Affiliations
University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois
Given name(s)
Vineet
Family name
Arora
Degrees
MD

Living into your legacy

Article Type
Changed
Tue, 05/14/2019 - 11:26

What I learned from women of impact

The word legacy has been synonymous with death to me. When so and so dies, we discuss their legacy. I had a powerful experience that changed my mind on this word that is befitting for this Legacies column.

Dr. Vineet Arora

Seven years ago, I was sitting in a room of powerful women and I was the youngest one there. I wasn’t sure how I got there, but I was glad I did because it changed my life. At the time, I was panicked. The exercise was called “Craft your legacy statement.”

But, this exercise was different. The ask was to “live into your legacy.” Craft a legacy statement in THREE minutes that summarizes what you want your legacy to be … and then decide the three things you need to do now to get there. So, here is my exact legacy 3-minute statement: I am an innovator pushing teaching hospitals to optimize training and patient care delivery through novel technologies and systems science. Clearly, I did not aim high enough. One of the other attendees stated her legacy simply as “Unleash the impossible!” So clearly, I was not able to think big at that moment, but I trudged on.

Next, I had to write the three things I was going to do to enact my legacy today. Things went from bad to worse quickly since I knew this was not going to be easy. The #1 thing had to be something I was going to stop doing because it did not fit with my legacy; #2 was what I was going to start doing to enact this legacy now; and, #3 was something I was going to do to get me closer to what I wanted to be doing. So, my #1, resign my current leadership role that I had had for 8 years; #2, start joining national committees that bridge education and quality; and #3, meet with senior leadership to pitch this new role as a bridging leader, aligning education and quality.

Like all conferences, I went home and forgot what I had done and learned. I settled back into my old life and routines. A few weeks later, a plain looking envelope with awful penmanship showed up at my doorstep addressed to me. It wasn’t until after I opened it and read what was inside that I realized I was the one with horrible penmanship! I completely forgot that I wrote this letter to myself even though they told me it would come and I would forget I wrote it! So, how did I do? Let’s just say if the letter did not arrive, I am not sure where I would be. Fortunately, it did come, and I followed my own orders. Fast forward to present day and I recently stepped into a new role – associate chief medical officer: clinical learning environment – a bridging leader who aligns education and clinical care missions for our health system. Let’s just say again, had that letter not arrived, I am not sure where I would be now.

 

 

I have been fortunate to do many things in hospital medicine – clinician, researcher, educator, and my latest role as a leader. Through it all, I would say that there are some lessons that I have picked up along the way that helped me advance, in ways I did not realize:
  • Be bold. Years ago, when I was asked by my chair who they should pick to be chief resident, I thought “This must be a trick question – I should definitely tell him why I should be chosen – and then pick the next best person who I want to work with.” Apparently, I was the only person who did that, and that is why my chair chose me. Everyone else picked two other people. So the take-home point here is do not sell yourself short … ever.
  • Look for the hidden gateways. A few years ago, I was asked if I wanted to be an institutional leader by the person who currently had that role. I was kind of thrown for a loop, since of course I would not want to appear like I wanted to take his job. I said everything was fine and I felt pretty good about my current positions. It was only a few weeks later that I realized that he was ascertaining my interest in his job since he was leaving. They gave the job to someone else and the word on the street was I was not interested. I totally missed the gate! While it wasn’t necessarily the job I missed out on, it was the opportunity to consider the job because I was afraid. So, don’t miss the gate. It’s the wormhole to a different life that may be the right one for you, but you need to “see it” to seize it.
  • Work hard for the money and for the fun. There are many things Gwyneth Paltrow does that I do not agree with, but I will give her credit for one important lesson: she divides her movie roles into those she does for love (for example, The Royal Tenenbaums) and those she does for money (for example, Shallow Hal). It made me realize that even a Hollywood starlet has to do the stuff she may not want to do for the money. So, as a young person, you have to work hard for the money, but ideally it will help you take on a project you love, whatever it is. You’ve won the game when you’re mostly paid to work for the fun ... but that may take some time.
  • Always optimize what is best for you personally AND professionally. While I was on maternity leave, the job of my dreams presented itself – or so I thought it did. It was at the intersection of policy, quality, and education, with a national stage, and I would not need to move. But, I knew I could not accept the travel commitment with a young child. While I wondered if I would have regrets, it turns out the right decision professionally also has to work personally. Likewise, there are professional obligations that I take on because it works personally.
  • Figure out who your tea house pals are. A few years ago, I was in San Francisco with two close friends having an epic moment about what to do with our lives as adults. We were all on the cusp of changing our directions. Not surprisingly, we could see what the other needed to do, but we could not see it for ourselves. We still text each other sometimes about the need to go back to the Tea House. Sometimes your “tea house pals” are not necessarily those around you every day. They know you, but not everyone in your work place. This “arm’s length” or distance gives them the rational, unbiased perspective to advise you, that you or your colleagues will never have.
  • Look for ways to enjoy the journey. Medicine is a very long road. I routinely think about this working with all the trainees and junior faculty I encounter. You can’t be in this solely for the end of the journey. The key is to find the joy in the journey. For me, that has always come from seeking out like-minded fellow travelers to share my highs and lows. While I tweet for many reasons, a big reason is that I take pleasure in watching others on the journey and also sharing my own journey.


Here’s to your journey and living your legacy!

Dr. Arora is associate chief medical officer, clinical learning environment, at University of Chicago Medicine, and assistant dean for scholarship and discovery at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. You can follow her journey on Twitter.

Publications
Topics
Sections

What I learned from women of impact

What I learned from women of impact

The word legacy has been synonymous with death to me. When so and so dies, we discuss their legacy. I had a powerful experience that changed my mind on this word that is befitting for this Legacies column.

Dr. Vineet Arora

Seven years ago, I was sitting in a room of powerful women and I was the youngest one there. I wasn’t sure how I got there, but I was glad I did because it changed my life. At the time, I was panicked. The exercise was called “Craft your legacy statement.”

But, this exercise was different. The ask was to “live into your legacy.” Craft a legacy statement in THREE minutes that summarizes what you want your legacy to be … and then decide the three things you need to do now to get there. So, here is my exact legacy 3-minute statement: I am an innovator pushing teaching hospitals to optimize training and patient care delivery through novel technologies and systems science. Clearly, I did not aim high enough. One of the other attendees stated her legacy simply as “Unleash the impossible!” So clearly, I was not able to think big at that moment, but I trudged on.

Next, I had to write the three things I was going to do to enact my legacy today. Things went from bad to worse quickly since I knew this was not going to be easy. The #1 thing had to be something I was going to stop doing because it did not fit with my legacy; #2 was what I was going to start doing to enact this legacy now; and, #3 was something I was going to do to get me closer to what I wanted to be doing. So, my #1, resign my current leadership role that I had had for 8 years; #2, start joining national committees that bridge education and quality; and #3, meet with senior leadership to pitch this new role as a bridging leader, aligning education and quality.

Like all conferences, I went home and forgot what I had done and learned. I settled back into my old life and routines. A few weeks later, a plain looking envelope with awful penmanship showed up at my doorstep addressed to me. It wasn’t until after I opened it and read what was inside that I realized I was the one with horrible penmanship! I completely forgot that I wrote this letter to myself even though they told me it would come and I would forget I wrote it! So, how did I do? Let’s just say if the letter did not arrive, I am not sure where I would be. Fortunately, it did come, and I followed my own orders. Fast forward to present day and I recently stepped into a new role – associate chief medical officer: clinical learning environment – a bridging leader who aligns education and clinical care missions for our health system. Let’s just say again, had that letter not arrived, I am not sure where I would be now.

 

 

I have been fortunate to do many things in hospital medicine – clinician, researcher, educator, and my latest role as a leader. Through it all, I would say that there are some lessons that I have picked up along the way that helped me advance, in ways I did not realize:
  • Be bold. Years ago, when I was asked by my chair who they should pick to be chief resident, I thought “This must be a trick question – I should definitely tell him why I should be chosen – and then pick the next best person who I want to work with.” Apparently, I was the only person who did that, and that is why my chair chose me. Everyone else picked two other people. So the take-home point here is do not sell yourself short … ever.
  • Look for the hidden gateways. A few years ago, I was asked if I wanted to be an institutional leader by the person who currently had that role. I was kind of thrown for a loop, since of course I would not want to appear like I wanted to take his job. I said everything was fine and I felt pretty good about my current positions. It was only a few weeks later that I realized that he was ascertaining my interest in his job since he was leaving. They gave the job to someone else and the word on the street was I was not interested. I totally missed the gate! While it wasn’t necessarily the job I missed out on, it was the opportunity to consider the job because I was afraid. So, don’t miss the gate. It’s the wormhole to a different life that may be the right one for you, but you need to “see it” to seize it.
  • Work hard for the money and for the fun. There are many things Gwyneth Paltrow does that I do not agree with, but I will give her credit for one important lesson: she divides her movie roles into those she does for love (for example, The Royal Tenenbaums) and those she does for money (for example, Shallow Hal). It made me realize that even a Hollywood starlet has to do the stuff she may not want to do for the money. So, as a young person, you have to work hard for the money, but ideally it will help you take on a project you love, whatever it is. You’ve won the game when you’re mostly paid to work for the fun ... but that may take some time.
  • Always optimize what is best for you personally AND professionally. While I was on maternity leave, the job of my dreams presented itself – or so I thought it did. It was at the intersection of policy, quality, and education, with a national stage, and I would not need to move. But, I knew I could not accept the travel commitment with a young child. While I wondered if I would have regrets, it turns out the right decision professionally also has to work personally. Likewise, there are professional obligations that I take on because it works personally.
  • Figure out who your tea house pals are. A few years ago, I was in San Francisco with two close friends having an epic moment about what to do with our lives as adults. We were all on the cusp of changing our directions. Not surprisingly, we could see what the other needed to do, but we could not see it for ourselves. We still text each other sometimes about the need to go back to the Tea House. Sometimes your “tea house pals” are not necessarily those around you every day. They know you, but not everyone in your work place. This “arm’s length” or distance gives them the rational, unbiased perspective to advise you, that you or your colleagues will never have.
  • Look for ways to enjoy the journey. Medicine is a very long road. I routinely think about this working with all the trainees and junior faculty I encounter. You can’t be in this solely for the end of the journey. The key is to find the joy in the journey. For me, that has always come from seeking out like-minded fellow travelers to share my highs and lows. While I tweet for many reasons, a big reason is that I take pleasure in watching others on the journey and also sharing my own journey.


Here’s to your journey and living your legacy!

Dr. Arora is associate chief medical officer, clinical learning environment, at University of Chicago Medicine, and assistant dean for scholarship and discovery at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. You can follow her journey on Twitter.

The word legacy has been synonymous with death to me. When so and so dies, we discuss their legacy. I had a powerful experience that changed my mind on this word that is befitting for this Legacies column.

Dr. Vineet Arora

Seven years ago, I was sitting in a room of powerful women and I was the youngest one there. I wasn’t sure how I got there, but I was glad I did because it changed my life. At the time, I was panicked. The exercise was called “Craft your legacy statement.”

But, this exercise was different. The ask was to “live into your legacy.” Craft a legacy statement in THREE minutes that summarizes what you want your legacy to be … and then decide the three things you need to do now to get there. So, here is my exact legacy 3-minute statement: I am an innovator pushing teaching hospitals to optimize training and patient care delivery through novel technologies and systems science. Clearly, I did not aim high enough. One of the other attendees stated her legacy simply as “Unleash the impossible!” So clearly, I was not able to think big at that moment, but I trudged on.

Next, I had to write the three things I was going to do to enact my legacy today. Things went from bad to worse quickly since I knew this was not going to be easy. The #1 thing had to be something I was going to stop doing because it did not fit with my legacy; #2 was what I was going to start doing to enact this legacy now; and, #3 was something I was going to do to get me closer to what I wanted to be doing. So, my #1, resign my current leadership role that I had had for 8 years; #2, start joining national committees that bridge education and quality; and #3, meet with senior leadership to pitch this new role as a bridging leader, aligning education and quality.

Like all conferences, I went home and forgot what I had done and learned. I settled back into my old life and routines. A few weeks later, a plain looking envelope with awful penmanship showed up at my doorstep addressed to me. It wasn’t until after I opened it and read what was inside that I realized I was the one with horrible penmanship! I completely forgot that I wrote this letter to myself even though they told me it would come and I would forget I wrote it! So, how did I do? Let’s just say if the letter did not arrive, I am not sure where I would be. Fortunately, it did come, and I followed my own orders. Fast forward to present day and I recently stepped into a new role – associate chief medical officer: clinical learning environment – a bridging leader who aligns education and clinical care missions for our health system. Let’s just say again, had that letter not arrived, I am not sure where I would be now.

 

 

I have been fortunate to do many things in hospital medicine – clinician, researcher, educator, and my latest role as a leader. Through it all, I would say that there are some lessons that I have picked up along the way that helped me advance, in ways I did not realize:
  • Be bold. Years ago, when I was asked by my chair who they should pick to be chief resident, I thought “This must be a trick question – I should definitely tell him why I should be chosen – and then pick the next best person who I want to work with.” Apparently, I was the only person who did that, and that is why my chair chose me. Everyone else picked two other people. So the take-home point here is do not sell yourself short … ever.
  • Look for the hidden gateways. A few years ago, I was asked if I wanted to be an institutional leader by the person who currently had that role. I was kind of thrown for a loop, since of course I would not want to appear like I wanted to take his job. I said everything was fine and I felt pretty good about my current positions. It was only a few weeks later that I realized that he was ascertaining my interest in his job since he was leaving. They gave the job to someone else and the word on the street was I was not interested. I totally missed the gate! While it wasn’t necessarily the job I missed out on, it was the opportunity to consider the job because I was afraid. So, don’t miss the gate. It’s the wormhole to a different life that may be the right one for you, but you need to “see it” to seize it.
  • Work hard for the money and for the fun. There are many things Gwyneth Paltrow does that I do not agree with, but I will give her credit for one important lesson: she divides her movie roles into those she does for love (for example, The Royal Tenenbaums) and those she does for money (for example, Shallow Hal). It made me realize that even a Hollywood starlet has to do the stuff she may not want to do for the money. So, as a young person, you have to work hard for the money, but ideally it will help you take on a project you love, whatever it is. You’ve won the game when you’re mostly paid to work for the fun ... but that may take some time.
  • Always optimize what is best for you personally AND professionally. While I was on maternity leave, the job of my dreams presented itself – or so I thought it did. It was at the intersection of policy, quality, and education, with a national stage, and I would not need to move. But, I knew I could not accept the travel commitment with a young child. While I wondered if I would have regrets, it turns out the right decision professionally also has to work personally. Likewise, there are professional obligations that I take on because it works personally.
  • Figure out who your tea house pals are. A few years ago, I was in San Francisco with two close friends having an epic moment about what to do with our lives as adults. We were all on the cusp of changing our directions. Not surprisingly, we could see what the other needed to do, but we could not see it for ourselves. We still text each other sometimes about the need to go back to the Tea House. Sometimes your “tea house pals” are not necessarily those around you every day. They know you, but not everyone in your work place. This “arm’s length” or distance gives them the rational, unbiased perspective to advise you, that you or your colleagues will never have.
  • Look for ways to enjoy the journey. Medicine is a very long road. I routinely think about this working with all the trainees and junior faculty I encounter. You can’t be in this solely for the end of the journey. The key is to find the joy in the journey. For me, that has always come from seeking out like-minded fellow travelers to share my highs and lows. While I tweet for many reasons, a big reason is that I take pleasure in watching others on the journey and also sharing my own journey.


Here’s to your journey and living your legacy!

Dr. Arora is associate chief medical officer, clinical learning environment, at University of Chicago Medicine, and assistant dean for scholarship and discovery at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. You can follow her journey on Twitter.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

Speaking at a conference? Read these tips first

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 04/25/2019 - 13:04

 

Recently, I was asked to present my top public speaking tips for a group of women leaders. This is a topic near and dear to my heart, and one that I teach a number of groups, from medical students to faculty.

Dr. Vineet Arora

I also benefited from just returning from the Harvard Macy Educators Course, where Victoria Brazil, MD, an experienced emergency medicine physician from Australia, provided her top tips. Here is a mash-up of the top tips to think about for any of the speakers out there among us – with a few shout-outs for the ladies out there. Please add your own!

The Dos

  • Do project power: Stand tall with a relaxed stance and shoulders back – posture is everything. This is especially important for women, who may tend to shrink their bodies, or anyone who is short. A powerful messenger is just as important as the power of the message. The same also applies to sitting down, especially if you are on a panel. Do not look like you are falling into the table.
  • Do look up: Think about addressing the people in the back, not in the front row. This looks better in photos as well since you are appealing to the large audience and not the front row. Dr. Brazil’s tip came from Cate Blanchett who said that before she gives talks, she literally and physically advises “picking up your crown and put it on your head.” Not only will you feel better, you will look it too.
  • Do pause strategically: The human brain needs rest to process what you are about to say. You can ask people to “think of a time” and take a pause. Or “I want you to all think about what I just said for one moment.” And TAKE a moment. But think about Emma’s pause during the March For Your Lives. Pauses are powerful and serve as a way to cement what you are saying for even the most critical crowd. Think about when anyone on their phone pauses, even if you’re on a boring conference call others will wake up and wonder what is going on and are now engaged in the talk.
  • Do strategically summarize: Before you end, or in between important sections, say the following: “There are three main things you can do.” Even if someone fell asleep, they will wake up to take note. It’s a way to get folks’ attention back. There is nothing like challenging others to do something.

