The Hospitalist

A new device shows promise for heart failure patients, according to a recent study.

In a trial, 614 patients with severe heart failure were randomly assigned to receive standard medical treatment and a MitraClip, which helps repair the damaged mitral valve, or to receive medical treatment alone.

Among those who received only medical treatment, 151 were hospitalized for heart failure in the ensuing 2 years and 61 died. Among those who got the device, 92 were hospitalized for heart failure during the same period and 28 died.

Reference

1. Kolata G. Tiny Device is a ‘Huge Advance’ for Treatment of Severe Heart Failure. New York Times. Sept 23, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/health/heart-failure-valve-repair-microclip.html. Accessed Oct 10, 2018.

A new device shows promise for heart failure patients, according to a recent study.

In a trial, 614 patients with severe heart failure were randomly assigned to receive standard medical treatment and a MitraClip, which helps repair the damaged mitral valve, or to receive medical treatment alone.

Among those who received only medical treatment, 151 were hospitalized for heart failure in the ensuing 2 years and 61 died. Among those who got the device, 92 were hospitalized for heart failure during the same period and 28 died.

Reference

1. Kolata G. Tiny Device is a ‘Huge Advance’ for Treatment of Severe Heart Failure. New York Times. Sept 23, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/health/heart-failure-valve-repair-microclip.html. Accessed Oct 10, 2018.

A new device shows promise for heart failure patients, according to a recent study.

In a trial, 614 patients with severe heart failure were randomly assigned to receive standard medical treatment and a MitraClip, which helps repair the damaged mitral valve, or to receive medical treatment alone.

Among those who received only medical treatment, 151 were hospitalized for heart failure in the ensuing 2 years and 61 died. Among those who got the device, 92 were hospitalized for heart failure during the same period and 28 died.

Reference

1. Kolata G. Tiny Device is a ‘Huge Advance’ for Treatment of Severe Heart Failure. New York Times. Sept 23, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/23/health/heart-failure-valve-repair-microclip.html. Accessed Oct 10, 2018.

It might be the ultimate medical innovation – an artificial heart – and generations of physicians have pursued it, a story told in “Ticker: The Quest to Create an Artificial Heart.”

Author Mimi Swartz feared this history was being forgotten. “The larger-than-life personalities – Dr. Michael DeBakey and Dr. Denton Cooley – were such dominant figures for more than 50 years; I couldn’t stand for that history to be lost,” she said. “Also, so many innovations happened in Houston, including the implantation of the first artificial heart and the development of the Left Ventricular Assist Device – I couldn’t stand for that information to be lost too.”

Writing this book taught her a lot about innovation in medicine, the trade-offs involved in medical progress, even who benefits most.

“One of the most important things to think about is how many of these high-tech devices we need, and who will get them – who will be able to afford them,” she said.

“Medical innovation over the last 50 years is a global, billion dollar business, fraught with pitfalls: legal, governmental, ethical, financial, and, finally, personal,” Ms. Swartz said. “A great invention that could save millions of lives can end up on the junk heap because a hedge fund lost interest, while another great invention moves forward, but was stolen from the lab of another researcher. The persistence required to bring a medical device to market is daunting. One inventor told me, ‘If I’d known what was going to happen, I never would have even started.’ ”

Reference

Swartz M. Ticker: The Quest to Create an Artificial Heart. New York: Penguin Random House, 2018.

It might be the ultimate medical innovation – an artificial heart – and generations of physicians have pursued it, a story told in “Ticker: The Quest to Create an Artificial Heart.”

Author Mimi Swartz feared this history was being forgotten. “The larger-than-life personalities – Dr. Michael DeBakey and Dr. Denton Cooley – were such dominant figures for more than 50 years; I couldn’t stand for that history to be lost,” she said. “Also, so many innovations happened in Houston, including the implantation of the first artificial heart and the development of the Left Ventricular Assist Device – I couldn’t stand for that information to be lost too.”

Writing this book taught her a lot about innovation in medicine, the trade-offs involved in medical progress, even who benefits most.

“One of the most important things to think about is how many of these high-tech devices we need, and who will get them – who will be able to afford them,” she said.

“Medical innovation over the last 50 years is a global, billion dollar business, fraught with pitfalls: legal, governmental, ethical, financial, and, finally, personal,” Ms. Swartz said. “A great invention that could save millions of lives can end up on the junk heap because a hedge fund lost interest, while another great invention moves forward, but was stolen from the lab of another researcher. The persistence required to bring a medical device to market is daunting. One inventor told me, ‘If I’d known what was going to happen, I never would have even started.’ ”

Reference

Swartz M. Ticker: The Quest to Create an Artificial Heart. New York: Penguin Random House, 2018.

It might be the ultimate medical innovation – an artificial heart – and generations of physicians have pursued it, a story told in “Ticker: The Quest to Create an Artificial Heart.”

Author Mimi Swartz feared this history was being forgotten. “The larger-than-life personalities – Dr. Michael DeBakey and Dr. Denton Cooley – were such dominant figures for more than 50 years; I couldn’t stand for that history to be lost,” she said. “Also, so many innovations happened in Houston, including the implantation of the first artificial heart and the development of the Left Ventricular Assist Device – I couldn’t stand for that information to be lost too.”

Writing this book taught her a lot about innovation in medicine, the trade-offs involved in medical progress, even who benefits most.

“One of the most important things to think about is how many of these high-tech devices we need, and who will get them – who will be able to afford them,” she said.

“Medical innovation over the last 50 years is a global, billion dollar business, fraught with pitfalls: legal, governmental, ethical, financial, and, finally, personal,” Ms. Swartz said. “A great invention that could save millions of lives can end up on the junk heap because a hedge fund lost interest, while another great invention moves forward, but was stolen from the lab of another researcher. The persistence required to bring a medical device to market is daunting. One inventor told me, ‘If I’d known what was going to happen, I never would have even started.’ ”

Reference

Swartz M. Ticker: The Quest to Create an Artificial Heart. New York: Penguin Random House, 2018.

For the first time, employed physicians outnumber independent physicians, according to a survey from the American Medical Association.

The AMA’s annual Physician Practice Benchmark Survey, which queried 3,500 doctors, showed that 47% of all physicians in 2018 were employed, compared with 46% of doctors who were self-employed that year. The number of employed physicians has risen 6 percentage points since 2012, while the number of self-employed doctors has fallen by 7 percentage points over the same period, according to the study published May 6 on the AMA website.

Younger physicians and women doctors were more likely to be employed than their counterparts. Nearly 70% of physicians under age 40 years were employees in 2018, compared with 38% of physicians 55 years and older, the study found. About 35% of physicians worked either directly for a hospital or in a practice at least partly owned by a hospital in 2018, up from 29% in 2012.

More than half of physicians surveyed (54%) worked in physician-owned practices in 2018 either as an owner, employee, or contractor, a decrease from 60% in 2012. Male physicians were more likely to be practice owners than female physicians. Among female doctors, 58% were employees, compared with 34% who were practice owners, while 52% of men physicians were practice owners, compared with 42% who were employees.

Surgical subspecialists had the highest share of owners (65%) followed by obstetrician-gynecologists (54%) and internal medicine subspecialists (52%). Emergency physicians had the lowest share of owners (26%) and the highest share of independent contractors (27%). Family physicians, meanwhile, had the highest share of employed physicians (57%).

A majority of doctors still work in small practices, the analysis found. In 2018, 57% of physicians worked in practices with 10 or fewer physicians versus 61% in 2012. However, fewer physicians work in solo practice. Between 2012 and 2018 the percentage of physicians in solo practice fell from 18% in 2012 to 15% in 2018.

