The Hospitalist

For patients with atrial fibrillation with at least one risk factor besides gender, oral anticoagulation is the optimal choice of antithrombotic therapy, experts said in a comprehensive, updated guideline.

©Thinkstock

The 113-page guideline, published in the journal CHEST^®, provides antithrombotic treatment recommendations for atrial fibrillation based on different levels of risk for stroke and in a variety of clinical presentations.

Altogether, the new guidelines highlight 60 key recommendations from the 12-person expert panel, chaired by Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham (England).

To develop the guidelines, the panel conducted a systematic literature review of relevant articles released since the 2012 publication of Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (9th Edition).

Since that time, “there have been substantial developments in atrial fibrillation thromboprophylaxis, whether with regard to risk assessment, antithrombotic drugs, or non-drug approaches,” panelists said in their report.

The panel graded the quality of the new evidence found in the literature review, and then undertook a consensus development process. Each recommendation and statement required at least 80% consensus to pass.

Their treatment recommendations in the report are focused on three topic areas: stroke and bleeding risk assessment, antithrombotic therapy in general, and antithrombotic therapy in special situations, such as acute coronary syndrome and stenting, chronic atrial flutter, pregnancy, and chronic kidney disease.

Stroke prevention is the main priority in a “holistic approach” to management of atrial fibrillation, the panelists said in the report.

“Many of the risk factors leading to incident AF are also risk factors for ischemic stroke, and the promotion of an integrated or holistic approach to AF management is needed, incorporating stroke prevention, addressing symptoms and risk factor management,” they said.

No antithrombotic therapy is needed for patients who have atrial fibrillation without valvular heart disease, the panelists concluded.

For patients with at least one nongender CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk factor, oral anticoagulation is recommended over aspirin, aspirin and clopidogrel, or no therapy, they said.

In high-risk patients, including males with two or more CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk factors and females with three or more, novel oral anticoagulants are recommended over adjusted-dose warfarin, they added.

At each patient contact, patients with atrial fibrillation should receive bleeding risk assessment starting with potentially modifiable risk factors such as uncontrolled blood pressure or excessive alcohol intake, according to the expert panel.

High-risk patients, as indicated by a HAS-BLED score of 3 or greater, should have more frequent and regular follow-up, they said.

The expert panel report concludes with a discussion on practical and patient-centered issues.

“Patient education is essential to provide patients with sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to take oral anticoagulants, and if they do, which oral anticoagulant they would prefer,” Dr. Lip and his colleagues said in their report.

Dr. Lip disclosed a potential conflict of interest with Boehringer Ingelheim. Expert panel members reported disclosures related to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, Biotronik, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Servier, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Lip GYH et al. CHEST. 2018 Aug 21. pii: S0012-3692(18)32244-X.

For patients with atrial fibrillation with at least one risk factor besides gender, oral anticoagulation is the optimal choice of antithrombotic therapy, experts said in a comprehensive, updated guideline.

©Thinkstock

The 113-page guideline, published in the journal CHEST^®, provides antithrombotic treatment recommendations for atrial fibrillation based on different levels of risk for stroke and in a variety of clinical presentations.

Altogether, the new guidelines highlight 60 key recommendations from the 12-person expert panel, chaired by Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham (England).

To develop the guidelines, the panel conducted a systematic literature review of relevant articles released since the 2012 publication of Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (9th Edition).

Since that time, “there have been substantial developments in atrial fibrillation thromboprophylaxis, whether with regard to risk assessment, antithrombotic drugs, or non-drug approaches,” panelists said in their report.

The panel graded the quality of the new evidence found in the literature review, and then undertook a consensus development process. Each recommendation and statement required at least 80% consensus to pass.

Their treatment recommendations in the report are focused on three topic areas: stroke and bleeding risk assessment, antithrombotic therapy in general, and antithrombotic therapy in special situations, such as acute coronary syndrome and stenting, chronic atrial flutter, pregnancy, and chronic kidney disease.

Stroke prevention is the main priority in a “holistic approach” to management of atrial fibrillation, the panelists said in the report.

“Many of the risk factors leading to incident AF are also risk factors for ischemic stroke, and the promotion of an integrated or holistic approach to AF management is needed, incorporating stroke prevention, addressing symptoms and risk factor management,” they said.

No antithrombotic therapy is needed for patients who have atrial fibrillation without valvular heart disease, the panelists concluded.

For patients with at least one nongender CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk factor, oral anticoagulation is recommended over aspirin, aspirin and clopidogrel, or no therapy, they said.

In high-risk patients, including males with two or more CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk factors and females with three or more, novel oral anticoagulants are recommended over adjusted-dose warfarin, they added.

At each patient contact, patients with atrial fibrillation should receive bleeding risk assessment starting with potentially modifiable risk factors such as uncontrolled blood pressure or excessive alcohol intake, according to the expert panel.

High-risk patients, as indicated by a HAS-BLED score of 3 or greater, should have more frequent and regular follow-up, they said.

The expert panel report concludes with a discussion on practical and patient-centered issues.

“Patient education is essential to provide patients with sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to take oral anticoagulants, and if they do, which oral anticoagulant they would prefer,” Dr. Lip and his colleagues said in their report.

Dr. Lip disclosed a potential conflict of interest with Boehringer Ingelheim. Expert panel members reported disclosures related to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, Biotronik, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Servier, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Lip GYH et al. CHEST. 2018 Aug 21. pii: S0012-3692(18)32244-X.

For patients with atrial fibrillation with at least one risk factor besides gender, oral anticoagulation is the optimal choice of antithrombotic therapy, experts said in a comprehensive, updated guideline.

©Thinkstock

The 113-page guideline, published in the journal CHEST^®, provides antithrombotic treatment recommendations for atrial fibrillation based on different levels of risk for stroke and in a variety of clinical presentations.

Altogether, the new guidelines highlight 60 key recommendations from the 12-person expert panel, chaired by Gregory Y.H. Lip, MD, of the Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Birmingham (England).

To develop the guidelines, the panel conducted a systematic literature review of relevant articles released since the 2012 publication of Thrombolytic Therapy: American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (9th Edition).

Since that time, “there have been substantial developments in atrial fibrillation thromboprophylaxis, whether with regard to risk assessment, antithrombotic drugs, or non-drug approaches,” panelists said in their report.

The panel graded the quality of the new evidence found in the literature review, and then undertook a consensus development process. Each recommendation and statement required at least 80% consensus to pass.

Their treatment recommendations in the report are focused on three topic areas: stroke and bleeding risk assessment, antithrombotic therapy in general, and antithrombotic therapy in special situations, such as acute coronary syndrome and stenting, chronic atrial flutter, pregnancy, and chronic kidney disease.

Stroke prevention is the main priority in a “holistic approach” to management of atrial fibrillation, the panelists said in the report.

“Many of the risk factors leading to incident AF are also risk factors for ischemic stroke, and the promotion of an integrated or holistic approach to AF management is needed, incorporating stroke prevention, addressing symptoms and risk factor management,” they said.

No antithrombotic therapy is needed for patients who have atrial fibrillation without valvular heart disease, the panelists concluded.

For patients with at least one nongender CHA2DS2-VASc stroke risk factor, oral anticoagulation is recommended over aspirin, aspirin and clopidogrel, or no therapy, they said.

In high-risk patients, including males with two or more CHA₂DS₂-VASc risk factors and females with three or more, novel oral anticoagulants are recommended over adjusted-dose warfarin, they added.

At each patient contact, patients with atrial fibrillation should receive bleeding risk assessment starting with potentially modifiable risk factors such as uncontrolled blood pressure or excessive alcohol intake, according to the expert panel.

High-risk patients, as indicated by a HAS-BLED score of 3 or greater, should have more frequent and regular follow-up, they said.

The expert panel report concludes with a discussion on practical and patient-centered issues.

“Patient education is essential to provide patients with sufficient information to enable them to make an informed decision about whether or not they wish to take oral anticoagulants, and if they do, which oral anticoagulant they would prefer,” Dr. Lip and his colleagues said in their report.

Dr. Lip disclosed a potential conflict of interest with Boehringer Ingelheim. Expert panel members reported disclosures related to Boston Scientific, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, Biotronik, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Bayer, Servier, Gilead, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and others.

SOURCE: Lip GYH et al. CHEST. 2018 Aug 21. pii: S0012-3692(18)32244-X.

The question of appropriate ward garb is a problem for the ages. Compared with photo stills and films from the 1960s, the doctors of today appear like vagabonds. No ties, no lab coats, and scrub tops have become the norm for a number (a majority?) of hospital-based docs – and even more so on the surgical wards and in the ER.

Digital Vision/Thinkstock

Past studies have addressed patient preferences for provider dress, but none like the results of a recent survey.

From the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, comes a physician attire survey of a convenience sample of 4,000 patients at 10 U.S. academic medical centers. It included both inpatients and outpatients, and used the design of many previous studies, showing patients the same doctor dressed seven different ways. After viewing the photographs, the patients received surveys as to their preference of physician based on attire, as well as being asked to rate the physician in the areas of knowledge, trust, care, approachability, and comfort.

You can see the domains: casual, scrubs, and formal, each with and without a lab coat. The seventh category is business attire (future C-suite wannabes – you know who you are).

Over half of the participants indicated that how a physician dresses was important to them, with more than one in three stating that this influenced how happy they were with care received. Overall, respondents indicated that formal attire with white coats was the most preferred form of physician dress.

I found the discussion in the study worthwhile, along with the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s outline. They went to great lengths to design a nonbiased questionnaire and used a consistent approach to shooting their photos. They also discussed lab coats, long sleeves, and hygiene.

But what to draw from the findings? Does patient satisfaction matter or just clinical outcomes? Is patient happiness a means to an end or an end unto itself? Can I even get you exercised about a score of 6 versus 8 (a 25% difference)? For instance, imagine the worst-dressed doc – say shorts and flip-flops. Is that a 5.8 or a 2.3? The anchor matters, and it helps to put the ratings in context.

Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.

Dr. Flansbaum works for Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., in both the divisions of hospital medicine and population health. He is a founding member of the Society of Hospital Medicine and served as a board member and officer.

Also in The Hospital Leader

•Hospitalists Can Improve Patient Trust…in Their Colleagues by Chris Moriates, MD, SFHM

•Treatment of Type II MIs by Brad Flansbaum, MD, MPH, MHM

•The $64,000 Question: How Can Hospitalists Improve Their HCAHPS Scores? by Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM

The question of appropriate ward garb is a problem for the ages. Compared with photo stills and films from the 1960s, the doctors of today appear like vagabonds. No ties, no lab coats, and scrub tops have become the norm for a number (a majority?) of hospital-based docs – and even more so on the surgical wards and in the ER.

Digital Vision/Thinkstock

Past studies have addressed patient preferences for provider dress, but none like the results of a recent survey.

From the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, comes a physician attire survey of a convenience sample of 4,000 patients at 10 U.S. academic medical centers. It included both inpatients and outpatients, and used the design of many previous studies, showing patients the same doctor dressed seven different ways. After viewing the photographs, the patients received surveys as to their preference of physician based on attire, as well as being asked to rate the physician in the areas of knowledge, trust, care, approachability, and comfort.

You can see the domains: casual, scrubs, and formal, each with and without a lab coat. The seventh category is business attire (future C-suite wannabes – you know who you are).

Over half of the participants indicated that how a physician dresses was important to them, with more than one in three stating that this influenced how happy they were with care received. Overall, respondents indicated that formal attire with white coats was the most preferred form of physician dress.

I found the discussion in the study worthwhile, along with the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s outline. They went to great lengths to design a nonbiased questionnaire and used a consistent approach to shooting their photos. They also discussed lab coats, long sleeves, and hygiene.

But what to draw from the findings? Does patient satisfaction matter or just clinical outcomes? Is patient happiness a means to an end or an end unto itself? Can I even get you exercised about a score of 6 versus 8 (a 25% difference)? For instance, imagine the worst-dressed doc – say shorts and flip-flops. Is that a 5.8 or a 2.3? The anchor matters, and it helps to put the ratings in context.

Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.

Dr. Flansbaum works for Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., in both the divisions of hospital medicine and population health. He is a founding member of the Society of Hospital Medicine and served as a board member and officer.

Also in The Hospital Leader

•Hospitalists Can Improve Patient Trust…in Their Colleagues by Chris Moriates, MD, SFHM

•Treatment of Type II MIs by Brad Flansbaum, MD, MPH, MHM

•The $64,000 Question: How Can Hospitalists Improve Their HCAHPS Scores? by Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM

The question of appropriate ward garb is a problem for the ages. Compared with photo stills and films from the 1960s, the doctors of today appear like vagabonds. No ties, no lab coats, and scrub tops have become the norm for a number (a majority?) of hospital-based docs – and even more so on the surgical wards and in the ER.

Digital Vision/Thinkstock

Past studies have addressed patient preferences for provider dress, but none like the results of a recent survey.

From the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, comes a physician attire survey of a convenience sample of 4,000 patients at 10 U.S. academic medical centers. It included both inpatients and outpatients, and used the design of many previous studies, showing patients the same doctor dressed seven different ways. After viewing the photographs, the patients received surveys as to their preference of physician based on attire, as well as being asked to rate the physician in the areas of knowledge, trust, care, approachability, and comfort.

You can see the domains: casual, scrubs, and formal, each with and without a lab coat. The seventh category is business attire (future C-suite wannabes – you know who you are).

Over half of the participants indicated that how a physician dresses was important to them, with more than one in three stating that this influenced how happy they were with care received. Overall, respondents indicated that formal attire with white coats was the most preferred form of physician dress.