The Don’ts

  • Don’t start with an apology for “not being an expert”: Or whatever you are thinking about apologizing for. The voice in your head does not need to be broadcast to others. Just say thank you after you are introduced, and launch in. Someone has asked you to talk, so bring your own unique expertise and don’t start with undermining yourself!
  • Don’t use your slides as a crutch: Make your audience look at you and not your slides. That means at times, you may be talking and your slides will not be moving. Other times, if you are starting with a story, maybe there is no slide behind you and the screen is blacked out. Some of the most powerful moments in a talk are when slides are not being used.
  • Don’t stand behind the podium if you can help it. This means ask for a wireless microphone. Most podiums will overwhelm you. If you have to use a podium, go back to the posture in the “dos.” One year, I had a leg injury and definitely used the podium, so obviously there may be times you need to use a podium; even then, try as hard as possible to make sure you are seen.
  • Don’t engage grandstanders during Q&A: Invariably, you will get someone who stands up and goes into a long comment that is not a question to hear themselves speak. Insert yourself, say “thank you” and take the next question. If there is not a next question, you can add, “Before I forget, I want to share another question I am often asked which may be of help to you.” Then, answer your own question. You get the final word this way!

Happy speaking! I look forward to seeing you in warmer weather during the spring conference season.

For more posts from the Hospital Leader blog, visit hospitalleader.org.

Publications
Topics
Sections

 

Recently, I was asked to present my top public speaking tips for a group of women leaders. This is a topic near and dear to my heart, and one that I teach a number of groups, from medical students to faculty.

Dr. Vineet Arora

I also benefited from just returning from the Harvard Macy Educators Course, where Victoria Brazil, MD, an experienced emergency medicine physician from Australia, provided her top tips. Here is a mash-up of the top tips to think about for any of the speakers out there among us – with a few shout-outs for the ladies out there. Please add your own!

The Dos

  • Do project power: Stand tall with a relaxed stance and shoulders back – posture is everything. This is especially important for women, who may tend to shrink their bodies, or anyone who is short. A powerful messenger is just as important as the power of the message. The same also applies to sitting down, especially if you are on a panel. Do not look like you are falling into the table.
  • Do look up: Think about addressing the people in the back, not in the front row. This looks better in photos as well since you are appealing to the large audience and not the front row. Dr. Brazil’s tip came from Cate Blanchett who said that before she gives talks, she literally and physically advises “picking up your crown and put it on your head.” Not only will you feel better, you will look it too.
  • Do pause strategically: The human brain needs rest to process what you are about to say. You can ask people to “think of a time” and take a pause. Or “I want you to all think about what I just said for one moment.” And TAKE a moment. But think about Emma’s pause during the March For Your Lives. Pauses are powerful and serve as a way to cement what you are saying for even the most critical crowd. Think about when anyone on their phone pauses, even if you’re on a boring conference call others will wake up and wonder what is going on and are now engaged in the talk.
  • Do strategically summarize: Before you end, or in between important sections, say the following: “There are three main things you can do.” Even if someone fell asleep, they will wake up to take note. It’s a way to get folks’ attention back. There is nothing like challenging others to do something.

The Don’ts

  • Don’t start with an apology for “not being an expert”: Or whatever you are thinking about apologizing for. The voice in your head does not need to be broadcast to others. Just say thank you after you are introduced, and launch in. Someone has asked you to talk, so bring your own unique expertise and don’t start with undermining yourself!
  • Don’t use your slides as a crutch: Make your audience look at you and not your slides. That means at times, you may be talking and your slides will not be moving. Other times, if you are starting with a story, maybe there is no slide behind you and the screen is blacked out. Some of the most powerful moments in a talk are when slides are not being used.
  • Don’t stand behind the podium if you can help it. This means ask for a wireless microphone. Most podiums will overwhelm you. If you have to use a podium, go back to the posture in the “dos.” One year, I had a leg injury and definitely used the podium, so obviously there may be times you need to use a podium; even then, try as hard as possible to make sure you are seen.
  • Don’t engage grandstanders during Q&A: Invariably, you will get someone who stands up and goes into a long comment that is not a question to hear themselves speak. Insert yourself, say “thank you” and take the next question. If there is not a next question, you can add, “Before I forget, I want to share another question I am often asked which may be of help to you.” Then, answer your own question. You get the final word this way!

Happy speaking! I look forward to seeing you in warmer weather during the spring conference season.

For more posts from the Hospital Leader blog, visit hospitalleader.org.

 

Recently, I was asked to present my top public speaking tips for a group of women leaders. This is a topic near and dear to my heart, and one that I teach a number of groups, from medical students to faculty.

Dr. Vineet Arora

I also benefited from just returning from the Harvard Macy Educators Course, where Victoria Brazil, MD, an experienced emergency medicine physician from Australia, provided her top tips. Here is a mash-up of the top tips to think about for any of the speakers out there among us – with a few shout-outs for the ladies out there. Please add your own!

The Dos

  • Do project power: Stand tall with a relaxed stance and shoulders back – posture is everything. This is especially important for women, who may tend to shrink their bodies, or anyone who is short. A powerful messenger is just as important as the power of the message. The same also applies to sitting down, especially if you are on a panel. Do not look like you are falling into the table.
  • Do look up: Think about addressing the people in the back, not in the front row. This looks better in photos as well since you are appealing to the large audience and not the front row. Dr. Brazil’s tip came from Cate Blanchett who said that before she gives talks, she literally and physically advises “picking up your crown and put it on your head.” Not only will you feel better, you will look it too.
  • Do pause strategically: The human brain needs rest to process what you are about to say. You can ask people to “think of a time” and take a pause. Or “I want you to all think about what I just said for one moment.” And TAKE a moment. But think about Emma’s pause during the March For Your Lives. Pauses are powerful and serve as a way to cement what you are saying for even the most critical crowd. Think about when anyone on their phone pauses, even if you’re on a boring conference call others will wake up and wonder what is going on and are now engaged in the talk.
  • Do strategically summarize: Before you end, or in between important sections, say the following: “There are three main things you can do.” Even if someone fell asleep, they will wake up to take note. It’s a way to get folks’ attention back. There is nothing like challenging others to do something.

The Don’ts

  • Don’t start with an apology for “not being an expert”: Or whatever you are thinking about apologizing for. The voice in your head does not need to be broadcast to others. Just say thank you after you are introduced, and launch in. Someone has asked you to talk, so bring your own unique expertise and don’t start with undermining yourself!
  • Don’t use your slides as a crutch: Make your audience look at you and not your slides. That means at times, you may be talking and your slides will not be moving. Other times, if you are starting with a story, maybe there is no slide behind you and the screen is blacked out. Some of the most powerful moments in a talk are when slides are not being used.
  • Don’t stand behind the podium if you can help it. This means ask for a wireless microphone. Most podiums will overwhelm you. If you have to use a podium, go back to the posture in the “dos.” One year, I had a leg injury and definitely used the podium, so obviously there may be times you need to use a podium; even then, try as hard as possible to make sure you are seen.
  • Don’t engage grandstanders during Q&A: Invariably, you will get someone who stands up and goes into a long comment that is not a question to hear themselves speak. Insert yourself, say “thank you” and take the next question. If there is not a next question, you can add, “Before I forget, I want to share another question I am often asked which may be of help to you.” Then, answer your own question. You get the final word this way!

Happy speaking! I look forward to seeing you in warmer weather during the spring conference season.

For more posts from the Hospital Leader blog, visit hospitalleader.org.

Publications
Publications
Topics
Article Type
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Disqus Comments
Default
Use ProPublica
Hide sidebar & use full width
render the right sidebar.

The Hospital Leader Explores Ways Hospitalists Can Tackle Healthcare Costs

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 12:09
Display Headline
The Hospital Leader Explores Ways Hospitalists Can Tackle Healthcare Costs

EDITOR’S NOTE: A version of this article originally appeared on Medpage Today on May 5, 2015.


By now, we have all heard the stories about unconscionable medical bills causing financial harm for patients. We have read about more Americans than ever before on high-deductible health insurance plans. Some of us have even helped our parents navigate the deceptively simple-looking bronze, silver, and gold tiers of the insurance exchanges, weighing the gamble of increasingly unaffordable monthly premiums against catastrophically high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.

Image Credit: SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

We have accepted the fact that healthcare costs are out of control and causing real constraints on every level, from individuals to communities to businesses to states to our nation.

OK, but now what are we supposed to do about it?

“Remarkably, given the importance of this issue, until now, we lacked a roadmap to attack it,” wrote Bob Wachter, MD, in the foreword to our new book, Understanding Value-Based Healthcare. “Now we have one.”

For starters, we can supply a pipeline for change by embedding the principles of value-based care in the apprenticeship of health professional education. Recently, the leaders of the soon-to-open Dell Medical School at University of Texas-Austin articulated their plan to build their entire curriculum around teaching students to root out waste and to care for the health of the community. This is the clearest example that medical educators are taking seriously the calls to action coming from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the American College of Physicians (ACP), and other leaders to address healthcare value in training very seriously. However, the front lines are not waiting for new medical schools to open up or for massive curricular overhauls. The Second Annual Teaching Value and Choosing Wisely Challenge that we organized resulted in 80 submissions spanning the country (and Canada). The authors, including five students, 30 residents or fellows, and at least 41 faculty members, described their bright ideas and innovations for integrating healthcare value into education.

Education is fundamental but will not be enough. We must also practice what we preach. Practicing clinicians can deflate medical bills for their patients by advocating for appropriate care, considering patient affordability in customizing treatments, and leading local initiatives to improve value of care.

Clinicians can advocate for appropriate care by avoiding low-value services at the point of care. Specific targets for improving appropriate resource utilization may be identified from resources such as Choosing Wisely lists, guidelines, and appropriateness criteria. Physicians will need to understand the true risks and benefits of recommended therapies and learn ways to communicate this balance with patients.

Patient affordability is increasingly important, with more patients now facing astronomically high out-of-pocket bills, even for simple medical treatments or procedures. A December 2014 CBS/New York Times poll found that 80% of Americans now think their doctor should discuss the cost of recommended medical treatment with them ahead of time. Clinicians can screen their patients for financial harm and can help them navigate the trade-offs of lower cost options. Physicians should seek to provide high-value prescribing, which entails recommending the simplest medication regimen that minimizes physical and financial risk to the patient while achieving the best outcome. In other words, decreasing either cost, complexity, or risk of medications can improve value—and clinicians should aim to improve all three simultaneously.

In addition to reducing waste and considering patient affordability, clinicians are ideal leaders of local value initiatives, whether they accomplish this by running value improvement projects or by launching formal high-value care programs. Our framework to guide value improvement project design is “COST”: culture, oversight accountability, system support, and training. This approach leverages principles from implementation science to ensure that value improvement projects successfully provide multi-pronged tactics for overcoming the many barriers to high-value care delivery. At some locations across the country, individual efforts have matured into entire groups dedicated to designing and implementing value-improvement initiatives, including the UCSF High Value Care Committee, the Johns Hopkins High-Value Care Committee, Johns Hopkins Bayview Physicians for Responsible Ordering (PRO), and “High-Value Carolina” in North Carolina.

 

 

Health professionals are faced with a responsibility to help deflate medical bills. To achieve this goal, clinicians can advocate for appropriate care, consider patient affordability, and lead local value improvement initiatives. For those ready to tackle this challenge, we elaborate on and explain some of these necessary tools in our book, Understanding Value-Based Healthcare.

The Hospital Leader

Hospitalists of all kinds are sharing their perspective and experience at SHM’s official blog, “The Hospital Leader,” including their reflections on how hospitalists can tackle healthcare costs. For more posts, visit www.shmblog.org.

Hot on HMX

Hospital Medicine Exchange (HMX) empowers SHM members to share and collaborate on some of the most important topics in healthcare today. Recently, hospitalists have been discussing issues like:

• Patient satisfaction • Geographic rounding • LACE Score

To share your own perspective on these topics—or start a new conversation.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(07)
Publications
Sections

EDITOR’S NOTE: A version of this article originally appeared on Medpage Today on May 5, 2015.


By now, we have all heard the stories about unconscionable medical bills causing financial harm for patients. We have read about more Americans than ever before on high-deductible health insurance plans. Some of us have even helped our parents navigate the deceptively simple-looking bronze, silver, and gold tiers of the insurance exchanges, weighing the gamble of increasingly unaffordable monthly premiums against catastrophically high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.

Image Credit: SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

We have accepted the fact that healthcare costs are out of control and causing real constraints on every level, from individuals to communities to businesses to states to our nation.

OK, but now what are we supposed to do about it?

“Remarkably, given the importance of this issue, until now, we lacked a roadmap to attack it,” wrote Bob Wachter, MD, in the foreword to our new book, Understanding Value-Based Healthcare. “Now we have one.”

For starters, we can supply a pipeline for change by embedding the principles of value-based care in the apprenticeship of health professional education. Recently, the leaders of the soon-to-open Dell Medical School at University of Texas-Austin articulated their plan to build their entire curriculum around teaching students to root out waste and to care for the health of the community. This is the clearest example that medical educators are taking seriously the calls to action coming from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the American College of Physicians (ACP), and other leaders to address healthcare value in training very seriously. However, the front lines are not waiting for new medical schools to open up or for massive curricular overhauls. The Second Annual Teaching Value and Choosing Wisely Challenge that we organized resulted in 80 submissions spanning the country (and Canada). The authors, including five students, 30 residents or fellows, and at least 41 faculty members, described their bright ideas and innovations for integrating healthcare value into education.

Education is fundamental but will not be enough. We must also practice what we preach. Practicing clinicians can deflate medical bills for their patients by advocating for appropriate care, considering patient affordability in customizing treatments, and leading local initiatives to improve value of care.

Clinicians can advocate for appropriate care by avoiding low-value services at the point of care. Specific targets for improving appropriate resource utilization may be identified from resources such as Choosing Wisely lists, guidelines, and appropriateness criteria. Physicians will need to understand the true risks and benefits of recommended therapies and learn ways to communicate this balance with patients.

Patient affordability is increasingly important, with more patients now facing astronomically high out-of-pocket bills, even for simple medical treatments or procedures. A December 2014 CBS/New York Times poll found that 80% of Americans now think their doctor should discuss the cost of recommended medical treatment with them ahead of time. Clinicians can screen their patients for financial harm and can help them navigate the trade-offs of lower cost options. Physicians should seek to provide high-value prescribing, which entails recommending the simplest medication regimen that minimizes physical and financial risk to the patient while achieving the best outcome. In other words, decreasing either cost, complexity, or risk of medications can improve value—and clinicians should aim to improve all three simultaneously.

In addition to reducing waste and considering patient affordability, clinicians are ideal leaders of local value initiatives, whether they accomplish this by running value improvement projects or by launching formal high-value care programs. Our framework to guide value improvement project design is “COST”: culture, oversight accountability, system support, and training. This approach leverages principles from implementation science to ensure that value improvement projects successfully provide multi-pronged tactics for overcoming the many barriers to high-value care delivery. At some locations across the country, individual efforts have matured into entire groups dedicated to designing and implementing value-improvement initiatives, including the UCSF High Value Care Committee, the Johns Hopkins High-Value Care Committee, Johns Hopkins Bayview Physicians for Responsible Ordering (PRO), and “High-Value Carolina” in North Carolina.

 

 

Health professionals are faced with a responsibility to help deflate medical bills. To achieve this goal, clinicians can advocate for appropriate care, consider patient affordability, and lead local value improvement initiatives. For those ready to tackle this challenge, we elaborate on and explain some of these necessary tools in our book, Understanding Value-Based Healthcare.

The Hospital Leader

Hospitalists of all kinds are sharing their perspective and experience at SHM’s official blog, “The Hospital Leader,” including their reflections on how hospitalists can tackle healthcare costs. For more posts, visit www.shmblog.org.

Hot on HMX

Hospital Medicine Exchange (HMX) empowers SHM members to share and collaborate on some of the most important topics in healthcare today. Recently, hospitalists have been discussing issues like:

• Patient satisfaction • Geographic rounding • LACE Score

To share your own perspective on these topics—or start a new conversation.

EDITOR’S NOTE: A version of this article originally appeared on Medpage Today on May 5, 2015.


By now, we have all heard the stories about unconscionable medical bills causing financial harm for patients. We have read about more Americans than ever before on high-deductible health insurance plans. Some of us have even helped our parents navigate the deceptively simple-looking bronze, silver, and gold tiers of the insurance exchanges, weighing the gamble of increasingly unaffordable monthly premiums against catastrophically high deductibles and out-of-pocket costs.

