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')]
PEARL score for COPD exacerbations
TITLE: PEARL score predicts COPD readmissions
CLINICAL QUESTION: Which prognostic score is best at predicting 90-day readmission and mortality for patients admitted with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD)?
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study with three separate cohorts: derivation, internal validation, and external validation.
SETTING: Six hospitals in the United Kingdom.
SYNOPSIS: 2,417 patients were included and 936 were readmitted or died within 90 days of index admission. Patients with expected survival for less than 1 year for reasons other than COPD were excluded. The indices retained in the final PEARL score were: Previous admissions for AECOPD of 2 or more (2 points), extended medical research council (MRC) dyspnea score of 4, 5a or 5b (1, 2, or 3 points), age of 80 or older (1 point), clinical diagnoses of right-sided heart failure (1 point) and/or left-sided heart failure on echocardiogram (1 point). Higher scores were associated with a shorter time to death or readmission. The performance of PEARL was superior to all alternative scoring systems. The major limitation to this study is that it did not differentiate between respiratory and other causes of readmission.
BOTTOM LINE: The PEARL score can be calculated for patients hospitalized for AECOPD to predict their 90-day readmission rate and/or mortality risk.
CITATION: Echevarria C, Steer J, Heslop-Marshall K, Stenton SC, Hickey PM, Hughes R, et al. The PEARL score predicts 90-day readmission or death after hospitalization for acute exacerbation of COPD. Thorax. 2017; doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-209298.
Dr. Ayoubieh is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
TITLE: PEARL score predicts COPD readmissions
CLINICAL QUESTION: Which prognostic score is best at predicting 90-day readmission and mortality for patients admitted with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD)?
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study with three separate cohorts: derivation, internal validation, and external validation.
SETTING: Six hospitals in the United Kingdom.
SYNOPSIS: 2,417 patients were included and 936 were readmitted or died within 90 days of index admission. Patients with expected survival for less than 1 year for reasons other than COPD were excluded. The indices retained in the final PEARL score were: Previous admissions for AECOPD of 2 or more (2 points), extended medical research council (MRC) dyspnea score of 4, 5a or 5b (1, 2, or 3 points), age of 80 or older (1 point), clinical diagnoses of right-sided heart failure (1 point) and/or left-sided heart failure on echocardiogram (1 point). Higher scores were associated with a shorter time to death or readmission. The performance of PEARL was superior to all alternative scoring systems. The major limitation to this study is that it did not differentiate between respiratory and other causes of readmission.
BOTTOM LINE: The PEARL score can be calculated for patients hospitalized for AECOPD to predict their 90-day readmission rate and/or mortality risk.
CITATION: Echevarria C, Steer J, Heslop-Marshall K, Stenton SC, Hickey PM, Hughes R, et al. The PEARL score predicts 90-day readmission or death after hospitalization for acute exacerbation of COPD. Thorax. 2017; doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-209298.
Dr. Ayoubieh is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
TITLE: PEARL score predicts COPD readmissions
CLINICAL QUESTION: Which prognostic score is best at predicting 90-day readmission and mortality for patients admitted with an acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD)?
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study with three separate cohorts: derivation, internal validation, and external validation.
SETTING: Six hospitals in the United Kingdom.
SYNOPSIS: 2,417 patients were included and 936 were readmitted or died within 90 days of index admission. Patients with expected survival for less than 1 year for reasons other than COPD were excluded. The indices retained in the final PEARL score were: Previous admissions for AECOPD of 2 or more (2 points), extended medical research council (MRC) dyspnea score of 4, 5a or 5b (1, 2, or 3 points), age of 80 or older (1 point), clinical diagnoses of right-sided heart failure (1 point) and/or left-sided heart failure on echocardiogram (1 point). Higher scores were associated with a shorter time to death or readmission. The performance of PEARL was superior to all alternative scoring systems. The major limitation to this study is that it did not differentiate between respiratory and other causes of readmission.
BOTTOM LINE: The PEARL score can be calculated for patients hospitalized for AECOPD to predict their 90-day readmission rate and/or mortality risk.
CITATION: Echevarria C, Steer J, Heslop-Marshall K, Stenton SC, Hickey PM, Hughes R, et al. The PEARL score predicts 90-day readmission or death after hospitalization for acute exacerbation of COPD. Thorax. 2017; doi: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-209298.
Dr. Ayoubieh is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Student Hospitalist Scholars: Preventing unplanned PICU transfers
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 experiences on a biweekly basis.
I’m a rising second year medical student working this summer on a project to determine predictors for pediatric clinical deterioration and unplanned transfers to the pediatric ICU.
We’re hoping to identify characteristics of the pediatric population that is more prone to these unplanned transfers, as well as determine what clinical signs serve as reliable warnings so that an intervention can be designed to prevent these emergency transfers.
So far, I have been searching the literature for what current interventions exist to prevent pediatric clinical deterioration. I have been reading about rapid response teams and their effectiveness in preventing codes, as well as what measures are used to evaluate the condition of a pediatric patient who is at risk for clinical deterioration. It is clear that more investigation is needed to identify reliable predictors that indicate a possible ICU transfer for the child patient.
I was interested in this project, and in quality improvement, because of its power to directly improve patient care and safety. It is vital to identify and fix problems that are preventable. It is directly related to the work of the physician, and the interprofessional collaboration aspect is key to improve communication that directly affects the patients’ outcomes.
I was introduced to the field during the past year in medical school, and this prompted me to start looking for research projects in the hospital medicine department at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. I was connected with Patrick Brady, MD, an attending physician in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s, whose work involves studying patient safety. His goals of investigating how to prevent clinical deterioration in pediatric patients aligned with what I wanted to learn during my research experience.
After partnering with my primary mentor, Dr. Brady, we discussed how the Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant would be a good fit for me, so I decided to apply.
I am excited to continue this experience this summer, as I believe it would not only educate me about applying interventions to better patient care but also about medicine in general. I plan to carry on and apply these lessons learned during my third year of medical school for rotations.
Farah Hussain is a second year medical student at the University of Cincinnati and student researcher at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Her research interests involve bettering patient care in vulnerable populations.
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 experiences on a biweekly basis.
I’m a rising second year medical student working this summer on a project to determine predictors for pediatric clinical deterioration and unplanned transfers to the pediatric ICU.
