User login
Official news magazine of the Society of Hospital Medicine
Copyright by Society of Hospital Medicine or related companies. All rights reserved. ISSN 1553-085X
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack nav-ce-stack__large-screen')]
header[@id='header']
div[contains(@class, 'header__large-screen')]
div[contains(@class, 'read-next-article')]
div[contains(@class, 'main-prefix')]
div[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-primary')]
section[contains(@class, 'footer-nav-section-wrapper')]
footer[@id='footer']
section[contains(@class, 'nav-hidden')]
div[contains(@class, 'ce-card-content')]
nav[contains(@class, 'nav-ce-stack')]
div[contains(@class, 'view-medstat-quiz-listing-panes')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-article-sidebar-latest-news')]
div[contains(@class, 'pane-pub-article-hospitalist')]


Reducing the Burden of Cirrhosis and Hepatic Encephalopathy
Click Here to Read the Supplement.
Topics include:
- Overview of HE
- Early Identification and Management
- An Option for HE Management
Dr. William Ford, MD, SFHM
Regional Medical Director
Clinical Associate Professor
of Medicine
Abington, Jefferson Health
Philadelphia, PA
Click Here to Read the Supplement.
XIF.0129.USA.17
Click Here to Read the Supplement.
Topics include:
- Overview of HE
- Early Identification and Management
- An Option for HE Management
Dr. William Ford, MD, SFHM
Regional Medical Director
Clinical Associate Professor
of Medicine
Abington, Jefferson Health
Philadelphia, PA
Click Here to Read the Supplement.
XIF.0129.USA.17
Click Here to Read the Supplement.
Topics include:
- Overview of HE
- Early Identification and Management
- An Option for HE Management
Dr. William Ford, MD, SFHM
Regional Medical Director
Clinical Associate Professor
of Medicine
Abington, Jefferson Health
Philadelphia, PA
Click Here to Read the Supplement.
XIF.0129.USA.17
Effect Of Inpatient Rehab Vs. Home-Based Program For TKA
Title: Inpatient rehabilitation does not improve mobility after total knee arthroplasty versus a monitored home-based program.
Clinical Question: Does initial treatment in an inpatient rehabilitation facility offer greater improvements in mobility when added to a monitored home-based program after undergoing total knee arthroplasty?
Background: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is common and postsurgical care varies. No randomized controlled trials have compared inpatient rehabilitation to monitored home-based programs.
Study Design: Multicenter, two intervention groups in parallel, randomized controlled trial with a third observational group.
Synopsis: 165 patients who underwent unilateral TKA were randomized to inpatient rehabilitation followed by a home-based program vs. a home-based program only. A separate observation group (patients who chose home-based program) was included in the analysis of primary outcome. Primary outcome was functional mobility at 26 weeks as measured by walking distance via the 6-minute walk test. All 165 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome was no different among the two randomized groups (adjusted mean difference with imputation, –1.01; 95% CI, –25.56 to 23.55). The per protocol analysis of the primary outcome yielded similar results; nonadherent patients were excluded from the per protocol analysis so the sample size was smaller. There were no between-group differences in the primary outcome when the home-based program was compared to the observation group. Secondary outcomes included patient reported and observer assessed outcomes in function and quality of life. The most significant limitation was that these results are generalizable only to patients considered appropriate for discharge home.
Bottom Line: In total knee arthroplasty patients appropriate for discharge home, inpatient rehabilitation followed by a home-based program did not improve mobility as compared with a monitored home-based program alone.
Citation: Buhagiar MA, Naylor JM, Harris IA, et al. Effect of inpatient rehabilitation vs. a monitored home-based program on mobility in patients with total knee arthroplasty, the HIHO randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;317(10):1037-46. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.1224.
Dr. Burns is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Inpatient rehabilitation does not improve mobility after total knee arthroplasty versus a monitored home-based program.
Clinical Question: Does initial treatment in an inpatient rehabilitation facility offer greater improvements in mobility when added to a monitored home-based program after undergoing total knee arthroplasty?
Background: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is common and postsurgical care varies. No randomized controlled trials have compared inpatient rehabilitation to monitored home-based programs.
Study Design: Multicenter, two intervention groups in parallel, randomized controlled trial with a third observational group.
Synopsis: 165 patients who underwent unilateral TKA were randomized to inpatient rehabilitation followed by a home-based program vs. a home-based program only. A separate observation group (patients who chose home-based program) was included in the analysis of primary outcome. Primary outcome was functional mobility at 26 weeks as measured by walking distance via the 6-minute walk test. All 165 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome was no different among the two randomized groups (adjusted mean difference with imputation, –1.01; 95% CI, –25.56 to 23.55). The per protocol analysis of the primary outcome yielded similar results; nonadherent patients were excluded from the per protocol analysis so the sample size was smaller. There were no between-group differences in the primary outcome when the home-based program was compared to the observation group. Secondary outcomes included patient reported and observer assessed outcomes in function and quality of life. The most significant limitation was that these results are generalizable only to patients considered appropriate for discharge home.
Bottom Line: In total knee arthroplasty patients appropriate for discharge home, inpatient rehabilitation followed by a home-based program did not improve mobility as compared with a monitored home-based program alone.
Citation: Buhagiar MA, Naylor JM, Harris IA, et al. Effect of inpatient rehabilitation vs. a monitored home-based program on mobility in patients with total knee arthroplasty, the HIHO randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;317(10):1037-46. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.1224.
Dr. Burns is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Inpatient rehabilitation does not improve mobility after total knee arthroplasty versus a monitored home-based program.
Clinical Question: Does initial treatment in an inpatient rehabilitation facility offer greater improvements in mobility when added to a monitored home-based program after undergoing total knee arthroplasty?
Background: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is common and postsurgical care varies. No randomized controlled trials have compared inpatient rehabilitation to monitored home-based programs.
Study Design: Multicenter, two intervention groups in parallel, randomized controlled trial with a third observational group.
Synopsis: 165 patients who underwent unilateral TKA were randomized to inpatient rehabilitation followed by a home-based program vs. a home-based program only. A separate observation group (patients who chose home-based program) was included in the analysis of primary outcome. Primary outcome was functional mobility at 26 weeks as measured by walking distance via the 6-minute walk test. All 165 patients were included in an intention-to-treat analysis. The primary outcome was no different among the two randomized groups (adjusted mean difference with imputation, –1.01; 95% CI, –25.56 to 23.55). The per protocol analysis of the primary outcome yielded similar results; nonadherent patients were excluded from the per protocol analysis so the sample size was smaller. There were no between-group differences in the primary outcome when the home-based program was compared to the observation group. Secondary outcomes included patient reported and observer assessed outcomes in function and quality of life. The most significant limitation was that these results are generalizable only to patients considered appropriate for discharge home.