I found the discussion in the study worthwhile, along with the strengths and weaknesses of the author’s outline. They went to great lengths to design a nonbiased questionnaire and used a consistent approach to shooting their photos. They also discussed lab coats, long sleeves, and hygiene.

But what to draw from the findings? Does patient satisfaction matter or just clinical outcomes? Is patient happiness a means to an end or an end unto itself? Can I even get you exercised about a score of 6 versus 8 (a 25% difference)? For instance, imagine the worst-dressed doc – say shorts and flip-flops. Is that a 5.8 or a 2.3? The anchor matters, and it helps to put the ratings in context.

Read the full post at hospitalleader.org.

Dr. Flansbaum works for Geisinger Health System in Danville, Pa., in both the divisions of hospital medicine and population health. He is a founding member of the Society of Hospital Medicine and served as a board member and officer.

Also in The Hospital Leader

•Hospitalists Can Improve Patient Trust…in Their Colleagues by Chris Moriates, MD, SFHM

•Treatment of Type II MIs by Brad Flansbaum, MD, MPH, MHM

•The $64,000 Question: How Can Hospitalists Improve Their HCAHPS Scores? by Leslie Flores, MHA, SFHM

Modern Healthcare recently announced its list of the 50 Most Influential Physician Executives and Leaders, and hospital medicine was well represented among the honorees. The honored physicians were selected by a panel of experts and peers for their leadership and impact on the profession.

Topping the list was Scott Gottlieb, MD, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Gottlieb was confirmed to his position in May 2017 and, in his first year, has focused on price transparency and the approval of generic medications.

Dr. Gottlieb was deputy commissioner of the FDA from 2005-2007, and he has worked as an advisor and analyst for GlaxoSmithKline, the American Enterprise Institute, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Avilene Health.

Dr. Gottlieb earned his medical degree from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and completed his residency at Mount Sinai Hospital. He has worked as a hospitalist at New York University’s Tisch Hospital, the Hospital for Joint Diseases, and Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.
 

Patrick Conway, MD, was listed at number 23 on Modern Healthcare’s 50 Most Influential Physician Executives and Leaders. Formerly the deputy administrator for innovation and quality at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Dr. Conway recently became president and chief executive officer of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

Dr. Conway is known for his ability to develop and promote alternative payment models. He was elected to the National Academy of Medicine’s Institute of Medicine in 2014 and was selected as a Master of Hospital Medicine by the Society of Hospital Medicine.
 

Lynn Massingale, MD, the cofounder and chairman of TeamHealth, was named one of the 50 Most Influential Physician Executives and Leaders for a third year running, coming in at number 27 on the list. Dr. Massingale, who also recently was named to the Tennessee Healthcare Hall of Fame, founded TeamHealth in 1979 and was its chief executive officer for 30 years before assuming the role of chairman in 2008.

TeamHealth provides outsourced emergency medicine, hospitalist, critical care, anesthesiology, and acute care surgery services, among other specialties, at more than 3,200 facilities and physician groups across the United States.
 

Veeravat Taecharvongphairoj, MD, a veteran internist and hospitalist at Hemet Valley Medical Center in Hemet, Calif., has been honored by the International Association of Healthcare Professionals in its Leading Physicians of the World publication.

Dr. Taecharvongphairoj completed his residency at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, before accepting a fellowship in hospital and palliative care at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. He is a member of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine.
 

Sean Bain, MD, has been selected to the Glen Falls (N.Y.) Hospital Foundation Board of Trustees for 2018. Dr. Bain works as a hospitalist/internist at Glen Falls Hospital, where he is the president of medical staff. He manages the credentialing, continuing education, and policies and practices for the staff’s providers.

Dr. Bain received his medical degree at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College and served his residency at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C.
 

George Harrison, MD, has been tabbed the new chief medical officer at Fairview Park Hospital in Dublin, Ga. Dr. Harrison will be charged with managing clinical quality and patient safety, staff relations, and clinical integration strategies at the hospital.

Prior to his appointment, Dr. Harrison was the codirector of the hospitalist program at Fairview Park. The Georgia native previously worked in management roles at urgent care centers, family practice centers, and hospitalist programs in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. He is a member of the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Society of Hospital Medicine, and the American Academy of Physician Leaders.

Dr. Harrison taught high school geometry and chemistry before earning his medical degree at the Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta. He did his residency at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
 

BUSINESS MOVES

U.S. Acute Care Solutions (Canton, Ohio), a physician-owned, national provider of emergency medicine and hospitalist services, has extended its relationship with Central Health of Colorado and western Kansas. USACS has acquired the physicians of Front Range Emergency Specialists (Colorado Springs, Colo.), Southwest Emergency Physicians (Durango, Colo.), and Southern Colorado Emergency Specialists (Pueblo, Colo.).

USACS’s acquisition of these three physician groups adds care to more than 175,000 patients each year in central and southwest Colorado. USACS cares for more than 6 million patients per year at more than 200 locations across the United States.
 

VEP Healthcare (Concord, Calif.), an emergency medicine and hospitalist staffing company, has signed on to manage hospitalist and ED services at City Hospital at White Rock in Dallas. Its goals are to increase patient satisfaction, decrease wait times in seeing providers, raise recommendation rates, and lower malpractice claims.

White Rock is a 218-bed, community hospital providing care to East Texas since 1959.

Modern Healthcare recently announced its list of the 50 Most Influential Physician Executives and Leaders, and hospital medicine was well represented among the honorees. The honored physicians were selected by a panel of experts and peers for their leadership and impact on the profession.

Topping the list was Scott Gottlieb, MD, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Gottlieb was confirmed to his position in May 2017 and, in his first year, has focused on price transparency and the approval of generic medications.

Dr. Gottlieb was deputy commissioner of the FDA from 2005-2007, and he has worked as an advisor and analyst for GlaxoSmithKline, the American Enterprise Institute, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Avilene Health.

Dr. Gottlieb earned his medical degree from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and completed his residency at Mount Sinai Hospital. He has worked as a hospitalist at New York University’s Tisch Hospital, the Hospital for Joint Diseases, and Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.
 

Patrick Conway, MD, was listed at number 23 on Modern Healthcare’s 50 Most Influential Physician Executives and Leaders. Formerly the deputy administrator for innovation and quality at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Dr. Conway recently became president and chief executive officer of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

Dr. Conway is known for his ability to develop and promote alternative payment models. He was elected to the National Academy of Medicine’s Institute of Medicine in 2014 and was selected as a Master of Hospital Medicine by the Society of Hospital Medicine.
 

Lynn Massingale, MD, the cofounder and chairman of TeamHealth, was named one of the 50 Most Influential Physician Executives and Leaders for a third year running, coming in at number 27 on the list. Dr. Massingale, who also recently was named to the Tennessee Healthcare Hall of Fame, founded TeamHealth in 1979 and was its chief executive officer for 30 years before assuming the role of chairman in 2008.

TeamHealth provides outsourced emergency medicine, hospitalist, critical care, anesthesiology, and acute care surgery services, among other specialties, at more than 3,200 facilities and physician groups across the United States.
 

Veeravat Taecharvongphairoj, MD, a veteran internist and hospitalist at Hemet Valley Medical Center in Hemet, Calif., has been honored by the International Association of Healthcare Professionals in its Leading Physicians of the World publication.

Dr. Taecharvongphairoj completed his residency at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, before accepting a fellowship in hospital and palliative care at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. He is a member of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine.
 

Sean Bain, MD, has been selected to the Glen Falls (N.Y.) Hospital Foundation Board of Trustees for 2018. Dr. Bain works as a hospitalist/internist at Glen Falls Hospital, where he is the president of medical staff. He manages the credentialing, continuing education, and policies and practices for the staff’s providers.

Dr. Bain received his medical degree at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College and served his residency at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C.
 

George Harrison, MD, has been tabbed the new chief medical officer at Fairview Park Hospital in Dublin, Ga. Dr. Harrison will be charged with managing clinical quality and patient safety, staff relations, and clinical integration strategies at the hospital.

Prior to his appointment, Dr. Harrison was the codirector of the hospitalist program at Fairview Park. The Georgia native previously worked in management roles at urgent care centers, family practice centers, and hospitalist programs in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. He is a member of the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Society of Hospital Medicine, and the American Academy of Physician Leaders.

Dr. Harrison taught high school geometry and chemistry before earning his medical degree at the Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta. He did his residency at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
 

BUSINESS MOVES

U.S. Acute Care Solutions (Canton, Ohio), a physician-owned, national provider of emergency medicine and hospitalist services, has extended its relationship with Central Health of Colorado and western Kansas. USACS has acquired the physicians of Front Range Emergency Specialists (Colorado Springs, Colo.), Southwest Emergency Physicians (Durango, Colo.), and Southern Colorado Emergency Specialists (Pueblo, Colo.).

USACS’s acquisition of these three physician groups adds care to more than 175,000 patients each year in central and southwest Colorado. USACS cares for more than 6 million patients per year at more than 200 locations across the United States.
 

VEP Healthcare (Concord, Calif.), an emergency medicine and hospitalist staffing company, has signed on to manage hospitalist and ED services at City Hospital at White Rock in Dallas. Its goals are to increase patient satisfaction, decrease wait times in seeing providers, raise recommendation rates, and lower malpractice claims.

White Rock is a 218-bed, community hospital providing care to East Texas since 1959.

Modern Healthcare recently announced its list of the 50 Most Influential Physician Executives and Leaders, and hospital medicine was well represented among the honorees. The honored physicians were selected by a panel of experts and peers for their leadership and impact on the profession.

Topping the list was Scott Gottlieb, MD, the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. Dr. Gottlieb was confirmed to his position in May 2017 and, in his first year, has focused on price transparency and the approval of generic medications.

Dr. Gottlieb was deputy commissioner of the FDA from 2005-2007, and he has worked as an advisor and analyst for GlaxoSmithKline, the American Enterprise Institute, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, and Avilene Health.

Dr. Gottlieb earned his medical degree from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and completed his residency at Mount Sinai Hospital. He has worked as a hospitalist at New York University’s Tisch Hospital, the Hospital for Joint Diseases, and Stamford (Conn.) Hospital.
 

Patrick Conway, MD, was listed at number 23 on Modern Healthcare’s 50 Most Influential Physician Executives and Leaders. Formerly the deputy administrator for innovation and quality at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Dr. Conway recently became president and chief executive officer of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina.

Dr. Conway is known for his ability to develop and promote alternative payment models. He was elected to the National Academy of Medicine’s Institute of Medicine in 2014 and was selected as a Master of Hospital Medicine by the Society of Hospital Medicine.
 

Lynn Massingale, MD, the cofounder and chairman of TeamHealth, was named one of the 50 Most Influential Physician Executives and Leaders for a third year running, coming in at number 27 on the list. Dr. Massingale, who also recently was named to the Tennessee Healthcare Hall of Fame, founded TeamHealth in 1979 and was its chief executive officer for 30 years before assuming the role of chairman in 2008.

TeamHealth provides outsourced emergency medicine, hospitalist, critical care, anesthesiology, and acute care surgery services, among other specialties, at more than 3,200 facilities and physician groups across the United States.
 

Veeravat Taecharvongphairoj, MD, a veteran internist and hospitalist at Hemet Valley Medical Center in Hemet, Calif., has been honored by the International Association of Healthcare Professionals in its Leading Physicians of the World publication.

Dr. Taecharvongphairoj completed his residency at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, before accepting a fellowship in hospital and palliative care at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles. He is a member of the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine.
 

Sean Bain, MD, has been selected to the Glen Falls (N.Y.) Hospital Foundation Board of Trustees for 2018. Dr. Bain works as a hospitalist/internist at Glen Falls Hospital, where he is the president of medical staff. He manages the credentialing, continuing education, and policies and practices for the staff’s providers.

Dr. Bain received his medical degree at Albany (N.Y.) Medical College and served his residency at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, Winston-Salem, N.C.
 

George Harrison, MD, has been tabbed the new chief medical officer at Fairview Park Hospital in Dublin, Ga. Dr. Harrison will be charged with managing clinical quality and patient safety, staff relations, and clinical integration strategies at the hospital.

Prior to his appointment, Dr. Harrison was the codirector of the hospitalist program at Fairview Park. The Georgia native previously worked in management roles at urgent care centers, family practice centers, and hospitalist programs in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. He is a member of the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Society of Hospital Medicine, and the American Academy of Physician Leaders.

Dr. Harrison taught high school geometry and chemistry before earning his medical degree at the Morehouse School of Medicine, Atlanta. He did his residency at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
 

BUSINESS MOVES

U.S. Acute Care Solutions (Canton, Ohio), a physician-owned, national provider of emergency medicine and hospitalist services, has extended its relationship with Central Health of Colorado and western Kansas. USACS has acquired the physicians of Front Range Emergency Specialists (Colorado Springs, Colo.), Southwest Emergency Physicians (Durango, Colo.), and Southern Colorado Emergency Specialists (Pueblo, Colo.).

USACS’s acquisition of these three physician groups adds care to more than 175,000 patients each year in central and southwest Colorado. USACS cares for more than 6 million patients per year at more than 200 locations across the United States.
 

VEP Healthcare (Concord, Calif.), an emergency medicine and hospitalist staffing company, has signed on to manage hospitalist and ED services at City Hospital at White Rock in Dallas. Its goals are to increase patient satisfaction, decrease wait times in seeing providers, raise recommendation rates, and lower malpractice claims.

White Rock is a 218-bed, community hospital providing care to East Texas since 1959.