“Transformational change continues in the delivery of health care and physicians are responding by reevaluating their practice arrangements,” AMA President Barbara L. McAneny, MD, said in a statement. “Physicians must assess many factors and carefully determine for themselves what settings they find professionally rewarding when considering independence or employment.”

The AMA’s Physician Practice Benchmark Survey is a nationally representative survey of post-residency physicians who provide at least 20 hours of patient care per week, are not employed by the federal government, and practice in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. The 2018 survey was conducted in September 2018, and the final data included 3,500 physicians.

[email protected]

For the first time, employed physicians outnumber independent physicians, according to a survey from the American Medical Association.

The AMA’s annual Physician Practice Benchmark Survey, which queried 3,500 doctors, showed that 47% of all physicians in 2018 were employed, compared with 46% of doctors who were self-employed that year. The number of employed physicians has risen 6 percentage points since 2012, while the number of self-employed doctors has fallen by 7 percentage points over the same period, according to the study published May 6 on the AMA website.

Younger physicians and women doctors were more likely to be employed than their counterparts. Nearly 70% of physicians under age 40 years were employees in 2018, compared with 38% of physicians 55 years and older, the study found. About 35% of physicians worked either directly for a hospital or in a practice at least partly owned by a hospital in 2018, up from 29% in 2012.

More than half of physicians surveyed (54%) worked in physician-owned practices in 2018 either as an owner, employee, or contractor, a decrease from 60% in 2012. Male physicians were more likely to be practice owners than female physicians. Among female doctors, 58% were employees, compared with 34% who were practice owners, while 52% of men physicians were practice owners, compared with 42% who were employees.

Surgical subspecialists had the highest share of owners (65%) followed by obstetrician-gynecologists (54%) and internal medicine subspecialists (52%). Emergency physicians had the lowest share of owners (26%) and the highest share of independent contractors (27%). Family physicians, meanwhile, had the highest share of employed physicians (57%).

A majority of doctors still work in small practices, the analysis found. In 2018, 57% of physicians worked in practices with 10 or fewer physicians versus 61% in 2012. However, fewer physicians work in solo practice. Between 2012 and 2018 the percentage of physicians in solo practice fell from 18% in 2012 to 15% in 2018.

“Transformational change continues in the delivery of health care and physicians are responding by reevaluating their practice arrangements,” AMA President Barbara L. McAneny, MD, said in a statement. “Physicians must assess many factors and carefully determine for themselves what settings they find professionally rewarding when considering independence or employment.”

The AMA’s Physician Practice Benchmark Survey is a nationally representative survey of post-residency physicians who provide at least 20 hours of patient care per week, are not employed by the federal government, and practice in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. The 2018 survey was conducted in September 2018, and the final data included 3,500 physicians.

[email protected]

For the first time, employed physicians outnumber independent physicians, according to a survey from the American Medical Association.

The AMA’s annual Physician Practice Benchmark Survey, which queried 3,500 doctors, showed that 47% of all physicians in 2018 were employed, compared with 46% of doctors who were self-employed that year. The number of employed physicians has risen 6 percentage points since 2012, while the number of self-employed doctors has fallen by 7 percentage points over the same period, according to the study published May 6 on the AMA website.

Younger physicians and women doctors were more likely to be employed than their counterparts. Nearly 70% of physicians under age 40 years were employees in 2018, compared with 38% of physicians 55 years and older, the study found. About 35% of physicians worked either directly for a hospital or in a practice at least partly owned by a hospital in 2018, up from 29% in 2012.

More than half of physicians surveyed (54%) worked in physician-owned practices in 2018 either as an owner, employee, or contractor, a decrease from 60% in 2012. Male physicians were more likely to be practice owners than female physicians. Among female doctors, 58% were employees, compared with 34% who were practice owners, while 52% of men physicians were practice owners, compared with 42% who were employees.

Surgical subspecialists had the highest share of owners (65%) followed by obstetrician-gynecologists (54%) and internal medicine subspecialists (52%). Emergency physicians had the lowest share of owners (26%) and the highest share of independent contractors (27%). Family physicians, meanwhile, had the highest share of employed physicians (57%).

A majority of doctors still work in small practices, the analysis found. In 2018, 57% of physicians worked in practices with 10 or fewer physicians versus 61% in 2012. However, fewer physicians work in solo practice. Between 2012 and 2018 the percentage of physicians in solo practice fell from 18% in 2012 to 15% in 2018.

“Transformational change continues in the delivery of health care and physicians are responding by reevaluating their practice arrangements,” AMA President Barbara L. McAneny, MD, said in a statement. “Physicians must assess many factors and carefully determine for themselves what settings they find professionally rewarding when considering independence or employment.”

The AMA’s Physician Practice Benchmark Survey is a nationally representative survey of post-residency physicians who provide at least 20 hours of patient care per week, are not employed by the federal government, and practice in one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia. The 2018 survey was conducted in September 2018, and the final data included 3,500 physicians.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – A disproportionate number of breakthrough strokes were observed among patients receiving rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in a stroke unit, according to a small, single-center, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The researchers reviewed all patients presenting to a tertiary care stroke unit in Australia from January 2015 to June 2018.

A total of 56 patients (median age was 74 years; 61% were male) had received direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy and then had an ischemic stroke. Of those patients, 37 (66%) had strokes while receiving the treatment; 14 patients (25%) had a stroke after recently stopping a DOAC, often prior to a medical procedure; and 5 patients (9%) were not adherent to their DOAC regimen.

Of the 37 patients who had strokes during DOAC treatment, 48% were on rivaroxaban, 9% were on dabigatran, and 9% were on apixaban, Fiona Chan, MD, of The Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia, and coinvestigators reported in a poster presentation.

While these findings need to be replicated in a larger study, they do “raise concern for inadequate stroke prevention within this cohort,” they said.

Moreover, the findings illustrate the importance of bridging anticoagulation prior to procedures, when appropriate, to minimize stroke risk, they added, as 25% of the strokes had occurred in patients who recently stopped the DOACs due to procedures.

To determine which DOAC was most often associated with breakthrough ischemic strokes in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the investigators compared the proportion of DOACs prescribed in Australia to the proportion of observed strokes in their cohort.

Despite accounting for about 51% of Australian DOAC prescriptions, rivaroxaban represented nearly 73% of breakthrough strokes among the patients who had strokes while receiving the treatment (P = .001), the investigators reported.

Conversely, apixaban accounted for about 35% of prescriptions but 14% of the breakthrough strokes (P = .0007), while dabigatran accounted for 14% of prescriptions and 14% of the strokes (P = 0.99), the investigators said in their poster.

One limitation of this retrospective study is that the patient cohort came from a single specialized center, and may not reflect the true incidence of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation across Australia, the researchers noted.

Dr. Chan and coinvestigators reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Chan F et al. AAN 2019. P1.3-001.

PHILADELPHIA – A disproportionate number of breakthrough strokes were observed among patients receiving rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in a stroke unit, according to a small, single-center, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The researchers reviewed all patients presenting to a tertiary care stroke unit in Australia from January 2015 to June 2018.

A total of 56 patients (median age was 74 years; 61% were male) had received direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy and then had an ischemic stroke. Of those patients, 37 (66%) had strokes while receiving the treatment; 14 patients (25%) had a stroke after recently stopping a DOAC, often prior to a medical procedure; and 5 patients (9%) were not adherent to their DOAC regimen.

Of the 37 patients who had strokes during DOAC treatment, 48% were on rivaroxaban, 9% were on dabigatran, and 9% were on apixaban, Fiona Chan, MD, of The Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia, and coinvestigators reported in a poster presentation.

While these findings need to be replicated in a larger study, they do “raise concern for inadequate stroke prevention within this cohort,” they said.

