The Virtual Hospitalist: A Single-Site Implementation Bringing Hospitalist Coverage to Critical Access Hospitals
BACKGROUND: On-site hospitalist care can improve patient care, but it is economically infeasible for small critical access hospitals (CAHs). A telemedicine “virtual hospitalist” may expand CAH capabilities at a fractional cost of an on-site provider.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a virtual hospitalist on transfers from a CAH to outside hospitals.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A 6-month pilot program providing “virtual hospitalist” coverage to patients at a CAH in rural Iowa.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the rate of outside transfers from the CAH Emergency Department (ED). The secondary outcomes included transfer from either the ED or the inpatient wards, daily census, length of stay, transfers after admission, virtual hospitalist time commitment, and patient and staff satisfaction. The preceding 24-week baseline was compared with 24 weeks after implementation, excluding a 2-week transition period.
RESULTS: At baseline, there were 947 ED visits and 176 combined inpatient and observation encounters, compared to 930 and 176 after implementation, respectively. Outside transfers from the ED decreased from 16.6% to 10.5% (157/947 to 98/930, P < .001), and transfers at any time decreased from 17.3% to 11.9% (164/947 to 111/930, P < .001). Daily census, length of stay, and transfers after admission were unchanged. Time commitment for a virtual hospitalist was 35 minutes per patient per day. The intervention was well received by the CAH staff and patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The virtual hospitalist model increased the percentage of ED patients who could safely receive their care locally. A single virtual hospitalist may be able to cover multiple CAHs simultaneously.
© 2018 Society of Hospital Medicine
- As a pilot between two specific institutions, modifications will be required to replicate in other CAHs or academic centers.
- Generating sufficient revenue to cover a full hospitalist salary will require adding additional responsibilities, either covering multiple CAHs simultaneously or combining virtual coverage with in-person responsibilities.
- The accuracy of the self-report remains unmeasured, and the impact of combining two or more CAHs may not be strictly additive. Attempts to supplement the self-reported time spent with additional information from the EMR and cell phone logs were complicated by the use of multiple platforms in parallel, interruptions in provider workflow, and provider multitasking.
- Due to the need for reliable local physical examinations and regulations on telehealth reimbursement, local APPs were necessary for this implementation. Although most of the CAHs have an on-site provider to provide ED coverage, CAHs with sufficient volume to necessitate separating ED and inpatient ward coverage may have difficulty supporting both APP and virtual hospitalist coverage, even on a fractional basis.
- This study was underpowered to detect rare events with significant consequences, including inpatient mortality and inpatient transfer. Although CMI suggests similar complexity in CAH patients, we have insufficient data to draw further comparisons on patient characteristics before and after the intervention.
- The analysis may be vulnerable to secular trends in the CAH patient population, as only 24 weeks of data were used as a baseline for comparison (although no significant seasonal variation was detected during that time). Extending the baseline data to include an additional 30 weeks ED encounters did not significantly alter our conclusions.
- Virtual hospitalists were dependent on physical examinations performed independently by local APPs.
- Although virtual providers were obligated to be available for videoconferencing within 60 minutes, more urgent medical decisions were sometimes made based on phone conferences between VBCH and the virtual hospitalist without video or direct patient assessment.
- We selected a CAH utilizing an identical instance of our EMR. Although this increased the ability of virtual hospitalists to split their time between virtual and local patient encounters, this limits our ability to spread this intervention beyond institutions already partnering with the UIHC.
CONCLUSIONS
We succeeded in reducing outside transfers at a CAH by implementing a sustainable virtual hospitalist service. This model allows patients to receive more of their care within their local communities and provides an improved inpatient experience. Next steps include expanding this service to other CAHs within our region, both to understand if this model is applicable beyond our initial site and to monitor for complications induced by scaling. If successful, virtual hospitalist coverage can provide a sustainable solution to providing the latest innovations in hospital medicine even to the most rural communities.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Ray Brownsworth, CEO of Van Buren County Hospital, as well as all the providers and staff who worked with them to implement and improve their services. The authors also thank Pat Brophy, founder of The Signal Center for Health Innovation, for providing leadership, support, and resources for innovation.
