James Anstey, MD

“Never worry alone” is a common mantra that most of us have heard throughout medical training. The premise is simple and well meaning. If a patient has an issue that concerns you, ask someone for help. As a student, this can be a resident; as a resident, this can be an attending. However, for hospitalists, the answer is often a subspecialty consultation. Asking for help never seems to be wrong, but what happens when our worry delays appropriate care with unnecessary consultations? In this month’s issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, authors Bellas et al. have investigated this issue through the lens of subspecialty preoperative consultation for patients admitted to a hospitalist comanagement service with a fragility hip fracture requiring surgery.¹

Morbidity and mortality for patients who experience hip fractures are high, and time to appropriate surgery is one of the few modifiable risk factors that may reduce morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Bellas et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study to test the association between preoperative subspecialty consultation and multiple clinically relevant outcomes in patients admitted with an acute hip fracture.¹ All patients were comanaged by a hospitalist and orthopedic surgery, and “consultation” was defined as any preoperative subspecialty consultation requested by the hospitalist. Outcome measures included time to surgery, length of stay, readmission rate, perioperative complications, and 30-day mortality. In total, 36% (177/491) of patients who underwent surgery received a subspecialty preoperative consultation. Unsurprisingly, these patients were older with higher rates of comorbidity. After controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative consultation was associated with dramatic delays and increased rates of time to surgery >24 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 2.8-6.6). The authors classified 90% of consultations as appropriate, either because of an active condition (eg, acute coronary syndrome) or because admitting physicians documented a perception that patients were at increased risk. However, 73% of consultations had only minor recommendations, such as ordering an ECG or changing the dose of an existing medication, and only 37% of the time did consultations lead to an identifiable change in management as a result of the consultation.

Although striking, integrating these findings into clinical practice is complex. As a retrospective study, patients who received consultations were obviously different from those who did not. The authors attempted to adjust for this but used only age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Other factors that are both associated with consultations and known to increase mortality—such as frailty and functional status—were not included in their adjustment. Such unmeasured confounders possibly explain at least some, if not all, of the findings that consultations were associated with a doubling of the likelihood of 30-day mortality. In addition, although the authors assessed the appropriateness of consultation and degree of recommendations, their methods for this deserve scrutiny. Two independent providers adjudicated the consultations with excellent agreement (kappa 0.96 for indication, 0.95 for degree of recommendation), but this reliability assessment was done on previously extracted chart data, probably inflating their agreement statistics. Finally, the adjudication of consultant recommendations into minor, moderate, and major categories may oversimplify the outcome of each consultation. For example, all medication recommendations, regardless of type, were considered as minor, and recommendations were considered as major only if they resulted in invasive testing or procedures. This approach may underrepresent the impact of consultations as in clinical practice not all high-impact recommendations result in invasive testing or procedures. Despite these important limitations, Bellas et al. present a compelling case for preoperative consultation being associated with delays in surgery.

How then should this study change practice? The authors’ findings tell two separate but intertwined stories. The first is that preoperative consultation leads to delays in surgery. As patients who received preoperative consultation were obviously sicker, and because delays caused by consultation may lead to increased morbidity and mortality, perhaps the solution is to simply fix the delays. However, this approach ignores the more compelling story the authors tell. More important than the delays was the surprising lack of impact of preoperative consultations. Bellas et al. found that the majority of consultations resulted in only minor recommendations, and more importantly, hospitalists rarely changed treatment as a result. Although patients who received consultations were more ill, consultation rarely changed their care or decreased the risk posed by surgery. Bellas et al. found that only patients with active medical conditions had consultations, which resulted in moderate or major recommendations. These findings highlight an opportunity to better identify patients for whom consultation might be helpful and to prevent delays by avoiding consultation for those unlikely to benefit. There have been several efforts in the orthopedic literature to use guidelines for preoperative cardiac testing to guide cardiology consultation.^4,5,6 One study using this approach reported findings that were extremely similar to those reported by Bellas et al. in that 71% of preoperative cardiology consultations in their institution did not meet the guideline criteria for invasive cardiac testing.⁷ The primary difference between the findings of Bellas et al. and the studies in the orthopedic literature is the presence of the comanaging hospitalist. As more and more patients receive hospitalist comanagement prior to inpatient surgery, it is well within the scope of the hospitalist to differentiate chronic risk factors from active or decompensated medical disease requiring a subspecialist. This is in fact much of the value that a hospitalist adds. Avoiding consultation for patients with only elevated chronic risk factors is an important first step in avoiding unnecessary delays to surgery and an opportunity for hospitalists to improve the care of the patients they comanage.