Bottom Line: In total knee arthroplasty patients appropriate for discharge home, inpatient rehabilitation followed by a home-based program did not improve mobility as compared with a monitored home-based program alone.
Citation: Buhagiar MA, Naylor JM, Harris IA, et al. Effect of inpatient rehabilitation vs. a monitored home-based program on mobility in patients with total knee arthroplasty, the HIHO randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;317(10):1037-46. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.1224.
Dr. Burns is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Effect of frailty on HF readmissions
Title: Frailty is an independent risk factor for short-term mortality in older patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure
Clinical Question: What is the effect of frailty on 30-day mortality in non–severely disabled older patients with acute decompensated heart failure?
Study Design: Retrospective secondary analysis of a prospective observational multicenter cohort study.
Setting: Three Spanish EDs.
Synopsis: In 465 patients age 65 and older with acute decompensated heart failure who did not have an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, severe functional dependence, or dementia, 36.3% were categorized as frail on a validated performance status scoring system. Frail patients had a higher 30-day mortality rate than did non-frail patients (13.0% versus 4.1% in non-frail patients). Frailty was independently associated with a 30-day mortality (hazard ratio = 2.5, P = .047).
The major limitations of this study are that the researchers did not report how many patients were discharged versus admitted from the ED and they did not stratify short-term mortality attributable to frailty by degree of medical comorbidity.
Bottom Line: Frailty is common in older patients with acute decompensated heart failure and is also an independent risk factor for short-term mortality.
Citation: Martin-Sanchez FJ, Rodriguez-Adrada E, Mueller C, et al. The effect of frailty on 30-day mortality risk in older patients with acute heart failure attended in the emergency department. Acad Em Med. 2017;24(3):298-307.
Dr. Barrett is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Frailty is an independent risk factor for short-term mortality in older patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure
Clinical Question: What is the effect of frailty on 30-day mortality in non–severely disabled older patients with acute decompensated heart failure?
Study Design: Retrospective secondary analysis of a prospective observational multicenter cohort study.
Setting: Three Spanish EDs.
Synopsis: In 465 patients age 65 and older with acute decompensated heart failure who did not have an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, severe functional dependence, or dementia, 36.3% were categorized as frail on a validated performance status scoring system. Frail patients had a higher 30-day mortality rate than did non-frail patients (13.0% versus 4.1% in non-frail patients). Frailty was independently associated with a 30-day mortality (hazard ratio = 2.5, P = .047).
The major limitations of this study are that the researchers did not report how many patients were discharged versus admitted from the ED and they did not stratify short-term mortality attributable to frailty by degree of medical comorbidity.
Bottom Line: Frailty is common in older patients with acute decompensated heart failure and is also an independent risk factor for short-term mortality.
Citation: Martin-Sanchez FJ, Rodriguez-Adrada E, Mueller C, et al. The effect of frailty on 30-day mortality risk in older patients with acute heart failure attended in the emergency department. Acad Em Med. 2017;24(3):298-307.
Dr. Barrett is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Frailty is an independent risk factor for short-term mortality in older patients hospitalized with acute decompensated heart failure
Clinical Question: What is the effect of frailty on 30-day mortality in non–severely disabled older patients with acute decompensated heart failure?
Study Design: Retrospective secondary analysis of a prospective observational multicenter cohort study.
Setting: Three Spanish EDs.
Synopsis: In 465 patients age 65 and older with acute decompensated heart failure who did not have an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, severe functional dependence, or dementia, 36.3% were categorized as frail on a validated performance status scoring system. Frail patients had a higher 30-day mortality rate than did non-frail patients (13.0% versus 4.1% in non-frail patients). Frailty was independently associated with a 30-day mortality (hazard ratio = 2.5, P = .047).
The major limitations of this study are that the researchers did not report how many patients were discharged versus admitted from the ED and they did not stratify short-term mortality attributable to frailty by degree of medical comorbidity.
Bottom Line: Frailty is common in older patients with acute decompensated heart failure and is also an independent risk factor for short-term mortality.
Citation: Martin-Sanchez FJ, Rodriguez-Adrada E, Mueller C, et al. The effect of frailty on 30-day mortality risk in older patients with acute heart failure attended in the emergency department. Acad Em Med. 2017;24(3):298-307.
Dr. Barrett is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
HM17 session summary: Updates in Antibiotics – Determining duration and when to switch to PO
Presenters
Samir Shah, MD, MSCE
Session summary
Antibiotic stewardship is more than narrowing coverage once susceptibilities are available. It also means conversion of antibiotics to oral therapy when clinically appropriate.
Previously, many childhood infections were treated with IV therapy due to severity or concern that oral absorption delayed or limited response. Multiple studies have shown that early conversion is not only safe, but safer than prolonging IV therapy. At HM 17, we had the opportunity to hear from Samir Shah, MD, about the current literature that supports safe transitions to oral therapy, including the “when” and the “how.”
Terminology for conversion to oral therapy should not state that it is “step-down” therapy, but rather switch therapy or sequential therapy. This conversion reduces likelihood of treatment complications, reduces length of hospital stay, reduces nursing and pharmacy time, decreases discomfort for the patient, and reduces cost.
Antibiotics such as levofloxacin, clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, and metronidazole have excellent bioavailability when taken orally. Other commonly used IV medications such as ampicillin, ampicillin-sulbactam, and cefazolin can be substituted with amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and cephalexin, which have similar penetration characteristics.
In general, unless there are serious complications, such as endocarditis and meningitis, most patients should be switched to oral therapy as soon as clinically warranted to complete therapy. For example, the incidence of meningitis in patients less than 1 month of age with UTI is 1%-2% and the incidence of meningitis in those 1-2 months of age is 0.3%-0.5%. Therefore, these patients can be treated with oral therapy earlier in their course when meningitis is not suspected. The likelihood of endocarditis in a pediatric patient without a known heart lesion is very low, even in patients with repeat positive blood cultures, unlike our adult colleagues who have much higher incidence of endocarditis in bacteremic patients.
Further studies are emerging to help reduce total length of therapy for many bacterial infections. For example, good evidence now exists that skin and soft tissue infections can now be treated safely with 5-day courses.
Key takeaways for HM
• Transition to oral therapy earlier in the hospital course is justified and much safer than IV therapy.
• Conversion to oral antibiotic therapy reduces the likelihood of treatment complications, length of hospital stay, nursing time, pharmacy time, discomfort to the patient, and costs.
• Do not use the term “step-down” when referencing a transition to oral therapy.
