Search

Background: Geographically localized care teams may demonstrate improved communication between team members and patients, potentially enhancing coordination of care. However, the impact of geographically localized team on patient experience scores is not well understood. Objective: To compare experience scores of patients on resident teams home clinical units with patients assigned to them off of their home units over a 10-year period. Participants: Patients admitted to any of the 4 chief resident staffed internal medicine inpatient service were included. Patients admitted to the house-staff teams’ home clinical unit comprised the exposure group and their patients off of their home units comprised the control patients. Measurement: Top-box experience scores calculated from the physician Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare and Provider Systems (HCAHPS) and Press Ganey patient satisfaction surveys. Results: There were 3012 patients included in the study. There were no significant differences in experience scores with physician communication, nursing communication, pain, or discharge planning between the 2 groups. Patients did not report satisfaction more often with the time physicians spent with them on localized teams (48.6% vs 47.5%; P = .54) or that staff were better at working together (63.2% vs 61.3%; P = .29). This did not change during a 45-month period when the proportion of patients on home units exceeded 75% and multidisciplinary rounds were started. Conclusion: Patients cared for by geographically localized teams did not have better patient experience. Other factors such as physician communication skills or limited time spent in direct care may overshadow the impact of having localized teams. Further research is needed to better understand organizational, team, and individual factors impacting patient experience.

Background The standard of care for management of alcohol withdrawal is symptom-triggered treatment using the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar). Many items of this 10-question scale rely on subjective assessments of withdrawal symptoms, making it time-consuming and cumbersome to use. Therefore, there is interest in shorter and more objective methods to assess alcohol withdrawal symptoms. Methods A 6-item withdrawal scale developed at another institution was piloted. Based on comparison with the CIWA-Ar, this was adapted into a 5-item scale named the Brief Alcohol Withdrawal Scale (BAWS). The BAWS was compared with the CIWA-Ar and a withdrawal protocol utilizing the BAWS was developed. The new protocol was implemented on an inpatient unit dedicated to treating substance withdrawal. Data was collected on the first 3 months of implementation and compared with the 3 months prior to that. Results A BAWS score of 3 or more predicted CIWA-Ar score ≥8 with a sensitivity of 85.3% and specificity of 65.8%. The demographics of the patients in the 2 time periods were similar: the mean age was 45.9; 70.6% were male; 30.9% received concurrent treatment for opioid withdrawal; and 14.2% were receiving methadone maintenance. During the BAWS phase, patients received significantly less diazepam (mean dose 81.4 vs. 60.3 mg, P < .001). There was no significant difference in length of stay. No patients experienced a seizure, delirium, or required transfer to a higher level of care during any of the 664 admissions in either phase. Conclusions This simple protocol utilizing a 5-item withdrawal scale performed well in this setting. Its use in other settings, particularly with patients with concurrent medical illnesses or more severe withdrawal, needs to be explored further.