PARIS – In patients with a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation, initiating azithromycin at the time of hospitalization provided improvement in a variety of outcomes at 90 days, including risk of death, according to a placebo-controlled trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In patients with COPD, “azithromycin initiated in the acute setting and continued for 3 months appears to be safe and potentially effective,” reported Wim Janssens, MD, PhD, division of respiratory medicine, University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium.

The phrase “potentially effective” was used because the primary endpoint, which was time to treatment failure, fell just short of statistical significance (P = .053), but the rate of treatment failures, which was a coprimary endpoint (P = .04), and all of the secondary endpoints, including mortality at 90 days (P = .027), need for treatment intensification (P = .02) and need for an intensive care unit (ICU) admission (P = .003), were significantly lower in the group receiving azithromycin rather than placebo.

In a previous trial, chronic azithromycin therapy on top of usual care in patients frequently hospitalized for COPD was associated with a reduction in the risk of exacerbations and an improvement in quality of life (N Engl J Med. 2011;365:689-98). However, Dr. Janssens explained that this strategy is not commonly used because it was associated with a variety of adverse events, not least of which was QTc prolongation.

The study at the meeting, called the BACE trial, was designed to test whether azithromycin could be employed in a more targeted approach to control exacerbations. In the study, 301 COPD patients hospitalized with an acute exacerbation were randomized within 48 hours of admission to azithromycin or placebo. For the first 3 days, azithromycin was administered in a 500-mg dose. Thereafter, the dose was 250 mg every second day. Treatment was stopped at 90 days.

The primary outcome was time to treatment failure, a novel composite endpoint of any of three events: the need for treatment intensification, the need for step-up hospital care (either ICU admission or hospital readmission), or death by any cause. The two treatment arms were also compared for safety, including QTc prolongation.

The treatment failure rates were 49% in the azithromycin arm and 60% in the placebo arm, producing a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73. Although this outcome fell short of significance, Dr. Janssens suggested that benefits over the 90 days of treatment are supported by the secondary outcomes. However, he also cautioned that most relative advantages for azithromycin over placebo were found to dissipate over time.

“The maximum separation between the azithromycin and placebo arms [for the primary outcome] occurred at 120 days or 30 days after the medication was stopped,” Dr. Janssens reported. After this point, the two arms converged and eventually overlapped.

However, the acute benefits appeared to be substantial. For example, average hospital stay over the 90-day treatment period was reduced from 40 to 10 days (P = .0061), and the ICU days fell from 11 days to 3 days in the azithromycin relative to the placebo group. According to Dr. Janssens, the difference in hospital stay carries “important health economic potential that deserves further attention.”

Of the three QTc events that occurred during the course of the study, one was observed in the placebo group. There was no significant difference in this or other adverse events, according to Dr. Janssens.

It is notable that the design for the BACE trial called for 500 patients. When enrollment was slow, the design was changed on the basis of power calculations indicating that 300 patients would be sufficient to demonstrate a difference. It is unclear whether a larger study would have permitted the difference in the primary endpoint to advance from a trend.

Dr. Janssens reports no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

PARIS – In patients with a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation, initiating azithromycin at the time of hospitalization provided improvement in a variety of outcomes at 90 days, including risk of death, according to a placebo-controlled trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In patients with COPD, “azithromycin initiated in the acute setting and continued for 3 months appears to be safe and potentially effective,” reported Wim Janssens, MD, PhD, division of respiratory medicine, University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium.

The phrase “potentially effective” was used because the primary endpoint, which was time to treatment failure, fell just short of statistical significance (P = .053), but the rate of treatment failures, which was a coprimary endpoint (P = .04), and all of the secondary endpoints, including mortality at 90 days (P = .027), need for treatment intensification (P = .02) and need for an intensive care unit (ICU) admission (P = .003), were significantly lower in the group receiving azithromycin rather than placebo.

In a previous trial, chronic azithromycin therapy on top of usual care in patients frequently hospitalized for COPD was associated with a reduction in the risk of exacerbations and an improvement in quality of life (N Engl J Med. 2011;365:689-98). However, Dr. Janssens explained that this strategy is not commonly used because it was associated with a variety of adverse events, not least of which was QTc prolongation.

The study at the meeting, called the BACE trial, was designed to test whether azithromycin could be employed in a more targeted approach to control exacerbations. In the study, 301 COPD patients hospitalized with an acute exacerbation were randomized within 48 hours of admission to azithromycin or placebo. For the first 3 days, azithromycin was administered in a 500-mg dose. Thereafter, the dose was 250 mg every second day. Treatment was stopped at 90 days.

The primary outcome was time to treatment failure, a novel composite endpoint of any of three events: the need for treatment intensification, the need for step-up hospital care (either ICU admission or hospital readmission), or death by any cause. The two treatment arms were also compared for safety, including QTc prolongation.

The treatment failure rates were 49% in the azithromycin arm and 60% in the placebo arm, producing a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73. Although this outcome fell short of significance, Dr. Janssens suggested that benefits over the 90 days of treatment are supported by the secondary outcomes. However, he also cautioned that most relative advantages for azithromycin over placebo were found to dissipate over time.

“The maximum separation between the azithromycin and placebo arms [for the primary outcome] occurred at 120 days or 30 days after the medication was stopped,” Dr. Janssens reported. After this point, the two arms converged and eventually overlapped.

However, the acute benefits appeared to be substantial. For example, average hospital stay over the 90-day treatment period was reduced from 40 to 10 days (P = .0061), and the ICU days fell from 11 days to 3 days in the azithromycin relative to the placebo group. According to Dr. Janssens, the difference in hospital stay carries “important health economic potential that deserves further attention.”

Of the three QTc events that occurred during the course of the study, one was observed in the placebo group. There was no significant difference in this or other adverse events, according to Dr. Janssens.

It is notable that the design for the BACE trial called for 500 patients. When enrollment was slow, the design was changed on the basis of power calculations indicating that 300 patients would be sufficient to demonstrate a difference. It is unclear whether a larger study would have permitted the difference in the primary endpoint to advance from a trend.

Dr. Janssens reports no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

PARIS – In patients with a chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbation, initiating azithromycin at the time of hospitalization provided improvement in a variety of outcomes at 90 days, including risk of death, according to a placebo-controlled trial presented as a late-breaker at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

In patients with COPD, “azithromycin initiated in the acute setting and continued for 3 months appears to be safe and potentially effective,” reported Wim Janssens, MD, PhD, division of respiratory medicine, University Hospital, Leuven, Belgium.

The phrase “potentially effective” was used because the primary endpoint, which was time to treatment failure, fell just short of statistical significance (P = .053), but the rate of treatment failures, which was a coprimary endpoint (P = .04), and all of the secondary endpoints, including mortality at 90 days (P = .027), need for treatment intensification (P = .02) and need for an intensive care unit (ICU) admission (P = .003), were significantly lower in the group receiving azithromycin rather than placebo.

In a previous trial, chronic azithromycin therapy on top of usual care in patients frequently hospitalized for COPD was associated with a reduction in the risk of exacerbations and an improvement in quality of life (N Engl J Med. 2011;365:689-98). However, Dr. Janssens explained that this strategy is not commonly used because it was associated with a variety of adverse events, not least of which was QTc prolongation.

The study at the meeting, called the BACE trial, was designed to test whether azithromycin could be employed in a more targeted approach to control exacerbations. In the study, 301 COPD patients hospitalized with an acute exacerbation were randomized within 48 hours of admission to azithromycin or placebo. For the first 3 days, azithromycin was administered in a 500-mg dose. Thereafter, the dose was 250 mg every second day. Treatment was stopped at 90 days.

The primary outcome was time to treatment failure, a novel composite endpoint of any of three events: the need for treatment intensification, the need for step-up hospital care (either ICU admission or hospital readmission), or death by any cause. The two treatment arms were also compared for safety, including QTc prolongation.

The treatment failure rates were 49% in the azithromycin arm and 60% in the placebo arm, producing a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.73. Although this outcome fell short of significance, Dr. Janssens suggested that benefits over the 90 days of treatment are supported by the secondary outcomes. However, he also cautioned that most relative advantages for azithromycin over placebo were found to dissipate over time.

“The maximum separation between the azithromycin and placebo arms [for the primary outcome] occurred at 120 days or 30 days after the medication was stopped,” Dr. Janssens reported. After this point, the two arms converged and eventually overlapped.

However, the acute benefits appeared to be substantial. For example, average hospital stay over the 90-day treatment period was reduced from 40 to 10 days (P = .0061), and the ICU days fell from 11 days to 3 days in the azithromycin relative to the placebo group. According to Dr. Janssens, the difference in hospital stay carries “important health economic potential that deserves further attention.”

Of the three QTc events that occurred during the course of the study, one was observed in the placebo group. There was no significant difference in this or other adverse events, according to Dr. Janssens.

It is notable that the design for the BACE trial called for 500 patients. When enrollment was slow, the design was changed on the basis of power calculations indicating that 300 patients would be sufficient to demonstrate a difference. It is unclear whether a larger study would have permitted the difference in the primary endpoint to advance from a trend.

Dr. Janssens reports no conflicts of interest relevant to this study.

Gender-affirmative care is essential to addressing the physical and mental health needs of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) youth, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement published in Pediatrics.

The policy statement defines the gender-affirmative care model as one that provide “developmentally appropriate care that is oriented toward understanding and appreciating the youth’s gender experience,” wrote Jason Rafferty, MD, of the department of pediatrics at Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Providence, R.I., and the department of child psychiatryf at Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital, East Providence, R.I. Dr. Rafferty serves on the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. The AAP Committee on Adolescence, Section on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health and Wellness also participated in writing this policy statement.

The model emphasizes four main points, according to the statement:

• Transgender and gender-diverse identities are not mental disorders.
• Variations in gender identity are “normal aspects of human diversity.”
• Gender identity “evolves as a result of the interaction between biology, development, socialization, and culture.”
• Any mental health issue “most often stems from stigma and negative experiences” rather than being “intrinsic” to the child.

In the gender-affirmative approach, a supportive, nonjudgmental partnership between you, the patient, and the patient’s family is encouraged to “facilitate exploration of complicated emotions and gender-diverse expressions while allowing questions and concerns to be raised,” Dr. Rafferty said. This contrasts with “reparative” or “conversion” treatment, which seeks to change rather than accept the patient’s gender identity.

The AAP statement also recommends accessibility of family therapy, addressing the emotional and mental health needs not only of the patient, but also the parents, caregivers, and siblings.

The policy statement provides definitions for common terminology and distinguishes between “sex” as assigned at birth, based on anatomy, and “gender identity,” described as one’s internal sense of self. It also emphasizes that gender identity is not synonymous with sexual orientation, although the two may be interrelated. “The Gender Book” website is a resource that explains these terms and concepts.

A 2015 study revealed that 25% of transgender adults avoided a necessary doctor appointment because they feared mistreatment. Creating an environment at your office where TGD patients feel safe is key. This can be done by displaying posters or having flyers about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) issues and having a gender-neutral bathroom. Educate staff by having diversity training that makes them sensitive to the needs of LGBTQ youth and their families. Patient-asserted names and pronouns should be used by staff and reflected in the EHR. “Explaining and maintaining confidentiality procedures promotes openness and trust, particularly with youth who identify as LGBTQ,” according to the statement. “Maintaining a safe clinical space can provide at least one consistent, protective refuge for patients and families, allowing authentic gender expression and exploration that builds resiliency.”

Barriers to care cited in the report include fear of discrimination by providers, lack of access to physical and sexual health services, inadequate mental health resources, and lack of provider continuity. The AAP recommends that EHRs respect the gender identity of the patient. Further research into health disparities, as well as establishment of standards of care, also are needed, the author notes.

The stigma and discrimination often experienced by TGD youth lead to feelings of rejection and isolation. Prior research has shown that transgender adolescents and adults have high rates of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm, and suicide, the report noted. One retrospective study found that 56% of transgender youth reported previous suicidal ideation, compared with 20% of those who identified as cisgender, and 31% reported a prior suicide attempt, compared with 11% cisgender youth. TGD youth also experience high rates of homelessness, violence, substance abuse, and high-risk sexual behaviors, studies have shown.

The statement also addresses issues such as medical interventions for pubertal suppression, surgical affirmation, difficulties with obtaining insurance coverage because of being transgender, family acceptance, safety in schools and communities, and medical education.

No disclosures or funding sources were reported.

SOURCE: Rafferty J et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(4):e20182162.

Gender-affirmative care is essential to addressing the physical and mental health needs of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) youth, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement published in Pediatrics.

The policy statement defines the gender-affirmative care model as one that provide “developmentally appropriate care that is oriented toward understanding and appreciating the youth’s gender experience,” wrote Jason Rafferty, MD, of the department of pediatrics at Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Providence, R.I., and the department of child psychiatryf at Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital, East Providence, R.I. Dr. Rafferty serves on the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. The AAP Committee on Adolescence, Section on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health and Wellness also participated in writing this policy statement.

The model emphasizes four main points, according to the statement:

• Transgender and gender-diverse identities are not mental disorders.
• Variations in gender identity are “normal aspects of human diversity.”
• Gender identity “evolves as a result of the interaction between biology, development, socialization, and culture.”
• Any mental health issue “most often stems from stigma and negative experiences” rather than being “intrinsic” to the child.

In the gender-affirmative approach, a supportive, nonjudgmental partnership between you, the patient, and the patient’s family is encouraged to “facilitate exploration of complicated emotions and gender-diverse expressions while allowing questions and concerns to be raised,” Dr. Rafferty said. This contrasts with “reparative” or “conversion” treatment, which seeks to change rather than accept the patient’s gender identity.

