Winthrop Whitcomb, MD, MHM

Feeling frustrated with your group’s patient-satisfaction performance? Wondering why your chief (fill in the blank) officer glazes over when you try to explain why your hospitalist group’s Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (HCAHPS) scores for doctor communication are in a percentile rivaling the numeric age of your children?

It is likely that the C-suite administrator overseeing your hospitalist group has a portion of their pay based on HCAHPS or other patient-satisfaction (also called patient experience) scores. And for good reason: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program that started Oct. 1, 2012, has placed your hospital’s Medicare reimbursement at risk based on its HCAHPS scores.

HVBP and Patient Satisfaction

Patient satisfaction will remain an important part of HVBP in the coming years. Table 1 (below) shows the domains that will be included in fiscal years 2014 (which starts Oct. 1, 2013), 2015, and 2016. Table 2 (below) depicts the percent weighting the patient-satisfaction domain will receive through 2016. You may recall that HVBP is a program in which all hospitals place 1% to 2% (2013 through 2017, starting at 1% and increasing each year by 0.25% so that by 2017%, it is 2%) of their CMS inpatient payments in a withhold pool and, based on performance, can make back some, all, or an amount in excess of the amount placed in the withhold pool.

click for large version

click for large version

End In Itself

A colleague of mine recently asked, “Is an increase in patient satisfaction associated with higher quality of care and better patient safety?” The point here: It doesn’t matter. Patient satisfaction is an end in itself, and we should strive to maximize it, or at least put ourselves in the place of the patient and design care accordingly.

For Hospitalists: A Starting Point

There is a conundrum for hospitalists vis-à-vis patient satisfaction. Follow this chain of logic: The hospitals at which we work are incented to perform well on the HCAHPS domains. Hospitals pay a lot for hospitalists. Hospitalists can impact many of the HCAHPS domains. So shouldn’t hospitalists be judged according to HCAHPS scores?

Yes and no.

HCAHPS as a survey is intended to measure a patient’s overall experience of receiving care in the hospital. For example, from the “Doctor Communication” domain, we have questions like “how often did doctors treat you with courtesy and respect?” And “how often did doctors explain things in a way you could understand?”

These questions, like all in HCAHPS, are not designed to get at individual doctor performance, or even performance of a group of doctors, such as hospitalists. Instead, they are designed to measure a patient’s overall experience with the hospitalization, and “Doctor Communication” questions are designed to assess satisfaction with “doctors” collectively.

The Need for Hospitalist-Specific Satisfaction Surveys

So while HCAHPS is not designed to measure hospitalist performance with regard to patient satisfaction, it is a reasonable interim step for hospitals to judge hospitalists according to HCAHPS. However, this should be a bridge to a strategy that adopts hospitalist-specific patient-satisfaction questionnaires in the future and not an end in itself.

Why? Perhaps the biggest reason is that HCAHPS scores are neither specific nor timely enough to form the basis of improvement efforts for hospitalists. If a hospitalist receives a low score on the “Doctor Communication” domain, the scores are likely to be three to nine months old. How can we legitimately assign (and then modify) behaviors based on those scores?

Further, because the survey is not built to measure patient satisfaction specifically with hospitalists, the results are unlikely to engender meaningful and sustained behavior change. Hospitalists I talk to are generally bewildered and confused by HCAHPS scores attributed to them or their groups. Even if they understand the scores, I almost never see true quality improvement (plan-do-study-act) based on specific HCAHPS results. Instead, I see hospitalists trying to adhere to “best practices,” with no adjustments made along the way based on performance.

Nearly all the prominent patient satisfaction vendors have developed a survey instrument specifically designed for hospitalists. Each has an approach to appropriately attribute performance to the hospitalist in question, and each has a battery of questions that is designed to capture patient satisfaction with the hospitalist. Although use of these surveys involves an added financial commitment, I submit that because hospitalists have an unparalleled proximity to hospitalized patients, such an investment is worthy of consideration and has an accompanying business case, thanks to HVBP. The results of these surveys may form the basis of legitimate, targeted feedback to hospitalists, who may then adjust their approach to patient interactions. Such performance improvement should result in improved HCAHPS scores.

In sum, hospitalists should pay close attention to patient satisfaction and embrace HCAHPS. However, we should be looking beyond HCAHPS to survey instruments that fairly and accurately measure our performance. Such surveys will be more widely accepted by the hospitalists they are measuring, and will allow hospitalists to perform meaningful quality improvement based on the results. Although hospitalist-specific surveys will require an investment, the increased patient satisfaction that results should be the basis of a favorable return on that investment.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

Feeling frustrated with your group’s patient-satisfaction performance? Wondering why your chief (fill in the blank) officer glazes over when you try to explain why your hospitalist group’s Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (HCAHPS) scores for doctor communication are in a percentile rivaling the numeric age of your children?

It is likely that the C-suite administrator overseeing your hospitalist group has a portion of their pay based on HCAHPS or other patient-satisfaction (also called patient experience) scores. And for good reason: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program that started Oct. 1, 2012, has placed your hospital’s Medicare reimbursement at risk based on its HCAHPS scores.

HVBP and Patient Satisfaction

Patient satisfaction will remain an important part of HVBP in the coming years. Table 1 (below) shows the domains that will be included in fiscal years 2014 (which starts Oct. 1, 2013), 2015, and 2016. Table 2 (below) depicts the percent weighting the patient-satisfaction domain will receive through 2016. You may recall that HVBP is a program in which all hospitals place 1% to 2% (2013 through 2017, starting at 1% and increasing each year by 0.25% so that by 2017%, it is 2%) of their CMS inpatient payments in a withhold pool and, based on performance, can make back some, all, or an amount in excess of the amount placed in the withhold pool.

click for large version

click for large version

End In Itself

A colleague of mine recently asked, “Is an increase in patient satisfaction associated with higher quality of care and better patient safety?” The point here: It doesn’t matter. Patient satisfaction is an end in itself, and we should strive to maximize it, or at least put ourselves in the place of the patient and design care accordingly.

For Hospitalists: A Starting Point

There is a conundrum for hospitalists vis-à-vis patient satisfaction. Follow this chain of logic: The hospitals at which we work are incented to perform well on the HCAHPS domains. Hospitals pay a lot for hospitalists. Hospitalists can impact many of the HCAHPS domains. So shouldn’t hospitalists be judged according to HCAHPS scores?

Yes and no.

HCAHPS as a survey is intended to measure a patient’s overall experience of receiving care in the hospital. For example, from the “Doctor Communication” domain, we have questions like “how often did doctors treat you with courtesy and respect?” And “how often did doctors explain things in a way you could understand?”

These questions, like all in HCAHPS, are not designed to get at individual doctor performance, or even performance of a group of doctors, such as hospitalists. Instead, they are designed to measure a patient’s overall experience with the hospitalization, and “Doctor Communication” questions are designed to assess satisfaction with “doctors” collectively.

The Need for Hospitalist-Specific Satisfaction Surveys

So while HCAHPS is not designed to measure hospitalist performance with regard to patient satisfaction, it is a reasonable interim step for hospitals to judge hospitalists according to HCAHPS. However, this should be a bridge to a strategy that adopts hospitalist-specific patient-satisfaction questionnaires in the future and not an end in itself.

Why? Perhaps the biggest reason is that HCAHPS scores are neither specific nor timely enough to form the basis of improvement efforts for hospitalists. If a hospitalist receives a low score on the “Doctor Communication” domain, the scores are likely to be three to nine months old. How can we legitimately assign (and then modify) behaviors based on those scores?

Further, because the survey is not built to measure patient satisfaction specifically with hospitalists, the results are unlikely to engender meaningful and sustained behavior change. Hospitalists I talk to are generally bewildered and confused by HCAHPS scores attributed to them or their groups. Even if they understand the scores, I almost never see true quality improvement (plan-do-study-act) based on specific HCAHPS results. Instead, I see hospitalists trying to adhere to “best practices,” with no adjustments made along the way based on performance.

Nearly all the prominent patient satisfaction vendors have developed a survey instrument specifically designed for hospitalists. Each has an approach to appropriately attribute performance to the hospitalist in question, and each has a battery of questions that is designed to capture patient satisfaction with the hospitalist. Although use of these surveys involves an added financial commitment, I submit that because hospitalists have an unparalleled proximity to hospitalized patients, such an investment is worthy of consideration and has an accompanying business case, thanks to HVBP. The results of these surveys may form the basis of legitimate, targeted feedback to hospitalists, who may then adjust their approach to patient interactions. Such performance improvement should result in improved HCAHPS scores.

In sum, hospitalists should pay close attention to patient satisfaction and embrace HCAHPS. However, we should be looking beyond HCAHPS to survey instruments that fairly and accurately measure our performance. Such surveys will be more widely accepted by the hospitalists they are measuring, and will allow hospitalists to perform meaningful quality improvement based on the results. Although hospitalist-specific surveys will require an investment, the increased patient satisfaction that results should be the basis of a favorable return on that investment.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

Feeling frustrated with your group’s patient-satisfaction performance? Wondering why your chief (fill in the blank) officer glazes over when you try to explain why your hospitalist group’s Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (HCAHPS) scores for doctor communication are in a percentile rivaling the numeric age of your children?

It is likely that the C-suite administrator overseeing your hospitalist group has a portion of their pay based on HCAHPS or other patient-satisfaction (also called patient experience) scores. And for good reason: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program that started Oct. 1, 2012, has placed your hospital’s Medicare reimbursement at risk based on its HCAHPS scores.

HVBP and Patient Satisfaction

Patient satisfaction will remain an important part of HVBP in the coming years. Table 1 (below) shows the domains that will be included in fiscal years 2014 (which starts Oct. 1, 2013), 2015, and 2016. Table 2 (below) depicts the percent weighting the patient-satisfaction domain will receive through 2016. You may recall that HVBP is a program in which all hospitals place 1% to 2% (2013 through 2017, starting at 1% and increasing each year by 0.25% so that by 2017%, it is 2%) of their CMS inpatient payments in a withhold pool and, based on performance, can make back some, all, or an amount in excess of the amount placed in the withhold pool.

click for large version

click for large version

End In Itself

A colleague of mine recently asked, “Is an increase in patient satisfaction associated with higher quality of care and better patient safety?” The point here: It doesn’t matter. Patient satisfaction is an end in itself, and we should strive to maximize it, or at least put ourselves in the place of the patient and design care accordingly.

For Hospitalists: A Starting Point

There is a conundrum for hospitalists vis-à-vis patient satisfaction. Follow this chain of logic: The hospitals at which we work are incented to perform well on the HCAHPS domains. Hospitals pay a lot for hospitalists. Hospitalists can impact many of the HCAHPS domains. So shouldn’t hospitalists be judged according to HCAHPS scores?

Yes and no.

HCAHPS as a survey is intended to measure a patient’s overall experience of receiving care in the hospital. For example, from the “Doctor Communication” domain, we have questions like “how often did doctors treat you with courtesy and respect?” And “how often did doctors explain things in a way you could understand?”

These questions, like all in HCAHPS, are not designed to get at individual doctor performance, or even performance of a group of doctors, such as hospitalists. Instead, they are designed to measure a patient’s overall experience with the hospitalization, and “Doctor Communication” questions are designed to assess satisfaction with “doctors” collectively.

The Need for Hospitalist-Specific Satisfaction Surveys

So while HCAHPS is not designed to measure hospitalist performance with regard to patient satisfaction, it is a reasonable interim step for hospitals to judge hospitalists according to HCAHPS. However, this should be a bridge to a strategy that adopts hospitalist-specific patient-satisfaction questionnaires in the future and not an end in itself.

Why? Perhaps the biggest reason is that HCAHPS scores are neither specific nor timely enough to form the basis of improvement efforts for hospitalists. If a hospitalist receives a low score on the “Doctor Communication” domain, the scores are likely to be three to nine months old. How can we legitimately assign (and then modify) behaviors based on those scores?

Further, because the survey is not built to measure patient satisfaction specifically with hospitalists, the results are unlikely to engender meaningful and sustained behavior change. Hospitalists I talk to are generally bewildered and confused by HCAHPS scores attributed to them or their groups. Even if they understand the scores, I almost never see true quality improvement (plan-do-study-act) based on specific HCAHPS results. Instead, I see hospitalists trying to adhere to “best practices,” with no adjustments made along the way based on performance.

Nearly all the prominent patient satisfaction vendors have developed a survey instrument specifically designed for hospitalists. Each has an approach to appropriately attribute performance to the hospitalist in question, and each has a battery of questions that is designed to capture patient satisfaction with the hospitalist. Although use of these surveys involves an added financial commitment, I submit that because hospitalists have an unparalleled proximity to hospitalized patients, such an investment is worthy of consideration and has an accompanying business case, thanks to HVBP. The results of these surveys may form the basis of legitimate, targeted feedback to hospitalists, who may then adjust their approach to patient interactions. Such performance improvement should result in improved HCAHPS scores.

In sum, hospitalists should pay close attention to patient satisfaction and embrace HCAHPS. However, we should be looking beyond HCAHPS to survey instruments that fairly and accurately measure our performance. Such surveys will be more widely accepted by the hospitalists they are measuring, and will allow hospitalists to perform meaningful quality improvement based on the results. Although hospitalist-specific surveys will require an investment, the increased patient satisfaction that results should be the basis of a favorable return on that investment.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

With general agreement that health-care costs in the U.S. are unsustainable, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), and the private sector are embarking on new approaches to cost containment. On the one hand, we have value-based purchasing (VBP), which rests on the existing fee-for-service system and aims for incremental change. On the other hand, we have accountable-care organizations (ACOs), which provide a global payment for a population of patients, and bundled-payment programs, which provide a single payment for an episode of care. These reimbursement models represent a fundamental change in how we pay for health care.

On a broad scale, ACOs may be further along in development than bundled-payment programs, even though pockets of bundling prototypes have existed for years. Examples include the Prometheus payment system, Geisinger’s ProvenCare, and CMS’ Acute Care Episode demonstration project, which bundled Part A (hospital) and Part B (doctors, others) payments for cardiac and orthopedic surgery procedures. Over the past two years, we have seen a dramatic uptick in bundling activity, including programs in a number of states (including Arkansas, California, and Massachusetts). Here at Baystate Health in Massachusetts, we kicked off a total-hip-replacement bundle with our subsidiary health plan in January 2011.

Perhaps most notably, bundled payments are part of the Affordable Care Act. The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative, launched earlier this year by CMMI, is enrolling traditional Medicare patients in bundled-payment programs across the country at more than 400 health systems.

How Bundled Payments Work

Bundled-payment programs provide a single payment to hospitals, doctors, post-acute providers, and other providers (for home care, lab, medical equipment, etc.) for a defined episode of care. Most bundles encompass at least an acute hospital episode and physician payments for the episode; many include some period after hospitalization, covering rehabilitation at a facility or at home and doctors’ visits during recovery. Bundling goes beyond Medicare’s diagnosis-related group (DRG) payments, which reimburse hospitals for all elements of an inpatient hospital stay for a given diagnosis but do not include services performed by nonhospital providers.

How do the finances work in a bundled-payment program? A single price for an episode of care is determined based on historical performance, factoring in all the services one wishes to include in a bundle (e.g. hospital, doctor visits in hospital, home physical therapy, follow-up doctor visits, follow up X-ray and labs for a defined time period). If the hospital, doctors, and others in the bundle generate new efficiencies in care (e.g. due to better care coordination, less wasteful test ordering, or lower implant/device costs), the savings are then distributed to these providers. What if spending exceeds the predetermined price? In some instances, the health plan bears the financial risk; in other instances, the hospital, physicians, and other bundle providers must pay back the shortfall. Important to note is that all sharing of savings is contingent on attainment of or improvement in demonstrated quality-of-care measures relevant to the bundle. In the future, bundling will evolve from shared savings to a single prospective payment for a care episode.

