Search

There is a lack of research on adverse event (AE) detection in oncology patients, despite the propensity for iatrogenic harm. Two common methods include voluntary safety reporting (VSR) and chart review tools, such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's Global Trigger Tool (GTT). Our objective was to compare frequency and type of AEs detected by a modified GTT compared with VSR for identifying AEs in oncology patients in a larger clinical trial.Patients across 6 oncology units (from July 1, 2013, through May 29, 2015) were randomly selected. Retrospective chart reviews were conducted by a team of nurses and physicians to identify AEs using the GTT. The VSR system was queried by the department of quality and safety of the hospital. Adverse event frequencies, type, and harm code for both methods were compared.The modified GTT detected 0.90 AEs per patient (79 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.71-1.12] AEs per patient) that were predominantly medication AEs (53/79); more than half of the AEs caused harm to the patients (41/79, 52%), but only one quarter were preventable (21/79; 27%). The VSR detected 0.24 AEs per patient (21 AEs in 88 patients; 95% [0.15-0.37] AEs per patient), a large plurality of which were medication/intravenous related (8/21); more than half did not cause harm (70%). Only 2% of the AEs (2/100) were detected by both methods.Neither the modified GTT nor the VSR system alone is sufficient for detecting AEs in oncology patient populations. Further studies exploring methods such as automated AE detection from electronic health records and leveraging patient-reported AEs are needed.

Objectives To test a structured electronic health record (EHR) case review process to identify diagnostic errors (DE) and diagnostic process failures (DPFs) in acute care. Methods We adapted validated tools (Safer Dx, Diagnostic Error Evaluation Research [DEER] Taxonomy) to assess the diagnostic process during the hospital encounter and categorized 13 postulated e-triggers. We created two test cohorts of all preventable cases (n=28) and an equal number of randomly sampled non-preventable cases (n=28) from 365 adult general medicine patients who expired and underwent our institution’s mortality case review process. After excluding patients with a length of stay of more than one month, each case was reviewed by two blinded clinicians trained in our process and by an expert panel. Inter-rater reliability was assessed. We compared the frequency of DE contributing to death in both cohorts, as well as mean DPFs and e-triggers for DE positive and negative cases within each cohort. Results Twenty-seven (96.4%) preventable and 24 (85.7%) non-preventable cases underwent our review process. Inter-rater reliability was moderate between individual reviewers (Cohen’s kappa 0.41) and substantial with the expert panel (Cohen’s kappa 0.74). The frequency of DE contributing to death was significantly higher for the preventable compared to the non-preventable cohort (56% vs. 17%, OR 6.25 [1.68, 23.27], p Conclusions We observed substantial agreement among final consensus and expert panel reviews using our structured EHR case review process. DEs contributing to death associated with DPFs were identified in institutionally designated preventable and non-preventable cases. While e-triggers may be useful for discriminating DE positive from DE negative cases, larger studies are required for validation. Our approach has potential to augment institutional mortality case review processes with respect to DE surveillance.

Objectives The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a resource-intensive global pandemic. It is important for healthcare systems to identify high-risk COVID-19-positive patients who need timely health care. This study was conducted to predict the hospitalization of older adults who have tested positive for COVID-19. Methods We screened all patients with COVID test records from 11 Mass General Brigham hospitals to identify the study population. A total of 1495 patients with age 65 and above from the outpatient setting were included in the final cohort, among which 459 patients were hospitalized. We conducted a clinician-guided, 3-stage feature selection, and phenotyping process using iterative combinations of literature review, clinician expert opinion, and electronic healthcare record data exploration. A list of 44 features, including temporal features, was generated from this process and used for model training. Four machine learning prediction models were developed, including regularized logistic regression, support vector machine, random forest, and neural network. Results All 4 models achieved area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) greater than 0.80. Random forest achieved the best predictive performance (AUC = 0.83). Albumin, an index for nutritional status, was found to have the strongest association with hospitalization among COVID positive older adults. Conclusions In this study, we developed 4 machine learning models for predicting general hospitalization among COVID positive older adults. We identified important clinical factors associated with hospitalization and observed temporal patterns in our study cohort. Our modeling pipeline and algorithm could potentially be used to facilitate more accurate and efficient decision support for triaging COVID positive patients.