Image Credit: SHUTTERSTOCK.COM

We have accepted the fact that healthcare costs are out of control and causing real constraints on every level, from individuals to communities to businesses to states to our nation.

OK, but now what are we supposed to do about it?

“Remarkably, given the importance of this issue, until now, we lacked a roadmap to attack it,” wrote Bob Wachter, MD, in the foreword to our new book, Understanding Value-Based Healthcare. “Now we have one.”

For starters, we can supply a pipeline for change by embedding the principles of value-based care in the apprenticeship of health professional education. Recently, the leaders of the soon-to-open Dell Medical School at University of Texas-Austin articulated their plan to build their entire curriculum around teaching students to root out waste and to care for the health of the community. This is the clearest example that medical educators are taking seriously the calls to action coming from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the American College of Physicians (ACP), and other leaders to address healthcare value in training very seriously. However, the front lines are not waiting for new medical schools to open up or for massive curricular overhauls. The Second Annual Teaching Value and Choosing Wisely Challenge that we organized resulted in 80 submissions spanning the country (and Canada). The authors, including five students, 30 residents or fellows, and at least 41 faculty members, described their bright ideas and innovations for integrating healthcare value into education.

Education is fundamental but will not be enough. We must also practice what we preach. Practicing clinicians can deflate medical bills for their patients by advocating for appropriate care, considering patient affordability in customizing treatments, and leading local initiatives to improve value of care.

Clinicians can advocate for appropriate care by avoiding low-value services at the point of care. Specific targets for improving appropriate resource utilization may be identified from resources such as Choosing Wisely lists, guidelines, and appropriateness criteria. Physicians will need to understand the true risks and benefits of recommended therapies and learn ways to communicate this balance with patients.

Patient affordability is increasingly important, with more patients now facing astronomically high out-of-pocket bills, even for simple medical treatments or procedures. A December 2014 CBS/New York Times poll found that 80% of Americans now think their doctor should discuss the cost of recommended medical treatment with them ahead of time. Clinicians can screen their patients for financial harm and can help them navigate the trade-offs of lower cost options. Physicians should seek to provide high-value prescribing, which entails recommending the simplest medication regimen that minimizes physical and financial risk to the patient while achieving the best outcome. In other words, decreasing either cost, complexity, or risk of medications can improve value—and clinicians should aim to improve all three simultaneously.

In addition to reducing waste and considering patient affordability, clinicians are ideal leaders of local value initiatives, whether they accomplish this by running value improvement projects or by launching formal high-value care programs. Our framework to guide value improvement project design is “COST”: culture, oversight accountability, system support, and training. This approach leverages principles from implementation science to ensure that value improvement projects successfully provide multi-pronged tactics for overcoming the many barriers to high-value care delivery. At some locations across the country, individual efforts have matured into entire groups dedicated to designing and implementing value-improvement initiatives, including the UCSF High Value Care Committee, the Johns Hopkins High-Value Care Committee, Johns Hopkins Bayview Physicians for Responsible Ordering (PRO), and “High-Value Carolina” in North Carolina.

 

 

Health professionals are faced with a responsibility to help deflate medical bills. To achieve this goal, clinicians can advocate for appropriate care, consider patient affordability, and lead local value improvement initiatives. For those ready to tackle this challenge, we elaborate on and explain some of these necessary tools in our book, Understanding Value-Based Healthcare.

The Hospital Leader

Hospitalists of all kinds are sharing their perspective and experience at SHM’s official blog, “The Hospital Leader,” including their reflections on how hospitalists can tackle healthcare costs. For more posts, visit www.shmblog.org.

Hot on HMX

Hospital Medicine Exchange (HMX) empowers SHM members to share and collaborate on some of the most important topics in healthcare today. Recently, hospitalists have been discussing issues like:

• Patient satisfaction • Geographic rounding • LACE Score

To share your own perspective on these topics—or start a new conversation.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(07)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2015(07)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
The Hospital Leader Explores Ways Hospitalists Can Tackle Healthcare Costs
Display Headline
The Hospital Leader Explores Ways Hospitalists Can Tackle Healthcare Costs
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)

Factors of Care Plan Discussions at Admission

Article Type
Changed
Sun, 05/28/2017 - 22:01
Display Headline
Factors associated with discussion of care plans and code status at the time of hospital admission: Results from the Multicenter Hospitalist Study

Despite an ideal of dying at home, most Americans die in hospitals.1 Patients and families are clear about what they need from the healthcare system at the end of life: relief of distressing symptoms, the opportunity to communicate with physicians and others about death and dying, and the assurance that they will be attended to and comforted by their physicians as they approach death.2, 3 However, discussions about patient preferences for care occur infrequently,47 even though patients want to discuss care with their doctor,68 and physicians believe these discussions are their responsibility.9

The most prominent work in this area occurred in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT) study, which focused on patients with advanced disease, often in the intensive care unit.4 Furthermore, few studies have focused on general medical patients, and healthcare has changed in important ways since SUPPORT's publication. First, the Patient Self‐Determination Act (PSDA) requires that all patients be asked about their care wishes at the time of admission and document the presence of an advanced directive.10, 11 Second, there is growing awareness of the need to improve palliative care for all hospitalized patients, with many advocating that hospitalization itself is a reason to ask about patient's preferences for care regardless of a patient's level of chronic or acute illness.12 Finally, emergence of hospitalists,1316 movement toward closed intensive care units,17, 18 and changes in residency training have increased segmentation in care of hospitalized patients.15, 18

To overcome limitations of previous literature and update our knowledge of how care discussions take place in the current healthcare environment, we analyzed data from a large study of patients admitted to general medicine services at 6 academic centers. Using this robust dataset, which included prospectively collected information about preferences for communication with their physician, we performed statistical analyses to understand which patient clinical, sociodemographic, and preference‐related factors, as well as factors related to their site of care, were associated with documentation that a code status discussion took place at the time of hospital admission.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sites

The Multicenter Hospitalist Study (MCHS) was a multicenter trial of general medical services that enrolled patients at 6 geographically diverse centers: The University of Chicago (which also served as the coordinating center), University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, University of California San Francisco, University of Wisconsin, University of New Mexico, and Brigham and Women's Hospital.19

Each site was selected to participate in the MCHS because patients on their general medicine service were admitted to hospitalist and nonhospitalist physicians in a random fashion (eg, based on predetermined call schedule based on day of the week). As teaching hospitals, house officers provided direct care to patients hospitalized at each center; nonteaching services were not present at the sites during the period of this study.

During the period of this study, each site complied with PSDA requirements for noting that patients had been informed about their right to create an advance directive, but no sites had a guideline or other program in place specifically intended to facilitate physician‐patient communication about care wishes. Two sites had active Hospice or Palliative Care services, and another 2 had Geriatrics Consultation services, but none had standard protocols mandating involvement of these consultants at the time of admission, the time when our key outcomes were documented.

Patients

Patients were eligible for inclusion in the MCHS if they were older than 18 years of age and were admitted at random to a hospitalist or nonhospitalist physician; we excluded patients from MCHS if they were admitted specifically under the care of their primary care physician or subspecialist (eg, admitted for chemotherapy) or were a prison inmate. Patients meeting these eligibility criteria were then approached for purposes of informed consent.

Data Collection

Data for this study were obtained from administrative data, patient interview, and chart abstraction as in previous work.14 Administrative data were drawn from cost‐accounting databases at each participating hospital; administrative data were used to provide cost and length of stay data, as well as information about patient insurance type, age, and sex.

We interviewed patients immediately after informed consent was obtained, with both taking place generally within 24 hours of admission. Interviews collected data about patient preferences for care and functional status,20 and other data not reliably available from administrative sources (such as housing situation).

Patient care plan before admission was taken from notes and orders written in the first 24 hours of hospitalization, as mentioned above. Using criteria we employed in previous work,21 a care discussion (CD) was defined as documentation of a discussion between patients (or family) and at least 1 physician (primary physician, hospitalist, consulting physician, or house officer) during the first 24 hours of hospitalization. CDs needed to specify that the person who wrote the note had actually spoken with the patient or their family for the purposes of determining preferences for care, and that this discussion resulted in a specific care plan. Thus, notations such as do not resuscitate/do not intubate, or spoke with family, questions answered, did not qualify as CDs, but a note stating the patient continues to want full efforts was counted as a CD.

Principal investigators at each site were responsible for training and overseeing interviewing and chart abstraction activities at each site, with central oversight of data quality provided by the central coordinating center. Upon receipt at the data coordinating center, all data were examined for missing, nonsensical, or outlier data with errors referred back to the participating sites for correction.

Statistical Analysis

For bivariable comparisons of patients with and without CDs, we used chi‐squared or Mann‐Whitney U‐tests, as appropriate.

Variables with P < 0.20 in bivariable comparisons were selected for initial inclusion in models. Then, using automated forward and stepwise selection techniques as well as manually entered variables, we fit multivariable generalized estimating equations permitting clustering of effects at the physician level to determine the independent association between the multiple factors tested and presence of a CD. In order to guard against the threat of multiple testing, we retained variables at a significance level of P < 0.01; variables were also retained because of observed confounding with other independent variables, or to maintain face validity of the model. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.0 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Patient Sociodemographics (Table 1)

A total of 17,097 of 33,638 patients (50.8%) were interviewed and gave consent for chart abstraction. Of these patients, 1776 (10.3%) had a CD documented in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Patients with documented CDs were older, more often white, had completed more years of education, were more likely to have lived in a nursing home prior to admission, and more likely to have been hospitalized in the last 12 months. The proportion of patients with CDs was highly variable across site of enrollment, from 2.8%‐24.9%.

Patient Sociodemographics (total n = 17097)
ValueNo Documented CD (n = 15321, 89.7%)Documented CD (n = 1776, 10.3%)P*
  • P value from Mann‐Whitney U Test, all others from chi‐squared tests.

  • Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Age (Median, 95%CI)*56 (55, 56)69 (67, 71)< 0.0001
Female (n, %)8390 (54.8%)990 (55.7%)0.4312
Race (n, %)
White6640 (43.3%)938 (52.8%)< 0.0001
African American4673 (30.5%)280 (15.8%) 
Asian532 (3.5%)167 (9.4%) 
American Indian325 (2.1%)26 (1.5%) 
Other1951 (12.7%)241 (13.6%) 
Refused/Don't know1200 (7.8%)124 (7.0%) 
Ethnicity (n, %)
Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity1724 (11.3%)183 (10.3%)0.0039
Insurance type (n, %)
Charity481 (3.4%)14 (0.8%)< 0.0001
Indemnity3983 (28.2%)327 (19.3%) 
Medicaid2487 (17.6%)195 (11.5%) 
Medicare6418 (45.5%)1114 (65.9%) 
Other105 (0.7%)4 (0.2%) 
Self pay628 (4.5%)36 (2.1%) 
Self‐reported education (n, %)
Junior high school or less1297 (8.5%)217 (12.2%)< 0.0001
Some high school2146 (14.0%)182 (10.2%) 
High school graduate4435 (28.9%)465 (26.2%) 
Some college or junior college3521 (23.0%)347 (19.5%) 
College graduate1729 (11.3%)255 (14.4%) 
Post‐graduate1191 (7.8%)173 (9.7%) 
Refused/Don't know1002 (6.5%)137 (7.7%) 
Self reported income (n, %)
$2,500 or less1079 (7.0%)108 (6.1%)0.0002
$2,501 to $5,000424 (2.8%)33 (1.9%) 
$5,001 to $10,0001436 (9.4%)211 (11.9%) 
$10,001 to $15,0001080 (7.0%)141 (7.9%) 
$15,001 to $25,0001054 (6.9%)134 (7.5%) 
$25,001 to $35,000837 (5.5%)74 (4.2%) 
$35,001 to $50,000882 (5.8%)94 (5.3%) 
$50,001 to $100,0001027 (6.7%)125 (7.0%) 
$100,001 to $200,000357 (2.3%)57 (3.2%) 
Over $200,000245 (1.6%)34 (1.9%) 
Don't know/refused6900 (45.0%)765 (43.1%) 
Housing situation (n, %)
Own apartment or house11887 (77.6%)1264 (71.2%)< 0.0001
A relative or friend's apartment or house1804 (11.8%)217 (12.2%) 
A nursing home, group home, or long‐term care facility663 (4.3%)204 (11.5%) 
A homeless shelter258 (1.7%)27 (1.5%) 
Other709 (4.6%)64 (3.6%) 
Marital status (n, %)
Married4992 (32.6%)603 (34.0%)< 0.0001
Living as if married440 (2.9%)32 (1.8%) 
Divorced2027 (13.2%)199 (11.2%) 
Separated569 (3.7%)30 (1.7%) 
Widowed2577 (16.8%)487 (27.4%) 
Single4074 (26.6%)364 (20.5%) 
Refused642 (4.2%)61 (3.4%) 
Hospitalized in the last 12 months (n, %)7602 (49.6%)1011 (56.9%)< 0.0001
Site of enrollment (n, %)
A4602 (30.0%)135 (7.6%)< 0.0001
B1595 (10.4%)158 (8.9%) 
C3017 (19.7%)998 (56.2%) 
D2387 (15.6%)212 (11.9%) 
E2057 (13.4%)131 (7.4%) 
F1663 (10.9%)142 (8.0%) 

Patient Self‐Reported Health Status and Comorbid Illness (Table 2)

Patients with CDs more often reported a lot of difficulties with bathing, eating, or dressing; household chores; and moderate activities. Patients with CDs were more likely to report accomplishing less than they would like due to their health. They were more likely to have cancer, depression, a history of stroke, and heart disease, but less likely to have diabetes or human immunodeficiency virus.

Patient Self‐Reported Health Status and Comorbid Disease (Total n = 17097)*
ValueNo Documented CD (n = 15321, 89.7%)Documented CD (n = 1776, 10.3%)P**
  • Self reported data collected at time of intake interview, performed within 24 hours of admission.

  • Calculated using chi‐squared tests.

  • Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Thinking back again to one month ago, did any impairment or health problem cause you to need help of other persons with personal care needs, such as eating, bathing, dressing, or getting around the home? (n, %)
No10673 (69.7%)973 (54.8%)< 0.0001
Yes, a little1933 (12.6%)268 (15.1%) 
Yes, a lot2127 (13.9%)487 (27.4%) 
Don't know588 (3.8%)48 (2.7%) 
Thinking back to one month ago, did any impairment or health problem cause you to need help in handling everyday household chores, necessary business, shopping, or getting around for other purposes? (n, %)
No7262 (47.4%)566 (31.9%)< 0.0001
Yes, a little2692 (17.6%)324 (18.2%) 
Yes, a lot4126 (26.9%)825 (46.5%) 
Don't know1241 (8.1%)61 (3.4%) 
As far as you know do you have any of the following health conditions at the present time? (n, %)
Cancer
No13281 (86.7%)1376 (77.5%)< 0.0001
Yes1751 (11.4%)351 (19.8%) 
Not sure289 (1.9%)49 (2.8%) 
Depression
No10269 (67.0%)1099 (61.9%)< 0.0001
Yes4730 (30.9%)624 (35.1%) 
Not sure322 (2.1%)53 (3.0%) 
Diabetes
No10902 (71.2%)1356 (76.4%)< 0.0001
Yes4132 (27.0%)394 (22.2%) 
Not sure287 (1.9%)26 (1.5%) 
Heart trouble
No10251 (66.9%)1080 (60.8%)< 0.0001
Yes4491 (29.3%)627 (35.3%) 
Not sure579 (3.8%)69 (3.9%) 
HIV or AIDS
No14300 (93.3%)1679 (94.5%)0.026
Yes912 (6.0%)80 (4.5%) 
Not sure109 (0.7%)17 (1.0%) 
Stroke
No13344 (87.1%)1494 (84.1%)0.0005
Yes1722 (11.2%)236 (13.3%) 
Not sure255 (1.7%)46 (2.6%) 

Patient Preferences, Care Plan Documentation, and Care Coordination at Admission (Table 3)

Patients who had documented CDs were less likely to prefer my doctor give me choices regarding my care, and more often disagreed with the statement I prefer to leave care decisions to my physician. These patients were also more likely to have a durable power of attorney or living will in their chart, or have an alternate decision‐maker noted. The majority of patients without a documented CD (79.9%) had no notation of their care wishes, compared to 29.7% in patients with a documented CD. Patients with a documented CD were more likely to have a regular medical provider and a note in the chart from their primary care physician.

Patient Decision‐Making Preferences, Care Plan Documentation, and Care Coordination at Admission (Total n = 17097)
ValueNo Documented CD (n = 15321, 89.7%)Documented CD (n = 1776, 10.3%)P*
  • Calculated using chi‐squared tests.

  • Collected during intake interview performed within 24 hours of admission.

    All other items collected via chart abstraction.

