Implementation of Agile in health care: Methodology for a multi-site home hospital accelerator

Meghna Desai, Miriam Tardif-Douglin, Indigo R. D. Miller, Stephanie C. Blitzer, David L. Gardner, Teresa M. Thompson, LaPonda Edmondson, David M. Levine
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.12.23299864

Abstract

Background The diffusion of innovation in health care is sluggish. Evidence-based care models and interventions take years to reach patients. We believe the health care community could deliver innovation to the bedside faster if it followed other sectors by employing an organizational framework for efficiently accomplishing work. Home hospital is an example of sluggish diffusion. This model provides hospital-level care in a patient’s home instead of in a traditional hospital with equal or better outcomes. Home hospital uptake has steadily grown during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet barriers to launch remain for health care organizations, including access to expertise and implementation tools. The Home Hospital Early Adopters Accelerator was created to bring together a network of health care organizations to develop tools necessary for program implementation.

Methods The Accelerator used the Agile framework known as Scrum to rapidly coordinate work across many different specialized skill sets and blend individuals who had no experience with one another into efficient teams. Its goal was to take 40 weeks to develop 20 “knowledge products,” or tools critical to the development of a home hospital program such as workflows, inclusion criteria, and protocols. We conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the Accelerator’s implementation, measuring teams’ productivity and experience.

Results Eighteen health care organizations participated in the Accelerator to produce the expected 20 knowledge products in only 32 working weeks, a 20% reduction in time. Nearly all (97.4%) participants agreed or strongly agreed the Scrum teams worked well together, and 96.8% felt the teams produced a high-quality product. Participants consistently remarked that the Scrum team developed products much faster than their respective organizational teams. The Accelerator was not a panacea: it was challenging for some participants to become familiar with the Scrum framework and some participants struggled with balancing participation in the Accelerator with their job duties.

Conclusions Implementation of an agile-based accelerator that joined disparate health care organizations into teams equipped to create knowledge products for home hospital proved both efficient and effective. We demonstrate that implementing an organizational framework to accomplish work is a valuable approach that may be transformative for the sector.

Background

Introduction

A large gap in health care exists between evidence-based knowledge and evidence-based practice,(1) often termed the “know-do gap.”(2) In 1962, Everett Rogers, a professor of rural sociology, published a seminal work on the diffusion of innovation.(3) He and others posited that the perception of the innovation, the adopters, and presiding contextual factors could impact the rate of spread.(4) In health care, as in other sectors, nearly all of these clusters often drive against rapid innovation. Yet by employing an Agile framework to organize work so that it is iterative, predictable, and joyful, other sectors have shown that rapid innovation is sustainable.(5) We hypothesized that applying similar organizational principles to the work of health care could facilitate the diffusion of rapid innovation.(6–9)

Hospitals are the standard site of care for acute illness in the US, but hospital care involves substantial risk and cost to the patient. One in 10 hospitalized patients will experience an adverse event, worse in older adults.(10–12) For decades literature has demonstrated that functional decline is a common adverse event associated with an acute hospitalization and is often related to the processes of care, rather than the patient’s underlying illness.(13) Despite evidence that movement improves patient outcomes, physical activity while hospitalized plummets.(14–17) As a result, 20% of formerly independent older medical patients require assistance walking after an acute hospitalization.(18) While admitted, 20% of older adults suffer delirium,(19–23) over 5% contract hospital-acquired infections(24), and many lose functional status that is never regained.(10,25–29) The cost of hospital care to the patient is the leading cause of personal bankruptcy.(16,29) Following hospitalization, many patients cycle among care settings, moving between rehabilitation and hospitalization and back again. (30,31)

Hospital-level acute care at home, or “home hospital,” was specifically designed to mitigate the risks associated with hospitalization and improve outcomes that are important to patients. Home hospital is the provision of hospital-level care in a patient’s home as a substitute for traditional inpastient hospital care.(32) Patients receive in-home nursing and physician care, intravenous medications, supplemental oxygen, laboratory and imaging diagnostics, and continuous vitals monitoring, among other services. (33) Importantly, home hospital is neither traditional “home care,” “home infusion,” nor “home hospice,” which often involve much lower acuity services such as twice weekly nursing and therapy. Internationally, nearly 40 years of evidence, including several randomized controlled trials, demonstrated that home hospital improves outcomes important to patients.(34–36)Home hospital patients have fewer 30-day readmissions, rate their experience of care more positively, feel more independent and less anxious, are more physically active, and maintain greater functional status.(33,34,37–42) From a clinical and administrative perspective, home hospital maintains patient safety and care quality, while reducing cost.(43,44)

Despite this evidence base, diffusion of the home hospital innovation has been slow, with fewer than 20 programs in existence for over a decade. The largest barrier was lack of a payment and regulatory pathway in the United States.

In November of 2020, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued the Acute Hospital Care at Home Waiver (AHCAH) in response to over-taxed hospital capacity created by the COVID-19 pandemic.(45) For the first time, the waiver created a nationwide regulatory and payment pathway for hospitals to deploy home hospital. The model has steadily grown from about a dozen programs prior to the pandemic to over 250 hospitals in 37 states.(46) This growth represents early adoption, yet a national survey of active programs revealed that program launch and growth remained challenging.(37) Barriers to implementation included clinician buy-in, appropriate patient identification, feasible workflows and protocols, and local content knowledge and expertise to guide the program. Many of these implementation barriers were so large that some programs that were able to secure a CMS home hospital waiver never enrolled patients.

