Louisville Medicine Volume 64, Issue 7 | Page 7

From the PRESIDENT JOHN L. ROBERTS, MD GLMS President | [email protected] MAKING THE GRADE W e have been conditioned since grade school to strive to get an “A.” Our parents expected it, and we who are parents expect it of our children. Whenever my kids would achieve this grade I would tell them “Reminds me of me when I was your age!” This played well until the day they found my old report cards - the gig was up. I had to own the fact that I was not always an “A” student. Last month, Leapfrog released its fall 2016 Hospital Safety Grades. According to its website, the Leapfrog Hospital Safety Grade indicates how safe general acute-care hospitals are for patients. The Safety Grade includes data that patient safety experts use to compare hospitals. Publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Leapfrog Hospital Survey, and secondary data sources such as the American Hospital Association’s Annual Survey and the Hospital IT Supplement are weighted and then combined to produce a single, consumer- friendly composite score that is published as an A, B, C, D or F letter grade. While few people can understand the complicated scoring system, everyone understands that an “A” is better than a “B,” “C” or “D.” No hospital in the Louisville area got an “A.” Sick patients expect our hospitals to be safe. A grade less than an “A” suggests that they are not the safest they could be and undermines our citizens’ trust in the health care we and our hospitals provide. And our success as physicians and hospitals depends on that trust. Given a choice, who would not want to go to the hospital with an “A” grade? We as physicians and our hospitals do not like being graded, unless of course we get the “A.” We argue that health care is too complicated and nuanced to be summarized by a score or a letter. Our patients don’t care for our excuses – they know what an “A” is and that an “A” is better than a “B,” “C” or “D.” People, we all need to own this, physicians and hospitals alike. We as physicians need to step up and help our hospitals make the grade. The hospitals cannot do it without us. Indeed, several of the quality and safety scores are directly influenced by the practice of the physician. For example, it has been 170 years since Ignaz Semmelweis showed that hand washing markedly decreased mortality. Yet, our hospitals still struggle to get physician compliance with hand hygiene. Physicians’ orders determine when central lines and urinary catheters are placed and when they are removed. Infections related to these devices significantly affect the hospital’s grade. How physicians communicate with their patients effect patient satisfaction scores as well as the patients’ understanding of their disease. It is hard for the patients to be compliant with our instructions if they do not understand their disease or the medications we have prescribed. Physicians rarely report adverse events or near-miss episodes through the hospital’s patient safety reporting mechanism. We as physicians need to get actively involved in this process so that we can drive improvements in our hospitals. Finally, physicians need to take the time to get involved in root cause analysis following adverse events so that those events can be prevented in the future. A patient’s readmission to a hospital is rarely due to the patient being discharged too early. Rather, most often it is related to problems in the transition of care from inpatient to outpatient. Communication between our hospital-based physicians and the community physicians must improve. Another opportunity we physicians and our hospitals may have in the coming year is the opportunity to change Kentucky’s laws to allow more open discussions in our hospital safety meetings and morbidity and mortality conferences. We have long blamed the Democratic-controlled Kentucky House o