• Oral therapy is effective in most bacterial infections in children except for meningitis and endocarditis.
• Levofloxacin, clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, and metronidazole have excellent bioavailability when taken orally and can be easily swapped for IV therapy.
Dr. Schwenk is a pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.), and a member of the Pediatrics Committee for SHM.
Presenters
Samir Shah, MD, MSCE
Session summary
Antibiotic stewardship is more than narrowing coverage once susceptibilities are available. It also means conversion of antibiotics to oral therapy when clinically appropriate.
Previously, many childhood infections were treated with IV therapy due to severity or concern that oral absorption delayed or limited response. Multiple studies have shown that early conversion is not only safe, but safer than prolonging IV therapy. At HM 17, we had the opportunity to hear from Samir Shah, MD, about the current literature that supports safe transitions to oral therapy, including the “when” and the “how.”
Terminology for conversion to oral therapy should not state that it is “step-down” therapy, but rather switch therapy or sequential therapy. This conversion reduces likelihood of treatment complications, reduces length of hospital stay, reduces nursing and pharmacy time, decreases discomfort for the patient, and reduces cost.
Antibiotics such as levofloxacin, clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, and metronidazole have excellent bioavailability when taken orally. Other commonly used IV medications such as ampicillin, ampicillin-sulbactam, and cefazolin can be substituted with amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and cephalexin, which have similar penetration characteristics.
In general, unless there are serious complications, such as endocarditis and meningitis, most patients should be switched to oral therapy as soon as clinically warranted to complete therapy. For example, the incidence of meningitis in patients less than 1 month of age with UTI is 1%-2% and the incidence of meningitis in those 1-2 months of age is 0.3%-0.5%. Therefore, these patients can be treated with oral therapy earlier in their course when meningitis is not suspected. The likelihood of endocarditis in a pediatric patient without a known heart lesion is very low, even in patients with repeat positive blood cultures, unlike our adult colleagues who have much higher incidence of endocarditis in bacteremic patients.
Further studies are emerging to help reduce total length of therapy for many bacterial infections. For example, good evidence now exists that skin and soft tissue infections can now be treated safely with 5-day courses.
Key takeaways for HM
• Transition to oral therapy earlier in the hospital course is justified and much safer than IV therapy.
• Conversion to oral antibiotic therapy reduces the likelihood of treatment complications, length of hospital stay, nursing time, pharmacy time, discomfort to the patient, and costs.
• Do not use the term “step-down” when referencing a transition to oral therapy.
• Oral therapy is effective in most bacterial infections in children except for meningitis and endocarditis.
• Levofloxacin, clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, and metronidazole have excellent bioavailability when taken orally and can be easily swapped for IV therapy.
Dr. Schwenk is a pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.), and a member of the Pediatrics Committee for SHM.
Presenters
Samir Shah, MD, MSCE
Session summary
Antibiotic stewardship is more than narrowing coverage once susceptibilities are available. It also means conversion of antibiotics to oral therapy when clinically appropriate.
Previously, many childhood infections were treated with IV therapy due to severity or concern that oral absorption delayed or limited response. Multiple studies have shown that early conversion is not only safe, but safer than prolonging IV therapy. At HM 17, we had the opportunity to hear from Samir Shah, MD, about the current literature that supports safe transitions to oral therapy, including the “when” and the “how.”
Terminology for conversion to oral therapy should not state that it is “step-down” therapy, but rather switch therapy or sequential therapy. This conversion reduces likelihood of treatment complications, reduces length of hospital stay, reduces nursing and pharmacy time, decreases discomfort for the patient, and reduces cost.
Antibiotics such as levofloxacin, clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, and metronidazole have excellent bioavailability when taken orally. Other commonly used IV medications such as ampicillin, ampicillin-sulbactam, and cefazolin can be substituted with amoxicillin, amoxicillin-clavulanate, and cephalexin, which have similar penetration characteristics.
In general, unless there are serious complications, such as endocarditis and meningitis, most patients should be switched to oral therapy as soon as clinically warranted to complete therapy. For example, the incidence of meningitis in patients less than 1 month of age with UTI is 1%-2% and the incidence of meningitis in those 1-2 months of age is 0.3%-0.5%. Therefore, these patients can be treated with oral therapy earlier in their course when meningitis is not suspected. The likelihood of endocarditis in a pediatric patient without a known heart lesion is very low, even in patients with repeat positive blood cultures, unlike our adult colleagues who have much higher incidence of endocarditis in bacteremic patients.
Further studies are emerging to help reduce total length of therapy for many bacterial infections. For example, good evidence now exists that skin and soft tissue infections can now be treated safely with 5-day courses.
Key takeaways for HM
• Transition to oral therapy earlier in the hospital course is justified and much safer than IV therapy.
• Conversion to oral antibiotic therapy reduces the likelihood of treatment complications, length of hospital stay, nursing time, pharmacy time, discomfort to the patient, and costs.
• Do not use the term “step-down” when referencing a transition to oral therapy.
• Oral therapy is effective in most bacterial infections in children except for meningitis and endocarditis.
• Levofloxacin, clindamycin, ciprofloxacin, and metronidazole have excellent bioavailability when taken orally and can be easily swapped for IV therapy.
Dr. Schwenk is a pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Louisville (Ky.), and a member of the Pediatrics Committee for SHM.
Association between concurrent use of prescription opiates and benzos
Title: Short periods of concurrent benzodiazepine and opioid use increase overdose risk
Clinical Question: What is the impact of concurrent benzodiazepine use in chronic versus intermittent opioid use on risk for opioid overdose?
Study Design: Retrospective study.
Setting: Private insurance administrative claims in the United States.
Synopsis: In 315,428 privately insured adults younger than 65 without malignancy who filled at least one opioid prescription between 2001 and 2013, concurrent benzodiazepine use doubled (increasing from 9% to 17%) and was associated with an increased risk for hospitalization for opioid overdose (1.16% versus 2.42%, odds ratio = 2.14, P less than .001). The risk was increased in both chronic opioid users versus nonusers (5.36% versus 3.13%, odds ratio = 1.8, CI, 1.67-1.96, P less than .001) and in intermittent opioid users as compared to nonusers (1.45% versus 1.02%, odds ratio = 1.42, CI, 1.33-1.51, P less than .001).
These results are similar to prior studies performed in other patient populations, but add to those by including short periods of co-prescription between opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions (including a single day of overlap). Limitations of this study include that it included only patients who were seen in the ED or hospital.
Bottom Line: There may be no safe duration of opioid use in patients who are also taking benzodiazepines.
Citation: Sun EC, Dixit, A, Humphreys K, et. al. Association between concurrent use of prescription opioids and benzodiazepines and overdose: retrospective analysis. BMJ 2017;356(760):1-7.
