In this single-center cohort study, low HL was associated with a longer hospital LOS. The findings suggest that the adverse effects of low HL may extend into the inpatient setting, indicating that targeted interventions may be needed for patients with low HL. Further work is needed to explore these negative consequences and potential mitigating factors.

Background Vision impairment is an under-recognized risk factor for adverse events among hospitalized patients, yet vision is neither routinely tested nor documented for inpatients. Low-cost ($8 and up) non-prescription ‘readers’ may be a simple, high-value intervention to improve inpatients’ vision. We aimed to study initial feasibility and efficacy of screening and correcting inpatients’ vision. Methods From June 2012 through January 2014 we began testing whether participants’ vision corrected with non-prescription lenses for eligible participants failing a vision screen (Snellen chart) performed by research assistants (RAs). Descriptive statistics and tests of comparison, including t-tests and chi-squared tests, were used when appropriate. All analyses were performed using Stata version 12 (StataCorps, College Station, TX). Results Over 800 participants’ vision was screened (n=853). Older (≥65 years; 56%) participants were more likely to have insufficient vision than younger (<65 years; 28%; p<0.001). Non-prescription readers corrected the majority of eligible participants’ vision (82%, 95/116). Discussion Among an easily identified sub-group of inpatients with poor vision, low-cost ‘readers’ successfully corrected most participants’ vision. Hospitalists and other clinicians working in the inpatient setting can play an important role in identifying opportunities to provide high-value care related to patients’ vision.

The role of patient-level risk factors such as insufficient vision has been under-studied. Because insufficient vision may interfere with health literacy assessments, the full impact of low health literacy among older patients with impaired vision is unknown. We sought to determine whether senior inpatients’ insufficient vision and low health literacy are associated with adverse outcomes post-discharge, specifically falls and readmissions. We conducted an observational study of adult medicine inpatients at an urban hospital. Visual acuity and health literacy were screened at bedside. Outcomes data were collected by telephone 30 days post-discharge. Among 1,900 participants, 1,244 (65%) were reached post-discharge; 44% had insufficient vision and 43% had low health literacy. Insufficient vision was associated with post-discharge falls among participants ≥65 years (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 3.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-8.05), but not among participants <65 years (AOR 1.44, 95% CI 0.89-2.32. Low health literacy was associated with readmissions among participants ≥65 years (AOR 3.15, 95% CI 1.77-5.61), but not among participants <65 years (AOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.09). The results suggest the need to implement screening for older inpatients’ vision and health literacy. Developing effective interventions to reduce these risks is critical given national priorities to reduce falls and readmissions.

As patient-centered education efforts increase, assessing health literacy (HL) becomes more salient. The verbal BHLS may have clinical and feasibility advantages over written tools, including the REALM-R and S-TOFHLA, however the BHLS’ utility among inpatients remains unresolved. Hospitalized adults were enrolled; HL was assessed using three tools. Categorical comparisons used Chi-square; AUROC curve was calculated (reference: REALM-R). The prevalence of low HL among participants (n=260) was higher for the BHLS than S-TOFHLA (29% vs. 17%, p<0.001) and higher for the REALM-R than both the BHLS (44% vs. 29%, p=0.004) and S-TOFHLA (44% vs. 17%, p<0.001). The AUROCs were 0.58 for BHLS and 0.66 for S-TOFHLA. The different prevalence of low HL among the participants based on each tool likely reflects the complexity of measuring HL and differing domains captured by each tool. The BHLS can be considered a viable inpatient HL screening tool, given its increased feasibility and verbal administration.

Feedback and teaching occur regularly on teaching hospital wards. Although feedback has important implications for resident learning, residents often report that they receive little feedback. The significant overlap of teaching and feedback in clinical education may contribute to resident difficulty with feedback identification. We sent a survey with seven scenarios to internal medicine residents across the country. Two of the scenarios contained teaching, two contained feedback, and three contained combined teaching and feedback. From October 2017 to April 2018, 17% of residents (392/2346) from 17 residency programs completed the survey. Participating residents correctly identified both feedback scenarios 89% of the time, both teaching scenarios 64% of the time, and all three combined teaching and feedback scenarios 38% of the time. Interns were less likely than upper-level residents to correctly identify combined teaching and feedback scenarios (P ¼ 0.005). Residents may have difficulty identifying feedback in the context of teaching. This confusion may contribute to residents' perceptions that they receive little feedback.