The goal of teaching trainees to “never worry alone” is to harness the feelings of uncertainty that all providers face to improve patient care. Knowing when to worry is a valuable lesson, but as with all skills, it should be applied thoughtfully and informed by evidence. Appreciating the risks that surgery poses is quintessential to safe perioperative care, but equally important is understanding that inappropriate consultations can create risks from needless delays and testing. Only in balancing these two concerns, and appreciating when it is appropriate to worry, can we provide the highest quality of care to our patients.

“Never worry alone” is a common mantra that most of us have heard throughout medical training. The premise is simple and well meaning. If a patient has an issue that concerns you, ask someone for help. As a student, this can be a resident; as a resident, this can be an attending. However, for hospitalists, the answer is often a subspecialty consultation. Asking for help never seems to be wrong, but what happens when our worry delays appropriate care with unnecessary consultations? In this month’s issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, authors Bellas et al. have investigated this issue through the lens of subspecialty preoperative consultation for patients admitted to a hospitalist comanagement service with a fragility hip fracture requiring surgery.¹

Morbidity and mortality for patients who experience hip fractures are high, and time to appropriate surgery is one of the few modifiable risk factors that may reduce morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Bellas et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study to test the association between preoperative subspecialty consultation and multiple clinically relevant outcomes in patients admitted with an acute hip fracture.¹ All patients were comanaged by a hospitalist and orthopedic surgery, and “consultation” was defined as any preoperative subspecialty consultation requested by the hospitalist. Outcome measures included time to surgery, length of stay, readmission rate, perioperative complications, and 30-day mortality. In total, 36% (177/491) of patients who underwent surgery received a subspecialty preoperative consultation. Unsurprisingly, these patients were older with higher rates of comorbidity. After controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative consultation was associated with dramatic delays and increased rates of time to surgery >24 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 2.8-6.6). The authors classified 90% of consultations as appropriate, either because of an active condition (eg, acute coronary syndrome) or because admitting physicians documented a perception that patients were at increased risk. However, 73% of consultations had only minor recommendations, such as ordering an ECG or changing the dose of an existing medication, and only 37% of the time did consultations lead to an identifiable change in management as a result of the consultation.

Although striking, integrating these findings into clinical practice is complex. As a retrospective study, patients who received consultations were obviously different from those who did not. The authors attempted to adjust for this but used only age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Other factors that are both associated with consultations and known to increase mortality—such as frailty and functional status—were not included in their adjustment. Such unmeasured confounders possibly explain at least some, if not all, of the findings that consultations were associated with a doubling of the likelihood of 30-day mortality. In addition, although the authors assessed the appropriateness of consultation and degree of recommendations, their methods for this deserve scrutiny. Two independent providers adjudicated the consultations with excellent agreement (kappa 0.96 for indication, 0.95 for degree of recommendation), but this reliability assessment was done on previously extracted chart data, probably inflating their agreement statistics. Finally, the adjudication of consultant recommendations into minor, moderate, and major categories may oversimplify the outcome of each consultation. For example, all medication recommendations, regardless of type, were considered as minor, and recommendations were considered as major only if they resulted in invasive testing or procedures. This approach may underrepresent the impact of consultations as in clinical practice not all high-impact recommendations result in invasive testing or procedures. Despite these important limitations, Bellas et al. present a compelling case for preoperative consultation being associated with delays in surgery.

