The effect of quality improvement interventions on inpatient cancer malnutrition documentation and coding in an academic medical center.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 38-38
Author(s):  
Aynur Aktas ◽  
Lenna Finch ◽  
Danielle Boselli ◽  
Declan Walsh ◽  
Kunal C. Kadakia ◽  
...  

38 Background: Malnutrition (MN) is common yet underdiagnosed in hospitalized cancer patients. Effective assessments can identify those who need nutritional care and help plan intervention. We examined the effect of quality improvement (QI) interventions on the dietitian documented MN (DDMN) and physician coded malnutrition (PCMN). We also determined if the registered dietitian (RD) and physician assessments of MN agreed. Methods: Electronic medical records (EMR) were reviewed for a consecutive cohort of inpatients with a solid tumor diagnosis staged I-IV and admitted to Atrium Health’s Carolinas Medical Center at least once between 1/1/2016 to 5/31/2019. Data were collected from the first admission EMR encounter closest to the cancer diagnosis date. RD assessments were reviewed for DDMN. PCMN diagnosis was based on MN ICD-10 codes in the discharge summary. MN was graded as mild, moderate, and severe. Two QI interventions were implemented during the study period: 1) 8/2016: RD message via EMR to query MD approval for MN diagnosis; 2) 4/2018: Clinical Documentation Integrity Team query MD by sending ASPEN criteria via an alert integrated into MD workflow. Agreement in MN identification was defined as the absence or presence of both DDMN and PCMN; agreement in severity was defined as the absence of DDMN and PCMN or the agreement in presence and severity of DDMN and PCMN. Cochran-Armitage tests for trend assessed prevalence and agreement across the three periods (N1=652; N2=2858; N3=1622) defined by the two sequential QI interventions. Results: N=5143; 52% males. Median age 63 (range 18-102) years. 70% White; 24% Black, 3% Latino. Commonest cancer diagnostic groups: Upper Gastrointestinal 22%, Thoracic (19%), Genitourinary 18%. 28% had stage IV disease. 11% (N=557) met criteria for DDMN and/or PCMN. Of the 557, 40% (N=223) met criteria for both DDMN and PCMN. DDMN (N=420) was mild 2%, moderate 19%, and severe 79%. On discharge, PCMN (N=360) was mild in 10%, moderate in 21%, and severe in 69%. The RD and MD agreed on the presence or absence (94%) and severity (93%) of MN. Significant trends were observed as DDMN prevalence increased from 3.1%, 8.1%, to 10.3% (p<.001), and PCMN prevalence from 0.5%, 7.8%, to 8.2% (p<.001). While rates of mild, moderate, and severe MN varied across the periods, statistically significant change in these distributions was not identified in DDMN (p=0.62) or PCMN (p=0.20) after the second QI intervention. Conclusions: MN was under-diagnosed compared to nutrition intervention studies. When MN was identified, it was moderate or severe in the majority. Evaluations by RD and MD were highly congruent for MN prevalence and severity. Implementation of nutrition-focused QI interventions improved documentation and coding of MN. Improved communication between the RD and the MD could improve the recognition and diagnosis of MN.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 12107-12107
Author(s):  
Aynur Aktas ◽  
Lenna Finch ◽  
Danielle Boselli ◽  
Declan Walsh ◽  
Kunal C. Kadakia ◽  
...  