For now, most bundles encompass surgical procedures, although CMMI is working with health systems on several medical bundles, including acute MI, COPD, and stroke. All of these bundles are initiated by an acute hospitalization. Other types of bundles exist, such as with chronic conditions or with post-acute care only. In Massachusetts, a pediatric asthma bundle is being implemented through Medicaid, covering that population for a year or longer. The aim is to redirect dollars that normally would pay for ED visits and inpatient care to pay for interventions that promote better control of the disease and prevent acute flare-ups that lead to hospital visits.

How Hospitalists Fit In

To date, there has been little discussion of how physicians other than the surgeons doing the procedure (most bundles are for surgeries) fit into the clinical or financial model underpinning the program. However, with most patients in surgical or medical bundles being discharged to home, we now recognize that primary-care physicians (PCPs) will be essential to the success of a bundle.

Similarly, with medically complex patients enrolling in surgical bundles, hospitalists will be essential to the pre- and perioperative care of these patients. Also, transitioning bundle patients to home or to a rehabilitation will benefit from the involvement of a hospitalist.

What You Can Do Today

Although this might seem abstract for hospitalists practicing in the here and now, there are compelling opportunities for hospitalists who get involved in bundled-payment programs. Here’s what I suggest:

Find out if your hospital or post-acute facility is participating in bundling by looking at a map of CMMI bundle programs here: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/bundled-payments;

• Get a seat at the table working on the bundle; and
• Negotiate a portion of the bundle’s shared savings on the basis of 1) increased efficiency and quality resulting from hospitalist involvement and 2) hospitalist direct oversight of bundled patients in post-acute facilities (if you choose).

Post-acute care may be new for your hospitalist program. Bundling programs are an important new business case for hospitalists in this setting.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

With general agreement that health-care costs in the U.S. are unsustainable, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), and the private sector are embarking on new approaches to cost containment. On the one hand, we have value-based purchasing (VBP), which rests on the existing fee-for-service system and aims for incremental change. On the other hand, we have accountable-care organizations (ACOs), which provide a global payment for a population of patients, and bundled-payment programs, which provide a single payment for an episode of care. These reimbursement models represent a fundamental change in how we pay for health care.

On a broad scale, ACOs may be further along in development than bundled-payment programs, even though pockets of bundling prototypes have existed for years. Examples include the Prometheus payment system, Geisinger’s ProvenCare, and CMS’ Acute Care Episode demonstration project, which bundled Part A (hospital) and Part B (doctors, others) payments for cardiac and orthopedic surgery procedures. Over the past two years, we have seen a dramatic uptick in bundling activity, including programs in a number of states (including Arkansas, California, and Massachusetts). Here at Baystate Health in Massachusetts, we kicked off a total-hip-replacement bundle with our subsidiary health plan in January 2011.

Perhaps most notably, bundled payments are part of the Affordable Care Act. The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative, launched earlier this year by CMMI, is enrolling traditional Medicare patients in bundled-payment programs across the country at more than 400 health systems.

How Bundled Payments Work

Bundled-payment programs provide a single payment to hospitals, doctors, post-acute providers, and other providers (for home care, lab, medical equipment, etc.) for a defined episode of care. Most bundles encompass at least an acute hospital episode and physician payments for the episode; many include some period after hospitalization, covering rehabilitation at a facility or at home and doctors’ visits during recovery. Bundling goes beyond Medicare’s diagnosis-related group (DRG) payments, which reimburse hospitals for all elements of an inpatient hospital stay for a given diagnosis but do not include services performed by nonhospital providers.

How do the finances work in a bundled-payment program? A single price for an episode of care is determined based on historical performance, factoring in all the services one wishes to include in a bundle (e.g. hospital, doctor visits in hospital, home physical therapy, follow-up doctor visits, follow up X-ray and labs for a defined time period). If the hospital, doctors, and others in the bundle generate new efficiencies in care (e.g. due to better care coordination, less wasteful test ordering, or lower implant/device costs), the savings are then distributed to these providers. What if spending exceeds the predetermined price? In some instances, the health plan bears the financial risk; in other instances, the hospital, physicians, and other bundle providers must pay back the shortfall. Important to note is that all sharing of savings is contingent on attainment of or improvement in demonstrated quality-of-care measures relevant to the bundle. In the future, bundling will evolve from shared savings to a single prospective payment for a care episode.

For now, most bundles encompass surgical procedures, although CMMI is working with health systems on several medical bundles, including acute MI, COPD, and stroke. All of these bundles are initiated by an acute hospitalization. Other types of bundles exist, such as with chronic conditions or with post-acute care only. In Massachusetts, a pediatric asthma bundle is being implemented through Medicaid, covering that population for a year or longer. The aim is to redirect dollars that normally would pay for ED visits and inpatient care to pay for interventions that promote better control of the disease and prevent acute flare-ups that lead to hospital visits.

How Hospitalists Fit In

To date, there has been little discussion of how physicians other than the surgeons doing the procedure (most bundles are for surgeries) fit into the clinical or financial model underpinning the program. However, with most patients in surgical or medical bundles being discharged to home, we now recognize that primary-care physicians (PCPs) will be essential to the success of a bundle.

Similarly, with medically complex patients enrolling in surgical bundles, hospitalists will be essential to the pre- and perioperative care of these patients. Also, transitioning bundle patients to home or to a rehabilitation will benefit from the involvement of a hospitalist.

What You Can Do Today

Although this might seem abstract for hospitalists practicing in the here and now, there are compelling opportunities for hospitalists who get involved in bundled-payment programs. Here’s what I suggest:

Find out if your hospital or post-acute facility is participating in bundling by looking at a map of CMMI bundle programs here: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/bundled-payments;

• Get a seat at the table working on the bundle; and
• Negotiate a portion of the bundle’s shared savings on the basis of 1) increased efficiency and quality resulting from hospitalist involvement and 2) hospitalist direct oversight of bundled patients in post-acute facilities (if you choose).

Post-acute care may be new for your hospitalist program. Bundling programs are an important new business case for hospitalists in this setting.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

With general agreement that health-care costs in the U.S. are unsustainable, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), and the private sector are embarking on new approaches to cost containment. On the one hand, we have value-based purchasing (VBP), which rests on the existing fee-for-service system and aims for incremental change. On the other hand, we have accountable-care organizations (ACOs), which provide a global payment for a population of patients, and bundled-payment programs, which provide a single payment for an episode of care. These reimbursement models represent a fundamental change in how we pay for health care.

On a broad scale, ACOs may be further along in development than bundled-payment programs, even though pockets of bundling prototypes have existed for years. Examples include the Prometheus payment system, Geisinger’s ProvenCare, and CMS’ Acute Care Episode demonstration project, which bundled Part A (hospital) and Part B (doctors, others) payments for cardiac and orthopedic surgery procedures. Over the past two years, we have seen a dramatic uptick in bundling activity, including programs in a number of states (including Arkansas, California, and Massachusetts). Here at Baystate Health in Massachusetts, we kicked off a total-hip-replacement bundle with our subsidiary health plan in January 2011.

Perhaps most notably, bundled payments are part of the Affordable Care Act. The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiative, launched earlier this year by CMMI, is enrolling traditional Medicare patients in bundled-payment programs across the country at more than 400 health systems.

How Bundled Payments Work

Bundled-payment programs provide a single payment to hospitals, doctors, post-acute providers, and other providers (for home care, lab, medical equipment, etc.) for a defined episode of care. Most bundles encompass at least an acute hospital episode and physician payments for the episode; many include some period after hospitalization, covering rehabilitation at a facility or at home and doctors’ visits during recovery. Bundling goes beyond Medicare’s diagnosis-related group (DRG) payments, which reimburse hospitals for all elements of an inpatient hospital stay for a given diagnosis but do not include services performed by nonhospital providers.

How do the finances work in a bundled-payment program? A single price for an episode of care is determined based on historical performance, factoring in all the services one wishes to include in a bundle (e.g. hospital, doctor visits in hospital, home physical therapy, follow-up doctor visits, follow up X-ray and labs for a defined time period). If the hospital, doctors, and others in the bundle generate new efficiencies in care (e.g. due to better care coordination, less wasteful test ordering, or lower implant/device costs), the savings are then distributed to these providers. What if spending exceeds the predetermined price? In some instances, the health plan bears the financial risk; in other instances, the hospital, physicians, and other bundle providers must pay back the shortfall. Important to note is that all sharing of savings is contingent on attainment of or improvement in demonstrated quality-of-care measures relevant to the bundle. In the future, bundling will evolve from shared savings to a single prospective payment for a care episode.

For now, most bundles encompass surgical procedures, although CMMI is working with health systems on several medical bundles, including acute MI, COPD, and stroke. All of these bundles are initiated by an acute hospitalization. Other types of bundles exist, such as with chronic conditions or with post-acute care only. In Massachusetts, a pediatric asthma bundle is being implemented through Medicaid, covering that population for a year or longer. The aim is to redirect dollars that normally would pay for ED visits and inpatient care to pay for interventions that promote better control of the disease and prevent acute flare-ups that lead to hospital visits.

How Hospitalists Fit In

To date, there has been little discussion of how physicians other than the surgeons doing the procedure (most bundles are for surgeries) fit into the clinical or financial model underpinning the program. However, with most patients in surgical or medical bundles being discharged to home, we now recognize that primary-care physicians (PCPs) will be essential to the success of a bundle.

Similarly, with medically complex patients enrolling in surgical bundles, hospitalists will be essential to the pre- and perioperative care of these patients. Also, transitioning bundle patients to home or to a rehabilitation will benefit from the involvement of a hospitalist.

What You Can Do Today

Although this might seem abstract for hospitalists practicing in the here and now, there are compelling opportunities for hospitalists who get involved in bundled-payment programs. Here’s what I suggest:

Find out if your hospital or post-acute facility is participating in bundling by looking at a map of CMMI bundle programs here: http://innovation.cms.gov/initiatives/bundled-payments;

• Get a seat at the table working on the bundle; and
• Negotiate a portion of the bundle’s shared savings on the basis of 1) increased efficiency and quality resulting from hospitalist involvement and 2) hospitalist direct oversight of bundled patients in post-acute facilities (if you choose).

Post-acute care may be new for your hospitalist program. Bundling programs are an important new business case for hospitalists in this setting.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

Dr. Holbrook

The steam engine. The telephone. Television. ATMs. The Internet. Smartphones. The 24/7 hospitalist program.

Perhaps the single most important innovation along the road to where we are now in HM has been the development of the hospital-sponsored, 24/7, on-site hospitalist program. And the father of this invention may be the most significant figure in HM you’ve never heard of: John Holbrook, MD, FACEP. An emergency-medicine physician since the mid-1970s, Dr. Holbrook did something in July 1993 that was considered off the wall, yet proved to be revolutionary: From nothing, he launched a 24/7 hospitalist program staffed with board-eligible and board-certified internists at Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Mass. The inpatient physicians (this was before the word “hospitalist” came to be) were employed by a subsidiary of the hospital and worked in place of community primary-care physicians (PCPs), taking care of hospitalized patients who did not have a PCP, or whose PCP chose not to come to the hospital.

Of great significance, from the beginning, and perhaps by unintentional design, these physicians were agents of change and improvement for the hospital itself.

To be sure, in places like Southern California, 24/7, on-site hospitalist programs were in place in the late 1980s. Some claim those programs may have been the birthplace of the hospitalist model. However, such programs came to be in order to help medical groups manage full capitated risk delegated to them from HMOs on a population of patients, and were not supported by the hospital, per se. This is distinct from hospitalist programs—such as Mercy’s—sponsored by hospitals (whether employed or contracted) in predominantly fee-for-service markets, which then comprised the lion’s share of the U.S. market.

I had the extraordinary good fortune to happen along in July 1994, get hired by Dr. Holbrook, and soon after begin serving as medical director for the Mercy program, which I would do for the next decade. To this day, Dr. Holbrook is a mentor and trusted advisor to me. I caught up with him in recognition of the 20th anniversary of the Mercy Inpatient Medicine Service.

Dr. Holbrook

Question: What gave you the idea to launch what was, at the time, considered such an unconventional program?

Answer: Before the specialty of emergency medicine, a patient’s private physician would be called in most cases when a patient present in the ED: 25 or 50 doctors might be called over 24 hours, each to see one patient each. The inefficiency and disruption caused by this system was a natural and logical stimulus to develop the specialty of emergency medicine. I saw hospitalist medicine as an exact analogy.

Q: What were you observing in the healthcare environment that drove you to create the Mercy Inpatient Medicine Service?

A: Working for many years in the emergency department of a community hospital without a house staff, the ED docs would admit a patient at night or on the weekend and the attending physician would often plan to see the patient “in the morning.” When the patient would decompensate in the middle of the night, the ED doc would get a call to run to the floor to “Band-Aid” the situation.

Q: How did you convince the board of trustees to fund it?

A: The reasons were primarily economic. No. 1, the hospital was losing market share because local physicians would prefer to admit to the teaching hospital [a nearby competitor], where they were not required to come in during the middle of the night. No. 2, the cost of a hospitalization managed by a hospitalist was less expensive than either a hospital stay managed by house staff or managed over the telephone by a private attending at home.

Q: What was the most difficult operational challenge for the program?

A: Effective and timely communication with the community physicians was the most difficult operational challenge. Access to outpatient medical treatment immediately prior to a hospitalization and timely communication to the community physician were both challenges that we never adequately solved in the early days. I understand that these issues can still be problematic.

Q: How was it received by patients?

A: Overall, patients were very happy with the system. In the old system, with a typical four-physician practice, a patient had only a 1 in 4 chance of being admitted by the doctor who was familiar with the case. The fact that the hospitalist was available in the hospital made the improvement in quality apparent to most patients.

Q: How did you get the medical staff to buy into the program?

A: I personally visited every private physician who participated. Physicians were given the option of not participating, or of part-time participation—for example, on weekends or holidays only. The word spread. Physicians came up to me and told me that the program enabled them to continue practicing for another five years. Physicians’ spouses thanked me.

Q: Are you surprised HM as a field has grown so quickly?

A: I am not really that surprised. It is a better way to organize health care. I am surprised that it did not occur sooner. We talked about instituting this system for 10 years before 1993.

Q: What big challenges remain for hospital medicine? What are some solutions?

A: I believe that the biggest global challenge for hospital medicine remains communication with community-based providers, both before the hospitalization as well as during hospitalization and immediately after discharge. In the era of the EMR, the Internet, and the iPhone and Android, this should be easier. HIPAA has not helped.

The other growing challenge will become apparent as hospitalists age in the profession: Disruption of the diurnal sleep cycle becomes increasingly problematic for many physicians after the age of 50 and can easily lead to burnout. The early hospitalists were all in their 30s. The attractive lifestyle choice for the 30-year-old can lead to burnout for the 55-year-old. The emergency-medicine literature has noted a similar problem of shift work/sleep fragmentation.

Final Thoughts

I believe Dr. Holbrook’s assessments on the future of our specialty are on target. As HM continues to mature, we need to continue to focus on how we communicate with providers outside the four walls of the hospital and how to address barriers to making HM a sustainable career.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

(Editor's note: Updated July 12, 2013.)

Dr. Holbrook

The steam engine. The telephone. Television. ATMs. The Internet. Smartphones. The 24/7 hospitalist program.

Perhaps the single most important innovation along the road to where we are now in HM has been the development of the hospital-sponsored, 24/7, on-site hospitalist program. And the father of this invention may be the most significant figure in HM you’ve never heard of: John Holbrook, MD, FACEP. An emergency-medicine physician since the mid-1970s, Dr. Holbrook did something in July 1993 that was considered off the wall, yet proved to be revolutionary: From nothing, he launched a 24/7 hospitalist program staffed with board-eligible and board-certified internists at Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Mass. The inpatient physicians (this was before the word “hospitalist” came to be) were employed by a subsidiary of the hospital and worked in place of community primary-care physicians (PCPs), taking care of hospitalized patients who did not have a PCP, or whose PCP chose not to come to the hospital.

