ArticleBMC health services research2025
Applying an implementation science lens to understand physician-level variation in patient length of stay in internal medicine.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
objectivesLength of Stay (LoS) is a critical quality metric and focus of improvement efforts in healthcare. Successfully managing LoS depends on understanding the drivers of variation amenable to change. This study aims to (1) characterize physician-level variation in LoS; (2) identify physician actions associated with LoS; and (3) explore the individual-, team-, and hospital-level factors influencing this variation to generate hypotheses for further study.
methodsThis mixed-methods comparative case study approach examined six General Internal Medicine (GIM) departments in Toronto, Ontario. Physician-level variation in LoS was calculated using a random-intercept negative binomial regression model and sensitivity analysis. Semi-structured interviews and ethnographic observations were conducted and analyzed using the AACTT Framework (Action-Actor-Context-Target-Time), the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), and the Theoretical Domains Frameworks (TDF). Hospitals with the lowest and highest physician-level variation in LoS were compared.
resultsPhysician-level variation in LoS ranged from 1.7 to 7.0%, which-though modest numerically-represents meaningful differences in physician decision-making not explained by patient complexity, and no significant hospital-level effect was observed. Qualitative analysis from 12 observations and 67 interviews (32 GIM physicians and residents, 35 nurses and other health professionals) identified eight discrete physician actions influencing LoS, along with five individual-level factors and five team- and hospital-level factors. The nature of these factors was different when comparing hospitals with the lowest and highest variation. Organizational culture and perceptions of the patient population shaped physician perceptions of their professional role, while GIM departmental culture, structural characteristics, and communication networks informed physician beliefs about team capabilities and consequences of action (or inaction).
conclusionThis study highlights the complex interplay between physician actions and factors influencing physician-level variation in LoS. Interventions that target physicians but do not attend to team and hospital factors are likely insufficient to achieve sustained improvements in LoS. Aligning individual-level feedback and environmental restructuring with organizational values and needs of the patient population may offer a more promising approach to sustained improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.