Widespread success implementing home hospital during the CMS waiver is a rare policy window that could influence the fate of Medicare coverage for decades to come. Home hospital’s extensive, well-documented benefits to patients, caregivers, and hospitals and this time sensitive need for implementation support provided an opportunity to test a framework that accelerated the creation of tools necessary for home hospital.

Launching the Home Hospital Early Adopters Accelerator

Our goal was to bring together health care organizations that had interest in starting or had recently launched a home hospital program to rapidly design and test knowledge products that could support program implementation. Knowledge products could include a patient admission workflow to admit a patient, patient-facing welcome packet, market scan of technology vendors, or list of requirements for commercial reimbursement contracts. We coupled our experience with home hospital and survey data from participating organizations to identify 20 knowledge products that would create a substantial portion of the tools needed to deploy a program. To make high quality tools available as soon as possible, we planned to create those 20 knowledge products in 40 weeks. We also planned to study the team’s performance.

Using Scrum to accelerate home hospital tool creation

Extensive knowledge of the home hospital model is often not common among health care organizations. To effectively deploy a program like home hospital, a health care organization charged with implementation needs access to deep expertise and experience, rather than a broad implementation guide or the abundance of available published literature. Traditional, one-on-one technical assistance approaches risk personnel-heavy, expensive, slow hospital-by-hospital diffusion of innovation.(47,48) We searched for a methodology to bring together a network of health care organizations to accelerate their knowledge and expertise of home hospital. We gravitated toward Agile methodologies given their success in other sectors and their ability to break complex projects into manageable chunks of work.(49) They have become more common in health care to rapidly organize teams, fulfill diverse needs faster, offer end-users involvement in the development process, all while using fewer resources and improving quality.(7,50–54)

Of the Agile methodologies, we chose to use Scrum due to its flexibility, low barrier to entry (e.g., freely available tools),(55,56) industry evidence that it accelerates work,(51,57–59) and prior experience among our own team members. Scrum employs an iterative and incremental approach to optimize predictability, control risk, and make work joyful. The members of a Scrum team collectively have all the necessary skills and expertise to do the work or can easily acquire such skills as needed. Scrum creates the structure for people to come together regardless of their background or area of expertise.(55) Scrum began as a tool for organizing software development teams, but it has been adopted across industries.(55,57–64) Scrum has been used in health care to design electronic health record tools,(65) develop communication tools for cancer patients,(66) and develop a telemedicine care pilot.(67) We hypothesized Scrum could catalyze coordination across disparate health care organizations to rapidly build the tools necessary for a home hospital program to launch, instead of the often years-long pursuance of developing workflows, technology stacks, and protocols.(57,58,63) We also expected that the Accelerator would break down the traditional siloed development that occurs among health care organizations.

The Scrum framework is purposefully limited to a few essential elements (Additional file 1) so the people using it can shape their work to best fit their skills, relationships, and interactions. It involves 3 roles, 5 events, and 3 artifacts (Figure 1). The team roles include the Product Owner who has deep knowledge of the field and user requirements, the Scrum Master who leads and organizes the team toward its products, and Developers who have the knowledge to develop the team’s products. The Scrum process has several steps (Figure 2):

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Scrum Implementation

Refer to Table 1 for details on each Scrum element

Figure 2.
Figure 2. The Anatomy of a Sprint

Refer to the Scrum Glossary in Additional file 1 for details on each Scrum element

View this table:
Table 1. Scrum elements and adaptations made for the Accelerator

Step 1: Backlog Refinement

The Scrum process begins with Backlog Refinement (step 1), where the Scrum team defines the various products and breaks them into well-defined groups of tasks and minimum requirements needed to create a product that is ready to use (referred to as a Product Increment). To accomplish the Product Increment, the Scrum team creates multiple User Stories that represent chunks of work. These User Stories form the Product Backlog.

Step 2: Sprint Planning

At Sprint Planning (step 2), the Developers select User Stories from the Product Backlog to include in the Sprint. Developers further refine the User Stories and assign team members to the tasks required to complete the User Story. These tasks form the Sprint Backlog. Then the Scrum team estimates the level of effort required to accomplish the User Stories using Story Points (a relative measure of effort described below) and commits to the Sprint.

Step 3: Daily Scrum

Each day the team holds a Daily Scrum (step 3), where each member notes what items from the Sprint Backlog they accomplished, their impediments, and what they will work on that day.

Step 4: Sprint Review

If the team believes the Sprint successfully achieved its goal, the team holds a Sprint Review (step 4), where they present a ready-to-use product to the project’s stakeholders (critical reviewers of the work) for feedback on how well the product meets minimum requirements for real-world use.

Step 5: Sprint Retrospective

The team holds a Sprint Retrospective (step 5) to identify successes and areas for improvement. The team then commits to an improvement by doing one thing differently in the next Sprint.

