings to enter into the electronic medical record (EMR) an admission request order (subsequently referred to as ED admission request [EDAR] order); and encouraging bedside handoffs. Eight pilot shifts were completed in November and December 2019.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Data collected included request type (new vs overflow from night) and patient details (name, medical record number). Two time points were recorded: when the EDAR order was entered and when admission orders were entered. Process indicators, including whether the EDAR order was entered and the final triage decision (eg, discharge, IM), were recorded. General feedback was requested at the end of each shift.

Phased Implementation of Triage Hospitalist Role

Triage hospitalist role implementation was approved following the pilot, with additional salary support funded by the institution. A new performance measure (time from admission request to admission order, self-identified goal < 3 hours) was approved by all parties.

In January 2020, the role was scheduled from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM daily. All hospitalists participated. Based on pilot feedback, IM admission requests could be initiated by an ED attending or an ED APP. In addition to admissions from the ED, the triage hospitalist was tasked with managing ICU, subspecialty, and referring facility transfer requests, as well as staffing some admissions with residents.

In March 2020, to create a single communication pathway while simultaneously hardwiring our measurement strategy, the EDAR order was modified such that it would automatically prompt a 1-way communication to the triage hospitalist using the institution’s secure messaging software. The message included patient name, medical record number, location, ED attending, reason for admission, and consultation priority, as well as 2 questions prompting ED clinicians to reflect on the most common reasons for the triage hospitalist to recommend against IM admission (eligible for admission to other primary service, transfer to alternative hospital).

In July 2020, the triage hospitalist role was scheduled 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to meet an institutional request. The schedule was divided into a daytime 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift, a 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM shift covered by a resident ward team IM attending with additional cross-cover responsibility, and a 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift covered by a nocturnist.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Role

The primary outcome measure was TTA, defined as the time between EDAR (operationalized using EDAR order timestamp) and IM admission decision (operationalized using inpatient bed request order timestamp). Additional outcome measures included the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Electronic Clinical Quality Measure ED-2 (eCQM ED-2), defined as the median time from admit decision to departure from the ED for patients admitted to inpatient status.

Process measures included time between patient arrival to the ED (operationalized using ED registration timestamp) and EDAR and percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order. Balancing measures included time between bed request order (referred to as the IM admission order) and subsequent admission orders. While the IM admission order prompts an inpatient clinical encounter and inpatient bed assignment, subsequent admission orders are necessary for clinical care. Additional balancing measures included ICU transfer rate within the first 24 hours, referring facility transfer frequency to IM (an indicator of access for patients at outside hospitals), average hospital medicine LOS (operationalized using ED registration timestamp to discharge timestamp), and admission status (inpatient vs observation).

An anonymous preintervention (December 2019) and postintervention (August 2020) survey focusing on interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care was used to obtain feedback from ED and IM attendings, APPs, and trainees. Emergency department clinicians were asked questions pertaining to their IM colleagues and vice versa. A Likert 5-point scale was used to respond.

Data Analysis

The preintervention period was June 1, 2019, to October 31, 2019; the pilot period was November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019; the staged implementation period was January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020; and the postintervention period was July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Run charts for outcome, process, and balancing measures were interpreted using rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions.¹¹ Statistical analysis using a t test assuming unequal variances with P < . 05 to indicate statistical significance was applied to experience-of-care results. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

 

 

Results

Triage Hospitalist Pilot Time Period

Seventy-four entries were recorded, 56 (75.7%) reflecting new admission requests. Average time between EDAR order and IM admission order was 40 minutes. The EDAR order was entered into the EMR without prompting in 22 (29.7%) cases. In 56 (75.7%) cases, the final triage decision was IM admission. Other dispositions included 3 discharges, 4 transfers, 3 alternative primary service admissions, 1 ED observation, and 7 triage deferrals pending additional workup or stabilization.

Feedback substantiated several benefits, including improved coordination among IM, ED, and consultant clinicians, as well as early admission of seriously ill patients. Feedback also confirmed several expected challenges, including evidence of communication lapses, difficulty with transfer coordinator integration, difficulty hardwiring elements of the verbal and bedside handoff, and perceived high cognitive load for the triage hospitalist. Several unexpected issues included whether ED APPs can request admission independently and how reconsultation is expected to occur if admission is initially deferred.

Triage Hospitalist Implementation Time Period

Time to admission decreased from a baseline pre-pilot average of 5 hours 19 minutes (median, 4 hours 45 minutes) to a postintervention average of 2 hours 8 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention (Figure 1).

ED-2 increased from a baseline average of 3 hours 40 minutes (median, 2 hours 39 minutes), with a statistically significant upward shift starting in May 2020 (Figure 2). Time between patient arrival to the ED and EDAR order decreased from a baseline average of 8 hours 47 minutes (median, 8 hours 37 minutes) to a postintervention average of 5 hours 57 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention. Percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order increased from a baseline average of 47% (median, 47%) to 97%, with a statistically significant upward shift starting in January 2020 (Figure 3).

There was no change in observed average time between IM admission order and subsequent admission orders pre and post intervention (16 minutes vs 18 minutes). However, there was a statistically significant shift up to an average of 40 minutes from January through June 2020, which then resolved. The percentage of patients transferred to the ICU within 24 hours of admission to IM did not change (1.1% pre vs 1.4% post intervention). Frequency of patients transferred in from a referring facility also did not change (26/month vs 22/month). Average hospital medicine LOS did not change to a statistically significant degree (6.48 days vs 6.62 days). The percentage of inpatient admissions relative to short stays increased from a baseline of 74.0% (median, 73.6%) to a postintervention average of 82.4%, with a statistically significant shift upward starting March 2020.

Regarding interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care, 122 of 309 preintervention surveys (39.5% response rate) and 98 of 309 postintervention surveys (31.7% response rate) were completed. Pre- and postintervention responses were not linked.

Regarding interprofessional practice, EM residents and EM attendings experienced statistically significant improvements in all interprofessional practice domains (Table 1). Emergency medicine APPs experienced statistically significant improvements post intervention with “I am satisfied with the level of communication with IM hospitalist clinicians” and “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are collaborative” and nonstatistically significant improvement in “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are professional” and “IM hospitalist clinicians treat me with respect.” All EM groups experienced a small but not statistically significant worsening for “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care.” Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains. Internal medicine attendings experienced nonstatistically significant improvements for “My interactions with ED clinicians are professional,” “EM clinicians treat me with respect,” and “Interactions with EM clinicians are collaborative,” but a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with level of communication with EM clinicians.” Internal medicine residents experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening in “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care,” while IM attendings experienced a nonstatistically significant improvement.

For clinician experience of care, EM residents (P < .001) and attendings (P < .001) experienced statistically significant improvements in “Patients are well informed and involved in the decision to admit,” whereas IM residents and attendings, as well as EM APPs, experienced nonstatistically significant improvements (Table 2). All groups except IM attendings experienced a statistically significant improvement (IM resident P = .011, EM resident P < .001, EM APP P = .001, EM attending P < .001) in “I believe that my patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Internal medicine attendings felt that this indicator worsened to a nonstatistically significant degree. Post intervention, EM groups experienced a statistically significant worsening in “The process of admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult,” while IM groups experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening.

Discussion

Implementation of the triage hospitalist role led to a significant reduction in average TTA, from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Performance has been sustained at 1 hour 42 minutes on average over the past 6 months. The triage hospitalist was successful at reducing TTA because of their focus on evaluating new admission and transfer requests, deferring other admission responsibilities to on-call admitting teams. Early admission led to no increase in ICU transfers or hospitalist LOS. To ensure that earlier admission reflected improved timeliness of care and that new sources of delay were not being created, we measured the time between IM admission and subsequent admission orders. A statistically significant increase to 40 minutes from January through June 2020 was attributable to the hospitalist acclimating to their new role and the need to standardize workflow. This delay subsequently resolved. An additional benefit of the triage hospitalist was an increase in the proportion of inpatient admissions compared with short stays.

ED-2, an indicator of ED crowding, increased from 3 hours 40 minutes, with a statistically significant upward shift starting May 2020. Increasing ED-2 associated with the triage hospitalist role makes intuitive sense. Patients are admitted 2 hours 40 minutes earlier in their hospital course while downstream bottlenecks preventing patient movement to an inpatient bed remained unchanged. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic complicates interpretation of ED-2 because the measure reflects institutional capacity to match demand for inpatient beds. Fewer ED registrations and lower hospital medicine census (and resulting inpatient bed availability) in April 2020 during the first COVID-19 surge coincided with an ED-2 nadir of 1 hour 46 minutes. The statistically significant upward shift from May onward reflects ongoing and unprecedented patient volumes. It remains difficult to tease apart the presumed lesser contribution of the triage hospitalist role and presumed larger contribution of high patient volumes on ED-2 increases.

An important complementary change was linkage between the EDAR order and our secure messaging software, creating a single source of admission and transfer requests, prompting early ED clinician consideration of factors that could result in alternative disposition, and ensuring a sustainable data source for TTA. The order did not replace direct communication and included guidance for how triage hospitalists should connect with their ED colleagues. Percentage of IM admissions with the EDAR order increased to 97%. Fallouts are attributed to admissions from non-ED sources (eg, referring facility, endoscopy suite transfers). This communication strategy has been expanded as the primary mechanism of initiating consultation requests between IM and all consulting services.

This intervention was successful from the perspective of ED clinicians. Improvements can be attributed to the simplified admission process, timely patient assessment, a perception that patients are better informed of the decision to admit, and the ability to communicate with the triage hospitalist. Emergency medicine APPs may not have experienced similar improvements due to ongoing perceptions of a hierarchical imbalance. Unfortunately, the small but not statistically significant worsening perspective among ED clinicians that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” and the statistically significant worsening perspective that “admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult” may be due to the triage hospitalist responsibility for identifying the roughly 25% of patients who are safe for an alternative disposition.