We’re hoping to identify characteristics of the pediatric population that is more prone to these unplanned transfers, as well as determine what clinical signs serve as reliable warnings so that an intervention can be designed to prevent these emergency transfers.
So far, I have been searching the literature for what current interventions exist to prevent pediatric clinical deterioration. I have been reading about rapid response teams and their effectiveness in preventing codes, as well as what measures are used to evaluate the condition of a pediatric patient who is at risk for clinical deterioration. It is clear that more investigation is needed to identify reliable predictors that indicate a possible ICU transfer for the child patient.
I was interested in this project, and in quality improvement, because of its power to directly improve patient care and safety. It is vital to identify and fix problems that are preventable. It is directly related to the work of the physician, and the interprofessional collaboration aspect is key to improve communication that directly affects the patients’ outcomes.
I was introduced to the field during the past year in medical school, and this prompted me to start looking for research projects in the hospital medicine department at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. I was connected with Patrick Brady, MD, an attending physician in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s, whose work involves studying patient safety. His goals of investigating how to prevent clinical deterioration in pediatric patients aligned with what I wanted to learn during my research experience.
After partnering with my primary mentor, Dr. Brady, we discussed how the Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant would be a good fit for me, so I decided to apply.
I am excited to continue this experience this summer, as I believe it would not only educate me about applying interventions to better patient care but also about medicine in general. I plan to carry on and apply these lessons learned during my third year of medical school for rotations.
Farah Hussain is a second year medical student at the University of Cincinnati and student researcher at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Her research interests involve bettering patient care in vulnerable populations.
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 experiences on a biweekly basis.
I’m a rising second year medical student working this summer on a project to determine predictors for pediatric clinical deterioration and unplanned transfers to the pediatric ICU.
We’re hoping to identify characteristics of the pediatric population that is more prone to these unplanned transfers, as well as determine what clinical signs serve as reliable warnings so that an intervention can be designed to prevent these emergency transfers.
So far, I have been searching the literature for what current interventions exist to prevent pediatric clinical deterioration. I have been reading about rapid response teams and their effectiveness in preventing codes, as well as what measures are used to evaluate the condition of a pediatric patient who is at risk for clinical deterioration. It is clear that more investigation is needed to identify reliable predictors that indicate a possible ICU transfer for the child patient.
I was interested in this project, and in quality improvement, because of its power to directly improve patient care and safety. It is vital to identify and fix problems that are preventable. It is directly related to the work of the physician, and the interprofessional collaboration aspect is key to improve communication that directly affects the patients’ outcomes.
I was introduced to the field during the past year in medical school, and this prompted me to start looking for research projects in the hospital medicine department at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. I was connected with Patrick Brady, MD, an attending physician in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s, whose work involves studying patient safety. His goals of investigating how to prevent clinical deterioration in pediatric patients aligned with what I wanted to learn during my research experience.
After partnering with my primary mentor, Dr. Brady, we discussed how the Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant would be a good fit for me, so I decided to apply.
I am excited to continue this experience this summer, as I believe it would not only educate me about applying interventions to better patient care but also about medicine in general. I plan to carry on and apply these lessons learned during my third year of medical school for rotations.
Farah Hussain is a second year medical student at the University of Cincinnati and student researcher at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. Her research interests involve bettering patient care in vulnerable populations.
Large-scale implementation of the I-PASS handover system
Title: Large-scale implementation of the I-PASS handover system at an academic medical center
Clinical Question: Is a system-wide I-PASS handover system able to be effectively implemented?
Background: Handovers (also referred to as “handoffs”) in patient care are ubiquitous and are increasing, especially in academic medicine. Errors in handovers are associated with poor patient outcomes. I-PASS (Illness Severity, Patient Summary, Action List, Situational Awareness, Synthesis by Receiver) is a handover system that is thought to improve efficiency and accuracy of handovers, however generalized roll-out within a large academic hospital remains daunting.
Setting: Academic medical center.
Synopsis: The authors recount a 3-year system-wide I-PASS implementation at their 999-bed major academic medical center. Effectiveness was measured through surveys and direct observations. Postimplementation surveys demonstrated a generally positive response to the implementation and training processes. Direct observation over 8 months was used to assess adoption and adherence to the handover method, and results showed improvement across all aspects of the I-PASS model, although the synthesis component of the handover consistently scored lowest. The authors noted that this is an ongoing project and plan future studies to evaluate effect on quality and safety measures.
Bottom Line: Implementing a system-wide handover change process is achievable, but will need to be incorporated into organizational culture to ensure continued use.
Citation: Shahian DM, McEachern K, Rossi L, et al. Large-scale implementation of the I-PASS handover system at an academic medical center. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017; doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016006195.
Dr. Rankin is a hospitalist and director of the family medicine residency inpatient service at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Large-scale implementation of the I-PASS handover system at an academic medical center
Clinical Question: Is a system-wide I-PASS handover system able to be effectively implemented?
Background: Handovers (also referred to as “handoffs”) in patient care are ubiquitous and are increasing, especially in academic medicine. Errors in handovers are associated with poor patient outcomes. I-PASS (Illness Severity, Patient Summary, Action List, Situational Awareness, Synthesis by Receiver) is a handover system that is thought to improve efficiency and accuracy of handovers, however generalized roll-out within a large academic hospital remains daunting.
Setting: Academic medical center.
Synopsis: The authors recount a 3-year system-wide I-PASS implementation at their 999-bed major academic medical center. Effectiveness was measured through surveys and direct observations. Postimplementation surveys demonstrated a generally positive response to the implementation and training processes. Direct observation over 8 months was used to assess adoption and adherence to the handover method, and results showed improvement across all aspects of the I-PASS model, although the synthesis component of the handover consistently scored lowest. The authors noted that this is an ongoing project and plan future studies to evaluate effect on quality and safety measures.
Bottom Line: Implementing a system-wide handover change process is achievable, but will need to be incorporated into organizational culture to ensure continued use.
Citation: Shahian DM, McEachern K, Rossi L, et al. Large-scale implementation of the I-PASS handover system at an academic medical center. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017; doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016006195.
Dr. Rankin is a hospitalist and director of the family medicine residency inpatient service at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Large-scale implementation of the I-PASS handover system at an academic medical center
Clinical Question: Is a system-wide I-PASS handover system able to be effectively implemented?