How then should this study change practice? The authors’ findings tell two separate but intertwined stories. The first is that preoperative consultation leads to delays in surgery. As patients who received preoperative consultation were obviously sicker, and because delays caused by consultation may lead to increased morbidity and mortality, perhaps the solution is to simply fix the delays. However, this approach ignores the more compelling story the authors tell. More important than the delays was the surprising lack of impact of preoperative consultations. Bellas et al. found that the majority of consultations resulted in only minor recommendations, and more importantly, hospitalists rarely changed treatment as a result. Although patients who received consultations were more ill, consultation rarely changed their care or decreased the risk posed by surgery. Bellas et al. found that only patients with active medical conditions had consultations, which resulted in moderate or major recommendations. These findings highlight an opportunity to better identify patients for whom consultation might be helpful and to prevent delays by avoiding consultation for those unlikely to benefit. There have been several efforts in the orthopedic literature to use guidelines for preoperative cardiac testing to guide cardiology consultation.^4,5,6 One study using this approach reported findings that were extremely similar to those reported by Bellas et al. in that 71% of preoperative cardiology consultations in their institution did not meet the guideline criteria for invasive cardiac testing.⁷ The primary difference between the findings of Bellas et al. and the studies in the orthopedic literature is the presence of the comanaging hospitalist. As more and more patients receive hospitalist comanagement prior to inpatient surgery, it is well within the scope of the hospitalist to differentiate chronic risk factors from active or decompensated medical disease requiring a subspecialist. This is in fact much of the value that a hospitalist adds. Avoiding consultation for patients with only elevated chronic risk factors is an important first step in avoiding unnecessary delays to surgery and an opportunity for hospitalists to improve the care of the patients they comanage.

The goal of teaching trainees to “never worry alone” is to harness the feelings of uncertainty that all providers face to improve patient care. Knowing when to worry is a valuable lesson, but as with all skills, it should be applied thoughtfully and informed by evidence. Appreciating the risks that surgery poses is quintessential to safe perioperative care, but equally important is understanding that inappropriate consultations can create risks from needless delays and testing. Only in balancing these two concerns, and appreciating when it is appropriate to worry, can we provide the highest quality of care to our patients.

“Never worry alone” is a common mantra that most of us have heard throughout medical training. The premise is simple and well meaning. If a patient has an issue that concerns you, ask someone for help. As a student, this can be a resident; as a resident, this can be an attending. However, for hospitalists, the answer is often a subspecialty consultation. Asking for help never seems to be wrong, but what happens when our worry delays appropriate care with unnecessary consultations? In this month’s issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, authors Bellas et al. have investigated this issue through the lens of subspecialty preoperative consultation for patients admitted to a hospitalist comanagement service with a fragility hip fracture requiring surgery.¹

Morbidity and mortality for patients who experience hip fractures are high, and time to appropriate surgery is one of the few modifiable risk factors that may reduce morbidity and mortality.^2,3 Bellas et al. conducted a retrospective cohort study to test the association between preoperative subspecialty consultation and multiple clinically relevant outcomes in patients admitted with an acute hip fracture.¹ All patients were comanaged by a hospitalist and orthopedic surgery, and “consultation” was defined as any preoperative subspecialty consultation requested by the hospitalist. Outcome measures included time to surgery, length of stay, readmission rate, perioperative complications, and 30-day mortality. In total, 36% (177/491) of patients who underwent surgery received a subspecialty preoperative consultation. Unsurprisingly, these patients were older with higher rates of comorbidity. After controlling for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, preoperative consultation was associated with dramatic delays and increased rates of time to surgery >24 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 4.2; 95% CI: 2.8-6.6). The authors classified 90% of consultations as appropriate, either because of an active condition (eg, acute coronary syndrome) or because admitting physicians documented a perception that patients were at increased risk. However, 73% of consultations had only minor recommendations, such as ordering an ECG or changing the dose of an existing medication, and only 37% of the time did consultations lead to an identifiable change in management as a result of the consultation.

Although striking, integrating these findings into clinical practice is complex. As a retrospective study, patients who received consultations were obviously different from those who did not. The authors attempted to adjust for this but used only age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Other factors that are both associated with consultations and known to increase mortality—such as frailty and functional status—were not included in their adjustment. Such unmeasured confounders possibly explain at least some, if not all, of the findings that consultations were associated with a doubling of the likelihood of 30-day mortality. In addition, although the authors assessed the appropriateness of consultation and degree of recommendations, their methods for this deserve scrutiny. Two independent providers adjudicated the consultations with excellent agreement (kappa 0.96 for indication, 0.95 for degree of recommendation), but this reliability assessment was done on previously extracted chart data, probably inflating their agreement statistics. Finally, the adjudication of consultant recommendations into minor, moderate, and major categories may oversimplify the outcome of each consultation. For example, all medication recommendations, regardless of type, were considered as minor, and recommendations were considered as major only if they resulted in invasive testing or procedures. This approach may underrepresent the impact of consultations as in clinical practice not all high-impact recommendations result in invasive testing or procedures. Despite these important limitations, Bellas et al. present a compelling case for preoperative consultation being associated with delays in surgery.