Moreover, the findings illustrate the importance of bridging anticoagulation prior to procedures, when appropriate, to minimize stroke risk, they added, as 25% of the strokes had occurred in patients who recently stopped the DOACs due to procedures.

To determine which DOAC was most often associated with breakthrough ischemic strokes in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the investigators compared the proportion of DOACs prescribed in Australia to the proportion of observed strokes in their cohort.

Despite accounting for about 51% of Australian DOAC prescriptions, rivaroxaban represented nearly 73% of breakthrough strokes among the patients who had strokes while receiving the treatment (P = .001), the investigators reported.

Conversely, apixaban accounted for about 35% of prescriptions but 14% of the breakthrough strokes (P = .0007), while dabigatran accounted for 14% of prescriptions and 14% of the strokes (P = 0.99), the investigators said in their poster.

One limitation of this retrospective study is that the patient cohort came from a single specialized center, and may not reflect the true incidence of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation across Australia, the researchers noted.

Dr. Chan and coinvestigators reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Chan F et al. AAN 2019. P1.3-001.

PHILADELPHIA – A disproportionate number of breakthrough strokes were observed among patients receiving rivaroxaban for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation in a stroke unit, according to a small, single-center, retrospective study presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Neurology.

The researchers reviewed all patients presenting to a tertiary care stroke unit in Australia from January 2015 to June 2018.

A total of 56 patients (median age was 74 years; 61% were male) had received direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy and then had an ischemic stroke. Of those patients, 37 (66%) had strokes while receiving the treatment; 14 patients (25%) had a stroke after recently stopping a DOAC, often prior to a medical procedure; and 5 patients (9%) were not adherent to their DOAC regimen.

Of the 37 patients who had strokes during DOAC treatment, 48% were on rivaroxaban, 9% were on dabigatran, and 9% were on apixaban, Fiona Chan, MD, of The Princess Alexandra Hospital, Brisbane, Australia, and coinvestigators reported in a poster presentation.

While these findings need to be replicated in a larger study, they do “raise concern for inadequate stroke prevention within this cohort,” they said.

Moreover, the findings illustrate the importance of bridging anticoagulation prior to procedures, when appropriate, to minimize stroke risk, they added, as 25% of the strokes had occurred in patients who recently stopped the DOACs due to procedures.

To determine which DOAC was most often associated with breakthrough ischemic strokes in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the investigators compared the proportion of DOACs prescribed in Australia to the proportion of observed strokes in their cohort.

Despite accounting for about 51% of Australian DOAC prescriptions, rivaroxaban represented nearly 73% of breakthrough strokes among the patients who had strokes while receiving the treatment (P = .001), the investigators reported.

Conversely, apixaban accounted for about 35% of prescriptions but 14% of the breakthrough strokes (P = .0007), while dabigatran accounted for 14% of prescriptions and 14% of the strokes (P = 0.99), the investigators said in their poster.

One limitation of this retrospective study is that the patient cohort came from a single specialized center, and may not reflect the true incidence of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation across Australia, the researchers noted.

Dr. Chan and coinvestigators reported that they had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Chan F et al. AAN 2019. P1.3-001.

State laws that give pharmacists direct authority to dispense naloxone are linked to significant drops in opioid-related fatal overdoses, investigators reported.

By contrast, state laws that stopped short of allowing pharmacists to directly dispense the opioid antagonist did not appear to impact mortality, according to the report, which appears in JAMA Internal Medicine (2019 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0272).

The report, based on state-level trends tracked from 2005 to 2016, indicates that fatal opioid overdoses fell by nearly one-third in states that adopted direct dispensing laws as compared with states that adopted other naloxone laws.

That finding suggests that the policy type determines whether a naloxone law is useful in combating fatal opioid overdoses, said Rahi Abouk, PhD, of William Paterson University, Wayne, N.J. and co-authors of the paper.

“Enabling distribution through various sources, or requiring gatekeepers, will not be as beneficial,” Dr. Abouk and co-authors said in their report.

The current rate of deaths from fentanyl, heroin, and prescription analgesic overdose has outpaced all previous drug epidemics on record, and even surpasses the number of deaths in the peak year of the HIV epidemic of the 1980s, Dr. Abouk and colleagues wrote in their paper.

The number of states with naloxone access laws grew from just 2 in 2005 to 47 by 2016, including 9 states that granted direct authority to pharmacists and 38 that granted indirect authority, according to the researchers.

The analysis of overdose trends from 2005 to 2016 was based on naloxone distribution data from state Medicaid agencies and opioid-related mortality data from a national statistics system. Forty percent of nonelderly adults with an opioid addiction are covered by Medicaid, the researchers said.

They found that naloxone laws granting pharmacists direct dispensing authority were linked to a drop in opioid deaths that increased in magnitude over time, according to researchers. The mean number of opioid deaths dropped by 27% in the second year after adoption of direct authority laws, relative to opioid deaths in states with indirect access laws, while in subsequent years, deaths dropped by 34%.

Emergency department visits related to opioids increased by 15% in direct authority states 3 or more years after adoption, as compared to states that did not adopt direct authority laws. According to investigators, that translated into 15 additional opioid-related emergency department visits each month.

That increase suggests that, alongside direct dispensing laws, “useful interventions” and connections to treatment are needed for the emergency department, according to Dr. Abouk and colleagues.

“This is the location where such programs may be the most effective,” they said in their report.

Future research should be done to determine whether removing gatekeepers increases the value of naloxone distribution policies, they concluded in the report.

Dr. Abouk had no disclosures. Co-authors on the study reported funding and conflict of interest disclosures related to the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

SOURCE: Abouk R, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 May 6. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0272.

State laws that give pharmacists direct authority to dispense naloxone are linked to significant drops in opioid-related fatal overdoses, investigators reported.

By contrast, state laws that stopped short of allowing pharmacists to directly dispense the opioid antagonist did not appear to impact mortality, according to the report, which appears in JAMA Internal Medicine (2019 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0272).

The report, based on state-level trends tracked from 2005 to 2016, indicates that fatal opioid overdoses fell by nearly one-third in states that adopted direct dispensing laws as compared with states that adopted other naloxone laws.

That finding suggests that the policy type determines whether a naloxone law is useful in combating fatal opioid overdoses, said Rahi Abouk, PhD, of William Paterson University, Wayne, N.J. and co-authors of the paper.

“Enabling distribution through various sources, or requiring gatekeepers, will not be as beneficial,” Dr. Abouk and co-authors said in their report.

The current rate of deaths from fentanyl, heroin, and prescription analgesic overdose has outpaced all previous drug epidemics on record, and even surpasses the number of deaths in the peak year of the HIV epidemic of the 1980s, Dr. Abouk and colleagues wrote in their paper.

The number of states with naloxone access laws grew from just 2 in 2005 to 47 by 2016, including 9 states that granted direct authority to pharmacists and 38 that granted indirect authority, according to the researchers.

The analysis of overdose trends from 2005 to 2016 was based on naloxone distribution data from state Medicaid agencies and opioid-related mortality data from a national statistics system. Forty percent of nonelderly adults with an opioid addiction are covered by Medicaid, the researchers said.

They found that naloxone laws granting pharmacists direct dispensing authority were linked to a drop in opioid deaths that increased in magnitude over time, according to researchers. The mean number of opioid deaths dropped by 27% in the second year after adoption of direct authority laws, relative to opioid deaths in states with indirect access laws, while in subsequent years, deaths dropped by 34%.

Emergency department visits related to opioids increased by 15% in direct authority states 3 or more years after adoption, as compared to states that did not adopt direct authority laws. According to investigators, that translated into 15 additional opioid-related emergency department visits each month.

That increase suggests that, alongside direct dispensing laws, “useful interventions” and connections to treatment are needed for the emergency department, according to Dr. Abouk and colleagues.