Background: Handovers (also referred to as “handoffs”) in patient care are ubiquitous and are increasing, especially in academic medicine. Errors in handovers are associated with poor patient outcomes. I-PASS (Illness Severity, Patient Summary, Action List, Situational Awareness, Synthesis by Receiver) is a handover system that is thought to improve efficiency and accuracy of handovers, however generalized roll-out within a large academic hospital remains daunting.
Setting: Academic medical center.
Synopsis: The authors recount a 3-year system-wide I-PASS implementation at their 999-bed major academic medical center. Effectiveness was measured through surveys and direct observations. Postimplementation surveys demonstrated a generally positive response to the implementation and training processes. Direct observation over 8 months was used to assess adoption and adherence to the handover method, and results showed improvement across all aspects of the I-PASS model, although the synthesis component of the handover consistently scored lowest. The authors noted that this is an ongoing project and plan future studies to evaluate effect on quality and safety measures.
Bottom Line: Implementing a system-wide handover change process is achievable, but will need to be incorporated into organizational culture to ensure continued use.
Citation: Shahian DM, McEachern K, Rossi L, et al. Large-scale implementation of the I-PASS handover system at an academic medical center. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017; doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2016006195.
Dr. Rankin is a hospitalist and director of the family medicine residency inpatient service at the University of New Mexico.
CCDSSs to prevent VTE
Title: Use of computerized clinical decision support systems decreases venous thromboembolic events in surgical patients
Clinical Question: Do computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) decrease the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical patients?
Background: VTE remains the leading preventable cause of death in the hospital. Despite multiple tools that are available to stratify risk of VTE, they are not used uniformly or are used incorrectly. It is unclear whether CCDSSs help prevent VTE compared to standard care.
Study Design: Retrospective systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: 188 studies initially screened, 11 studies were included.
Synopsis: Multiple studies relevant to the topic were reviewed; only studies that used an electronic medical record (EMR)–based tool to augment the rate of appropriate prophylaxis of VTE were included. Primary outcomes assessed were rate of appropriate prophylaxis for VTE and rate of VTE events. A total of 156,366 patients were analyzed, of which 104,241 (66%) received intervention with CCDSSs and 52,125 (33%) received standard care (physician judgment and discretion). The use of CCDSSs was associated with a significant increase in the rate of appropriate ordering of prophylaxis for VTE (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-3.10; P less than .001) and a significant decrease in the risk of VTE events (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85; P less than .001). The major limitation of this study is that it did not evaluate the number of adverse events as a result of VTE prophylaxis, such as bleeding, which may have been significantly increased in the CCDSS group.
Bottom Line: The use of CCDSSs increases the proportion of surgical patients who are prescribed adequate prophylaxis for VTE and correlates with a reduction in VTE events.
Citation: Borab ZM, Lanni MA, Tecce MG, Pannucci CJ, Fischer JP. Use of computerized clinical decision support systems to prevent venous thromboembolism in surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2017; doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0131.
Dr. Mayasy is assistant professor in the department of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Use of computerized clinical decision support systems decreases venous thromboembolic events in surgical patients
Clinical Question: Do computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) decrease the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical patients?
Background: VTE remains the leading preventable cause of death in the hospital. Despite multiple tools that are available to stratify risk of VTE, they are not used uniformly or are used incorrectly. It is unclear whether CCDSSs help prevent VTE compared to standard care.
Study Design: Retrospective systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: 188 studies initially screened, 11 studies were included.
Synopsis: Multiple studies relevant to the topic were reviewed; only studies that used an electronic medical record (EMR)–based tool to augment the rate of appropriate prophylaxis of VTE were included. Primary outcomes assessed were rate of appropriate prophylaxis for VTE and rate of VTE events. A total of 156,366 patients were analyzed, of which 104,241 (66%) received intervention with CCDSSs and 52,125 (33%) received standard care (physician judgment and discretion). The use of CCDSSs was associated with a significant increase in the rate of appropriate ordering of prophylaxis for VTE (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-3.10; P less than .001) and a significant decrease in the risk of VTE events (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85; P less than .001). The major limitation of this study is that it did not evaluate the number of adverse events as a result of VTE prophylaxis, such as bleeding, which may have been significantly increased in the CCDSS group.
Bottom Line: The use of CCDSSs increases the proportion of surgical patients who are prescribed adequate prophylaxis for VTE and correlates with a reduction in VTE events.
Citation: Borab ZM, Lanni MA, Tecce MG, Pannucci CJ, Fischer JP. Use of computerized clinical decision support systems to prevent venous thromboembolism in surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2017; doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0131.
Dr. Mayasy is assistant professor in the department of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Use of computerized clinical decision support systems decreases venous thromboembolic events in surgical patients
Clinical Question: Do computerized clinical decision support systems (CCDSSs) decrease the risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in surgical patients?
Background: VTE remains the leading preventable cause of death in the hospital. Despite multiple tools that are available to stratify risk of VTE, they are not used uniformly or are used incorrectly. It is unclear whether CCDSSs help prevent VTE compared to standard care.
Study Design: Retrospective systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: 188 studies initially screened, 11 studies were included.
Synopsis: Multiple studies relevant to the topic were reviewed; only studies that used an electronic medical record (EMR)–based tool to augment the rate of appropriate prophylaxis of VTE were included. Primary outcomes assessed were rate of appropriate prophylaxis for VTE and rate of VTE events. A total of 156,366 patients were analyzed, of which 104,241 (66%) received intervention with CCDSSs and 52,125 (33%) received standard care (physician judgment and discretion). The use of CCDSSs was associated with a significant increase in the rate of appropriate ordering of prophylaxis for VTE (odds ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.78-3.10; P less than .001) and a significant decrease in the risk of VTE events (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.72-0.85; P less than .001). The major limitation of this study is that it did not evaluate the number of adverse events as a result of VTE prophylaxis, such as bleeding, which may have been significantly increased in the CCDSS group.
Bottom Line: The use of CCDSSs increases the proportion of surgical patients who are prescribed adequate prophylaxis for VTE and correlates with a reduction in VTE events.