How then should this study change practice? The authors’ findings tell two separate but intertwined stories. The first is that preoperative consultation leads to delays in surgery. As patients who received preoperative consultation were obviously sicker, and because delays caused by consultation may lead to increased morbidity and mortality, perhaps the solution is to simply fix the delays. However, this approach ignores the more compelling story the authors tell. More important than the delays was the surprising lack of impact of preoperative consultations. Bellas et al. found that the majority of consultations resulted in only minor recommendations, and more importantly, hospitalists rarely changed treatment as a result. Although patients who received consultations were more ill, consultation rarely changed their care or decreased the risk posed by surgery. Bellas et al. found that only patients with active medical conditions had consultations, which resulted in moderate or major recommendations. These findings highlight an opportunity to better identify patients for whom consultation might be helpful and to prevent delays by avoiding consultation for those unlikely to benefit. There have been several efforts in the orthopedic literature to use guidelines for preoperative cardiac testing to guide cardiology consultation.^4,5,6 One study using this approach reported findings that were extremely similar to those reported by Bellas et al. in that 71% of preoperative cardiology consultations in their institution did not meet the guideline criteria for invasive cardiac testing.⁷ The primary difference between the findings of Bellas et al. and the studies in the orthopedic literature is the presence of the comanaging hospitalist. As more and more patients receive hospitalist comanagement prior to inpatient surgery, it is well within the scope of the hospitalist to differentiate chronic risk factors from active or decompensated medical disease requiring a subspecialist. This is in fact much of the value that a hospitalist adds. Avoiding consultation for patients with only elevated chronic risk factors is an important first step in avoiding unnecessary delays to surgery and an opportunity for hospitalists to improve the care of the patients they comanage.

The goal of teaching trainees to “never worry alone” is to harness the feelings of uncertainty that all providers face to improve patient care. Knowing when to worry is a valuable lesson, but as with all skills, it should be applied thoughtfully and informed by evidence. Appreciating the risks that surgery poses is quintessential to safe perioperative care, but equally important is understanding that inappropriate consultations can create risks from needless delays and testing. Only in balancing these two concerns, and appreciating when it is appropriate to worry, can we provide the highest quality of care to our patients.

Your pager beeps. Your patient, Mrs. Jones, who was admitted with cellulitis and is improving, now has a blood pressure of 188/103 on routine vitals. Her nurse reports that she is comfortable and asymptomatic, but she met the “call parameters.” You review her chart and find that since admission her systolic blood pressure (SBP) has ranged from 149 to 157 mm Hg and her diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from 84 to 96 mm Hg. Her nurse asks how you would like to treat her.

While over half of inpatients have at least one hypertensive episode during their stay, evidence suggests that nearly all such episodes—estimates are between 98% and 99%^1,2—should be treated over several days with oral antihypertensives, not acutely with intravenous medications.^3-6 Current guidelines recommend that intravenous medications should be reserved for severe hypertensive episodes (SBP > 180, DBP > 120) with acute end-organ damage,^7,8 but such “hypertensive emergencies” are rare on the general medicine wards. Still, hospitalists regularly face the dilemma posed by Mrs. Jones, and evidence shows they often prescribe intravenous antihypertensives.^1,4,5 This unnecessary use can lead to unreliable drops in blood pressure and exposes our patients to potential harm.^5,6

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, two papers describe the frequency of inappropriate intravenous antihypertensive use in their hospitals and the subsequent quality improvement efforts implemented to reduce this practice. The first, by Jacobs et al., found that over a 10-month period, 11% of patients who experienced “asymptomatic hypertension” on an urban academic hospital medicine service were treated inappropriately with intravenous antihypertensives,⁹ with 14% of those experiencing an adverse event. The second paper, by Pasik et al., found that in their urban academic medical center there were 8.3 inappropriate intravenous antihypertensive orders placed per 1,000 patient days,¹⁰ with nearly half of those treated experiencing an adverse event. Based on these findings, each group then led interventions to reduce the use of intravenous antihypertensives.