Of great significance, from the beginning, and perhaps by unintentional design, these physicians were agents of change and improvement for the hospital itself.

To be sure, in places like Southern California, 24/7, on-site hospitalist programs were in place in the late 1980s. Some claim those programs may have been the birthplace of the hospitalist model. However, such programs came to be in order to help medical groups manage full capitated risk delegated to them from HMOs on a population of patients, and were not supported by the hospital, per se. This is distinct from hospitalist programs—such as Mercy’s—sponsored by hospitals (whether employed or contracted) in predominantly fee-for-service markets, which then comprised the lion’s share of the U.S. market.

I had the extraordinary good fortune to happen along in July 1994, get hired by Dr. Holbrook, and soon after begin serving as medical director for the Mercy program, which I would do for the next decade. To this day, Dr. Holbrook is a mentor and trusted advisor to me. I caught up with him in recognition of the 20th anniversary of the Mercy Inpatient Medicine Service.

Dr. Holbrook

Question: What gave you the idea to launch what was, at the time, considered such an unconventional program?

Answer: Before the specialty of emergency medicine, a patient’s private physician would be called in most cases when a patient present in the ED: 25 or 50 doctors might be called over 24 hours, each to see one patient each. The inefficiency and disruption caused by this system was a natural and logical stimulus to develop the specialty of emergency medicine. I saw hospitalist medicine as an exact analogy.

Q: What were you observing in the healthcare environment that drove you to create the Mercy Inpatient Medicine Service?

A: Working for many years in the emergency department of a community hospital without a house staff, the ED docs would admit a patient at night or on the weekend and the attending physician would often plan to see the patient “in the morning.” When the patient would decompensate in the middle of the night, the ED doc would get a call to run to the floor to “Band-Aid” the situation.

Q: How did you convince the board of trustees to fund it?

A: The reasons were primarily economic. No. 1, the hospital was losing market share because local physicians would prefer to admit to the teaching hospital [a nearby competitor], where they were not required to come in during the middle of the night. No. 2, the cost of a hospitalization managed by a hospitalist was less expensive than either a hospital stay managed by house staff or managed over the telephone by a private attending at home.

Q: What was the most difficult operational challenge for the program?

A: Effective and timely communication with the community physicians was the most difficult operational challenge. Access to outpatient medical treatment immediately prior to a hospitalization and timely communication to the community physician were both challenges that we never adequately solved in the early days. I understand that these issues can still be problematic.

Q: How was it received by patients?

A: Overall, patients were very happy with the system. In the old system, with a typical four-physician practice, a patient had only a 1 in 4 chance of being admitted by the doctor who was familiar with the case. The fact that the hospitalist was available in the hospital made the improvement in quality apparent to most patients.

Q: How did you get the medical staff to buy into the program?

A: I personally visited every private physician who participated. Physicians were given the option of not participating, or of part-time participation—for example, on weekends or holidays only. The word spread. Physicians came up to me and told me that the program enabled them to continue practicing for another five years. Physicians’ spouses thanked me.

Q: Are you surprised HM as a field has grown so quickly?

A: I am not really that surprised. It is a better way to organize health care. I am surprised that it did not occur sooner. We talked about instituting this system for 10 years before 1993.

Q: What big challenges remain for hospital medicine? What are some solutions?

A: I believe that the biggest global challenge for hospital medicine remains communication with community-based providers, both before the hospitalization as well as during hospitalization and immediately after discharge. In the era of the EMR, the Internet, and the iPhone and Android, this should be easier. HIPAA has not helped.

The other growing challenge will become apparent as hospitalists age in the profession: Disruption of the diurnal sleep cycle becomes increasingly problematic for many physicians after the age of 50 and can easily lead to burnout. The early hospitalists were all in their 30s. The attractive lifestyle choice for the 30-year-old can lead to burnout for the 55-year-old. The emergency-medicine literature has noted a similar problem of shift work/sleep fragmentation.

Final Thoughts

I believe Dr. Holbrook’s assessments on the future of our specialty are on target. As HM continues to mature, we need to continue to focus on how we communicate with providers outside the four walls of the hospital and how to address barriers to making HM a sustainable career.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

(Editor's note: Updated July 12, 2013.)

Dr. Holbrook

The steam engine. The telephone. Television. ATMs. The Internet. Smartphones. The 24/7 hospitalist program.

Perhaps the single most important innovation along the road to where we are now in HM has been the development of the hospital-sponsored, 24/7, on-site hospitalist program. And the father of this invention may be the most significant figure in HM you’ve never heard of: John Holbrook, MD, FACEP. An emergency-medicine physician since the mid-1970s, Dr. Holbrook did something in July 1993 that was considered off the wall, yet proved to be revolutionary: From nothing, he launched a 24/7 hospitalist program staffed with board-eligible and board-certified internists at Mercy Hospital in Springfield, Mass. The inpatient physicians (this was before the word “hospitalist” came to be) were employed by a subsidiary of the hospital and worked in place of community primary-care physicians (PCPs), taking care of hospitalized patients who did not have a PCP, or whose PCP chose not to come to the hospital.

Of great significance, from the beginning, and perhaps by unintentional design, these physicians were agents of change and improvement for the hospital itself.

To be sure, in places like Southern California, 24/7, on-site hospitalist programs were in place in the late 1980s. Some claim those programs may have been the birthplace of the hospitalist model. However, such programs came to be in order to help medical groups manage full capitated risk delegated to them from HMOs on a population of patients, and were not supported by the hospital, per se. This is distinct from hospitalist programs—such as Mercy’s—sponsored by hospitals (whether employed or contracted) in predominantly fee-for-service markets, which then comprised the lion’s share of the U.S. market.

I had the extraordinary good fortune to happen along in July 1994, get hired by Dr. Holbrook, and soon after begin serving as medical director for the Mercy program, which I would do for the next decade. To this day, Dr. Holbrook is a mentor and trusted advisor to me. I caught up with him in recognition of the 20th anniversary of the Mercy Inpatient Medicine Service.

Dr. Holbrook

Question: What gave you the idea to launch what was, at the time, considered such an unconventional program?

Answer: Before the specialty of emergency medicine, a patient’s private physician would be called in most cases when a patient present in the ED: 25 or 50 doctors might be called over 24 hours, each to see one patient each. The inefficiency and disruption caused by this system was a natural and logical stimulus to develop the specialty of emergency medicine. I saw hospitalist medicine as an exact analogy.

Q: What were you observing in the healthcare environment that drove you to create the Mercy Inpatient Medicine Service?

A: Working for many years in the emergency department of a community hospital without a house staff, the ED docs would admit a patient at night or on the weekend and the attending physician would often plan to see the patient “in the morning.” When the patient would decompensate in the middle of the night, the ED doc would get a call to run to the floor to “Band-Aid” the situation.

Q: How did you convince the board of trustees to fund it?

A: The reasons were primarily economic. No. 1, the hospital was losing market share because local physicians would prefer to admit to the teaching hospital [a nearby competitor], where they were not required to come in during the middle of the night. No. 2, the cost of a hospitalization managed by a hospitalist was less expensive than either a hospital stay managed by house staff or managed over the telephone by a private attending at home.

Q: What was the most difficult operational challenge for the program?

A: Effective and timely communication with the community physicians was the most difficult operational challenge. Access to outpatient medical treatment immediately prior to a hospitalization and timely communication to the community physician were both challenges that we never adequately solved in the early days. I understand that these issues can still be problematic.

Q: How was it received by patients?

A: Overall, patients were very happy with the system. In the old system, with a typical four-physician practice, a patient had only a 1 in 4 chance of being admitted by the doctor who was familiar with the case. The fact that the hospitalist was available in the hospital made the improvement in quality apparent to most patients.

Q: How did you get the medical staff to buy into the program?

A: I personally visited every private physician who participated. Physicians were given the option of not participating, or of part-time participation—for example, on weekends or holidays only. The word spread. Physicians came up to me and told me that the program enabled them to continue practicing for another five years. Physicians’ spouses thanked me.

Q: Are you surprised HM as a field has grown so quickly?

A: I am not really that surprised. It is a better way to organize health care. I am surprised that it did not occur sooner. We talked about instituting this system for 10 years before 1993.

Q: What big challenges remain for hospital medicine? What are some solutions?

A: I believe that the biggest global challenge for hospital medicine remains communication with community-based providers, both before the hospitalization as well as during hospitalization and immediately after discharge. In the era of the EMR, the Internet, and the iPhone and Android, this should be easier. HIPAA has not helped.

The other growing challenge will become apparent as hospitalists age in the profession: Disruption of the diurnal sleep cycle becomes increasingly problematic for many physicians after the age of 50 and can easily lead to burnout. The early hospitalists were all in their 30s. The attractive lifestyle choice for the 30-year-old can lead to burnout for the 55-year-old. The emergency-medicine literature has noted a similar problem of shift work/sleep fragmentation.

Final Thoughts

I believe Dr. Holbrook’s assessments on the future of our specialty are on target. As HM continues to mature, we need to continue to focus on how we communicate with providers outside the four walls of the hospital and how to address barriers to making HM a sustainable career.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

(Editor's note: Updated July 12, 2013.)

click for large version

SHM has gotten behind the Choosing Wisely campaign in a big way. Earlier this year, SHM announced lists of suggested practices for adult and pediatric hospital medicine (see Table 1). To keep it on the front burner, hospitalists John Bulger and Ian Jenkins held a pre-course at HM13 devoted entirely to quality-improvement (QI) approaches to implementing and sustaining the practices outlined in the campaign. During the main meeting, they did an encore presentation, with Doug Carlson and Ricardo Quinonez presenting the elements of Choosing Wisely for pediatric hospital medicine.

The widely publicized campaign arose from an American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation grant program to “facilitate the development of innovative, emerging strategies to advance appropriate health-care decision-making and stewardship of health-care resources.” (For more information, visit www.abimfoundation.org.)

Adoption of many of the suggested Choosing Wisely practices will require a change in deeply ingrained, habitual behaviors. We assert that rational, reflective, cognitive processes might not be enough to overturn these behaviors, and that we must look to other mental systems to achieve the consistent adoption of the campaign’s suggested practices. An analogy exists in economics, where theories behind classical economics are challenged by behavioral economics.

What is behavioral economics? Classical economics asserts the individual as “homo economicus”: a person making rational, predictable decisions to advance their interests. However, due to social or professional influence, behavior often does not comport to expected ends. We succumb, sympathize, or follow the pack, diverging from the rulebook. Behavioral economics attempts to understand and compensate for these deviations.

In medicine, we often yield to cognitive biases. To simplify decision-making, we generalize our observations to arrive at decisions quickly. Daniel Kahneman, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, describes Type I thinking as fast and automatic, and Type II thinking as slow and effortful. Using Kahneman’s framework, we attempt to understand where reasoning may stray and, in turn, introduce environmental changes to achieve better outcomes.

How does this relate to Choosing Wisely? Embracing and embedding the practices of the Choosing Wisely campaign in day-to-day practice will require change in how we approach the clinical decisions we make each day. How can we create the conditions so as not to yield to the status quo?

The MINDSPACE framework

King et al in a recent Health Affairs article describe the MINDSPACE framework (see Table 2), which captures nine effects on behavior—messenger, incentives, norms, defaults, salience, priming, affect, commitments, and ego—that mostly involve automatic systems (Kahneman’s Type I), and how we can leverage them to minimize ineffective health care.¹ Below, we describe Choosing Wisely’s HM components and how MINDSPACE can help promote better practice.

click for large version

Messenger refers to the importance we place on the source of information conveyed to us. In the campaign, the ABIM Foundation engaged professional societies to come up with a list of specialty-specific practices. We know physicians pay more attention to messages from professional societies than, for example, insurance companies. Having the chair of medicine, the chief of hospital medicine, or the vice president of quality officially sanction the campaign’s practices at your organization leverages messengers.

Incentives, while widely used in health care, have had mixed results in terms of their utility in improving outcomes. People are loss-averse, and behavioral economics leverages that finding, which means incentives structured as penalties seem to have more powerful effects than bonuses. While the familiar pay-for-performance programs might not yield desired results, the evidence base continues to grow, and we have lots to learn. Does a 2% bonus change culture? What would really facilitate modifications in your test ordering patterns?

Norms, or what we perceive as the views of the majority, shape our behavior. How do we establish new ones? We all know the axiom “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” and, like patterned antibiotic administration, redirecting behavior requires examination of why we order items. Often, we order not because the drug combination conforms to standards, but because our training programs imbue us with less-than-ideal habits. These habits become standards, and their root causes require layered examination.

Defaults suggest that we are more likely to embrace a certain behavior if we otherwise need to “opt out” to avoid the behavior. We know that, for example, automatic enrollment in retirement savings plans has dramatically increased participation in such programs. For the Choosing Wisely campaign, the suggested practices should be set up as the default option. Examples include appropriate auto-stop orders for urinary catheters, telemetry, oximetry, or the requirement for added clicks to order daily CBCs. Think about ED orders and how they become substitute defaults once patients arrive on the wards. How do you disrupt the inertia?

Salience is when an individual makes a decision based on what is novel or what their attention is drawn to. Anticipating what subspecialists might expect, what your CMO demands, or what trainees envisage in their supervising attendings all may subconsciously override best judgment and deter best practice.

Priming describes how simple cues—often detected by our subconscious—influence decisions we make. When a physician, perhaps out of concern but often due to poorly reasoned or cavalier messaging, scribes “consider test X,” we involuntarily complete the act. We assume, because of the prime, that we need to act accordingly.

Affect is when we rely on gut feelings to make decisions. Emotions guide our ordering a urinary catheter for incontinence or transfusing to a HGB of 10, even when evidence contradicts what we might know as correct. Countering these actions requires credible stops to convert our emotions to reason (think clinical decision support with teeth).

Commitments are made in advance of an undertaking, behavioral economics suggests, as a way to combat the moment when willpower fails and desired behaviors go by the wayside. By publically signing a contract, in front of your group, chair, or medical director, and going on record as having pledged something, chances of success increase.

Ego, which underpins the need for a positive self-image, can drive the kind of automatic behavior that enables one to compare favorably to others. This effect has driven much of the motivation to perform well on public reporting of hospital quality measures. But ideal reporting of results must be valid; otherwise, attribution of subpar outcomes justifies the usual refrains of “not my responsibility” or the “system needs fixing, not me.”

Conclusions

Choosing Wisely is an ambitious undertaking made up of more than 90 suggested best practices put forth by 25 medical societies. In their book “Nudge,” authors Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein describe how automatic behaviors arise from the environment or context in which choices to engage in such behaviors are presented.² For the Choosing Wisely campaign to have staying power, we submit that institutional leaders and front-line clinicians will need to create a context where the safest, most cost-effective choices are the automatic, or nearly automatic, ones.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected]. Dr. Flansbaum is director of hospitalist services at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and an SHM Public Policy Committee member.

References

1. King D, Greaves F, Vlaev I, Darzi A. Approaches based on behavioral economics could help nudge patients and providers toward lower health spending growth. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(4):661-668.
2. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 2008.

click for large version

SHM has gotten behind the Choosing Wisely campaign in a big way. Earlier this year, SHM announced lists of suggested practices for adult and pediatric hospital medicine (see Table 1). To keep it on the front burner, hospitalists John Bulger and Ian Jenkins held a pre-course at HM13 devoted entirely to quality-improvement (QI) approaches to implementing and sustaining the practices outlined in the campaign. During the main meeting, they did an encore presentation, with Doug Carlson and Ricardo Quinonez presenting the elements of Choosing Wisely for pediatric hospital medicine.

The widely publicized campaign arose from an American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation grant program to “facilitate the development of innovative, emerging strategies to advance appropriate health-care decision-making and stewardship of health-care resources.” (For more information, visit www.abimfoundation.org.)