Dr. Barrett is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Short periods of concurrent benzodiazepine and opioid use increase overdose risk
Clinical Question: What is the impact of concurrent benzodiazepine use in chronic versus intermittent opioid use on risk for opioid overdose?
Study Design: Retrospective study.
Setting: Private insurance administrative claims in the United States.
Synopsis: In 315,428 privately insured adults younger than 65 without malignancy who filled at least one opioid prescription between 2001 and 2013, concurrent benzodiazepine use doubled (increasing from 9% to 17%) and was associated with an increased risk for hospitalization for opioid overdose (1.16% versus 2.42%, odds ratio = 2.14, P less than .001). The risk was increased in both chronic opioid users versus nonusers (5.36% versus 3.13%, odds ratio = 1.8, CI, 1.67-1.96, P less than .001) and in intermittent opioid users as compared to nonusers (1.45% versus 1.02%, odds ratio = 1.42, CI, 1.33-1.51, P less than .001).
These results are similar to prior studies performed in other patient populations, but add to those by including short periods of co-prescription between opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions (including a single day of overlap). Limitations of this study include that it included only patients who were seen in the ED or hospital.
Bottom Line: There may be no safe duration of opioid use in patients who are also taking benzodiazepines.
Citation: Sun EC, Dixit, A, Humphreys K, et. al. Association between concurrent use of prescription opioids and benzodiazepines and overdose: retrospective analysis. BMJ 2017;356(760):1-7.
Dr. Barrett is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Short periods of concurrent benzodiazepine and opioid use increase overdose risk
Clinical Question: What is the impact of concurrent benzodiazepine use in chronic versus intermittent opioid use on risk for opioid overdose?
Study Design: Retrospective study.
Setting: Private insurance administrative claims in the United States.
Synopsis: In 315,428 privately insured adults younger than 65 without malignancy who filled at least one opioid prescription between 2001 and 2013, concurrent benzodiazepine use doubled (increasing from 9% to 17%) and was associated with an increased risk for hospitalization for opioid overdose (1.16% versus 2.42%, odds ratio = 2.14, P less than .001). The risk was increased in both chronic opioid users versus nonusers (5.36% versus 3.13%, odds ratio = 1.8, CI, 1.67-1.96, P less than .001) and in intermittent opioid users as compared to nonusers (1.45% versus 1.02%, odds ratio = 1.42, CI, 1.33-1.51, P less than .001).
These results are similar to prior studies performed in other patient populations, but add to those by including short periods of co-prescription between opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions (including a single day of overlap). Limitations of this study include that it included only patients who were seen in the ED or hospital.
Bottom Line: There may be no safe duration of opioid use in patients who are also taking benzodiazepines.
Citation: Sun EC, Dixit, A, Humphreys K, et. al. Association between concurrent use of prescription opioids and benzodiazepines and overdose: retrospective analysis. BMJ 2017;356(760):1-7.
Dr. Barrett is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
The impact of Election 2016
Because of the health care policy work I have done over the years, I often get asked about what to expect from Capitol Hill and from federal policy makers in D.C. Since the surprise election results in November, the most common questions revolve around what impact the Trump administration is likely to have on the delivery system reform work done since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
While much uncertainty remains, events since the election have given us some clues to answer these and other questions.
Let’s address the ACA. It’s important to recognize that the ACA cannot be repealed completely for at least two reasons. First, it does not even exist as it was passed, having undergone several changes, including adjustments and exemptions. Second, parts of the bill would require 60 votes in the Senate to repeal, and those votes are not available to the party seeking repeal.
Yes, parts of the bill could be changed significantly with only Republican votes. However, the reality is that many changes would have occurred even if Hillary Clinton had won the election; there are elements of the current law that are not working and that both sides acknowledge need to be fixed, such as state individual insurance exchanges.
There also are parts of the ACA that neither party would like to see rescinded, which are unlikely to be removed in a new law – for example, losing insurance for preexisting conditions.
From the standpoint of providers, the most notable aspect of the current discussion is that proposed changes have largely been limited to addressing areas of insurance reform. This has potential impact on who is covered under a revised plan. In the meantime, the important work of delivery system reform – the elements of the ACA that providers care the most about (and that will have the most impact on their careers) – have been left untouched. There are strong signs that this will remain the case and that this important work will continue.
What are those signs? First of all, neither the “repeal” bill passed by the House nor any of the bills considered by the Senate made any mention of interrupting any of the important work being done by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), the part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services created by the ACA to develop and test alternative payment models (APMs), like accountable care organizations, bundled payments, etc. If successful, this work will improve quality while lowering the growth of health care costs and may save a health care system that, if unchecked, will create a crushing financial burden that threatens the Medicare Trust Fund. It also is a strong and clear sign that the CMMI continues its work today under the same effective leadership that first created excitement about its potential to improve the delivery system.
But probably the clearest sign that delivery system reform will continue was the strong bipartisan support shown in the passage of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) in April of 2015. This landmark piece of legislation creates a pathway that moves the entire health care system away from fee for service and toward payment models that will reward providers for innovations that will lower the cost of care, eliminate waste, improve safety, and achieve better outcomes. It puts in place a plan that will use APMs to offer providers the incentives to create care models that may be the salvation of our health care system. In the long run, isn’t this what matters the most?
Politicians in Washington can’t save our system. They can create or remove entitlements or support one segment of the population at the expense of another. But, in the end, they are only moving dollars around from one pocket to another, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic of the American health care system.
The reality is that the only thing that can save our health care system is to lower the cost of care. And we all know that, as providers, only we can do that. SHM will be helping its members lead the way, providing educational content, training, advocacy, and policy leadership.
It will be up to the nation’s caregivers to reform the delivery system in a way that is sustainable for our generation and generations to come. We continue that work today, and I see no evidence that anyone on Capitol Hill wants us to stop.
Dr. Greeno is president of the Society of Hospital Medicine and senior adviser for medical affairs at TeamHealth.
Because of the health care policy work I have done over the years, I often get asked about what to expect from Capitol Hill and from federal policy makers in D.C. Since the surprise election results in November, the most common questions revolve around what impact the Trump administration is likely to have on the delivery system reform work done since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
While much uncertainty remains, events since the election have given us some clues to answer these and other questions.
Let’s address the ACA. It’s important to recognize that the ACA cannot be repealed completely for at least two reasons. First, it does not even exist as it was passed, having undergone several changes, including adjustments and exemptions. Second, parts of the bill would require 60 votes in the Senate to repeal, and those votes are not available to the party seeking repeal.