While both groups engaged physicians and nurses as primary stakeholders, Pasik et al.¹⁰ worked to further expand nursing staff roles by empowering them to assess for underlying causes of hypertension, such as pain or anxiety, as well as end-organ damage via specific guided algorithms prior to contacting physicians. In doing so, they reduced intravenous antihypertensive use by 60% during the postintervention period, with a proportional reduction in adverse events. In addition to their educational initiative, Jacobs et al. aimed to limit calls by liberalizing the “ceiling” on standard nursing call parameters for blood pressure from 160/80 to 180/90. Following their intervention, intravenous antihypertensive orders were reduced by 40%, with the mean orders per patient with asymptomatic hypertension decreasing from 11% to 7% .

While these results are admirable, some caution in their interpretation is needed. For example, Jacobs et al. used electronic health record data to retrospectively identify hypertension as “symptomatic” or “asymptomatic” using laboratory, electrocardiogram, and imaging diagnostics as surrogate markers for “provider concern for end-organ damage.” Although it appropriately focused on concern for end-organ damage as justification for intravenous antihypertensives, this approach potentially underappreciated true hypertensive emergencies, thereby overestimating the amount of inappropriate use of intravenous antihypertensives. Pasik et al. utilized chart review of patients prescribed intravenous antihypertensives and therefore did not explore how often symptomatic hypertension occurred in patients who did not receive intravenous antihypertensives. Subsequently, this limited their ability to evaluate unintended harms of their initiative. To address this limitation, the authors followed a group of 111 patients who had elevated hypertension but did not receive intravenous antihypertensives and found no adverse outcomes.¹⁰ Because both studies were retrospective in nature, they were subject to biases from providers choosing intravenous antihypertensives for reasons that were neither captured by their datasets nor adjusted for. Additionally, neither study reported downstream impacts such as an increase in symptomatic hypertensive episodes or more rare events such as kidney injury, stroke, or myocardial infarction.

Given that guidelines discourage using intravenous antihypertensives, why were the efforts of Jacobs et al.⁹ and Pasik et al.¹⁰ needed in the first place? In a recent installment of Choosing Wisely: Things We Do For No Reason, Breu et al.¹¹ cite two primary reasons: first, providers have unfounded fears that asymptomatic hypertension will quickly progress to cause organ damage; second, providers lack understanding of the potential harms from overtreatment. It is fitting, therefore, that both groups of authors focused on these topics in their education initiatives for physicians and nurses. Yet, as good quality improvement requires steps beyond education, it was promising to see that both authors additionally focused on intervening to change the systems and culture that existed around physician and nursing communication.

In the age of electronic health records, there has been a sustained focus on creating standardized order sets. While the value of these order sets has been widely demonstrated, there are downsides. For example, nursing call parameters in admission order sets are rarely patient-specific but account for a significant portion of nursing and physician communication. These one-size-fits-all orders limit nurses from using their clinical training and create unnecessary tensions as nurses are obligated to call covering hospitalists to address “abnormal” but clinically insignificant findings. Regular monitoring of vital signs is an integral part of caring for acutely ill inpatients but for most inpatients, the importance of vitals is to detect clinically meaningful changes, not to treat risk factors like hypertension that should be treated safely over the long term.

When inpatients become febrile, tachycardic, or hypoxic, hospitalists use critical thinking to diagnose the underlying causes. Unfortunately, high blood pressure is a vital sign that is treated differently. Many hospitalists see it as a number to fix, not a potential sign of a new underlying problem such as uncontrolled pain, anxiety, or medication side effects.⁸ Both groups of authors took the important first step of educating physicians to think critically when called about high blood pressure. Even more importantly, they took steps to change the system and culture in which providers make these decisions in the first place. Future work in this area would be wise to follow in these footsteps, by encouraging collaboration between hospitalist and nurses to create more logical and patient-specific call parameters that could potentially improve nursing-physician communication, and subsequently, patient care.

Changing the culture to limit the use of intravenous antihypertensives will not be easy, but it is necessary. We encourage readers to investigate intravenous antihypertensives in their own hospitals and consider how better communication between nurses and physicians could change their practice. Recalling Mrs. Jones above, the provider should engage her nurse to help confirm that her hypertension is “asymptomatic” and then consider underlying causes such as pain, anxiety, or withholding her home medications as reasons for her elevated blood pressure. After all, if nothing else, it seems clear that a call about inpatient hypertension is not a call to act, but to think.

