Closer to or Farther away from an Ideal Model of Care? Lessons Learned from Geographic Cohorting

Abstract

Geographic “cohorting,” “co-location,” “regionalization,” or “localization” refers to the assignation of a hospitalist team to a specific inpatient unit. Its benefits may be related to the formation of a team and the additional interventions like interdisciplinary rounding that the enhanced proximity facilitates. However, cohorting is often adopted in isolation of the bundled approach within which it has proven beneficial. Cohorting may also be associated with unintended consequences such as increased interruptions and increased indirect care time. Institutions may increase patient loads in anticipation of the efficiency gained by cohorting—leading to further increases in interruptions and time away from the bedside. Fragmented attention and increases in indirect care may lead to a perception of increased workload, errors, and burnout. As hospital medicine evolves, there are lessons to be learned by studying cohorting. Institutions and inpatient units should work in synergy to shape the day-to-day work which directly affects patient and clinician outcomes—and ultimately culminates in the success or failure of the parent organization. Such synergy can manifest in workflow design and metric selection. Attention to workloads and adopting the principles of continuous quality improvement are also crucial to developing models of care that deliver excellent care.

Geographic cohorting by clinical care team: a narrative review

“…The COVID-19 pandemic briefly afforded new opportunities for cohorting, with one survey finding that 93% of respondents planned for geographic cohorting in response to the pandemic, and 85% of departments having continued the practice by the time of the survey (2). This has prompted a renewed look at the practice (15).…”