Methods

Recruitment of participants

To solicit participants, we created a public request for participation in the Home Hospital Early Adopters Accelerator (referred subsequently as “the Accelerator”). Any health care organization was welcome to participate, including hospitals, primary care offices, home health agencies, and health care insurers. As a partnership between Ariadne Labs (an initiative of Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital) and CaroNova (an initiative of The Duke Endowment, the North Carolina Healthcare Association, and the South Carolina Hospital Association), the Accelerator was available to sites in North and South Carolina free of charge, while sites elsewhere paid a small participation fee. We asked sites to apply by describing their plans for launching a home hospital program or to detail their current program. We also required a commitment from executive leadership that the health care organization would pledge to send staff to help develop at least 5 knowledge products over the 40 weeks. We accepted all sites that submitted a complete application.

Adapting Scrum for the Accelerator

As is common when using Scrum, we needed to make adaptations to the traditional Scrum processes to fit our goal due to the multicenter nature of the work and the Accelerator’s constantly changing teams (Table 1). Typically, a Scrum team works together full time for months or years on end. Instead, we asked participating health care organizations to staff each Sprint with Developers who had content expertise in the planned knowledge product. Therefore, the Developers were not longstanding colleagues but were instead thrust together for a maximum of 2 weeks without prior knowledge of Scrum or experience working with one-another. Only the Scrum Master, Product Owner, and supporting project coordinator remained consistent from Sprint to Sprint (Table 2).

View this table:
Table 2. The home hospital early adopters accelerator team

In addition, all Scrum activities were performed remotely. It was unclear at the start of the Accelerator whether we could achieve sufficient teamwork and assimilate team members to Scrum processes in such a short period of time. Because of the rotating Developers, we asked a small cohort of Accelerator participants to support our core team in producing the Product Backlog, instead of involving the Developers. This enabled us to give the newly forming Scrum teams a head start with highly developed User Stories that usually required only minor refinement and clarification during each Sprint.

To run this fast-paced, distributed Scrum adaptation, we turned to a package of synchronous and asynchronous collaboration tools to connect team members. We used standard software tools like Zoom, Dropbox, and Microsoft Office. To create a digital whiteboard and collaboration space, we used Miro. Our Miro board housed content for our Sprint Backlog, Sprint Planning, Daily Scrum, and Sprint Retrospective (Figure 3). It also served as a knowledge management platform housing a central repository for links and prior knowledge products. Developers created shared norms around collaboration for each Sprint.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Figure 3. Remote Scrum via virtual whiteboard.

a) Sprint Backlog; b) Sprint Planning; c) Daily Scrum; and d) Sprint Retrospective.

During launch preparation, we required role-based training (Figure 4). The team from CaroNova and Ariadne took the Scrum Startup for Teams training that taught the basics of Scrum (9 hours). Scrum Inc. additionally provided the team a coach with whom we could consult as needed for Scrum methodology questions (10 hours of coaching time). To train the incoming Developers from individual sites, we asked them to review two articles and a video about Scrum and home hospital (1 hour). We also asked Developers to test their access to the tools ahead of the Sprint Planning and offered office hours with the Scrum Master and project coordinator to resolve any remaining technological or knowledge barriers to Sprint participation.

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Training type and level of effort

Knowledge product creation

For Developers, weekly Sprints began with Sprint Planning, which included estimating the level of effort required to accomplish the selected backlog items. Level of effort is quantified as “Story Points” instead of an estimate of time required for each item. Story Points represent the level of complexity and novelty of the tasks within the ensuing Sprint, with more points equating to more work. Velocity represents the Story Points per sprint. A Scrum Master calculates the planned Velocity at the beginning of the Sprint and the actual Velocity at the end of a Sprint. High-functioning teams may therefore exceed initial Scrum Velocity estimates if they are able to accomplish more work during a Sprint. As an example, a team may plan to accomplish 2 User Stories as part of a 1-week Sprint. If each User Story is estimated at 3 Story Points, the planned Velocity is 6 Story Points. If the team is very efficient and decides to include another User Story worth 2 Story Points, their actual Velocity is 8 Story Points.

Evaluation of the Accelerator

At the end of each Sprint, we collected developer feedback with an electronic survey using REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, a fully HIPAA-compliant web application). The Developer survey measured participant experience with the process of the Accelerator, and included items related to one’s experience participating in the Sprint (Likert scale: 1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree) (Additional file 1). For example, to assess experience we asked, “The Scrum team worked well together” and “It was difficult to create the knowledge product created during this Sprint.” There could be multiple survey responses per Scrum participant because a Developer who participated in two knowledge products would complete the survey twice.

At the end of the Accelerator, we conducted semi-structured interviews with Developers and stakeholders to gather further depth and context on their experience as well as collect feedback on how the Accelerator format could be improved (Additional file 1). A member of the study team (MPD; female, MPH) conducted each interview with the participant over an encrypted connection. We audio recorded and transcribed the interviews for analysis using Dedoose qualitative software. A multidisciplinary research team with home hospital, agile methodology, and qualitative research expertise developed an initial codebook deductively based on the evaluation aims and interview guide questions. A member of the study team (MPD) used an inductive coding approach, adding emerging themes or codes throughout the process. One coder (MPD) performed a thematic analysis of transcriptions, and a second coder (SB; female, BA) double coded a subset of the interviews. Any disagreements were first discussed between the two coders to assess and improve intercoder agreement. (68–70) If needed, the coders achieved consensus on any remaining disagreement through discussion with a third researcher (DML; male, MD).

