Importance: Inpatient subspecialty consultations, a common and expensive practice within inpatient medicine, do not always go well; however, little is known about the failure modes of consultation, thus making it difficult to identify interventions to improve consultation quality.
Objective: To understand how stakeholders envision the ideal inpatient consultation and identify how and why consultations commonly fall short of this ideal.
Design, setting, and participants: This qualitative study used in-depth, semistructured interviews collected from April to October 2017 and analyzed from January 2018 to February 2020 using conventional content analysis. The setting was a single academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were hospitalists and specialists who had requested or performed a consultation for a non-intensive care unit patient in the previous 4 months, patients who had received a consultation while hospitalized at the medical center in the previous 15 months, and family members of such patients.
Main outcomes and measures: Consultation experiences reported by participants. Clinicians were asked about characteristics of the ideal consultation, positive and negative consultation experiences, costs and benefits, and suggested improvements. Patients and family members were asked about their consultation experience, changes in care, communication preferences, and suggested improvements.
Results: The study included 38 participants: 17 specialists, 13 hospitalists, 4 patients, and 4 family members. More than half (21 of 38) of the participants were female. There were 11 key information exchanges identified that occur among the specialist team, primary team, and patient/family during an ideal consultation. These exchanges are time sensitive and primarily carried out through unwritten protocols. We also identified 6 defects (process failures) that commonly derail information exchanges (complete omission, exclusion of a key stakeholder, poor timing, incomplete or inaccurate information, and misinterpretation) and 5 contextual factors (roles and boundaries, professionalism, team hierarchy, availability, and operational know-how) that influence how information exchange unfolds, making some consultations more prone to defects.
Conclusions and relevance: Successful inpatient consultation requires a complicated, sequenced series of time-sensitive information exchanges that are highly vulnerable to failure. Maximizing the benefit of consultations will likely entail not only minimizing low-value consultations but also actively preventing defects, such as information inaccuracies and misinterpretation, that commonly derail the consultation process.