A Lean Six Sigma Quality Improvement Project to Increase Discharge Paperwork Completeness for Admission to a Comprehensive Integrated Inpatient Rehabilitation Program.

1Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.
American Journal of Medical Quality (Impact Factor: 1.78). 01/2013; DOI: 10.1177/1062860612470486
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Lean Six Sigma (LSS) process analysis can be used to increase completeness of discharge summary reports used as a critical communication tool when a patient transitions between levels of care. The authors used the LSS methodology as an intervention to improve systems process. Over the course of the project, 8 required elements were analyzed in the discharge paperwork. The authors analyzed the discharge paperwork of patients (42 patients preintervention and 143 patients postintervention) of a comprehensive integrated inpatient rehabilitation program (CIIRP). Prior to this LSS project, 61.8% of required discharge elements were present. The intervention improved the completeness to 94.2% of the required elements. The percentage of charts that were 100% complete increased from 11.9% to 67.8%. LSS is a well-established process improvement methodology that can be used to make significant improvements in complex health care workflow issues. Specifically, the completeness of discharge documentation required for transition of care to CIIRP can be improved.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In hospitals, handoffs are episodes in which control of, or responsibility for, a patient passes from one health professional to another, and in which important information about the patient is also exchanged. In view of the growing interest in improving handoff processes, and the need for guidance in arriving at standardised handoff procedures in response to regulatory requirements, an extensive review of the research on handoffs was conducted. The authors have collected all research treatments of hospital handoffs involving medical personnel published in English through July 2008. A review of this literature yields four significant (1) the definition of the handoff concept in the literature is poorly delimited; (2) the meaning of 'to standardise' has not been developed with adequate clarity; (3) the literature shows that handoffs perform important functions beyond patient safety, but the trade-offs of these functions against safety considerations are not analysed; (4) studies so far do not fully establish that attempts at handoff standardisation have produced marked gains in measured patient outcomes. The existing literature on patient handoffs does not yet adequately support either definitive research conclusions on best handoff practices or the standardisation of handoffs that has been mandated by some regulators.
    Quality and Safety in Health Care 04/2010; 19(6):493-7. · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine if the delivery of hospital discharge summaries to follow-up physicians decreases the risk of hospital readmission. Eight hundred eighty-eight patients discharged from a single hospital following treatment for an acute medical illness. Teaching hospital in a universal health-care system. We determined the date that each patient's discharge summary was printed and the physicians to whom it was sent. Summary receipt was confirmed by survey and phoning each physician's office. Each patient's hospital chart was reviewed to determine their acute and chronic medical conditions as well as their course in hospital. Using population-based administrative databases, all post-hospitalization visits were identified. For each of these visits, we determined whether the summary was available. Time to nonelective hospital readmission during 3 months following discharge. The discharge summary was available for only 568 of 4,639 outpatient visits (12.2%). Overall, 240 (27.0%) of patients were urgently readmitted to hospital. After adjusting for significant patient and hospitalization factors, we found a trend toward a decreased risk of readmission for patients who were seen in follow-up by a physician who had received a summary (relative risk 0.74, 95% confidence interval 0.50 to 1.11). The risk of rehospitalization may decrease when patients are assessed following discharge by physicians who have received the discharge summary. Further research is required to determine if better continuity of patient information improves patient outcomes.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 04/2002; 17(3):186-92. · 3.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Decreasing hospital readmission and patient mortality after hospital dismissal is important when providing quality health care. Interventions recently proposed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to reduce avoidable hospital readmissions include providing patients with clear discharge instructions and appointments for timely follow-up visits. Although research has demonstrated a correlation between follow-up arrangements and reduced hospital readmission in specific patient populations, the effect of hospital follow-up in general medicine patients has not been assessed. For this study, we reviewed hospital dismissal instructions for general medicine patients dismissed in 2006 from Mayo Clinic hospitals in Rochester, Minnesota (n = 4989), and determined whether specific appointment details for follow-up were documented. Survival analysis and propensity score-adjusted proportional hazards regression models were developed to investigate the association of follow-up appointment arrangements with hospital readmission, emergency department visits, and mortality at 30 and 180 days after discharge. Of the 4989 dismissal summaries, 3037 (60.9%) contained instructions for a follow-up appointment. No difference was found between those with a documented follow-up appointment vs those without regarding hospital readmission, emergency department visits, or mortality 30 days after dismissal. However, those with a documented follow-up appointment were slightly more likely to have an adverse event (hospital readmission, emergency department visit, or death) within 180 days after dismissal. Improved discharge processes, including arrangement of hospital follow-up appointments, do not appear to improve readmission rates or survival in general medicine patients. Therefore, national efforts to ensure follow-up for all patients after hospital dismissal may not be beneficial or cost-effective.
    Archives of internal medicine 06/2010; 170(11):955-60. · 11.46 Impact Factor