Citation: Borab ZM, Lanni MA, Tecce MG, Pannucci CJ, Fischer JP. Use of computerized clinical decision support systems to prevent venous thromboembolism in surgical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg. 2017; doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2017.0131.
Dr. Mayasy is assistant professor in the department of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Variation in physician spending and association with patient outcomes
Title: Variation in physician spending not associated with patient outcomes
Clinical Question: Is there a variation in spending between physicians in the same hospital, and does it have an effect on patient outcomes?
Background: Not much is known about the presence of variations in individual physician spending within the same hospital and it is not known if higher-spending physicians have better patient outcomes compared to peers within the same institution.
Setting: National sample of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.
Synopsis: Using National Medicare data over a 4-year period, the authors showed that there is wide variation in Part B spending across physicians (hospitalists and general internists) within the same acute care hospital. This inter-physician variation is larger than the difference in spending across hospitals. Higher spending was not associated with a reduction in 30-day mortality or 30-day readmission rates.
Most current health reform policies such as value-based purchasing and 30-day readmission penalties target hospitals as entities, but based on this study there may be a role for more physician-specific reform options. Because they found no significant difference in quality outcomes based on spending, the authors postulate that there may be an opportunity for individual high-spending physicians to decrease their health care utilization without compromising care quality.
The major limitation to this study is that it is a large-scale data analysis and may not capture some of the intricacies of individualized patient care.
Bottom Line: Spending varies across physicians within the same hospital, and is not associated with differences in mortality or readmissions outcomes.
Citation: Tsugawa Y, Jha AK, Newhouse JP, Zaslavsky AM, Jena AB. Variation in Physician Spending and Association With Patient Outcomes. JAMA Intern Med. 2017. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0059.
Dr. Rankin is a hospitalist and director of the family medicine residency inpatient service at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Variation in physician spending not associated with patient outcomes
Clinical Question: Is there a variation in spending between physicians in the same hospital, and does it have an effect on patient outcomes?
Background: Not much is known about the presence of variations in individual physician spending within the same hospital and it is not known if higher-spending physicians have better patient outcomes compared to peers within the same institution.
Setting: National sample of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.
Synopsis: Using National Medicare data over a 4-year period, the authors showed that there is wide variation in Part B spending across physicians (hospitalists and general internists) within the same acute care hospital. This inter-physician variation is larger than the difference in spending across hospitals. Higher spending was not associated with a reduction in 30-day mortality or 30-day readmission rates.
Most current health reform policies such as value-based purchasing and 30-day readmission penalties target hospitals as entities, but based on this study there may be a role for more physician-specific reform options. Because they found no significant difference in quality outcomes based on spending, the authors postulate that there may be an opportunity for individual high-spending physicians to decrease their health care utilization without compromising care quality.
The major limitation to this study is that it is a large-scale data analysis and may not capture some of the intricacies of individualized patient care.
Bottom Line: Spending varies across physicians within the same hospital, and is not associated with differences in mortality or readmissions outcomes.
Citation: Tsugawa Y, Jha AK, Newhouse JP, Zaslavsky AM, Jena AB. Variation in Physician Spending and Association With Patient Outcomes. JAMA Intern Med. 2017. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0059.
Dr. Rankin is a hospitalist and director of the family medicine residency inpatient service at the University of New Mexico.
Title: Variation in physician spending not associated with patient outcomes
Clinical Question: Is there a variation in spending between physicians in the same hospital, and does it have an effect on patient outcomes?
Background: Not much is known about the presence of variations in individual physician spending within the same hospital and it is not known if higher-spending physicians have better patient outcomes compared to peers within the same institution.
Setting: National sample of hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries.
Synopsis: Using National Medicare data over a 4-year period, the authors showed that there is wide variation in Part B spending across physicians (hospitalists and general internists) within the same acute care hospital. This inter-physician variation is larger than the difference in spending across hospitals. Higher spending was not associated with a reduction in 30-day mortality or 30-day readmission rates.
Most current health reform policies such as value-based purchasing and 30-day readmission penalties target hospitals as entities, but based on this study there may be a role for more physician-specific reform options. Because they found no significant difference in quality outcomes based on spending, the authors postulate that there may be an opportunity for individual high-spending physicians to decrease their health care utilization without compromising care quality.
The major limitation to this study is that it is a large-scale data analysis and may not capture some of the intricacies of individualized patient care.
Bottom Line: Spending varies across physicians within the same hospital, and is not associated with differences in mortality or readmissions outcomes.
Citation: Tsugawa Y, Jha AK, Newhouse JP, Zaslavsky AM, Jena AB. Variation in Physician Spending and Association With Patient Outcomes. JAMA Intern Med. 2017. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0059.
Dr. Rankin is a hospitalist and director of the family medicine residency inpatient service at the University of New Mexico.
Rivaroxaban or aspirin for extended treatment of VTE
TITLE: Low-dose or full-dose rivaroxaban is superior to aspirin for long-term anticoagulation
CLINICAL QUESTION: Is full or lower intensity rivaroxaban better for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) as compared to aspirin?
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter randomized double-blinded phase III trial.
SETTING: 230 Medical centers worldwide in 20 countries.
SYNOPSIS: 3,365 patients with a history of VTE who had undergone 6-12 months of initial anticoagulation therapy and in whom continuation of therapy was thought to be beneficial were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to daily high-dose rivaroxaban (20 mg) or daily low-dose rivaroxaban (10 mg) or aspirin (100 mg). After a median of 351 days, symptomatic recurrent VTE or unexplained death occurred in 17 of the 1,107 patients (1.5%) who were assigned to the high-dose group, in 13 of 1,127 patients (1.2%) who were assigned to the low-dose group, and in 50 of 1,131 patients (4.4%) who were assigned to aspirin. Bleeding rates were not significantly different between the three groups (2%-3%). The major limitation of this study is the short duration of follow-up and the lack of power to demonstrate noninferiority of the low-dose as compared to the high-dose regimen for rivaroxaban.
BOTTOM LINE: In patients with a history of VTE, in whom prolonged anticoagulation could be beneficial, low or high-dose rivaroxaban is superior to aspirin in preventing recurrent VTE without increasing bleeding risk.
CITATION: Weitz JI, Lensing MH, Prins R, et al. Rivaroxaban or aspirin for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:1211-22.