“This is the location where such programs may be the most effective,” they said in their report.

Future research should be done to determine whether removing gatekeepers increases the value of naloxone distribution policies, they concluded in the report.

Dr. Abouk had no disclosures. Co-authors on the study reported funding and conflict of interest disclosures related to the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

SOURCE: Abouk R, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 May 6. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0272.

State laws that give pharmacists direct authority to dispense naloxone are linked to significant drops in opioid-related fatal overdoses, investigators reported.

By contrast, state laws that stopped short of allowing pharmacists to directly dispense the opioid antagonist did not appear to impact mortality, according to the report, which appears in JAMA Internal Medicine (2019 May 6. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0272).

The report, based on state-level trends tracked from 2005 to 2016, indicates that fatal opioid overdoses fell by nearly one-third in states that adopted direct dispensing laws as compared with states that adopted other naloxone laws.

That finding suggests that the policy type determines whether a naloxone law is useful in combating fatal opioid overdoses, said Rahi Abouk, PhD, of William Paterson University, Wayne, N.J. and co-authors of the paper.

“Enabling distribution through various sources, or requiring gatekeepers, will not be as beneficial,” Dr. Abouk and co-authors said in their report.

The current rate of deaths from fentanyl, heroin, and prescription analgesic overdose has outpaced all previous drug epidemics on record, and even surpasses the number of deaths in the peak year of the HIV epidemic of the 1980s, Dr. Abouk and colleagues wrote in their paper.

The number of states with naloxone access laws grew from just 2 in 2005 to 47 by 2016, including 9 states that granted direct authority to pharmacists and 38 that granted indirect authority, according to the researchers.

The analysis of overdose trends from 2005 to 2016 was based on naloxone distribution data from state Medicaid agencies and opioid-related mortality data from a national statistics system. Forty percent of nonelderly adults with an opioid addiction are covered by Medicaid, the researchers said.

They found that naloxone laws granting pharmacists direct dispensing authority were linked to a drop in opioid deaths that increased in magnitude over time, according to researchers. The mean number of opioid deaths dropped by 27% in the second year after adoption of direct authority laws, relative to opioid deaths in states with indirect access laws, while in subsequent years, deaths dropped by 34%.

Emergency department visits related to opioids increased by 15% in direct authority states 3 or more years after adoption, as compared to states that did not adopt direct authority laws. According to investigators, that translated into 15 additional opioid-related emergency department visits each month.

That increase suggests that, alongside direct dispensing laws, “useful interventions” and connections to treatment are needed for the emergency department, according to Dr. Abouk and colleagues.

“This is the location where such programs may be the most effective,” they said in their report.

Future research should be done to determine whether removing gatekeepers increases the value of naloxone distribution policies, they concluded in the report.

Dr. Abouk had no disclosures. Co-authors on the study reported funding and conflict of interest disclosures related to the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

SOURCE: Abouk R, et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 May 6. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0272.

Quality improvement (QI) is essential to the advancement of medicine. QI differs from research as it focuses on already proven knowledge and aims to make quick, sustainable change in local health care systems. Community hospitals may not have organized quality improvement initiatives and often rely on individual hospitalists to be their champions.

Although there are resources for quality improvement projects, initiating a project can seem daunting to a hospitalist. Our aim is to equip the community hospitalist with basic skills to initiate their own successful project. We present our “Top 10” tips to review.



1. Start small: Many quality improvement ideas include grandiose changes that require a large buy-in or worse, more money. When starting a QI project, you need to consider low-cost, high-impact projects. Even the smallest projects can make considerable change. Focus on ideas that require only one or two improvement cycles to implement. Understand your hospital culture, flow, and processes, and then pick a project that is reasonable.

Projects can be as simple as decreasing the number of daily labs ordered by your hospitalist group. Projects that are small could still improve patient satisfaction and decrease costs. Listen to your colleagues, if they are discussing an issue, turn this into an idea! As you learn the culture of your hospital you will be able to tackle larger projects. Plus, it gets your name out there!

2. Establish buy-in: Surround yourself with champions of your cause. Properly identifying and engaging key players is paramount to a successful QI project. First, start with your hospital administration, and garner their support by aligning your project with the goals and objectives that the administration leaders have identified to be important for your institution. Next, select a motivated multidisciplinary team. When choosing your team, be sure to include a representative from the various stakeholders, that is, the individuals who have a variety of hospital roles likely to be affected by the outcome of the project. Stakeholders ensure the success of the project because they have a fundamental understanding of how the project will influence workflow, can predict issues before they arise, and often become empowered to make changes that directly influence their work.

Lastly, include at least one well-respected and highly influential member on your team. Change is always hard, and this person’s support and endorsement of the project, can often move mountains when challenges arise.

5. Remove waste: When determining QI projects, consider focusing on health care waste. Many of the current processes at our institutions have redundancies that add unhealthy time, effort, and inefficiency to our days that can not only impede patient care but also can lead to burnout. When outlining a project idea, consider mapping the process in your interested area to identify those redundancies and inefficiencies. Consider focusing on these instead of building an entirely new process. Improving inefficiencies also can help with provider buy-in with process changes, especially if this helps in improving their everyday frustrations.

6. Express your values: Create a sense of urgency around the problem you are trying to solve. Educate your colleagues to understand the depth of the QI initiative and its impact on their ability to care for patients and patient safety. Express genuine interest in improving your colleagues’ ability to care for patients and improve their days.

Sharing your passion about your project allows people to understand your vested interest in improving the system. This will inspire team members to lead the way to change and encourage colleagues to adopt the recommended changes.

7. Recognize and reward your team: Involve “champions” in every process change. Identify people who are part of your team and ensure they feel valued. Recognition and acknowledgment will allow people to feel more involved and to gain their buy-in. When it comes to results or progress, consider your group’s dynamics. If they are competitive, consider posting progress results on a publicly displayed run chart. If your group is less likely to be motivated by competition, hold individual meetings to help show progress. This is a crucial dynamic to understand, because creating a competitive environment may alienate some members of your group. Remember, the final result is not to blame those lagging behind but to encourage everyone to find the best pathway to success.

8. Be okay with failure: Celebrate your failures because failure is a chance to learn. Every failure is an educational opportunity to understand what not to do, or a chance to gain insight into a process that did not work.

Be a divergent thinker. Start considering problems as part of the path to solution, rather than a barrier in the way. Be open to change and learn from your mistakes. Don’t just be okay with your failures, own them. This will lead to trust with your team members and show your commitment.

9. Finish: This is key. You must finish your project. Even if you anticipate that the project will fail, you should see the project through to its completion. This proves both you and the process of QI are valid and worthwhile; you have to see results and share them with others.

Completing your project also shows your colleagues that you are resilient, committed, and dedicated. Completing a QI project, even with disappointing results, is a success in and of itself. In the end, it is most important to remember to show progress, not perfection.

10. Create sustainability: When your QI project is finished, you need to decide if the changes are sustainable. Some projects show small change and do not need permanent implementation, rather reminders over time. Other projects may be sustainable with EHR or organizational changes. Once you have successful results, your goal should be to find a way to ensure that the process stays in place over time. This is where all your hard work establishing buy-in comes in handy. Your team is more likely to create sustainable change with the hard work you forged through following these key tips.

These Top 10 tips are a hospitalist’s starting point to begin making changes at their own community hospital. Your motivation and effort in making quality change will not go unnoticed. Small ideas will open doors for larger, more sustainable QI projects. Remember, a failure just means a new idea for the next cycle! Enjoy the process of working collaboratively with your hospital on improving quality. Good luck!

Dr. Astik is a hospitalist and instructor of medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago. Dr. Corbett is a hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma, Tulsa. Dr. Patel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Colorado, Denver. Dr. Ronan is a hospitalist and associate professor at Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, Santa Fe, NM.