Adoption of many of the suggested Choosing Wisely practices will require a change in deeply ingrained, habitual behaviors. We assert that rational, reflective, cognitive processes might not be enough to overturn these behaviors, and that we must look to other mental systems to achieve the consistent adoption of the campaign’s suggested practices. An analogy exists in economics, where theories behind classical economics are challenged by behavioral economics.

What is behavioral economics? Classical economics asserts the individual as “homo economicus”: a person making rational, predictable decisions to advance their interests. However, due to social or professional influence, behavior often does not comport to expected ends. We succumb, sympathize, or follow the pack, diverging from the rulebook. Behavioral economics attempts to understand and compensate for these deviations.

In medicine, we often yield to cognitive biases. To simplify decision-making, we generalize our observations to arrive at decisions quickly. Daniel Kahneman, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, describes Type I thinking as fast and automatic, and Type II thinking as slow and effortful. Using Kahneman’s framework, we attempt to understand where reasoning may stray and, in turn, introduce environmental changes to achieve better outcomes.

How does this relate to Choosing Wisely? Embracing and embedding the practices of the Choosing Wisely campaign in day-to-day practice will require change in how we approach the clinical decisions we make each day. How can we create the conditions so as not to yield to the status quo?

The MINDSPACE framework

King et al in a recent Health Affairs article describe the MINDSPACE framework (see Table 2), which captures nine effects on behavior—messenger, incentives, norms, defaults, salience, priming, affect, commitments, and ego—that mostly involve automatic systems (Kahneman’s Type I), and how we can leverage them to minimize ineffective health care.¹ Below, we describe Choosing Wisely’s HM components and how MINDSPACE can help promote better practice.

click for large version

Messenger refers to the importance we place on the source of information conveyed to us. In the campaign, the ABIM Foundation engaged professional societies to come up with a list of specialty-specific practices. We know physicians pay more attention to messages from professional societies than, for example, insurance companies. Having the chair of medicine, the chief of hospital medicine, or the vice president of quality officially sanction the campaign’s practices at your organization leverages messengers.

Incentives, while widely used in health care, have had mixed results in terms of their utility in improving outcomes. People are loss-averse, and behavioral economics leverages that finding, which means incentives structured as penalties seem to have more powerful effects than bonuses. While the familiar pay-for-performance programs might not yield desired results, the evidence base continues to grow, and we have lots to learn. Does a 2% bonus change culture? What would really facilitate modifications in your test ordering patterns?

Norms, or what we perceive as the views of the majority, shape our behavior. How do we establish new ones? We all know the axiom “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” and, like patterned antibiotic administration, redirecting behavior requires examination of why we order items. Often, we order not because the drug combination conforms to standards, but because our training programs imbue us with less-than-ideal habits. These habits become standards, and their root causes require layered examination.

Defaults suggest that we are more likely to embrace a certain behavior if we otherwise need to “opt out” to avoid the behavior. We know that, for example, automatic enrollment in retirement savings plans has dramatically increased participation in such programs. For the Choosing Wisely campaign, the suggested practices should be set up as the default option. Examples include appropriate auto-stop orders for urinary catheters, telemetry, oximetry, or the requirement for added clicks to order daily CBCs. Think about ED orders and how they become substitute defaults once patients arrive on the wards. How do you disrupt the inertia?

Salience is when an individual makes a decision based on what is novel or what their attention is drawn to. Anticipating what subspecialists might expect, what your CMO demands, or what trainees envisage in their supervising attendings all may subconsciously override best judgment and deter best practice.

Priming describes how simple cues—often detected by our subconscious—influence decisions we make. When a physician, perhaps out of concern but often due to poorly reasoned or cavalier messaging, scribes “consider test X,” we involuntarily complete the act. We assume, because of the prime, that we need to act accordingly.

Affect is when we rely on gut feelings to make decisions. Emotions guide our ordering a urinary catheter for incontinence or transfusing to a HGB of 10, even when evidence contradicts what we might know as correct. Countering these actions requires credible stops to convert our emotions to reason (think clinical decision support with teeth).

Commitments are made in advance of an undertaking, behavioral economics suggests, as a way to combat the moment when willpower fails and desired behaviors go by the wayside. By publically signing a contract, in front of your group, chair, or medical director, and going on record as having pledged something, chances of success increase.

Ego, which underpins the need for a positive self-image, can drive the kind of automatic behavior that enables one to compare favorably to others. This effect has driven much of the motivation to perform well on public reporting of hospital quality measures. But ideal reporting of results must be valid; otherwise, attribution of subpar outcomes justifies the usual refrains of “not my responsibility” or the “system needs fixing, not me.”

Conclusions

Choosing Wisely is an ambitious undertaking made up of more than 90 suggested best practices put forth by 25 medical societies. In their book “Nudge,” authors Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein describe how automatic behaviors arise from the environment or context in which choices to engage in such behaviors are presented.² For the Choosing Wisely campaign to have staying power, we submit that institutional leaders and front-line clinicians will need to create a context where the safest, most cost-effective choices are the automatic, or nearly automatic, ones.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected]. Dr. Flansbaum is director of hospitalist services at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and an SHM Public Policy Committee member.

References

1. King D, Greaves F, Vlaev I, Darzi A. Approaches based on behavioral economics could help nudge patients and providers toward lower health spending growth. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(4):661-668.
2. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 2008.

click for large version

SHM has gotten behind the Choosing Wisely campaign in a big way. Earlier this year, SHM announced lists of suggested practices for adult and pediatric hospital medicine (see Table 1). To keep it on the front burner, hospitalists John Bulger and Ian Jenkins held a pre-course at HM13 devoted entirely to quality-improvement (QI) approaches to implementing and sustaining the practices outlined in the campaign. During the main meeting, they did an encore presentation, with Doug Carlson and Ricardo Quinonez presenting the elements of Choosing Wisely for pediatric hospital medicine.

The widely publicized campaign arose from an American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation grant program to “facilitate the development of innovative, emerging strategies to advance appropriate health-care decision-making and stewardship of health-care resources.” (For more information, visit www.abimfoundation.org.)

Adoption of many of the suggested Choosing Wisely practices will require a change in deeply ingrained, habitual behaviors. We assert that rational, reflective, cognitive processes might not be enough to overturn these behaviors, and that we must look to other mental systems to achieve the consistent adoption of the campaign’s suggested practices. An analogy exists in economics, where theories behind classical economics are challenged by behavioral economics.

What is behavioral economics? Classical economics asserts the individual as “homo economicus”: a person making rational, predictable decisions to advance their interests. However, due to social or professional influence, behavior often does not comport to expected ends. We succumb, sympathize, or follow the pack, diverging from the rulebook. Behavioral economics attempts to understand and compensate for these deviations.

In medicine, we often yield to cognitive biases. To simplify decision-making, we generalize our observations to arrive at decisions quickly. Daniel Kahneman, winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, describes Type I thinking as fast and automatic, and Type II thinking as slow and effortful. Using Kahneman’s framework, we attempt to understand where reasoning may stray and, in turn, introduce environmental changes to achieve better outcomes.

How does this relate to Choosing Wisely? Embracing and embedding the practices of the Choosing Wisely campaign in day-to-day practice will require change in how we approach the clinical decisions we make each day. How can we create the conditions so as not to yield to the status quo?

The MINDSPACE framework

King et al in a recent Health Affairs article describe the MINDSPACE framework (see Table 2), which captures nine effects on behavior—messenger, incentives, norms, defaults, salience, priming, affect, commitments, and ego—that mostly involve automatic systems (Kahneman’s Type I), and how we can leverage them to minimize ineffective health care.¹ Below, we describe Choosing Wisely’s HM components and how MINDSPACE can help promote better practice.

click for large version

Messenger refers to the importance we place on the source of information conveyed to us. In the campaign, the ABIM Foundation engaged professional societies to come up with a list of specialty-specific practices. We know physicians pay more attention to messages from professional societies than, for example, insurance companies. Having the chair of medicine, the chief of hospital medicine, or the vice president of quality officially sanction the campaign’s practices at your organization leverages messengers.

Incentives, while widely used in health care, have had mixed results in terms of their utility in improving outcomes. People are loss-averse, and behavioral economics leverages that finding, which means incentives structured as penalties seem to have more powerful effects than bonuses. While the familiar pay-for-performance programs might not yield desired results, the evidence base continues to grow, and we have lots to learn. Does a 2% bonus change culture? What would really facilitate modifications in your test ordering patterns?

Norms, or what we perceive as the views of the majority, shape our behavior. How do we establish new ones? We all know the axiom “culture eats strategy for breakfast,” and, like patterned antibiotic administration, redirecting behavior requires examination of why we order items. Often, we order not because the drug combination conforms to standards, but because our training programs imbue us with less-than-ideal habits. These habits become standards, and their root causes require layered examination.

Defaults suggest that we are more likely to embrace a certain behavior if we otherwise need to “opt out” to avoid the behavior. We know that, for example, automatic enrollment in retirement savings plans has dramatically increased participation in such programs. For the Choosing Wisely campaign, the suggested practices should be set up as the default option. Examples include appropriate auto-stop orders for urinary catheters, telemetry, oximetry, or the requirement for added clicks to order daily CBCs. Think about ED orders and how they become substitute defaults once patients arrive on the wards. How do you disrupt the inertia?

Salience is when an individual makes a decision based on what is novel or what their attention is drawn to. Anticipating what subspecialists might expect, what your CMO demands, or what trainees envisage in their supervising attendings all may subconsciously override best judgment and deter best practice.

Priming describes how simple cues—often detected by our subconscious—influence decisions we make. When a physician, perhaps out of concern but often due to poorly reasoned or cavalier messaging, scribes “consider test X,” we involuntarily complete the act. We assume, because of the prime, that we need to act accordingly.

Affect is when we rely on gut feelings to make decisions. Emotions guide our ordering a urinary catheter for incontinence or transfusing to a HGB of 10, even when evidence contradicts what we might know as correct. Countering these actions requires credible stops to convert our emotions to reason (think clinical decision support with teeth).

Commitments are made in advance of an undertaking, behavioral economics suggests, as a way to combat the moment when willpower fails and desired behaviors go by the wayside. By publically signing a contract, in front of your group, chair, or medical director, and going on record as having pledged something, chances of success increase.

Ego, which underpins the need for a positive self-image, can drive the kind of automatic behavior that enables one to compare favorably to others. This effect has driven much of the motivation to perform well on public reporting of hospital quality measures. But ideal reporting of results must be valid; otherwise, attribution of subpar outcomes justifies the usual refrains of “not my responsibility” or the “system needs fixing, not me.”

Conclusions

Choosing Wisely is an ambitious undertaking made up of more than 90 suggested best practices put forth by 25 medical societies. In their book “Nudge,” authors Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein describe how automatic behaviors arise from the environment or context in which choices to engage in such behaviors are presented.² For the Choosing Wisely campaign to have staying power, we submit that institutional leaders and front-line clinicians will need to create a context where the safest, most cost-effective choices are the automatic, or nearly automatic, ones.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected]. Dr. Flansbaum is director of hospitalist services at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City and an SHM Public Policy Committee member.

References

1. King D, Greaves F, Vlaev I, Darzi A. Approaches based on behavioral economics could help nudge patients and providers toward lower health spending growth. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(4):661-668.
2. Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 2008.

From informal polls I’ve recently conducted of hospitalists, many are not even aware they are part of an accountable-care organization (ACO). And if they are aware, they might not be engaging in meaningful dialogue with ACO leaders about their role in these organizations. But, in the long term, ACOs will need to bring hospitalists to the table in order to be successful.

Are You Part of an ACO?

David Muhlestein, who blogs for Health Affairs, tracks the growth of ACOs around the country. He states that, as of Jan. 31, there were 428 ACOs in the U.S. (see Figure 1).¹ In terms of numbers, Florida, Texas, and California lead the nation with 42, 33, and 46 ACOs, respectively. So it is likely that you are part of an ACO. If you are unsure, ask your chief medical officer or president of the medical staff.

How ACOs Work

All ACOs seek to manage a group, or population, of patients as efficiently as possible while maintaining or improving quality of care. For Medicare ACOs, the goal is to bring together hospitals and physicians in order to share savings derived from efficiencies in care. But before any savings can be shared, the Medicare ACO must demonstrate that it achieved high-quality care across four domains, totaling 33 individual quality measures. (see Table 1)

Main Flavors of ACOs

There are two types of ACOs: private ACOs and Medicare ACOs. Prior to Medicare ACOs, which were launched in January 2012, there were 150 private-sector ACOs, and this number continues to grow. Private ACOs represent a heterogeneous group in terms of reimbursement model. Some operate under shared savings programs; others use full or partial capitation, bundled payments, and/or other types of arrangements. But nearly all ACOs operate under the premise that the incentives used to make care more efficient and less costly can only be applied if measurable quality is maintained or improved. ACOs do not pay doctors or hospitals more unless high quality is demonstrated.

ACO Quality Measures and Hospitalists

Most of the 33 quality measures required by Medicare ACOs are based in ambulatory practice. These include measures related to blood pressure, immunizations, cancer, and fall-risk screening, and measures for diabetics, such as lipids and hemoglobin A1C. However, there are a few measures for which hospitalists should share in accountability, including:

• All-cause hospital readmission rate—risk-standardized;
• Ambulatory sensitive condition hospital admission rates (CHF, COPD); and
• Medication reconciliation after discharge from an inpatient facility.

Four Key Actions for Hospitalists

Hospitalists make a significant contribution to the quality and the financial performance of ACOs. In addition to the quality metrics cited above, hospitalists impact the inpatient portion of the overall population’s cost of care. Furthermore, hospitalists are vital partners in the care coordination required for an ACO to be successful.

Here are four actions I suggest taking in order for your hospitalist group to be effective as participants in an ACO:

1. Have a representative from your group participate in ACO committees that address hospital utilization and related matters, such as care coordination impacting pre- and post-hospital care.
2. Learn how to work with ACO case managers on care transitions, including post-discharge follow-up and information transfer.
3. Understand an ACO’s approach to engagement of and coordination with post-acute-care facilities. The ability of a post-acute facility, such a skilled nursing facility, to accept patients who have complex care needs, to manage changes in condition in the facility when appropriate, and to send complete information upon transfer to the hospital are important strategies for an ACO’s success.
4. Understand how an ACO reports quality and cost performance and how savings will be shared among participants.

Mindset Change

If hospitalists are part of the chain of ACO physicians and providers held accountable for the health of a population of patients, we must work more closely with the medical home/neighborhood, post-acute-care facilities, and home-care providers. The change in mindset will occur only if we have a set of tools to get the job done, such as case managers and information technology, and the appropriate incentives to support better care coordination. I encourage my fellow hospitalists to make things happen, instead of taking a passive role in this monumental transformation.

Reference

1. Muhlestein D. Continued growth of public and private accountable care organizations. Health Affairs website. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/02/19/continued-growth-of-public-and-private-accountable-care-organizations. Accessed March 16, 2013.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

From informal polls I’ve recently conducted of hospitalists, many are not even aware they are part of an accountable-care organization (ACO). And if they are aware, they might not be engaging in meaningful dialogue with ACO leaders about their role in these organizations. But, in the long term, ACOs will need to bring hospitalists to the table in order to be successful.

Are You Part of an ACO?

David Muhlestein, who blogs for Health Affairs, tracks the growth of ACOs around the country. He states that, as of Jan. 31, there were 428 ACOs in the U.S. (see Figure 1).¹ In terms of numbers, Florida, Texas, and California lead the nation with 42, 33, and 46 ACOs, respectively. So it is likely that you are part of an ACO. If you are unsure, ask your chief medical officer or president of the medical staff.