I prefer my doctor give me choices regarding my care** (n, %)
Definitely agree11619 (75.8%)1247 (70.2%)< 0.0001
Somewhat agree1912 (12.5%)252 (14.2%) 
Somewhat disagree488 (3.2%)76 (4.3%) 
Definitely disagree414 (2.7%)87 (4.9%) 
Don't know888 (5.8%)114 (6.4%) 
I prefer to leave care decisions to my physician** (n, %)
Definitely agree5660 (36.9%)613 (34.5%)< 0.0001
Somewhat agree4539 (29.6%)493 (27.8%) 
Somewhat disagree2265 (14.8%)257 (14.5%) 
Definitely disagree1956 (12.8%)304 (17.1%) 
Don't know901 (5.9%)109 (6.1%) 
Documentation of care wishes before hospitalization (n, %)
No documentation12238 (79.9%)527 (29.7%)< 0.0001
Full support2624 (17.1%)742 (41.8%) 
Do not resuscitate or intubate (DNR/DNI)264 (1.7%)370 (20.8%) 
Hospice53 (0.3%)22 (1.2%) 
Other limitation (eg, no pressors)142 (0.9%)115 (6.5%) 
Had durable power of attorney in chart (n, %)286 (1.9%)133 (7.5%)< 0.0001
Had a living will in chart (n, %)266 (1.7%)142 (8.0%)< 0.0001
Alternate decision maker named in chart (n, %)2770 (18.1%)638 (35.9%)< 0.0001
Patient noted to be unable to participate in their care at admission (eg, confused, unable to respond) (n, %)1227 (8.0%)431 (24.3%)< 0.0001
Inpatient team documented discussion with primary care physician (n, %)627 (4.1%)136 (7.7%)< 0.0001
Do not have a regular medical provider** (n, %)3836 (25.0%)254 (14.3%)< 0.0001
Note from primary care physician in chart (n, %)148 (1.0%)39 (2.2%)< 0.0001

Factors Associated with Documented Care Discussions (Table 4)

Using predictor variables presented in Tables 1‐3, we then constructed multivariable models seeking to understand factors independently associated with documentation of code status in the entire cohort, as well as among patients who had no preexisting care wishes.

Factors Associated with Code Status Discussion in Entire Cohort and Patients with No Previous Documentation
 Entire Cohort (n = 17097)Patients with No Documentation of Preadmission Wishes (n = 12765)
Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)P ValueAdjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)P Value
Preadmission Code Status
No documentationReferent NA 
Full support3.22 (2.28, 4.55)< 0.0001NA 
Do not resuscitate or intubate (DNR/DNI)11.32 (8.52, 15.04)< 0.0001NA 
Hospice4.02 (2.33, 6.94)< 0.0001NA 
Other limitation (eg, no pressors)10.13 (7.35, 13.96)< 0.0001NA 
Insurance type
MedicareReferent Referent 
Charity care0.50 (0.30, 0.85)0.00990.56 (0.25, 1.25)0.1589
Commercial0.81 (0.69, 0.95)0.00900.66 (0.52, 0.85)0.0009
Medicaid0.69 (0.57, 0.82)< 0.00010.49 (0.36, 0.67)< 0.0001
Other0.46 (0.18, 1.13)0.09120.60 (0.17, 2.12)0.4302
Self pay0.70 (0.52, 0.95)0.02030.49 (0.29, 0.81)0.0060
Any limitations in bathing, toileting, dressing or feeding self?
NoReferent Referent 
Yes, a little1.25 (1.10, 1.42)0.00071.31 (1.03, 1.67)0.0272
Yes, a lot1.25 (1.09, 1.43)0.00151.42 (1.11, 1.81)0.0055
Unable to respond0.81 (0.59, 1.12)0.20060.80 (0.45, 1.41)0.4299
Patient has a documented surrogate decision maker1.72 (1.47, 2.02)< 0.00012.08 (1.62, 2.66)< 0.0001
Patient noted to be unable to participate in their care at admission (eg, confused, unable to respond)1.63 (1.37, 1.94)< 0.00012.20 (1.60, 3.02)< 0.0001
Notation that team had spoken to primary care physician at admission1.65 (1.29, 2.11)< 0.00011.45 (0.92, 2.28)0.1116
History of cancer
NoReferent Referent 
Yes1.31 (1.13, 1.51)0.00031.26 (0.96, 1.65)0.0960
Not sure1.26 (0.87, 1.82)0.21621.80 (1.03, 3.15)0.0396
History of diabetes
NoReferent Referent 
Yes0.87 (0.75, 1.003)0.05430.79 (0.62, 0.997)0.0467
Not sure0.61 (0.38, 0.99)0.04450.84 (0.43, 1.65)0.6183
Housing situation
Own house or apartmentReferent Referent 
Relative or friend's apartment or house1.22 (1.03, 1.45)0.02291.29 (0.97, 1.71)0.0783
Nursing home, group home, or long‐term care facility1.42 (1.16, 1.74)0.00061.74 (1.27, 2.40)0.0007
Homeless shelter1.12 (0.72, 1.73)0.62040.87 (0.46, 1.63)0.6559
Other/Don't know1.02 (0.75, 1.40)0.89871.35 (0.78, 2.36)0.2859
Age Group
<50Referent Referent 
50591.19 (0.99, 1.43)0.06471.18 (0.88, 1.59)0.2583
60691.18 (0.99, 1.40)0.05851.20 (0.88, 1.66)0.2549
70791.10 (0.91, 1.33)0.31781.19 (0.85, 1.67)0.3033
80891.23 (1.03, 1.47)0.02071.34 (0.96, 1.88)0.0879
90+1.45 (1.12, 1.88)0.00451.44 (0.94, 2.20)0.0934
Site of Enrollment
AReferent Referent 
B1.74 (1.16, 2.61)0.0074.95 (2.90, 8.45)< 0.0001
C5.14 (3.42, 7.74)< 0.000126.36 (17.28, 40.23)< 0.0001
D4.19 (2.64, 6.66)< 0.00018.06 (4.63, 14.03)< 0.0001
E3.00 (1.82, 4.9)< 0.00015.30 (2.71, 10.38)< 0.0001
F4.09 (2.69, 6.23)< 0.00012.32 (1.32, 4.08)0.0037

In the entire cohort, insurance type was independently associated with likelihood of a care discussion, with patients with Medicare having greater adjusted odds ratio for a CD than patients with all other forms of insurance, even after adjusting for age. Patients who had functional limitations with bathing, toileting, and feeding; had a documented surrogate decision maker; were unable to participate in their care; had cancer; or did not live in their own home were more likely to have a documented CD. Subjects with diabetes were less likely to have a CD, although this was of borderline significance. Patients whose team had documented a CD with the patients' primary physician were also more likely to have a discussion noted. However, the magnitude of these predictors was small compared to the independent effects attributable to the site the patient was enrolled or whether the patient had any preexisting documentation. Whereas the adjusted odds ratio associated with clinical or functional measures (such as age, cancer) were generally between 1.5 and 2.5, the range of odds ratios associated with having any documentation of care wishes (compared to no documentation) were all greater than 3, and the odds ratios associated with site of enrollment were 1.7 or higher.

We observed similar findings in analyses limited to patients with no preexisting care documentation. While clinical, sociodemographic, and functional factors remained statistically associated with a CD (albeit with wider confidence intervals due to smaller sample sizes), the effect of the patient's site of enrollment became even more striking (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

In this multicenter study of hospitalized general medical patients, documentation of CDs were highly dependent on where patients received care and whether patients had previous documentation of a care plan. In contrast, although clinical, prognostic, and socioeconomic factors were also associated with whether physicians documented asking patients about their wishes for care, the influence of these factors was modest.

Improving communication between patients and their physicians during an episode of acute illness has been a long‐standing goal, with the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes of Treatment (SUPPORT) trial providing the most notable example of an effort to improve patient care through aligning patient wishes, prognosis, and aggressiveness for care. However, even the SUPPORT interventiona robust, well‐implemented, and highly labor‐intensive strategywas not able to achieve this goal. In their summary of SUPPORT study findings, the authors suggested that the likelihood of and effectiveness of communication in seriously ill patients may be powerfully influenced by patient and caregiver culture4; our findings may partially confirm SUPPORT's conclusions.

Preexisting documentation in our study would not have included mandated documentation that someone had given the patient information about advance directives (as mandated by the PSDA), but rather a specification for that advance care plan. This distinction means that preexisting documentation in our study represented a previous decision by the patient (or the patient and their physician) to have made a plan, and an association with hospital discussions may be because the first conversation is the hardest to undertake; subsequent discussions then represent confirmatory or clarifying discussions that may be less difficult to broach (particularly for less experienced trainees). A CD may have also been prompted when documentation was unclear, or when a change in prognosis took place (eg, a new diagnosis of metastatic cancer).22 Alternatively, a preexisting plan may serve as a reminder for clinicians to discuss code status, signify patients who are more willing to broach this subject, and either seem more approachable or bring up the topic themselves.

The influence of site on documentation and CD provides additional evidence that caregiver culture played a role in CDs. Although this variation may have been in part due to culture around documentation practices more generally, it is important to note that none of our participating centers had a policy for documentation of care wishes or patient‐doctor communication, or a policy mandating these discussions in any specific patient group. Furthermore, site‐related differences were seen even in patients with no preexisting documentation, and were seen after adjustment for other documentation or communication practices (eg, documenting a discussion with the patient's primary care provider), making it unlikely that documentation practices are solely responsible for our results. Persistence of variations in care documentation raises interesting questions, particularly when one considers recent data describing variations in end‐of‐life care between similar academic centers (one of which was a participating site in this trial).23 Given that the sites in our study represent diverse institutions yet share a number of characteristics, understanding the specific practices or aspects of medical culture that promote conversations may provide insights in how to improve this promotion elsewhere.

Our results would argue that mandates to document code status on admission may be unlikely to improve communication unless sites also develop an approach to using this newly documented information as a prompt for subsequent discussions. In nursing home settings, documentation of advance directives may reduce resource use, but it is unclear whether similar effects will be seen in hospital settings.24 It is also a challenge to insure that documentation of a care plan in the nursing home is communicated to the providers in the hospital.25 The PSDA was a first step in this direction, but its effects on improving communication are uncertain.26 Our results would confirm that the PSDA or systems to mandate documentation are not solutions in themselves, but are 2 steps in a larger process.

We do not want to discount our findings of less frequent CDs among patients of lower socioeconomic status, where gaps in quality of care, communication, and outcomes are well‐recognized.27 As such, our results delineate yet another area where practice can and should be improved for vulnerable patients. However, factors related to site of care and documentation may provide opportunities to improve care even more profoundly and within a fairly discrete (if complex) acute episode of care. Having said this, our results also demonstrate a potential pitfall of using code status documentation for risk‐adjustment, because such notation may be more dependent on local documentation patterns than clinical appropriateness.

Our study has a number of limitations. As an observational study, our findings are likely prone to biases related to unadjusted confounding due to comorbidity. The influence of comorbidity would seem to have been most important in biasing the effects of preexisting documentation, where documentation would be associated with more unaccounted comorbidity. However, there were no differences in documentation even after accounting for prognosis by adjusting for age, functional status, and a valid comorbidity score.28 As we have pointed out, our key outcome is based on documentation of communication and not actual communication, and as such may be biased in subtle ways not related to site of care or the items tested in our model. While we cannot directly eliminate the possibility of documentation biases in our results using statistical methods, it is important to point out that our chart abstraction protocol used highly specific criteria to detect these discussions, and therefore may under‐detect discussions which may have been documented in less detail. Our study did not examine whether documentation of CDs influenced subsequent care. However, previous studies have shown that advance care planning has only a minor influence on care.29 However, communication about preferences at the time of admission, when the need for specific care decisions may be more evident, may be more likely to influence hospital care. Our results show that previous documentation is associated with discussions early in an admission. Such discussion may affect care, even if the decision made is different than what was previously documented. In addition, patients who were included in our study (those able to provide consent and participate in an interview) may be healthier or more cognitively intact than a general population of hospitalized patients. However, how this would have affected our results is unclear. Being able to speak and consent for oneself are key facilitators to communication, but sicker patients who cannot consent or speak for themselves might also be more likely to have care planning decisions made based on illness severity; documentation in these patients may be more driven by whether such notes were required because of the involvement of home health services (or skilled nursing facilities). Finally, although our study is one of the largest examinations of in‐hospital communication to date and its implications for resident education are worth noting, the sites involved in the MCHS may not be representative of nonteaching hospitals, or community‐based teaching hospitals.

Our results suggest that, although comorbid illness and socioeconomic status play an important role in determining which patients receive CDs at the time of admission, these factors are substantially less powerful than preexisting documentation practices and culture or care practices specific to their site of care. These results suggest that future work should consider organizational characteristics and culture as important targets for interventions to improve care planning in hospitalized patients.

References
  1. Committee on Care at the End of Life, Institute of Medicine.Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life.Field MJ,Cassel CK, eds.Washington, DC:National Academy Press;1997.
  2. Steinhauser KE,Christakis NA,Clipp EC,McNeilly M,McIntyre L,Tulsky JA.Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers.JAMA.2000;284(19):24762482.
  3. Steinhauser KE,Clipp EC,McNeilly M,Christakis NA,McIntyre LM,Tulsky JA.In search of a good death: observations of patients, families, and providers.Ann Intern Med.2000;132(10):825832.
  4. The SUPPORT Principal Investigators.A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT).JAMA.1995;274(20):15911598.
  5. Bedell SE,Delbanco TL.Choices about cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital. When do physicians talk with patients?N Engl J Med.1984;310(17):10891093.
  6. Hofmann JC,Wenger NS,Davis RB, et al.Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end‐of‐life decisions. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preference for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment.Ann Intern Med.1997;127(1):112.
  7. Shmerling RH,Bedell SE,Lilienfeld A,Delbanco TL.Discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a study of elderly outpatients.J Gen Intern Med.1988;3(4):317321.
  8. Schonwetter RS,Teasdale TA,Taffet G,Robinson BE,Luchi RJ.Educating the elderly: cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions before and after intervention.J Am Geriatr Soc.1991;39(4):372377.
  9. Miller DL,Gorbien MJ,Simbartl LA,Jahnigen DW.Factors influencing physicians in recommending in‐hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Arch Intern Med.1993;153(17):19992003.
  10. Federal Register. 42 USC 1395‐1396. Patient Self‐Determination Act1990.
  11. La Puma J,Orentlicher D,Moss RJ.Advance directives on admission. Clinical implications and analysis of the Patient Self‐Determination Act of 1990.JAMA.1991;266(3):402405.
  12. Pantilat SZ,Alpers A,Wachter RM.A new doctor in the house: ethical issues in hospitalist systems.JAMA.1999;282(2):171174.
  13. Auerbach A,Wachter R,Katz P,Showstack J,Baron R,Goldman L.Implementation of a hospitalist service at a community teaching hospital: improving clinical efficiency and patient outcomes.Ann Intern Med.2002;137:859865.
  14. Meltzer D,Morrison J,Guth T, et al.Effects of hospitalist physicians on an academic general medical service: results of a randomized trial.Ann Intern Med.2002;137:866874.
  15. Wachter RM,Goldman L.The hospitalist movement 5 years later.JAMA.2002;287(4):487494.
  16. Wachter RM,Katz P,Showstack J,Bindman AB,Goldman L.Reorganizing an academic medical service: impact on cost, quality, patient satisfaction, and education.JAMA.1998;279(19):15601565.
  17. Pronovost PJ,Angus DC,Dorman T,Robinson KA,Dremsizov TT,Young TL.Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review.JAMA.2002;288(17):21512162.
  18. Pronovost PJ,Jenckes MW,Dorman T, et al.Organizational characteristics of intensive care units related to outcomes of abdominal aortic surgery.JAMA.1999;281(14):13101317.
  19. Meltzer DO,Arora V,Zhang JX, et al.Effects of inpatient experience on outcomes and costs in a multicenter trial of academic hospitalists.J Gen Intern Med.2005;20(Suppl 1):141142.
  20. Ware J,Kosinski M,Keller S.SF‐12: How to Score the SF‐12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales.2nd ed.Boston, MA:New England Medical Center, The Health Institute;1995.
  21. Auerbach AD,Pantilat SZ.End‐of‐life care in a voluntary hospitalist model: effects on communication, processes of care, and patient symptoms.Am J Med.2004;116(10):669675.
  22. Teno JM,Stevens M,Spernak S,Lynn J.Role of written advance directives in decision making: insights from qualitative and quantitative data.J Gen Intern Med.1998;13(7):439446.
  23. Wennberg JE,Fisher ES,Baker L,Sharp SM,Bronner KK.Evaluating the efficiency of California providers in caring for patients with chronic illnesses.Health Aff (Millwood).2005 Jul‐Dec;Suppl Web Exclusives:W5–52643.
  24. Molloy DW,Guyatt GH,Russo R, et al.Systematic implementation of an advance directive program in nursing homes: a randomized controlled trial.JAMA.2000;283(11):14371444.
  25. Hanson LC,Ersek M.Meeting palliative care needs in post‐acute care settings: “to help them live until they die”.JAMA.2006;295(6):681686.
  26. Teno J,Lynn J,Wenger N, et al.Advance directives for seriously ill hospitalized patients: effectiveness with the patient self‐determination act and the SUPPORT intervention. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment.J Am Geriatr Soc.1997;45(4):500507.
  27. Institute of Medicine.Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care.Smedley BD,Stith AY,Nelson AR, eds.Washington, DC:National Academies Press;2003.
  28. Chaudhry S,Jin L,Meltzer D.Use of a self‐report‐generated Charlson Comorbidity Index for predicting mortality.Med Care.2005;43(6):607615.
  29. Hanson LC,Tulsky JA,Danis M.Can clinical interventions change care at the end of life?Ann Intern Med.1997;126(5):381388.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 3(6)
Publications
Page Number
437-445
Legacy Keywords
care discussion, hospital admission, patient care planning
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