Yes, parts of the bill could be changed significantly with only Republican votes. However, the reality is that many changes would have occurred even if Hillary Clinton had won the election; there are elements of the current law that are not working and that both sides acknowledge need to be fixed, such as state individual insurance exchanges.
There also are parts of the ACA that neither party would like to see rescinded, which are unlikely to be removed in a new law – for example, losing insurance for preexisting conditions.
From the standpoint of providers, the most notable aspect of the current discussion is that proposed changes have largely been limited to addressing areas of insurance reform. This has potential impact on who is covered under a revised plan. In the meantime, the important work of delivery system reform – the elements of the ACA that providers care the most about (and that will have the most impact on their careers) – have been left untouched. There are strong signs that this will remain the case and that this important work will continue.
What are those signs? First of all, neither the “repeal” bill passed by the House nor any of the bills considered by the Senate made any mention of interrupting any of the important work being done by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), the part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services created by the ACA to develop and test alternative payment models (APMs), like accountable care organizations, bundled payments, etc. If successful, this work will improve quality while lowering the growth of health care costs and may save a health care system that, if unchecked, will create a crushing financial burden that threatens the Medicare Trust Fund. It also is a strong and clear sign that the CMMI continues its work today under the same effective leadership that first created excitement about its potential to improve the delivery system.
But probably the clearest sign that delivery system reform will continue was the strong bipartisan support shown in the passage of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) in April of 2015. This landmark piece of legislation creates a pathway that moves the entire health care system away from fee for service and toward payment models that will reward providers for innovations that will lower the cost of care, eliminate waste, improve safety, and achieve better outcomes. It puts in place a plan that will use APMs to offer providers the incentives to create care models that may be the salvation of our health care system. In the long run, isn’t this what matters the most?
Politicians in Washington can’t save our system. They can create or remove entitlements or support one segment of the population at the expense of another. But, in the end, they are only moving dollars around from one pocket to another, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic of the American health care system.
The reality is that the only thing that can save our health care system is to lower the cost of care. And we all know that, as providers, only we can do that. SHM will be helping its members lead the way, providing educational content, training, advocacy, and policy leadership.
It will be up to the nation’s caregivers to reform the delivery system in a way that is sustainable for our generation and generations to come. We continue that work today, and I see no evidence that anyone on Capitol Hill wants us to stop.
Dr. Greeno is president of the Society of Hospital Medicine and senior adviser for medical affairs at TeamHealth.
Because of the health care policy work I have done over the years, I often get asked about what to expect from Capitol Hill and from federal policy makers in D.C. Since the surprise election results in November, the most common questions revolve around what impact the Trump administration is likely to have on the delivery system reform work done since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
While much uncertainty remains, events since the election have given us some clues to answer these and other questions.
Let’s address the ACA. It’s important to recognize that the ACA cannot be repealed completely for at least two reasons. First, it does not even exist as it was passed, having undergone several changes, including adjustments and exemptions. Second, parts of the bill would require 60 votes in the Senate to repeal, and those votes are not available to the party seeking repeal.
Yes, parts of the bill could be changed significantly with only Republican votes. However, the reality is that many changes would have occurred even if Hillary Clinton had won the election; there are elements of the current law that are not working and that both sides acknowledge need to be fixed, such as state individual insurance exchanges.
There also are parts of the ACA that neither party would like to see rescinded, which are unlikely to be removed in a new law – for example, losing insurance for preexisting conditions.
From the standpoint of providers, the most notable aspect of the current discussion is that proposed changes have largely been limited to addressing areas of insurance reform. This has potential impact on who is covered under a revised plan. In the meantime, the important work of delivery system reform – the elements of the ACA that providers care the most about (and that will have the most impact on their careers) – have been left untouched. There are strong signs that this will remain the case and that this important work will continue.
What are those signs? First of all, neither the “repeal” bill passed by the House nor any of the bills considered by the Senate made any mention of interrupting any of the important work being done by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI), the part of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services created by the ACA to develop and test alternative payment models (APMs), like accountable care organizations, bundled payments, etc. If successful, this work will improve quality while lowering the growth of health care costs and may save a health care system that, if unchecked, will create a crushing financial burden that threatens the Medicare Trust Fund. It also is a strong and clear sign that the CMMI continues its work today under the same effective leadership that first created excitement about its potential to improve the delivery system.
But probably the clearest sign that delivery system reform will continue was the strong bipartisan support shown in the passage of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA) in April of 2015. This landmark piece of legislation creates a pathway that moves the entire health care system away from fee for service and toward payment models that will reward providers for innovations that will lower the cost of care, eliminate waste, improve safety, and achieve better outcomes. It puts in place a plan that will use APMs to offer providers the incentives to create care models that may be the salvation of our health care system. In the long run, isn’t this what matters the most?
Politicians in Washington can’t save our system. They can create or remove entitlements or support one segment of the population at the expense of another. But, in the end, they are only moving dollars around from one pocket to another, rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic of the American health care system.
The reality is that the only thing that can save our health care system is to lower the cost of care. And we all know that, as providers, only we can do that. SHM will be helping its members lead the way, providing educational content, training, advocacy, and policy leadership.
It will be up to the nation’s caregivers to reform the delivery system in a way that is sustainable for our generation and generations to come. We continue that work today, and I see no evidence that anyone on Capitol Hill wants us to stop.
Dr. Greeno is president of the Society of Hospital Medicine and senior adviser for medical affairs at TeamHealth.
VIDEO: How to discharge new pediatric diabetes cases in 2 days
NASHVILLE, TENN. – Pediatric endocrinologist Cassandra Brady, MD, caught the attention of her audience at Pediatric Hospital Medicine when she mentioned that children presenting with new-onset diabetes rarely spend more than 2 days at Vanderbilt University’s children’s hospital, even if they present in diabetic ketoacidosis.
In many places, children with new-onset diabetes spend quite a bit longer in the hospital – even if they are medically stable and feeling fine – for diabetes education.
That’s not the case at Vanderbilt, where Dr. Brady is an assistant professor. Once kids are stabilized, they and their parents undergo a 3-hour crash course – sometimes even in the PICU – on diabetes survival skills, and then they’re sent home with insulin. They learn the finer points about carbohydrate counting and tight glucose control at subsequent outpatient visits.
More and more payers are probably going to push for that model, Dr. Brady noted at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
For those interested in making the transition to outpatient eduction, she explained in an interview exactly how Vanderbilt’s been doing it safely for years.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
NASHVILLE, TENN. – Pediatric endocrinologist Cassandra Brady, MD, caught the attention of her audience at Pediatric Hospital Medicine when she mentioned that children presenting with new-onset diabetes rarely spend more than 2 days at Vanderbilt University’s children’s hospital, even if they present in diabetic ketoacidosis.