How ACOs Work

All ACOs seek to manage a group, or population, of patients as efficiently as possible while maintaining or improving quality of care. For Medicare ACOs, the goal is to bring together hospitals and physicians in order to share savings derived from efficiencies in care. But before any savings can be shared, the Medicare ACO must demonstrate that it achieved high-quality care across four domains, totaling 33 individual quality measures. (see Table 1)

Main Flavors of ACOs

There are two types of ACOs: private ACOs and Medicare ACOs. Prior to Medicare ACOs, which were launched in January 2012, there were 150 private-sector ACOs, and this number continues to grow. Private ACOs represent a heterogeneous group in terms of reimbursement model. Some operate under shared savings programs; others use full or partial capitation, bundled payments, and/or other types of arrangements. But nearly all ACOs operate under the premise that the incentives used to make care more efficient and less costly can only be applied if measurable quality is maintained or improved. ACOs do not pay doctors or hospitals more unless high quality is demonstrated.

ACO Quality Measures and Hospitalists

Most of the 33 quality measures required by Medicare ACOs are based in ambulatory practice. These include measures related to blood pressure, immunizations, cancer, and fall-risk screening, and measures for diabetics, such as lipids and hemoglobin A1C. However, there are a few measures for which hospitalists should share in accountability, including:

• All-cause hospital readmission rate—risk-standardized;
• Ambulatory sensitive condition hospital admission rates (CHF, COPD); and
• Medication reconciliation after discharge from an inpatient facility.

Four Key Actions for Hospitalists

Hospitalists make a significant contribution to the quality and the financial performance of ACOs. In addition to the quality metrics cited above, hospitalists impact the inpatient portion of the overall population’s cost of care. Furthermore, hospitalists are vital partners in the care coordination required for an ACO to be successful.

Here are four actions I suggest taking in order for your hospitalist group to be effective as participants in an ACO:

1. Have a representative from your group participate in ACO committees that address hospital utilization and related matters, such as care coordination impacting pre- and post-hospital care.
2. Learn how to work with ACO case managers on care transitions, including post-discharge follow-up and information transfer.
3. Understand an ACO’s approach to engagement of and coordination with post-acute-care facilities. The ability of a post-acute facility, such a skilled nursing facility, to accept patients who have complex care needs, to manage changes in condition in the facility when appropriate, and to send complete information upon transfer to the hospital are important strategies for an ACO’s success.
4. Understand how an ACO reports quality and cost performance and how savings will be shared among participants.

Mindset Change

If hospitalists are part of the chain of ACO physicians and providers held accountable for the health of a population of patients, we must work more closely with the medical home/neighborhood, post-acute-care facilities, and home-care providers. The change in mindset will occur only if we have a set of tools to get the job done, such as case managers and information technology, and the appropriate incentives to support better care coordination. I encourage my fellow hospitalists to make things happen, instead of taking a passive role in this monumental transformation.

Reference

1. Muhlestein D. Continued growth of public and private accountable care organizations. Health Affairs website. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/02/19/continued-growth-of-public-and-private-accountable-care-organizations. Accessed March 16, 2013.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

From informal polls I’ve recently conducted of hospitalists, many are not even aware they are part of an accountable-care organization (ACO). And if they are aware, they might not be engaging in meaningful dialogue with ACO leaders about their role in these organizations. But, in the long term, ACOs will need to bring hospitalists to the table in order to be successful.

Are You Part of an ACO?

David Muhlestein, who blogs for Health Affairs, tracks the growth of ACOs around the country. He states that, as of Jan. 31, there were 428 ACOs in the U.S. (see Figure 1).¹ In terms of numbers, Florida, Texas, and California lead the nation with 42, 33, and 46 ACOs, respectively. So it is likely that you are part of an ACO. If you are unsure, ask your chief medical officer or president of the medical staff.

How ACOs Work

All ACOs seek to manage a group, or population, of patients as efficiently as possible while maintaining or improving quality of care. For Medicare ACOs, the goal is to bring together hospitals and physicians in order to share savings derived from efficiencies in care. But before any savings can be shared, the Medicare ACO must demonstrate that it achieved high-quality care across four domains, totaling 33 individual quality measures. (see Table 1)

Main Flavors of ACOs

There are two types of ACOs: private ACOs and Medicare ACOs. Prior to Medicare ACOs, which were launched in January 2012, there were 150 private-sector ACOs, and this number continues to grow. Private ACOs represent a heterogeneous group in terms of reimbursement model. Some operate under shared savings programs; others use full or partial capitation, bundled payments, and/or other types of arrangements. But nearly all ACOs operate under the premise that the incentives used to make care more efficient and less costly can only be applied if measurable quality is maintained or improved. ACOs do not pay doctors or hospitals more unless high quality is demonstrated.

ACO Quality Measures and Hospitalists

Most of the 33 quality measures required by Medicare ACOs are based in ambulatory practice. These include measures related to blood pressure, immunizations, cancer, and fall-risk screening, and measures for diabetics, such as lipids and hemoglobin A1C. However, there are a few measures for which hospitalists should share in accountability, including:

• All-cause hospital readmission rate—risk-standardized;
• Ambulatory sensitive condition hospital admission rates (CHF, COPD); and
• Medication reconciliation after discharge from an inpatient facility.

Four Key Actions for Hospitalists

Hospitalists make a significant contribution to the quality and the financial performance of ACOs. In addition to the quality metrics cited above, hospitalists impact the inpatient portion of the overall population’s cost of care. Furthermore, hospitalists are vital partners in the care coordination required for an ACO to be successful.

Here are four actions I suggest taking in order for your hospitalist group to be effective as participants in an ACO:

1. Have a representative from your group participate in ACO committees that address hospital utilization and related matters, such as care coordination impacting pre- and post-hospital care.
2. Learn how to work with ACO case managers on care transitions, including post-discharge follow-up and information transfer.
3. Understand an ACO’s approach to engagement of and coordination with post-acute-care facilities. The ability of a post-acute facility, such a skilled nursing facility, to accept patients who have complex care needs, to manage changes in condition in the facility when appropriate, and to send complete information upon transfer to the hospital are important strategies for an ACO’s success.
4. Understand how an ACO reports quality and cost performance and how savings will be shared among participants.

Mindset Change

If hospitalists are part of the chain of ACO physicians and providers held accountable for the health of a population of patients, we must work more closely with the medical home/neighborhood, post-acute-care facilities, and home-care providers. The change in mindset will occur only if we have a set of tools to get the job done, such as case managers and information technology, and the appropriate incentives to support better care coordination. I encourage my fellow hospitalists to make things happen, instead of taking a passive role in this monumental transformation.

Reference

1. Muhlestein D. Continued growth of public and private accountable care organizations. Health Affairs website. Available at: http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2013/02/19/continued-growth-of-public-and-private-accountable-care-organizations. Accessed March 16, 2013.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

2013 marks a turning point in the way hospitals are held accountable for the prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). It has been known for some time that HAIs are a serious cause of morbidity, with 1 in 20 hospital patients in the U.S. acquiring one. That represents 1.7 million Americans and accounts for about 100,000 lives lost each year. On a personal note, my father died of an HAI after surgery in 2000.

Now, with the Affordable Care Act coming into full swing, hospitals must get serious about preventing HAIs. This presents a major opportunity for hospitalists. There are three ways that hospitals will be affected:

• Since 2008, hospitals have not been reimbursed at a higher rate for vascular catheter-associated infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs), or surgical-site infections when acquired in the hospital.
• Over the next few years, Medicare’s Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program will begin to pay hospitals more or less, depending on how they perform, on six HAIs.
• Beginning in October 2014, in a roll-up measure for hospital-acquired conditions (which include infections), the worst-performing quartile of U.S. hospitals will be penalized 1% of their Medicare inpatient payments (see Table 1, below).

There are six HAIs that will be increasingly tied to hospital reimbursement. Each can be partially or completely prevented based on sets of practices, or care bundles, that require teamwork both in the planning stages and at the bedside. And, of course, the single most important way to reduce the spread of HAIs is to clean your hands before and after each patient encounter.

Clostridium-Difficile-Associated Disease (CDAD)

It is likely that your hospital has some type of CDAD prevention program. Here are a few things to keep in mind for CDAD prevention:

• Avoid alcohol-based hand rubs, because they do not kill C. diff spores. Vigorous hand washing with soap and water is the best approach.
• Use clindamycin, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins judiciously, as their restriction has been associated with reduced rates of CDAD.
• Place patients with suspected or proven C. diff infection on contact precautions, including gloves and gowns.

click for large version

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA)

This includes hospital-acquired MRSA bacteremia. This topic will be discussed in future columns. Approaches to prevention include hand hygiene, cohorting patients, effective environmental cleaning, and antibiotic stewardship.

Central-Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI)

Adherence to the central-line insertion bundle has been conclusively shown to prevent CLABSI. It will become a process measure for HVBP in the near future. Prevention measures include hand hygiene, maximal barrier precautions during insertion, skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine, avoidance of the femoral vein, and daily assessment for readiness to discontinue the central line (which should involve every hospitalist).

Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI)

CAUTI has been mentioned frequently in this column, and for good reason: It is the most common HAI. Although the evidence supporting practices that prevent CAUTI is not as strong as for CLABSI, every institution should have a bundle of practices embedded in nurses’ and doctors’ workflow to prevent CAUTI (see “Quality Meets Finance,” January 2013, p. 31).

Surgical-Site Infection (SSI)

For the most part, SSI can be left to the surgeons and other operating room professionals. However, with increasing involvement of hospitalists in surgical cases, we must have an understanding of how SSIs are prevented. The World Health Organization surgical checklist (www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery) is a great starting point for any organization.

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP)

For hospitalists who provide critical care, adherence to a VAP prevention bundle includes:

• Elevation of the head of the bed;
• Daily “sedation vacation” and readiness to extubate;
• Oral care with chlorhexidine; and
• Peptic ulcer disease and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched an action plan to prevent HAIs. As part of this effort, the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) created a comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) aimed at preventing CLABSI and CAUTI. The effort also focuses on safety culture and teamwork. For those interested in participating, visit www.onthecuspstophai.org.

Another way to get involved is to work Partnership for Patients, a public-private partnership led by HHS (http://partnershipforpatients.cms.gov), if a team at your hospital is participating. The Partnership for Patients seeks to reduce harm, including HAIs, by 40% by the end of 2013 compared with a 2010 baseline.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

The View from The Center

As many of you know, SHM recently submitted five recommendations to the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign. This campaign encourages physicians and patients to have crucial conversations about appropriate utilization of tests and treatments. Seventeen specialty societies released lists in the second phase of the campaign. Many of the lists, including SHM’s, include recommendations that can help reduce hospital-acquired infections.

For example, one of SHM’s recommendations suggests not placing, or leaving in place, urinary catheters for any reason other than those indicated by the guidelines (e.g. bladder outlet obstruction, acute urinary retention, patient requires prolonged immobilization, to improve comfort for end of life, selected perioperative conditions). As Dr. Whitcomb indicates above, CAUTIs are low-hanging fruit when it comes to improving this condition—the guidelines are clear-cut, and relatively simple protocols can be put into place to prevent CAUTI.

Among the American Academy of Family Physicians and other society recommendations is avoidance of routine prescriptions of antibiotics for acute sinusitis or upper respiratory infections. Good antimicrobial stewardship policies are another approach to reduce or eliminate harmful antibiotic-resistant infections.

SHM will be offering multiple opportunities in the coming months to support your institution in Choosing Wisely. A daylong pre-course and two breakout sessions will be offered at HM13 (www.hospitalmedicine2013.org) addressing how you can implement the various recommendations. Additionally, publications are in the works describing the evidence base for SHM’s “avoid lists.” For resources, more information about SHM’s recommendations, and the latest Choosing Wisely developments, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely.

2013 marks a turning point in the way hospitals are held accountable for the prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). It has been known for some time that HAIs are a serious cause of morbidity, with 1 in 20 hospital patients in the U.S. acquiring one. That represents 1.7 million Americans and accounts for about 100,000 lives lost each year. On a personal note, my father died of an HAI after surgery in 2000.

Now, with the Affordable Care Act coming into full swing, hospitals must get serious about preventing HAIs. This presents a major opportunity for hospitalists. There are three ways that hospitals will be affected:

• Since 2008, hospitals have not been reimbursed at a higher rate for vascular catheter-associated infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs), or surgical-site infections when acquired in the hospital.
• Over the next few years, Medicare’s Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program will begin to pay hospitals more or less, depending on how they perform, on six HAIs.
• Beginning in October 2014, in a roll-up measure for hospital-acquired conditions (which include infections), the worst-performing quartile of U.S. hospitals will be penalized 1% of their Medicare inpatient payments (see Table 1, below).

There are six HAIs that will be increasingly tied to hospital reimbursement. Each can be partially or completely prevented based on sets of practices, or care bundles, that require teamwork both in the planning stages and at the bedside. And, of course, the single most important way to reduce the spread of HAIs is to clean your hands before and after each patient encounter.

Clostridium-Difficile-Associated Disease (CDAD)

It is likely that your hospital has some type of CDAD prevention program. Here are a few things to keep in mind for CDAD prevention:

• Avoid alcohol-based hand rubs, because they do not kill C. diff spores. Vigorous hand washing with soap and water is the best approach.
• Use clindamycin, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins judiciously, as their restriction has been associated with reduced rates of CDAD.
• Place patients with suspected or proven C. diff infection on contact precautions, including gloves and gowns.

click for large version

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA)

This includes hospital-acquired MRSA bacteremia. This topic will be discussed in future columns. Approaches to prevention include hand hygiene, cohorting patients, effective environmental cleaning, and antibiotic stewardship.

Central-Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI)

Adherence to the central-line insertion bundle has been conclusively shown to prevent CLABSI. It will become a process measure for HVBP in the near future. Prevention measures include hand hygiene, maximal barrier precautions during insertion, skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine, avoidance of the femoral vein, and daily assessment for readiness to discontinue the central line (which should involve every hospitalist).

Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI)

CAUTI has been mentioned frequently in this column, and for good reason: It is the most common HAI. Although the evidence supporting practices that prevent CAUTI is not as strong as for CLABSI, every institution should have a bundle of practices embedded in nurses’ and doctors’ workflow to prevent CAUTI (see “Quality Meets Finance,” January 2013, p. 31).

Surgical-Site Infection (SSI)

For the most part, SSI can be left to the surgeons and other operating room professionals. However, with increasing involvement of hospitalists in surgical cases, we must have an understanding of how SSIs are prevented. The World Health Organization surgical checklist (www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery) is a great starting point for any organization.

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP)

For hospitalists who provide critical care, adherence to a VAP prevention bundle includes:

• Elevation of the head of the bed;
• Daily “sedation vacation” and readiness to extubate;
• Oral care with chlorhexidine; and
• Peptic ulcer disease and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched an action plan to prevent HAIs. As part of this effort, the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) created a comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) aimed at preventing CLABSI and CAUTI. The effort also focuses on safety culture and teamwork. For those interested in participating, visit www.onthecuspstophai.org.

Another way to get involved is to work Partnership for Patients, a public-private partnership led by HHS (http://partnershipforpatients.cms.gov), if a team at your hospital is participating. The Partnership for Patients seeks to reduce harm, including HAIs, by 40% by the end of 2013 compared with a 2010 baseline.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

The View from The Center

As many of you know, SHM recently submitted five recommendations to the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign. This campaign encourages physicians and patients to have crucial conversations about appropriate utilization of tests and treatments. Seventeen specialty societies released lists in the second phase of the campaign. Many of the lists, including SHM’s, include recommendations that can help reduce hospital-acquired infections.

For example, one of SHM’s recommendations suggests not placing, or leaving in place, urinary catheters for any reason other than those indicated by the guidelines (e.g. bladder outlet obstruction, acute urinary retention, patient requires prolonged immobilization, to improve comfort for end of life, selected perioperative conditions). As Dr. Whitcomb indicates above, CAUTIs are low-hanging fruit when it comes to improving this condition—the guidelines are clear-cut, and relatively simple protocols can be put into place to prevent CAUTI.

Among the American Academy of Family Physicians and other society recommendations is avoidance of routine prescriptions of antibiotics for acute sinusitis or upper respiratory infections. Good antimicrobial stewardship policies are another approach to reduce or eliminate harmful antibiotic-resistant infections.