As the United States faces the third wave of the ongoing opioid epidemic, development of measures which report on prolonged opioid prescribing (POP) rates, specifically following orthopedic surgeries, are needed to better understand and improve prescribing practices at the clinician group level. Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) has been contracted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to create a novel electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) to quantify the prolonged opioid prescribing rate of opioid episodes lasting > 42 days in patients aged 18+ years following elective primary total hip arthroplasties (THA) and/or total knee arthroplasties (TKA) for use in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). When this measure was tested on two geographically distinct sites, it was found that the THA rate was 3.80% and 16.07% at sites 1 and 2, respectively, and that the TKA rate is 7.65% and 24.15% at sites 1 and 2, respectively. This manuscript reports on the testing of this eCQM between these two sites, highlighting differences in state and organizational level policies regarding opioid prescribing and documentation practices.

The objective of this study was to assess the frequency, type, and severity of errors associated with intravenous medication administration before and after smart pump interoperability.We conducted an observational study at a community healthcare system before and after implementing smart pump interoperability. Point prevalence methodology was used to collect data on medication administration and errors in adult inpatient settings.Observations were completed for 350 infusions preintervention (178 patients) and 367 postintervention (200 patients). Total errors significantly decreased from 401 (114.6 per 100 infusions) to 354 (96.5 per 100 infusions, P = 0.02). Administration errors decreased from 144 (41.1 per 100 infusions) to 119 (32.4 per 100 infusions, P = 0.12). Expired medication errors significantly reduced from 11 (3.1 per 100 infusions) to 2 (0.5 per 100 infusions, P = 0.02). Errors involving high-risk medications significantly reduced from 45 (12.8 per 100 infusions) to 25 (6.8 per 100 infusions, P = 0.01). Errors involving continuous medications significantly reduced from 44 (12.6 per 100 infusions) to 22 (6.0 per 100 infusions, P = 0.005). When comparing programming type, manual programming resulted in 115 (77.2%) of administration and user documentation errors compared with 34 errors (22.8%) that occurred when autoprogramming was used. Of these, errors involving high-risk medications reduced from 21 (84.0%) to 4 (16.0%) after using autoprogramming.Smart pump interoperability resulted in a 16% reduction in medication administration errors. Despite using dose error reduction software and autoprogramming, some types of errors persisted. Further studies are needed to understand how technology use can be optimized.

Supported by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) has retooled the existing claims-based measures NQF1550 and NQF3493 into an electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) to assess the risk-standardized complication rate (RSCR) following elective primary total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) at the clinician group level. This novel eCQM includes risk-adjustment for social determinants of health, includes all adult patients from all payers, leverages electronic health records (EHRs) rather than claims-based data, and includes both inpatient and outpatient procedures and complications which offers benefits compared to existing metrics. Following testing in two geographically different healthcare systems, the overall risk-standardized complication rate within 90 days following THA and TKA at the two sites was 3.60% (Site 1) and 3.70% (Site 2). This measure is designed for use in the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS).

Brigham and Women’s Hospital has received funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to develop a novel electronic clinical quality measure to assess the risk-standardized major bleeding and venous thromboembolism (VTE) rate following elective total hip and/or knee arthroplasty. There are currently no existing measures that evaluate both the bleeding and VTE events following joint arthroplasty (TJA). Our novel composite measure was tested within two academic health systems with 17 clinician groups meeting the inclusion criteria. Following risk adjustment, the overall adjusted bleeding rate was 3.87% and ranged between 1.99% – 5.66%. The unadjusted VTE rate was 0.39% and ranged between 0% – 2.65%. The overall VTE/Bleeding composite score was 2.15 and ranged between 1.15 – 3.19. This measure seeks to provide clinician groups with a tool to assess their patient bleeding and VTE rates and compare them to their peers, ultimately providing an evidence-based quality metric assessing orthopedic practices.