Internal medicine clinicians experienced no significant changes in attitudes. Underlying causes are likely multifactorial and a focus of ongoing work. Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains, likely because the intervention enabled them to focus on clinical care rather than the administrative tasks and decision-making complexities inherent to the IM admission process. Internal medicine attendings reported a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians,” which is possibly attributable to challenges connecting with ED attendings after being notified that a new admission is pending. Unfortunately, bedside handoff was not hardwired and is done sporadically. Independent of the data, we believe that the triage hospitalist role has facilitated closer ED-IM relationships by aligning clinical priorities, standardizing processes, improving communication, and reducing sources of hierarchical imbalance and conflict. We expected IM attendings and residents to experience some degree of resolution of the perception that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” because of the addition of a dedicated triage role. Our data also suggest that IM attendings are less likely to agree that “patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Both concerns may be linked to the triage hospitalist facing multiple admission and transfer sources with variable arrival rates and variable patient complexity, resulting in high cognitive load and the perception that individual tasks are not completed to the best of their abilities.

To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the impact of the triage hospitalist role on throughput, clinical care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care. In the cross-sectional survey of 10 academic medical centers, 8 had defined triage roles filled by IM attendings, while the remainder had IM attendings supervising trainees.⁹ A complete picture of the prevalence and varying approaches of triage hospitalists models is unknown. Howell et al¹² reported on an approach that reduced admission delays without a resulting increase in mortality or LOS. Our approach differed in several ways, with greater involvement of the triage hospitalist in determining a final admission decision, incorporation of EMR communication, and presence of existing throughput challenges preventing patients from moving seamlessly to an inpatient unit.

Conclusion

We believe this effort was successful for several reasons, including adherence to quality improvement best practices, such as engagement of stakeholders early on, the use of data to inform decision-making, the application of technology to hardwire process, and alignment with institutional priorities. Spread of this intervention will be limited by the financial investment required to start and maintain a triage hospitalist role. A primary limitation of this study is the confounding effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on our analysis. Next steps include identification of clinicians wishing to specialize in triage and expanding triage to include non-IM primary services. Additional research to optimize the triage hospitalist experience of care, as well as to measure improvements in patient-centered outcomes, is necessary.

Corresponding author: Christopher Bartlett, MD, MPH; MSC10 5550, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

From the Division of Hospital Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Drs. Bartlett, Pizanis, Angeli, Lacy, and Rogers), Department of Emergency Medicine, University of New Mexico Hospital, Albuquerque (Dr. Scott), and University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque (Ms. Baca).

ABSTRACT

Background: Emergency department (ED) crowding is associated with deleterious consequences for patient care and throughput. Admission delays worsen ED crowding. Time to admission (TTA)—the time between an ED admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders—can be shortened through implementation of a triage hospitalist role. Limited research is available highlighting the impact of triage hospitalists on throughput, care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care.

Methods: A triage hospitalist role was piloted and implemented. Run charts were interpreted using accepted rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions. Statistical analysis was applied to interprofessional practice and clinician experience-of-care survey results.

Results: Following implementation, TTA decreased from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Emergency department crowding increased from baseline. The reduction in TTA was associated with decreased time from ED arrival to IM admission request, no change in critical care transfers during the initial 24 hours, and increased admissions to inpatient status. Additionally, decreased TTA was associated with no change in referring hospital transfer rates and no change in hospital medicine length of stay. Interprofessional practice attitudes improved among ED clinicians but not IM clinicians. Clinician experience-of-care results were mixed.

Conclusion: A triage hospitalist role is an effective approach for mitigating admission delays, with no evident adverse clinical consequences. A triage hospitalist alone was incapable of resolving ED crowding issues without a complementary focus on downstream bottlenecks.

Keywords: triage hospitalist, admission delay, quality improvement.

Excess time to admission (TTA), defined as the time between an emergency department (ED) admission request and internal medicine (IM) admission orders, contributes to ED crowding, which is associated with deleterious impacts on patient care and throughput. Prior research has correlated ED crowding with an increase in length of stay (LOS)^1-3 and total inpatient cost,¹ as well as increased inpatient mortality, higher left-without-being-seen rates,⁴ delays in clinically meaningful care,^5,6 and poor patient and clinician satisfaction.^6,7 While various solutions have been proposed to alleviate ED crowding,⁸ excess TTA is one aspect that IM can directly address.

Like many institutions, ours is challenged by ED crowding. Time to admission is a known bottleneck. Underlying factors that contribute to excess TTA include varied admission request volumes in relation to fixed admitting capacity; learner-focused admitting processes; and unreliable strategies for determining whether patients are eligible for ED observation, transfer to an alternative facility, or admission to an alternative primary service.

To address excess TTA, we piloted then implemented a triage hospitalist role, envisioned as responsible for evaluating ED admission requests to IM, making timely determinations of admission appropriateness, and distributing patients to admitting teams. This intervention was selected because of its strengths, including the ability to standardize admission processes, improve the proximity of clinical decision-makers to patient care to reduce delays, and decrease hierarchical imbalances experienced by trainees, and also because the institution expressed a willingness to mitigate its primary weakness (ie, ongoing financial support for sustainability) should it prove successful.

Previously, a triage hospitalist has been defined as “a physician who assesses patients for admission, actively supporting the transition of the patient from the outpatient to the inpatient setting.”⁹ Velásquez et al surveyed 10 academic medical centers and identified significant heterogeneity in the roles and responsibilities of a triage hospitalist.⁹ Limited research addresses the impact of this role on throughput. One report described the volume and source of requests evaluated by a triage hospitalist and the frequency with which the triage hospitalists’ assessment of admission appropriateness aligned with that of the referring clinicians.¹⁰ No prior research is available demonstrating the impact of this role on care quality, interprofessional practice, or clinician experience of care. This article is intended to address these gaps in the literature.

Methods

Setting

The University of New Mexico Hospital has 537 beds and is the only level-1 trauma and academic medical center in the state. On average, approximately 8000 patients register to be seen in the ED per month. Roughly 600 are admitted to IM per month. This study coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic, with low patient volumes in April 2020, overcapacity census starting in May 2020, and markedly high patient volumes in May/June 2020 and November/December 2020. All authors participated in project development, implementation, and analysis.

Preintervention IM Admission Process

When requesting IM admission, ED clinicians (resident, advanced practice provider [APP], or attending) contacted the IM triage person (typically an IM resident physician) by phone or in person. The IM triage person would then assess whether the patient needed critical care consultation (a unique and separate admission pathway), was eligible for ED observation or transfer to an outside hospital, or was clinically appropriate for IM subacute and floor admission. Pending admissions were evaluated in order of severity of illness or based on wait time if severity of illness was equal. Transfers from the intensive care unit (ICU) and referring hospitals were prioritized. Between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, patients were typically evaluated by junior team members, with subsequent presentation to an attending, at which time a final admission decision was made. At night, between 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, 2 IM residents managed triage, admissions, and transfers with an on-call attending physician.

Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Key changes made during the pilot included scheduling an IM attending to serve as triage hospitalist for all IM admission requests from the ED between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM; requiring that all IM admission requests be initiated by the ED attending and directed to the triage hospitalist; requiring ED attendings to enter into the electronic medical record (EMR) an admission request order (subsequently referred to as ED admission request [EDAR] order); and encouraging bedside handoffs. Eight pilot shifts were completed in November and December 2019.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Pilot

Data collected included request type (new vs overflow from night) and patient details (name, medical record number). Two time points were recorded: when the EDAR order was entered and when admission orders were entered. Process indicators, including whether the EDAR order was entered and the final triage decision (eg, discharge, IM), were recorded. General feedback was requested at the end of each shift.

Phased Implementation of Triage Hospitalist Role

Triage hospitalist role implementation was approved following the pilot, with additional salary support funded by the institution. A new performance measure (time from admission request to admission order, self-identified goal < 3 hours) was approved by all parties.

In January 2020, the role was scheduled from 7:00 AM to 7:00 PM daily. All hospitalists participated. Based on pilot feedback, IM admission requests could be initiated by an ED attending or an ED APP. In addition to admissions from the ED, the triage hospitalist was tasked with managing ICU, subspecialty, and referring facility transfer requests, as well as staffing some admissions with residents.

In March 2020, to create a single communication pathway while simultaneously hardwiring our measurement strategy, the EDAR order was modified such that it would automatically prompt a 1-way communication to the triage hospitalist using the institution’s secure messaging software. The message included patient name, medical record number, location, ED attending, reason for admission, and consultation priority, as well as 2 questions prompting ED clinicians to reflect on the most common reasons for the triage hospitalist to recommend against IM admission (eligible for admission to other primary service, transfer to alternative hospital).

In July 2020, the triage hospitalist role was scheduled 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to meet an institutional request. The schedule was divided into a daytime 7:00 AM to 3:00 PM shift, a 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM shift covered by a resident ward team IM attending with additional cross-cover responsibility, and a 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM shift covered by a nocturnist.

Measures for Triage Hospitalist Role

The primary outcome measure was TTA, defined as the time between EDAR (operationalized using EDAR order timestamp) and IM admission decision (operationalized using inpatient bed request order timestamp). Additional outcome measures included the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Electronic Clinical Quality Measure ED-2 (eCQM ED-2), defined as the median time from admit decision to departure from the ED for patients admitted to inpatient status.

Process measures included time between patient arrival to the ED (operationalized using ED registration timestamp) and EDAR and percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order. Balancing measures included time between bed request order (referred to as the IM admission order) and subsequent admission orders. While the IM admission order prompts an inpatient clinical encounter and inpatient bed assignment, subsequent admission orders are necessary for clinical care. Additional balancing measures included ICU transfer rate within the first 24 hours, referring facility transfer frequency to IM (an indicator of access for patients at outside hospitals), average hospital medicine LOS (operationalized using ED registration timestamp to discharge timestamp), and admission status (inpatient vs observation).

An anonymous preintervention (December 2019) and postintervention (August 2020) survey focusing on interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care was used to obtain feedback from ED and IM attendings, APPs, and trainees. Emergency department clinicians were asked questions pertaining to their IM colleagues and vice versa. A Likert 5-point scale was used to respond.

Data Analysis

The preintervention period was June 1, 2019, to October 31, 2019; the pilot period was November 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019; the staged implementation period was January 1, 2020, to June 30, 2020; and the postintervention period was July 1, 2020, to December 31, 2020. Run charts for outcome, process, and balancing measures were interpreted using rules for deriving statistically significant conclusions.¹¹ Statistical analysis using a t test assuming unequal variances with P < . 05 to indicate statistical significance was applied to experience-of-care results. The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board.