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

Dr. Lucas is supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development and Dartmouth SYNERGY, National Institutes of Health, National Center for Translational Science (UL1TR001086).

Your pager beeps. Your patient, Mrs. Jones, who was admitted with cellulitis and is improving, now has a blood pressure of 188/103 on routine vitals. Her nurse reports that she is comfortable and asymptomatic, but she met the “call parameters.” You review her chart and find that since admission her systolic blood pressure (SBP) has ranged from 149 to 157 mm Hg and her diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from 84 to 96 mm Hg. Her nurse asks how you would like to treat her.

While over half of inpatients have at least one hypertensive episode during their stay, evidence suggests that nearly all such episodes—estimates are between 98% and 99%^1,2—should be treated over several days with oral antihypertensives, not acutely with intravenous medications.^3-6 Current guidelines recommend that intravenous medications should be reserved for severe hypertensive episodes (SBP > 180, DBP > 120) with acute end-organ damage,^7,8 but such “hypertensive emergencies” are rare on the general medicine wards. Still, hospitalists regularly face the dilemma posed by Mrs. Jones, and evidence shows they often prescribe intravenous antihypertensives.^1,4,5 This unnecessary use can lead to unreliable drops in blood pressure and exposes our patients to potential harm.^5,6

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, two papers describe the frequency of inappropriate intravenous antihypertensive use in their hospitals and the subsequent quality improvement efforts implemented to reduce this practice. The first, by Jacobs et al., found that over a 10-month period, 11% of patients who experienced “asymptomatic hypertension” on an urban academic hospital medicine service were treated inappropriately with intravenous antihypertensives,⁹ with 14% of those experiencing an adverse event. The second paper, by Pasik et al., found that in their urban academic medical center there were 8.3 inappropriate intravenous antihypertensive orders placed per 1,000 patient days,¹⁰ with nearly half of those treated experiencing an adverse event. Based on these findings, each group then led interventions to reduce the use of intravenous antihypertensives.

While both groups engaged physicians and nurses as primary stakeholders, Pasik et al.¹⁰ worked to further expand nursing staff roles by empowering them to assess for underlying causes of hypertension, such as pain or anxiety, as well as end-organ damage via specific guided algorithms prior to contacting physicians. In doing so, they reduced intravenous antihypertensive use by 60% during the postintervention period, with a proportional reduction in adverse events. In addition to their educational initiative, Jacobs et al. aimed to limit calls by liberalizing the “ceiling” on standard nursing call parameters for blood pressure from 160/80 to 180/90. Following their intervention, intravenous antihypertensive orders were reduced by 40%, with the mean orders per patient with asymptomatic hypertension decreasing from 11% to 7% .

While these results are admirable, some caution in their interpretation is needed. For example, Jacobs et al. used electronic health record data to retrospectively identify hypertension as “symptomatic” or “asymptomatic” using laboratory, electrocardiogram, and imaging diagnostics as surrogate markers for “provider concern for end-organ damage.” Although it appropriately focused on concern for end-organ damage as justification for intravenous antihypertensives, this approach potentially underappreciated true hypertensive emergencies, thereby overestimating the amount of inappropriate use of intravenous antihypertensives. Pasik et al. utilized chart review of patients prescribed intravenous antihypertensives and therefore did not explore how often symptomatic hypertension occurred in patients who did not receive intravenous antihypertensives. Subsequently, this limited their ability to evaluate unintended harms of their initiative. To address this limitation, the authors followed a group of 111 patients who had elevated hypertension but did not receive intravenous antihypertensives and found no adverse outcomes.¹⁰ Because both studies were retrospective in nature, they were subject to biases from providers choosing intravenous antihypertensives for reasons that were neither captured by their datasets nor adjusted for. Additionally, neither study reported downstream impacts such as an increase in symptomatic hypertensive episodes or more rare events such as kidney injury, stroke, or myocardial infarction.

Given that guidelines discourage using intravenous antihypertensives, why were the efforts of Jacobs et al.⁹ and Pasik et al.¹⁰ needed in the first place? In a recent installment of Choosing Wisely: Things We Do For No Reason, Breu et al.¹¹ cite two primary reasons: first, providers have unfounded fears that asymptomatic hypertension will quickly progress to cause organ damage; second, providers lack understanding of the potential harms from overtreatment. It is fitting, therefore, that both groups of authors focused on these topics in their education initiatives for physicians and nurses. Yet, as good quality improvement requires steps beyond education, it was promising to see that both authors additionally focused on intervening to change the systems and culture that existed around physician and nursing communication.

