Background Sitting at the bedside may strengthen physician–patient communication and improve patient experience. Yet despite the potential benefits of sitting, hospital physicians, including resident physicians, may not regularly sit down while speaking with patients. Objective To examine the frequency of sitting by internal medicine residents (including first post-graduate year [PGY-1] and supervising [PGY-2/3] residents) during inpatient encounters and to assess the association between patient-reported sitting at the bedside and patients’ perceptions of other physician communication behaviors. We also assessed residents’ attitudes towards sitting. Design In-person survey of patients and email survey of internal medicine residents between August 2019 and January 2020. Participants Patients admitted to general medicine teaching services and internal medicine residents at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. Main Measures Patient-reported frequency of sitting at the bedside, patients’ perceptions of other communication behaviors (e.g., checking for understanding); residents’ attitudes regarding sitting. Key Results Of 334 eligible patients, 256 (76%) completed a survey. Among these 256 respondents, 198 (77%) and 166 (65%) reported recognizing the PGY-1 and PGY-2/3 on their care team, respectively, for a total of 364 completed surveys. On most surveys (203/364, 56%), patients responded that residents “never” sat. Frequent sitting at the bedside (“every single time” or “most of the time,” together 48/364, 13%) was correlated with other positive behaviors, including spending enough time at the bedside, checking for understanding, and not seeming to be in a rush ( p < 0.01 for all). Of 151 residents, 77 (51%) completed the resident survey; 28 of the 77 (36%) reported sitting frequently. The most commonly cited barrier to sitting was that chairs were not available (38 respondents, 49%). Conclusions Patients perceived that residents sit infrequently. However, sitting was associated with other positive communication behaviors; this is compatible with the hypothesis that promoting sitting could improve overall patient perceptions of provider communication. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-021-07231-4.

Performing elective upper and lower endoscopic procedures on the same day is a patient-centered and less costly approach than a 2-stage approach performed on different days, when clinically appropriate. Whether this practice pattern varies based on practice setting has not been studied. OBJECTIVES To estimate the rate of different-day upper and lower endoscopic procedures in 3 types of outpatient settings and investigate the factors associated with the performance of these procedures on different days. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS A retrospective analysis was conducted of Medicare claims between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2018, for Medicare beneficiaries who underwent a pair of upper and lower endoscopic procedures performed within 90 days of each other at hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs), freestanding ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs), and physician offices. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Undergoing an upper and a lower endoscopic procedure on different days, adjusted for patient characteristics (age, sex, race/ethnicity, residence location and region, comorbidity, and procedure indication) and physician characteristics (sex, years in practice, procedure volume, and primary specialty). Adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS A total of 4 028 587 procedure pairs were identified, of which 52.5% were performed in HOPDs, 43.3% in ASCs, and 4.2% in physician offices. The rate of different-day procedures was 13.6% in HOPDs, 22.2% in ASCs, and 47.7% in physician offices. For the 7564 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and ASCs, their different-day procedure rate changed from 14.1% at HOPDs to 19.4% at ASCs. For the 993 physicians who practiced at both HOPDs and physician offices, their different-day procedure rate changed from 15.8% at HOPDs to 37.4% at physician offices. Patients were more likely to undergo different-day procedures at physician offices and ASCs compared with HOPDs, even after adjusting for patient and physician characteristics (physician office vs HOPD:

Rationale: Geographic co-localization of patients and provider teams (geography) may improve care efficiency and quality. Patients requiring intermediate care present a unique challenge to the geographic model. Objective: Identify the best organizational and staffing model for intermediate care at our academic medical center. Methods: A modified nominal group technique was employed to assess the benefits and limitations of an existing model of intermediate care, identify and review potential alternative models, and choose a new model. Results: In addition to the institution's current model, the benefits and limitations of six alternative organizational and staffing models were characterized. The anticipated impact of each model on nurse: provider communication, maintenance of nursing competencies, nurse satisfaction, efficient utilization of technical and human resources, triage of patients to the unit, care continuity, and the impact on trainee education are described. After considering these features, stakeholders ranked a closed provider staffing model on a unit dedicated to intermediate care highest of the six alternative models. Important outcomes to monitor following transition to a closed staffing model included patient outcomes, nursing job satisfaction and retention, provider and trainee experience, unexpected patient transfers to higher or lower levels of care, and administrative costs. Conclusions: After considering six alternative staffing models for intermediate care, stakeholders ranked a closed provider staffing model highest. Further qualitative and quantitative comparisons to determine optimal models of intermediate care are needed.