Results

Participants and sites

Of the eighteen Accelerator sites, most were large (62.50%), urban (83.33%) hospitals and hospital systems (Table 3). Less than half (44.44 %) of the sites had begun enrolling home hospital patients as of September 2021 when the Accelerator launched.

View this table:
Table 3: Site characteristics

There were 61 Developers and 44 stakeholders. Overall, most Developers were white (83.61%) and many were hospital administrators (42.62%), followed by nurses (24.59%) (Table 4). Most stakeholders also were white (88.64%) and most were hospital administrators (38.64%), followed by nurses (20.45%). Physicians accounted for 11.48% of developers and 18.18% of stakeholders.

View this table:
Table 4. Participant characteristics

Knowledge product creation metrics

The mean planned Velocity was 2.4 Story Points per Sprint (Figure 5). The mean actual Velocity was 3.0 Story Points per Sprint. This ultimately led to completing the 20 knowledge products 8 sprints early for a 20% reduction in schedule.

Figure 5.
Figure 5. Product burndown and performance velocity

Participant and site experience

Quantitative findings

The results of this survey suggest Developers were broadly satisfied with the process and the output of the Accelerator (Table 5). Developers reported working approximately 5.65 hours (SD, 4.03) hours each week. Most believed the Scrum team worked well together (40.4% agreed, 57.1% strongly agreed), and the Sprints were productive (38.8% agreed, 59.6% strongly agreed). The majority of respondents also thought the Scrum team spent an acceptable amount of time working on each knowledge product (46.8% agreed, 48.1% strongly agreed). Most developers and stakeholders were pleased with the results, agreeing that the Sprint produced a high-quality product (32.7% agreed, 64.1% strongly agreed).

View this table:
Table 5: Developer experience

Qualitative findings

From the qualitative analysis of Developer and stakeholder interviews, we identified several benefits of participating in the Accelerator including collaboration and knowledge sharing (Table 6). We also found multiple perceived advantages of utilizing the Scrum framework as well as some challenges.

View this table:
Table 6. Qualitative findings of Developers’ experience a

Accelerator participants spoke at length about the benefits of collaborating within the Accelerator’s Scrum framework. They saw value that it was not only with other home hospital programs, but with other individuals who had diverse backgrounds and expertise. Participants appreciated the opportunity to network with and learn from other home hospital programs by discussing challenges, sharing and receiving feedback on new ideas, and hearing about the experiences of other participants.

Another perceived benefit of participation was the ability to learn firsthand how a health care organization can launch their own home hospital program. Participants from organizations that had an existing home hospital program cited the benefits of crosschecking their existing tools and resources, like clinical and administrative workflows, with those being developed in the accelerator. This helped identify gaps in existing programs and inform improvements.

Through their experience with the Accelerator, participants noted that the Scrum framework was a positive change from their standard way of working on projects in health care. Scrum helped focus and organize participants, it made the process of creating knowledge products efficient (without sacrificing quality), and the meeting format allowed for more collaboration. Overall participants said that more work was accomplished than thought possible.

The Scrum framework is highly collaborative and adapting Scrum to a virtual environment requires use of virtual collaboration tools. Some Developers’ organizational policies and firewalls made it hard to access shared documents (Table 6). This required workarounds, such as sharing the latest version of documents by email or designating someone with access to upload documents on behalf of a Developer without access. When Developers could access virtual collaboration tools, they were not universally familiar with them. The program coordinator became adept at helping Developers quickly log into and navigate both the virtual whiteboard and the shared cloud drive. Our model repeatedly brought together new, multidisciplinary groups of developers to work on each knowledge product. Matching the right individuals with the right expertise for a given knowledge product was vital but could be challenging. We provided sites with information about the required expertise for each knowledge product far in advance of Sprints so they could identify Developers. However, some Developers were not prepared for the hours of work required for each Sprint and found it hard to balance their other work priorities (Tables 6). Occasionally, Developers felt their expertise was poorly matched to the knowledge product.

In most cases, Developers were working on a Scrum team for the first time. Some felt overwhelmed by the unfamiliar Scrum terminology and the use of a virtual white board for live collaboration during the initial Sprint Review (Table 6). Others found the format of the Sprint to be very fast paced or with unnecessary components. This was a manageable learning curve, however, as Developers consistently expressed that their second Sprint was much easier than their first.

Discussion

Implementation of an Agile-based accelerator that brought together 18 previously unconnected health care organizations was feasible, acceptable, and efficient in generating health care products faster than anticipated, requiring 20% less time. The Accelerator successfully produced its desired 20 knowledge products ahead of schedule using an adapted Scrum framework. We believe organizational frameworks like Scrum are underutilized in health care as a method to drive collaboration and develop knowledge products to address various health care problems. Below we discuss the challenges we faced, lessons learned, and advice for future Accelerators. We describe our overarching recommendations and the steps required to launch an Accelerator in Figure 6.

Figure 6.
Figure 6. Steps to launch a Scrum-based accelerator

*Months noted reflect the timeframe for scope to implementation of the Accelerator. This timeline may be different for other programs.