Dr. Mayasy is assistant professor in the department of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
TITLE: Low-dose or full-dose rivaroxaban is superior to aspirin for long-term anticoagulation
CLINICAL QUESTION: Is full or lower intensity rivaroxaban better for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) as compared to aspirin?
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter randomized double-blinded phase III trial.
SETTING: 230 Medical centers worldwide in 20 countries.
SYNOPSIS: 3,365 patients with a history of VTE who had undergone 6-12 months of initial anticoagulation therapy and in whom continuation of therapy was thought to be beneficial were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to daily high-dose rivaroxaban (20 mg) or daily low-dose rivaroxaban (10 mg) or aspirin (100 mg). After a median of 351 days, symptomatic recurrent VTE or unexplained death occurred in 17 of the 1,107 patients (1.5%) who were assigned to the high-dose group, in 13 of 1,127 patients (1.2%) who were assigned to the low-dose group, and in 50 of 1,131 patients (4.4%) who were assigned to aspirin. Bleeding rates were not significantly different between the three groups (2%-3%). The major limitation of this study is the short duration of follow-up and the lack of power to demonstrate noninferiority of the low-dose as compared to the high-dose regimen for rivaroxaban.
BOTTOM LINE: In patients with a history of VTE, in whom prolonged anticoagulation could be beneficial, low or high-dose rivaroxaban is superior to aspirin in preventing recurrent VTE without increasing bleeding risk.
CITATION: Weitz JI, Lensing MH, Prins R, et al. Rivaroxaban or aspirin for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:1211-22.
Dr. Mayasy is assistant professor in the department of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
TITLE: Low-dose or full-dose rivaroxaban is superior to aspirin for long-term anticoagulation
CLINICAL QUESTION: Is full or lower intensity rivaroxaban better for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) as compared to aspirin?
STUDY DESIGN: Multicenter randomized double-blinded phase III trial.
SETTING: 230 Medical centers worldwide in 20 countries.
SYNOPSIS: 3,365 patients with a history of VTE who had undergone 6-12 months of initial anticoagulation therapy and in whom continuation of therapy was thought to be beneficial were enrolled. Patients were randomly assigned to daily high-dose rivaroxaban (20 mg) or daily low-dose rivaroxaban (10 mg) or aspirin (100 mg). After a median of 351 days, symptomatic recurrent VTE or unexplained death occurred in 17 of the 1,107 patients (1.5%) who were assigned to the high-dose group, in 13 of 1,127 patients (1.2%) who were assigned to the low-dose group, and in 50 of 1,131 patients (4.4%) who were assigned to aspirin. Bleeding rates were not significantly different between the three groups (2%-3%). The major limitation of this study is the short duration of follow-up and the lack of power to demonstrate noninferiority of the low-dose as compared to the high-dose regimen for rivaroxaban.
BOTTOM LINE: In patients with a history of VTE, in whom prolonged anticoagulation could be beneficial, low or high-dose rivaroxaban is superior to aspirin in preventing recurrent VTE without increasing bleeding risk.
CITATION: Weitz JI, Lensing MH, Prins R, et al. Rivaroxaban or aspirin for extended treatment of venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376:1211-22.
Dr. Mayasy is assistant professor in the department of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico.
Corticosteroid therapy in Kawasaki disease
Clinical Question
What is the efficacy of corticosteroid therapy in Kawasaki disease?
Background
First described in 1967 in Japan, Kawasaki disease (KD), or mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome, is an acute systemic vasculitis of unclear etiology which primarily affects infants and children. Of significant clinical concern, 30%-50% of untreated patients develop acute coronary artery dilatation, and about one fourth progress to serious coronary artery abnormalities (CAA) such as aneurysm and ectasia.1,2 These patients have a higher risk of long-term complications, such as coronary artery thrombus, myocardial infarction, and sudden death.3 KD is typically treated with a combination of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and aspirin, which reduces the risk of CAA.1 However, more than 20% of cases are resistant to this conventional therapy and have higher risk of CAA than nonresistant patients.4 Corticosteroids have been suggested as therapy in KD, as the anti-inflammatory effect is useful for many other vasculitides, but studies to date have had conflicting results. This study was performed to comprehensively evaluate the effect of corticosteroids in KD as initial or rescue therapy (after failure to respond to IVIG).
Study design
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synopsis
The population of interest was children diagnosed with KD. The intervention of interest was treatment with adjunctive corticosteroids either as initial or rescue therapy. Comparisons were made between the corticosteroids group and the conventional therapy (IVIG) group. Outcome measurements included the incidence of CAA (primary outcome), duration until defervescence, and adverse events. IVIG resistance was defined as persistent or recurrent fever lasting (or relapsed within) 24-48 hours after the initial IVIG treatment.
A total of 681 articles were initially retrieved, and after exclusions, 16 comparative studies were enrolled for meta-analysis. In these studies, a total of 2,746 cases were involved, with 861 in the corticosteroid group and 1,885 in the IVIG group. Ten studies used corticosteroids as initial treatment (comparing this plus IVIG versus IVIG therapy alone), and six used steroids as rescue treatment after initial IVIG failure (comparing corticosteroids with additional IVIG therapy). Four studies enrolled patients with KD who were predicted to have high risk of IVIG resistance, based on published scoring systems. All patients in the studies received oral aspirin.
Overall, this meta-analysis found that adding corticosteroid therapy was associated with a relative risk reduction of 58% in CAA (odds ratio, 0.424; 95% confidence interval, 0.270-0.665; P less than .001). Further analysis showed that the longer the duration of illness prior to corticosteroids, the less of a treatment effect was noticed. The studies using steroids as initial adjunctive therapy had duration of illness 4.7 days prior to treatment, and showed an advantage, compared with IVIG alone, while studies using steroids as rescue therapy had a longer duration of illness prior to steroid therapy (7.2 days), and did not show significant benefit, compared with additional IVIG. In analyzing patients predicted to be at high risk of IVIG resistance at baseline, addition of corticosteroids with IVIG as initial therapy showed a significantly lower risk of CAA development (relative risk reduction of 76%) versus IVIG alone (OR, 0.240; 95% CI, 0.123-0.467; P less than .001). As a secondary outcome, the use of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy was associated with a quicker resolution of fever, compared with IVIG alone (0.66 days vs. 2.18 days). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups.