In the age of electronic health records, there has been a sustained focus on creating standardized order sets. While the value of these order sets has been widely demonstrated, there are downsides. For example, nursing call parameters in admission order sets are rarely patient-specific but account for a significant portion of nursing and physician communication. These one-size-fits-all orders limit nurses from using their clinical training and create unnecessary tensions as nurses are obligated to call covering hospitalists to address “abnormal” but clinically insignificant findings. Regular monitoring of vital signs is an integral part of caring for acutely ill inpatients but for most inpatients, the importance of vitals is to detect clinically meaningful changes, not to treat risk factors like hypertension that should be treated safely over the long term.

When inpatients become febrile, tachycardic, or hypoxic, hospitalists use critical thinking to diagnose the underlying causes. Unfortunately, high blood pressure is a vital sign that is treated differently. Many hospitalists see it as a number to fix, not a potential sign of a new underlying problem such as uncontrolled pain, anxiety, or medication side effects.⁸ Both groups of authors took the important first step of educating physicians to think critically when called about high blood pressure. Even more importantly, they took steps to change the system and culture in which providers make these decisions in the first place. Future work in this area would be wise to follow in these footsteps, by encouraging collaboration between hospitalist and nurses to create more logical and patient-specific call parameters that could potentially improve nursing-physician communication, and subsequently, patient care.

Changing the culture to limit the use of intravenous antihypertensives will not be easy, but it is necessary. We encourage readers to investigate intravenous antihypertensives in their own hospitals and consider how better communication between nurses and physicians could change their practice. Recalling Mrs. Jones above, the provider should engage her nurse to help confirm that her hypertension is “asymptomatic” and then consider underlying causes such as pain, anxiety, or withholding her home medications as reasons for her elevated blood pressure. After all, if nothing else, it seems clear that a call about inpatient hypertension is not a call to act, but to think.

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

Dr. Lucas is supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development and Dartmouth SYNERGY, National Institutes of Health, National Center for Translational Science (UL1TR001086).

Your pager beeps. Your patient, Mrs. Jones, who was admitted with cellulitis and is improving, now has a blood pressure of 188/103 on routine vitals. Her nurse reports that she is comfortable and asymptomatic, but she met the “call parameters.” You review her chart and find that since admission her systolic blood pressure (SBP) has ranged from 149 to 157 mm Hg and her diastolic blood pressure (DBP) from 84 to 96 mm Hg. Her nurse asks how you would like to treat her.

While over half of inpatients have at least one hypertensive episode during their stay, evidence suggests that nearly all such episodes—estimates are between 98% and 99%^1,2—should be treated over several days with oral antihypertensives, not acutely with intravenous medications.^3-6 Current guidelines recommend that intravenous medications should be reserved for severe hypertensive episodes (SBP > 180, DBP > 120) with acute end-organ damage,^7,8 but such “hypertensive emergencies” are rare on the general medicine wards. Still, hospitalists regularly face the dilemma posed by Mrs. Jones, and evidence shows they often prescribe intravenous antihypertensives.^1,4,5 This unnecessary use can lead to unreliable drops in blood pressure and exposes our patients to potential harm.^5,6

In this issue of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, two papers describe the frequency of inappropriate intravenous antihypertensive use in their hospitals and the subsequent quality improvement efforts implemented to reduce this practice. The first, by Jacobs et al., found that over a 10-month period, 11% of patients who experienced “asymptomatic hypertension” on an urban academic hospital medicine service were treated inappropriately with intravenous antihypertensives,⁹ with 14% of those experiencing an adverse event. The second paper, by Pasik et al., found that in their urban academic medical center there were 8.3 inappropriate intravenous antihypertensive orders placed per 1,000 patient days,¹⁰ with nearly half of those treated experiencing an adverse event. Based on these findings, each group then led interventions to reduce the use of intravenous antihypertensives.