SHM will be offering multiple opportunities in the coming months to support your institution in Choosing Wisely. A daylong pre-course and two breakout sessions will be offered at HM13 (www.hospitalmedicine2013.org) addressing how you can implement the various recommendations. Additionally, publications are in the works describing the evidence base for SHM’s “avoid lists.” For resources, more information about SHM’s recommendations, and the latest Choosing Wisely developments, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely.

2013 marks a turning point in the way hospitals are held accountable for the prevention of healthcare-associated infections (HAIs). It has been known for some time that HAIs are a serious cause of morbidity, with 1 in 20 hospital patients in the U.S. acquiring one. That represents 1.7 million Americans and accounts for about 100,000 lives lost each year. On a personal note, my father died of an HAI after surgery in 2000.

Now, with the Affordable Care Act coming into full swing, hospitals must get serious about preventing HAIs. This presents a major opportunity for hospitalists. There are three ways that hospitals will be affected:

• Since 2008, hospitals have not been reimbursed at a higher rate for vascular catheter-associated infections, catheter-associated urinary tract infections (UTIs), or surgical-site infections when acquired in the hospital.
• Over the next few years, Medicare’s Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program will begin to pay hospitals more or less, depending on how they perform, on six HAIs.
• Beginning in October 2014, in a roll-up measure for hospital-acquired conditions (which include infections), the worst-performing quartile of U.S. hospitals will be penalized 1% of their Medicare inpatient payments (see Table 1, below).

There are six HAIs that will be increasingly tied to hospital reimbursement. Each can be partially or completely prevented based on sets of practices, or care bundles, that require teamwork both in the planning stages and at the bedside. And, of course, the single most important way to reduce the spread of HAIs is to clean your hands before and after each patient encounter.

Clostridium-Difficile-Associated Disease (CDAD)

It is likely that your hospital has some type of CDAD prevention program. Here are a few things to keep in mind for CDAD prevention:

• Avoid alcohol-based hand rubs, because they do not kill C. diff spores. Vigorous hand washing with soap and water is the best approach.
• Use clindamycin, fluoroquinolones, and third-generation cephalosporins judiciously, as their restriction has been associated with reduced rates of CDAD.
• Place patients with suspected or proven C. diff infection on contact precautions, including gloves and gowns.

click for large version

Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA)

This includes hospital-acquired MRSA bacteremia. This topic will be discussed in future columns. Approaches to prevention include hand hygiene, cohorting patients, effective environmental cleaning, and antibiotic stewardship.

Central-Line-Associated Bloodstream Infection (CLABSI)

Adherence to the central-line insertion bundle has been conclusively shown to prevent CLABSI. It will become a process measure for HVBP in the near future. Prevention measures include hand hygiene, maximal barrier precautions during insertion, skin antisepsis with chlorhexidine, avoidance of the femoral vein, and daily assessment for readiness to discontinue the central line (which should involve every hospitalist).

Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection (CAUTI)

CAUTI has been mentioned frequently in this column, and for good reason: It is the most common HAI. Although the evidence supporting practices that prevent CAUTI is not as strong as for CLABSI, every institution should have a bundle of practices embedded in nurses’ and doctors’ workflow to prevent CAUTI (see “Quality Meets Finance,” January 2013, p. 31).

Surgical-Site Infection (SSI)

For the most part, SSI can be left to the surgeons and other operating room professionals. However, with increasing involvement of hospitalists in surgical cases, we must have an understanding of how SSIs are prevented. The World Health Organization surgical checklist (www.who.int/patientsafety/safesurgery) is a great starting point for any organization.

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia (VAP)

For hospitalists who provide critical care, adherence to a VAP prevention bundle includes:

• Elevation of the head of the bed;
• Daily “sedation vacation” and readiness to extubate;
• Oral care with chlorhexidine; and
• Peptic ulcer disease and venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

In 2009, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched an action plan to prevent HAIs. As part of this effort, the Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) created a comprehensive unit-based safety program (CUSP) aimed at preventing CLABSI and CAUTI. The effort also focuses on safety culture and teamwork. For those interested in participating, visit www.onthecuspstophai.org.

Another way to get involved is to work Partnership for Patients, a public-private partnership led by HHS (http://partnershipforpatients.cms.gov), if a team at your hospital is participating. The Partnership for Patients seeks to reduce harm, including HAIs, by 40% by the end of 2013 compared with a 2010 baseline.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

The View from The Center

As many of you know, SHM recently submitted five recommendations to the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign. This campaign encourages physicians and patients to have crucial conversations about appropriate utilization of tests and treatments. Seventeen specialty societies released lists in the second phase of the campaign. Many of the lists, including SHM’s, include recommendations that can help reduce hospital-acquired infections.

For example, one of SHM’s recommendations suggests not placing, or leaving in place, urinary catheters for any reason other than those indicated by the guidelines (e.g. bladder outlet obstruction, acute urinary retention, patient requires prolonged immobilization, to improve comfort for end of life, selected perioperative conditions). As Dr. Whitcomb indicates above, CAUTIs are low-hanging fruit when it comes to improving this condition—the guidelines are clear-cut, and relatively simple protocols can be put into place to prevent CAUTI.

Among the American Academy of Family Physicians and other society recommendations is avoidance of routine prescriptions of antibiotics for acute sinusitis or upper respiratory infections. Good antimicrobial stewardship policies are another approach to reduce or eliminate harmful antibiotic-resistant infections.

SHM will be offering multiple opportunities in the coming months to support your institution in Choosing Wisely. A daylong pre-course and two breakout sessions will be offered at HM13 (www.hospitalmedicine2013.org) addressing how you can implement the various recommendations. Additionally, publications are in the works describing the evidence base for SHM’s “avoid lists.” For resources, more information about SHM’s recommendations, and the latest Choosing Wisely developments, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/choosingwisely.

HVBP’s First Efficiency Measure

Move over, cost, LOS—make room for ‘Medicare spending per beneficiary’

The unwritten rule in hospitalist circles is that lower cost and length of stay (LOS) mean higher efficiency, with hospitalists (me included) often pointing to one or both of these as a yardstick of performance in the efficiency domain. But if we lower hospital length of stay and costs while shifting costs to post-hospital care, have we solved anything?

This very question was raised by Kuo and Goodwin’s observational study that revealed that decreased hospital costs and LOS were offset by higher utilization and costs after discharge under hospitalist care.¹

Efficiency As a Domain of Quality

Using the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) six domains of quality as a framework (see Table 1, right), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program seeks to encourage enhanced quality in all of the IOM domains. For HVBP 2015, we see the addition of the first measure in the domain of efficiency.

You may be saying to yourself, “It’s only 2013. Why should I worry about HVBP 2015?” Here’s why: The measurement periods for HVBP 2015 are May to December 2011 (baseline) and May to December 2013 (performance). Hospitals can succeed under HVBP if they demonstrate improvement from baseline or attainment, which indicates maintenance of a high level of performance despite no substantial improvement from baseline. Medicare spending per beneficiary (MSPB) will make up 20% of the 2015 HVBP incentive pool for hospitals.

Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Instead of Costs or LOS

Why did CMS choose to use MSPB as a measure and not simply hospital costs or length of stay? Measuring efficiency of hospital care has proven to be a sticky wicket. If one simply measures and rewards decreased hospital costs and/or length of stay (which you might legitimately argue is exactly what the current DRG system does by paying a case rate to the hospital), one runs the risk of shifting costs to settings beyond the four walls of the hospital, or even fueling higher rates of hospital readmissions. Also, physician costs and other costs (therapy, home care) are not accounted for; they are accounted for under MSPB (described below). Finally, hospital costs and LOS vary substantially across regions and by severity of illness of the patients being analyzed. This makes it difficult to compare, for example, LOS in California versus Massachusetts.

The MSPB is designed to be a comprehensive and equitable metric:

• It seeks to eliminate cost-shifting among settings by widening the time period from three days prior to 30 days post-inpatient-care episode;
• It looks at the full cost of care by including expenses from both Medicare Part A (hospital) and Part B (doctors, PT, OT, home health, others);
• It incorporates risk adjustment by taking into account differences in patient health status; and
• It seeks to level the playing field by using a price standardization methodology that factors in geographic payment differences in wages, practice costs, and payments for indirect medical education and disproportionate share hospitals (those that treat large numbers of the indigent population).

Driving High Performance in Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary

Hospitalists straddle the Part A and Part B elements of Medicare; they have one foot in the hospital and one foot in the physician practice world. They should be able to improve their hospitals’ performance under the MSPB yardstick. Since the performance measurement period starts in May, now is the time to sharpen your focus on MSPB.

Here are the top priorities for MSPB that I recommend for hospitalists:

Reduction of marginally beneficial resource utilization. This is a process of analyzing resource (e.g. pharmacy, radiology, laboratory, blood products) utilization for the purpose of minimizing costly practices that do not benefit the patient. This is an essential practice of a high-functioning hospitalist program. Through its participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign (see “Stop! Think Twice Before You Order,” p. 46), SHM has helped hospitalists have conversations about these practices with patients.

Hospital throughput. Work on “front end” throughput with the ED by having a process in place to quickly evaluate and facilitate potential admissions. Work with case management to assure timely (and early in the day) discharges.

Safe-discharge processes. We reviewed key elements of a safe discharge last month and provided a link to SHM’s Project BOOST (www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost). From the MSPB perspective: A safe discharge minimizes exorbitant spending after discharge.

Documentation integrity. Because MSPB is risk-adjusted, the more the record reflects patient severity of illness, the better your hospital will perform, all else being equal. Work collaboratively with your documentation integrity professionals!

Much of the success of the HM specialty has been built on the tenet that the hospitalist model delivers efficient inpatient care. In the coming years, the specialty’s contribution will increasingly be gauged by the MSPB measure.

Reference

1. Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):152-159.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

HVBP’s First Efficiency Measure

Move over, cost, LOS—make room for ‘Medicare spending per beneficiary’

The unwritten rule in hospitalist circles is that lower cost and length of stay (LOS) mean higher efficiency, with hospitalists (me included) often pointing to one or both of these as a yardstick of performance in the efficiency domain. But if we lower hospital length of stay and costs while shifting costs to post-hospital care, have we solved anything?

This very question was raised by Kuo and Goodwin’s observational study that revealed that decreased hospital costs and LOS were offset by higher utilization and costs after discharge under hospitalist care.¹

Efficiency As a Domain of Quality

Using the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) six domains of quality as a framework (see Table 1, right), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program seeks to encourage enhanced quality in all of the IOM domains. For HVBP 2015, we see the addition of the first measure in the domain of efficiency.

You may be saying to yourself, “It’s only 2013. Why should I worry about HVBP 2015?” Here’s why: The measurement periods for HVBP 2015 are May to December 2011 (baseline) and May to December 2013 (performance). Hospitals can succeed under HVBP if they demonstrate improvement from baseline or attainment, which indicates maintenance of a high level of performance despite no substantial improvement from baseline. Medicare spending per beneficiary (MSPB) will make up 20% of the 2015 HVBP incentive pool for hospitals.

Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Instead of Costs or LOS

Why did CMS choose to use MSPB as a measure and not simply hospital costs or length of stay? Measuring efficiency of hospital care has proven to be a sticky wicket. If one simply measures and rewards decreased hospital costs and/or length of stay (which you might legitimately argue is exactly what the current DRG system does by paying a case rate to the hospital), one runs the risk of shifting costs to settings beyond the four walls of the hospital, or even fueling higher rates of hospital readmissions. Also, physician costs and other costs (therapy, home care) are not accounted for; they are accounted for under MSPB (described below). Finally, hospital costs and LOS vary substantially across regions and by severity of illness of the patients being analyzed. This makes it difficult to compare, for example, LOS in California versus Massachusetts.

The MSPB is designed to be a comprehensive and equitable metric:

• It seeks to eliminate cost-shifting among settings by widening the time period from three days prior to 30 days post-inpatient-care episode;
• It looks at the full cost of care by including expenses from both Medicare Part A (hospital) and Part B (doctors, PT, OT, home health, others);
• It incorporates risk adjustment by taking into account differences in patient health status; and
• It seeks to level the playing field by using a price standardization methodology that factors in geographic payment differences in wages, practice costs, and payments for indirect medical education and disproportionate share hospitals (those that treat large numbers of the indigent population).

Driving High Performance in Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary

Hospitalists straddle the Part A and Part B elements of Medicare; they have one foot in the hospital and one foot in the physician practice world. They should be able to improve their hospitals’ performance under the MSPB yardstick. Since the performance measurement period starts in May, now is the time to sharpen your focus on MSPB.

Here are the top priorities for MSPB that I recommend for hospitalists:

Reduction of marginally beneficial resource utilization. This is a process of analyzing resource (e.g. pharmacy, radiology, laboratory, blood products) utilization for the purpose of minimizing costly practices that do not benefit the patient. This is an essential practice of a high-functioning hospitalist program. Through its participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign (see “Stop! Think Twice Before You Order,” p. 46), SHM has helped hospitalists have conversations about these practices with patients.

Hospital throughput. Work on “front end” throughput with the ED by having a process in place to quickly evaluate and facilitate potential admissions. Work with case management to assure timely (and early in the day) discharges.

Safe-discharge processes. We reviewed key elements of a safe discharge last month and provided a link to SHM’s Project BOOST (www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost). From the MSPB perspective: A safe discharge minimizes exorbitant spending after discharge.

Documentation integrity. Because MSPB is risk-adjusted, the more the record reflects patient severity of illness, the better your hospital will perform, all else being equal. Work collaboratively with your documentation integrity professionals!

Much of the success of the HM specialty has been built on the tenet that the hospitalist model delivers efficient inpatient care. In the coming years, the specialty’s contribution will increasingly be gauged by the MSPB measure.

Reference

1. Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):152-159.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

HVBP’s First Efficiency Measure

Move over, cost, LOS—make room for ‘Medicare spending per beneficiary’

The unwritten rule in hospitalist circles is that lower cost and length of stay (LOS) mean higher efficiency, with hospitalists (me included) often pointing to one or both of these as a yardstick of performance in the efficiency domain. But if we lower hospital length of stay and costs while shifting costs to post-hospital care, have we solved anything?

This very question was raised by Kuo and Goodwin’s observational study that revealed that decreased hospital costs and LOS were offset by higher utilization and costs after discharge under hospitalist care.¹

Efficiency As a Domain of Quality

Using the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) six domains of quality as a framework (see Table 1, right), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program seeks to encourage enhanced quality in all of the IOM domains. For HVBP 2015, we see the addition of the first measure in the domain of efficiency.

You may be saying to yourself, “It’s only 2013. Why should I worry about HVBP 2015?” Here’s why: The measurement periods for HVBP 2015 are May to December 2011 (baseline) and May to December 2013 (performance). Hospitals can succeed under HVBP if they demonstrate improvement from baseline or attainment, which indicates maintenance of a high level of performance despite no substantial improvement from baseline. Medicare spending per beneficiary (MSPB) will make up 20% of the 2015 HVBP incentive pool for hospitals.

Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Instead of Costs or LOS

Why did CMS choose to use MSPB as a measure and not simply hospital costs or length of stay? Measuring efficiency of hospital care has proven to be a sticky wicket. If one simply measures and rewards decreased hospital costs and/or length of stay (which you might legitimately argue is exactly what the current DRG system does by paying a case rate to the hospital), one runs the risk of shifting costs to settings beyond the four walls of the hospital, or even fueling higher rates of hospital readmissions. Also, physician costs and other costs (therapy, home care) are not accounted for; they are accounted for under MSPB (described below). Finally, hospital costs and LOS vary substantially across regions and by severity of illness of the patients being analyzed. This makes it difficult to compare, for example, LOS in California versus Massachusetts.