Although this is the most comprehensive study of corticosteroids in KD, there are some limitations. High-risk patients were found to receive the greatest benefit, but the predictive ability of published scoring systems have not been optimized or generalized to all populations. Most of the studies included in this review were conducted in Japan, so it is uncertain if the results are applicable to other regions. Also, the selection of corticosteroids and treatment regimens were not consistent between studies.
Bottom line
This study suggests that corticosteroids combined with IVIG as initial therapy for KD showed a more protective effect against CAA, compared with conventional IVIG therapy, and the efficacy was more pronounced in the high-risk patient group.
Citation
Chen S, Dong Y, Kiuchi MG, et al. Coronary Artery Complication in Kawasaki Disease and the Importance of Early Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(12):1156-1163.
References
1. Newburger JW, Takahashi M, Gerber MA, et al. Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis and Kawasaki Disease. Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; American Heart Association; American Academy of Pediatrics: diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management of Kawasaki disease. Circulation. 2004;110:2747-71.
2. Daniels LB, Tjajadi MS, Walford HH, et al. Prevalence of Kawasaki disease in young adults with suspected myocardial ischemia. Circulation. 2012;125(20):2447-53.
3. Gordon JB, Kahn AM, Burns JC. When children with Kawasaki disease grow up: myocardial and vascular complications in adulthood. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(21):1911-20.
4. Tremoulet AH, Best BM, Song S, et al. Resistance to intravenous immunoglobulin in children with Kawasaki disease. J Pediatr. 2008;153(1):117-21.
Dr. Galloway is a pediatric hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, and vice chief of the division of hospital pediatrics at USD SSOM and Sanford Children’s Hospital.
Clinical Question
What is the efficacy of corticosteroid therapy in Kawasaki disease?
Background
First described in 1967 in Japan, Kawasaki disease (KD), or mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome, is an acute systemic vasculitis of unclear etiology which primarily affects infants and children. Of significant clinical concern, 30%-50% of untreated patients develop acute coronary artery dilatation, and about one fourth progress to serious coronary artery abnormalities (CAA) such as aneurysm and ectasia.1,2 These patients have a higher risk of long-term complications, such as coronary artery thrombus, myocardial infarction, and sudden death.3 KD is typically treated with a combination of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and aspirin, which reduces the risk of CAA.1 However, more than 20% of cases are resistant to this conventional therapy and have higher risk of CAA than nonresistant patients.4 Corticosteroids have been suggested as therapy in KD, as the anti-inflammatory effect is useful for many other vasculitides, but studies to date have had conflicting results. This study was performed to comprehensively evaluate the effect of corticosteroids in KD as initial or rescue therapy (after failure to respond to IVIG).
Study design
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synopsis
The population of interest was children diagnosed with KD. The intervention of interest was treatment with adjunctive corticosteroids either as initial or rescue therapy. Comparisons were made between the corticosteroids group and the conventional therapy (IVIG) group. Outcome measurements included the incidence of CAA (primary outcome), duration until defervescence, and adverse events. IVIG resistance was defined as persistent or recurrent fever lasting (or relapsed within) 24-48 hours after the initial IVIG treatment.
A total of 681 articles were initially retrieved, and after exclusions, 16 comparative studies were enrolled for meta-analysis. In these studies, a total of 2,746 cases were involved, with 861 in the corticosteroid group and 1,885 in the IVIG group. Ten studies used corticosteroids as initial treatment (comparing this plus IVIG versus IVIG therapy alone), and six used steroids as rescue treatment after initial IVIG failure (comparing corticosteroids with additional IVIG therapy). Four studies enrolled patients with KD who were predicted to have high risk of IVIG resistance, based on published scoring systems. All patients in the studies received oral aspirin.
Overall, this meta-analysis found that adding corticosteroid therapy was associated with a relative risk reduction of 58% in CAA (odds ratio, 0.424; 95% confidence interval, 0.270-0.665; P less than .001). Further analysis showed that the longer the duration of illness prior to corticosteroids, the less of a treatment effect was noticed. The studies using steroids as initial adjunctive therapy had duration of illness 4.7 days prior to treatment, and showed an advantage, compared with IVIG alone, while studies using steroids as rescue therapy had a longer duration of illness prior to steroid therapy (7.2 days), and did not show significant benefit, compared with additional IVIG. In analyzing patients predicted to be at high risk of IVIG resistance at baseline, addition of corticosteroids with IVIG as initial therapy showed a significantly lower risk of CAA development (relative risk reduction of 76%) versus IVIG alone (OR, 0.240; 95% CI, 0.123-0.467; P less than .001). As a secondary outcome, the use of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy was associated with a quicker resolution of fever, compared with IVIG alone (0.66 days vs. 2.18 days). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups.
Although this is the most comprehensive study of corticosteroids in KD, there are some limitations. High-risk patients were found to receive the greatest benefit, but the predictive ability of published scoring systems have not been optimized or generalized to all populations. Most of the studies included in this review were conducted in Japan, so it is uncertain if the results are applicable to other regions. Also, the selection of corticosteroids and treatment regimens were not consistent between studies.
Bottom line
This study suggests that corticosteroids combined with IVIG as initial therapy for KD showed a more protective effect against CAA, compared with conventional IVIG therapy, and the efficacy was more pronounced in the high-risk patient group.
Citation
Chen S, Dong Y, Kiuchi MG, et al. Coronary Artery Complication in Kawasaki Disease and the Importance of Early Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(12):1156-1163.
References
1. Newburger JW, Takahashi M, Gerber MA, et al. Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis and Kawasaki Disease. Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; American Heart Association; American Academy of Pediatrics: diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management of Kawasaki disease. Circulation. 2004;110:2747-71.
2. Daniels LB, Tjajadi MS, Walford HH, et al. Prevalence of Kawasaki disease in young adults with suspected myocardial ischemia. Circulation. 2012;125(20):2447-53.
3. Gordon JB, Kahn AM, Burns JC. When children with Kawasaki disease grow up: myocardial and vascular complications in adulthood. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(21):1911-20.
4. Tremoulet AH, Best BM, Song S, et al. Resistance to intravenous immunoglobulin in children with Kawasaki disease. J Pediatr. 2008;153(1):117-21.