The AAP statement also recommends accessibility of family therapy, addressing the emotional and mental health needs not only of the patient, but also the parents, caregivers, and siblings.

The policy statement provides definitions for common terminology and distinguishes between “sex” as assigned at birth, based on anatomy, and “gender identity,” described as one’s internal sense of self. It also emphasizes that gender identity is not synonymous with sexual orientation, although the two may be interrelated. “The Gender Book” website is a resource that explains these terms and concepts.

A 2015 study revealed that 25% of transgender adults avoided a necessary doctor appointment because they feared mistreatment. Creating an environment at your office where TGD patients feel safe is key. This can be done by displaying posters or having flyers about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) issues and having a gender-neutral bathroom. Educate staff by having diversity training that makes them sensitive to the needs of LGBTQ youth and their families. Patient-asserted names and pronouns should be used by staff and reflected in the EHR. “Explaining and maintaining confidentiality procedures promotes openness and trust, particularly with youth who identify as LGBTQ,” according to the statement. “Maintaining a safe clinical space can provide at least one consistent, protective refuge for patients and families, allowing authentic gender expression and exploration that builds resiliency.”

Barriers to care cited in the report include fear of discrimination by providers, lack of access to physical and sexual health services, inadequate mental health resources, and lack of provider continuity. The AAP recommends that EHRs respect the gender identity of the patient. Further research into health disparities, as well as establishment of standards of care, also are needed, the author notes.

The stigma and discrimination often experienced by TGD youth lead to feelings of rejection and isolation. Prior research has shown that transgender adolescents and adults have high rates of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm, and suicide, the report noted. One retrospective study found that 56% of transgender youth reported previous suicidal ideation, compared with 20% of those who identified as cisgender, and 31% reported a prior suicide attempt, compared with 11% cisgender youth. TGD youth also experience high rates of homelessness, violence, substance abuse, and high-risk sexual behaviors, studies have shown.

The statement also addresses issues such as medical interventions for pubertal suppression, surgical affirmation, difficulties with obtaining insurance coverage because of being transgender, family acceptance, safety in schools and communities, and medical education.

No disclosures or funding sources were reported.

SOURCE: Rafferty J et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(4):e20182162.

Gender-affirmative care is essential to addressing the physical and mental health needs of transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) youth, according to an American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement published in Pediatrics.

The policy statement defines the gender-affirmative care model as one that provide “developmentally appropriate care that is oriented toward understanding and appreciating the youth’s gender experience,” wrote Jason Rafferty, MD, of the department of pediatrics at Hasbro Children’s Hospital in Providence, R.I., and the department of child psychiatryf at Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital, East Providence, R.I. Dr. Rafferty serves on the AAP Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. The AAP Committee on Adolescence, Section on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Health and Wellness also participated in writing this policy statement.

The model emphasizes four main points, according to the statement:

• Transgender and gender-diverse identities are not mental disorders.
• Variations in gender identity are “normal aspects of human diversity.”
• Gender identity “evolves as a result of the interaction between biology, development, socialization, and culture.”
• Any mental health issue “most often stems from stigma and negative experiences” rather than being “intrinsic” to the child.

In the gender-affirmative approach, a supportive, nonjudgmental partnership between you, the patient, and the patient’s family is encouraged to “facilitate exploration of complicated emotions and gender-diverse expressions while allowing questions and concerns to be raised,” Dr. Rafferty said. This contrasts with “reparative” or “conversion” treatment, which seeks to change rather than accept the patient’s gender identity.

The AAP statement also recommends accessibility of family therapy, addressing the emotional and mental health needs not only of the patient, but also the parents, caregivers, and siblings.

The policy statement provides definitions for common terminology and distinguishes between “sex” as assigned at birth, based on anatomy, and “gender identity,” described as one’s internal sense of self. It also emphasizes that gender identity is not synonymous with sexual orientation, although the two may be interrelated. “The Gender Book” website is a resource that explains these terms and concepts.

A 2015 study revealed that 25% of transgender adults avoided a necessary doctor appointment because they feared mistreatment. Creating an environment at your office where TGD patients feel safe is key. This can be done by displaying posters or having flyers about lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) issues and having a gender-neutral bathroom. Educate staff by having diversity training that makes them sensitive to the needs of LGBTQ youth and their families. Patient-asserted names and pronouns should be used by staff and reflected in the EHR. “Explaining and maintaining confidentiality procedures promotes openness and trust, particularly with youth who identify as LGBTQ,” according to the statement. “Maintaining a safe clinical space can provide at least one consistent, protective refuge for patients and families, allowing authentic gender expression and exploration that builds resiliency.”

Barriers to care cited in the report include fear of discrimination by providers, lack of access to physical and sexual health services, inadequate mental health resources, and lack of provider continuity. The AAP recommends that EHRs respect the gender identity of the patient. Further research into health disparities, as well as establishment of standards of care, also are needed, the author notes.

The stigma and discrimination often experienced by TGD youth lead to feelings of rejection and isolation. Prior research has shown that transgender adolescents and adults have high rates of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, self-harm, and suicide, the report noted. One retrospective study found that 56% of transgender youth reported previous suicidal ideation, compared with 20% of those who identified as cisgender, and 31% reported a prior suicide attempt, compared with 11% cisgender youth. TGD youth also experience high rates of homelessness, violence, substance abuse, and high-risk sexual behaviors, studies have shown.

The statement also addresses issues such as medical interventions for pubertal suppression, surgical affirmation, difficulties with obtaining insurance coverage because of being transgender, family acceptance, safety in schools and communities, and medical education.

No disclosures or funding sources were reported.

SOURCE: Rafferty J et al. Pediatrics. 2018;142(4):e20182162.

Disruptive physician behavior can be more than a headache for the medical team, it can greatly lower staff morale and compromise patient care. Addressing this behavior head-on is imperative, experts said, but knowing which route to take is not always clear.

Physician leaders may wonder: When is this a human resources (HR) issue and when should the medical executive committee (MEC) step in?

The answer depends on the circumstances and the employment status of the physician in question, said Mark Peters, a labor and employment attorney based in Nashville, Tenn.

“There are a couple of different considerations when deciding how, or more accurately who, should address disruptive physician behavior in the workplace,” Mr. Peters said in an interview. “The first consideration is whether the physician is employed by the health care entity or is a contractor. Typically, absent an employment relationship with the physician, human resources is not involved directly with the physician and the issue is handled through the MEC.”

However, in some cases both HR and the MEC may become involved. For instance, if the complaint is made by an employee, HR would likely get involved – regardless of whether the disruptive physician is a contractor – because employers have a legal duty to ensure a “hostile-free environment,” Mr. Peters said.

The hospital may also ask that the MEC intervene to ensure the medical staff understands all of the facts and can weigh in on whether the doctor is being treated fairly by the hospital, he said.

There are a range of advantages and disadvantages to each resolution path, said Jeffrey Moseley, a health law attorney based in Franklin, Tenn. The HR route usually means dealing with a single point person and typically the issue is resolved more swiftly. Going through the MEC, on the other hand, often takes months. The MEC path also means more people will be involved, and it’s possible the case may become more political, depending on the culture of the MEC.

“If you have to end up taking an action, the employment setting may be a quicker way to address the issue than going through the medical staff side,” Mr. Moseley said in an interview. “Most medical staffs, if they were to try to restrict or revoke privileges, they are going to have to go through a fair hearing and appeals, [which] can take 6 months easily. The downside to the employment side is you don’t get all the immunities that you get on the medical staff side.”

Disruptive physician behavior can be more than a headache for the medical team, it can greatly lower staff morale and compromise patient care. Addressing this behavior head-on is imperative, experts said, but knowing which route to take is not always clear.

Physician leaders may wonder: When is this a human resources (HR) issue and when should the medical executive committee (MEC) step in?

The answer depends on the circumstances and the employment status of the physician in question, said Mark Peters, a labor and employment attorney based in Nashville, Tenn.

“There are a couple of different considerations when deciding how, or more accurately who, should address disruptive physician behavior in the workplace,” Mr. Peters said in an interview. “The first consideration is whether the physician is employed by the health care entity or is a contractor. Typically, absent an employment relationship with the physician, human resources is not involved directly with the physician and the issue is handled through the MEC.”

However, in some cases both HR and the MEC may become involved. For instance, if the complaint is made by an employee, HR would likely get involved – regardless of whether the disruptive physician is a contractor – because employers have a legal duty to ensure a “hostile-free environment,” Mr. Peters said.

The hospital may also ask that the MEC intervene to ensure the medical staff understands all of the facts and can weigh in on whether the doctor is being treated fairly by the hospital, he said.

There are a range of advantages and disadvantages to each resolution path, said Jeffrey Moseley, a health law attorney based in Franklin, Tenn. The HR route usually means dealing with a single point person and typically the issue is resolved more swiftly. Going through the MEC, on the other hand, often takes months. The MEC path also means more people will be involved, and it’s possible the case may become more political, depending on the culture of the MEC.

“If you have to end up taking an action, the employment setting may be a quicker way to address the issue than going through the medical staff side,” Mr. Moseley said in an interview. “Most medical staffs, if they were to try to restrict or revoke privileges, they are going to have to go through a fair hearing and appeals, [which] can take 6 months easily. The downside to the employment side is you don’t get all the immunities that you get on the medical staff side.”

Disruptive physician behavior can be more than a headache for the medical team, it can greatly lower staff morale and compromise patient care. Addressing this behavior head-on is imperative, experts said, but knowing which route to take is not always clear.

Physician leaders may wonder: When is this a human resources (HR) issue and when should the medical executive committee (MEC) step in?

The answer depends on the circumstances and the employment status of the physician in question, said Mark Peters, a labor and employment attorney based in Nashville, Tenn.

“There are a couple of different considerations when deciding how, or more accurately who, should address disruptive physician behavior in the workplace,” Mr. Peters said in an interview. “The first consideration is whether the physician is employed by the health care entity or is a contractor. Typically, absent an employment relationship with the physician, human resources is not involved directly with the physician and the issue is handled through the MEC.”

However, in some cases both HR and the MEC may become involved. For instance, if the complaint is made by an employee, HR would likely get involved – regardless of whether the disruptive physician is a contractor – because employers have a legal duty to ensure a “hostile-free environment,” Mr. Peters said.

The hospital may also ask that the MEC intervene to ensure the medical staff understands all of the facts and can weigh in on whether the doctor is being treated fairly by the hospital, he said.

There are a range of advantages and disadvantages to each resolution path, said Jeffrey Moseley, a health law attorney based in Franklin, Tenn. The HR route usually means dealing with a single point person and typically the issue is resolved more swiftly. Going through the MEC, on the other hand, often takes months. The MEC path also means more people will be involved, and it’s possible the case may become more political, depending on the culture of the MEC.

“If you have to end up taking an action, the employment setting may be a quicker way to address the issue than going through the medical staff side,” Mr. Moseley said in an interview. “Most medical staffs, if they were to try to restrict or revoke privileges, they are going to have to go through a fair hearing and appeals, [which] can take 6 months easily. The downside to the employment side is you don’t get all the immunities that you get on the medical staff side.”

Predictive risk factors for cardiac events (CEs) after general and vascular surgery differed significantly, according to a large retrospective study. However, there was no significant difference seen in the overall incidence of CEs between the two types of surgery, reported Derrick Acheampong, MD, and his colleagues at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

©Thinkstock

They performed a retrospective data analysis of 8,441 adult patients at their large urban teaching hospital; these patients had undergone general or vascular surgery during 2013-2016 and, in the analysis, were grouped by whether they experienced postoperative CEs.

Univariate and multivariate analyses identified predictors of postoperative CE and the association of CEs with adverse postoperative outcomes. CEs were defined as myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest within the 30-day postoperative period.

A total of 157 patients (1.9%) experienced CEs after major general and vascular surgery, with no significant difference in incidence between the two types of surgery (P = .44), according to their report, published online in the Annals of Medicine and Surgery. CE-associated mortality among this group was high, at 55.4%.

The occurrence of a CE following surgery in both groups was significantly associated with increased mortality, as well as pulmonary, renal, and neurological complications, in addition to systemic sepsis, postoperative red blood cell transfusion, unplanned return to the operating room, and prolonged hospitalization, according to the researchers.

However, predictors of CEs risk between vascular and general surgery were significantly different.

For general surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status greater than 3, dependent functional status, acute renal failure or dialysis, weight loss, creatinine greater than 1.2 mg/dL, international normalized ratio (INR) greater than 1.5, and partial thromboplastin time (PTT) less than 35 seconds were all unique independent predictors of postoperative CEs.

For vascular surgery, the unique significant predictors of postoperative CEs were age greater than 65 years, emergency surgery, diabetes, congestive heart failure, systemic sepsis, and operative time greater than 240 minutes.

The only common predictive risk factors for postoperative CEs for the two forms of surgery were hematocrit less than 34% and ventilator dependence.

“The present study corroborates reported studies that recommend separate predictive CE risk indices and risk stratification among different surgical specialties. Predictors for CE greatly differed between general and vascular surgery patients in our patient population,” the authors stated.

They concluded with the hope that their study “provides useful information to surgeons and allows for the necessary resources to be focused on identified at-risk patients to improve surgical outcomes.”

Dr. Acheampong and his colleagues reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Acheampong D et al. Ann Med Surg. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2018.08.001.

