4.2 Article

Impact of localizing general medical teams to a single nursing unit

Journal

JOURNAL OF HOSPITAL MEDICINE
Volume 7, Issue 7, Pages 551-556

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jhm.1948

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Localization of general medical inpatient teams is an attractive way to improve inpatient care but has not been adequately studied. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of localizing general medical teams to a single nursing unit. DESIGN: Quasi-experimental study using historical and concurrent controls. SETTING: A 490-bed academic medical center in the midwestern United States. PATIENTS: Adult, general medical patients, other than those with sickle cell disease, admitted to medical teams staffed by a hospitalist and a physician assistant (PA). INTERVENTION: Localization of patients assigned to 2 teams to a single nursing unit. MEASUREMENTS: Length of stay (LOS), 30-day risk of readmission, charges, pages to teams, encounters, relative value units (RVUs), and steps walked by PAs. RESULTS: Localized teams had 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.371.41) more patient encounters and generated 2.20 more RVUs per day (CI, 1.103.29) compared to historical controls; and 1.02 (CI, 0.461.58) more patient encounters and generated 1.36 more RVUs per day (CI, 0.172.55) compared to concurrent controls. Localized teams received 51% (CI, 4854) fewer pages during the workday. LOS may have been approximately 10% higher for localized teams. Risk of readmission within 30 days and charges incurred were no different. PAs possibly walked fewer steps while localized. CONCLUSION: Localization of medical teams led to higher productivity and better workflow, but did not significantly impact readmissions or charges. It may have had an unintended negative impact on hospital efficiency; this finding deserves further study. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2012. (C) 2012 Society of Hospital Medicine

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available