In many places, children with new-onset diabetes spend quite a bit longer in the hospital – even if they are medically stable and feeling fine – for diabetes education.
That’s not the case at Vanderbilt, where Dr. Brady is an assistant professor. Once kids are stabilized, they and their parents undergo a 3-hour crash course – sometimes even in the PICU – on diabetes survival skills, and then they’re sent home with insulin. They learn the finer points about carbohydrate counting and tight glucose control at subsequent outpatient visits.
More and more payers are probably going to push for that model, Dr. Brady noted at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
For those interested in making the transition to outpatient eduction, she explained in an interview exactly how Vanderbilt’s been doing it safely for years.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
NASHVILLE, TENN. – Pediatric endocrinologist Cassandra Brady, MD, caught the attention of her audience at Pediatric Hospital Medicine when she mentioned that children presenting with new-onset diabetes rarely spend more than 2 days at Vanderbilt University’s children’s hospital, even if they present in diabetic ketoacidosis.
In many places, children with new-onset diabetes spend quite a bit longer in the hospital – even if they are medically stable and feeling fine – for diabetes education.
That’s not the case at Vanderbilt, where Dr. Brady is an assistant professor. Once kids are stabilized, they and their parents undergo a 3-hour crash course – sometimes even in the PICU – on diabetes survival skills, and then they’re sent home with insulin. They learn the finer points about carbohydrate counting and tight glucose control at subsequent outpatient visits.
More and more payers are probably going to push for that model, Dr. Brady noted at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
For those interested in making the transition to outpatient eduction, she explained in an interview exactly how Vanderbilt’s been doing it safely for years.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
AT PHM 2017
Student Hospitalist Scholars: Discovering a passion for research
Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-2018 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their first, second, and third years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.
When I decided to leave the business world to pursue a career in medicine, I envisioned myself in a clinic or an operating room helping the people in my community with the knowledge and skills acquired in my medical training. The thought of becoming a researcher had never even crossed my mind.
I grew up in Scottsdale, Arizona, a city which has no major academic medical centers. Prior to entering medical school, I was enrolled in a postbaccalaureate program at Johns Hopkins University, where I took the basic science classes necessary to apply. I was quite surprised to learn that, even at this level of education, I was required to participate in a research project. This experience changed the way I envisioned my entire career as a physician.
I am now a fourth year medical student and a pioneer of the “new curriculum” at Weill Cornell Medical College. In contrast to the traditional medical school curriculum, Cornell carved out 6 months of protected research time for all medical students by condensing the preclinical curriculum from 2 years to 1.5 years. I learned how much I enjoyed research at Johns Hopkins, which is one of the main reasons I applied here.
Despite my interest in research, I still struggled with the ultimate career question: What kind of doctor do I want to be?
After completing my medicine clerkship, I remember feeling intellectually stimulated in a way I hadn’t experienced in the previous years. While this may have had to do with the subject matter, I attribute much of this feeling to my clerkship director whose passion for medicine and teaching was contagious. I ultimately chose Ernie Esquivel, MD, to be my research mentor because of how much he impacted my education.
Together we came up with a project to study the utility of bone biopsies in the management of osteomyelitis. We are doing this by analyzing changes from empiric to final antibiotics after bone biopsy results become available to determine how clinicians use this information to guide their management of the disease. We were also interested in analyzing predictors of positive bone cultures in this population. The success of this project will mostly be based on our ability to perform these analyses, regardless of what the results may be. We hypothesize that, in fact, bone biopsy results are not likely to have a significant impact on antibiotic management of osteomyelitis in nonvertebral bones.
I was one of the lucky few to be awarded a grant from the Society of Hospital Medicine, which will be instrumental in the success of the project. This grant will not only support my ongoing research efforts but will also afford me the opportunity to attend the annual SHM conference and become integrated into the medical community in a way that would otherwise never be possible.
Cole Hirschfeld is originally from Phoenix, Ariz. He received undergraduate degrees in finance and entrepreneurship from the University of Arizona and went on to work in the finance industry for 2 years before deciding to change careers and attend medical school. He is now a fourth year medical student at Weill Cornell Medical College and plans to apply for residency in internal medicine.
Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-2018 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their first, second, and third years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.
When I decided to leave the business world to pursue a career in medicine, I envisioned myself in a clinic or an operating room helping the people in my community with the knowledge and skills acquired in my medical training. The thought of becoming a researcher had never even crossed my mind.
I grew up in Scottsdale, Arizona, a city which has no major academic medical centers. Prior to entering medical school, I was enrolled in a postbaccalaureate program at Johns Hopkins University, where I took the basic science classes necessary to apply. I was quite surprised to learn that, even at this level of education, I was required to participate in a research project. This experience changed the way I envisioned my entire career as a physician.
I am now a fourth year medical student and a pioneer of the “new curriculum” at Weill Cornell Medical College. In contrast to the traditional medical school curriculum, Cornell carved out 6 months of protected research time for all medical students by condensing the preclinical curriculum from 2 years to 1.5 years. I learned how much I enjoyed research at Johns Hopkins, which is one of the main reasons I applied here.
Despite my interest in research, I still struggled with the ultimate career question: What kind of doctor do I want to be?
After completing my medicine clerkship, I remember feeling intellectually stimulated in a way I hadn’t experienced in the previous years. While this may have had to do with the subject matter, I attribute much of this feeling to my clerkship director whose passion for medicine and teaching was contagious. I ultimately chose Ernie Esquivel, MD, to be my research mentor because of how much he impacted my education.
Together we came up with a project to study the utility of bone biopsies in the management of osteomyelitis. We are doing this by analyzing changes from empiric to final antibiotics after bone biopsy results become available to determine how clinicians use this information to guide their management of the disease. We were also interested in analyzing predictors of positive bone cultures in this population. The success of this project will mostly be based on our ability to perform these analyses, regardless of what the results may be. We hypothesize that, in fact, bone biopsy results are not likely to have a significant impact on antibiotic management of osteomyelitis in nonvertebral bones.
I was one of the lucky few to be awarded a grant from the Society of Hospital Medicine, which will be instrumental in the success of the project. This grant will not only support my ongoing research efforts but will also afford me the opportunity to attend the annual SHM conference and become integrated into the medical community in a way that would otherwise never be possible.
Cole Hirschfeld is originally from Phoenix, Ariz. He received undergraduate degrees in finance and entrepreneurship from the University of Arizona and went on to work in the finance industry for 2 years before deciding to change careers and attend medical school. He is now a fourth year medical student at Weill Cornell Medical College and plans to apply for residency in internal medicine.
Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform health care and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-2018 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their first, second, and third years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.