Predictive risk factors for cardiac events (CEs) after general and vascular surgery differed significantly, according to a large retrospective study. However, there was no significant difference seen in the overall incidence of CEs between the two types of surgery, reported Derrick Acheampong, MD, and his colleagues at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

©Thinkstock

They performed a retrospective data analysis of 8,441 adult patients at their large urban teaching hospital; these patients had undergone general or vascular surgery during 2013-2016 and, in the analysis, were grouped by whether they experienced postoperative CEs.

Univariate and multivariate analyses identified predictors of postoperative CE and the association of CEs with adverse postoperative outcomes. CEs were defined as myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest within the 30-day postoperative period.

A total of 157 patients (1.9%) experienced CEs after major general and vascular surgery, with no significant difference in incidence between the two types of surgery (P = .44), according to their report, published online in the Annals of Medicine and Surgery. CE-associated mortality among this group was high, at 55.4%.

The occurrence of a CE following surgery in both groups was significantly associated with increased mortality, as well as pulmonary, renal, and neurological complications, in addition to systemic sepsis, postoperative red blood cell transfusion, unplanned return to the operating room, and prolonged hospitalization, according to the researchers.

However, predictors of CEs risk between vascular and general surgery were significantly different.

For general surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status greater than 3, dependent functional status, acute renal failure or dialysis, weight loss, creatinine greater than 1.2 mg/dL, international normalized ratio (INR) greater than 1.5, and partial thromboplastin time (PTT) less than 35 seconds were all unique independent predictors of postoperative CEs.

For vascular surgery, the unique significant predictors of postoperative CEs were age greater than 65 years, emergency surgery, diabetes, congestive heart failure, systemic sepsis, and operative time greater than 240 minutes.

The only common predictive risk factors for postoperative CEs for the two forms of surgery were hematocrit less than 34% and ventilator dependence.

“The present study corroborates reported studies that recommend separate predictive CE risk indices and risk stratification among different surgical specialties. Predictors for CE greatly differed between general and vascular surgery patients in our patient population,” the authors stated.

They concluded with the hope that their study “provides useful information to surgeons and allows for the necessary resources to be focused on identified at-risk patients to improve surgical outcomes.”

Dr. Acheampong and his colleagues reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Acheampong D et al. Ann Med Surg. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2018.08.001.

Predictive risk factors for cardiac events (CEs) after general and vascular surgery differed significantly, according to a large retrospective study. However, there was no significant difference seen in the overall incidence of CEs between the two types of surgery, reported Derrick Acheampong, MD, and his colleagues at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York.

©Thinkstock

They performed a retrospective data analysis of 8,441 adult patients at their large urban teaching hospital; these patients had undergone general or vascular surgery during 2013-2016 and, in the analysis, were grouped by whether they experienced postoperative CEs.

Univariate and multivariate analyses identified predictors of postoperative CE and the association of CEs with adverse postoperative outcomes. CEs were defined as myocardial infarction or cardiac arrest within the 30-day postoperative period.

A total of 157 patients (1.9%) experienced CEs after major general and vascular surgery, with no significant difference in incidence between the two types of surgery (P = .44), according to their report, published online in the Annals of Medicine and Surgery. CE-associated mortality among this group was high, at 55.4%.

The occurrence of a CE following surgery in both groups was significantly associated with increased mortality, as well as pulmonary, renal, and neurological complications, in addition to systemic sepsis, postoperative red blood cell transfusion, unplanned return to the operating room, and prolonged hospitalization, according to the researchers.

However, predictors of CEs risk between vascular and general surgery were significantly different.

For general surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) status greater than 3, dependent functional status, acute renal failure or dialysis, weight loss, creatinine greater than 1.2 mg/dL, international normalized ratio (INR) greater than 1.5, and partial thromboplastin time (PTT) less than 35 seconds were all unique independent predictors of postoperative CEs.

For vascular surgery, the unique significant predictors of postoperative CEs were age greater than 65 years, emergency surgery, diabetes, congestive heart failure, systemic sepsis, and operative time greater than 240 minutes.

The only common predictive risk factors for postoperative CEs for the two forms of surgery were hematocrit less than 34% and ventilator dependence.

“The present study corroborates reported studies that recommend separate predictive CE risk indices and risk stratification among different surgical specialties. Predictors for CE greatly differed between general and vascular surgery patients in our patient population,” the authors stated.

They concluded with the hope that their study “provides useful information to surgeons and allows for the necessary resources to be focused on identified at-risk patients to improve surgical outcomes.”

Dr. Acheampong and his colleagues reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Acheampong D et al. Ann Med Surg. 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2018.08.001.

WASHINGTON – A strategy combining stewardship and science is needed to help combat antimicrobial resistance, and updated plans from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include four key components to address all aspects of product development and use, FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a press briefing in Washington on Sept. 14. 

“The FDA plays a unique role in advancing human and animal health” that provides a unique vantage point for coordinating all aspects of product development and application, he said. 

The FDA’s comprehensive approach to the challenge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) includes:

• Facilitating product development.
• Promoting antimicrobial stewardship.
• Supporting the development of new tools for surveillance.
• Advancing scientific initiatives, including research for the development of alternative treatments.

The FDA’s product development plan to combat AMR includes the creation of incentives for companies to develop new antibiotic products and create a robust pipeline, which is a challenge because of the lack of immediate economic gain, Dr. Gottlieb said.
“It necessary to change the perception that the costs and risks of antibiotic innovation are too high relative to their expected gains,” he emphasized. 

Strategies to incentivize companies include fast track designation, priority review, and breakthrough therapy designation. In addition, the Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs (LPAD) is designed to promote development of antimicrobial drugs for limited and underserved populations, Dr. Gottlieb said. The FDA plan also calls for pursuing reimbursement options with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 

Promoting antimicrobial stewardship remains an ongoing element of the FDA’s plan to reduce AMR. In conjunction with the release of the FDA’s updated approach to AMR, the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine CVM released a 5-year action plan to promote and support antimicrobial stewardship in not only the agricultural arena, but in companion animals as well. 

The FDA plans to bring all antimicrobials of medical importance that are approved for use in animals under the oversight of CVM, which will pursue the improve labeling on antimicrobial drugs used in the feed and water of food-producing animals, including defining durations of use, Dr. Gottlieb noted.

Supporting the development and improvement of surveillance tools is “essential to understanding the drivers of resistance in human and veterinary settings and formulating appropriate responses” to outbreaks, Dr. Gottlieb said.

To help meet this goal, the FDA will expand sampling via the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) database, he said. Other surveillance goals include supporting genomics research and expanding AMR monitoring to include pathogens associated with animal feed and companion animals, he added. 

As part of the final component of the FDA’s AMR strategy to advance scientific initiatives, the FDA has released a new Request for Information “to obtain additional, external input on how best to develop an annual list of regulatory science initiatives specific for antimicrobial products,” Dr. Gottlieb announced. The FDA intends to use the information gained from clinicians and others in its creation of guidance documents and recommendations to streamline the antibiotic development process. He also cited the FDA’s ongoing support of partnerships with public and private organizations such as the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative, which focuses on drug development for severe bacterial infections with current unmet medical need.

“We need to harness science and policy to help our public health systems and researchers become nimbler in the battle against drug-resistant pathogens,” Dr. Gottlieb concluded. 

In a panel discussion following the briefing, several experts offered perspective on the FDA’s goals and on the challenges of AMR. 

William Flynn, DVM, deputy director of science policy for the Center of Veterinary Medicine, noted some goals for reducing the use of antibiotics in the veterinary arena. 

“We are trying to focus on the driver: What are the disease conditions that drive use of the product,” he said. Ideally, better management of disease conditions can reduce reliance on antibiotics, he added. 

Also in the panel discussion, Steven Gitterman, MD, deputy director of the division of microbiology devices at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, emphasized the value of sustainable trial databases so AMR research can continue on an ongoing basis. Finally, Carolyn Wilson, PhD, associate director of research at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, noted that the FDA’s research and development efforts include antibiotic alternatives, including live biotherapeutic products, fecal microbiota transplantation, and bacteriophage therapy.

Visit www.fda.gov for a transcript of Dr. Gottlieb’s talk, and for the updated FDA website page with more details on the agency’s plans to combat antimicrobial resistance. 

Dr. Gottlieb and the panelists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WASHINGTON – A strategy combining stewardship and science is needed to help combat antimicrobial resistance, and updated plans from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include four key components to address all aspects of product development and use, FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a press briefing in Washington on Sept. 14. 

“The FDA plays a unique role in advancing human and animal health” that provides a unique vantage point for coordinating all aspects of product development and application, he said. 

The FDA’s comprehensive approach to the challenge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) includes:

• Facilitating product development.
• Promoting antimicrobial stewardship.
• Supporting the development of new tools for surveillance.
• Advancing scientific initiatives, including research for the development of alternative treatments.

The FDA’s product development plan to combat AMR includes the creation of incentives for companies to develop new antibiotic products and create a robust pipeline, which is a challenge because of the lack of immediate economic gain, Dr. Gottlieb said.
“It necessary to change the perception that the costs and risks of antibiotic innovation are too high relative to their expected gains,” he emphasized. 

Strategies to incentivize companies include fast track designation, priority review, and breakthrough therapy designation. In addition, the Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs (LPAD) is designed to promote development of antimicrobial drugs for limited and underserved populations, Dr. Gottlieb said. The FDA plan also calls for pursuing reimbursement options with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 

Promoting antimicrobial stewardship remains an ongoing element of the FDA’s plan to reduce AMR. In conjunction with the release of the FDA’s updated approach to AMR, the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine CVM released a 5-year action plan to promote and support antimicrobial stewardship in not only the agricultural arena, but in companion animals as well. 

The FDA plans to bring all antimicrobials of medical importance that are approved for use in animals under the oversight of CVM, which will pursue the improve labeling on antimicrobial drugs used in the feed and water of food-producing animals, including defining durations of use, Dr. Gottlieb noted.

Supporting the development and improvement of surveillance tools is “essential to understanding the drivers of resistance in human and veterinary settings and formulating appropriate responses” to outbreaks, Dr. Gottlieb said.

To help meet this goal, the FDA will expand sampling via the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) database, he said. Other surveillance goals include supporting genomics research and expanding AMR monitoring to include pathogens associated with animal feed and companion animals, he added. 

As part of the final component of the FDA’s AMR strategy to advance scientific initiatives, the FDA has released a new Request for Information “to obtain additional, external input on how best to develop an annual list of regulatory science initiatives specific for antimicrobial products,” Dr. Gottlieb announced. The FDA intends to use the information gained from clinicians and others in its creation of guidance documents and recommendations to streamline the antibiotic development process. He also cited the FDA’s ongoing support of partnerships with public and private organizations such as the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative, which focuses on drug development for severe bacterial infections with current unmet medical need.

“We need to harness science and policy to help our public health systems and researchers become nimbler in the battle against drug-resistant pathogens,” Dr. Gottlieb concluded. 

In a panel discussion following the briefing, several experts offered perspective on the FDA’s goals and on the challenges of AMR. 

William Flynn, DVM, deputy director of science policy for the Center of Veterinary Medicine, noted some goals for reducing the use of antibiotics in the veterinary arena. 

“We are trying to focus on the driver: What are the disease conditions that drive use of the product,” he said. Ideally, better management of disease conditions can reduce reliance on antibiotics, he added. 

Also in the panel discussion, Steven Gitterman, MD, deputy director of the division of microbiology devices at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, emphasized the value of sustainable trial databases so AMR research can continue on an ongoing basis. Finally, Carolyn Wilson, PhD, associate director of research at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, noted that the FDA’s research and development efforts include antibiotic alternatives, including live biotherapeutic products, fecal microbiota transplantation, and bacteriophage therapy.

Visit www.fda.gov for a transcript of Dr. Gottlieb’s talk, and for the updated FDA website page with more details on the agency’s plans to combat antimicrobial resistance. 

Dr. Gottlieb and the panelists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

WASHINGTON – A strategy combining stewardship and science is needed to help combat antimicrobial resistance, and updated plans from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration include four key components to address all aspects of product development and use, FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said in a press briefing in Washington on Sept. 14. 

“The FDA plays a unique role in advancing human and animal health” that provides a unique vantage point for coordinating all aspects of product development and application, he said. 

The FDA’s comprehensive approach to the challenge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) includes:

• Facilitating product development.
• Promoting antimicrobial stewardship.
• Supporting the development of new tools for surveillance.
• Advancing scientific initiatives, including research for the development of alternative treatments.

The FDA’s product development plan to combat AMR includes the creation of incentives for companies to develop new antibiotic products and create a robust pipeline, which is a challenge because of the lack of immediate economic gain, Dr. Gottlieb said.
“It necessary to change the perception that the costs and risks of antibiotic innovation are too high relative to their expected gains,” he emphasized. 

Strategies to incentivize companies include fast track designation, priority review, and breakthrough therapy designation. In addition, the Limited Population Pathway for Antibacterial and Antifungal Drugs (LPAD) is designed to promote development of antimicrobial drugs for limited and underserved populations, Dr. Gottlieb said. The FDA plan also calls for pursuing reimbursement options with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. 

Promoting antimicrobial stewardship remains an ongoing element of the FDA’s plan to reduce AMR. In conjunction with the release of the FDA’s updated approach to AMR, the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine CVM released a 5-year action plan to promote and support antimicrobial stewardship in not only the agricultural arena, but in companion animals as well. 

The FDA plans to bring all antimicrobials of medical importance that are approved for use in animals under the oversight of CVM, which will pursue the improve labeling on antimicrobial drugs used in the feed and water of food-producing animals, including defining durations of use, Dr. Gottlieb noted.

Supporting the development and improvement of surveillance tools is “essential to understanding the drivers of resistance in human and veterinary settings and formulating appropriate responses” to outbreaks, Dr. Gottlieb said.