While both groups engaged physicians and nurses as primary stakeholders, Pasik et al.¹⁰ worked to further expand nursing staff roles by empowering them to assess for underlying causes of hypertension, such as pain or anxiety, as well as end-organ damage via specific guided algorithms prior to contacting physicians. In doing so, they reduced intravenous antihypertensive use by 60% during the postintervention period, with a proportional reduction in adverse events. In addition to their educational initiative, Jacobs et al. aimed to limit calls by liberalizing the “ceiling” on standard nursing call parameters for blood pressure from 160/80 to 180/90. Following their intervention, intravenous antihypertensive orders were reduced by 40%, with the mean orders per patient with asymptomatic hypertension decreasing from 11% to 7% .

While these results are admirable, some caution in their interpretation is needed. For example, Jacobs et al. used electronic health record data to retrospectively identify hypertension as “symptomatic” or “asymptomatic” using laboratory, electrocardiogram, and imaging diagnostics as surrogate markers for “provider concern for end-organ damage.” Although it appropriately focused on concern for end-organ damage as justification for intravenous antihypertensives, this approach potentially underappreciated true hypertensive emergencies, thereby overestimating the amount of inappropriate use of intravenous antihypertensives. Pasik et al. utilized chart review of patients prescribed intravenous antihypertensives and therefore did not explore how often symptomatic hypertension occurred in patients who did not receive intravenous antihypertensives. Subsequently, this limited their ability to evaluate unintended harms of their initiative. To address this limitation, the authors followed a group of 111 patients who had elevated hypertension but did not receive intravenous antihypertensives and found no adverse outcomes.¹⁰ Because both studies were retrospective in nature, they were subject to biases from providers choosing intravenous antihypertensives for reasons that were neither captured by their datasets nor adjusted for. Additionally, neither study reported downstream impacts such as an increase in symptomatic hypertensive episodes or more rare events such as kidney injury, stroke, or myocardial infarction.

Given that guidelines discourage using intravenous antihypertensives, why were the efforts of Jacobs et al.⁹ and Pasik et al.¹⁰ needed in the first place? In a recent installment of Choosing Wisely: Things We Do For No Reason, Breu et al.¹¹ cite two primary reasons: first, providers have unfounded fears that asymptomatic hypertension will quickly progress to cause organ damage; second, providers lack understanding of the potential harms from overtreatment. It is fitting, therefore, that both groups of authors focused on these topics in their education initiatives for physicians and nurses. Yet, as good quality improvement requires steps beyond education, it was promising to see that both authors additionally focused on intervening to change the systems and culture that existed around physician and nursing communication.

In the age of electronic health records, there has been a sustained focus on creating standardized order sets. While the value of these order sets has been widely demonstrated, there are downsides. For example, nursing call parameters in admission order sets are rarely patient-specific but account for a significant portion of nursing and physician communication. These one-size-fits-all orders limit nurses from using their clinical training and create unnecessary tensions as nurses are obligated to call covering hospitalists to address “abnormal” but clinically insignificant findings. Regular monitoring of vital signs is an integral part of caring for acutely ill inpatients but for most inpatients, the importance of vitals is to detect clinically meaningful changes, not to treat risk factors like hypertension that should be treated safely over the long term.

When inpatients become febrile, tachycardic, or hypoxic, hospitalists use critical thinking to diagnose the underlying causes. Unfortunately, high blood pressure is a vital sign that is treated differently. Many hospitalists see it as a number to fix, not a potential sign of a new underlying problem such as uncontrolled pain, anxiety, or medication side effects.⁸ Both groups of authors took the important first step of educating physicians to think critically when called about high blood pressure. Even more importantly, they took steps to change the system and culture in which providers make these decisions in the first place. Future work in this area would be wise to follow in these footsteps, by encouraging collaboration between hospitalist and nurses to create more logical and patient-specific call parameters that could potentially improve nursing-physician communication, and subsequently, patient care.

Changing the culture to limit the use of intravenous antihypertensives will not be easy, but it is necessary. We encourage readers to investigate intravenous antihypertensives in their own hospitals and consider how better communication between nurses and physicians could change their practice. Recalling Mrs. Jones above, the provider should engage her nurse to help confirm that her hypertension is “asymptomatic” and then consider underlying causes such as pain, anxiety, or withholding her home medications as reasons for her elevated blood pressure. After all, if nothing else, it seems clear that a call about inpatient hypertension is not a call to act, but to think.

Disclosures

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Funding

Dr. Lucas is supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Office of Research and Development and Dartmouth SYNERGY, National Institutes of Health, National Center for Translational Science (UL1TR001086).