Despite an ideal of dying at home, most Americans die in hospitals.1 Patients and families are clear about what they need from the healthcare system at the end of life: relief of distressing symptoms, the opportunity to communicate with physicians and others about death and dying, and the assurance that they will be attended to and comforted by their physicians as they approach death.2, 3 However, discussions about patient preferences for care occur infrequently,47 even though patients want to discuss care with their doctor,68 and physicians believe these discussions are their responsibility.9

The most prominent work in this area occurred in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT) study, which focused on patients with advanced disease, often in the intensive care unit.4 Furthermore, few studies have focused on general medical patients, and healthcare has changed in important ways since SUPPORT's publication. First, the Patient Self‐Determination Act (PSDA) requires that all patients be asked about their care wishes at the time of admission and document the presence of an advanced directive.10, 11 Second, there is growing awareness of the need to improve palliative care for all hospitalized patients, with many advocating that hospitalization itself is a reason to ask about patient's preferences for care regardless of a patient's level of chronic or acute illness.12 Finally, emergence of hospitalists,1316 movement toward closed intensive care units,17, 18 and changes in residency training have increased segmentation in care of hospitalized patients.15, 18

To overcome limitations of previous literature and update our knowledge of how care discussions take place in the current healthcare environment, we analyzed data from a large study of patients admitted to general medicine services at 6 academic centers. Using this robust dataset, which included prospectively collected information about preferences for communication with their physician, we performed statistical analyses to understand which patient clinical, sociodemographic, and preference‐related factors, as well as factors related to their site of care, were associated with documentation that a code status discussion took place at the time of hospital admission.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sites

The Multicenter Hospitalist Study (MCHS) was a multicenter trial of general medical services that enrolled patients at 6 geographically diverse centers: The University of Chicago (which also served as the coordinating center), University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, University of California San Francisco, University of Wisconsin, University of New Mexico, and Brigham and Women's Hospital.19

Each site was selected to participate in the MCHS because patients on their general medicine service were admitted to hospitalist and nonhospitalist physicians in a random fashion (eg, based on predetermined call schedule based on day of the week). As teaching hospitals, house officers provided direct care to patients hospitalized at each center; nonteaching services were not present at the sites during the period of this study.

During the period of this study, each site complied with PSDA requirements for noting that patients had been informed about their right to create an advance directive, but no sites had a guideline or other program in place specifically intended to facilitate physician‐patient communication about care wishes. Two sites had active Hospice or Palliative Care services, and another 2 had Geriatrics Consultation services, but none had standard protocols mandating involvement of these consultants at the time of admission, the time when our key outcomes were documented.

Patients

Patients were eligible for inclusion in the MCHS if they were older than 18 years of age and were admitted at random to a hospitalist or nonhospitalist physician; we excluded patients from MCHS if they were admitted specifically under the care of their primary care physician or subspecialist (eg, admitted for chemotherapy) or were a prison inmate. Patients meeting these eligibility criteria were then approached for purposes of informed consent.

Data Collection

Data for this study were obtained from administrative data, patient interview, and chart abstraction as in previous work.14 Administrative data were drawn from cost‐accounting databases at each participating hospital; administrative data were used to provide cost and length of stay data, as well as information about patient insurance type, age, and sex.

We interviewed patients immediately after informed consent was obtained, with both taking place generally within 24 hours of admission. Interviews collected data about patient preferences for care and functional status,20 and other data not reliably available from administrative sources (such as housing situation).

Patient care plan before admission was taken from notes and orders written in the first 24 hours of hospitalization, as mentioned above. Using criteria we employed in previous work,21 a care discussion (CD) was defined as documentation of a discussion between patients (or family) and at least 1 physician (primary physician, hospitalist, consulting physician, or house officer) during the first 24 hours of hospitalization. CDs needed to specify that the person who wrote the note had actually spoken with the patient or their family for the purposes of determining preferences for care, and that this discussion resulted in a specific care plan. Thus, notations such as do not resuscitate/do not intubate, or spoke with family, questions answered, did not qualify as CDs, but a note stating the patient continues to want full efforts was counted as a CD.

Principal investigators at each site were responsible for training and overseeing interviewing and chart abstraction activities at each site, with central oversight of data quality provided by the central coordinating center. Upon receipt at the data coordinating center, all data were examined for missing, nonsensical, or outlier data with errors referred back to the participating sites for correction.

Statistical Analysis

For bivariable comparisons of patients with and without CDs, we used chi‐squared or Mann‐Whitney U‐tests, as appropriate.

Variables with P < 0.20 in bivariable comparisons were selected for initial inclusion in models. Then, using automated forward and stepwise selection techniques as well as manually entered variables, we fit multivariable generalized estimating equations permitting clustering of effects at the physician level to determine the independent association between the multiple factors tested and presence of a CD. In order to guard against the threat of multiple testing, we retained variables at a significance level of P < 0.01; variables were also retained because of observed confounding with other independent variables, or to maintain face validity of the model. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.0 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Patient Sociodemographics (Table 1)

A total of 17,097 of 33,638 patients (50.8%) were interviewed and gave consent for chart abstraction. Of these patients, 1776 (10.3%) had a CD documented in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Patients with documented CDs were older, more often white, had completed more years of education, were more likely to have lived in a nursing home prior to admission, and more likely to have been hospitalized in the last 12 months. The proportion of patients with CDs was highly variable across site of enrollment, from 2.8%‐24.9%.

Patient Sociodemographics (total n = 17097)
ValueNo Documented CD (n = 15321, 89.7%)Documented CD (n = 1776, 10.3%)P*
  • P value from Mann‐Whitney U Test, all others from chi‐squared tests.

  • Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Age (Median, 95%CI)*56 (55, 56)69 (67, 71)< 0.0001
Female (n, %)8390 (54.8%)990 (55.7%)0.4312
Race (n, %)
White6640 (43.3%)938 (52.8%)< 0.0001
African American4673 (30.5%)280 (15.8%) 
Asian532 (3.5%)167 (9.4%) 
American Indian325 (2.1%)26 (1.5%) 
Other1951 (12.7%)241 (13.6%) 
Refused/Don't know1200 (7.8%)124 (7.0%) 
Ethnicity (n, %)
Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity1724 (11.3%)183 (10.3%)0.0039
Insurance type (n, %)
Charity481 (3.4%)14 (0.8%)< 0.0001
Indemnity3983 (28.2%)327 (19.3%) 
Medicaid2487 (17.6%)195 (11.5%) 
Medicare6418 (45.5%)1114 (65.9%) 
Other105 (0.7%)4 (0.2%) 
Self pay628 (4.5%)36 (2.1%) 
Self‐reported education (n, %)
Junior high school or less1297 (8.5%)217 (12.2%)< 0.0001
Some high school2146 (14.0%)182 (10.2%) 
High school graduate4435 (28.9%)465 (26.2%) 
Some college or junior college3521 (23.0%)347 (19.5%) 
College graduate1729 (11.3%)255 (14.4%) 
Post‐graduate1191 (7.8%)173 (9.7%) 
Refused/Don't know1002 (6.5%)137 (7.7%) 
Self reported income (n, %)
$2,500 or less1079 (7.0%)108 (6.1%)0.0002
$2,501 to $5,000424 (2.8%)33 (1.9%) 
$5,001 to $10,0001436 (9.4%)211 (11.9%) 
$10,001 to $15,0001080 (7.0%)141 (7.9%) 
$15,001 to $25,0001054 (6.9%)134 (7.5%) 
$25,001 to $35,000837 (5.5%)74 (4.2%) 
$35,001 to $50,000882 (5.8%)94 (5.3%) 
$50,001 to $100,0001027 (6.7%)125 (7.0%) 
$100,001 to $200,000357 (2.3%)57 (3.2%) 
Over $200,000245 (1.6%)34 (1.9%) 
Don't know/refused6900 (45.0%)765 (43.1%) 
Housing situation (n, %)
Own apartment or house11887 (77.6%)1264 (71.2%)< 0.0001
A relative or friend's apartment or house1804 (11.8%)217 (12.2%) 
A nursing home, group home, or long‐term care facility663 (4.3%)204 (11.5%) 
A homeless shelter258 (1.7%)27 (1.5%) 
Other709 (4.6%)64 (3.6%) 
Marital status (n, %)
Married4992 (32.6%)603 (34.0%)< 0.0001
Living as if married440 (2.9%)32 (1.8%) 
Divorced2027 (13.2%)199 (11.2%) 
Separated569 (3.7%)30 (1.7%) 
Widowed2577 (16.8%)487 (27.4%) 
Single4074 (26.6%)364 (20.5%) 
Refused642 (4.2%)61 (3.4%) 
Hospitalized in the last 12 months (n, %)7602 (49.6%)1011 (56.9%)< 0.0001
Site of enrollment (n, %)
A4602 (30.0%)135 (7.6%)< 0.0001
B1595 (10.4%)158 (8.9%) 
C3017 (19.7%)998 (56.2%) 
D2387 (15.6%)212 (11.9%) 
E2057 (13.4%)131 (7.4%) 
F1663 (10.9%)142 (8.0%) 

Patient Self‐Reported Health Status and Comorbid Illness (Table 2)

Patients with CDs more often reported a lot of difficulties with bathing, eating, or dressing; household chores; and moderate activities. Patients with CDs were more likely to report accomplishing less than they would like due to their health. They were more likely to have cancer, depression, a history of stroke, and heart disease, but less likely to have diabetes or human immunodeficiency virus.

Patient Self‐Reported Health Status and Comorbid Disease (Total n = 17097)*
ValueNo Documented CD (n = 15321, 89.7%)Documented CD (n = 1776, 10.3%)P**
  • Self reported data collected at time of intake interview, performed within 24 hours of admission.

  • Calculated using chi‐squared tests.

  • Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Thinking back again to one month ago, did any impairment or health problem cause you to need help of other persons with personal care needs, such as eating, bathing, dressing, or getting around the home? (n, %)
No10673 (69.7%)973 (54.8%)< 0.0001
Yes, a little1933 (12.6%)268 (15.1%) 
Yes, a lot2127 (13.9%)487 (27.4%) 
Don't know588 (3.8%)48 (2.7%) 
Thinking back to one month ago, did any impairment or health problem cause you to need help in handling everyday household chores, necessary business, shopping, or getting around for other purposes? (n, %)
No7262 (47.4%)566 (31.9%)< 0.0001
Yes, a little2692 (17.6%)324 (18.2%) 
Yes, a lot4126 (26.9%)825 (46.5%) 
Don't know1241 (8.1%)61 (3.4%) 
As far as you know do you have any of the following health conditions at the present time? (n, %)
Cancer
No13281 (86.7%)1376 (77.5%)< 0.0001
Yes1751 (11.4%)351 (19.8%) 
Not sure289 (1.9%)49 (2.8%) 
Depression
No10269 (67.0%)1099 (61.9%)< 0.0001
Yes4730 (30.9%)624 (35.1%) 
Not sure322 (2.1%)53 (3.0%) 
Diabetes
No10902 (71.2%)1356 (76.4%)< 0.0001
Yes4132 (27.0%)394 (22.2%) 
Not sure287 (1.9%)26 (1.5%) 
Heart trouble
No10251 (66.9%)1080 (60.8%)< 0.0001
Yes4491 (29.3%)627 (35.3%) 
Not sure579 (3.8%)69 (3.9%) 
HIV or AIDS
No14300 (93.3%)1679 (94.5%)0.026
Yes912 (6.0%)80 (4.5%) 
Not sure109 (0.7%)17 (1.0%) 
Stroke
No13344 (87.1%)1494 (84.1%)0.0005
Yes1722 (11.2%)236 (13.3%) 
Not sure255 (1.7%)46 (2.6%) 

Patient Preferences, Care Plan Documentation, and Care Coordination at Admission (Table 3)

Patients who had documented CDs were less likely to prefer my doctor give me choices regarding my care, and more often disagreed with the statement I prefer to leave care decisions to my physician. These patients were also more likely to have a durable power of attorney or living will in their chart, or have an alternate decision‐maker noted. The majority of patients without a documented CD (79.9%) had no notation of their care wishes, compared to 29.7% in patients with a documented CD. Patients with a documented CD were more likely to have a regular medical provider and a note in the chart from their primary care physician.

Patient Decision‐Making Preferences, Care Plan Documentation, and Care Coordination at Admission (Total n = 17097)
ValueNo Documented CD (n = 15321, 89.7%)Documented CD (n = 1776, 10.3%)P*
  • Calculated using chi‐squared tests.

  • Collected during intake interview performed within 24 hours of admission.

    All other items collected via chart abstraction.

I prefer my doctor give me choices regarding my care** (n, %)
Definitely agree11619 (75.8%)1247 (70.2%)< 0.0001
Somewhat agree1912 (12.5%)252 (14.2%) 
Somewhat disagree488 (3.2%)76 (4.3%) 
Definitely disagree414 (2.7%)87 (4.9%) 
Don't know888 (5.8%)114 (6.4%) 
I prefer to leave care decisions to my physician** (n, %)
Definitely agree5660 (36.9%)613 (34.5%)< 0.0001
Somewhat agree4539 (29.6%)493 (27.8%) 
Somewhat disagree2265 (14.8%)257 (14.5%) 
Definitely disagree1956 (12.8%)304 (17.1%) 
Don't know901 (5.9%)109 (6.1%) 
Documentation of care wishes before hospitalization (n, %)
No documentation12238 (79.9%)527 (29.7%)< 0.0001
Full support2624 (17.1%)742 (41.8%) 
Do not resuscitate or intubate (DNR/DNI)264 (1.7%)370 (20.8%) 
Hospice53 (0.3%)22 (1.2%) 
Other limitation (eg, no pressors)142 (0.9%)115 (6.5%) 
Had durable power of attorney in chart (n, %)286 (1.9%)133 (7.5%)< 0.0001
Had a living will in chart (n, %)266 (1.7%)142 (8.0%)< 0.0001
Alternate decision maker named in chart (n, %)2770 (18.1%)638 (35.9%)< 0.0001
Patient noted to be unable to participate in their care at admission (eg, confused, unable to respond) (n, %)1227 (8.0%)431 (24.3%)< 0.0001
Inpatient team documented discussion with primary care physician (n, %)627 (4.1%)136 (7.7%)< 0.0001
Do not have a regular medical provider** (n, %)3836 (25.0%)254 (14.3%)< 0.0001
Note from primary care physician in chart (n, %)148 (1.0%)39 (2.2%)< 0.0001

Factors Associated with Documented Care Discussions (Table 4)

Using predictor variables presented in Tables 1‐3, we then constructed multivariable models seeking to understand factors independently associated with documentation of code status in the entire cohort, as well as among patients who had no preexisting care wishes.