To help meet this goal, the FDA will expand sampling via the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS) database, he said. Other surveillance goals include supporting genomics research and expanding AMR monitoring to include pathogens associated with animal feed and companion animals, he added. 

As part of the final component of the FDA’s AMR strategy to advance scientific initiatives, the FDA has released a new Request for Information “to obtain additional, external input on how best to develop an annual list of regulatory science initiatives specific for antimicrobial products,” Dr. Gottlieb announced. The FDA intends to use the information gained from clinicians and others in its creation of guidance documents and recommendations to streamline the antibiotic development process. He also cited the FDA’s ongoing support of partnerships with public and private organizations such as the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative, which focuses on drug development for severe bacterial infections with current unmet medical need.

“We need to harness science and policy to help our public health systems and researchers become nimbler in the battle against drug-resistant pathogens,” Dr. Gottlieb concluded. 

In a panel discussion following the briefing, several experts offered perspective on the FDA’s goals and on the challenges of AMR. 

William Flynn, DVM, deputy director of science policy for the Center of Veterinary Medicine, noted some goals for reducing the use of antibiotics in the veterinary arena. 

“We are trying to focus on the driver: What are the disease conditions that drive use of the product,” he said. Ideally, better management of disease conditions can reduce reliance on antibiotics, he added. 

Also in the panel discussion, Steven Gitterman, MD, deputy director of the division of microbiology devices at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, emphasized the value of sustainable trial databases so AMR research can continue on an ongoing basis. Finally, Carolyn Wilson, PhD, associate director of research at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, noted that the FDA’s research and development efforts include antibiotic alternatives, including live biotherapeutic products, fecal microbiota transplantation, and bacteriophage therapy.

Visit www.fda.gov for a transcript of Dr. Gottlieb’s talk, and for the updated FDA website page with more details on the agency’s plans to combat antimicrobial resistance. 

Dr. Gottlieb and the panelists had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have become a more prominent part of the hospitalist workforce, and at many institutions, they account for a large proportion of patient care and have a powerful effect on a patient’s experience. But NP and PA roles in hospital medicine continue to evolve – and understanding what they do is still, at times, a work in progress.

One myth that persists regarding NPs and PAs is that, if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.

At the 2018 Annual Conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, Noam Shabani, MS, PA-C, lead physician assistant at Massachusetts General Hospital’s Hospital Medicine Unit, Boston, offered an example to help shatter this misperception.

Mr. Shabani described a 28-year-old woman who had a bachelor’s in biology with a premed track and spent 4 years as a paramedic before attending the physician assistant program at Duke University, Durham, N.C. As a new PA graduate, she was hired as a hospitalist at a community hospital in Kentucky.

Given this new PA’s clinical experience and formal education, there are certain skills she should bring to the table: the ability to develop a differential diagnosis and a good understanding of disease pathophysiology and the mechanisms of action of drugs. And because of her paramedic experience, she should be comfortable with making urgent clinical care decisions and should be proficient with electrocardiograms, as well as chest and abdominal x-rays.

But compared with a newly graduated NP with registered nurse (RN) floor experience, the PA is likely to be less familiar with hospital mechanics and systems, with leading goal of care discussions with patients and families, and with understanding nuances involved with transitions of care.

The subtle differences between NPs and PAs don’t end there. Because of the progressive policies and recently updated bylaws at the Kentucky hospital where the PA was hired, this health care professional can see patients and write notes independently without a physician signature. But because she practices in Kentucky, she is not allowed to prescribe Schedule II medications, per state law.

“This example demonstrates how nuanced and multi-layered the process of integrating NPs and PAs into hospitalist groups can be,” Mr. Shabani said.
 

Goals, roles, and expectations

Physician assistants and nurse practitioners have reported that their job descriptions, and the variety of roles they can play within HM teams, are becoming better understood by hospitalist physicians and administrators. However, they also have acknowledged that both PAs and NPs are still underutilized.

Tricia Marriott, PA-C, MPAS, an orthopedic service line administrator at Saint Mary’s Hospital in Waterbury, Conn., and an expert in NP and PA policy, has noticed growing enlightenment about PAs and NPs in her travels to conferences in recent years.

“I’m no longer explaining what a PA is and what an NP is, and the questions have become very sophisticated,” she said at HM18. “However, I spent the last two days in the exhibit hall, and some of the conversations I had with physicians are interesting in that the practice and utilization styles have not become sophisticated. So I think there is a lot of opportunity out there.”

Mr. Shabani said the hospitalist care provided by PAs and NPs sits “at the intersection” of state regulations, hospital bylaws, department utilization, and – of course – clinical experience and formal medical education.

“What this boils down to is first understanding these factors, followed by strategizing recruitment and training as a response,” he said.

Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM, associate director of clinical integration at Adfinitas Health in Hanover, Md., and a Society of Hospital Medicine board member, said that, even though she usually sees and hears about a 10%-15% productivity gap between physicians and PAs or NPs, there is no good reason that an experienced PA or NP should not be able to handle the same patient load as a physician hospitalist – if that’s the goal.

“Part of it is about communication of expectation,” she said, noting that organizations must provide the training to allows NPs and PAs to reach prescribed goals along with an adequate level of administrative support. “I think we shouldn’t accept those gaps in productivity.”

Nicolas Houghton, DNP, ACNP-BC, CFRN, nurse practitioner/physician assistant manager at the Cleveland Clinic, thinks that it is completely reasonable for health care organizations to have an expectation that, at the 3- to 5-year mark, NPs and PAs “are really going to be functioning at very high levels that may be nearly indistinguishable.”

Dr. Houghton and Mr. Shabani agreed that, while they had considerably different duties at the start of their careers, they now have clinical roles which mirror one another.

For example, they agreed on these basics: NPs must be a certified RN, while a PA can have any undergraduate degree with certain prerequisite courses such as biology and chemistry. All PAs are trained in general medicine, while NPs specialize in areas such as acute care, family medicine, geriatrics, and women’s health. NPs need 500 didactic hours and 500-700 clinical hours in their area of expertise, while physician assistants need 1,000 didactic and 2,000 clinical hours spread over many disciplines.

For NP’s, required clinical rotations depend on the specialty, while all PAs need to complete rotations in inpatient medicine, emergency medicine, primary care, surgery, psychiatry, pediatrics, and ob.gyn. Also, NPs can practice independently in 23 states and the District of Columbia, while PAs must have a supervising physician. About 10% of NPs work in hospital settings, and about 39% of PAs work in hospital settings, they said.

Dr. Houghton and Mr. Shabani emphasized that Medicare does recognize NP and PA services as physician services. The official language, in place since 1998, is that their services “are the type that are considered physician’s services if furnished by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy.”

Mr. Shabani said this remained a very relevant issue. “I can’t overstate how important this is,” he said.
 

Debunking myths

Several myths continue to persist about PAs and NPs, Ms. Marriott said. Some administrators and physicians believe that they can’t see new patients, that a physician must see every patient, that a physician cosignature means that a claim can be submitted under the physician’s name, that reimbursement for services provided by PAs and NPs “leaves 15% on the table,” and that patients won’t be happy being seen by a PA or an NP. All of those things are false, she said.

“We really need to improve people’s understanding in a lot of different places – it’s not just at the clinician level,” she said. “It goes all the way through the operations team, and the operations team has some very old-fashioned thinking about what PAs and NPs really are, which is – they believe – clinical support staff.”

But she suggested that the phrase “working at the top of one’s license” can be used too freely – individual experience and ability will encompass a range of practices, she said.

“I’m licensed to drive a car,” she said. “But you do not want me in the Daytona 500. I am not capable of driving a race car.”

She cautioned that nurse practitioner care must still involve an element of collaboration, according to the Medicaid benefit policy manual, even if they work in states that allow NPs to provide “independent” care. They must have documentation “indicating the relationships that they have with physicians to deal with issues outside their scope of practice,” the manual says.

“Don’t ask me how people prove it,” Ms. Marriott said. “Just know that, if someone were to audit you, then you would need to show what this looks like.”

Regarding the 15% myth, she showed a calculation: Data from the Medical Group Management Association show that median annual compensation for a physician is $134 an hour and that it’s approximately $52 an hour for a PA or NP. An admission history and physical that takes an hour can be reimbursed at $102 for a physician and at 85% of that – $87 – for a PA or NP. That leaves a deficit of $32 for the physician and a surplus of $35 for the PA or NP.

“If you properly deploy your PAs and NPs, you’re going to generate positive margins,” Ms. Marriott said.

Physicians often scurry about seeing all the patients that have already been seen by a PA, she said, because they think they must capture the extra 15% reimbursement. But that is unnecessary, she said.

“Go do another admission. You should see patients because of their clinical condition. My point is not that you go running around because you want to capture the extra 15% – because that provides no additional medically necessary care.”
 

Changing practice

Many institutions continue to be hamstrung by their own bylaws in the use of NPs and PAs. It’s true that a physician doesn’t have to see every patient, unless it’s required in a hospital’s rules, Ms. Marriott noted.

“Somebody step up, get on the bylaws committee, and say, ‘Let’s update these.’ ” she said.

As for patient satisfaction, access and convenience routinely rank higher on the patient priority lists than provider credentials. “The patient wants to get off the gurney in the ED and get to a room,” she said.

But changing hospital bylaws and practices is also about the responsible use of health care dollars, Ms. Marriott affirmed.

“More patients seen in a timely fashion, and quality metrics improvement: Those are all things that are really, really important,” she said. “As a result, [if bylaws and practice patterns are changed] the physicians are hopefully going to be happier, certainly the administration is going to be happier, and the patients are going to fare better.”

Scott Faust, MS, APRN, CNP, an acute care nurse practitioner at Health Partners in St. Paul, Minn., said that teamwork without egos is crucial to success for all providers on the hospital medicine team, especially at busier moments.

“Nobody wants to be in this alone,” he said. “I think the hospitalist teams that work well are the ones that check their titles at the door.”

PAs and NPs generally agree that, as long as all clinical staffers are working within their areas of skill without being overly concerned about specific titles and roles, hospitals and patients will benefit.

“I’ve had physicians at my organization say ‘We need to have an NP and PA set of educational requirements,’ and I said, ‘We have some already for physicians, right? Why aren’t we using that?’ ” Dr. Houghton said. “I think we should have the same expectations clinically. At the end of the day, the patient deserves the same outcomes and the same care, whether they’re being cared for by a physician, an NP, or a PA.”


 

Onboarding NPs and PAs

According to SHM’s Nurse Practitioner/Physician Assistant Committee, the integration of a new NP or PA hire, whether experienced or not, requires up-front organization and planning for the employee as he or she enters into a new practice.

To that end, the NP/PA Committee created a toolkit to aid health care organizations in their integration of NP and PA staffers into hospital medicine practice groups. The document includes resources for recruiting and interviewing NPs and PAs, information about orientation and onboarding, detailed descriptions of models of care to aid in the utilization of NPs and PAs, best practices for staff retention, insights on billing and reimbursement, and ideas for program evaluation.

Readers can download the Onboarding Toolkit in PDF format at shm.hospitalmedicine.org/acton/attachment/25526/f-040f/1/-/-/-/-/SHM_NPPA_OboardingToolkit.pdf.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have become a more prominent part of the hospitalist workforce, and at many institutions, they account for a large proportion of patient care and have a powerful effect on a patient’s experience. But NP and PA roles in hospital medicine continue to evolve – and understanding what they do is still, at times, a work in progress.

One myth that persists regarding NPs and PAs is that, if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.

At the 2018 Annual Conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, Noam Shabani, MS, PA-C, lead physician assistant at Massachusetts General Hospital’s Hospital Medicine Unit, Boston, offered an example to help shatter this misperception.

Mr. Shabani described a 28-year-old woman who had a bachelor’s in biology with a premed track and spent 4 years as a paramedic before attending the physician assistant program at Duke University, Durham, N.C. As a new PA graduate, she was hired as a hospitalist at a community hospital in Kentucky.

Given this new PA’s clinical experience and formal education, there are certain skills she should bring to the table: the ability to develop a differential diagnosis and a good understanding of disease pathophysiology and the mechanisms of action of drugs. And because of her paramedic experience, she should be comfortable with making urgent clinical care decisions and should be proficient with electrocardiograms, as well as chest and abdominal x-rays.

But compared with a newly graduated NP with registered nurse (RN) floor experience, the PA is likely to be less familiar with hospital mechanics and systems, with leading goal of care discussions with patients and families, and with understanding nuances involved with transitions of care.

The subtle differences between NPs and PAs don’t end there. Because of the progressive policies and recently updated bylaws at the Kentucky hospital where the PA was hired, this health care professional can see patients and write notes independently without a physician signature. But because she practices in Kentucky, she is not allowed to prescribe Schedule II medications, per state law.

“This example demonstrates how nuanced and multi-layered the process of integrating NPs and PAs into hospitalist groups can be,” Mr. Shabani said.
 

Goals, roles, and expectations

Physician assistants and nurse practitioners have reported that their job descriptions, and the variety of roles they can play within HM teams, are becoming better understood by hospitalist physicians and administrators. However, they also have acknowledged that both PAs and NPs are still underutilized.

Tricia Marriott, PA-C, MPAS, an orthopedic service line administrator at Saint Mary’s Hospital in Waterbury, Conn., and an expert in NP and PA policy, has noticed growing enlightenment about PAs and NPs in her travels to conferences in recent years.