The MSPB is designed to be a comprehensive and equitable metric:

• It seeks to eliminate cost-shifting among settings by widening the time period from three days prior to 30 days post-inpatient-care episode;
• It looks at the full cost of care by including expenses from both Medicare Part A (hospital) and Part B (doctors, PT, OT, home health, others);
• It incorporates risk adjustment by taking into account differences in patient health status; and
• It seeks to level the playing field by using a price standardization methodology that factors in geographic payment differences in wages, practice costs, and payments for indirect medical education and disproportionate share hospitals (those that treat large numbers of the indigent population).

Driving High Performance in Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary

Hospitalists straddle the Part A and Part B elements of Medicare; they have one foot in the hospital and one foot in the physician practice world. They should be able to improve their hospitals’ performance under the MSPB yardstick. Since the performance measurement period starts in May, now is the time to sharpen your focus on MSPB.

Here are the top priorities for MSPB that I recommend for hospitalists:

Reduction of marginally beneficial resource utilization. This is a process of analyzing resource (e.g. pharmacy, radiology, laboratory, blood products) utilization for the purpose of minimizing costly practices that do not benefit the patient. This is an essential practice of a high-functioning hospitalist program. Through its participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign (see “Stop! Think Twice Before You Order,” p. 46), SHM has helped hospitalists have conversations about these practices with patients.

Hospital throughput. Work on “front end” throughput with the ED by having a process in place to quickly evaluate and facilitate potential admissions. Work with case management to assure timely (and early in the day) discharges.

Safe-discharge processes. We reviewed key elements of a safe discharge last month and provided a link to SHM’s Project BOOST (www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost). From the MSPB perspective: A safe discharge minimizes exorbitant spending after discharge.

Documentation integrity. Because MSPB is risk-adjusted, the more the record reflects patient severity of illness, the better your hospital will perform, all else being equal. Work collaboratively with your documentation integrity professionals!

Much of the success of the HM specialty has been built on the tenet that the hospitalist model delivers efficient inpatient care. In the coming years, the specialty’s contribution will increasingly be gauged by the MSPB measure.

Reference

1. Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):152-159.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

The designers of the hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) program sought to include outcomes measures in 2014, and when they did, mortality was their choice. Specifically, HVBP for fiscal-year 2014 (starting October 2013) will include 30-day mortality rates for myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. The weighting for the mortality domain will be 25% (see Table 1).

click for large version

To review the requirements for the HVBP program in FY2014: All hospitals will have 1.25% of their Medicare inpatient payments withheld. They can earn back none, some, all, or an amount in excess of the 1.25%, depending on performance in the performance domains. To put it in perspective, 1.25% of Medicare inpatient payments for a 320-bed hospital are about $1 million. Such a hospital will have about $250,000 at risk in the mortality domain in FY2014.

Given the role hospitalists play in quality and safety initiatives, and the importance of medical record documentation in defining the risk of mortality and severity of illness, we can be crucial players in how our hospitals perform with regard to mortality.

Focus Areas for Mortality Reduction

Although many hospitalists might think that reducing mortality is like “boiling the ocean,” there are some areas where we can clearly focus our attention. There are four priority areas we should target in the coming years (also see Figure 1):

Reduce harm. This may take the form of reducing hospital-acquired infections, such as catheter-related UTIs, Clostridium difficile, and central-line-associated bloodstream infections, or reducing hospital-acquired VTE, falls, and delirium. Many hospital-acquired conditions have a collection, or bundle, of preventive practices. Hospitalists can work both in an institutional leadership capacity and in the course of daily clinical practice to implement bundles and best practices to reduce patient harm.

click for large version

Improve teamwork. With hospitalists, “you started to have teams caring for inpatients in a coordinated way. So I regard this as [hospitalists] coming into their own, their vision of the future starting to really take hold,” said Brent James, coauthor of the recent Institute of Medicine report “Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America.” Partly, we’ve accomplished this through simply “showing up” and partly we’ve done it through becoming students of the art and science of teamwork. An example of teamwork training, developed by the Defense Department and the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ), is TeamSTEPPS, which offers a systematic approach to cooperation, coordination, and communication among team members. Optimal patient resuscitation, in-hospital handoffs, rapid-response teams, and early-warning systems are essential pieces of teamwork that may reduce mortality.

Improve evidence-based care. This domain covers process measures aimed at optimizing care, including reducing mortality. For HVBP in particular, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia are the focus.

Improve transitions of care. Best practices for care transitions and reducing readmissions, including advance-care planning, involvement of palliative care and hospice, and coordination with post-acute care, can be a key part of reducing 30-day mortality.

Documentation Integrity

Accurately capturing a patient’s condition in the medical record is crucial to assigning severity of illness and risk of mortality. Because mortality rates are severity-adjusted, accurate documentation is another important dimension to potentially improving a hospital’s performance with regard to the mortality domain. This is one more reason to work closely with your hospital’s documentation specialists.

Don’t Be Afraid...

Proponents of mortality as a quality measure point to it as the ultimate reflection of the care provided. While moving the needle might seem like a task too big to undertake, a disciplined approach to the elements of the driver diagram combined with a robust documentation program can provide your institution with a tangible focus on this definitive measure.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

The designers of the hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) program sought to include outcomes measures in 2014, and when they did, mortality was their choice. Specifically, HVBP for fiscal-year 2014 (starting October 2013) will include 30-day mortality rates for myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. The weighting for the mortality domain will be 25% (see Table 1).

click for large version

To review the requirements for the HVBP program in FY2014: All hospitals will have 1.25% of their Medicare inpatient payments withheld. They can earn back none, some, all, or an amount in excess of the 1.25%, depending on performance in the performance domains. To put it in perspective, 1.25% of Medicare inpatient payments for a 320-bed hospital are about $1 million. Such a hospital will have about $250,000 at risk in the mortality domain in FY2014.

Given the role hospitalists play in quality and safety initiatives, and the importance of medical record documentation in defining the risk of mortality and severity of illness, we can be crucial players in how our hospitals perform with regard to mortality.

Focus Areas for Mortality Reduction

Although many hospitalists might think that reducing mortality is like “boiling the ocean,” there are some areas where we can clearly focus our attention. There are four priority areas we should target in the coming years (also see Figure 1):

Reduce harm. This may take the form of reducing hospital-acquired infections, such as catheter-related UTIs, Clostridium difficile, and central-line-associated bloodstream infections, or reducing hospital-acquired VTE, falls, and delirium. Many hospital-acquired conditions have a collection, or bundle, of preventive practices. Hospitalists can work both in an institutional leadership capacity and in the course of daily clinical practice to implement bundles and best practices to reduce patient harm.

click for large version

Improve teamwork. With hospitalists, “you started to have teams caring for inpatients in a coordinated way. So I regard this as [hospitalists] coming into their own, their vision of the future starting to really take hold,” said Brent James, coauthor of the recent Institute of Medicine report “Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America.” Partly, we’ve accomplished this through simply “showing up” and partly we’ve done it through becoming students of the art and science of teamwork. An example of teamwork training, developed by the Defense Department and the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ), is TeamSTEPPS, which offers a systematic approach to cooperation, coordination, and communication among team members. Optimal patient resuscitation, in-hospital handoffs, rapid-response teams, and early-warning systems are essential pieces of teamwork that may reduce mortality.

Improve evidence-based care. This domain covers process measures aimed at optimizing care, including reducing mortality. For HVBP in particular, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia are the focus.

Improve transitions of care. Best practices for care transitions and reducing readmissions, including advance-care planning, involvement of palliative care and hospice, and coordination with post-acute care, can be a key part of reducing 30-day mortality.

Documentation Integrity

Accurately capturing a patient’s condition in the medical record is crucial to assigning severity of illness and risk of mortality. Because mortality rates are severity-adjusted, accurate documentation is another important dimension to potentially improving a hospital’s performance with regard to the mortality domain. This is one more reason to work closely with your hospital’s documentation specialists.

Don’t Be Afraid...

Proponents of mortality as a quality measure point to it as the ultimate reflection of the care provided. While moving the needle might seem like a task too big to undertake, a disciplined approach to the elements of the driver diagram combined with a robust documentation program can provide your institution with a tangible focus on this definitive measure.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

The designers of the hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP) program sought to include outcomes measures in 2014, and when they did, mortality was their choice. Specifically, HVBP for fiscal-year 2014 (starting October 2013) will include 30-day mortality rates for myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia. The weighting for the mortality domain will be 25% (see Table 1).

click for large version

To review the requirements for the HVBP program in FY2014: All hospitals will have 1.25% of their Medicare inpatient payments withheld. They can earn back none, some, all, or an amount in excess of the 1.25%, depending on performance in the performance domains. To put it in perspective, 1.25% of Medicare inpatient payments for a 320-bed hospital are about $1 million. Such a hospital will have about $250,000 at risk in the mortality domain in FY2014.

Given the role hospitalists play in quality and safety initiatives, and the importance of medical record documentation in defining the risk of mortality and severity of illness, we can be crucial players in how our hospitals perform with regard to mortality.

Focus Areas for Mortality Reduction

Although many hospitalists might think that reducing mortality is like “boiling the ocean,” there are some areas where we can clearly focus our attention. There are four priority areas we should target in the coming years (also see Figure 1):

Reduce harm. This may take the form of reducing hospital-acquired infections, such as catheter-related UTIs, Clostridium difficile, and central-line-associated bloodstream infections, or reducing hospital-acquired VTE, falls, and delirium. Many hospital-acquired conditions have a collection, or bundle, of preventive practices. Hospitalists can work both in an institutional leadership capacity and in the course of daily clinical practice to implement bundles and best practices to reduce patient harm.

click for large version

Improve teamwork. With hospitalists, “you started to have teams caring for inpatients in a coordinated way. So I regard this as [hospitalists] coming into their own, their vision of the future starting to really take hold,” said Brent James, coauthor of the recent Institute of Medicine report “Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America.” Partly, we’ve accomplished this through simply “showing up” and partly we’ve done it through becoming students of the art and science of teamwork. An example of teamwork training, developed by the Defense Department and the Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ), is TeamSTEPPS, which offers a systematic approach to cooperation, coordination, and communication among team members. Optimal patient resuscitation, in-hospital handoffs, rapid-response teams, and early-warning systems are essential pieces of teamwork that may reduce mortality.

Improve evidence-based care. This domain covers process measures aimed at optimizing care, including reducing mortality. For HVBP in particular, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and pneumonia are the focus.

Improve transitions of care. Best practices for care transitions and reducing readmissions, including advance-care planning, involvement of palliative care and hospice, and coordination with post-acute care, can be a key part of reducing 30-day mortality.

Documentation Integrity

Accurately capturing a patient’s condition in the medical record is crucial to assigning severity of illness and risk of mortality. Because mortality rates are severity-adjusted, accurate documentation is another important dimension to potentially improving a hospital’s performance with regard to the mortality domain. This is one more reason to work closely with your hospital’s documentation specialists.

Don’t Be Afraid...

Proponents of mortality as a quality measure point to it as the ultimate reflection of the care provided. While moving the needle might seem like a task too big to undertake, a disciplined approach to the elements of the driver diagram combined with a robust documentation program can provide your institution with a tangible focus on this definitive measure.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

click for large version

click for large version

After a long wait, the time where quality really matters to the finance department has arrived. Why? Because now a lot of money is on the line based on hospitals’ ability to demonstrate performance on quality, patient safety, and patient satisfaction measures. And there is no physician group more central to the hospital’s performance on these measures than hospitalists.

To make this point, I will discuss the financial implications of three programs that are part of the Affordable Care Act: hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP), readmission penalties, and hospital-acquired conditions (HACs). Although many have found fault with these programs, especially the ones that only penalize hospitals (HACs and readmissions*), the dollars at risk can represent a new business case for hospitalist programs. High-performing hospitalist programs can positively impact their institution’s income statement.

In October 2012, readmissions penalties and VBP payments/penalties went into effect. In October 2014, a 1% penalty for groups in the worst-performing quartile in the HACs will be in force. Taken together, as Table 1 demonstrates, the total payments at risk will grow such that by fiscal-year 2017, 6% of a hospital’s inpatient payments from Medicare will be at risk. To put this in perspective, Table 2 models the dollars at risk for each of the five years beginning in 2013 for the three programs in a hypothetical, 327-bed hospital. While the risk in 2013 is a modest $1.7 million, by 2017, this hospital has more than $5 million at risk.

So where should hospitalists be focusing their efforts with these three programs and the monies that accompany them? First, for those designing incentive compensation for hospitalists, the incentives should address the applicable elements of these programs. Second, the components of VBP will evolve. For example, 2013 VPB payments are based on 70% process measures (a subset of the core measure set for heart failure, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and surgery) and 30% patient satisfaction measures. In 2015, VBP will add such outcomes measures as central-line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter UTIs, mortality rates, and the new efficiency measure, Medicare spending per beneficiary. Third, readmissions penalties, while encompassing heart failure, myocardial infarction, and pneumonia for fiscal-year 2013 payments, will expand in fiscal-year 2015 to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and other vascular conditions.

While all this can be hard to keep track of, not to mention address in the course of daily patient care, I suggest hospitalists set the following priorities to enable high performance for their hospitals under these programs:

• Catheter UTIs. Work with nursing, the ED, and other areas to ensure that catheters are indicated, insertion is sterile, there is a mechanism for their prompt removal, specimens are collected and handled appropriately, and that “present on admission” is documented if appropriate.
• Central-line-associated bloodstream infections. Ensure your hospital has the systems in place to support the central-line insertion bundle, and that the bundle elements are followed and documented.
• Readmissions. Focus on heart failure, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, and COPD; work with nursing and case management to identify those at high risk for readmission; perform targeted interventions based on that risk (e.g. palliative care or clinical pharmacy consultation); prioritize medication reconciliation; provide timely communication of discharge summary to the next provider of care; and contact the patient soon after discharge to ensure they are following their plan of care.
• Patient satisfaction. Have a system for high performance on the questions comprising the “doctor communication” domain. These are “How often did doctors treat you with courtesy and respect/listen carefully to you/explain things in a way you could understand?”

Medicare’s Message

Clearly, the financial impacts of hospital quality, satisfaction, and safety are growing, conveying the message from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that quality matters, making a business case for quality. Our focus as leaders in hospital systems improvement will only sharpen as we see hospital payments increasingly affected as a direct consequence of our efforts. If that doesn’t get the attention of the finance department, what will?

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

click for large version

click for large version

After a long wait, the time where quality really matters to the finance department has arrived. Why? Because now a lot of money is on the line based on hospitals’ ability to demonstrate performance on quality, patient safety, and patient satisfaction measures. And there is no physician group more central to the hospital’s performance on these measures than hospitalists.

To make this point, I will discuss the financial implications of three programs that are part of the Affordable Care Act: hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP), readmission penalties, and hospital-acquired conditions (HACs). Although many have found fault with these programs, especially the ones that only penalize hospitals (HACs and readmissions*), the dollars at risk can represent a new business case for hospitalist programs. High-performing hospitalist programs can positively impact their institution’s income statement.

In October 2012, readmissions penalties and VBP payments/penalties went into effect. In October 2014, a 1% penalty for groups in the worst-performing quartile in the HACs will be in force. Taken together, as Table 1 demonstrates, the total payments at risk will grow such that by fiscal-year 2017, 6% of a hospital’s inpatient payments from Medicare will be at risk. To put this in perspective, Table 2 models the dollars at risk for each of the five years beginning in 2013 for the three programs in a hypothetical, 327-bed hospital. While the risk in 2013 is a modest $1.7 million, by 2017, this hospital has more than $5 million at risk.

So where should hospitalists be focusing their efforts with these three programs and the monies that accompany them? First, for those designing incentive compensation for hospitalists, the incentives should address the applicable elements of these programs. Second, the components of VBP will evolve. For example, 2013 VPB payments are based on 70% process measures (a subset of the core measure set for heart failure, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and surgery) and 30% patient satisfaction measures. In 2015, VBP will add such outcomes measures as central-line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter UTIs, mortality rates, and the new efficiency measure, Medicare spending per beneficiary. Third, readmissions penalties, while encompassing heart failure, myocardial infarction, and pneumonia for fiscal-year 2013 payments, will expand in fiscal-year 2015 to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and other vascular conditions.