 

 

Results

Triage Hospitalist Pilot Time Period

Seventy-four entries were recorded, 56 (75.7%) reflecting new admission requests. Average time between EDAR order and IM admission order was 40 minutes. The EDAR order was entered into the EMR without prompting in 22 (29.7%) cases. In 56 (75.7%) cases, the final triage decision was IM admission. Other dispositions included 3 discharges, 4 transfers, 3 alternative primary service admissions, 1 ED observation, and 7 triage deferrals pending additional workup or stabilization.

Feedback substantiated several benefits, including improved coordination among IM, ED, and consultant clinicians, as well as early admission of seriously ill patients. Feedback also confirmed several expected challenges, including evidence of communication lapses, difficulty with transfer coordinator integration, difficulty hardwiring elements of the verbal and bedside handoff, and perceived high cognitive load for the triage hospitalist. Several unexpected issues included whether ED APPs can request admission independently and how reconsultation is expected to occur if admission is initially deferred.

Triage Hospitalist Implementation Time Period

Time to admission decreased from a baseline pre-pilot average of 5 hours 19 minutes (median, 4 hours 45 minutes) to a postintervention average of 2 hours 8 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention (Figure 1).

ED-2 increased from a baseline average of 3 hours 40 minutes (median, 2 hours 39 minutes), with a statistically significant upward shift starting in May 2020 (Figure 2). Time between patient arrival to the ED and EDAR order decreased from a baseline average of 8 hours 47 minutes (median, 8 hours 37 minutes) to a postintervention average of 5 hours 57 minutes, with a statistically significant downward shift post intervention. Percentage of IM admissions with an EDAR order increased from a baseline average of 47% (median, 47%) to 97%, with a statistically significant upward shift starting in January 2020 (Figure 3).

There was no change in observed average time between IM admission order and subsequent admission orders pre and post intervention (16 minutes vs 18 minutes). However, there was a statistically significant shift up to an average of 40 minutes from January through June 2020, which then resolved. The percentage of patients transferred to the ICU within 24 hours of admission to IM did not change (1.1% pre vs 1.4% post intervention). Frequency of patients transferred in from a referring facility also did not change (26/month vs 22/month). Average hospital medicine LOS did not change to a statistically significant degree (6.48 days vs 6.62 days). The percentage of inpatient admissions relative to short stays increased from a baseline of 74.0% (median, 73.6%) to a postintervention average of 82.4%, with a statistically significant shift upward starting March 2020.

Regarding interprofessional practice and clinician experience of care, 122 of 309 preintervention surveys (39.5% response rate) and 98 of 309 postintervention surveys (31.7% response rate) were completed. Pre- and postintervention responses were not linked.

Regarding interprofessional practice, EM residents and EM attendings experienced statistically significant improvements in all interprofessional practice domains (Table 1). Emergency medicine APPs experienced statistically significant improvements post intervention with “I am satisfied with the level of communication with IM hospitalist clinicians” and “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are collaborative” and nonstatistically significant improvement in “Interactions with IM hospitalist clinicians are professional” and “IM hospitalist clinicians treat me with respect.” All EM groups experienced a small but not statistically significant worsening for “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care.” Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains. Internal medicine attendings experienced nonstatistically significant improvements for “My interactions with ED clinicians are professional,” “EM clinicians treat me with respect,” and “Interactions with EM clinicians are collaborative,” but a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with level of communication with EM clinicians.” Internal medicine residents experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening in “Efficiency is more valued than good patient care,” while IM attendings experienced a nonstatistically significant improvement.

For clinician experience of care, EM residents (P < .001) and attendings (P < .001) experienced statistically significant improvements in “Patients are well informed and involved in the decision to admit,” whereas IM residents and attendings, as well as EM APPs, experienced nonstatistically significant improvements (Table 2). All groups except IM attendings experienced a statistically significant improvement (IM resident P = .011, EM resident P < .001, EM APP P = .001, EM attending P < .001) in “I believe that my patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Internal medicine attendings felt that this indicator worsened to a nonstatistically significant degree. Post intervention, EM groups experienced a statistically significant worsening in “The process of admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult,” while IM groups experienced a nonstatistically significant worsening.

Discussion

Implementation of the triage hospitalist role led to a significant reduction in average TTA, from 5 hours 19 minutes to 2 hours 8 minutes. Performance has been sustained at 1 hour 42 minutes on average over the past 6 months. The triage hospitalist was successful at reducing TTA because of their focus on evaluating new admission and transfer requests, deferring other admission responsibilities to on-call admitting teams. Early admission led to no increase in ICU transfers or hospitalist LOS. To ensure that earlier admission reflected improved timeliness of care and that new sources of delay were not being created, we measured the time between IM admission and subsequent admission orders. A statistically significant increase to 40 minutes from January through June 2020 was attributable to the hospitalist acclimating to their new role and the need to standardize workflow. This delay subsequently resolved. An additional benefit of the triage hospitalist was an increase in the proportion of inpatient admissions compared with short stays.

ED-2, an indicator of ED crowding, increased from 3 hours 40 minutes, with a statistically significant upward shift starting May 2020. Increasing ED-2 associated with the triage hospitalist role makes intuitive sense. Patients are admitted 2 hours 40 minutes earlier in their hospital course while downstream bottlenecks preventing patient movement to an inpatient bed remained unchanged. Unfortunately, the COVID-19 pandemic complicates interpretation of ED-2 because the measure reflects institutional capacity to match demand for inpatient beds. Fewer ED registrations and lower hospital medicine census (and resulting inpatient bed availability) in April 2020 during the first COVID-19 surge coincided with an ED-2 nadir of 1 hour 46 minutes. The statistically significant upward shift from May onward reflects ongoing and unprecedented patient volumes. It remains difficult to tease apart the presumed lesser contribution of the triage hospitalist role and presumed larger contribution of high patient volumes on ED-2 increases.

An important complementary change was linkage between the EDAR order and our secure messaging software, creating a single source of admission and transfer requests, prompting early ED clinician consideration of factors that could result in alternative disposition, and ensuring a sustainable data source for TTA. The order did not replace direct communication and included guidance for how triage hospitalists should connect with their ED colleagues. Percentage of IM admissions with the EDAR order increased to 97%. Fallouts are attributed to admissions from non-ED sources (eg, referring facility, endoscopy suite transfers). This communication strategy has been expanded as the primary mechanism of initiating consultation requests between IM and all consulting services.

This intervention was successful from the perspective of ED clinicians. Improvements can be attributed to the simplified admission process, timely patient assessment, a perception that patients are better informed of the decision to admit, and the ability to communicate with the triage hospitalist. Emergency medicine APPs may not have experienced similar improvements due to ongoing perceptions of a hierarchical imbalance. Unfortunately, the small but not statistically significant worsening perspective among ED clinicians that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” and the statistically significant worsening perspective that “admitting patients to a UNM IM hospitalist service is difficult” may be due to the triage hospitalist responsibility for identifying the roughly 25% of patients who are safe for an alternative disposition.

Internal medicine clinicians experienced no significant changes in attitudes. Underlying causes are likely multifactorial and a focus of ongoing work. Internal medicine residents experienced statistically significant improvements for “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians” and nonstatistically significant improvements for the other 3 domains, likely because the intervention enabled them to focus on clinical care rather than the administrative tasks and decision-making complexities inherent to the IM admission process. Internal medicine attendings reported a nonstatistically significant worsening in “I am satisfied with the level of communication with EM clinicians,” which is possibly attributable to challenges connecting with ED attendings after being notified that a new admission is pending. Unfortunately, bedside handoff was not hardwired and is done sporadically. Independent of the data, we believe that the triage hospitalist role has facilitated closer ED-IM relationships by aligning clinical priorities, standardizing processes, improving communication, and reducing sources of hierarchical imbalance and conflict. We expected IM attendings and residents to experience some degree of resolution of the perception that “efficiency is more valued than good patient care” because of the addition of a dedicated triage role. Our data also suggest that IM attendings are less likely to agree that “patients are evaluated and treated within an appropriate time frame.” Both concerns may be linked to the triage hospitalist facing multiple admission and transfer sources with variable arrival rates and variable patient complexity, resulting in high cognitive load and the perception that individual tasks are not completed to the best of their abilities.

To our knowledge, this is the first study assessing the impact of the triage hospitalist role on throughput, clinical care quality, interprofessional practice, and clinician experience of care. In the cross-sectional survey of 10 academic medical centers, 8 had defined triage roles filled by IM attendings, while the remainder had IM attendings supervising trainees.⁹ A complete picture of the prevalence and varying approaches of triage hospitalists models is unknown. Howell et al¹² reported on an approach that reduced admission delays without a resulting increase in mortality or LOS. Our approach differed in several ways, with greater involvement of the triage hospitalist in determining a final admission decision, incorporation of EMR communication, and presence of existing throughput challenges preventing patients from moving seamlessly to an inpatient unit.

Conclusion

We believe this effort was successful for several reasons, including adherence to quality improvement best practices, such as engagement of stakeholders early on, the use of data to inform decision-making, the application of technology to hardwire process, and alignment with institutional priorities. Spread of this intervention will be limited by the financial investment required to start and maintain a triage hospitalist role. A primary limitation of this study is the confounding effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on our analysis. Next steps include identification of clinicians wishing to specialize in triage and expanding triage to include non-IM primary services. Additional research to optimize the triage hospitalist experience of care, as well as to measure improvements in patient-centered outcomes, is necessary.

Corresponding author: Christopher Bartlett, MD, MPH; MSC10 5550, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

From the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, Boston, MA (Dr. Abid); Continuous Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Department, Armed Forces Hospitals Taif Region, Taif, Saudi Arabia (Dr. Abid); Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan (Dr. Ahmed); Infection Prevention and Control Department, Armed Forces Hospitals Taif Region, Taif, Saudi Arabia (Dr. Din); Internal Medicine Department, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, MD (Dr. Abid); Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX (Dr. Ratnani).