Dr. Galloway is a pediatric hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, and vice chief of the division of hospital pediatrics at USD SSOM and Sanford Children’s Hospital.
Clinical Question
What is the efficacy of corticosteroid therapy in Kawasaki disease?
Background
First described in 1967 in Japan, Kawasaki disease (KD), or mucocutaneous lymph node syndrome, is an acute systemic vasculitis of unclear etiology which primarily affects infants and children. Of significant clinical concern, 30%-50% of untreated patients develop acute coronary artery dilatation, and about one fourth progress to serious coronary artery abnormalities (CAA) such as aneurysm and ectasia.1,2 These patients have a higher risk of long-term complications, such as coronary artery thrombus, myocardial infarction, and sudden death.3 KD is typically treated with a combination of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and aspirin, which reduces the risk of CAA.1 However, more than 20% of cases are resistant to this conventional therapy and have higher risk of CAA than nonresistant patients.4 Corticosteroids have been suggested as therapy in KD, as the anti-inflammatory effect is useful for many other vasculitides, but studies to date have had conflicting results. This study was performed to comprehensively evaluate the effect of corticosteroids in KD as initial or rescue therapy (after failure to respond to IVIG).
Study design
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synopsis
The population of interest was children diagnosed with KD. The intervention of interest was treatment with adjunctive corticosteroids either as initial or rescue therapy. Comparisons were made between the corticosteroids group and the conventional therapy (IVIG) group. Outcome measurements included the incidence of CAA (primary outcome), duration until defervescence, and adverse events. IVIG resistance was defined as persistent or recurrent fever lasting (or relapsed within) 24-48 hours after the initial IVIG treatment.
A total of 681 articles were initially retrieved, and after exclusions, 16 comparative studies were enrolled for meta-analysis. In these studies, a total of 2,746 cases were involved, with 861 in the corticosteroid group and 1,885 in the IVIG group. Ten studies used corticosteroids as initial treatment (comparing this plus IVIG versus IVIG therapy alone), and six used steroids as rescue treatment after initial IVIG failure (comparing corticosteroids with additional IVIG therapy). Four studies enrolled patients with KD who were predicted to have high risk of IVIG resistance, based on published scoring systems. All patients in the studies received oral aspirin.
Overall, this meta-analysis found that adding corticosteroid therapy was associated with a relative risk reduction of 58% in CAA (odds ratio, 0.424; 95% confidence interval, 0.270-0.665; P less than .001). Further analysis showed that the longer the duration of illness prior to corticosteroids, the less of a treatment effect was noticed. The studies using steroids as initial adjunctive therapy had duration of illness 4.7 days prior to treatment, and showed an advantage, compared with IVIG alone, while studies using steroids as rescue therapy had a longer duration of illness prior to steroid therapy (7.2 days), and did not show significant benefit, compared with additional IVIG. In analyzing patients predicted to be at high risk of IVIG resistance at baseline, addition of corticosteroids with IVIG as initial therapy showed a significantly lower risk of CAA development (relative risk reduction of 76%) versus IVIG alone (OR, 0.240; 95% CI, 0.123-0.467; P less than .001). As a secondary outcome, the use of adjunctive corticosteroid therapy was associated with a quicker resolution of fever, compared with IVIG alone (0.66 days vs. 2.18 days). There was no significant difference in adverse events between the two groups.
Although this is the most comprehensive study of corticosteroids in KD, there are some limitations. High-risk patients were found to receive the greatest benefit, but the predictive ability of published scoring systems have not been optimized or generalized to all populations. Most of the studies included in this review were conducted in Japan, so it is uncertain if the results are applicable to other regions. Also, the selection of corticosteroids and treatment regimens were not consistent between studies.
Bottom line
This study suggests that corticosteroids combined with IVIG as initial therapy for KD showed a more protective effect against CAA, compared with conventional IVIG therapy, and the efficacy was more pronounced in the high-risk patient group.
Citation
Chen S, Dong Y, Kiuchi MG, et al. Coronary Artery Complication in Kawasaki Disease and the Importance of Early Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(12):1156-1163.
References
1. Newburger JW, Takahashi M, Gerber MA, et al. Committee on Rheumatic Fever, Endocarditis and Kawasaki Disease. Council on Cardiovascular Disease in the Young; American Heart Association; American Academy of Pediatrics: diagnosis, treatment, and long-term management of Kawasaki disease. Circulation. 2004;110:2747-71.
2. Daniels LB, Tjajadi MS, Walford HH, et al. Prevalence of Kawasaki disease in young adults with suspected myocardial ischemia. Circulation. 2012;125(20):2447-53.
3. Gordon JB, Kahn AM, Burns JC. When children with Kawasaki disease grow up: myocardial and vascular complications in adulthood. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(21):1911-20.
4. Tremoulet AH, Best BM, Song S, et al. Resistance to intravenous immunoglobulin in children with Kawasaki disease. J Pediatr. 2008;153(1):117-21.
Dr. Galloway is a pediatric hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D., assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of South Dakota Sanford School of Medicine, and vice chief of the division of hospital pediatrics at USD SSOM and Sanford Children’s Hospital.
Pediatric hospital medicine marches toward subspecialty recognition
Pediatric hospital medicine is moving quickly toward recognition as a board-certified, fellowship-trained medical subspecialty, joining 14 other pediatric subspecialties now certified by the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP).
It was approved as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) at its October 2016 board meeting in Chicago in response to a petition from the ABP. Following years of discussion within the field,1 it will take 2 more years to describe pediatric hospital medicine’s specialized knowledge base and write test questions for biannual board exams that are projected to commence in the fall of 2019.
Eventually, starting in 2025, pediatric hospitalists will need to complete a fellowship of 2 years or more if they wish to sit for the exam and become board-certified in the field. But for the next 7 years, hospitalists in current practice will be able to qualify based on their work experience. Maintenance of certification requirements likely will be similar to those in other subspecialties, and doctors certified in pediatric hospital medicine won’t be required to maintain general pediatric certification, Dr. Rauch said.
