ADVERTISEMENT

Hospitalist and Internal Medicine Leaders’ Perspectives of Early Discharge Challenges at Academic Medical Centers

Journal of Hospital Medicine 13(6). 2018 June;388-391. Published online first December 6, 2017. | 10.12788/jhm.2885

Improving early discharges may improve patient flow and increase hospital capacity. We conducted a national survey of academic medical centers addressing the prevalence, importance, and effectiveness of early-discharge initiatives. We assembled a list of hospitalist and general internal medicine leaders at 115 US-based academic medical centers. We emailed each institutional representative a 30-item online survey regarding early-discharge initiatives. The survey included questions on discharge prioritization, the prevalence and effectiveness of early-discharge initiatives, and barriers to implementation. We received 61 responses from 115 institutions (53% response rate). Forty-seven (77%) “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that early discharge was a priority. “Discharge by noon” was the most cited goal (n = 23; 38%) followed by “no set time but overall goal for improvement” (n = 13; 21%). The majority of respondents reported early discharge as more important than obtaining translators for non-English-speaking patients and equally important as reducing 30-day readmissions and improving patient satisfaction. The most commonly reported factors delaying discharge were availability of postacute care beds (n = 48; 79%) and patient-related transport complications (n = 44; 72%). The most effective early discharge initiatives reported involved changes to the rounding process, such as preemptive identification and early preparation of discharge paperwork (n = 34; 56%) and communication with patients about anticipated discharge (n = 29; 48%). There is a strong interest in increasing early discharges in an effort to improve hospital throughput and patient flow.

© 2017 Society of Hospital Medicine

Acknowledgments

The authors thank all participants who completed the survey and Danielle Carrier at Vizient Inc. (formally University HealthSystem Consortium) for her assistance in obtaining data.

Disclosures

Hemali Patel, Margaret Fang, Michelle Mourad, Adrienne Green, Ryan Murphy, and James Harrison report no conflicts of interest. At the time the research was conducted, Robert Wachter reported that he is a member of the Lucian Leape Institute at the National Patient Safety Foundation (no compensation except travel expenses); recently chaired an advisory board to England’s National Health Service (NHS) reviewing the NHS’s digital health strategy (no compensation except travel expenses); has a contract with UCSF from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to edit a patient-safety website; receives compensation from John Wiley & Sons for writing a blog; receives royalties from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and McGraw-Hill Education for writing and/or editing several books; receives stock options for serving on the board of Acuity Medical Management Systems; receives a yearly stipend for serving on the board of The Doctors Company; serves on the scientific advisory boards for amino.com, PatientSafe Solutions Inc., Twine, and EarlySense (for which he receives stock options); has a small royalty stake in CareWeb, a hospital communication tool developed at UCSF; and holds the Marc and Lynne Benioff Endowed Chair in Hospital Medicine and the Holly Smith Distinguished Professorship in Science and Medicine at UCSF.

Online-Only Materials

Attachment
Size