Existing surgical quality metrics have limited utility, are primarily used for high-mortality procedures, and often fail to account for differences in non-fatal outcomes. Our objective was to develop more comprehensive, novel surgical quality metrics, for patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) repair.Non-ruptured open and endovascular AAA repair (EVAR) from the Vascular Quality Initiative database were studied, 2016-2019. A win was defined as AAA repair without major complication (in-hospital) or mortality (in-hospital or within 30 days). Centers were divided into quality quartiles based on performance in two novel win-based metrics: (1) Wins Above Average (WAA) and (2) weighted Wins Above Average (wWAA). Patient-level and center-level analyses compared demographics and outcomes between "best" and "worst" quartiles, including wins, mortality, and failure to rescue (FTR) rates. Additional patient-level analyses were performed based on center stratification into volume quartiles. Correlation in surgical quality for open repair and EVAR was determined at centers performing both procedures.Overall, 3683 patients underwent open repair and 21,165 patients underwent EVAR. For open repair, crude rates of win, mortality, and FTR were 62.8%, 4.2%, and 10.3%, respectively. For EVAR, crude rates for win, mortality, and FTR were 94.4%, 1.1%, and 12.3%, respectively. When stratified by wWAA, patients undergoing open repair at "best" quartile centers had a higher win rate (72.0% vs 52.7%; risk ratio [RR], 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.28-1.46) and lower mortality (3.1% vs 6.2%; RR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.33-0.74) compared with "worst" quartile centers. Similarly, for EVAR, "best" quartile centers had a higher win rate (96.2% vs 92.1%; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.03-1.05), lower mortality (0.4% vs 2.2%; RR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.13-0.29), and a lower FTR rate (5.7% vs 17.9%; RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.18-0.56) compared with "worst" quartile centers. Stratification by volume showed that high-volume centers demonstrated improved wWAA for open repair (P = .04) but not for EVAR (P = .3) compared with low-volume centers. For centers that performed both open repair and EVAR, there was no correlation in quality as determined by wWAA (r = -0.056; P = .6).wWAA is a novel, risk-adjusted, complication-weighted surgical quality metric that also accounts for volume differences. wWAA successfully distinguishes high- and low-quality centers for both open AAA repair and EVAR. This methodology is potentially broadly applicable for measuring surgical quality.

ImportancePhysicians across the US spend substantial time working in the electronic health record (EHR), with primary care physicians (PCPs) spending the most time. The association between EHR time and ambulatory care quality outcomes is unclear.ObjectiveTo characterize measures of EHR use and ambulatory care quality performance among PCPs.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA cross-sectional study of PCPs with longitudinal patient panels using a single EHR vendor was conducted at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital during calendar year 2021.ExposuresIndependent variables included PCPs demographic and practice characteristics and EHR time measures (PCP-level mean of daily total EHR time, after-hours time, time from 5:30 pm to 7:00 am and time on weekends, and daily EHR time on notes, sending and receiving patient, staff, results, prescription, or system messages [in-basket], and clinical review).Main Outcomes and MeasuresOutcome variables were ambulatory quality measures (year-end, PCP panel–level achievement of targets for hemoglobin A1c level control, lipid management, hypertension control, diabetes screening, and breast cancer screening).ResultsThe sample included 291 physicians (174 [59.8%] women). Median panel size was 829 (IQR, 476-1157) patients and mean (SD) clinical full-time equivalent was 0.54 (0.27). The PCPs spent a mean (SD) of 145.9 (64.6) daily minutes on the EHR. There were significant associations between EHR time and panel-level achievement of hemoglobin A1c control, hypertension control, and breast cancer screening targets. In adjusted analyses, each additional 15 minutes of total daily EHR time was associated with 0.58 (95% CI, 0.32-0.84) percentage point greater panel-level hemoglobin A1c control, 0.52 (95% CI, 0.33-0.71) percentage point greater hypertension control, and 0.28 (95% CI, 0.05-0.52) higher breast cancer screening rates. Each daily additional 15 minutes of in-basket time was associated with 2.26 (95% CI, 1.05-3.48) greater panel-wide hemoglobin A1c control, 1.65 (95% CI, 0.83-2.47) percentage point greater hypertension control, and 1.26 (95% CI, 0.51-2.02) percentage point higher breast cancer screening rates. Associations were largely concentrated among PCPs with 0.5 clinical full-time equivalent or less. There were no associations between EHR use metrics and diabetes screening or lipid management in patients with cardiovascular disease.Conclusions and RelevanceThis cross-sectional study found an association between EHR time and some measures of ambulatory care quality. Although increased EHR time is associated with burnout, it may represent a level of thoroughness or communication that enhances certain outcomes. It may be useful for future studies to characterize payment models, workflows, and technologies that enable high-quality ambulatory care delivery while minimizing EHR burden.

Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) has received funding from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to design and implement an electronic clinical quality measure (eCQM) assessing the rate of prolonged opioid prescribing practices following Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) and Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). Utilizing an existing guideline, ‘prolonged prescribing’ has been defined as opioid prescriptions that exceed 42 days (6 weeks) following surgery. This measure was tested on 12,803 Partners’ Healthcare (PHS) patients. Findings demonstrated that after 42 days, meeting the criteria for ‘prolonged prescribing’ as defined by the proposed measure, 3.7% of THA patients and 12.1% of TKA patients were still receiving opioids. With a better understanding of how specific clinician group post-operative prescribing practices compare with their peers and incorporating monetary incentives through the MIPS participation pathway of the Quality Payment Program (QPP), this measure will motivate orthopedic practices to improve their prescribing patterns, ultimately driving evidence-based quality improvement.

IntroductionThe purpose of this study is to incorporate behavioural economic principles and user-centred design principles into a multicomponent intervention for the management of uncontrolled hypertension (HTN) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, pragmatic, controlled trial cluster-randomised at the clinician level at The Brigham and Women’s Practice -Based Research Network of 15 practices. Of 220 total clinicians, 184 were eligible to be enrolled, and the remainder were excluded (residents and clinicians who see urgent care or walk-in patients); no clinicians opted out. The intervention consists of a clinical decision support system based in behavioural economic and user-centred design principles that will: (1) synthesise existing laboratory tests, medication orders and vital sign data; (2) increase recognition of CKD, (3) increase recognition of uncontrolled HTN in CKD patients and (4) deliver evidence-based CKD and HTN management recommendations. The primary endpoint is the change in mean systolic blood pressure between baseline and 6 months compared across arms. We will use the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance framework. At the conclusion of this study, we will have: (1) validated an intervention that combines laboratory tests, medication records and clinical information collected by electronic health records to recognise uncontrolled HTN in CKD patients and recommend a course of care, (2) tested the effectiveness of said intervention and (3) collected information about the implementation of the intervention that will aid in dissemination of the intervention to other practice settings.Ethics and disseminationThe Human Subjects Institutional Review Board at Brigham and Women’s Hospital provided an expedited review and approval for this study protocol, and a Data Safety Monitoring Board will ensure the ongoing safety of the trial.Trial registration numberNCT03679247.

The prevalence of facility-based childbirth in low-resource settings has increased dramatically during the past two decades, yet gaps in the quality of care persist and mortality remains high. The World Health Organization (WHO) Safe Childbirth Checklist, a quality-improvement tool, promotes systematic adherence to practices that have been associated with improved childbirth outcomes.We conducted a matched-pair, cluster-randomized, controlled trial in 60 pairs of facilities across 24 districts of Uttar Pradesh, India, testing the effect of the BetterBirth program, an 8-month coaching-based implementation of the Safe Childbirth Checklist, on a composite outcome of perinatal death, maternal death, or maternal severe complications within 7 days after delivery. Outcomes - assessed 8 to 42 days after delivery - were compared between the intervention group and the control group with adjustment for clustering and matching. We also compared birth attendants' adherence to 18 essential birth practices in 15 matched pairs of facilities at 2 and 12 months after the initiation of the intervention.Of 161,107 eligible women, we enrolled 157,689 (97.9%) and determined 7-day outcomes for 157,145 (99.7%) mother-newborn dyads. Among 4888 observed births, birth attendants' mean practice adherence was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (72.8% vs. 41.7% at 2 months; 61.7% vs. 43.9% at 12 months; P0.001 for both comparisons). However, there was no significant difference between the trial groups either in the composite primary outcome (15.1% in the intervention group and 15.3% in the control group; relative risk, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.18; P=0.90) or in secondary maternal or perinatal adverse outcomes.Birth attendants' adherence to essential birth practices was higher in facilities that used the coaching-based WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist program than in those that did not, but maternal and perinatal mortality and maternal morbidity did not differ significantly between the two groups. (Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Clinical Trials number, NCT02148952 .).