12107 Background: Malnutrition (MN) is common in hospitalized cancer patients but often underdiagnosed. We evaluated the prevalence of MN risk, dietitian documented MN (DDMN), and physician coded malnutrition (PCMN) in a consecutive cohort of cancer inpatients in an academic, community-based medical center. Methods: Electronic medical records (EMR) were reviewed for inpatients with a solid tumor diagnosis staged I-IV and admitted to Atrium Health Carolinas Medical Center at least once between 1/1/2016 to 5/21/2019. All data were collected from the first admission EMR encounter closest to the cancer diagnosis date. High MN risk was a score ≥2 on the Malnutrition Screening Tool (MST) completed by an RN at admission. Registered Dietitian (RD) assessments were reviewed for DDMN and grade (mild, moderate, severe). PCMN diagnosis was based on MN ICD-10 codes extracted from the medical coder’s discharge summary. Multivariate logistic regression models identified associations between clinic-demographic factors and the prevalence of DDMN and PCMN with stepwise selection. Results: N=5,143; 48% females. Median age 63 (range 18-102) years. 70% White; 24% Black, 3% Latino. Most common cancers: thoracic 19% and digestive system (14% other, 11% colorectal). 28% had known stage IV disease. The MST was completed in 79%. Among those with MST ≥2 (N=1,005; 25%), DDMN and PCMN prevalence was 30% and 22%, respectively. In the entire cohort, 8% had DDMN; 7% PCMN; 4% both. Prevalence of MN risk, DDMN, and PCMN by cancer site are in the Table. DDMN (N=420) was mild 2%, moderate 16%; severe 66%; unspecified 16%. On discharge, PCMN (N=360) was mild 10%; moderate 0%; severe 69%; unspecified 21%. Male gender (OR 1.27 [1.01, 1.59]), Black race (OR 1.57 [1.25, 1.98]), stage IV disease (v. I-III) (OR 3.08 [2.49, 3.82]), and primary site were all independent predictors of DDMN (all p<0.05); Black race (OR 1.46 [1.14, 1.87]), stage IV disease (OR 2.70 [2.15, 3.39]), and primary site were independent predictors of PCMN (all p<0.05). Conclusions: 25% of cancer inpatients were at high risk for MN. Primary site, disease stage, and race were independent predictors of a greater risk. MN appears to be under-diagnosed compared to population studies. This is the first study to report the prevalence of MN in a large cancer inpatient database with a representative population.[Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
pp. 112972982199175
Author(s):  
Pooja Nawathe ◽  
Robert Wong ◽  
Gabriel Pollock ◽  
Jack Green ◽  
Michael Kissen ◽  
...  

Background: Pandemics create challenges for medical centers, which call for innovative adaptations to care for patients during the unusually high census, to distribute stress and work hours among providers, to reduce the likelihood of transmission to health care workers, and to maximize resource utilization. Methods: We describe a multidisciplinary vascular access team’s development to improve frontline providers’ workflow by placing central venous and arterial catheters. Herein we describe the development, organization, and processes resulting in the rapid formation and deployment of this team, reporting on notable clinical issues encountered, which might serve as a basis for future quality improvement and investigation. We describe a retrospective, single-center descriptive study in a large, quaternary academic medical center in a major city. The COVID-19 vascular access team included physicians with specialized experience in placing invasive catheters and whose usual clinical schedule had been lessened through deferment of elective cases. The target population included patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 in the medical ICU (MICU) needing invasive catheter placement. The line team placed all invasive catheters on patients in the MICU with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Results and conclusions: Primary data collected were the number and type of catheters placed, time of team member exposure to potentially infected patients, and any complications over the first three weeks. Secondary outcomes pertained to workflow enhancement and quality improvement. 145 invasive catheters were placed on 67 patients. Of these 67 patients, 90% received arterial catheters, 64% central venous catheters, and 25% hemodialysis catheters. None of the central venous catheterizations or hemodialysis catheters were associated with early complications. Arterial line malfunction due to thrombosis was the most frequent complication. Division of labor through specialized expert procedural teams is feasible during a pandemic and offloads frontline providers while potentially conferring safety benefits.


Author(s):  
Nila S. Radhakrishnan ◽  
Margaret C. Lo ◽  
Rohit Bishnoi ◽  
Subhankar Samal ◽  
Robert Leverence ◽  
...  