Diagnostic errors are defined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) as the failure to either establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient’s health problem(s) or communicate that explanation to the patient.¹ According to a report by the Institute of Medicine, diagnostic errors account for a substantial number of adverse events in health care, affecting an estimated 12 million Americans each year.¹ Diagnostic errors are a common and serious issue in health care systems, with studies estimating that 5% to 15% of all diagnoses are incorrect.¹ Such errors can result in unnecessary treatments, delays in necessary treatments, and harm to patients. The high prevalence of diagnostic errors in primary care has been identified as a global issue.² While many factors contribute to diagnostic errors, the complex nature of health care systems, the limited processing capacity of human cognition, and deficiencies in interpersonal patient-clinician communication are primary contributors.^3,4

Discussions around the redesign of health care systems to reduce diagnostic errors have been at the forefront of medical research for years.^2,4 To decrease diagnostic errors in health care, a comprehensive strategy is necessary. This strategy should focus on utilizing both human experience (HX) in health care and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to transform health care systems into proactive, patient-centered, and safer systems, specifically concerning diagnostic errors.¹

Human Experience and Diagnostic Errors

The role of HX in health care cannot be overstated. The HX in health care integrates the sum of all interactions, every encounter among patients, families and care partners, and the health care workforce.⁵ Patients and their families have a unique perspective on their health care experiences that can provide valuable insight into potential diagnostic errors.⁶ The new definition of diagnostic errors introduced in the 2015 NASEM report emphasized the significance of effective communication during the diagnostic procedure.¹ Engaging patients and their families in the diagnostic process can improve communication, improve diagnostic accuracy, and help to identify errors before they cause harm.⁷ However, many patients and families feel that they are not listened to or taken seriously by health care providers, and may not feel comfortable sharing information that they feel is important.⁸ To address this, health care systems can implement programs that encourage patients and families to be more engaged in the diagnostic process, such as shared decision-making, patient portals, and patient and family advisory councils.⁹ Health care systems must prioritize patient-centered care, teamwork, and communication. Patients and their families must be actively engaged in their care, and health care providers must be willing to work collaboratively and listen to patients’ concerns.^6,10

Health care providers also bring their own valuable experiences and expertise to the diagnostic process, as they are often the ones on the front lines of patient care. However, health care providers may not always feel comfortable reporting errors or near misses, and may not have the time or resources to participate in quality improvement initiatives. To address this, health care systems can implement programs that encourage providers to report errors and near misses, such as anonymous reporting systems, just-culture initiatives, and peer review.¹¹ Creating a culture of teamwork and collaboration among health care providers can improve the accuracy of diagnoses and reduce the risk of errors.¹²

A key factor in utilizing HX to reduce diagnostic errors is effective communication. Communication breakdowns among health care providers, patients, and their families are a common contributing factor resulting in diagnostic errors.² Strategies to improve communication include using clear and concise language, involving patients and their families in the decision-making process, and utilizing electronic health records (EHRs) to ensure that all health care providers have access to relevant, accurate, and up-to-date patient information.^4,13,14

Another important aspect of utilizing HX in health care to reduce diagnostic errors is the need to recognize and address cognitive biases that may influence diagnostic decisions.³ Cognitive biases are common in health care and can lead to errors in diagnosis. For example, confirmation bias, which is the tendency to look for information that confirms preexisting beliefs, can lead providers to overlook important diagnostic information.¹⁵ Biases such as anchoring bias, premature closure, and confirmation bias can lead to incorrect diagnoses and can be difficult to recognize and overcome. Addressing cognitive biases requires a commitment to self-reflection and self-awareness among health care providers as well as structured training of health care providers to improve their diagnostic reasoning skills and reduce the risk of cognitive errors.¹⁵ By implementing these strategies around HX in health care, health care systems can become more patient-centered and reduce the likelihood of diagnostic errors (Figure).

 

 

Artificial Intelligence and Diagnostic Errors

Artificial intelligence has the potential to significantly reduce diagnostic errors in health care (Figure), and its role in health care is rapidly expanding. AI technologies such as machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP) have the potential to significantly reduce diagnostic errors by augmenting human cognition and improving access to relevant patient data.^1,16 Machine learning algorithms can analyze large amounts of patient data sets to identify patterns and risk factors and predict patient outcomes, which can aid health care providers in making accurate diagnoses.¹⁷ Artificial intelligence can also help to address some of the communication breakdowns that contribute to diagnostic errors.¹⁸ Natural language processing can improve the accuracy of EHR documentation and reduce the associated clinician burden, making it easier for providers to access relevant patient information and communicate more effectively with each other.¹⁸

In health care, AI can be used to analyze medical images, laboratory results, genomic data, and EHRs to identify potential diagnoses and flag patients who may be at risk for diagnostic errors. One of the primary benefits of AI in health care is its ability to process large amounts of data quickly and accurately.¹⁹ This can be particularly valuable in diagnosing rare or complex conditions. Machine learning algorithms can analyze patient data to identify subtle patterns that may not be apparent to human providers.¹⁶ This can lead to earlier and more accurate diagnoses, which can reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient outcomes.¹⁷ One example of the application of AI in health care is the use of computer-aided detection (CAD) software to analyze medical images. This software can help radiologists detect abnormalities in medical images that may be missed by the human eye, such as early-stage breast cancer.²⁰ Another example is the use of NLP and ML to analyze unstructured data in EHRs, such as physician notes, to identify potential diagnoses and flag patients who may be at risk for diagnostic errors.²¹ A recent study showed that using NLP on EHRs for screening and detecting individuals at risk for psychosis can considerably enhance the prognostic accuracy of psychosis risk calculators.²² This can help identify patients who require assessment and specialized care, facilitating earlier detection and potentially improving patient outcomes. On the same note, ML-based severe sepsis prediction algorithms have been shown to reduce the average length of stay and in-hospital mortality rate.²³

However, there are also concerns about the use of AI in health care, including the potential for bias and the risk of overreliance on AI. Bias can occur when AI algorithms are trained on data that is not representative of the population being analyzed, leading to inaccurate or unfair results, hence, perpetuating and exacerbating existing biases in health care.²⁴ Over-reliance on AI can occur when health care providers rely too heavily on AI algorithms and fail to consider other important information, such as the lived experience of patients, families, and health care providers. Addressing these concerns will require ongoing efforts to ensure that AI technologies are developed and implemented in an ethical and responsible manner.²⁵

Conclusion

Reducing diagnostic errors is a critical goal for health care systems, and requires a comprehensive approach that utilizes both HX and AI technologies. Engaging patients and their families in the diagnostic process, promoting teamwork and collaboration among health care providers, addressing cognitive biases, and harnessing the power of AI can all contribute to more accurate diagnoses and better patient outcomes. By integrating the lived experience of patients, families, and health care providers with AI technologies, health care systems can be redesigned to become more proactive, safer, and patient-centered in identifying potential health problems and reducing the risk of diagnostic errors, ensuring that patients receive the care they need and deserve.

Corresponding author: Iqbal Ratnani, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, 6565 Fannin St, Houston, TX 77030; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

From the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, Boston, MA (Dr. Abid); Continuous Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Department, Armed Forces Hospitals Taif Region, Taif, Saudi Arabia (Dr. Abid); Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan (Dr. Ahmed); Infection Prevention and Control Department, Armed Forces Hospitals Taif Region, Taif, Saudi Arabia (Dr. Din); Internal Medicine Department, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, MD (Dr. Abid); Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX (Dr. Ratnani).

Diagnostic errors are defined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) as the failure to either establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient’s health problem(s) or communicate that explanation to the patient.¹ According to a report by the Institute of Medicine, diagnostic errors account for a substantial number of adverse events in health care, affecting an estimated 12 million Americans each year.¹ Diagnostic errors are a common and serious issue in health care systems, with studies estimating that 5% to 15% of all diagnoses are incorrect.¹ Such errors can result in unnecessary treatments, delays in necessary treatments, and harm to patients. The high prevalence of diagnostic errors in primary care has been identified as a global issue.² While many factors contribute to diagnostic errors, the complex nature of health care systems, the limited processing capacity of human cognition, and deficiencies in interpersonal patient-clinician communication are primary contributors.^3,4

Discussions around the redesign of health care systems to reduce diagnostic errors have been at the forefront of medical research for years.^2,4 To decrease diagnostic errors in health care, a comprehensive strategy is necessary. This strategy should focus on utilizing both human experience (HX) in health care and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to transform health care systems into proactive, patient-centered, and safer systems, specifically concerning diagnostic errors.¹

Human Experience and Diagnostic Errors

The role of HX in health care cannot be overstated. The HX in health care integrates the sum of all interactions, every encounter among patients, families and care partners, and the health care workforce.⁵ Patients and their families have a unique perspective on their health care experiences that can provide valuable insight into potential diagnostic errors.⁶ The new definition of diagnostic errors introduced in the 2015 NASEM report emphasized the significance of effective communication during the diagnostic procedure.¹ Engaging patients and their families in the diagnostic process can improve communication, improve diagnostic accuracy, and help to identify errors before they cause harm.⁷ However, many patients and families feel that they are not listened to or taken seriously by health care providers, and may not feel comfortable sharing information that they feel is important.⁸ To address this, health care systems can implement programs that encourage patients and families to be more engaged in the diagnostic process, such as shared decision-making, patient portals, and patient and family advisory councils.⁹ Health care systems must prioritize patient-centered care, teamwork, and communication. Patients and their families must be actively engaged in their care, and health care providers must be willing to work collaboratively and listen to patients’ concerns.^6,10

Health care providers also bring their own valuable experiences and expertise to the diagnostic process, as they are often the ones on the front lines of patient care. However, health care providers may not always feel comfortable reporting errors or near misses, and may not have the time or resources to participate in quality improvement initiatives. To address this, health care systems can implement programs that encourage providers to report errors and near misses, such as anonymous reporting systems, just-culture initiatives, and peer review.¹¹ Creating a culture of teamwork and collaboration among health care providers can improve the accuracy of diagnoses and reduce the risk of errors.¹²

A key factor in utilizing HX to reduce diagnostic errors is effective communication. Communication breakdowns among health care providers, patients, and their families are a common contributing factor resulting in diagnostic errors.² Strategies to improve communication include using clear and concise language, involving patients and their families in the decision-making process, and utilizing electronic health records (EHRs) to ensure that all health care providers have access to relevant, accurate, and up-to-date patient information.^4,13,14

Another important aspect of utilizing HX in health care to reduce diagnostic errors is the need to recognize and address cognitive biases that may influence diagnostic decisions.³ Cognitive biases are common in health care and can lead to errors in diagnosis. For example, confirmation bias, which is the tendency to look for information that confirms preexisting beliefs, can lead providers to overlook important diagnostic information.¹⁵ Biases such as anchoring bias, premature closure, and confirmation bias can lead to incorrect diagnoses and can be difficult to recognize and overcome. Addressing cognitive biases requires a commitment to self-reflection and self-awareness among health care providers as well as structured training of health care providers to improve their diagnostic reasoning skills and reduce the risk of cognitive errors.¹⁵ By implementing these strategies around HX in health care, health care systems can become more patient-centered and reduce the likelihood of diagnostic errors (Figure).