Implementing technology designed for virtual collaboration in health care

We recommend assessing Developers’ comfort with tools before a Sprint to facilitate targeted support. Consider holding early conversations with site IT staff to ensure needed access. Offering office hours for ongoing training and dedicated technical support helps further reduce barriers.

Recruiting engaged Scrum team members

We recommend having backup Developers that the project coordinator can enlist should others have to bow out or be a poor fit for the knowledge product. We asked Developers who might have to miss a Daily Scrum meeting due to a competing conflict to use the digital whiteboard asynchronously to inform the rest of the team of their progress or any impediments. We also provided several subject matter experts who could be brought in quickly when an area of expertise was lacking on the Developer team. To make the time commitment explicit, we further recommend estimating for Developers the total weekly number of hours they should reserve on their calendar for Scrum participation.

Supporting Developers along the Scrum learning curve

To acclimatize Developers to the Scrum framework, the Scrum Master included a 5-minute Scrum overview at the beginning of each Sprint Planning, as well as weekly office hours. To adjust expectations for new Developers, we also consistently communicated that after one Sprint, the learning curve eased. We recommend clear training requirements for Developers in preparation for Sprint participation. This could include mandatory training session attendance or use of learning management systems to ensure asynchronous completion of learning content.

This work has limitations. While we did have one international healthcare organization participate in the Accelerator, most of our participating sites were U.S. based organizations therefore limiting generalizability. In addition, most of our participating sites were large, urban hospitals. Further testing is required to see if smaller and rural organizations would have the capacity to participate in an Accelerator of this nature. In addition, an adapted Scrum framework worked for our Accelerator, but it remains to be seen if a similar method can be successfully implemented in other sectors of healthcare.

Conclusion

Health care has an innovation dilemma: innovative existing tools that need rapid deployment and implementation in weeks to months arrive at the bedside often years later. We believe this dilemma is partly due to how we structure quality improvement and implementation efforts in health care. Organizing team members via Scrum facilitated productivity rarely seen inside health care while maintaining high quality products.

We feel this framework could be easily applied to many of health care’s complex and simple problems and provide transformative speed and accuracy to a team’s efforts. For example, hospitals could use Scrum to develop a readmission reduction program, a new surgical enhanced recovery after surgery pathway, or a discharge before noon process. Primary care could develop ideal cancer screening workflows, chronic disease management pathways, or urgent care triage protocols. Researchers could use Scrum to optimize their machine learning model, to find chemical compounds more efficiently, or to optimize deployment of a trial protocol in the field. To our knowledge, others in health care have rarely published metrics such as productivity velocity or the methods to organize busy health care organizations. We view this framework of organizing work as something missing from most health care efforts. Changing the organizational principles by which health care practitioners work could counter the prevailing trends that prevent the rapid diffusion of innovation and lead to a transformative closure of the know-do gap for millions of patients.

Data Availability

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to individual privacy concerns but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was granted exemption by the Mass General Brigham IRB (2021P002411). All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Informed consent was obtained from all subjects.

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to individual privacy concerns but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Competing interests

The other authors declare that they have no competing interests. Dr. David Levine reports the following: Biofourmis: PI-initiated study and codevelopment; IBM: PI-initiated study; Fees from The MetroHealth System.

Funding

The Accelerator was supported by a grant from CaroNova.

Authors Contributions

MD had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. SB carried out administrative, technical, or material support. MD and MTD conducted statistical analyses. MD, MTD, SB, TT, DG, and DL drafted the manuscript. The study was supervised by DL. All authors contributed to study concept and design, interpretation of data and critical review of the manuscript for important intellectual content.

Additional File

Additional file 1.docx

  • Additional file 1

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Matthew Jacobs (Scrum Inc.) for providing guidance on how Scrum can be incorporated into the Home Hospital Early Adopters Accelerator. The authors acknowledge Margaret Ben-Or (Ariadne Labs) for early program launch efforts and project managers Adam Linsley (Ariadne Labs) and Carol Lucey (Ariadne Labs). The authors acknowledge Dr. Carme Hernandez (Clinic Barcelona and Brigham and Women’s Hospital) and Dr. Bruce Leff (John Hopkins University) for providing subject matter expertise to participants intermittently throughout the Accelerator.

List of Abbreviations

CMS
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
Dev
Developer
PO
Product Owner
REDCap
Research Electronic Data Capture
SD
Standard Deviation
SM
Scrum Master