When I decided to leave the business world to pursue a career in medicine, I envisioned myself in a clinic or an operating room helping the people in my community with the knowledge and skills acquired in my medical training. The thought of becoming a researcher had never even crossed my mind.
I grew up in Scottsdale, Arizona, a city which has no major academic medical centers. Prior to entering medical school, I was enrolled in a postbaccalaureate program at Johns Hopkins University, where I took the basic science classes necessary to apply. I was quite surprised to learn that, even at this level of education, I was required to participate in a research project. This experience changed the way I envisioned my entire career as a physician.
I am now a fourth year medical student and a pioneer of the “new curriculum” at Weill Cornell Medical College. In contrast to the traditional medical school curriculum, Cornell carved out 6 months of protected research time for all medical students by condensing the preclinical curriculum from 2 years to 1.5 years. I learned how much I enjoyed research at Johns Hopkins, which is one of the main reasons I applied here.
Despite my interest in research, I still struggled with the ultimate career question: What kind of doctor do I want to be?
After completing my medicine clerkship, I remember feeling intellectually stimulated in a way I hadn’t experienced in the previous years. While this may have had to do with the subject matter, I attribute much of this feeling to my clerkship director whose passion for medicine and teaching was contagious. I ultimately chose Ernie Esquivel, MD, to be my research mentor because of how much he impacted my education.
Together we came up with a project to study the utility of bone biopsies in the management of osteomyelitis. We are doing this by analyzing changes from empiric to final antibiotics after bone biopsy results become available to determine how clinicians use this information to guide their management of the disease. We were also interested in analyzing predictors of positive bone cultures in this population. The success of this project will mostly be based on our ability to perform these analyses, regardless of what the results may be. We hypothesize that, in fact, bone biopsy results are not likely to have a significant impact on antibiotic management of osteomyelitis in nonvertebral bones.
I was one of the lucky few to be awarded a grant from the Society of Hospital Medicine, which will be instrumental in the success of the project. This grant will not only support my ongoing research efforts but will also afford me the opportunity to attend the annual SHM conference and become integrated into the medical community in a way that would otherwise never be possible.
Cole Hirschfeld is originally from Phoenix, Ariz. He received undergraduate degrees in finance and entrepreneurship from the University of Arizona and went on to work in the finance industry for 2 years before deciding to change careers and attend medical school. He is now a fourth year medical student at Weill Cornell Medical College and plans to apply for residency in internal medicine.
C diff infection among U.S. ED patients
Title: C. diff infection common in emergency department patients, even without risk factors.
Clinical Question: Should all emergency department (ED) patients with diarrhea, without vomiting, get tested for Clostridium difficile?
Background: C. difficile infection has been described in low-risk patients in retrospective studies, but the prevalence in a prospective cohort has not been evaluated.
Setting: Ten urban, university-affiliated EDs in the United States between 2010 and 2013.
Synopsis: 422 patients met the inclusion of criteria of age older than 2, at least three diarrhea episodes in 24 hours, and absence of vomiting. The prevalence of C. difficile by stool culture and toxin assay was 10.2% (43/422; 95% CI, 7.7%-13.4%). The prevalence was 6.9% among patients without traditional risk factors defined as prior history of C. difficile, overnight health care stay, or antibiotic exposure in the last 3 months. The biggest limitation for this study is that the prevalence of C. difficile in the “low-risk” group may be overestimated given that factors such as use of antacids, history of inflammatory bowel disease, and immune suppression were not considered traditional risk factors. Also, 15 of the C. difficile samples were obtained via rectal swab, which is not standard of diagnosis.
Bottom Line: The absence of traditional risk factors does not exclude the presence of C. difficile infection, which should be considered in ED patients with diarrhea and no vomiting.
Citation: Abrahamian FM, Talan DA, Krishnadasan A, Citron DM, Paulick AL, Anderson LJ, et al. Clostridium difficile infection among U.S. emergency department patients with diarrhea and no vomiting. Ann Emerg Med. 2017; doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.12.013.
Dr. Ayoubieh is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Title: C. diff infection common in emergency department patients, even without risk factors.
Clinical Question: Should all emergency department (ED) patients with diarrhea, without vomiting, get tested for Clostridium difficile?
Background: C. difficile infection has been described in low-risk patients in retrospective studies, but the prevalence in a prospective cohort has not been evaluated.
Setting: Ten urban, university-affiliated EDs in the United States between 2010 and 2013.
Synopsis: 422 patients met the inclusion of criteria of age older than 2, at least three diarrhea episodes in 24 hours, and absence of vomiting. The prevalence of C. difficile by stool culture and toxin assay was 10.2% (43/422; 95% CI, 7.7%-13.4%). The prevalence was 6.9% among patients without traditional risk factors defined as prior history of C. difficile, overnight health care stay, or antibiotic exposure in the last 3 months. The biggest limitation for this study is that the prevalence of C. difficile in the “low-risk” group may be overestimated given that factors such as use of antacids, history of inflammatory bowel disease, and immune suppression were not considered traditional risk factors. Also, 15 of the C. difficile samples were obtained via rectal swab, which is not standard of diagnosis.
Bottom Line: The absence of traditional risk factors does not exclude the presence of C. difficile infection, which should be considered in ED patients with diarrhea and no vomiting.
Citation: Abrahamian FM, Talan DA, Krishnadasan A, Citron DM, Paulick AL, Anderson LJ, et al. Clostridium difficile infection among U.S. emergency department patients with diarrhea and no vomiting. Ann Emerg Med. 2017; doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.12.013.
Dr. Ayoubieh is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Title: C. diff infection common in emergency department patients, even without risk factors.
Clinical Question: Should all emergency department (ED) patients with diarrhea, without vomiting, get tested for Clostridium difficile?
Background: C. difficile infection has been described in low-risk patients in retrospective studies, but the prevalence in a prospective cohort has not been evaluated.
Setting: Ten urban, university-affiliated EDs in the United States between 2010 and 2013.
Synopsis: 422 patients met the inclusion of criteria of age older than 2, at least three diarrhea episodes in 24 hours, and absence of vomiting. The prevalence of C. difficile by stool culture and toxin assay was 10.2% (43/422; 95% CI, 7.7%-13.4%). The prevalence was 6.9% among patients without traditional risk factors defined as prior history of C. difficile, overnight health care stay, or antibiotic exposure in the last 3 months. The biggest limitation for this study is that the prevalence of C. difficile in the “low-risk” group may be overestimated given that factors such as use of antacids, history of inflammatory bowel disease, and immune suppression were not considered traditional risk factors. Also, 15 of the C. difficile samples were obtained via rectal swab, which is not standard of diagnosis.