 

 

Artificial Intelligence and Diagnostic Errors

Artificial intelligence has the potential to significantly reduce diagnostic errors in health care (Figure), and its role in health care is rapidly expanding. AI technologies such as machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP) have the potential to significantly reduce diagnostic errors by augmenting human cognition and improving access to relevant patient data.^1,16 Machine learning algorithms can analyze large amounts of patient data sets to identify patterns and risk factors and predict patient outcomes, which can aid health care providers in making accurate diagnoses.¹⁷ Artificial intelligence can also help to address some of the communication breakdowns that contribute to diagnostic errors.¹⁸ Natural language processing can improve the accuracy of EHR documentation and reduce the associated clinician burden, making it easier for providers to access relevant patient information and communicate more effectively with each other.¹⁸

In health care, AI can be used to analyze medical images, laboratory results, genomic data, and EHRs to identify potential diagnoses and flag patients who may be at risk for diagnostic errors. One of the primary benefits of AI in health care is its ability to process large amounts of data quickly and accurately.¹⁹ This can be particularly valuable in diagnosing rare or complex conditions. Machine learning algorithms can analyze patient data to identify subtle patterns that may not be apparent to human providers.¹⁶ This can lead to earlier and more accurate diagnoses, which can reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient outcomes.¹⁷ One example of the application of AI in health care is the use of computer-aided detection (CAD) software to analyze medical images. This software can help radiologists detect abnormalities in medical images that may be missed by the human eye, such as early-stage breast cancer.²⁰ Another example is the use of NLP and ML to analyze unstructured data in EHRs, such as physician notes, to identify potential diagnoses and flag patients who may be at risk for diagnostic errors.²¹ A recent study showed that using NLP on EHRs for screening and detecting individuals at risk for psychosis can considerably enhance the prognostic accuracy of psychosis risk calculators.²² This can help identify patients who require assessment and specialized care, facilitating earlier detection and potentially improving patient outcomes. On the same note, ML-based severe sepsis prediction algorithms have been shown to reduce the average length of stay and in-hospital mortality rate.²³

However, there are also concerns about the use of AI in health care, including the potential for bias and the risk of overreliance on AI. Bias can occur when AI algorithms are trained on data that is not representative of the population being analyzed, leading to inaccurate or unfair results, hence, perpetuating and exacerbating existing biases in health care.²⁴ Over-reliance on AI can occur when health care providers rely too heavily on AI algorithms and fail to consider other important information, such as the lived experience of patients, families, and health care providers. Addressing these concerns will require ongoing efforts to ensure that AI technologies are developed and implemented in an ethical and responsible manner.²⁵

Conclusion

Reducing diagnostic errors is a critical goal for health care systems, and requires a comprehensive approach that utilizes both HX and AI technologies. Engaging patients and their families in the diagnostic process, promoting teamwork and collaboration among health care providers, addressing cognitive biases, and harnessing the power of AI can all contribute to more accurate diagnoses and better patient outcomes. By integrating the lived experience of patients, families, and health care providers with AI technologies, health care systems can be redesigned to become more proactive, safer, and patient-centered in identifying potential health problems and reducing the risk of diagnostic errors, ensuring that patients receive the care they need and deserve.

Corresponding author: Iqbal Ratnani, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, 6565 Fannin St, Houston, TX 77030; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

From the Institute for Healthcare Improvement, Boston, MA (Dr. Abid); Continuous Quality Improvement and Patient Safety Department, Armed Forces Hospitals Taif Region, Taif, Saudi Arabia (Dr. Abid); Primary and Secondary Healthcare Department, Government of Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan (Dr. Ahmed); Infection Prevention and Control Department, Armed Forces Hospitals Taif Region, Taif, Saudi Arabia (Dr. Din); Internal Medicine Department, Greater Baltimore Medical Center, Baltimore, MD (Dr. Abid); Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX (Dr. Ratnani).

Diagnostic errors are defined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) as the failure to either establish an accurate and timely explanation of the patient’s health problem(s) or communicate that explanation to the patient.¹ According to a report by the Institute of Medicine, diagnostic errors account for a substantial number of adverse events in health care, affecting an estimated 12 million Americans each year.¹ Diagnostic errors are a common and serious issue in health care systems, with studies estimating that 5% to 15% of all diagnoses are incorrect.¹ Such errors can result in unnecessary treatments, delays in necessary treatments, and harm to patients. The high prevalence of diagnostic errors in primary care has been identified as a global issue.² While many factors contribute to diagnostic errors, the complex nature of health care systems, the limited processing capacity of human cognition, and deficiencies in interpersonal patient-clinician communication are primary contributors.^3,4

Discussions around the redesign of health care systems to reduce diagnostic errors have been at the forefront of medical research for years.^2,4 To decrease diagnostic errors in health care, a comprehensive strategy is necessary. This strategy should focus on utilizing both human experience (HX) in health care and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to transform health care systems into proactive, patient-centered, and safer systems, specifically concerning diagnostic errors.¹

Human Experience and Diagnostic Errors

The role of HX in health care cannot be overstated. The HX in health care integrates the sum of all interactions, every encounter among patients, families and care partners, and the health care workforce.⁵ Patients and their families have a unique perspective on their health care experiences that can provide valuable insight into potential diagnostic errors.⁶ The new definition of diagnostic errors introduced in the 2015 NASEM report emphasized the significance of effective communication during the diagnostic procedure.¹ Engaging patients and their families in the diagnostic process can improve communication, improve diagnostic accuracy, and help to identify errors before they cause harm.⁷ However, many patients and families feel that they are not listened to or taken seriously by health care providers, and may not feel comfortable sharing information that they feel is important.⁸ To address this, health care systems can implement programs that encourage patients and families to be more engaged in the diagnostic process, such as shared decision-making, patient portals, and patient and family advisory councils.⁹ Health care systems must prioritize patient-centered care, teamwork, and communication. Patients and their families must be actively engaged in their care, and health care providers must be willing to work collaboratively and listen to patients’ concerns.^6,10

Health care providers also bring their own valuable experiences and expertise to the diagnostic process, as they are often the ones on the front lines of patient care. However, health care providers may not always feel comfortable reporting errors or near misses, and may not have the time or resources to participate in quality improvement initiatives. To address this, health care systems can implement programs that encourage providers to report errors and near misses, such as anonymous reporting systems, just-culture initiatives, and peer review.¹¹ Creating a culture of teamwork and collaboration among health care providers can improve the accuracy of diagnoses and reduce the risk of errors.¹²

A key factor in utilizing HX to reduce diagnostic errors is effective communication. Communication breakdowns among health care providers, patients, and their families are a common contributing factor resulting in diagnostic errors.² Strategies to improve communication include using clear and concise language, involving patients and their families in the decision-making process, and utilizing electronic health records (EHRs) to ensure that all health care providers have access to relevant, accurate, and up-to-date patient information.^4,13,14

Another important aspect of utilizing HX in health care to reduce diagnostic errors is the need to recognize and address cognitive biases that may influence diagnostic decisions.³ Cognitive biases are common in health care and can lead to errors in diagnosis. For example, confirmation bias, which is the tendency to look for information that confirms preexisting beliefs, can lead providers to overlook important diagnostic information.¹⁵ Biases such as anchoring bias, premature closure, and confirmation bias can lead to incorrect diagnoses and can be difficult to recognize and overcome. Addressing cognitive biases requires a commitment to self-reflection and self-awareness among health care providers as well as structured training of health care providers to improve their diagnostic reasoning skills and reduce the risk of cognitive errors.¹⁵ By implementing these strategies around HX in health care, health care systems can become more patient-centered and reduce the likelihood of diagnostic errors (Figure).

 

 

Artificial Intelligence and Diagnostic Errors

Artificial intelligence has the potential to significantly reduce diagnostic errors in health care (Figure), and its role in health care is rapidly expanding. AI technologies such as machine learning (ML) and natural language processing (NLP) have the potential to significantly reduce diagnostic errors by augmenting human cognition and improving access to relevant patient data.^1,16 Machine learning algorithms can analyze large amounts of patient data sets to identify patterns and risk factors and predict patient outcomes, which can aid health care providers in making accurate diagnoses.¹⁷ Artificial intelligence can also help to address some of the communication breakdowns that contribute to diagnostic errors.¹⁸ Natural language processing can improve the accuracy of EHR documentation and reduce the associated clinician burden, making it easier for providers to access relevant patient information and communicate more effectively with each other.¹⁸

In health care, AI can be used to analyze medical images, laboratory results, genomic data, and EHRs to identify potential diagnoses and flag patients who may be at risk for diagnostic errors. One of the primary benefits of AI in health care is its ability to process large amounts of data quickly and accurately.¹⁹ This can be particularly valuable in diagnosing rare or complex conditions. Machine learning algorithms can analyze patient data to identify subtle patterns that may not be apparent to human providers.¹⁶ This can lead to earlier and more accurate diagnoses, which can reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient outcomes.¹⁷ One example of the application of AI in health care is the use of computer-aided detection (CAD) software to analyze medical images. This software can help radiologists detect abnormalities in medical images that may be missed by the human eye, such as early-stage breast cancer.²⁰ Another example is the use of NLP and ML to analyze unstructured data in EHRs, such as physician notes, to identify potential diagnoses and flag patients who may be at risk for diagnostic errors.²¹ A recent study showed that using NLP on EHRs for screening and detecting individuals at risk for psychosis can considerably enhance the prognostic accuracy of psychosis risk calculators.²² This can help identify patients who require assessment and specialized care, facilitating earlier detection and potentially improving patient outcomes. On the same note, ML-based severe sepsis prediction algorithms have been shown to reduce the average length of stay and in-hospital mortality rate.²³

However, there are also concerns about the use of AI in health care, including the potential for bias and the risk of overreliance on AI. Bias can occur when AI algorithms are trained on data that is not representative of the population being analyzed, leading to inaccurate or unfair results, hence, perpetuating and exacerbating existing biases in health care.²⁴ Over-reliance on AI can occur when health care providers rely too heavily on AI algorithms and fail to consider other important information, such as the lived experience of patients, families, and health care providers. Addressing these concerns will require ongoing efforts to ensure that AI technologies are developed and implemented in an ethical and responsible manner.²⁵

Conclusion

Reducing diagnostic errors is a critical goal for health care systems, and requires a comprehensive approach that utilizes both HX and AI technologies. Engaging patients and their families in the diagnostic process, promoting teamwork and collaboration among health care providers, addressing cognitive biases, and harnessing the power of AI can all contribute to more accurate diagnoses and better patient outcomes. By integrating the lived experience of patients, families, and health care providers with AI technologies, health care systems can be redesigned to become more proactive, safer, and patient-centered in identifying potential health problems and reducing the risk of diagnostic errors, ensuring that patients receive the care they need and deserve.