Quality improvement (QI) is essential to the advancement of medicine. QI differs from research as it focuses on already proven knowledge and aims to make quick, sustainable change in local health care systems. Community hospitals may not have organized quality improvement initiatives and often rely on individual hospitalists to be their champions.

Although there are resources for quality improvement projects, initiating a project can seem daunting to a hospitalist. Our aim is to equip the community hospitalist with basic skills to initiate their own successful project. We present our “Top 10” tips to review.



1. Start small: Many quality improvement ideas include grandiose changes that require a large buy-in or worse, more money. When starting a QI project, you need to consider low-cost, high-impact projects. Even the smallest projects can make considerable change. Focus on ideas that require only one or two improvement cycles to implement. Understand your hospital culture, flow, and processes, and then pick a project that is reasonable.

Projects can be as simple as decreasing the number of daily labs ordered by your hospitalist group. Projects that are small could still improve patient satisfaction and decrease costs. Listen to your colleagues, if they are discussing an issue, turn this into an idea! As you learn the culture of your hospital you will be able to tackle larger projects. Plus, it gets your name out there!

2. Establish buy-in: Surround yourself with champions of your cause. Properly identifying and engaging key players is paramount to a successful QI project. First, start with your hospital administration, and garner their support by aligning your project with the goals and objectives that the administration leaders have identified to be important for your institution. Next, select a motivated multidisciplinary team. When choosing your team, be sure to include a representative from the various stakeholders, that is, the individuals who have a variety of hospital roles likely to be affected by the outcome of the project. Stakeholders ensure the success of the project because they have a fundamental understanding of how the project will influence workflow, can predict issues before they arise, and often become empowered to make changes that directly influence their work.

Lastly, include at least one well-respected and highly influential member on your team. Change is always hard, and this person’s support and endorsement of the project, can often move mountains when challenges arise.

5. Remove waste: When determining QI projects, consider focusing on health care waste. Many of the current processes at our institutions have redundancies that add unhealthy time, effort, and inefficiency to our days that can not only impede patient care but also can lead to burnout. When outlining a project idea, consider mapping the process in your interested area to identify those redundancies and inefficiencies. Consider focusing on these instead of building an entirely new process. Improving inefficiencies also can help with provider buy-in with process changes, especially if this helps in improving their everyday frustrations.

6. Express your values: Create a sense of urgency around the problem you are trying to solve. Educate your colleagues to understand the depth of the QI initiative and its impact on their ability to care for patients and patient safety. Express genuine interest in improving your colleagues’ ability to care for patients and improve their days.

Sharing your passion about your project allows people to understand your vested interest in improving the system. This will inspire team members to lead the way to change and encourage colleagues to adopt the recommended changes.

7. Recognize and reward your team: Involve “champions” in every process change. Identify people who are part of your team and ensure they feel valued. Recognition and acknowledgment will allow people to feel more involved and to gain their buy-in. When it comes to results or progress, consider your group’s dynamics. If they are competitive, consider posting progress results on a publicly displayed run chart. If your group is less likely to be motivated by competition, hold individual meetings to help show progress. This is a crucial dynamic to understand, because creating a competitive environment may alienate some members of your group. Remember, the final result is not to blame those lagging behind but to encourage everyone to find the best pathway to success.

8. Be okay with failure: Celebrate your failures because failure is a chance to learn. Every failure is an educational opportunity to understand what not to do, or a chance to gain insight into a process that did not work.

Be a divergent thinker. Start considering problems as part of the path to solution, rather than a barrier in the way. Be open to change and learn from your mistakes. Don’t just be okay with your failures, own them. This will lead to trust with your team members and show your commitment.

9. Finish: This is key. You must finish your project. Even if you anticipate that the project will fail, you should see the project through to its completion. This proves both you and the process of QI are valid and worthwhile; you have to see results and share them with others.

Completing your project also shows your colleagues that you are resilient, committed, and dedicated. Completing a QI project, even with disappointing results, is a success in and of itself. In the end, it is most important to remember to show progress, not perfection.

10. Create sustainability: When your QI project is finished, you need to decide if the changes are sustainable. Some projects show small change and do not need permanent implementation, rather reminders over time. Other projects may be sustainable with EHR or organizational changes. Once you have successful results, your goal should be to find a way to ensure that the process stays in place over time. This is where all your hard work establishing buy-in comes in handy. Your team is more likely to create sustainable change with the hard work you forged through following these key tips.

These Top 10 tips are a hospitalist’s starting point to begin making changes at their own community hospital. Your motivation and effort in making quality change will not go unnoticed. Small ideas will open doors for larger, more sustainable QI projects. Remember, a failure just means a new idea for the next cycle! Enjoy the process of working collaboratively with your hospital on improving quality. Good luck!

Dr. Astik is a hospitalist and instructor of medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago. Dr. Corbett is a hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma, Tulsa. Dr. Patel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Colorado, Denver. Dr. Ronan is a hospitalist and associate professor at Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, Santa Fe, NM.

Quality improvement (QI) is essential to the advancement of medicine. QI differs from research as it focuses on already proven knowledge and aims to make quick, sustainable change in local health care systems. Community hospitals may not have organized quality improvement initiatives and often rely on individual hospitalists to be their champions.

Although there are resources for quality improvement projects, initiating a project can seem daunting to a hospitalist. Our aim is to equip the community hospitalist with basic skills to initiate their own successful project. We present our “Top 10” tips to review.



1. Start small: Many quality improvement ideas include grandiose changes that require a large buy-in or worse, more money. When starting a QI project, you need to consider low-cost, high-impact projects. Even the smallest projects can make considerable change. Focus on ideas that require only one or two improvement cycles to implement. Understand your hospital culture, flow, and processes, and then pick a project that is reasonable.

Projects can be as simple as decreasing the number of daily labs ordered by your hospitalist group. Projects that are small could still improve patient satisfaction and decrease costs. Listen to your colleagues, if they are discussing an issue, turn this into an idea! As you learn the culture of your hospital you will be able to tackle larger projects. Plus, it gets your name out there!

2. Establish buy-in: Surround yourself with champions of your cause. Properly identifying and engaging key players is paramount to a successful QI project. First, start with your hospital administration, and garner their support by aligning your project with the goals and objectives that the administration leaders have identified to be important for your institution. Next, select a motivated multidisciplinary team. When choosing your team, be sure to include a representative from the various stakeholders, that is, the individuals who have a variety of hospital roles likely to be affected by the outcome of the project. Stakeholders ensure the success of the project because they have a fundamental understanding of how the project will influence workflow, can predict issues before they arise, and often become empowered to make changes that directly influence their work.

Lastly, include at least one well-respected and highly influential member on your team. Change is always hard, and this person’s support and endorsement of the project, can often move mountains when challenges arise.

5. Remove waste: When determining QI projects, consider focusing on health care waste. Many of the current processes at our institutions have redundancies that add unhealthy time, effort, and inefficiency to our days that can not only impede patient care but also can lead to burnout. When outlining a project idea, consider mapping the process in your interested area to identify those redundancies and inefficiencies. Consider focusing on these instead of building an entirely new process. Improving inefficiencies also can help with provider buy-in with process changes, especially if this helps in improving their everyday frustrations.

6. Express your values: Create a sense of urgency around the problem you are trying to solve. Educate your colleagues to understand the depth of the QI initiative and its impact on their ability to care for patients and patient safety. Express genuine interest in improving your colleagues’ ability to care for patients and improve their days.

Sharing your passion about your project allows people to understand your vested interest in improving the system. This will inspire team members to lead the way to change and encourage colleagues to adopt the recommended changes.