Background In 2009 the I-PASS Study Group was formed by patient safety, medical education, health services research, and clinical experts from multiple institutions in the United States and Canada. When the I-PASS Handoff Program, which was developed by the I-PASS Study Group, was implemented in nine hospitals, it was associated with a 30% reduction in injuries due to medical errors and significant improvements in handoff processes, without any adverse effects on provider work flow. Methods To effectively disseminate and adapt I-PASS for use across specialties and disciplines, a series of federally and privately funded dissemination and implementation projects were carried out following the publication of the initial study. The results of these efforts have informed ongoing initiatives intended to continue adapting and scaling the program. Results As of this writing, I-PASS Study Group members have directly worked with more than 50 hospitals to facilitate implementation of I-PASS. To further disseminate I-PASS, Study Group members delivered hundreds of academic presentations, including plenaries at scientific meetings, workshops, and institutional Grand Rounds. Some 3,563 individuals, representing more than 500 institutions in the 50 states in the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and 57 other countries, have requested access to I-PASS materials. Most recently, the I-PASSSM Patient Safety Institute has developed a virtual immersion training platform, mobile handoff observational tools, and processes to facilitate further spread of I-PASS. Conclusion Implementation of I-PASS has been associated with substantial improvements in patient safety and can be applied to a variety of disciplines and types of patient handoffs. Widespread implementation of I-PASS has the potential to substantially improve patient safety in the United States and beyond.

BACKGROUND Repeated hospitalizations are frequent toward the end of life where each admission should be an opportunity to initiate advance care planning to high risk patients. OBJECTIVE To identify the risk factors for having a 30 day potentially avoidable readmission due to end of life care issues among all medical patients. DESIGN Nested case control study. SETTING/PATIENTS All 10275 consecutive discharges from any medical service of an academic tertiary medical center in Boston Massachusetts between July 1 2009 and June 30 2010. MEASUREMENTS A random sample of all the potentially avoidable 30 day readmissions was independently reviewed by 9 trained physicians to identify the ones due to end of life issues. RESULTS Among 534 30 day potentially avoidable readmission cases reviewed 80 (15) were due to an end of life care issue. In multivariable analysis the following risk factors were significantly associated with a 30 day potentially avoidable readmission due to end of life care issues: number of admissions in the previous 12 months (odds ratio [OR]: 1.10 per admission 95 confidence interval [CI]: 1.02 1.20) neoplasm (OR: 5.60 95 CI: 2.85 10.98) opiate medications at discharge (OR: 2.29 95 CI: 1.29 4.07) Elixhauser comorbidity index (OR: 1.16 per 5 point increase 95 CI: 1.10 1.22). The discrimination of the model (C statistic) was 0.85. CONCLUSIONS In a medical population we identified 4 main risk factors that were significantly associated with 30 day potentially avoidable readmission due to end of life care issues producing a model with very good to excellent discrimination. Patients with these risk factors might benefit from palliative care consultation prior to discharge in order to improve end of life care and possibly reduce unnecessary rehospitalizations. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2014;9:310 314. © 2014 Society of Hospital Medicine.

Accurately documenting mammography use is essential to assess quality of care for early breast cancer detection in underserved populations. Self-reports and medical record reports frequently result in different accounts of whether a mammogram was performed. We hypothesize that electronic medical records (EMRs) provide more accurate documentation of mammography use than paper records, as evidenced by the level of agreement between women's self-reported mammography use and mammography use documented in medical records.Black women aged 40-75 were surveyed in six primary care sites in Boston, Massachusetts (n = 411). Survey data assessed self-reported mammography prevalence within 2 years of study entry. Corresponding medical record data were collected at each site. Positive predictive value (PPV) of self-report and kappa statistics compared data agreement among sites with and without EMRs. Logistic regression estimated effects of site and patient characteristics on agreement between data sources.Medical records estimated a lower prevalence of mammography use (58%) than self-report (76%). However, self-report and medical record estimates were more similar in sites with EMRs. PPV of self-report was 88% in sites with continuous access to EMRs and 61% at sites without EMRs. Kappa statistics indicated greater data agreement at sites with EMRs (0.72, 95% CI 0.56-0.88) than without EMRs (0.46, 95% CI 0.29-0.64). Adjusted for covariates, odds of data agreement were greatest in sites where EMRs were available during the entire study period (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.67-11.13).Primary care sites with EMRs better document mammography use than those with paper records. Patient self-report of mammography screening is more accurate at sites with EMRs. Broader access to EMRs should be implemented to improve quality of documenting mammography use. At a minimum, quality improvement efforts should confirm the accuracy of paper records with supplemental data.