“I’m no longer explaining what a PA is and what an NP is, and the questions have become very sophisticated,” she said at HM18. “However, I spent the last two days in the exhibit hall, and some of the conversations I had with physicians are interesting in that the practice and utilization styles have not become sophisticated. So I think there is a lot of opportunity out there.”

Mr. Shabani said the hospitalist care provided by PAs and NPs sits “at the intersection” of state regulations, hospital bylaws, department utilization, and – of course – clinical experience and formal medical education.

“What this boils down to is first understanding these factors, followed by strategizing recruitment and training as a response,” he said.

Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM, associate director of clinical integration at Adfinitas Health in Hanover, Md., and a Society of Hospital Medicine board member, said that, even though she usually sees and hears about a 10%-15% productivity gap between physicians and PAs or NPs, there is no good reason that an experienced PA or NP should not be able to handle the same patient load as a physician hospitalist – if that’s the goal.

“Part of it is about communication of expectation,” she said, noting that organizations must provide the training to allows NPs and PAs to reach prescribed goals along with an adequate level of administrative support. “I think we shouldn’t accept those gaps in productivity.”

Nicolas Houghton, DNP, ACNP-BC, CFRN, nurse practitioner/physician assistant manager at the Cleveland Clinic, thinks that it is completely reasonable for health care organizations to have an expectation that, at the 3- to 5-year mark, NPs and PAs “are really going to be functioning at very high levels that may be nearly indistinguishable.”

Dr. Houghton and Mr. Shabani agreed that, while they had considerably different duties at the start of their careers, they now have clinical roles which mirror one another.

For example, they agreed on these basics: NPs must be a certified RN, while a PA can have any undergraduate degree with certain prerequisite courses such as biology and chemistry. All PAs are trained in general medicine, while NPs specialize in areas such as acute care, family medicine, geriatrics, and women’s health. NPs need 500 didactic hours and 500-700 clinical hours in their area of expertise, while physician assistants need 1,000 didactic and 2,000 clinical hours spread over many disciplines.

For NP’s, required clinical rotations depend on the specialty, while all PAs need to complete rotations in inpatient medicine, emergency medicine, primary care, surgery, psychiatry, pediatrics, and ob.gyn. Also, NPs can practice independently in 23 states and the District of Columbia, while PAs must have a supervising physician. About 10% of NPs work in hospital settings, and about 39% of PAs work in hospital settings, they said.

Dr. Houghton and Mr. Shabani emphasized that Medicare does recognize NP and PA services as physician services. The official language, in place since 1998, is that their services “are the type that are considered physician’s services if furnished by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy.”

Mr. Shabani said this remained a very relevant issue. “I can’t overstate how important this is,” he said.
 

Debunking myths

Several myths continue to persist about PAs and NPs, Ms. Marriott said. Some administrators and physicians believe that they can’t see new patients, that a physician must see every patient, that a physician cosignature means that a claim can be submitted under the physician’s name, that reimbursement for services provided by PAs and NPs “leaves 15% on the table,” and that patients won’t be happy being seen by a PA or an NP. All of those things are false, she said.

“We really need to improve people’s understanding in a lot of different places – it’s not just at the clinician level,” she said. “It goes all the way through the operations team, and the operations team has some very old-fashioned thinking about what PAs and NPs really are, which is – they believe – clinical support staff.”

But she suggested that the phrase “working at the top of one’s license” can be used too freely – individual experience and ability will encompass a range of practices, she said.

“I’m licensed to drive a car,” she said. “But you do not want me in the Daytona 500. I am not capable of driving a race car.”

She cautioned that nurse practitioner care must still involve an element of collaboration, according to the Medicaid benefit policy manual, even if they work in states that allow NPs to provide “independent” care. They must have documentation “indicating the relationships that they have with physicians to deal with issues outside their scope of practice,” the manual says.

“Don’t ask me how people prove it,” Ms. Marriott said. “Just know that, if someone were to audit you, then you would need to show what this looks like.”

Regarding the 15% myth, she showed a calculation: Data from the Medical Group Management Association show that median annual compensation for a physician is $134 an hour and that it’s approximately $52 an hour for a PA or NP. An admission history and physical that takes an hour can be reimbursed at $102 for a physician and at 85% of that – $87 – for a PA or NP. That leaves a deficit of $32 for the physician and a surplus of $35 for the PA or NP.

“If you properly deploy your PAs and NPs, you’re going to generate positive margins,” Ms. Marriott said.

Physicians often scurry about seeing all the patients that have already been seen by a PA, she said, because they think they must capture the extra 15% reimbursement. But that is unnecessary, she said.

“Go do another admission. You should see patients because of their clinical condition. My point is not that you go running around because you want to capture the extra 15% – because that provides no additional medically necessary care.”
 

Changing practice

Many institutions continue to be hamstrung by their own bylaws in the use of NPs and PAs. It’s true that a physician doesn’t have to see every patient, unless it’s required in a hospital’s rules, Ms. Marriott noted.

“Somebody step up, get on the bylaws committee, and say, ‘Let’s update these.’ ” she said.

As for patient satisfaction, access and convenience routinely rank higher on the patient priority lists than provider credentials. “The patient wants to get off the gurney in the ED and get to a room,” she said.

But changing hospital bylaws and practices is also about the responsible use of health care dollars, Ms. Marriott affirmed.

“More patients seen in a timely fashion, and quality metrics improvement: Those are all things that are really, really important,” she said. “As a result, [if bylaws and practice patterns are changed] the physicians are hopefully going to be happier, certainly the administration is going to be happier, and the patients are going to fare better.”

Scott Faust, MS, APRN, CNP, an acute care nurse practitioner at Health Partners in St. Paul, Minn., said that teamwork without egos is crucial to success for all providers on the hospital medicine team, especially at busier moments.

“Nobody wants to be in this alone,” he said. “I think the hospitalist teams that work well are the ones that check their titles at the door.”

PAs and NPs generally agree that, as long as all clinical staffers are working within their areas of skill without being overly concerned about specific titles and roles, hospitals and patients will benefit.

“I’ve had physicians at my organization say ‘We need to have an NP and PA set of educational requirements,’ and I said, ‘We have some already for physicians, right? Why aren’t we using that?’ ” Dr. Houghton said. “I think we should have the same expectations clinically. At the end of the day, the patient deserves the same outcomes and the same care, whether they’re being cared for by a physician, an NP, or a PA.”


 

Onboarding NPs and PAs

According to SHM’s Nurse Practitioner/Physician Assistant Committee, the integration of a new NP or PA hire, whether experienced or not, requires up-front organization and planning for the employee as he or she enters into a new practice.

To that end, the NP/PA Committee created a toolkit to aid health care organizations in their integration of NP and PA staffers into hospital medicine practice groups. The document includes resources for recruiting and interviewing NPs and PAs, information about orientation and onboarding, detailed descriptions of models of care to aid in the utilization of NPs and PAs, best practices for staff retention, insights on billing and reimbursement, and ideas for program evaluation.

Readers can download the Onboarding Toolkit in PDF format at shm.hospitalmedicine.org/acton/attachment/25526/f-040f/1/-/-/-/-/SHM_NPPA_OboardingToolkit.pdf.

Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) have become a more prominent part of the hospitalist workforce, and at many institutions, they account for a large proportion of patient care and have a powerful effect on a patient’s experience. But NP and PA roles in hospital medicine continue to evolve – and understanding what they do is still, at times, a work in progress.

One myth that persists regarding NPs and PAs is that, if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.

At the 2018 Annual Conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine, Noam Shabani, MS, PA-C, lead physician assistant at Massachusetts General Hospital’s Hospital Medicine Unit, Boston, offered an example to help shatter this misperception.

Mr. Shabani described a 28-year-old woman who had a bachelor’s in biology with a premed track and spent 4 years as a paramedic before attending the physician assistant program at Duke University, Durham, N.C. As a new PA graduate, she was hired as a hospitalist at a community hospital in Kentucky.

Given this new PA’s clinical experience and formal education, there are certain skills she should bring to the table: the ability to develop a differential diagnosis and a good understanding of disease pathophysiology and the mechanisms of action of drugs. And because of her paramedic experience, she should be comfortable with making urgent clinical care decisions and should be proficient with electrocardiograms, as well as chest and abdominal x-rays.

But compared with a newly graduated NP with registered nurse (RN) floor experience, the PA is likely to be less familiar with hospital mechanics and systems, with leading goal of care discussions with patients and families, and with understanding nuances involved with transitions of care.

The subtle differences between NPs and PAs don’t end there. Because of the progressive policies and recently updated bylaws at the Kentucky hospital where the PA was hired, this health care professional can see patients and write notes independently without a physician signature. But because she practices in Kentucky, she is not allowed to prescribe Schedule II medications, per state law.

“This example demonstrates how nuanced and multi-layered the process of integrating NPs and PAs into hospitalist groups can be,” Mr. Shabani said.
 

Goals, roles, and expectations

Physician assistants and nurse practitioners have reported that their job descriptions, and the variety of roles they can play within HM teams, are becoming better understood by hospitalist physicians and administrators. However, they also have acknowledged that both PAs and NPs are still underutilized.

Tricia Marriott, PA-C, MPAS, an orthopedic service line administrator at Saint Mary’s Hospital in Waterbury, Conn., and an expert in NP and PA policy, has noticed growing enlightenment about PAs and NPs in her travels to conferences in recent years.

“I’m no longer explaining what a PA is and what an NP is, and the questions have become very sophisticated,” she said at HM18. “However, I spent the last two days in the exhibit hall, and some of the conversations I had with physicians are interesting in that the practice and utilization styles have not become sophisticated. So I think there is a lot of opportunity out there.”

Mr. Shabani said the hospitalist care provided by PAs and NPs sits “at the intersection” of state regulations, hospital bylaws, department utilization, and – of course – clinical experience and formal medical education.

“What this boils down to is first understanding these factors, followed by strategizing recruitment and training as a response,” he said.

Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM, associate director of clinical integration at Adfinitas Health in Hanover, Md., and a Society of Hospital Medicine board member, said that, even though she usually sees and hears about a 10%-15% productivity gap between physicians and PAs or NPs, there is no good reason that an experienced PA or NP should not be able to handle the same patient load as a physician hospitalist – if that’s the goal.

“Part of it is about communication of expectation,” she said, noting that organizations must provide the training to allows NPs and PAs to reach prescribed goals along with an adequate level of administrative support. “I think we shouldn’t accept those gaps in productivity.”

Nicolas Houghton, DNP, ACNP-BC, CFRN, nurse practitioner/physician assistant manager at the Cleveland Clinic, thinks that it is completely reasonable for health care organizations to have an expectation that, at the 3- to 5-year mark, NPs and PAs “are really going to be functioning at very high levels that may be nearly indistinguishable.”

Dr. Houghton and Mr. Shabani agreed that, while they had considerably different duties at the start of their careers, they now have clinical roles which mirror one another.

For example, they agreed on these basics: NPs must be a certified RN, while a PA can have any undergraduate degree with certain prerequisite courses such as biology and chemistry. All PAs are trained in general medicine, while NPs specialize in areas such as acute care, family medicine, geriatrics, and women’s health. NPs need 500 didactic hours and 500-700 clinical hours in their area of expertise, while physician assistants need 1,000 didactic and 2,000 clinical hours spread over many disciplines.

For NP’s, required clinical rotations depend on the specialty, while all PAs need to complete rotations in inpatient medicine, emergency medicine, primary care, surgery, psychiatry, pediatrics, and ob.gyn. Also, NPs can practice independently in 23 states and the District of Columbia, while PAs must have a supervising physician. About 10% of NPs work in hospital settings, and about 39% of PAs work in hospital settings, they said.

Dr. Houghton and Mr. Shabani emphasized that Medicare does recognize NP and PA services as physician services. The official language, in place since 1998, is that their services “are the type that are considered physician’s services if furnished by a doctor of medicine or osteopathy.”

Mr. Shabani said this remained a very relevant issue. “I can’t overstate how important this is,” he said.
 

Debunking myths

Several myths continue to persist about PAs and NPs, Ms. Marriott said. Some administrators and physicians believe that they can’t see new patients, that a physician must see every patient, that a physician cosignature means that a claim can be submitted under the physician’s name, that reimbursement for services provided by PAs and NPs “leaves 15% on the table,” and that patients won’t be happy being seen by a PA or an NP. All of those things are false, she said.

“We really need to improve people’s understanding in a lot of different places – it’s not just at the clinician level,” she said. “It goes all the way through the operations team, and the operations team has some very old-fashioned thinking about what PAs and NPs really are, which is – they believe – clinical support staff.”

But she suggested that the phrase “working at the top of one’s license” can be used too freely – individual experience and ability will encompass a range of practices, she said.

“I’m licensed to drive a car,” she said. “But you do not want me in the Daytona 500. I am not capable of driving a race car.”

She cautioned that nurse practitioner care must still involve an element of collaboration, according to the Medicaid benefit policy manual, even if they work in states that allow NPs to provide “independent” care. They must have documentation “indicating the relationships that they have with physicians to deal with issues outside their scope of practice,” the manual says.

“Don’t ask me how people prove it,” Ms. Marriott said. “Just know that, if someone were to audit you, then you would need to show what this looks like.”

Regarding the 15% myth, she showed a calculation: Data from the Medical Group Management Association show that median annual compensation for a physician is $134 an hour and that it’s approximately $52 an hour for a PA or NP. An admission history and physical that takes an hour can be reimbursed at $102 for a physician and at 85% of that – $87 – for a PA or NP. That leaves a deficit of $32 for the physician and a surplus of $35 for the PA or NP.

“If you properly deploy your PAs and NPs, you’re going to generate positive margins,” Ms. Marriott said.