Factors Associated with Code Status Discussion in Entire Cohort and Patients with No Previous Documentation
 Entire Cohort (n = 17097)Patients with No Documentation of Preadmission Wishes (n = 12765)
Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)P ValueAdjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)P Value
Preadmission Code Status
No documentationReferent NA 
Full support3.22 (2.28, 4.55)< 0.0001NA 
Do not resuscitate or intubate (DNR/DNI)11.32 (8.52, 15.04)< 0.0001NA 
Hospice4.02 (2.33, 6.94)< 0.0001NA 
Other limitation (eg, no pressors)10.13 (7.35, 13.96)< 0.0001NA 
Insurance type
MedicareReferent Referent 
Charity care0.50 (0.30, 0.85)0.00990.56 (0.25, 1.25)0.1589
Commercial0.81 (0.69, 0.95)0.00900.66 (0.52, 0.85)0.0009
Medicaid0.69 (0.57, 0.82)< 0.00010.49 (0.36, 0.67)< 0.0001
Other0.46 (0.18, 1.13)0.09120.60 (0.17, 2.12)0.4302
Self pay0.70 (0.52, 0.95)0.02030.49 (0.29, 0.81)0.0060
Any limitations in bathing, toileting, dressing or feeding self?
NoReferent Referent 
Yes, a little1.25 (1.10, 1.42)0.00071.31 (1.03, 1.67)0.0272
Yes, a lot1.25 (1.09, 1.43)0.00151.42 (1.11, 1.81)0.0055
Unable to respond0.81 (0.59, 1.12)0.20060.80 (0.45, 1.41)0.4299
Patient has a documented surrogate decision maker1.72 (1.47, 2.02)< 0.00012.08 (1.62, 2.66)< 0.0001
Patient noted to be unable to participate in their care at admission (eg, confused, unable to respond)1.63 (1.37, 1.94)< 0.00012.20 (1.60, 3.02)< 0.0001
Notation that team had spoken to primary care physician at admission1.65 (1.29, 2.11)< 0.00011.45 (0.92, 2.28)0.1116
History of cancer
NoReferent Referent 
Yes1.31 (1.13, 1.51)0.00031.26 (0.96, 1.65)0.0960
Not sure1.26 (0.87, 1.82)0.21621.80 (1.03, 3.15)0.0396
History of diabetes
NoReferent Referent 
Yes0.87 (0.75, 1.003)0.05430.79 (0.62, 0.997)0.0467
Not sure0.61 (0.38, 0.99)0.04450.84 (0.43, 1.65)0.6183
Housing situation
Own house or apartmentReferent Referent 
Relative or friend's apartment or house1.22 (1.03, 1.45)0.02291.29 (0.97, 1.71)0.0783
Nursing home, group home, or long‐term care facility1.42 (1.16, 1.74)0.00061.74 (1.27, 2.40)0.0007
Homeless shelter1.12 (0.72, 1.73)0.62040.87 (0.46, 1.63)0.6559
Other/Don't know1.02 (0.75, 1.40)0.89871.35 (0.78, 2.36)0.2859
Age Group
<50Referent Referent 
50591.19 (0.99, 1.43)0.06471.18 (0.88, 1.59)0.2583
60691.18 (0.99, 1.40)0.05851.20 (0.88, 1.66)0.2549
70791.10 (0.91, 1.33)0.31781.19 (0.85, 1.67)0.3033
80891.23 (1.03, 1.47)0.02071.34 (0.96, 1.88)0.0879
90+1.45 (1.12, 1.88)0.00451.44 (0.94, 2.20)0.0934
Site of Enrollment
AReferent Referent 
B1.74 (1.16, 2.61)0.0074.95 (2.90, 8.45)< 0.0001
C5.14 (3.42, 7.74)< 0.000126.36 (17.28, 40.23)< 0.0001
D4.19 (2.64, 6.66)< 0.00018.06 (4.63, 14.03)< 0.0001
E3.00 (1.82, 4.9)< 0.00015.30 (2.71, 10.38)< 0.0001
F4.09 (2.69, 6.23)< 0.00012.32 (1.32, 4.08)0.0037

In the entire cohort, insurance type was independently associated with likelihood of a care discussion, with patients with Medicare having greater adjusted odds ratio for a CD than patients with all other forms of insurance, even after adjusting for age. Patients who had functional limitations with bathing, toileting, and feeding; had a documented surrogate decision maker; were unable to participate in their care; had cancer; or did not live in their own home were more likely to have a documented CD. Subjects with diabetes were less likely to have a CD, although this was of borderline significance. Patients whose team had documented a CD with the patients' primary physician were also more likely to have a discussion noted. However, the magnitude of these predictors was small compared to the independent effects attributable to the site the patient was enrolled or whether the patient had any preexisting documentation. Whereas the adjusted odds ratio associated with clinical or functional measures (such as age, cancer) were generally between 1.5 and 2.5, the range of odds ratios associated with having any documentation of care wishes (compared to no documentation) were all greater than 3, and the odds ratios associated with site of enrollment were 1.7 or higher.

We observed similar findings in analyses limited to patients with no preexisting care documentation. While clinical, sociodemographic, and functional factors remained statistically associated with a CD (albeit with wider confidence intervals due to smaller sample sizes), the effect of the patient's site of enrollment became even more striking (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

In this multicenter study of hospitalized general medical patients, documentation of CDs were highly dependent on where patients received care and whether patients had previous documentation of a care plan. In contrast, although clinical, prognostic, and socioeconomic factors were also associated with whether physicians documented asking patients about their wishes for care, the influence of these factors was modest.

Improving communication between patients and their physicians during an episode of acute illness has been a long‐standing goal, with the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes of Treatment (SUPPORT) trial providing the most notable example of an effort to improve patient care through aligning patient wishes, prognosis, and aggressiveness for care. However, even the SUPPORT interventiona robust, well‐implemented, and highly labor‐intensive strategywas not able to achieve this goal. In their summary of SUPPORT study findings, the authors suggested that the likelihood of and effectiveness of communication in seriously ill patients may be powerfully influenced by patient and caregiver culture4; our findings may partially confirm SUPPORT's conclusions.

Preexisting documentation in our study would not have included mandated documentation that someone had given the patient information about advance directives (as mandated by the PSDA), but rather a specification for that advance care plan. This distinction means that preexisting documentation in our study represented a previous decision by the patient (or the patient and their physician) to have made a plan, and an association with hospital discussions may be because the first conversation is the hardest to undertake; subsequent discussions then represent confirmatory or clarifying discussions that may be less difficult to broach (particularly for less experienced trainees). A CD may have also been prompted when documentation was unclear, or when a change in prognosis took place (eg, a new diagnosis of metastatic cancer).22 Alternatively, a preexisting plan may serve as a reminder for clinicians to discuss code status, signify patients who are more willing to broach this subject, and either seem more approachable or bring up the topic themselves.

The influence of site on documentation and CD provides additional evidence that caregiver culture played a role in CDs. Although this variation may have been in part due to culture around documentation practices more generally, it is important to note that none of our participating centers had a policy for documentation of care wishes or patient‐doctor communication, or a policy mandating these discussions in any specific patient group. Furthermore, site‐related differences were seen even in patients with no preexisting documentation, and were seen after adjustment for other documentation or communication practices (eg, documenting a discussion with the patient's primary care provider), making it unlikely that documentation practices are solely responsible for our results. Persistence of variations in care documentation raises interesting questions, particularly when one considers recent data describing variations in end‐of‐life care between similar academic centers (one of which was a participating site in this trial).23 Given that the sites in our study represent diverse institutions yet share a number of characteristics, understanding the specific practices or aspects of medical culture that promote conversations may provide insights in how to improve this promotion elsewhere.

Our results would argue that mandates to document code status on admission may be unlikely to improve communication unless sites also develop an approach to using this newly documented information as a prompt for subsequent discussions. In nursing home settings, documentation of advance directives may reduce resource use, but it is unclear whether similar effects will be seen in hospital settings.24 It is also a challenge to insure that documentation of a care plan in the nursing home is communicated to the providers in the hospital.25 The PSDA was a first step in this direction, but its effects on improving communication are uncertain.26 Our results would confirm that the PSDA or systems to mandate documentation are not solutions in themselves, but are 2 steps in a larger process.

We do not want to discount our findings of less frequent CDs among patients of lower socioeconomic status, where gaps in quality of care, communication, and outcomes are well‐recognized.27 As such, our results delineate yet another area where practice can and should be improved for vulnerable patients. However, factors related to site of care and documentation may provide opportunities to improve care even more profoundly and within a fairly discrete (if complex) acute episode of care. Having said this, our results also demonstrate a potential pitfall of using code status documentation for risk‐adjustment, because such notation may be more dependent on local documentation patterns than clinical appropriateness.

Our study has a number of limitations. As an observational study, our findings are likely prone to biases related to unadjusted confounding due to comorbidity. The influence of comorbidity would seem to have been most important in biasing the effects of preexisting documentation, where documentation would be associated with more unaccounted comorbidity. However, there were no differences in documentation even after accounting for prognosis by adjusting for age, functional status, and a valid comorbidity score.28 As we have pointed out, our key outcome is based on documentation of communication and not actual communication, and as such may be biased in subtle ways not related to site of care or the items tested in our model. While we cannot directly eliminate the possibility of documentation biases in our results using statistical methods, it is important to point out that our chart abstraction protocol used highly specific criteria to detect these discussions, and therefore may under‐detect discussions which may have been documented in less detail. Our study did not examine whether documentation of CDs influenced subsequent care. However, previous studies have shown that advance care planning has only a minor influence on care.29 However, communication about preferences at the time of admission, when the need for specific care decisions may be more evident, may be more likely to influence hospital care. Our results show that previous documentation is associated with discussions early in an admission. Such discussion may affect care, even if the decision made is different than what was previously documented. In addition, patients who were included in our study (those able to provide consent and participate in an interview) may be healthier or more cognitively intact than a general population of hospitalized patients. However, how this would have affected our results is unclear. Being able to speak and consent for oneself are key facilitators to communication, but sicker patients who cannot consent or speak for themselves might also be more likely to have care planning decisions made based on illness severity; documentation in these patients may be more driven by whether such notes were required because of the involvement of home health services (or skilled nursing facilities). Finally, although our study is one of the largest examinations of in‐hospital communication to date and its implications for resident education are worth noting, the sites involved in the MCHS may not be representative of nonteaching hospitals, or community‐based teaching hospitals.

Our results suggest that, although comorbid illness and socioeconomic status play an important role in determining which patients receive CDs at the time of admission, these factors are substantially less powerful than preexisting documentation practices and culture or care practices specific to their site of care. These results suggest that future work should consider organizational characteristics and culture as important targets for interventions to improve care planning in hospitalized patients.

Despite an ideal of dying at home, most Americans die in hospitals.1 Patients and families are clear about what they need from the healthcare system at the end of life: relief of distressing symptoms, the opportunity to communicate with physicians and others about death and dying, and the assurance that they will be attended to and comforted by their physicians as they approach death.2, 3 However, discussions about patient preferences for care occur infrequently,47 even though patients want to discuss care with their doctor,68 and physicians believe these discussions are their responsibility.9

The most prominent work in this area occurred in the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatments (SUPPORT) study, which focused on patients with advanced disease, often in the intensive care unit.4 Furthermore, few studies have focused on general medical patients, and healthcare has changed in important ways since SUPPORT's publication. First, the Patient Self‐Determination Act (PSDA) requires that all patients be asked about their care wishes at the time of admission and document the presence of an advanced directive.10, 11 Second, there is growing awareness of the need to improve palliative care for all hospitalized patients, with many advocating that hospitalization itself is a reason to ask about patient's preferences for care regardless of a patient's level of chronic or acute illness.12 Finally, emergence of hospitalists,1316 movement toward closed intensive care units,17, 18 and changes in residency training have increased segmentation in care of hospitalized patients.15, 18

To overcome limitations of previous literature and update our knowledge of how care discussions take place in the current healthcare environment, we analyzed data from a large study of patients admitted to general medicine services at 6 academic centers. Using this robust dataset, which included prospectively collected information about preferences for communication with their physician, we performed statistical analyses to understand which patient clinical, sociodemographic, and preference‐related factors, as well as factors related to their site of care, were associated with documentation that a code status discussion took place at the time of hospital admission.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sites

The Multicenter Hospitalist Study (MCHS) was a multicenter trial of general medical services that enrolled patients at 6 geographically diverse centers: The University of Chicago (which also served as the coordinating center), University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, University of California San Francisco, University of Wisconsin, University of New Mexico, and Brigham and Women's Hospital.19

Each site was selected to participate in the MCHS because patients on their general medicine service were admitted to hospitalist and nonhospitalist physicians in a random fashion (eg, based on predetermined call schedule based on day of the week). As teaching hospitals, house officers provided direct care to patients hospitalized at each center; nonteaching services were not present at the sites during the period of this study.

During the period of this study, each site complied with PSDA requirements for noting that patients had been informed about their right to create an advance directive, but no sites had a guideline or other program in place specifically intended to facilitate physician‐patient communication about care wishes. Two sites had active Hospice or Palliative Care services, and another 2 had Geriatrics Consultation services, but none had standard protocols mandating involvement of these consultants at the time of admission, the time when our key outcomes were documented.

Patients

Patients were eligible for inclusion in the MCHS if they were older than 18 years of age and were admitted at random to a hospitalist or nonhospitalist physician; we excluded patients from MCHS if they were admitted specifically under the care of their primary care physician or subspecialist (eg, admitted for chemotherapy) or were a prison inmate. Patients meeting these eligibility criteria were then approached for purposes of informed consent.

Data Collection

Data for this study were obtained from administrative data, patient interview, and chart abstraction as in previous work.14 Administrative data were drawn from cost‐accounting databases at each participating hospital; administrative data were used to provide cost and length of stay data, as well as information about patient insurance type, age, and sex.

We interviewed patients immediately after informed consent was obtained, with both taking place generally within 24 hours of admission. Interviews collected data about patient preferences for care and functional status,20 and other data not reliably available from administrative sources (such as housing situation).

Patient care plan before admission was taken from notes and orders written in the first 24 hours of hospitalization, as mentioned above. Using criteria we employed in previous work,21 a care discussion (CD) was defined as documentation of a discussion between patients (or family) and at least 1 physician (primary physician, hospitalist, consulting physician, or house officer) during the first 24 hours of hospitalization. CDs needed to specify that the person who wrote the note had actually spoken with the patient or their family for the purposes of determining preferences for care, and that this discussion resulted in a specific care plan. Thus, notations such as do not resuscitate/do not intubate, or spoke with family, questions answered, did not qualify as CDs, but a note stating the patient continues to want full efforts was counted as a CD.

Principal investigators at each site were responsible for training and overseeing interviewing and chart abstraction activities at each site, with central oversight of data quality provided by the central coordinating center. Upon receipt at the data coordinating center, all data were examined for missing, nonsensical, or outlier data with errors referred back to the participating sites for correction.

Statistical Analysis

For bivariable comparisons of patients with and without CDs, we used chi‐squared or Mann‐Whitney U‐tests, as appropriate.

Variables with P < 0.20 in bivariable comparisons were selected for initial inclusion in models. Then, using automated forward and stepwise selection techniques as well as manually entered variables, we fit multivariable generalized estimating equations permitting clustering of effects at the physician level to determine the independent association between the multiple factors tested and presence of a CD. In order to guard against the threat of multiple testing, we retained variables at a significance level of P < 0.01; variables were also retained because of observed confounding with other independent variables, or to maintain face validity of the model. All analyses were performed using SAS 9.0 for Windows (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).

RESULTS

Patient Sociodemographics (Table 1)

A total of 17,097 of 33,638 patients (50.8%) were interviewed and gave consent for chart abstraction. Of these patients, 1776 (10.3%) had a CD documented in the first 24 hours of hospitalization. Patients with documented CDs were older, more often white, had completed more years of education, were more likely to have lived in a nursing home prior to admission, and more likely to have been hospitalized in the last 12 months. The proportion of patients with CDs was highly variable across site of enrollment, from 2.8%‐24.9%.

Patient Sociodemographics (total n = 17097)
ValueNo Documented CD (n = 15321, 89.7%)Documented CD (n = 1776, 10.3%)P*
  • P value from Mann‐Whitney U Test, all others from chi‐squared tests.

  • Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Age (Median, 95%CI)*56 (55, 56)69 (67, 71)< 0.0001
Female (n, %)8390 (54.8%)990 (55.7%)0.4312
Race (n, %)
White6640 (43.3%)938 (52.8%)< 0.0001
African American4673 (30.5%)280 (15.8%) 
Asian532 (3.5%)167 (9.4%) 
American Indian325 (2.1%)26 (1.5%) 
Other1951 (12.7%)241 (13.6%) 
Refused/Don't know1200 (7.8%)124 (7.0%) 
Ethnicity (n, %)
Hispanic or Latino Ethnicity1724 (11.3%)183 (10.3%)0.0039
Insurance type (n, %)
Charity481 (3.4%)14 (0.8%)< 0.0001
Indemnity3983 (28.2%)327 (19.3%) 
Medicaid2487 (17.6%)195 (11.5%) 
Medicare6418 (45.5%)1114 (65.9%) 
Other105 (0.7%)4 (0.2%) 
Self pay628 (4.5%)36 (2.1%) 
Self‐reported education (n, %)
Junior high school or less1297 (8.5%)217 (12.2%)< 0.0001
Some high school2146 (14.0%)182 (10.2%) 
High school graduate4435 (28.9%)465 (26.2%) 
Some college or junior college3521 (23.0%)347 (19.5%) 
College graduate1729 (11.3%)255 (14.4%) 
Post‐graduate1191 (7.8%)173 (9.7%) 
Refused/Don't know1002 (6.5%)137 (7.7%) 
Self reported income (n, %)
$2,500 or less1079 (7.0%)108 (6.1%)0.0002
$2,501 to $5,000424 (2.8%)33 (1.9%) 
$5,001 to $10,0001436 (9.4%)211 (11.9%) 
$10,001 to $15,0001080 (7.0%)141 (7.9%) 
$15,001 to $25,0001054 (6.9%)134 (7.5%) 
$25,001 to $35,000837 (5.5%)74 (4.2%) 
$35,001 to $50,000882 (5.8%)94 (5.3%) 
$50,001 to $100,0001027 (6.7%)125 (7.0%) 
$100,001 to $200,000357 (2.3%)57 (3.2%) 
Over $200,000245 (1.6%)34 (1.9%) 
Don't know/refused6900 (45.0%)765 (43.1%) 
Housing situation (n, %)
Own apartment or house11887 (77.6%)1264 (71.2%)< 0.0001
A relative or friend's apartment or house1804 (11.8%)217 (12.2%) 
A nursing home, group home, or long‐term care facility663 (4.3%)204 (11.5%) 
A homeless shelter258 (1.7%)27 (1.5%) 
Other709 (4.6%)64 (3.6%) 
Marital status (n, %)
Married4992 (32.6%)603 (34.0%)< 0.0001
Living as if married440 (2.9%)32 (1.8%) 
Divorced2027 (13.2%)199 (11.2%) 
Separated569 (3.7%)30 (1.7%) 
Widowed2577 (16.8%)487 (27.4%) 
Single4074 (26.6%)364 (20.5%) 
Refused642 (4.2%)61 (3.4%) 
Hospitalized in the last 12 months (n, %)7602 (49.6%)1011 (56.9%)< 0.0001
Site of enrollment (n, %)
A4602 (30.0%)135 (7.6%)< 0.0001
B1595 (10.4%)158 (8.9%) 
C3017 (19.7%)998 (56.2%) 
D2387 (15.6%)212 (11.9%) 
E2057 (13.4%)131 (7.4%) 
F1663 (10.9%)142 (8.0%) 

Patient Self‐Reported Health Status and Comorbid Illness (Table 2)

Patients with CDs more often reported a lot of difficulties with bathing, eating, or dressing; household chores; and moderate activities. Patients with CDs were more likely to report accomplishing less than they would like due to their health. They were more likely to have cancer, depression, a history of stroke, and heart disease, but less likely to have diabetes or human immunodeficiency virus.