References

  1. 1.↵
    Levine DM, Linder JA, Landon BE. The quality of outpatient care delivered to adults in the united states, 2002 to 2013. JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Dec 1;176(12):1778–90.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Pakenham-Walsh N. Learning from one another to bridge the “know-do gap.” BMJ. 2004 Nov 13;329(7475):1189.1.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  3. 3.↵
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations, Fourth Edition. 4th ed. New York: Free Press; 1995.
  4. 4.↵
    Berwick DM. Disseminating innovations in health care. JAMA. 2003 Apr 16;289(15):1969–75.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  5. 5.↵
    Rigby D, Sutherland J, Takeuchi H. Embracing Agile [Internet]. Harvard Business Review. 2016 [cited 2022 Dec 8]. Available from: https://hbr.org/2016/05/embracing-agile
  6. 6.↵
    1. Shanker K,
    2. Shankar R,
    3. Sindhwani R
    Sindhwani R, Singh PL, Prajapati DK, Iqbal A, Phanden RK, Malhotra V. Agile system in health care: literature review. In: Shanker K, Shankar R, Sindhwani R, editors. Advances in industrial and production engineering: select proceedings of FLAME 2018. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2019. p. 643–52.
  7. 7.↵
    Boustani M, Alder CA, Solid CA. Agile Implementation: A Blueprint for Implementing Evidence-Based Healthcare Solutions. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Jul;66(7):1372–6.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.
    Crotty BH, Somai M, Carlile N. Adopting Agile Principles In Health Care. Health Affairs Forefront. 2019 Aug 15;
  9. 9.↵
    Holden RJ, Boustani MA, Azar J. Agile Innovation to transform healthcare: innovating in complex adaptive systems is an everyday process, not a light bulb event. BMJ Innov. 2021 Jan 28;bmjinnov-2020-000574.
  10. 10.↵
    Creditor MC. Hazards of hospitalization of the elderly. Ann Intern Med. 1993 Feb 1;118(3):219–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.
    Bates DW, Levine DM, Salmasian H, Syrowatka A, Shahian DM, Lipsitz S, et al. The safety of inpatient health care. N Engl J Med. 2023 Jan 12;388(2):142–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Adverse Events, Near Misses, and Errors [Internet]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2019 [cited 2023 Feb 21]. Available from: https://psnet.ahrq.gov/primer/adverse-events-near-misses-and-errors
  13. 13.↵
    Krumholz HM. Post-hospital syndrome--an acquired, transient condition of generalized risk. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 10;368(2):100–2.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Nagurney JM, Fleischman W, Han L, Leo-Summers L, Allore HG, Gill TM. Emergency department visits without hospitalization are associated with functional decline in older persons. Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Apr;69(4):426–33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.
    Hung WW, Ross JS, Farber J, Siu AL. Evaluation of the Mobile Acute Care of the Elderly (MACE) service. JAMA Intern Med. 2013 Jun 10;173(11):990–6.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    Evensen S, Sletvold O, Lydersen S, Taraldsen K. Physical activity among hospitalized older adults - an observational study. BMC Geriatr. 2017 May 16;17(1):110.
    OpenUrl
  17. 17.↵
    Beveridge C, Knutson K, Spampinato L, Flores A, Meltzer DO, Van Cauter E, et al. Daytime Physical Activity and Sleep in Hospitalized Older Adults: Association with Demographic Characteristics and Disease Severity. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Jul 1;63(7):1391–400.
    OpenUrl
  18. 18.↵
    Callen BL, Mahoney JE, Grieves CB, Wells TJ, Enloe M. Frequency of hallway ambulation by hospitalized older adults on medical units of an academic hospital. Geriatr Nurs. 2004 Aug;25(4):212–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.↵
    Fick DM, Agostini JV, Inouye SK. Delirium superimposed on dementia: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2002 Oct;50(10):1723–32.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  20. 20.
    Han QYC, Rodrigues NG, Klainin-Yobas P, Haugan G, Wu XV. Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Impact of Delirium on Hospitalized Older Adults With Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2022 Jan;23(1):23–32.e27.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.
    Rudolph JL, Zanin NM, Jones RN, Marcantonio ER, Fong TG, Yang FM, et al. Hospitalization in community-dwelling persons with Alzheimer’s disease: frequency and causes. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Aug;58(8):1542–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.
    Fong TG, Tulebaev SR, Inouye SK. Delirium in elderly adults: diagnosis, prevention and treatment. Nat Rev Neurol. 2009 Apr;5(4):210–20.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    Fong TG, Inouye SK. The inter-relationship between delirium and dementia: the importance of delirium prevention. Nat Rev Neurol. 2022 Oct;18(10):579–96.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  24. 24.↵
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2016 National and State Healthcare-Associated Infections Progress Report [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2022 Oct 31]. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/hai/data/archive/2016-HAI-progress-report.html
  25. 25.↵
    Fisher SR, Kuo Y-F, Sharma G, Raji MA, Kumar A, Goodwin JS, et al. Mobility after hospital discharge as a marker for 30-day readmission. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2013 Jul;68(7):805– 10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.
    Hoyer EH, Needham DM, Atanelov L, Knox B, Friedman M, Brotman DJ. Association of impaired functional status at hospital discharge and subsequent rehospitalization. J Hosp Med. 2014 May;9(5):277–82.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. 27.