While all this can be hard to keep track of, not to mention address in the course of daily patient care, I suggest hospitalists set the following priorities to enable high performance for their hospitals under these programs:

• Catheter UTIs. Work with nursing, the ED, and other areas to ensure that catheters are indicated, insertion is sterile, there is a mechanism for their prompt removal, specimens are collected and handled appropriately, and that “present on admission” is documented if appropriate.
• Central-line-associated bloodstream infections. Ensure your hospital has the systems in place to support the central-line insertion bundle, and that the bundle elements are followed and documented.
• Readmissions. Focus on heart failure, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, and COPD; work with nursing and case management to identify those at high risk for readmission; perform targeted interventions based on that risk (e.g. palliative care or clinical pharmacy consultation); prioritize medication reconciliation; provide timely communication of discharge summary to the next provider of care; and contact the patient soon after discharge to ensure they are following their plan of care.
• Patient satisfaction. Have a system for high performance on the questions comprising the “doctor communication” domain. These are “How often did doctors treat you with courtesy and respect/listen carefully to you/explain things in a way you could understand?”

Medicare’s Message

Clearly, the financial impacts of hospital quality, satisfaction, and safety are growing, conveying the message from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that quality matters, making a business case for quality. Our focus as leaders in hospital systems improvement will only sharpen as we see hospital payments increasingly affected as a direct consequence of our efforts. If that doesn’t get the attention of the finance department, what will?

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

click for large version

click for large version

After a long wait, the time where quality really matters to the finance department has arrived. Why? Because now a lot of money is on the line based on hospitals’ ability to demonstrate performance on quality, patient safety, and patient satisfaction measures. And there is no physician group more central to the hospital’s performance on these measures than hospitalists.

To make this point, I will discuss the financial implications of three programs that are part of the Affordable Care Act: hospital value-based purchasing (HVBP), readmission penalties, and hospital-acquired conditions (HACs). Although many have found fault with these programs, especially the ones that only penalize hospitals (HACs and readmissions*), the dollars at risk can represent a new business case for hospitalist programs. High-performing hospitalist programs can positively impact their institution’s income statement.

In October 2012, readmissions penalties and VBP payments/penalties went into effect. In October 2014, a 1% penalty for groups in the worst-performing quartile in the HACs will be in force. Taken together, as Table 1 demonstrates, the total payments at risk will grow such that by fiscal-year 2017, 6% of a hospital’s inpatient payments from Medicare will be at risk. To put this in perspective, Table 2 models the dollars at risk for each of the five years beginning in 2013 for the three programs in a hypothetical, 327-bed hospital. While the risk in 2013 is a modest $1.7 million, by 2017, this hospital has more than $5 million at risk.

So where should hospitalists be focusing their efforts with these three programs and the monies that accompany them? First, for those designing incentive compensation for hospitalists, the incentives should address the applicable elements of these programs. Second, the components of VBP will evolve. For example, 2013 VPB payments are based on 70% process measures (a subset of the core measure set for heart failure, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, and surgery) and 30% patient satisfaction measures. In 2015, VBP will add such outcomes measures as central-line-associated bloodstream infections, catheter UTIs, mortality rates, and the new efficiency measure, Medicare spending per beneficiary. Third, readmissions penalties, while encompassing heart failure, myocardial infarction, and pneumonia for fiscal-year 2013 payments, will expand in fiscal-year 2015 to include chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, and other vascular conditions.

While all this can be hard to keep track of, not to mention address in the course of daily patient care, I suggest hospitalists set the following priorities to enable high performance for their hospitals under these programs:

• Catheter UTIs. Work with nursing, the ED, and other areas to ensure that catheters are indicated, insertion is sterile, there is a mechanism for their prompt removal, specimens are collected and handled appropriately, and that “present on admission” is documented if appropriate.
• Central-line-associated bloodstream infections. Ensure your hospital has the systems in place to support the central-line insertion bundle, and that the bundle elements are followed and documented.
• Readmissions. Focus on heart failure, pneumonia, myocardial infarction, and COPD; work with nursing and case management to identify those at high risk for readmission; perform targeted interventions based on that risk (e.g. palliative care or clinical pharmacy consultation); prioritize medication reconciliation; provide timely communication of discharge summary to the next provider of care; and contact the patient soon after discharge to ensure they are following their plan of care.
• Patient satisfaction. Have a system for high performance on the questions comprising the “doctor communication” domain. These are “How often did doctors treat you with courtesy and respect/listen carefully to you/explain things in a way you could understand?”

Medicare’s Message

Clearly, the financial impacts of hospital quality, satisfaction, and safety are growing, conveying the message from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that quality matters, making a business case for quality. Our focus as leaders in hospital systems improvement will only sharpen as we see hospital payments increasingly affected as a direct consequence of our efforts. If that doesn’t get the attention of the finance department, what will?

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

The prefix “neuro” has become quite popular the last couple of years. We have neuroeconomics, neuroplasticity, neuroergonomics, and, of course, neurohospitalist. The explosion of interest in the brain can be seen in the popular press, television, blogs, and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

I predict that recent breakthroughs in brain science and related fields (cognitive psychology, neurobiology, molecular biology, linguistics, and artificial intelligence, among others) will have a profound impact on the fields of quality improvement (QI) and patient safety, and, consequently on HM. To date, the patient safety movement has focused on systems issues in an effort to reduce harm induced by the healthcare system. I submit that for healthcare to be reliable and error-free in the future, we must leverage the innate strengths of the brain. Here I mention four areas where brain science breakthroughs can enable us to improve patient safety practices.

Diagnostic Error

Patrick Croskerry, an emergency physician and researcher, has described errors in diagnosis as stemming in part from cognitive bias. He offers “de-biasing strategies” as an approach to decreasing diagnostic error.

One of the most powerful de-biasing strategies is metacognition, or awareness of one’s own thinking processes. Closely related to metacognition is mindfulness, defined as the “nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment.” A growing body of literature makes the case that enhancing mindfulness might reduce the impact bias has on diagnostic error.¹ Table 1 (right) mentions a subset of bias types and how mindfulness might mitigate them. I’m sure you can think of cases you’ve encountered where bias has affected the diagnostic outcome.

click for large version

Empathy and Patient Experience

As the focus on patient experience grows, approaches to improving performance on patient satisfaction surveys are proliferating. Whatever technical components you choose to employ, a capacity for caregiver empathy is a crucial underlying factor to a better patient experience. Harvard psychiatrist Helen Riess, MD, points out that we are now beginning to understand the neurobiological basis of empathy. She and others present evidence that we may be able to “up-regulate” empathy through education or cognitive practices.² Several studies suggest we might be able to realize improved therapeutic relationships between physicians and patients, and they have led to programs, such as the ones at Stanford and Emory universities, that train caregivers to enhance empathy and compassion.

Interruptions and Cognitive Error

It has been customary in high-risk industries to ensure that certain procedures are free of interruptions. There is recognition that disturbances during high-stakes tasks, such as airline takeoff, carry disastrous consequences. We now know that multitasking is a myth and that the brain instead switches between tasks sequentially. But task-switching comes at the high cost of a marked increase in the rate of cognitive error.³ As we learn more, decreasing interruptions or delineating “interruption-free” zones in healthcare could be a way to mitigate an inherent vulnerability in our cognitive abilities.

Fatigue and Medical Error

It is well documented that sleep deprivation correlates with a decline in cognitive

performance in a number of classes of healthcare workers. Fatigue has also increased diagnostic error among residents. A 2011 Sentinel Alert from The Joint Commission creates a standard that healthcare organizations implement a fatigue-management plan to mitigate the potential harm caused by tired professionals.

Most of the approaches to improving outcomes in the hospital have focused on process improvement and systems thinking. But errors also occur due to the thinking process of clinicians. In the book “Brain Rules,” author John Medina argues that schools and businesses create an environment that is less than friendly to the brain, citing current classroom design and cubicles for office workers. As a result, he states, we often have poor educational and business performance. I have little doubt that if Medina spent a few hours in a hospital, he would come to a similar conclusion: We don’t do the brain any favors when it comes to creating a healthy environment for providing safe and reliable care to our patients.

References

1. Sibinga EM, Wu AW. Clinician mindfulness and patient safety. JAMA. 2010;304(22):2532-2533.
2. Riess H. Empathy in medicine─a neurobiological perspective. JAMA. 2010;304(14):1604-1605.
3. Rogers RD, Monsell S. The costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exper Psychol. 1995;124(2):207–231.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

The prefix “neuro” has become quite popular the last couple of years. We have neuroeconomics, neuroplasticity, neuroergonomics, and, of course, neurohospitalist. The explosion of interest in the brain can be seen in the popular press, television, blogs, and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

I predict that recent breakthroughs in brain science and related fields (cognitive psychology, neurobiology, molecular biology, linguistics, and artificial intelligence, among others) will have a profound impact on the fields of quality improvement (QI) and patient safety, and, consequently on HM. To date, the patient safety movement has focused on systems issues in an effort to reduce harm induced by the healthcare system. I submit that for healthcare to be reliable and error-free in the future, we must leverage the innate strengths of the brain. Here I mention four areas where brain science breakthroughs can enable us to improve patient safety practices.

Diagnostic Error

Patrick Croskerry, an emergency physician and researcher, has described errors in diagnosis as stemming in part from cognitive bias. He offers “de-biasing strategies” as an approach to decreasing diagnostic error.

One of the most powerful de-biasing strategies is metacognition, or awareness of one’s own thinking processes. Closely related to metacognition is mindfulness, defined as the “nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment.” A growing body of literature makes the case that enhancing mindfulness might reduce the impact bias has on diagnostic error.¹ Table 1 (right) mentions a subset of bias types and how mindfulness might mitigate them. I’m sure you can think of cases you’ve encountered where bias has affected the diagnostic outcome.

click for large version

Empathy and Patient Experience

As the focus on patient experience grows, approaches to improving performance on patient satisfaction surveys are proliferating. Whatever technical components you choose to employ, a capacity for caregiver empathy is a crucial underlying factor to a better patient experience. Harvard psychiatrist Helen Riess, MD, points out that we are now beginning to understand the neurobiological basis of empathy. She and others present evidence that we may be able to “up-regulate” empathy through education or cognitive practices.² Several studies suggest we might be able to realize improved therapeutic relationships between physicians and patients, and they have led to programs, such as the ones at Stanford and Emory universities, that train caregivers to enhance empathy and compassion.

Interruptions and Cognitive Error

It has been customary in high-risk industries to ensure that certain procedures are free of interruptions. There is recognition that disturbances during high-stakes tasks, such as airline takeoff, carry disastrous consequences. We now know that multitasking is a myth and that the brain instead switches between tasks sequentially. But task-switching comes at the high cost of a marked increase in the rate of cognitive error.³ As we learn more, decreasing interruptions or delineating “interruption-free” zones in healthcare could be a way to mitigate an inherent vulnerability in our cognitive abilities.

Fatigue and Medical Error

It is well documented that sleep deprivation correlates with a decline in cognitive

performance in a number of classes of healthcare workers. Fatigue has also increased diagnostic error among residents. A 2011 Sentinel Alert from The Joint Commission creates a standard that healthcare organizations implement a fatigue-management plan to mitigate the potential harm caused by tired professionals.

Most of the approaches to improving outcomes in the hospital have focused on process improvement and systems thinking. But errors also occur due to the thinking process of clinicians. In the book “Brain Rules,” author John Medina argues that schools and businesses create an environment that is less than friendly to the brain, citing current classroom design and cubicles for office workers. As a result, he states, we often have poor educational and business performance. I have little doubt that if Medina spent a few hours in a hospital, he would come to a similar conclusion: We don’t do the brain any favors when it comes to creating a healthy environment for providing safe and reliable care to our patients.

References

1. Sibinga EM, Wu AW. Clinician mindfulness and patient safety. JAMA. 2010;304(22):2532-2533.
2. Riess H. Empathy in medicine─a neurobiological perspective. JAMA. 2010;304(14):1604-1605.
3. Rogers RD, Monsell S. The costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exper Psychol. 1995;124(2):207–231.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

The prefix “neuro” has become quite popular the last couple of years. We have neuroeconomics, neuroplasticity, neuroergonomics, and, of course, neurohospitalist. The explosion of interest in the brain can be seen in the popular press, television, blogs, and the Journal of the American Medical Association.

I predict that recent breakthroughs in brain science and related fields (cognitive psychology, neurobiology, molecular biology, linguistics, and artificial intelligence, among others) will have a profound impact on the fields of quality improvement (QI) and patient safety, and, consequently on HM. To date, the patient safety movement has focused on systems issues in an effort to reduce harm induced by the healthcare system. I submit that for healthcare to be reliable and error-free in the future, we must leverage the innate strengths of the brain. Here I mention four areas where brain science breakthroughs can enable us to improve patient safety practices.

Diagnostic Error

Patrick Croskerry, an emergency physician and researcher, has described errors in diagnosis as stemming in part from cognitive bias. He offers “de-biasing strategies” as an approach to decreasing diagnostic error.

One of the most powerful de-biasing strategies is metacognition, or awareness of one’s own thinking processes. Closely related to metacognition is mindfulness, defined as the “nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment.” A growing body of literature makes the case that enhancing mindfulness might reduce the impact bias has on diagnostic error.¹ Table 1 (right) mentions a subset of bias types and how mindfulness might mitigate them. I’m sure you can think of cases you’ve encountered where bias has affected the diagnostic outcome.

click for large version

Empathy and Patient Experience

As the focus on patient experience grows, approaches to improving performance on patient satisfaction surveys are proliferating. Whatever technical components you choose to employ, a capacity for caregiver empathy is a crucial underlying factor to a better patient experience. Harvard psychiatrist Helen Riess, MD, points out that we are now beginning to understand the neurobiological basis of empathy. She and others present evidence that we may be able to “up-regulate” empathy through education or cognitive practices.² Several studies suggest we might be able to realize improved therapeutic relationships between physicians and patients, and they have led to programs, such as the ones at Stanford and Emory universities, that train caregivers to enhance empathy and compassion.

Interruptions and Cognitive Error

It has been customary in high-risk industries to ensure that certain procedures are free of interruptions. There is recognition that disturbances during high-stakes tasks, such as airline takeoff, carry disastrous consequences. We now know that multitasking is a myth and that the brain instead switches between tasks sequentially. But task-switching comes at the high cost of a marked increase in the rate of cognitive error.³ As we learn more, decreasing interruptions or delineating “interruption-free” zones in healthcare could be a way to mitigate an inherent vulnerability in our cognitive abilities.

Fatigue and Medical Error

It is well documented that sleep deprivation correlates with a decline in cognitive

performance in a number of classes of healthcare workers. Fatigue has also increased diagnostic error among residents. A 2011 Sentinel Alert from The Joint Commission creates a standard that healthcare organizations implement a fatigue-management plan to mitigate the potential harm caused by tired professionals.

Most of the approaches to improving outcomes in the hospital have focused on process improvement and systems thinking. But errors also occur due to the thinking process of clinicians. In the book “Brain Rules,” author John Medina argues that schools and businesses create an environment that is less than friendly to the brain, citing current classroom design and cubicles for office workers. As a result, he states, we often have poor educational and business performance. I have little doubt that if Medina spent a few hours in a hospital, he would come to a similar conclusion: We don’t do the brain any favors when it comes to creating a healthy environment for providing safe and reliable care to our patients.

References

1. Sibinga EM, Wu AW. Clinician mindfulness and patient safety. JAMA. 2010;304(22):2532-2533.
2. Riess H. Empathy in medicine─a neurobiological perspective. JAMA. 2010;304(14):1604-1605.
3. Rogers RD, Monsell S. The costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J Exper Psychol. 1995;124(2):207–231.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].