7. Recognize and reward your team: Involve “champions” in every process change. Identify people who are part of your team and ensure they feel valued. Recognition and acknowledgment will allow people to feel more involved and to gain their buy-in. When it comes to results or progress, consider your group’s dynamics. If they are competitive, consider posting progress results on a publicly displayed run chart. If your group is less likely to be motivated by competition, hold individual meetings to help show progress. This is a crucial dynamic to understand, because creating a competitive environment may alienate some members of your group. Remember, the final result is not to blame those lagging behind but to encourage everyone to find the best pathway to success.

8. Be okay with failure: Celebrate your failures because failure is a chance to learn. Every failure is an educational opportunity to understand what not to do, or a chance to gain insight into a process that did not work.

Be a divergent thinker. Start considering problems as part of the path to solution, rather than a barrier in the way. Be open to change and learn from your mistakes. Don’t just be okay with your failures, own them. This will lead to trust with your team members and show your commitment.

9. Finish: This is key. You must finish your project. Even if you anticipate that the project will fail, you should see the project through to its completion. This proves both you and the process of QI are valid and worthwhile; you have to see results and share them with others.

Completing your project also shows your colleagues that you are resilient, committed, and dedicated. Completing a QI project, even with disappointing results, is a success in and of itself. In the end, it is most important to remember to show progress, not perfection.

10. Create sustainability: When your QI project is finished, you need to decide if the changes are sustainable. Some projects show small change and do not need permanent implementation, rather reminders over time. Other projects may be sustainable with EHR or organizational changes. Once you have successful results, your goal should be to find a way to ensure that the process stays in place over time. This is where all your hard work establishing buy-in comes in handy. Your team is more likely to create sustainable change with the hard work you forged through following these key tips.

These Top 10 tips are a hospitalist’s starting point to begin making changes at their own community hospital. Your motivation and effort in making quality change will not go unnoticed. Small ideas will open doors for larger, more sustainable QI projects. Remember, a failure just means a new idea for the next cycle! Enjoy the process of working collaboratively with your hospital on improving quality. Good luck!

Dr. Astik is a hospitalist and instructor of medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago. Dr. Corbett is a hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Oklahoma, Tulsa. Dr. Patel is a hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Colorado, Denver. Dr. Ronan is a hospitalist and associate professor at Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center, Santa Fe, NM.

The vast majority of individuals at high risk for opioid overdose do not receive naloxone, despite numerous opportunities, according to Sarah Follman and associates from the University of Chicago.

In a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open, the study authors analyzed data from individuals in the Truven Health MarketScan Research Database who had ICD-10 codes related to opioid use, misuse, dependence, and overdose. Data from Oct. 1, 2015, through Dec. 31, 2016, were included; a total of 138,108 high-risk individuals were identified as interacting with the health care system nearly 1.2 million times (88,618 hospitalizations, 229,680 ED visits, 298,058 internal medicine visits, and 568,448 family practice visits).

Of the 138,108 individuals in the study, only 2,135 (1.5%) were prescribed naloxone during the study period. Patients who had prior diagnoses of both opioid misuse/dependence and overdose were significantly more likely to receive naloxone than were those who only had a history of opioid dependence (odds ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.72; P less than .001). In addition, having a history of overdose alone was associated with a decreased chance of receiving naloxone, compared with those with a history of opioid misuse alone (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .01).

Other factors that significantly reduced the odds of receiving naloxone included being aged 30-44 years and being from the Midwest or West. Factors that reduced the odds include having received treatment for opioid use disorder, visiting a detoxification facility, receiving other substance use disorder treatment; and having received outpatient care from a pain specialist, psychologist, or surgeon.

“Most individuals at high risk of opioid overdose do not receive naloxone through direct prescribing,” Ms. Follman and associates wrote. “Clinicians can address this gap by regularly prescribing naloxone to eligible patients. To address barriers to prescribing, hospital systems and medical schools can support clinicians by improving education on screening and treating substance use disorders, clarifying legal concerns, and developing policies and protocols to guide implementation of increased prescribing. “Health care systems can also create or strengthen processes to encourage naloxone prescribing.”

No conflicts of interest were reported; one coauthor reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Follman S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 May 3. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3209.

The vast majority of individuals at high risk for opioid overdose do not receive naloxone, despite numerous opportunities, according to Sarah Follman and associates from the University of Chicago.

In a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open, the study authors analyzed data from individuals in the Truven Health MarketScan Research Database who had ICD-10 codes related to opioid use, misuse, dependence, and overdose. Data from Oct. 1, 2015, through Dec. 31, 2016, were included; a total of 138,108 high-risk individuals were identified as interacting with the health care system nearly 1.2 million times (88,618 hospitalizations, 229,680 ED visits, 298,058 internal medicine visits, and 568,448 family practice visits).

Of the 138,108 individuals in the study, only 2,135 (1.5%) were prescribed naloxone during the study period. Patients who had prior diagnoses of both opioid misuse/dependence and overdose were significantly more likely to receive naloxone than were those who only had a history of opioid dependence (odds ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.72; P less than .001). In addition, having a history of overdose alone was associated with a decreased chance of receiving naloxone, compared with those with a history of opioid misuse alone (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .01).

Other factors that significantly reduced the odds of receiving naloxone included being aged 30-44 years and being from the Midwest or West. Factors that reduced the odds include having received treatment for opioid use disorder, visiting a detoxification facility, receiving other substance use disorder treatment; and having received outpatient care from a pain specialist, psychologist, or surgeon.

“Most individuals at high risk of opioid overdose do not receive naloxone through direct prescribing,” Ms. Follman and associates wrote. “Clinicians can address this gap by regularly prescribing naloxone to eligible patients. To address barriers to prescribing, hospital systems and medical schools can support clinicians by improving education on screening and treating substance use disorders, clarifying legal concerns, and developing policies and protocols to guide implementation of increased prescribing. “Health care systems can also create or strengthen processes to encourage naloxone prescribing.”

No conflicts of interest were reported; one coauthor reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Follman S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 May 3. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3209.

The vast majority of individuals at high risk for opioid overdose do not receive naloxone, despite numerous opportunities, according to Sarah Follman and associates from the University of Chicago.

In a retrospective study published in JAMA Network Open, the study authors analyzed data from individuals in the Truven Health MarketScan Research Database who had ICD-10 codes related to opioid use, misuse, dependence, and overdose. Data from Oct. 1, 2015, through Dec. 31, 2016, were included; a total of 138,108 high-risk individuals were identified as interacting with the health care system nearly 1.2 million times (88,618 hospitalizations, 229,680 ED visits, 298,058 internal medicine visits, and 568,448 family practice visits).

Of the 138,108 individuals in the study, only 2,135 (1.5%) were prescribed naloxone during the study period. Patients who had prior diagnoses of both opioid misuse/dependence and overdose were significantly more likely to receive naloxone than were those who only had a history of opioid dependence (odds ratio, 2.32; 95% confidence interval, 1.98-2.72; P less than .001). In addition, having a history of overdose alone was associated with a decreased chance of receiving naloxone, compared with those with a history of opioid misuse alone (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.94; P = .01).

Other factors that significantly reduced the odds of receiving naloxone included being aged 30-44 years and being from the Midwest or West. Factors that reduced the odds include having received treatment for opioid use disorder, visiting a detoxification facility, receiving other substance use disorder treatment; and having received outpatient care from a pain specialist, psychologist, or surgeon.

“Most individuals at high risk of opioid overdose do not receive naloxone through direct prescribing,” Ms. Follman and associates wrote. “Clinicians can address this gap by regularly prescribing naloxone to eligible patients. To address barriers to prescribing, hospital systems and medical schools can support clinicians by improving education on screening and treating substance use disorders, clarifying legal concerns, and developing policies and protocols to guide implementation of increased prescribing. “Health care systems can also create or strengthen processes to encourage naloxone prescribing.”