Physicians often scurry about seeing all the patients that have already been seen by a PA, she said, because they think they must capture the extra 15% reimbursement. But that is unnecessary, she said.

“Go do another admission. You should see patients because of their clinical condition. My point is not that you go running around because you want to capture the extra 15% – because that provides no additional medically necessary care.”
 

Changing practice

Many institutions continue to be hamstrung by their own bylaws in the use of NPs and PAs. It’s true that a physician doesn’t have to see every patient, unless it’s required in a hospital’s rules, Ms. Marriott noted.

“Somebody step up, get on the bylaws committee, and say, ‘Let’s update these.’ ” she said.

As for patient satisfaction, access and convenience routinely rank higher on the patient priority lists than provider credentials. “The patient wants to get off the gurney in the ED and get to a room,” she said.

But changing hospital bylaws and practices is also about the responsible use of health care dollars, Ms. Marriott affirmed.

“More patients seen in a timely fashion, and quality metrics improvement: Those are all things that are really, really important,” she said. “As a result, [if bylaws and practice patterns are changed] the physicians are hopefully going to be happier, certainly the administration is going to be happier, and the patients are going to fare better.”

Scott Faust, MS, APRN, CNP, an acute care nurse practitioner at Health Partners in St. Paul, Minn., said that teamwork without egos is crucial to success for all providers on the hospital medicine team, especially at busier moments.

“Nobody wants to be in this alone,” he said. “I think the hospitalist teams that work well are the ones that check their titles at the door.”

PAs and NPs generally agree that, as long as all clinical staffers are working within their areas of skill without being overly concerned about specific titles and roles, hospitals and patients will benefit.

“I’ve had physicians at my organization say ‘We need to have an NP and PA set of educational requirements,’ and I said, ‘We have some already for physicians, right? Why aren’t we using that?’ ” Dr. Houghton said. “I think we should have the same expectations clinically. At the end of the day, the patient deserves the same outcomes and the same care, whether they’re being cared for by a physician, an NP, or a PA.”


 

Onboarding NPs and PAs

According to SHM’s Nurse Practitioner/Physician Assistant Committee, the integration of a new NP or PA hire, whether experienced or not, requires up-front organization and planning for the employee as he or she enters into a new practice.

To that end, the NP/PA Committee created a toolkit to aid health care organizations in their integration of NP and PA staffers into hospital medicine practice groups. The document includes resources for recruiting and interviewing NPs and PAs, information about orientation and onboarding, detailed descriptions of models of care to aid in the utilization of NPs and PAs, best practices for staff retention, insights on billing and reimbursement, and ideas for program evaluation.

Readers can download the Onboarding Toolkit in PDF format at shm.hospitalmedicine.org/acton/attachment/25526/f-040f/1/-/-/-/-/SHM_NPPA_OboardingToolkit.pdf.

LAS VEGAS – More than half of patients tested for prescription drug compliance last year misused their medications, often supplementing them with nonprescribed and illicit drugs in dangerous combinations.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Of almost 4 million urine screens examined, 52% were discordant for the screen-ordered drugs, Jeffrey Gudin, MD, said at the annual PAINWeek. Most common was the combination of opioids and benzodiazepines, which accounted for 21% of the discordant samples – and, in 64% of these cases, at least one of the drugs was not prescribed.

“Drug testing is a standard of care in pain management, and it’s the only objective way to know what patients are really taking,” said Dr. Gudin, director of pain and palliative care at Englewood (N.J.) Hospital and Medical Center. “What this tells us is that, if we just ask our patients, half the time they won’t tell you the whole story. More than 50% of the time things don’t match up. To me this is just unbelievable.”

Quest Diagnostics compiled these data, and many more, in its “Health Trends Report: Drug Misuse in America 2018.”

The report examines 3.9 million routine drug screens ordered by primary care and pain physicians during 2011-2017. It not only looks at prescription drug use and misuse but also tracks illicit drugs in both general and substance abuse patient populations. The findings reported at PAINWeek were based on 456,675 screens from 276,953 patients conducted in 2017. These results were included in the Quest Diagnostics medMATCH reports, which indicated what tested drugs were prescribed and whether these drugs were detected in the specimen.

The following were found among the discordant screens identified in 2017:

• 45% were positive for nonprescribed or illicit drugs in addition to all the prescribed drugs.
• 34% did not show all the drugs they had been prescribed, or any other tested drug.
• 22% did not show all the drugs they had been prescribed but were positive for other illicit or nonprescribed drugs.

The tests were ordered as a part of routine care – an important point, Dr. Gudin said in an interview. “These are not ‘gotcha tests,’ ” intended to catch patients unawares. “These are regularly ordered screens that are standard of care in pain management.”

The report found that men and women were equally likely to misuse medications (52% each). There were some age-related differences, with misuse peaking in young adulthood: 60% of 18- to 24-year-olds and 56% of 25- to 45-year-olds. Misuse dropped off in those aged 55-64 years (52%) and in those 65 years and older (43%). But even children showed evidence of medication misuse, with about 41% of samples from children aged 10 years and younger being discordant.

The rates of misuse were about 50% in Medicare and private pay patients, but around 65% in Medicaid patients.

There was some good news: In the general patient population, opioid use was down by 12% from 2016 – the largest annual decrease Quest has noted since 2012. Several factors probably contributed to that decline, including shifts in clinical care and payer reimbursement, as well as regulatory and legislative restrictions.

“This shows that we’re doing better on the pain management front,” Dr. Gudin said. “But in substance use disorder settings, we saw 400% increases for both fentanyl and heroin. The addiction front it out of control.”

More than 27% of all specimens that came from substance abuse treatment centers were positive for nonprescribed fentanyl and 10% were positive for heroin. “We also saw that, in 2016, 45% of those heroin-positive samples had fentanyl in them, and in 2017, 83% did.”

Although not discussed at PAINWeek, the report also noted a rise in gabapentin misuse. The antiepileptic is now the 10th most commonly prescribed drug in the United States, the report noted, with 68 million prescriptions dispensed last year. The report found that 9.5% of tests showed nonprescription gabapentin. In the subset of samples obtained from substance abuse treatment centers, gabapentin misuse increased by 800% from 2016 – the most dramatic increase of any of the tracked drugs.

The combination of gabapentin and opioids is risky, the report noted. Opioid-related deaths are 49% more common among those taking both than those taking opioids only.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gudin J et al. PAINWeek 2018, abstract 44.

LAS VEGAS – More than half of patients tested for prescription drug compliance last year misused their medications, often supplementing them with nonprescribed and illicit drugs in dangerous combinations.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Of almost 4 million urine screens examined, 52% were discordant for the screen-ordered drugs, Jeffrey Gudin, MD, said at the annual PAINWeek. Most common was the combination of opioids and benzodiazepines, which accounted for 21% of the discordant samples – and, in 64% of these cases, at least one of the drugs was not prescribed.

“Drug testing is a standard of care in pain management, and it’s the only objective way to know what patients are really taking,” said Dr. Gudin, director of pain and palliative care at Englewood (N.J.) Hospital and Medical Center. “What this tells us is that, if we just ask our patients, half the time they won’t tell you the whole story. More than 50% of the time things don’t match up. To me this is just unbelievable.”

Quest Diagnostics compiled these data, and many more, in its “Health Trends Report: Drug Misuse in America 2018.”

The report examines 3.9 million routine drug screens ordered by primary care and pain physicians during 2011-2017. It not only looks at prescription drug use and misuse but also tracks illicit drugs in both general and substance abuse patient populations. The findings reported at PAINWeek were based on 456,675 screens from 276,953 patients conducted in 2017. These results were included in the Quest Diagnostics medMATCH reports, which indicated what tested drugs were prescribed and whether these drugs were detected in the specimen.

The following were found among the discordant screens identified in 2017:

• 45% were positive for nonprescribed or illicit drugs in addition to all the prescribed drugs.
• 34% did not show all the drugs they had been prescribed, or any other tested drug.
• 22% did not show all the drugs they had been prescribed but were positive for other illicit or nonprescribed drugs.

The tests were ordered as a part of routine care – an important point, Dr. Gudin said in an interview. “These are not ‘gotcha tests,’ ” intended to catch patients unawares. “These are regularly ordered screens that are standard of care in pain management.”

The report found that men and women were equally likely to misuse medications (52% each). There were some age-related differences, with misuse peaking in young adulthood: 60% of 18- to 24-year-olds and 56% of 25- to 45-year-olds. Misuse dropped off in those aged 55-64 years (52%) and in those 65 years and older (43%). But even children showed evidence of medication misuse, with about 41% of samples from children aged 10 years and younger being discordant.

The rates of misuse were about 50% in Medicare and private pay patients, but around 65% in Medicaid patients.

There was some good news: In the general patient population, opioid use was down by 12% from 2016 – the largest annual decrease Quest has noted since 2012. Several factors probably contributed to that decline, including shifts in clinical care and payer reimbursement, as well as regulatory and legislative restrictions.

“This shows that we’re doing better on the pain management front,” Dr. Gudin said. “But in substance use disorder settings, we saw 400% increases for both fentanyl and heroin. The addiction front it out of control.”

More than 27% of all specimens that came from substance abuse treatment centers were positive for nonprescribed fentanyl and 10% were positive for heroin. “We also saw that, in 2016, 45% of those heroin-positive samples had fentanyl in them, and in 2017, 83% did.”

Although not discussed at PAINWeek, the report also noted a rise in gabapentin misuse. The antiepileptic is now the 10th most commonly prescribed drug in the United States, the report noted, with 68 million prescriptions dispensed last year. The report found that 9.5% of tests showed nonprescription gabapentin. In the subset of samples obtained from substance abuse treatment centers, gabapentin misuse increased by 800% from 2016 – the most dramatic increase of any of the tracked drugs.

The combination of gabapentin and opioids is risky, the report noted. Opioid-related deaths are 49% more common among those taking both than those taking opioids only.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gudin J et al. PAINWeek 2018, abstract 44.

LAS VEGAS – More than half of patients tested for prescription drug compliance last year misused their medications, often supplementing them with nonprescribed and illicit drugs in dangerous combinations.

sdominick/iStock/Getty Images

Of almost 4 million urine screens examined, 52% were discordant for the screen-ordered drugs, Jeffrey Gudin, MD, said at the annual PAINWeek. Most common was the combination of opioids and benzodiazepines, which accounted for 21% of the discordant samples – and, in 64% of these cases, at least one of the drugs was not prescribed.

“Drug testing is a standard of care in pain management, and it’s the only objective way to know what patients are really taking,” said Dr. Gudin, director of pain and palliative care at Englewood (N.J.) Hospital and Medical Center. “What this tells us is that, if we just ask our patients, half the time they won’t tell you the whole story. More than 50% of the time things don’t match up. To me this is just unbelievable.”

Quest Diagnostics compiled these data, and many more, in its “Health Trends Report: Drug Misuse in America 2018.”

The report examines 3.9 million routine drug screens ordered by primary care and pain physicians during 2011-2017. It not only looks at prescription drug use and misuse but also tracks illicit drugs in both general and substance abuse patient populations. The findings reported at PAINWeek were based on 456,675 screens from 276,953 patients conducted in 2017. These results were included in the Quest Diagnostics medMATCH reports, which indicated what tested drugs were prescribed and whether these drugs were detected in the specimen.

The following were found among the discordant screens identified in 2017:

• 45% were positive for nonprescribed or illicit drugs in addition to all the prescribed drugs.
• 34% did not show all the drugs they had been prescribed, or any other tested drug.
• 22% did not show all the drugs they had been prescribed but were positive for other illicit or nonprescribed drugs.

The tests were ordered as a part of routine care – an important point, Dr. Gudin said in an interview. “These are not ‘gotcha tests,’ ” intended to catch patients unawares. “These are regularly ordered screens that are standard of care in pain management.”

The report found that men and women were equally likely to misuse medications (52% each). There were some age-related differences, with misuse peaking in young adulthood: 60% of 18- to 24-year-olds and 56% of 25- to 45-year-olds. Misuse dropped off in those aged 55-64 years (52%) and in those 65 years and older (43%). But even children showed evidence of medication misuse, with about 41% of samples from children aged 10 years and younger being discordant.

The rates of misuse were about 50% in Medicare and private pay patients, but around 65% in Medicaid patients.

There was some good news: In the general patient population, opioid use was down by 12% from 2016 – the largest annual decrease Quest has noted since 2012. Several factors probably contributed to that decline, including shifts in clinical care and payer reimbursement, as well as regulatory and legislative restrictions.

“This shows that we’re doing better on the pain management front,” Dr. Gudin said. “But in substance use disorder settings, we saw 400% increases for both fentanyl and heroin. The addiction front it out of control.”

More than 27% of all specimens that came from substance abuse treatment centers were positive for nonprescribed fentanyl and 10% were positive for heroin. “We also saw that, in 2016, 45% of those heroin-positive samples had fentanyl in them, and in 2017, 83% did.”

Although not discussed at PAINWeek, the report also noted a rise in gabapentin misuse. The antiepileptic is now the 10th most commonly prescribed drug in the United States, the report noted, with 68 million prescriptions dispensed last year. The report found that 9.5% of tests showed nonprescription gabapentin. In the subset of samples obtained from substance abuse treatment centers, gabapentin misuse increased by 800% from 2016 – the most dramatic increase of any of the tracked drugs.

The combination of gabapentin and opioids is risky, the report noted. Opioid-related deaths are 49% more common among those taking both than those taking opioids only.
 

[email protected]

SOURCE: Gudin J et al. PAINWeek 2018, abstract 44.