Patient Self‐Reported Health Status and Comorbid Disease (Total n = 17097)*
ValueNo Documented CD (n = 15321, 89.7%)Documented CD (n = 1776, 10.3%)P**
  • Self reported data collected at time of intake interview, performed within 24 hours of admission.

  • Calculated using chi‐squared tests.

  • Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding.

Thinking back again to one month ago, did any impairment or health problem cause you to need help of other persons with personal care needs, such as eating, bathing, dressing, or getting around the home? (n, %)
No10673 (69.7%)973 (54.8%)< 0.0001
Yes, a little1933 (12.6%)268 (15.1%) 
Yes, a lot2127 (13.9%)487 (27.4%) 
Don't know588 (3.8%)48 (2.7%) 
Thinking back to one month ago, did any impairment or health problem cause you to need help in handling everyday household chores, necessary business, shopping, or getting around for other purposes? (n, %)
No7262 (47.4%)566 (31.9%)< 0.0001
Yes, a little2692 (17.6%)324 (18.2%) 
Yes, a lot4126 (26.9%)825 (46.5%) 
Don't know1241 (8.1%)61 (3.4%) 
As far as you know do you have any of the following health conditions at the present time? (n, %)
Cancer
No13281 (86.7%)1376 (77.5%)< 0.0001
Yes1751 (11.4%)351 (19.8%) 
Not sure289 (1.9%)49 (2.8%) 
Depression
No10269 (67.0%)1099 (61.9%)< 0.0001
Yes4730 (30.9%)624 (35.1%) 
Not sure322 (2.1%)53 (3.0%) 
Diabetes
No10902 (71.2%)1356 (76.4%)< 0.0001
Yes4132 (27.0%)394 (22.2%) 
Not sure287 (1.9%)26 (1.5%) 
Heart trouble
No10251 (66.9%)1080 (60.8%)< 0.0001
Yes4491 (29.3%)627 (35.3%) 
Not sure579 (3.8%)69 (3.9%) 
HIV or AIDS
No14300 (93.3%)1679 (94.5%)0.026
Yes912 (6.0%)80 (4.5%) 
Not sure109 (0.7%)17 (1.0%) 
Stroke
No13344 (87.1%)1494 (84.1%)0.0005
Yes1722 (11.2%)236 (13.3%) 
Not sure255 (1.7%)46 (2.6%) 

Patient Preferences, Care Plan Documentation, and Care Coordination at Admission (Table 3)

Patients who had documented CDs were less likely to prefer my doctor give me choices regarding my care, and more often disagreed with the statement I prefer to leave care decisions to my physician. These patients were also more likely to have a durable power of attorney or living will in their chart, or have an alternate decision‐maker noted. The majority of patients without a documented CD (79.9%) had no notation of their care wishes, compared to 29.7% in patients with a documented CD. Patients with a documented CD were more likely to have a regular medical provider and a note in the chart from their primary care physician.

Patient Decision‐Making Preferences, Care Plan Documentation, and Care Coordination at Admission (Total n = 17097)
ValueNo Documented CD (n = 15321, 89.7%)Documented CD (n = 1776, 10.3%)P*
  • Calculated using chi‐squared tests.

  • Collected during intake interview performed within 24 hours of admission.

    All other items collected via chart abstraction.

I prefer my doctor give me choices regarding my care** (n, %)
Definitely agree11619 (75.8%)1247 (70.2%)< 0.0001
Somewhat agree1912 (12.5%)252 (14.2%) 
Somewhat disagree488 (3.2%)76 (4.3%) 
Definitely disagree414 (2.7%)87 (4.9%) 
Don't know888 (5.8%)114 (6.4%) 
I prefer to leave care decisions to my physician** (n, %)
Definitely agree5660 (36.9%)613 (34.5%)< 0.0001
Somewhat agree4539 (29.6%)493 (27.8%) 
Somewhat disagree2265 (14.8%)257 (14.5%) 
Definitely disagree1956 (12.8%)304 (17.1%) 
Don't know901 (5.9%)109 (6.1%) 
Documentation of care wishes before hospitalization (n, %)
No documentation12238 (79.9%)527 (29.7%)< 0.0001
Full support2624 (17.1%)742 (41.8%) 
Do not resuscitate or intubate (DNR/DNI)264 (1.7%)370 (20.8%) 
Hospice53 (0.3%)22 (1.2%) 
Other limitation (eg, no pressors)142 (0.9%)115 (6.5%) 
Had durable power of attorney in chart (n, %)286 (1.9%)133 (7.5%)< 0.0001
Had a living will in chart (n, %)266 (1.7%)142 (8.0%)< 0.0001
Alternate decision maker named in chart (n, %)2770 (18.1%)638 (35.9%)< 0.0001
Patient noted to be unable to participate in their care at admission (eg, confused, unable to respond) (n, %)1227 (8.0%)431 (24.3%)< 0.0001
Inpatient team documented discussion with primary care physician (n, %)627 (4.1%)136 (7.7%)< 0.0001
Do not have a regular medical provider** (n, %)3836 (25.0%)254 (14.3%)< 0.0001
Note from primary care physician in chart (n, %)148 (1.0%)39 (2.2%)< 0.0001

Factors Associated with Documented Care Discussions (Table 4)

Using predictor variables presented in Tables 1‐3, we then constructed multivariable models seeking to understand factors independently associated with documentation of code status in the entire cohort, as well as among patients who had no preexisting care wishes.

Factors Associated with Code Status Discussion in Entire Cohort and Patients with No Previous Documentation
 Entire Cohort (n = 17097)Patients with No Documentation of Preadmission Wishes (n = 12765)
Adjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)P ValueAdjusted Odds Ratio (95% CI)P Value
Preadmission Code Status
No documentationReferent NA 
Full support3.22 (2.28, 4.55)< 0.0001NA 
Do not resuscitate or intubate (DNR/DNI)11.32 (8.52, 15.04)< 0.0001NA 
Hospice4.02 (2.33, 6.94)< 0.0001NA 
Other limitation (eg, no pressors)10.13 (7.35, 13.96)< 0.0001NA 
Insurance type
MedicareReferent Referent 
Charity care0.50 (0.30, 0.85)0.00990.56 (0.25, 1.25)0.1589
Commercial0.81 (0.69, 0.95)0.00900.66 (0.52, 0.85)0.0009
Medicaid0.69 (0.57, 0.82)< 0.00010.49 (0.36, 0.67)< 0.0001
Other0.46 (0.18, 1.13)0.09120.60 (0.17, 2.12)0.4302
Self pay0.70 (0.52, 0.95)0.02030.49 (0.29, 0.81)0.0060
Any limitations in bathing, toileting, dressing or feeding self?
NoReferent Referent 
Yes, a little1.25 (1.10, 1.42)0.00071.31 (1.03, 1.67)0.0272
Yes, a lot1.25 (1.09, 1.43)0.00151.42 (1.11, 1.81)0.0055
Unable to respond0.81 (0.59, 1.12)0.20060.80 (0.45, 1.41)0.4299
Patient has a documented surrogate decision maker1.72 (1.47, 2.02)< 0.00012.08 (1.62, 2.66)< 0.0001
Patient noted to be unable to participate in their care at admission (eg, confused, unable to respond)1.63 (1.37, 1.94)< 0.00012.20 (1.60, 3.02)< 0.0001
Notation that team had spoken to primary care physician at admission1.65 (1.29, 2.11)< 0.00011.45 (0.92, 2.28)0.1116
History of cancer
NoReferent Referent 
Yes1.31 (1.13, 1.51)0.00031.26 (0.96, 1.65)0.0960
Not sure1.26 (0.87, 1.82)0.21621.80 (1.03, 3.15)0.0396
History of diabetes
NoReferent Referent 
Yes0.87 (0.75, 1.003)0.05430.79 (0.62, 0.997)0.0467
Not sure0.61 (0.38, 0.99)0.04450.84 (0.43, 1.65)0.6183
Housing situation
Own house or apartmentReferent Referent 
Relative or friend's apartment or house1.22 (1.03, 1.45)0.02291.29 (0.97, 1.71)0.0783
Nursing home, group home, or long‐term care facility1.42 (1.16, 1.74)0.00061.74 (1.27, 2.40)0.0007
Homeless shelter1.12 (0.72, 1.73)0.62040.87 (0.46, 1.63)0.6559
Other/Don't know1.02 (0.75, 1.40)0.89871.35 (0.78, 2.36)0.2859
Age Group
<50Referent Referent 
50591.19 (0.99, 1.43)0.06471.18 (0.88, 1.59)0.2583
60691.18 (0.99, 1.40)0.05851.20 (0.88, 1.66)0.2549
70791.10 (0.91, 1.33)0.31781.19 (0.85, 1.67)0.3033
80891.23 (1.03, 1.47)0.02071.34 (0.96, 1.88)0.0879
90+1.45 (1.12, 1.88)0.00451.44 (0.94, 2.20)0.0934
Site of Enrollment
AReferent Referent 
B1.74 (1.16, 2.61)0.0074.95 (2.90, 8.45)< 0.0001
C5.14 (3.42, 7.74)< 0.000126.36 (17.28, 40.23)< 0.0001
D4.19 (2.64, 6.66)< 0.00018.06 (4.63, 14.03)< 0.0001
E3.00 (1.82, 4.9)< 0.00015.30 (2.71, 10.38)< 0.0001
F4.09 (2.69, 6.23)< 0.00012.32 (1.32, 4.08)0.0037

In the entire cohort, insurance type was independently associated with likelihood of a care discussion, with patients with Medicare having greater adjusted odds ratio for a CD than patients with all other forms of insurance, even after adjusting for age. Patients who had functional limitations with bathing, toileting, and feeding; had a documented surrogate decision maker; were unable to participate in their care; had cancer; or did not live in their own home were more likely to have a documented CD. Subjects with diabetes were less likely to have a CD, although this was of borderline significance. Patients whose team had documented a CD with the patients' primary physician were also more likely to have a discussion noted. However, the magnitude of these predictors was small compared to the independent effects attributable to the site the patient was enrolled or whether the patient had any preexisting documentation. Whereas the adjusted odds ratio associated with clinical or functional measures (such as age, cancer) were generally between 1.5 and 2.5, the range of odds ratios associated with having any documentation of care wishes (compared to no documentation) were all greater than 3, and the odds ratios associated with site of enrollment were 1.7 or higher.

We observed similar findings in analyses limited to patients with no preexisting care documentation. While clinical, sociodemographic, and functional factors remained statistically associated with a CD (albeit with wider confidence intervals due to smaller sample sizes), the effect of the patient's site of enrollment became even more striking (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

In this multicenter study of hospitalized general medical patients, documentation of CDs were highly dependent on where patients received care and whether patients had previous documentation of a care plan. In contrast, although clinical, prognostic, and socioeconomic factors were also associated with whether physicians documented asking patients about their wishes for care, the influence of these factors was modest.

Improving communication between patients and their physicians during an episode of acute illness has been a long‐standing goal, with the Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes of Treatment (SUPPORT) trial providing the most notable example of an effort to improve patient care through aligning patient wishes, prognosis, and aggressiveness for care. However, even the SUPPORT interventiona robust, well‐implemented, and highly labor‐intensive strategywas not able to achieve this goal. In their summary of SUPPORT study findings, the authors suggested that the likelihood of and effectiveness of communication in seriously ill patients may be powerfully influenced by patient and caregiver culture4; our findings may partially confirm SUPPORT's conclusions.

Preexisting documentation in our study would not have included mandated documentation that someone had given the patient information about advance directives (as mandated by the PSDA), but rather a specification for that advance care plan. This distinction means that preexisting documentation in our study represented a previous decision by the patient (or the patient and their physician) to have made a plan, and an association with hospital discussions may be because the first conversation is the hardest to undertake; subsequent discussions then represent confirmatory or clarifying discussions that may be less difficult to broach (particularly for less experienced trainees). A CD may have also been prompted when documentation was unclear, or when a change in prognosis took place (eg, a new diagnosis of metastatic cancer).22 Alternatively, a preexisting plan may serve as a reminder for clinicians to discuss code status, signify patients who are more willing to broach this subject, and either seem more approachable or bring up the topic themselves.

The influence of site on documentation and CD provides additional evidence that caregiver culture played a role in CDs. Although this variation may have been in part due to culture around documentation practices more generally, it is important to note that none of our participating centers had a policy for documentation of care wishes or patient‐doctor communication, or a policy mandating these discussions in any specific patient group. Furthermore, site‐related differences were seen even in patients with no preexisting documentation, and were seen after adjustment for other documentation or communication practices (eg, documenting a discussion with the patient's primary care provider), making it unlikely that documentation practices are solely responsible for our results. Persistence of variations in care documentation raises interesting questions, particularly when one considers recent data describing variations in end‐of‐life care between similar academic centers (one of which was a participating site in this trial).23 Given that the sites in our study represent diverse institutions yet share a number of characteristics, understanding the specific practices or aspects of medical culture that promote conversations may provide insights in how to improve this promotion elsewhere.

Our results would argue that mandates to document code status on admission may be unlikely to improve communication unless sites also develop an approach to using this newly documented information as a prompt for subsequent discussions. In nursing home settings, documentation of advance directives may reduce resource use, but it is unclear whether similar effects will be seen in hospital settings.24 It is also a challenge to insure that documentation of a care plan in the nursing home is communicated to the providers in the hospital.25 The PSDA was a first step in this direction, but its effects on improving communication are uncertain.26 Our results would confirm that the PSDA or systems to mandate documentation are not solutions in themselves, but are 2 steps in a larger process.

We do not want to discount our findings of less frequent CDs among patients of lower socioeconomic status, where gaps in quality of care, communication, and outcomes are well‐recognized.27 As such, our results delineate yet another area where practice can and should be improved for vulnerable patients. However, factors related to site of care and documentation may provide opportunities to improve care even more profoundly and within a fairly discrete (if complex) acute episode of care. Having said this, our results also demonstrate a potential pitfall of using code status documentation for risk‐adjustment, because such notation may be more dependent on local documentation patterns than clinical appropriateness.

Our study has a number of limitations. As an observational study, our findings are likely prone to biases related to unadjusted confounding due to comorbidity. The influence of comorbidity would seem to have been most important in biasing the effects of preexisting documentation, where documentation would be associated with more unaccounted comorbidity. However, there were no differences in documentation even after accounting for prognosis by adjusting for age, functional status, and a valid comorbidity score.28 As we have pointed out, our key outcome is based on documentation of communication and not actual communication, and as such may be biased in subtle ways not related to site of care or the items tested in our model. While we cannot directly eliminate the possibility of documentation biases in our results using statistical methods, it is important to point out that our chart abstraction protocol used highly specific criteria to detect these discussions, and therefore may under‐detect discussions which may have been documented in less detail. Our study did not examine whether documentation of CDs influenced subsequent care. However, previous studies have shown that advance care planning has only a minor influence on care.29 However, communication about preferences at the time of admission, when the need for specific care decisions may be more evident, may be more likely to influence hospital care. Our results show that previous documentation is associated with discussions early in an admission. Such discussion may affect care, even if the decision made is different than what was previously documented. In addition, patients who were included in our study (those able to provide consent and participate in an interview) may be healthier or more cognitively intact than a general population of hospitalized patients. However, how this would have affected our results is unclear. Being able to speak and consent for oneself are key facilitators to communication, but sicker patients who cannot consent or speak for themselves might also be more likely to have care planning decisions made based on illness severity; documentation in these patients may be more driven by whether such notes were required because of the involvement of home health services (or skilled nursing facilities). Finally, although our study is one of the largest examinations of in‐hospital communication to date and its implications for resident education are worth noting, the sites involved in the MCHS may not be representative of nonteaching hospitals, or community‐based teaching hospitals.