Bottom Line: The absence of traditional risk factors does not exclude the presence of C. difficile infection, which should be considered in ED patients with diarrhea and no vomiting.
Citation: Abrahamian FM, Talan DA, Krishnadasan A, Citron DM, Paulick AL, Anderson LJ, et al. Clostridium difficile infection among U.S. emergency department patients with diarrhea and no vomiting. Ann Emerg Med. 2017; doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.12.013.
Dr. Ayoubieh is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Student Hospitalist Scholars: The importance of communication
Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform healthcare and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-18 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.
Quality improvement in clinical practice has recently become very important to me. What use is clinical knowledge if it cannot be appropriately used to benefit patients in a clinical setting?
Throughout my 1st year at medical school, my interest in communication continued to grow. In one of my classes, Essentials of Clinical Reasoning, we were taught to continually consider how to effectively translate our thought processes and potential diagnoses to our patients. To begin crafting effective HPIs, we created complete, whole histories from visit to visit.
At this time, I discovered the subfield of research concerning strategies surrounding handoffs as transition of care changes, with patients often suffering due to breakdowns in communication.
With my interest in handoffs, and with direction from the Society of Hospital Medicine, I reached out to Dr. Vineet Arora, a leading academic hospitalist at the University of Chicago with a highly impressive history of research concerning quality of care toward hospitalized adults. Under the supervision of Dr. Arora and Dr. Juan Rojas, a pulmonary critical care fellow, I will help investigate whether receiving floor physicians and intensive care unit physicians possess similar shared mental models in regards to the most pertinent point of care – when patients are transferred out of the ICU.
We seek to identify if there are any associations present between readmission from the general floor, the providers’ rated likelihood of the patient returning to the ICU, and whether floor and ICU physicians are on the same page concerning condition management while on the floor.
I believe the experience I gain at the University of Chicago Medical Center will be invaluable to my future as a physician. I am very excited to get to know the various clinicians at UChicago, to gain clinical experience by observing the management of the general ward, and to identify how effective physicians communicate.
Above all, I hope to use any knowledge I gain this summer to become an efficient, knowledgeable, and compassionate physician capable of providing the highest quality of care to my future patients.
Anton Garazha is a medical student at Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University in North Chicago, Ill. He received his B.S. in Biology from Loyola University in Chicago in 2015 and his Master of Biomedical Science from Rosalind Franklin University in 2016. Anton is very interested in community outreach and quality improvement, and in his spare time tutors students in science-based subjects.
Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform healthcare and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-18 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.
Quality improvement in clinical practice has recently become very important to me. What use is clinical knowledge if it cannot be appropriately used to benefit patients in a clinical setting?
Throughout my 1st year at medical school, my interest in communication continued to grow. In one of my classes, Essentials of Clinical Reasoning, we were taught to continually consider how to effectively translate our thought processes and potential diagnoses to our patients. To begin crafting effective HPIs, we created complete, whole histories from visit to visit.
At this time, I discovered the subfield of research concerning strategies surrounding handoffs as transition of care changes, with patients often suffering due to breakdowns in communication.
With my interest in handoffs, and with direction from the Society of Hospital Medicine, I reached out to Dr. Vineet Arora, a leading academic hospitalist at the University of Chicago with a highly impressive history of research concerning quality of care toward hospitalized adults. Under the supervision of Dr. Arora and Dr. Juan Rojas, a pulmonary critical care fellow, I will help investigate whether receiving floor physicians and intensive care unit physicians possess similar shared mental models in regards to the most pertinent point of care – when patients are transferred out of the ICU.
We seek to identify if there are any associations present between readmission from the general floor, the providers’ rated likelihood of the patient returning to the ICU, and whether floor and ICU physicians are on the same page concerning condition management while on the floor.
I believe the experience I gain at the University of Chicago Medical Center will be invaluable to my future as a physician. I am very excited to get to know the various clinicians at UChicago, to gain clinical experience by observing the management of the general ward, and to identify how effective physicians communicate.
Above all, I hope to use any knowledge I gain this summer to become an efficient, knowledgeable, and compassionate physician capable of providing the highest quality of care to my future patients.
Anton Garazha is a medical student at Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University in North Chicago, Ill. He received his B.S. in Biology from Loyola University in Chicago in 2015 and his Master of Biomedical Science from Rosalind Franklin University in 2016. Anton is very interested in community outreach and quality improvement, and in his spare time tutors students in science-based subjects.
Editor’s Note: The Society of Hospital Medicine’s (SHM’s) Physician in Training Committee launched a scholarship program in 2015 for medical students to help transform healthcare and revolutionize patient care. The program has been expanded for the 2017-18 year, offering two options for students to receive funding and engage in scholarly work during their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd years of medical school. As a part of the program, recipients are required to write about their experience on a biweekly basis.
Quality improvement in clinical practice has recently become very important to me. What use is clinical knowledge if it cannot be appropriately used to benefit patients in a clinical setting?
Throughout my 1st year at medical school, my interest in communication continued to grow. In one of my classes, Essentials of Clinical Reasoning, we were taught to continually consider how to effectively translate our thought processes and potential diagnoses to our patients. To begin crafting effective HPIs, we created complete, whole histories from visit to visit.
At this time, I discovered the subfield of research concerning strategies surrounding handoffs as transition of care changes, with patients often suffering due to breakdowns in communication.
With my interest in handoffs, and with direction from the Society of Hospital Medicine, I reached out to Dr. Vineet Arora, a leading academic hospitalist at the University of Chicago with a highly impressive history of research concerning quality of care toward hospitalized adults. Under the supervision of Dr. Arora and Dr. Juan Rojas, a pulmonary critical care fellow, I will help investigate whether receiving floor physicians and intensive care unit physicians possess similar shared mental models in regards to the most pertinent point of care – when patients are transferred out of the ICU.
We seek to identify if there are any associations present between readmission from the general floor, the providers’ rated likelihood of the patient returning to the ICU, and whether floor and ICU physicians are on the same page concerning condition management while on the floor.
I believe the experience I gain at the University of Chicago Medical Center will be invaluable to my future as a physician. I am very excited to get to know the various clinicians at UChicago, to gain clinical experience by observing the management of the general ward, and to identify how effective physicians communicate.
Above all, I hope to use any knowledge I gain this summer to become an efficient, knowledgeable, and compassionate physician capable of providing the highest quality of care to my future patients.
Anton Garazha is a medical student at Chicago Medical School at Rosalind Franklin University in North Chicago, Ill. He received his B.S. in Biology from Loyola University in Chicago in 2015 and his Master of Biomedical Science from Rosalind Franklin University in 2016. Anton is very interested in community outreach and quality improvement, and in his spare time tutors students in science-based subjects.