Purpose: Traditionally, the morbidity and mortality conference (M&MC) is a forum where possible medical errors are discussed. Although M&MCs can facilitate identification of opportunities for systemwide improvements, few studies have described their use for this purpose, particularly in residency training programs. This paper describes the use of M&MC case review as a quality improvement activity that teaches system-based practice and can engage residents in improving systems of care. Methods: Internal medicine residents at a tertiary care academic medical center reviewed 347 consecutive mortalities from March 2014 to September 2017. The residents used case review worksheets to categorize and track causes of mortality, and then debriefed with a faculty member. Selected cases were then presented at a larger interdepartmental meeting and action items were implemented. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were used to analyze the results. Results: The residents identified a possible diagnostic mismatch at some point from admission to death in 54.5% of cases (n= 189) and a possible need for improved management in 48.0% of cases. Three possible management failure themes were identified, including failure to plan, failure to communicate, and failure to rescue, which accounted for 21.9%, 10.7 %, and 10.1% of cases, respectively. Following these reviews, quality improvement initiatives proposed by residents led to system-based changes. Conclusion: A resident-driven mortality review curriculum can lead to improvements in systems of care. This novel type of curriculum can be used to teach system-based practice. The recruitment of teaching faculty with expertise in quality improvement and mortality case analyses is essential for such a project.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18300-e18300
Author(s):  
Katrina Fischer ◽  
Anne Margaret Walling ◽  
John A. Glaspy

e18300 Background: Little is known about the attitudes and knowledge of oncologists who discuss financial toxicity with patients compared with those who do not. We assessed perceptions of the oncologists’ role in discussing out of pocket (OOP) costs and financial stress (FS) to inform quality improvement strategies in the management of financial toxicity. Methods: We surveyed 45 practicing medical oncologists at a large academic medical center in 2019 using Likert scale responses. Questions covered three domains; self-perceived knowledge of financial issues related to care, practice of cost discussions with patients, and perceived ability to navigate toward solutions related to FS. Results: Fifty-three percent of oncologists felt comfortable discussing OOP costs, but only 42.5% discussed FS with patients. Over half (55%) lacked confidence they could help patients experiencing FS from treatment. These providers were less likely to ask about FS than those who were confident (r0.416, p0.004). Perceived knowledge among many was low: 48% felt they had little to no knowledge of OOP treatment costs, 33-37% had little to no understanding of how private or public insurance covers treatment respectively, and 60% reported low knowledge of point of care (POC) resources. Those who ask patients about FS reported higher perceived knowledge of insurance (public r0.47, p < 0.001, private r0.452, p 0.002) and POC resources (r0.392, p 0.007), but not more knowledge of OOP cost. Three factors were associated with increased confidence in the ability to help patients; higher knowledge of POC resources (r 0.379, p 0.01); having changed a treatment because of cost within the past year (r 0.395, p 0.047), and years in practice (r 0.329, p 0.047). Conclusions: Many oncologists lack confidence that they can help patients with financial issues, particularly early on in their career. Providers who lack confidence that they can help their patients appear less likely to ask patients about financial stress. Those who do ask about financial stress report higher self-perceived knowledge of insurance coverage and POC resources. This suggests that quality improvement efforts aimed at improving education and resources for providers to help navigate financial toxicity are needed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 188-188
Author(s):  
Danielle Wallace ◽  
Denise Cochran ◽  
Jennifer Michelle Duff ◽  
Julia Lee Close ◽  
Martina Cathryn Murphy ◽  
...  

188 Background: Quality improvement and patient safety education is an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) common program requirement for hematology/oncology fellowships. Specifically, the ACGME requires trainee participation in interprofessional clinical patient safety activities, such as root cause analyses. These can be challenging to incorporate into busy schedules and are intimidating to some trainees, but simulated RCAs are a novel way to assure trainees gain important patient safety skills. We report on a multicentered experience utilizing a simulated RCA educational module in an attempt to provide fellows with the tools needed to participate in a live RCA and to increase awareness of the need to analyze patient safety events. Methods: The two-hour module included a didactic session explaining the basics of an RCA including common terminology, effective chart review, and personal interviews. The fellows assessed a patient safety event of a missed coagulopathy and created an event flow map and fishbone analysis. They then formed root cause/contributing factor statements and proposed a solution. Seventeen fellows from two institutions completed pre- and post-session surveys regarding the experience. Results: There was a 47% increase in both the percentage of fellows who felt comfortable participating in live RCAs in the future, and in the number of fellows who felt comfortable with using the tools typically utilized in an RCA. 70.59% of respondents felt that as a result of the mock RCA, they were more likely to report a near miss or adverse event. Conclusions: Mock RCAs are a feasible method of incorporating ACGME-required patient safety activities into hematology/oncology fellow education and are effective in increasing their comfort and understanding of important quality improvement skills


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document