Our results suggest that, although comorbid illness and socioeconomic status play an important role in determining which patients receive CDs at the time of admission, these factors are substantially less powerful than preexisting documentation practices and culture or care practices specific to their site of care. These results suggest that future work should consider organizational characteristics and culture as important targets for interventions to improve care planning in hospitalized patients.

References
  1. Committee on Care at the End of Life, Institute of Medicine.Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life.Field MJ,Cassel CK, eds.Washington, DC:National Academy Press;1997.
  2. Steinhauser KE,Christakis NA,Clipp EC,McNeilly M,McIntyre L,Tulsky JA.Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers.JAMA.2000;284(19):24762482.
  3. Steinhauser KE,Clipp EC,McNeilly M,Christakis NA,McIntyre LM,Tulsky JA.In search of a good death: observations of patients, families, and providers.Ann Intern Med.2000;132(10):825832.
  4. The SUPPORT Principal Investigators.A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT).JAMA.1995;274(20):15911598.
  5. Bedell SE,Delbanco TL.Choices about cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital. When do physicians talk with patients?N Engl J Med.1984;310(17):10891093.
  6. Hofmann JC,Wenger NS,Davis RB, et al.Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end‐of‐life decisions. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preference for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment.Ann Intern Med.1997;127(1):112.
  7. Shmerling RH,Bedell SE,Lilienfeld A,Delbanco TL.Discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a study of elderly outpatients.J Gen Intern Med.1988;3(4):317321.
  8. Schonwetter RS,Teasdale TA,Taffet G,Robinson BE,Luchi RJ.Educating the elderly: cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions before and after intervention.J Am Geriatr Soc.1991;39(4):372377.
  9. Miller DL,Gorbien MJ,Simbartl LA,Jahnigen DW.Factors influencing physicians in recommending in‐hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Arch Intern Med.1993;153(17):19992003.
  10. Federal Register. 42 USC 1395‐1396. Patient Self‐Determination Act1990.
  11. La Puma J,Orentlicher D,Moss RJ.Advance directives on admission. Clinical implications and analysis of the Patient Self‐Determination Act of 1990.JAMA.1991;266(3):402405.
  12. Pantilat SZ,Alpers A,Wachter RM.A new doctor in the house: ethical issues in hospitalist systems.JAMA.1999;282(2):171174.
  13. Auerbach A,Wachter R,Katz P,Showstack J,Baron R,Goldman L.Implementation of a hospitalist service at a community teaching hospital: improving clinical efficiency and patient outcomes.Ann Intern Med.2002;137:859865.
  14. Meltzer D,Morrison J,Guth T, et al.Effects of hospitalist physicians on an academic general medical service: results of a randomized trial.Ann Intern Med.2002;137:866874.
  15. Wachter RM,Goldman L.The hospitalist movement 5 years later.JAMA.2002;287(4):487494.
  16. Wachter RM,Katz P,Showstack J,Bindman AB,Goldman L.Reorganizing an academic medical service: impact on cost, quality, patient satisfaction, and education.JAMA.1998;279(19):15601565.
  17. Pronovost PJ,Angus DC,Dorman T,Robinson KA,Dremsizov TT,Young TL.Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review.JAMA.2002;288(17):21512162.
  18. Pronovost PJ,Jenckes MW,Dorman T, et al.Organizational characteristics of intensive care units related to outcomes of abdominal aortic surgery.JAMA.1999;281(14):13101317.
  19. Meltzer DO,Arora V,Zhang JX, et al.Effects of inpatient experience on outcomes and costs in a multicenter trial of academic hospitalists.J Gen Intern Med.2005;20(Suppl 1):141142.
  20. Ware J,Kosinski M,Keller S.SF‐12: How to Score the SF‐12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales.2nd ed.Boston, MA:New England Medical Center, The Health Institute;1995.
  21. Auerbach AD,Pantilat SZ.End‐of‐life care in a voluntary hospitalist model: effects on communication, processes of care, and patient symptoms.Am J Med.2004;116(10):669675.
  22. Teno JM,Stevens M,Spernak S,Lynn J.Role of written advance directives in decision making: insights from qualitative and quantitative data.J Gen Intern Med.1998;13(7):439446.
  23. Wennberg JE,Fisher ES,Baker L,Sharp SM,Bronner KK.Evaluating the efficiency of California providers in caring for patients with chronic illnesses.Health Aff (Millwood).2005 Jul‐Dec;Suppl Web Exclusives:W5–52643.
  24. Molloy DW,Guyatt GH,Russo R, et al.Systematic implementation of an advance directive program in nursing homes: a randomized controlled trial.JAMA.2000;283(11):14371444.
  25. Hanson LC,Ersek M.Meeting palliative care needs in post‐acute care settings: “to help them live until they die”.JAMA.2006;295(6):681686.
  26. Teno J,Lynn J,Wenger N, et al.Advance directives for seriously ill hospitalized patients: effectiveness with the patient self‐determination act and the SUPPORT intervention. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment.J Am Geriatr Soc.1997;45(4):500507.
  27. Institute of Medicine.Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care.Smedley BD,Stith AY,Nelson AR, eds.Washington, DC:National Academies Press;2003.
  28. Chaudhry S,Jin L,Meltzer D.Use of a self‐report‐generated Charlson Comorbidity Index for predicting mortality.Med Care.2005;43(6):607615.
  29. Hanson LC,Tulsky JA,Danis M.Can clinical interventions change care at the end of life?Ann Intern Med.1997;126(5):381388.
References
  1. Committee on Care at the End of Life, Institute of Medicine.Approaching Death: Improving Care at the End of Life.Field MJ,Cassel CK, eds.Washington, DC:National Academy Press;1997.
  2. Steinhauser KE,Christakis NA,Clipp EC,McNeilly M,McIntyre L,Tulsky JA.Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers.JAMA.2000;284(19):24762482.
  3. Steinhauser KE,Clipp EC,McNeilly M,Christakis NA,McIntyre LM,Tulsky JA.In search of a good death: observations of patients, families, and providers.Ann Intern Med.2000;132(10):825832.
  4. The SUPPORT Principal Investigators.A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patients. The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT).JAMA.1995;274(20):15911598.
  5. Bedell SE,Delbanco TL.Choices about cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the hospital. When do physicians talk with patients?N Engl J Med.1984;310(17):10891093.
  6. Hofmann JC,Wenger NS,Davis RB, et al.Patient preferences for communication with physicians about end‐of‐life decisions. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preference for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment.Ann Intern Med.1997;127(1):112.
  7. Shmerling RH,Bedell SE,Lilienfeld A,Delbanco TL.Discussing cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a study of elderly outpatients.J Gen Intern Med.1988;3(4):317321.
  8. Schonwetter RS,Teasdale TA,Taffet G,Robinson BE,Luchi RJ.Educating the elderly: cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions before and after intervention.J Am Geriatr Soc.1991;39(4):372377.
  9. Miller DL,Gorbien MJ,Simbartl LA,Jahnigen DW.Factors influencing physicians in recommending in‐hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation.Arch Intern Med.1993;153(17):19992003.
  10. Federal Register. 42 USC 1395‐1396. Patient Self‐Determination Act1990.
  11. La Puma J,Orentlicher D,Moss RJ.Advance directives on admission. Clinical implications and analysis of the Patient Self‐Determination Act of 1990.JAMA.1991;266(3):402405.
  12. Pantilat SZ,Alpers A,Wachter RM.A new doctor in the house: ethical issues in hospitalist systems.JAMA.1999;282(2):171174.
  13. Auerbach A,Wachter R,Katz P,Showstack J,Baron R,Goldman L.Implementation of a hospitalist service at a community teaching hospital: improving clinical efficiency and patient outcomes.Ann Intern Med.2002;137:859865.
  14. Meltzer D,Morrison J,Guth T, et al.Effects of hospitalist physicians on an academic general medical service: results of a randomized trial.Ann Intern Med.2002;137:866874.
  15. Wachter RM,Goldman L.The hospitalist movement 5 years later.JAMA.2002;287(4):487494.
  16. Wachter RM,Katz P,Showstack J,Bindman AB,Goldman L.Reorganizing an academic medical service: impact on cost, quality, patient satisfaction, and education.JAMA.1998;279(19):15601565.
  17. Pronovost PJ,Angus DC,Dorman T,Robinson KA,Dremsizov TT,Young TL.Physician staffing patterns and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review.JAMA.2002;288(17):21512162.
  18. Pronovost PJ,Jenckes MW,Dorman T, et al.Organizational characteristics of intensive care units related to outcomes of abdominal aortic surgery.JAMA.1999;281(14):13101317.
  19. Meltzer DO,Arora V,Zhang JX, et al.Effects of inpatient experience on outcomes and costs in a multicenter trial of academic hospitalists.J Gen Intern Med.2005;20(Suppl 1):141142.
  20. Ware J,Kosinski M,Keller S.SF‐12: How to Score the SF‐12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales.2nd ed.Boston, MA:New England Medical Center, The Health Institute;1995.
  21. Auerbach AD,Pantilat SZ.End‐of‐life care in a voluntary hospitalist model: effects on communication, processes of care, and patient symptoms.Am J Med.2004;116(10):669675.
  22. Teno JM,Stevens M,Spernak S,Lynn J.Role of written advance directives in decision making: insights from qualitative and quantitative data.J Gen Intern Med.1998;13(7):439446.
  23. Wennberg JE,Fisher ES,Baker L,Sharp SM,Bronner KK.Evaluating the efficiency of California providers in caring for patients with chronic illnesses.Health Aff (Millwood).2005 Jul‐Dec;Suppl Web Exclusives:W5–52643.
  24. Molloy DW,Guyatt GH,Russo R, et al.Systematic implementation of an advance directive program in nursing homes: a randomized controlled trial.JAMA.2000;283(11):14371444.
  25. Hanson LC,Ersek M.Meeting palliative care needs in post‐acute care settings: “to help them live until they die”.JAMA.2006;295(6):681686.
  26. Teno J,Lynn J,Wenger N, et al.Advance directives for seriously ill hospitalized patients: effectiveness with the patient self‐determination act and the SUPPORT intervention. SUPPORT Investigators. Study to Understand Prognoses and Preferences for Outcomes and Risks of Treatment.J Am Geriatr Soc.1997;45(4):500507.
  27. Institute of Medicine.Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care.Smedley BD,Stith AY,Nelson AR, eds.Washington, DC:National Academies Press;2003.
  28. Chaudhry S,Jin L,Meltzer D.Use of a self‐report‐generated Charlson Comorbidity Index for predicting mortality.Med Care.2005;43(6):607615.
  29. Hanson LC,Tulsky JA,Danis M.Can clinical interventions change care at the end of life?Ann Intern Med.1997;126(5):381388.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 3(6)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 3(6)
Page Number
437-445
Page Number
437-445
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Factors associated with discussion of care plans and code status at the time of hospital admission: Results from the Multicenter Hospitalist Study
Display Headline
Factors associated with discussion of care plans and code status at the time of hospital admission: Results from the Multicenter Hospitalist Study
Legacy Keywords
care discussion, hospital admission, patient care planning
Legacy Keywords
care discussion, hospital admission, patient care planning
Sections
Article Source

Copyright © 2008 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
UCSF Department of Hospital Medicine, 505 Parnassus Avenue, Box 0131, San Francisco, CA 94143
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

Effects of Hospitalists on Outcomes and Costs in a Multicenter Trial of Academic Hospitalists

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 12:41
Display Headline
Effects of Hospitalists on Outcomes and Costs in a Multicenter Trial of Academic Hospitalists

Background: Several studies suggest that hospitalists can improve costs or outcomes in academic medical centers, but almost all of these studies have nonrandom assignment of patients to hospitalists, and no multi-center studies exist. We studied patients assigned to hospitalist or non-hospitalist physicians based only on day of admission to determine the effects of hospitalists on outcomes and costs in 6 academic medical centers.

Methods: From July 2001 to June 2003, 31,891 general medicine inpatients were assigned to hospitalist or non-hospitalist physicians according to a predetermined daily call schedule. Patient interviews at admission and 1 month after discharge and administrative data were used to study effects on outcomes and costs.

Results: Twelve thousand and one patients were cared for by hospitalists and 19,890 by non-hospitalists. There were no statistically significant differences in age, race, gender, Charlson Index, or distribution of primary diagnosis between the 2 groups. There were no statistically significant differences in in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission and emergency room use, 30-day self-reported health status, or patient satisfaction. Mortality data up to 1 year after admission are pending. Average length of stay was 0.05 days shorter for hospitalist patients but this difference was not statistically significant. Costs were also similar between the groups. Individual center analyses had large confidence intervals on outcomes and costs and failed to show statistically significant effects on any measure of outcomes or costs except for 1 of the larger centers, which had lower length of stay and costs for hospitalists.

Conclusions: Hospitalists had small effects on selected outcome measures available to date, but did not produce the large resource savings that had been suggested by some earlier studies. The effectiveness of hospitalists appeared to vary by site, but was difficult to assess due to limited statistical power for site-specific analyses. Understanding the factors, such as physician experience, that may influence the effectiveness of hospitalists is important for maximizing the efficacy of hospitalist programs, because effects on outcomes may be small, vary by site, and be difficult to distinguish from chance in a specific clinical setting.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2005(07)
Publications
Sections

Background: Several studies suggest that hospitalists can improve costs or outcomes in academic medical centers, but almost all of these studies have nonrandom assignment of patients to hospitalists, and no multi-center studies exist. We studied patients assigned to hospitalist or non-hospitalist physicians based only on day of admission to determine the effects of hospitalists on outcomes and costs in 6 academic medical centers.

Methods: From July 2001 to June 2003, 31,891 general medicine inpatients were assigned to hospitalist or non-hospitalist physicians according to a predetermined daily call schedule. Patient interviews at admission and 1 month after discharge and administrative data were used to study effects on outcomes and costs.

Results: Twelve thousand and one patients were cared for by hospitalists and 19,890 by non-hospitalists. There were no statistically significant differences in age, race, gender, Charlson Index, or distribution of primary diagnosis between the 2 groups. There were no statistically significant differences in in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission and emergency room use, 30-day self-reported health status, or patient satisfaction. Mortality data up to 1 year after admission are pending. Average length of stay was 0.05 days shorter for hospitalist patients but this difference was not statistically significant. Costs were also similar between the groups. Individual center analyses had large confidence intervals on outcomes and costs and failed to show statistically significant effects on any measure of outcomes or costs except for 1 of the larger centers, which had lower length of stay and costs for hospitalists.

Conclusions: Hospitalists had small effects on selected outcome measures available to date, but did not produce the large resource savings that had been suggested by some earlier studies. The effectiveness of hospitalists appeared to vary by site, but was difficult to assess due to limited statistical power for site-specific analyses. Understanding the factors, such as physician experience, that may influence the effectiveness of hospitalists is important for maximizing the efficacy of hospitalist programs, because effects on outcomes may be small, vary by site, and be difficult to distinguish from chance in a specific clinical setting.

Background: Several studies suggest that hospitalists can improve costs or outcomes in academic medical centers, but almost all of these studies have nonrandom assignment of patients to hospitalists, and no multi-center studies exist. We studied patients assigned to hospitalist or non-hospitalist physicians based only on day of admission to determine the effects of hospitalists on outcomes and costs in 6 academic medical centers.

Methods: From July 2001 to June 2003, 31,891 general medicine inpatients were assigned to hospitalist or non-hospitalist physicians according to a predetermined daily call schedule. Patient interviews at admission and 1 month after discharge and administrative data were used to study effects on outcomes and costs.

Results: Twelve thousand and one patients were cared for by hospitalists and 19,890 by non-hospitalists. There were no statistically significant differences in age, race, gender, Charlson Index, or distribution of primary diagnosis between the 2 groups. There were no statistically significant differences in in-hospital mortality, 30-day readmission and emergency room use, 30-day self-reported health status, or patient satisfaction. Mortality data up to 1 year after admission are pending. Average length of stay was 0.05 days shorter for hospitalist patients but this difference was not statistically significant. Costs were also similar between the groups. Individual center analyses had large confidence intervals on outcomes and costs and failed to show statistically significant effects on any measure of outcomes or costs except for 1 of the larger centers, which had lower length of stay and costs for hospitalists.

Conclusions: Hospitalists had small effects on selected outcome measures available to date, but did not produce the large resource savings that had been suggested by some earlier studies. The effectiveness of hospitalists appeared to vary by site, but was difficult to assess due to limited statistical power for site-specific analyses. Understanding the factors, such as physician experience, that may influence the effectiveness of hospitalists is important for maximizing the efficacy of hospitalist programs, because effects on outcomes may be small, vary by site, and be difficult to distinguish from chance in a specific clinical setting.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2005(07)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2005(07)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Effects of Hospitalists on Outcomes and Costs in a Multicenter Trial of Academic Hospitalists
Display Headline
Effects of Hospitalists on Outcomes and Costs in a Multicenter Trial of Academic Hospitalists
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)