Corresponding author: Iqbal Ratnani, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, DeBakey Heart and Vascular Center, Houston Methodist Hospital, 6565 Fannin St, Houston, TX 77030; [email protected]

Disclosures: None reported.

As the movement to improve quality in health care has evolved over the past several decades, organizations whose missions focus on supporting and promoting quality in health care have defined essential concepts, standards, and measures that comprise quality and that can be used to guide quality improvement (QI) work. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines quality in clinical care as safe, effective, and people-centered service.¹ These 3 pillars of quality form the foundation of a quality system aiming to deliver health care in a timely, equitable, efficient, and integrated manner. The WHO estimates that 5.7 to 8.4 million deaths occur yearly in low- and middle-income countries due to poor quality care. Regarding safety, patient harm from unsafe care is estimated to be among the top 10 causes of death and disability worldwide.² A health care QI plan involves identifying areas for improvement, setting measurable goals, implementing evidence-based strategies and interventions, monitoring progress toward achieving those goals, and continuously evaluating and adjusting the plan as needed to ensure sustained improvement over time. Such a plan can be implemented at various levels of health care organizations, from individual clinical units to entire hospitals or even regional health care systems.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identifies 5 domains of quality in health care: effectiveness, efficiency, equity, patient-centeredness, and safety.³ Effectiveness relies on providing care processes supported by scientific evidence and achieving desired outcomes in the IOM recommendations. The primary efficiency aim maximizes the quality of health care delivered or the benefits achieved for a given resource unit. Equity relates to providing health care of equal quality to all individuals, regardless of personal characteristics. Moreover, patient-centeredness relates to meeting patients’ needs and preferences and providing education and support. Safety relates to avoiding actual or potential harm. Timeliness relates to obtaining needed care while minimizing delays. Finally, the IOM defines health care quality as the systematic evaluation and provision of evidence-based and safe care characterized by a culture of continuous improvement, resulting in optimal health outcomes. Taking all these concepts into consideration, 4 key attributes have been identified as essential to the global definition of health care quality: effectiveness, safety, culture of continuous improvement, and desired outcomes. This conceptualization of health care quality encompasses the fundamental components and has the potential to enhance the delivery of care. This definition’s theoretical and practical implications provide a comprehensive and consistent understanding of the elements required to improve health care and maintain public trust.

Health care quality is a dynamic, ever-evolving construct that requires continuous assessment and evaluation to ensure the delivery of care meets the changing needs of society. The National Quality Forum’s National Voluntary Consensus Standards for health care provide measures, guidance, and recommendations on achieving effective outcomes through evidence-based practices.⁴ These standards establish criteria by which health care systems and providers can assess and improve their quality performance.

In the United States, in order to implement and disseminate best practices, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed Quality Payment Programs that offer incentives to health care providers to improve the quality of care delivery. This CMS program evaluates providers based on their performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System performance categories.⁵ These include measures related to patient experience, cost, clinical quality, improvement activities, and the use of certified electronic health record technology. The scores that providers receive are used to determine their performance-based reimbursements under Medicare’s fee-for-service program.

The concept of health care quality is also applicable in other countries. In the United Kingdom, QI initiatives are led by the Department of Health and Social Care. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) produces guidelines on best practices to ensure that care delivery meets established safety and quality standards, reaching cost-effectiveness excellence.⁶ In Australia, the Australian Commission on Quality and Safety in Health Care is responsible for setting benchmarks for performance in health care systems through a clear, structured agenda.⁷ Ultimately, health care quality is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires a comprehensive approach to ensure the best outcomes for patients. With the implementation of measures such as the CMS Quality Payment Programs and NICE guidelines, health care organizations can take steps to ensure their systems of care delivery reflect evidence-based practices and demonstrate a commitment to providing high-quality care.

Implementing a health care QI plan that encompasses the 4 key attributes of health care quality—effectiveness, safety, culture of continuous improvement, and desired outcomes—requires collaboration among different departments and stakeholders and a data-driven approach to decision-making. Effective communication with patients and their families is critical to ensuring that their needs are being met and that they are active partners in their health care journey. While a health care QI plan is essential for delivering high-quality, safe patient care, it also helps health care organizations comply with regulatory requirements, meet accreditation standards, and stay competitive in the ever-evolving health care landscape.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH; [email protected]

As the movement to improve quality in health care has evolved over the past several decades, organizations whose missions focus on supporting and promoting quality in health care have defined essential concepts, standards, and measures that comprise quality and that can be used to guide quality improvement (QI) work. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines quality in clinical care as safe, effective, and people-centered service.¹ These 3 pillars of quality form the foundation of a quality system aiming to deliver health care in a timely, equitable, efficient, and integrated manner. The WHO estimates that 5.7 to 8.4 million deaths occur yearly in low- and middle-income countries due to poor quality care. Regarding safety, patient harm from unsafe care is estimated to be among the top 10 causes of death and disability worldwide.² A health care QI plan involves identifying areas for improvement, setting measurable goals, implementing evidence-based strategies and interventions, monitoring progress toward achieving those goals, and continuously evaluating and adjusting the plan as needed to ensure sustained improvement over time. Such a plan can be implemented at various levels of health care organizations, from individual clinical units to entire hospitals or even regional health care systems.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identifies 5 domains of quality in health care: effectiveness, efficiency, equity, patient-centeredness, and safety.³ Effectiveness relies on providing care processes supported by scientific evidence and achieving desired outcomes in the IOM recommendations. The primary efficiency aim maximizes the quality of health care delivered or the benefits achieved for a given resource unit. Equity relates to providing health care of equal quality to all individuals, regardless of personal characteristics. Moreover, patient-centeredness relates to meeting patients’ needs and preferences and providing education and support. Safety relates to avoiding actual or potential harm. Timeliness relates to obtaining needed care while minimizing delays. Finally, the IOM defines health care quality as the systematic evaluation and provision of evidence-based and safe care characterized by a culture of continuous improvement, resulting in optimal health outcomes. Taking all these concepts into consideration, 4 key attributes have been identified as essential to the global definition of health care quality: effectiveness, safety, culture of continuous improvement, and desired outcomes. This conceptualization of health care quality encompasses the fundamental components and has the potential to enhance the delivery of care. This definition’s theoretical and practical implications provide a comprehensive and consistent understanding of the elements required to improve health care and maintain public trust.

Health care quality is a dynamic, ever-evolving construct that requires continuous assessment and evaluation to ensure the delivery of care meets the changing needs of society. The National Quality Forum’s National Voluntary Consensus Standards for health care provide measures, guidance, and recommendations on achieving effective outcomes through evidence-based practices.⁴ These standards establish criteria by which health care systems and providers can assess and improve their quality performance.

In the United States, in order to implement and disseminate best practices, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed Quality Payment Programs that offer incentives to health care providers to improve the quality of care delivery. This CMS program evaluates providers based on their performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System performance categories.⁵ These include measures related to patient experience, cost, clinical quality, improvement activities, and the use of certified electronic health record technology. The scores that providers receive are used to determine their performance-based reimbursements under Medicare’s fee-for-service program.

The concept of health care quality is also applicable in other countries. In the United Kingdom, QI initiatives are led by the Department of Health and Social Care. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) produces guidelines on best practices to ensure that care delivery meets established safety and quality standards, reaching cost-effectiveness excellence.⁶ In Australia, the Australian Commission on Quality and Safety in Health Care is responsible for setting benchmarks for performance in health care systems through a clear, structured agenda.⁷ Ultimately, health care quality is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires a comprehensive approach to ensure the best outcomes for patients. With the implementation of measures such as the CMS Quality Payment Programs and NICE guidelines, health care organizations can take steps to ensure their systems of care delivery reflect evidence-based practices and demonstrate a commitment to providing high-quality care.

Implementing a health care QI plan that encompasses the 4 key attributes of health care quality—effectiveness, safety, culture of continuous improvement, and desired outcomes—requires collaboration among different departments and stakeholders and a data-driven approach to decision-making. Effective communication with patients and their families is critical to ensuring that their needs are being met and that they are active partners in their health care journey. While a health care QI plan is essential for delivering high-quality, safe patient care, it also helps health care organizations comply with regulatory requirements, meet accreditation standards, and stay competitive in the ever-evolving health care landscape.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH; [email protected]

As the movement to improve quality in health care has evolved over the past several decades, organizations whose missions focus on supporting and promoting quality in health care have defined essential concepts, standards, and measures that comprise quality and that can be used to guide quality improvement (QI) work. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines quality in clinical care as safe, effective, and people-centered service.¹ These 3 pillars of quality form the foundation of a quality system aiming to deliver health care in a timely, equitable, efficient, and integrated manner. The WHO estimates that 5.7 to 8.4 million deaths occur yearly in low- and middle-income countries due to poor quality care. Regarding safety, patient harm from unsafe care is estimated to be among the top 10 causes of death and disability worldwide.² A health care QI plan involves identifying areas for improvement, setting measurable goals, implementing evidence-based strategies and interventions, monitoring progress toward achieving those goals, and continuously evaluating and adjusting the plan as needed to ensure sustained improvement over time. Such a plan can be implemented at various levels of health care organizations, from individual clinical units to entire hospitals or even regional health care systems.