Addressing patient expectations is necessary to achieve high satisfaction. However, few data are available on nurses' perceptions and performance with respect to patient expectations and satisfaction.This international multicenter study aimed to: (a) evaluate nurses' attitudes and performance with respect to patient satisfaction and expectations, and (b) identify predictors of nurses' inquiry of patients' satisfaction at the point of discharge.A questionnaire examining attitudes and performance toward patient satisfaction and expectations was developed and validated. Nurses at four academic hospitals in the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, and Denmark were surveyed.A total of 536 nurses participated in the study (response rate 85.3%). Nurses expressed positive attitudes toward activities related to patient satisfaction and expectations, endorsing the importance of talking with patients about their satisfaction status (91.6%) and their expectations (93.2%). More than half of the responders (51.8%) claimed to have responded to the status of patient satisfaction or dissatisfaction (Israel: 25%; United States: 54.9%; United Kingdom: 61.7%; Denmark: 69.9%; p.001). However, only 12.1% stated that they routinely ask patients about their level of satisfaction, with nurses in the United States (18.3%) and Denmark (17.5%) more likely to ask compared to nurses in the United Kingdom (7.4%) and Israel (6.3%; p = .001). Adjusted logistic regression identified four significant predictors (p.05) of nurses' inquiry about patients' satisfaction: "Responding to patient's satisfaction status" (OR: 3.1; 95% CI: 1.7-5.8); "Documenting patient's satisfaction status" (OR: 2.8; 95% CI: 1.6-5.1); "Asking routinely about expectations" (OR: 5.4; 95% CI: 3-9.7); and "Responded to expectations during the past month" (OR: 4.3; 95% CI: 1.9-9.4).These findings warrant further investigation, potentially into the nurses' work environments or educational programs, to better understand why nurses' positive attitudes toward patient satisfaction and expectations do not result in actively asking patients about their satisfaction level and what should be done to improve nurses' performance. Healthcare organizations and policy makers should develop and support structured programs to address patient expectations and improve patient satisfaction during hospitalization.

To determine factors that influence radical prostatectomy (RP) operative times. Operative time assessment is inherent to defining surgeon learning curves and evaluating quality of care.Population-based observational cohort study using USA Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked data of men diagnosed with prostate cancer during 2003-2007 who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP, 3458 men) and retropubic RP (RRP, 6993) through to 2009. We obtained median operative time using anaesthesia administrative data for RP and used median regression to assess the contribution of patient, surgeon, and hospital factors to operative times.The median RARP operative time decreased from 315 to 247 min from 2003 to 2008-2009 (P0.001), while the median RRP operative time remained similar (195 vs 197 min, P = 0.90). In adjusted analysis, RARP vs RRP (parameter estimate [PE] 70.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 58, 84; P0.001) and obesity (PE 15; 95% CI 7, 23; P0.001) were associated with longer operative times while higher surgeon volumes were associated with shorter operative times (P0.001). RPs performed by surgeons employed by group (parameter estimate [PE] -22.76; 95% CI -38, -7.49; P = 0.004) and non-government (PE -35.59; 95% CI -68.15, -3.03; P = 0.032) vs government facilities and non-profit vs government hospital ownership (PE -21.85; 95% CI -32.28, -11.42; P0.001) were associated with shorter operative times.During our study period, RARP operative times decreased by 68 min while RRP operative times remained stagnant. Higher surgeon volume was associated with shorter operative times, and selective referral or improved efficiency to the level of high-volume surgeons would net almost $15 million (USA dollars) in annual savings.

Patient falls are serious problems in hospitals. Risk factors for falls are well understood and nurses routinely assess for fall risk on all hospitalized patients. However, the link from nursing assessment of fall risk, to identification and communication of tailored interventions to prevent falls is yet to be established. The Fall TIPS (Tailoring Interventions for Patient Safety) Toolkit was developed to leverage existing practices and workflows and to employ information technology to improve fall prevention practices. The purpose of this paper is to describe the Fall TIPS Toolkit and to report on strategies used to drive adoption of the Toolkit in four acute care hospitals. Using the IHI “Framework for Spread” as a conceptual model, the research team describes the “spread” of the Fall TIPS Toolkit as means to integrate effective fall prevention practices into the workflow of interdisciplinary caregivers, patients and family members.