    Boltz M, Resnick B, Capezuti E, Shuluk J, Secic M. Functional decline in hospitalized older adults: can nursing make a difference? Geriatr Nurs. 2012 Aug;33(4):272–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. 28.
    Fox A, MacAndrew M, Wyles K, Yelland C, Beattie E. Adverse events, functional decline, and access to allied health therapies for patients with dementia during acute hospitalization. J Appl Gerontol. 2021 Aug;40(8):847–55.
    OpenUrl
  29. 29.↵
    Counsell SR, Holder CM, Liebenauer LL, Palmer RM, Fortinsky RH, Kresevic DM, et al. Effects of a multicomponent intervention on functional outcomes and process of care in hospitalized older patients: a randomized controlled trial of Acute Care for Elders (ACE) in a community hospital. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000 Dec;48(12):1572–81.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  30. 30.↵
    Flint LA, David DJ, Smith AK. Rehabbed to Death. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jan 31;380(5):408–9.
    OpenUrl
  31. 31.↵
    Flint LA, David D, Lynn J, Smith AK. Rehabbed to death: breaking the cycle. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Nov;67(11):2398–401.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  32. 32.↵
    Leff B. Defining and disseminating the hospital-at-home model. CMAJ. 2009 Jan 20;180(2):156– 7.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  33. 33.↵
    Levine DM, Ouchi K, Blanchfield B, Saenz A, Burke K, Paz M, et al. Hospital-Level Care at Home for Acutely Ill Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2020 Jan 21;172(2):77–85.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Caplan GA, Coconis J, Woods J. Effect of hospital in the home treatment on physical and cognitive function: a randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2005 Aug;60(8):1035–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.
    Montalto M. The 500-bed hospital that isn’t there: the Victorian Department of Health review of the Hospital in the Home program. Med J Aust. 2010 Nov 15;193(10):598–601.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.↵
    Hernández C, Aibar J, Seijas N, Puig I, Alonso A, Garcia-Aymerich J, et al. Implementation of home hospitalization and early discharge as an integrated care service: A ten years pragmatic assessment. Int J Integr Care. 2018 May 16;18(2):12.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  37. 37.↵
    Gorbenko K, Baim-Lance A, Franzosa E, Wurtz H, Schiller G, Masse S, et al. A national qualitative study of Hospital-at-Home implementation under the CMS Acute Hospital Care at Home waiver. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2022 Oct 5;
  38. 38.
    Levine DM, Pian J, Mahendrakumar K, Patel A, Saenz A, Schnipper JL. Hospital-Level Care at Home for Acutely Ill Adults: a Qualitative Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Jul;36(7):1965–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  39. 39.
    Caplan GA, Coconis J, Board N, Sayers A, Woods J. Does home treatment affect delirium? A randomised controlled trial of rehabilitation of elderly and care at home or usual treatment (The REACH-OUT trial). Age Ageing. 2006 Jan;35(1):53–60.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  40. 40.
    Leff B, Burton L, Mader S, Naughton B, Burl J, Clark R, et al. Satisfaction with hospital at home care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006 Sep;54(9):1355–63.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  41. 41.
    Federman AD, Soones T, DeCherrie LV, Leff B, Siu AL. Association of a Bundled Hospital-at-Home and 30-Day Postacute Transitional Care Program With Clinical Outcomes and Patient Experiences. JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Aug 1;178(8):1033–40.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Leff B, Burton L, Mader SL, Naughton B, Burl J, Inouye SK, et al. Hospital at home: feasibility and outcomes of a program to provide hospital-level care at home for acutely ill older patients. Ann Intern Med. 2005 Dec 6;143(11):798–808.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  43. 43.↵
    Cryer L, Shannon SB, Van Amsterdam M, Leff B. Costs for “hospital at home” patients were 19 percent lower, with equal or better outcomes compared to similar inpatients. Health Aff (Millwood). 2012 Jun;31(6):1237–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  44. 44.↵
    Levine DM, Ouchi K, Blanchfield B, Diamond K, Licurse A, Pu CT, et al. Hospital-Level Care at Home for Acutely Ill Adults: a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2018 May;33(5):729–36.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  45. 45.↵
    CMS Announces Comprehensive Strategy to Enhance Hospital Capacity Amid COVID-19 Surge | CMS [Internet]. [cited 2023 Feb 1]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/newsroom/press-releases/cms-announces-comprehensive-strategy-enhance-hospital-capacity-amid-covid-19-surge
  46. 46.↵
    CMS. Approved Facilities/Systems for Acute Hospital Care at Home [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Jul 26]. Available from: https://qualitynet.cms.gov/acute-hospital-care-at-home/resources
  47. 47.↵
    Bartels SJ, Aschbrenner KA, Pratt SI, Zubkoff L, Jue K, Williams G, et al. Virtual learning collaborative compared to technical assistance as a strategy for implementing health promotion in routine mental health settings: A hybrid type 3 cluster randomized trial. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2022 Nov;49(6):1031–46.
    OpenUrl
  48. 48.↵
    Zubkoff L, Lyons KD, Dionne-Odom JN, Hagley G, Pisu M, Azuero A, et al. A cluster randomized controlled trial comparing Virtual Learning Collaborative and Technical Assistance strategies to implement an early palliative care program for patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers: a study protocol. Implement Sci. 2021 Mar 11;16(1):25.