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) identifies 5 domains of quality in health care: effectiveness, efficiency, equity, patient-centeredness, and safety.³ Effectiveness relies on providing care processes supported by scientific evidence and achieving desired outcomes in the IOM recommendations. The primary efficiency aim maximizes the quality of health care delivered or the benefits achieved for a given resource unit. Equity relates to providing health care of equal quality to all individuals, regardless of personal characteristics. Moreover, patient-centeredness relates to meeting patients’ needs and preferences and providing education and support. Safety relates to avoiding actual or potential harm. Timeliness relates to obtaining needed care while minimizing delays. Finally, the IOM defines health care quality as the systematic evaluation and provision of evidence-based and safe care characterized by a culture of continuous improvement, resulting in optimal health outcomes. Taking all these concepts into consideration, 4 key attributes have been identified as essential to the global definition of health care quality: effectiveness, safety, culture of continuous improvement, and desired outcomes. This conceptualization of health care quality encompasses the fundamental components and has the potential to enhance the delivery of care. This definition’s theoretical and practical implications provide a comprehensive and consistent understanding of the elements required to improve health care and maintain public trust.

Health care quality is a dynamic, ever-evolving construct that requires continuous assessment and evaluation to ensure the delivery of care meets the changing needs of society. The National Quality Forum’s National Voluntary Consensus Standards for health care provide measures, guidance, and recommendations on achieving effective outcomes through evidence-based practices.⁴ These standards establish criteria by which health care systems and providers can assess and improve their quality performance.

In the United States, in order to implement and disseminate best practices, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) developed Quality Payment Programs that offer incentives to health care providers to improve the quality of care delivery. This CMS program evaluates providers based on their performance in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System performance categories.⁵ These include measures related to patient experience, cost, clinical quality, improvement activities, and the use of certified electronic health record technology. The scores that providers receive are used to determine their performance-based reimbursements under Medicare’s fee-for-service program.

The concept of health care quality is also applicable in other countries. In the United Kingdom, QI initiatives are led by the Department of Health and Social Care. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) produces guidelines on best practices to ensure that care delivery meets established safety and quality standards, reaching cost-effectiveness excellence.⁶ In Australia, the Australian Commission on Quality and Safety in Health Care is responsible for setting benchmarks for performance in health care systems through a clear, structured agenda.⁷ Ultimately, health care quality is a complex and multifaceted issue that requires a comprehensive approach to ensure the best outcomes for patients. With the implementation of measures such as the CMS Quality Payment Programs and NICE guidelines, health care organizations can take steps to ensure their systems of care delivery reflect evidence-based practices and demonstrate a commitment to providing high-quality care.

Implementing a health care QI plan that encompasses the 4 key attributes of health care quality—effectiveness, safety, culture of continuous improvement, and desired outcomes—requires collaboration among different departments and stakeholders and a data-driven approach to decision-making. Effective communication with patients and their families is critical to ensuring that their needs are being met and that they are active partners in their health care journey. While a health care QI plan is essential for delivering high-quality, safe patient care, it also helps health care organizations comply with regulatory requirements, meet accreditation standards, and stay competitive in the ever-evolving health care landscape.

Corresponding author: Ebrahim Barkoudah, MD, MPH; [email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has announced new action to address ongoing concerns about misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose of prescription stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“The current prescribing information for some prescription stimulants does not provide up-to-date warnings about the harms of misuse and abuse, and particularly that most individuals who misuse prescription stimulants get their drugs from other family members or peers,” the FDA said in a drug safety communication.

Going forward, updated drug labels will clearly state that patients should never share their prescription stimulants with anyone, and the boxed warning will describe the risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose consistently for all medicines in the class, the FDA said.

The boxed warning will also advise heath care professionals to monitor patients closely for signs and symptoms of misuse, abuse, and addiction.

Patient medication guides will be updated to educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

The FDA encourages prescribers to assess patient risk of misuse, abuse, and addiction before prescribing a stimulant and to counsel patients not to share the medication.
 

Friends and family

A recent literature review by the FDA found that friends and family members are the most common source of prescription stimulant misuse and abuse (nonmedical use). Estimates of such use range from 56% to 80%.

Misuse/abuse of a patient’s own prescription make up 10%-20% of people who report nonmedical stimulant use.

Less commonly reported sources include drug dealers or strangers (4%-7% of people who report nonmedical use) and the Internet (1%-2%).

The groups at highest risk for misuse/abuse of prescription stimulants are young adults aged 18-25 years, college students, and adolescents and young adults who have been diagnosed with ADHD, the FDA said.

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, prescriptions for stimulants increased 10% among older children and adults.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced new action to address ongoing concerns about misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose of prescription stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“The current prescribing information for some prescription stimulants does not provide up-to-date warnings about the harms of misuse and abuse, and particularly that most individuals who misuse prescription stimulants get their drugs from other family members or peers,” the FDA said in a drug safety communication.

Going forward, updated drug labels will clearly state that patients should never share their prescription stimulants with anyone, and the boxed warning will describe the risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose consistently for all medicines in the class, the FDA said.

The boxed warning will also advise heath care professionals to monitor patients closely for signs and symptoms of misuse, abuse, and addiction.

Patient medication guides will be updated to educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

The FDA encourages prescribers to assess patient risk of misuse, abuse, and addiction before prescribing a stimulant and to counsel patients not to share the medication.
 

Friends and family

A recent literature review by the FDA found that friends and family members are the most common source of prescription stimulant misuse and abuse (nonmedical use). Estimates of such use range from 56% to 80%.

Misuse/abuse of a patient’s own prescription make up 10%-20% of people who report nonmedical stimulant use.

Less commonly reported sources include drug dealers or strangers (4%-7% of people who report nonmedical use) and the Internet (1%-2%).

The groups at highest risk for misuse/abuse of prescription stimulants are young adults aged 18-25 years, college students, and adolescents and young adults who have been diagnosed with ADHD, the FDA said.

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, prescriptions for stimulants increased 10% among older children and adults.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has announced new action to address ongoing concerns about misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose of prescription stimulants used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

“The current prescribing information for some prescription stimulants does not provide up-to-date warnings about the harms of misuse and abuse, and particularly that most individuals who misuse prescription stimulants get their drugs from other family members or peers,” the FDA said in a drug safety communication.

Going forward, updated drug labels will clearly state that patients should never share their prescription stimulants with anyone, and the boxed warning will describe the risks of misuse, abuse, addiction, and overdose consistently for all medicines in the class, the FDA said.

The boxed warning will also advise heath care professionals to monitor patients closely for signs and symptoms of misuse, abuse, and addiction.

Patient medication guides will be updated to educate patients and caregivers about these risks.

The FDA encourages prescribers to assess patient risk of misuse, abuse, and addiction before prescribing a stimulant and to counsel patients not to share the medication.
 

Friends and family

A recent literature review by the FDA found that friends and family members are the most common source of prescription stimulant misuse and abuse (nonmedical use). Estimates of such use range from 56% to 80%.

Misuse/abuse of a patient’s own prescription make up 10%-20% of people who report nonmedical stimulant use.

Less commonly reported sources include drug dealers or strangers (4%-7% of people who report nonmedical use) and the Internet (1%-2%).

The groups at highest risk for misuse/abuse of prescription stimulants are young adults aged 18-25 years, college students, and adolescents and young adults who have been diagnosed with ADHD, the FDA said.

Recent data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, prescriptions for stimulants increased 10% among older children and adults.
 

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the oral medication fezolinetant (Veozah) for the treatment of moderate to severe hot flashes in menopausal women, according to an FDA statement. The approved dose is 45 mg once daily.

Fezolinetant, a neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist, is the first drug of its kind to earn FDA approval for the vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause, according to the statement. The drug works by binding to the NK3 receptor, which plays a role in regulating body temperature, and blocking its activity. Fezolinetant is not a hormone, and can be taken by women for whom hormones are contraindicated, such as those with a history of vaginal bleeding, stroke, heart attack, blood clots, or liver disease, the FDA stated.

The approval was based on data from the SKYLIGHT 2 trial, results of which were presented at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society, reported by this news organization, and published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism.

In the two-phase trial, women were randomized to 30 mg or 45 mg of fezolinetant or a placebo. After 12 weeks, women in placebo groups were rerandomized to fezolinetant for a 40-week safety study.

The study population included women aged 40-65 years, with an average minimum of seven moderate-to-severe hot flashes per day. The study included 120 sites in North America and Europe.

At 12 weeks, both placebo and fezolinetant patients experienced reductions in moderate to severe vasomotor symptoms of approximately 60%, as well as a significant decrease in vasomotor symptom severity.

The FDA statement noted that patients should undergo baseline blood work before starting fezolinetant to test for liver infection or damage, and the prescribing information includes a warning for liver injury; blood work should be repeated at 3, 6, and 9 months after starting the medication, according to the FDA and a press release from the manufacturer Astellas.

The most common side effects associated with fezolinetant include abdominal pain, diarrhea, insomnia, back pain, hot flashes, and elevated liver values, according to the FDA statement. The FDA granted Astellas Pharma’s application a Priority Review designation. Astellas has priced the drug at $550 for a 30-day supply, significantly higher than the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review’s previously recommended range of $2,000 to $2,500 per year.

Full prescribing information is available here.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pegunigalsidase alfa (Elfabrio, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases/Protalix BioTherapeutics), an enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) to treat adults with confirmed Fabry disease.

Fabry disease is a rare inherited X-linked lysosomal disorder caused by a deficiency of the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A (GLA), which leads to the buildup of globotriaosylceramide (GL-3) in blood vessels, kidneys, the heart, nerves, and other organs, increasing the risk for kidney failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and other problems.

Elfabrio delivers a functional version of GLA. It’s given by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks.

Evidence for safety, tolerability, and efficacy of Elfabrio stems from a comprehensive clinical program in more than 140 patients with up to 7.5 years of follow up treatment.

It has been studied in both ERT-naïve and ERT-experienced patients. In one head-to-head trial, Elfabrio was non-inferior in safety and efficacy to agalsidase beta (Fabrazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), the companies said in a press statement announcing approval.

“The totality of clinical data suggests that Elfabrio has the potential to be a long-lasting therapy,” Dror Bashan, president and CEO of Protalix, said in the statement.

Patients treated with Elfabrio have experienced hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. In clinical trials, 20 (14%) patients treated with Elfabrio experienced hypersensitivity reactions; 4 patients (3%) experienced anaphylaxis reactions that occurred within 5-40 minutes of the start of the initial infusion.