No conflicts of interest were reported; one coauthor reported receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Follman S et al. JAMA Netw Open. 2019 May 3. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3209.

Hospitalists know that a small percentage of patients account for a disproportionately large percentage of overall health care spending, much of which comes from inpatient admissions. Many programs have been developed around the country to work with this population, and most of these programs are – appropriately – outpatient based. 

“However, a subset of frequently admitted patients either don’t make it to outpatient care or are unengaged with outpatient care and programs, for whom hospital stays can give us a unique opportunity to coordinate and streamline care, and to build trust that can then lead to increased patient engagement,” said Kirstin Knox, MD, PhD, of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and lead author of an abstract describing a method to address this challenge. “Our program works with these patients, the ‘outliers among the outliers’ to re-engage them in care, streamline admissions, coordinate inpatient and outpatient care, and address the underlying barriers/drivers that lead to frequent hospitalization.”

Their program designed and implemented a multidisciplinary intervention targeting the highest utilizers on their inpatient general medicine service. Each was assigned an inpatient continuity team, and the patient case was then presented to a multidisciplinary high-utilizer care committee that included physicians, nurses, and social workers, as well as representatives from a community health worker program, home care, and risk management to develop a care plan.

Analysis comparing the 6 months before and after intervention showed admissions and total hospital days were reduced by 55% and 47% respectively, and 30-day readmissions were reduced by 65%. Total direct costs were reduced from $2,923,000 to $1,284,000.

The top takeaway, Dr. Knox said, is that, through efforts to coordinate care and address underlying drivers of high utilization, hospital-based programs for the most frequently admitted patients can streamline inpatient care and decrease utilization for many high-risk, high-cost patients.

“I hope that hospitalists will consider starting inpatient-based high-utilizer programs at their own institutions, if they haven’t already,” she said. “Even starting with one or two of your most frequently admitted patients can be incredibly eye opening, and streamlining/coordinating care (as well as working overtime to address the underlying drivers/barriers that lead to high utilization) for these patients is incredibly rewarding.”
 

Reference

Knox K et al. Breaking the cycle: a successful inpatient based intervention for hospital high utilizers. Abstract published at Hospital Medicine 2018; Apr 8-11; Orlando, Fla., Abstract 319. Accessed 2018 Oct 2.

Hospitalists know that a small percentage of patients account for a disproportionately large percentage of overall health care spending, much of which comes from inpatient admissions. Many programs have been developed around the country to work with this population, and most of these programs are – appropriately – outpatient based. 

“However, a subset of frequently admitted patients either don’t make it to outpatient care or are unengaged with outpatient care and programs, for whom hospital stays can give us a unique opportunity to coordinate and streamline care, and to build trust that can then lead to increased patient engagement,” said Kirstin Knox, MD, PhD, of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and lead author of an abstract describing a method to address this challenge. “Our program works with these patients, the ‘outliers among the outliers’ to re-engage them in care, streamline admissions, coordinate inpatient and outpatient care, and address the underlying barriers/drivers that lead to frequent hospitalization.”

Their program designed and implemented a multidisciplinary intervention targeting the highest utilizers on their inpatient general medicine service. Each was assigned an inpatient continuity team, and the patient case was then presented to a multidisciplinary high-utilizer care committee that included physicians, nurses, and social workers, as well as representatives from a community health worker program, home care, and risk management to develop a care plan.

Analysis comparing the 6 months before and after intervention showed admissions and total hospital days were reduced by 55% and 47% respectively, and 30-day readmissions were reduced by 65%. Total direct costs were reduced from $2,923,000 to $1,284,000.

The top takeaway, Dr. Knox said, is that, through efforts to coordinate care and address underlying drivers of high utilization, hospital-based programs for the most frequently admitted patients can streamline inpatient care and decrease utilization for many high-risk, high-cost patients.

“I hope that hospitalists will consider starting inpatient-based high-utilizer programs at their own institutions, if they haven’t already,” she said. “Even starting with one or two of your most frequently admitted patients can be incredibly eye opening, and streamlining/coordinating care (as well as working overtime to address the underlying drivers/barriers that lead to high utilization) for these patients is incredibly rewarding.”
 

Reference

Knox K et al. Breaking the cycle: a successful inpatient based intervention for hospital high utilizers. Abstract published at Hospital Medicine 2018; Apr 8-11; Orlando, Fla., Abstract 319. Accessed 2018 Oct 2.

Hospitalists know that a small percentage of patients account for a disproportionately large percentage of overall health care spending, much of which comes from inpatient admissions. Many programs have been developed around the country to work with this population, and most of these programs are – appropriately – outpatient based. 

“However, a subset of frequently admitted patients either don’t make it to outpatient care or are unengaged with outpatient care and programs, for whom hospital stays can give us a unique opportunity to coordinate and streamline care, and to build trust that can then lead to increased patient engagement,” said Kirstin Knox, MD, PhD, of the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and lead author of an abstract describing a method to address this challenge. “Our program works with these patients, the ‘outliers among the outliers’ to re-engage them in care, streamline admissions, coordinate inpatient and outpatient care, and address the underlying barriers/drivers that lead to frequent hospitalization.”

Their program designed and implemented a multidisciplinary intervention targeting the highest utilizers on their inpatient general medicine service. Each was assigned an inpatient continuity team, and the patient case was then presented to a multidisciplinary high-utilizer care committee that included physicians, nurses, and social workers, as well as representatives from a community health worker program, home care, and risk management to develop a care plan.

Analysis comparing the 6 months before and after intervention showed admissions and total hospital days were reduced by 55% and 47% respectively, and 30-day readmissions were reduced by 65%. Total direct costs were reduced from $2,923,000 to $1,284,000.

The top takeaway, Dr. Knox said, is that, through efforts to coordinate care and address underlying drivers of high utilization, hospital-based programs for the most frequently admitted patients can streamline inpatient care and decrease utilization for many high-risk, high-cost patients.

“I hope that hospitalists will consider starting inpatient-based high-utilizer programs at their own institutions, if they haven’t already,” she said. “Even starting with one or two of your most frequently admitted patients can be incredibly eye opening, and streamlining/coordinating care (as well as working overtime to address the underlying drivers/barriers that lead to high utilization) for these patients is incredibly rewarding.”
 

Reference

Knox K et al. Breaking the cycle: a successful inpatient based intervention for hospital high utilizers. Abstract published at Hospital Medicine 2018; Apr 8-11; Orlando, Fla., Abstract 319. Accessed 2018 Oct 2.

“As a hospitalist, I believe that my specialty improves care for inpatients,” said Ethan Kuperman, MD, MS, FHM, clinical associate professor of medicine at University of Iowa Health Care in Iowa City. “I want hospitalists involved with as many hospitals as possible because I believe we will lead to better patient outcomes.” 

But, he adds, it’s not feasible to place dedicated hospitalists in every rural hospital in the United States – especially those running far below the average hospitalist census. “As a university, academic hospitalist, I wanted to make sure that the innovations and knowledge of the University of Iowa could penetrate into the greater community, and I wanted to strengthen the continuity of care between our partners in rural Iowa and our physical location in Iowa City,” he said.

Enter the virtual hospitalist: A telemedicine “virtual hospitalist” may expand capabilities at a fractional cost of an on-site provider.

Dr. Kuperman’s 6-month pilot program provided “virtual hospitalist” coverage to patients at a critical access hospital in rural Iowa.