    OpenUrl
  49. 49.↵
    Rigby D, Sutherand J, Noble A. Agile at Scale [Internet]. Harvard Business Review. 2018 [cited 2022 Dec 8]. Available from: https://hbr.org/2018/05/agile-at-scale
  50. 50.↵
    Pool ET, Poole K, Upjohn DP, Hernandez JS. Agile Project Management Proves Effective, Efficient for Mayo Clinic | AAPL [Internet]. American Association for Physician Leadership. 2019 [cited 2022 Oct 17]. Available from: https://www.physicianleaders.org/articles/agile-project-management-proves-effective-efficient-mayo-clinic
  51. 51.↵
    Lennerz JK, McLaughlin HM, Baron JM, Rasmussen D, Sumbada Shin M, Berners-Lee N, et al. Health care infrastructure for financially sustainable clinical genomics. J Mol Diagn. 2016 Sep;18(5):697–706.
    OpenUrl
  52. 52.
    Nordmark S, Lindberg I, Zingmark K. “It’s all about time and timing”: nursing staffs’ experiences with an agile development process, from its initial requirements to the deployment of its outcome of ICT solutions to support discharge planning. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2022 Jul 17;22(1):186.
    OpenUrl
  53. 53.
    D’Andreamatteo A, Ianni L, Lega F, Sargiacomo M. Lean in healthcare: A comprehensive review. Health Policy. 2015 Sep;119(9):1197–209.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  54. 54.↵
    Shulkin D. What Health Care Can Learn from Operation Warp Speed | Catalyst non-issue content [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Jun 14]. Available from: https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/CAT.21.0001
  55. 55.↵
    Scrumguides.org. The 2020 Scrum Guide [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 Jul 26]. Available from: https://scrumguides.org/scrum-guide.html
  56. 56.↵
    Verwijs C, Russo D. A theory of scrum team effectiveness. ACM Trans Softw Eng Methodol. 2022 Nov 22;
  57. 57.↵
    Hron M, Obwegeser N. Why and how is Scrum being adapted in practice: A systematic review. Journal of Systems and Software. 2022 Jan;183:111110.
    OpenUrl
  58. 58.↵
    Wonohardjo EP, Sunaryo RF, Sudiyono Y. A Systematic Review of SCRUM in Software Development. JOIVL: International Journal on Informatics Visualization. 2019 Mar 6;
  59. 59.↵
    Hossain E, Babar MA, Paik H. Using scrum in global software development: A systematic literature review. 2009 Fourth IEEE International Conference on Global Software Engineering. IEEE; 2009. p. 175–84.
  60. 60.
    Agile Unleashed at Scale: John Deere Case Study - Scrum Inc.TM [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 2]. Available from: https://www.scruminc.com/agile-unleashed-scale-john-deere-case-study/
  61. 61.
    Scrum in Front-End Planning: ABInBev Capital Project - [Internet]. [cited 2022 Dec 2]. Available from: https://www.scruminc.com/scrum-capital-projects-case-study/
  62. 62.
    Furuhjelm J, Segertoft J, Justice J, Sutherland JJ. Owning the Sky with AgileBuildingaJet Fighter Faster, Cheaper, Better with Scrum [Internet]. Owning the Sky with Agile Building a Jet Fighter Faster, Cheaper, Better with Scrum. [cited 2022 Dec 2]. Available from: https://www.scruminc.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Release-version_Owning-the-Sky-with-Agile.pdf
  63. 63.↵
    Cardozo ESF, Araújo Neto JBF, Barza A, França ACC, da Silva FQB. SCRUM and productivity in software projects: A systematic literature review. BCS Learning & Development; 2010.
  64. 64.↵
    Juan D, Negron D, Simmons M, Sutherland J. Rocket mortgage delivers twice the value in half the time at scale. Proceedings of the 55th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences; 2022.
  65. 65.↵
    Clark KD, Woodson TT, Holden RJ, Gunn R, Cohen DJ. Translating Research into Agile Development (TRIAD): Development of Electronic Health Record Tools for Primary Care Settings. Methods Inf Med. 2019 Jun;58(1):1–8.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.↵
    Noordman J, Driesenaar JA, van Bruinessen IR, van Dulmen S. ListeningTime; participatory development of a web-based preparatory communication tool for elderly cancer patients and their healthcare providers. Internet Interv. 2017 Sep;9:51–6.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.↵
    Bin KJ, Higa N, da Silva JH, Quagliano DA, Hangai RK, Cobello-Júnior V, et al. Building an outpatient telemedicine care pilot using Scrum-like framework within a medical residency program. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2021 Jun 14;76:e2795.
    OpenUrl
  68. 68.↵
    O’Connor C, Joffe H. Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: debates and practical guidelines. Int J Qual Methods. 2020 Jan 1;19:160940691989922.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.
    Campbell JL, Quincy C, Osserman J, Pedersen OK. Coding In-depth Semistructured Interviews: Problems of Unitization and Intercoder Reliability and Agreement. Sociol Methods Res. 2013 Aug 1;42(3):294–320.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  70. 70.↵
    Hruschka DJ, Schwartz D, St.John DC, Picone-Decaro E, Jenkins RA, Carey JW. Reliability in Coding Open-Ended Data: Lessons Learned from HIV Behavioral Research. Field methods. 2004 Aug 1;16(3):307–31.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
Back to top
Posted December 14, 2023.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Implementation of Agile in health care: Methodology for a multi-site home hospital accelerator
Meghna Desai, Miriam Tardif-Douglin, Indigo R. D. Miller, Stephanie C. Blitzer, David L. Gardner, Teresa M. Thompson, LaPonda Edmondson, David M. Levine
medRxiv 2023.12.12.23299864; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.12.12.23299864
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area