Before administering Elfabrio, pretreatment with antihistamines, antipyretics, and/or corticosteroids should be considered, the label advises.

Patients and caregivers should be informed of the signs and symptoms of hypersensitivity reactions and infusion-associated reactions and instructed to seek medical care immediately if such symptoms occur.

A case of membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis with immune depositions in the kidney was reported during clinical trials. Monitoring serum creatinine and urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio is advised. If glomerulonephritis is suspected, treatment should be stopped until a diagnostic evaluation can be conducted.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pegunigalsidase alfa (Elfabrio, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases/Protalix BioTherapeutics), an enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) to treat adults with confirmed Fabry disease.

Fabry disease is a rare inherited X-linked lysosomal disorder caused by a deficiency of the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A (GLA), which leads to the buildup of globotriaosylceramide (GL-3) in blood vessels, kidneys, the heart, nerves, and other organs, increasing the risk for kidney failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and other problems.

Elfabrio delivers a functional version of GLA. It’s given by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks.

Evidence for safety, tolerability, and efficacy of Elfabrio stems from a comprehensive clinical program in more than 140 patients with up to 7.5 years of follow up treatment.

It has been studied in both ERT-naïve and ERT-experienced patients. In one head-to-head trial, Elfabrio was non-inferior in safety and efficacy to agalsidase beta (Fabrazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), the companies said in a press statement announcing approval.

“The totality of clinical data suggests that Elfabrio has the potential to be a long-lasting therapy,” Dror Bashan, president and CEO of Protalix, said in the statement.

Patients treated with Elfabrio have experienced hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. In clinical trials, 20 (14%) patients treated with Elfabrio experienced hypersensitivity reactions; 4 patients (3%) experienced anaphylaxis reactions that occurred within 5-40 minutes of the start of the initial infusion.

Before administering Elfabrio, pretreatment with antihistamines, antipyretics, and/or corticosteroids should be considered, the label advises.

Patients and caregivers should be informed of the signs and symptoms of hypersensitivity reactions and infusion-associated reactions and instructed to seek medical care immediately if such symptoms occur.

A case of membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis with immune depositions in the kidney was reported during clinical trials. Monitoring serum creatinine and urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio is advised. If glomerulonephritis is suspected, treatment should be stopped until a diagnostic evaluation can be conducted.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved pegunigalsidase alfa (Elfabrio, Chiesi Global Rare Diseases/Protalix BioTherapeutics), an enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) to treat adults with confirmed Fabry disease.

Fabry disease is a rare inherited X-linked lysosomal disorder caused by a deficiency of the enzyme alpha-galactosidase A (GLA), which leads to the buildup of globotriaosylceramide (GL-3) in blood vessels, kidneys, the heart, nerves, and other organs, increasing the risk for kidney failure, myocardial infarction, stroke, and other problems.

Elfabrio delivers a functional version of GLA. It’s given by intravenous infusion every 2 weeks.

Evidence for safety, tolerability, and efficacy of Elfabrio stems from a comprehensive clinical program in more than 140 patients with up to 7.5 years of follow up treatment.

It has been studied in both ERT-naïve and ERT-experienced patients. In one head-to-head trial, Elfabrio was non-inferior in safety and efficacy to agalsidase beta (Fabrazyme, Sanofi Genzyme), the companies said in a press statement announcing approval.

“The totality of clinical data suggests that Elfabrio has the potential to be a long-lasting therapy,” Dror Bashan, president and CEO of Protalix, said in the statement.

Patients treated with Elfabrio have experienced hypersensitivity reactions, including anaphylaxis. In clinical trials, 20 (14%) patients treated with Elfabrio experienced hypersensitivity reactions; 4 patients (3%) experienced anaphylaxis reactions that occurred within 5-40 minutes of the start of the initial infusion.

Before administering Elfabrio, pretreatment with antihistamines, antipyretics, and/or corticosteroids should be considered, the label advises.

Patients and caregivers should be informed of the signs and symptoms of hypersensitivity reactions and infusion-associated reactions and instructed to seek medical care immediately if such symptoms occur.

A case of membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis with immune depositions in the kidney was reported during clinical trials. Monitoring serum creatinine and urinary protein-to-creatinine ratio is advised. If glomerulonephritis is suspected, treatment should be stopped until a diagnostic evaluation can be conducted.

Full prescribing information is available online.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti, Otsuka and Lundbeck) for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.

Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.

The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.

The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.

The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti, Otsuka and Lundbeck) for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.

Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.

The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.

The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.

The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the antipsychotic brexpiprazole (Rexulti, Otsuka and Lundbeck) for agitation associated with Alzheimer’s disease (AD), making it the first FDA-approved drug for this indication.

“Agitation is one of the most common and challenging aspects of care among patients with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease,” Tiffany Farchione, MD, director of the division of psychiatry in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a news release.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

Agitation can include symptoms that range from pacing or restlessness to verbal and physical aggression. “These symptoms are leading causes of assisted living or nursing home placement and have been associated with accelerated disease progression,” Dr. Farchione said.

Brexpiprazole was approved by the FDA in 2015 as an adjunctive therapy to antidepressants for adults with major depressive disorder and for adults with schizophrenia.

Approval of the supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation associated with AD dementia was based on results of two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies.

In both studies, patients who received 2 mg or 3 mg of brexpiprazole showed statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in agitation symptoms, as shown by total Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI) score, compared with patients who received placebo.

The recommended starting dosage for the treatment of agitation associated with AD dementia is 0.5 mg once daily on days 1-7; it was increased to 1 mg once daily on days 8-14 and then to the recommended target dose of 2 mg once daily.

The dosage can be increased to the maximum recommended daily dosage of 3 mg once daily after at least 14 days, depending on clinical response and tolerability.

The most common side effects of brexpiprazole in patients with agitation associated with AD dementia include headache, dizziness, urinary tract infection, nasopharyngitis, and sleep disturbances.

The drug includes a boxed warning for medications in this class that elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death.

The supplemental application for brexpiprazole for agitation had fast-track designation.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Leaders of medical student groups and legislators in a few states are trying to convince medical schools to end a century-old practice of legacy admissions, which they say offer preferential treatment to applicants based on their association with donors or alumni.

While an estimated 25% of public colleges and universities still use legacy admissions, a growing list of top medical schools have moved away from the practice over the last decade, including Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and Tufts University, Medford, Mass.

Legacy admissions contradict schools’ more inclusive policies, Senila Yasmin, MPH, a second-year medical student at Tufts University, said in an interview. While Tufts maintains legacy admissions for its undergraduate applicants, the medical school stopped the practice in 2021, said Ms. Yasmin, a member of a student group that lobbied against the school’s legacy preferences.

Describing herself as a low-income, first-generation Muslim-Pakistani American, Ms. Yasmin wants to use her experience at Tufts to improve accessibility for students like herself.

As a member of the American Medical Association (AMA) Medical Student Section, she coauthored a resolution stating that legacy admissions go against the AMA’s strategic plan to advance racial justice and health equity. The Student Section passed the resolution in November, and in June, the AMA House of Delegates will vote on whether to adopt the policy. 

Along with a Supreme Court decision that could strike down race-conscious college admissions, an AMA policy could convince medical schools to rethink legacy admissions and how to maintain diverse student bodies. In June, the court is expected to issue a decision in the Students for Fair Admissions lawsuit against Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, which alleges that considering race in holistic admissions constitutes racial discrimination and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

Opponents of legacy admissions, like Ms. Yasmin, say it penalizes students from racial minorities and lower socioeconomic backgrounds, hampering a fair and equitable admissions process that attracts diverse medical school admissions.
 

Diversity of medical applicants

Diversity in medical schools  continued to increase last year with more Black, Hispanic, and female students applying and enrolling, according to a recent report by the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC). However, universities often include nonacademic criteria in their admission assessments to improve educational access for underrepresented minorities.

Medical schools carefully consider each applicant’s background “to yield a diverse class of students,” Geoffrey Young, PhD, AAMC’s senior director of transforming the health care workforce, told this news organization.

Some schools, such as Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta, the University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, and the University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, perform a thorough review of candidates while offering admissions practices designed specifically for legacy applicants. The schools assert that legacy designation doesn’t factor into the student’s likelihood of acceptance.

The arrangement may show that schools want to commit to equity and fairness but have trouble moving away from entrenched traditions, two professors from Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, Pa., who sit on separate medical admissions subcommittees, wrote last year in Bioethics Today.
 

Legislation may hasten legacies’ end

In December, Ms. Yasmin and a group of Massachusetts Medical Society student-members presented another resolution to the state medical society, which adopted it.

The society’s new policy opposes the use of legacy status in medical school admissions and supports mechanisms to eliminate its inclusion from the application process, Theodore Calianos II, MD, FACS, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society, said in an interview.

“Legacy preferences limit racial and socioeconomic diversity on campuses, so we asked, ‘What can we do so that everyone has equal access to medical education?’ It is exciting to see the students and young physicians – the future of medicine – become involved in policymaking.”

Proposed laws may also hasten the end of legacy admissions. Last year, the U.S. Senate began considering a bill prohibiting colleges receiving federal financial aid from giving preferential treatment to students based on their relations to donors or alumni. However, the bill allows the Department of Education to make exceptions for institutions serving historically underrepresented groups.

The New York State Senate and the New York State Assembly also are reviewing bills that ban legacy and early admissions policies at public and private universities. Connecticut announced similar legislation last year. Massachusetts legislators are considering two bills: one that would ban the practice at the state’s public universities and another that would require all schools using legacy status to pay a “public service fee” equal to a percentage of its endowment. Colleges with endowment assets exceeding $2 billion must pay at least $2 million, according to the bill’s text.

At schools like Harvard,  whose endowment surpasses $50 billion, the option to pay the penalty will make the law moot, Michael Walls, DO, MPH, president of the American Medical Student Association (AMSA), said in an interview. “Smaller schools wouldn’t be able to afford the fine and are less likely to be doing [legacy admissions] anyway,” he said. “The schools that want to continue doing it could just pay the fine.”

Dr. Walls said AMSA supports race-conscious admissions processes and anything that increases fairness for medical school applicants. “Whatever [fair] means is up for interpretation, but it would be great to eliminate legacy admissions,” he said.   
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.