“Our rural partners want to ensure that they are providing high-quality care within their communities and aren’t transferring patients without a good indication to larger centers,” he said. “For patients, this program means more of them can remain in their communities, surrounded by their families. I don’t think the virtual hospitalist program delivers equivalent care to the university hospital – I think we deliver better care because of that continuity with local providers and the ability of patients to remain in contact with their support structures.”

The study concludes that the virtual hospitalist model increased the percentage of ED patients who could safely receive their care locally, and a single virtual hospitalist may be able to cover multiple critical access hospitals simultaneously.

“We have the technology to deliver hospitalist expertise to rural hospitals through telehealth in a way that benefits patients, rural hospitals, and academic hospitals,” he said.
 

Reference

Kuperman E et al. The Virtual Hospitalist: A single-site implementation bringing hospitalist coverage to critical access hospitals. Journal of Hospital Medicine. Published online first 2018 Sep 26. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3061. Accessed 2018 Oct 2.

“As a hospitalist, I believe that my specialty improves care for inpatients,” said Ethan Kuperman, MD, MS, FHM, clinical associate professor of medicine at University of Iowa Health Care in Iowa City. “I want hospitalists involved with as many hospitals as possible because I believe we will lead to better patient outcomes.” 

But, he adds, it’s not feasible to place dedicated hospitalists in every rural hospital in the United States – especially those running far below the average hospitalist census. “As a university, academic hospitalist, I wanted to make sure that the innovations and knowledge of the University of Iowa could penetrate into the greater community, and I wanted to strengthen the continuity of care between our partners in rural Iowa and our physical location in Iowa City,” he said.

Enter the virtual hospitalist: A telemedicine “virtual hospitalist” may expand capabilities at a fractional cost of an on-site provider.

Dr. Kuperman’s 6-month pilot program provided “virtual hospitalist” coverage to patients at a critical access hospital in rural Iowa.

“Our rural partners want to ensure that they are providing high-quality care within their communities and aren’t transferring patients without a good indication to larger centers,” he said. “For patients, this program means more of them can remain in their communities, surrounded by their families. I don’t think the virtual hospitalist program delivers equivalent care to the university hospital – I think we deliver better care because of that continuity with local providers and the ability of patients to remain in contact with their support structures.”

The study concludes that the virtual hospitalist model increased the percentage of ED patients who could safely receive their care locally, and a single virtual hospitalist may be able to cover multiple critical access hospitals simultaneously.

“We have the technology to deliver hospitalist expertise to rural hospitals through telehealth in a way that benefits patients, rural hospitals, and academic hospitals,” he said.
 

Reference

Kuperman E et al. The Virtual Hospitalist: A single-site implementation bringing hospitalist coverage to critical access hospitals. Journal of Hospital Medicine. Published online first 2018 Sep 26. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3061. Accessed 2018 Oct 2.

“As a hospitalist, I believe that my specialty improves care for inpatients,” said Ethan Kuperman, MD, MS, FHM, clinical associate professor of medicine at University of Iowa Health Care in Iowa City. “I want hospitalists involved with as many hospitals as possible because I believe we will lead to better patient outcomes.” 

But, he adds, it’s not feasible to place dedicated hospitalists in every rural hospital in the United States – especially those running far below the average hospitalist census. “As a university, academic hospitalist, I wanted to make sure that the innovations and knowledge of the University of Iowa could penetrate into the greater community, and I wanted to strengthen the continuity of care between our partners in rural Iowa and our physical location in Iowa City,” he said.

Enter the virtual hospitalist: A telemedicine “virtual hospitalist” may expand capabilities at a fractional cost of an on-site provider.

Dr. Kuperman’s 6-month pilot program provided “virtual hospitalist” coverage to patients at a critical access hospital in rural Iowa.

“Our rural partners want to ensure that they are providing high-quality care within their communities and aren’t transferring patients without a good indication to larger centers,” he said. “For patients, this program means more of them can remain in their communities, surrounded by their families. I don’t think the virtual hospitalist program delivers equivalent care to the university hospital – I think we deliver better care because of that continuity with local providers and the ability of patients to remain in contact with their support structures.”

The study concludes that the virtual hospitalist model increased the percentage of ED patients who could safely receive their care locally, and a single virtual hospitalist may be able to cover multiple critical access hospitals simultaneously.

“We have the technology to deliver hospitalist expertise to rural hospitals through telehealth in a way that benefits patients, rural hospitals, and academic hospitals,” he said.
 

Reference

Kuperman E et al. The Virtual Hospitalist: A single-site implementation bringing hospitalist coverage to critical access hospitals. Journal of Hospital Medicine. Published online first 2018 Sep 26. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3061. Accessed 2018 Oct 2.

Presenter

H. Barrett Fromme, MD, MHPE, FAAP
 

Session title

Sustainability Isn’t Just For The Forests: Practice management tips for long-term success in your Pediatric Hospital Medicine Group
 

Session summary

Dr. H. Barrett Fromme of the University of Chicago presented and facilitated a dialogue of sustainability. The audience was guided through a discussion of how efficiency and resources, workload and job demands, work-life integration and social support, and community at work can either lead to burnout or engagement within a Pediatric Hospital Medicine Group.

Key takeaways for HM

• Leaders can advocate with hospital leadership to optimize individual workload and job demands.
• Individuals and leaders can improve care process and clinical work flow to optimize efficiency and resources.
• Individuals and leaders can build high-functioning teams and cultivate communities of practice.
• Individuals and leaders can work together to develop goals to optimize work-life integration.
• Leaders can support values, autonomy, and growth to create an environment where individuals actively value and support their colleagues.

Dr. Kumar is a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University. She serves as the cochair of Pediatric Grand Rounds and is the research director for the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowship at Cleveland Clinic Children’s.

Presenter

H. Barrett Fromme, MD, MHPE, FAAP
 

Session title

Sustainability Isn’t Just For The Forests: Practice management tips for long-term success in your Pediatric Hospital Medicine Group
 

Session summary

Dr. H. Barrett Fromme of the University of Chicago presented and facilitated a dialogue of sustainability. The audience was guided through a discussion of how efficiency and resources, workload and job demands, work-life integration and social support, and community at work can either lead to burnout or engagement within a Pediatric Hospital Medicine Group.

Key takeaways for HM

• Leaders can advocate with hospital leadership to optimize individual workload and job demands.
• Individuals and leaders can improve care process and clinical work flow to optimize efficiency and resources.
• Individuals and leaders can build high-functioning teams and cultivate communities of practice.
• Individuals and leaders can work together to develop goals to optimize work-life integration.
• Leaders can support values, autonomy, and growth to create an environment where individuals actively value and support their colleagues.

Dr. Kumar is a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University. She serves as the cochair of Pediatric Grand Rounds and is the research director for the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowship at Cleveland Clinic Children’s.

Presenter

H. Barrett Fromme, MD, MHPE, FAAP
 

Session title

Sustainability Isn’t Just For The Forests: Practice management tips for long-term success in your Pediatric Hospital Medicine Group
 

Session summary

Dr. H. Barrett Fromme of the University of Chicago presented and facilitated a dialogue of sustainability. The audience was guided through a discussion of how efficiency and resources, workload and job demands, work-life integration and social support, and community at work can either lead to burnout or engagement within a Pediatric Hospital Medicine Group.

Key takeaways for HM

• Leaders can advocate with hospital leadership to optimize individual workload and job demands.
• Individuals and leaders can improve care process and clinical work flow to optimize efficiency and resources.
• Individuals and leaders can build high-functioning teams and cultivate communities of practice.
• Individuals and leaders can work together to develop goals to optimize work-life integration.
• Leaders can support values, autonomy, and growth to create an environment where individuals actively value and support their colleagues.

Dr. Kumar is a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s and clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University. She serves as the cochair of Pediatric Grand Rounds and is the research director for the Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellowship at Cleveland Clinic Children’s.