Formal eligibility criteria have not been set, but likely will include working half-time overall in pediatric-related activities, and quarter-time in clinical practice in pediatric hospital medicine for 4 years prior to qualifying for the exam. How the hours might break down between clinical and other hospital responsibilities, and between pediatric or adult patients, still needs to be determined, Dr. Rauch said. He added that the experiential pathway is likely to be defined broadly, with latitude for determinations based on percentages of time worked, rather than absolute number of hours worked. Local pediatric institutions will be granted latitude to determine how that “plays out” in real world situations, he said, “and an ABP credentialing committee will be available to hear appeals for people who have complicated life circumstances.”
“I was part of a committee that explored these issues. We were an independent group of hospitalists who decided that board certification was a good way to advance the field,” Dr. Quinonez said. “We’ve seen what subspecialty certification has done, for example, for pediatric emergency medicine and pediatric critical care medicine – advancing them tremendously from a research standpoint and helping to develop a distinct body of knowledge reflecting increased severity of illness in hospitalized children.”
Discrepancy between practicing hospitalists, fellowships
An estimated 4,000 pediatric hospitalists now practice in the United States, and 2,100 of those belong to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Section on Hospital Medicine. There are 40 pediatric hospital medicine fellowship programs listed on the website of AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine (http://phmfellows.org/phm-programs/), although formal training assessment criteria will be needed for the American College of Graduate Medical Education to recognize programs that qualify their fellows to sit for the PHM exam. A wide gap is anticipated between the demand for pediatric hospitalists and currently available fellowship training slots to generate new candidates for board certification, although Dr. Rauch projects that fellowship slots will double in coming years.
“My message to the field is that historically, board certification has been the launching point for further development of the field,” Dr. Rauch said. “It leads to standardization of who is a subspecialist. Right now, who is a pediatric hospitalist is subject to wide variation. We need to standardize training and to create for this field the same distinction and stature as other medical subspecialties,” he said, noting that subspecialty status also has ramifications for academic settings, and for career advancement and career satisfaction for the individuals who choose to pursue it.
“I know there has been some hue and cry about this in the field, but in most cases certification will not change a pediatric hospitalist’s ability to obtain a job,” he said. “Already, you can’t become a division leader at a children’s hospital without additional training. This isn’t going to change that reality. But for people who don’t want to follow an academic career path, there will never be enough board-certified or fellowship-trained pediatric hospitalists to fill all of the pediatric positions in all the hospitals in the country. Community hospitals aren’t going to say: We won’t hire you unless you are board certified.”
Is the fellowship good for the field?
The subspecialty development process clearly is moving forward. Those in favor believe it will increase scholarship, research, and recognition for the subspecialty by the public for its specialized body of knowledge. But not everyone in the field agrees. Last fall The Hospitalist published3 an opinion piece questioning the need for fellowship-based board certification in pediatric hospital medicine. The author recommended instead retaining the current voluntary approach to fellowships and establishing a pediatric “focused practice” incorporated into residency training, much as the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have done for hospitalists in adult medicine.
“Will it lead to uncertainty among those currently in residency programs? If you are a pediatric resident and you want to become a board-certified pediatric hospitalist, you’ll need at least 2 years more of training. Is that going to deter qualified individuals?” Dr. Chang said. “The people this decision will impact the most are med-peds doctors – who complete a combined internal medicine and pediatrics residency – and part-timers. They may find themselves in a difficult position if the number of hours don’t add up for them to sit for the boards. For the most part, we’ll have to wait and see for answers to these questions.”
Brian Alverson, MD, FAAP, current chair of the AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine and associate professor of pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I., says he can see both sides of the debate.
But at the same time, there is a significant opportunity cost for doing 2 more years of fellowship training, Dr. Alverson said.
“We don’t know how much the board certification test will improve actual care,” he noted. “Does it truly identify higher quality doctors, or just doctors who are good at taking multiple choice exams? There are a number of people in pediatrics who do a lot of different things in their jobs, and it’s important that they not lose their ability to practice in the field. Two-thirds of our work force is in community hospitals, not academic medical centers. They work hard to provide the backbone of hospital care for young patients, and many of them are unlikely to ever do a fellowship.”
Nonetheless, Dr. Alverson believes pediatric hospitalists needn’t worry. “You still have plenty of time to figure out what’s going to happen in your hospital,” he said.
References
1. Section on Hospital Medicine. Guiding principles for pediatric hospital medicine program. Pediatrics; 2013; 132:782-786.
2. Stucky E. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies. Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
3. Feldman LS, Monash B, Eniasivam A. Why required pediatric hospital medicine fellowships are unnecessary. The Hospitalist Magazine, October 8, 2016.
Pediatric hospital medicine is moving quickly toward recognition as a board-certified, fellowship-trained medical subspecialty, joining 14 other pediatric subspecialties now certified by the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP).
It was approved as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) at its October 2016 board meeting in Chicago in response to a petition from the ABP. Following years of discussion within the field,1 it will take 2 more years to describe pediatric hospital medicine’s specialized knowledge base and write test questions for biannual board exams that are projected to commence in the fall of 2019.
Eventually, starting in 2025, pediatric hospitalists will need to complete a fellowship of 2 years or more if they wish to sit for the exam and become board-certified in the field. But for the next 7 years, hospitalists in current practice will be able to qualify based on their work experience. Maintenance of certification requirements likely will be similar to those in other subspecialties, and doctors certified in pediatric hospital medicine won’t be required to maintain general pediatric certification, Dr. Rauch said.
Formal eligibility criteria have not been set, but likely will include working half-time overall in pediatric-related activities, and quarter-time in clinical practice in pediatric hospital medicine for 4 years prior to qualifying for the exam. How the hours might break down between clinical and other hospital responsibilities, and between pediatric or adult patients, still needs to be determined, Dr. Rauch said. He added that the experiential pathway is likely to be defined broadly, with latitude for determinations based on percentages of time worked, rather than absolute number of hours worked. Local pediatric institutions will be granted latitude to determine how that “plays out” in real world situations, he said, “and an ABP credentialing committee will be available to hear appeals for people who have complicated life circumstances.”
“I was part of a committee that explored these issues. We were an independent group of hospitalists who decided that board certification was a good way to advance the field,” Dr. Quinonez said. “We’ve seen what subspecialty certification has done, for example, for pediatric emergency medicine and pediatric critical care medicine – advancing them tremendously from a research standpoint and helping to develop a distinct body of knowledge reflecting increased severity of illness in hospitalized children.”
Discrepancy between practicing hospitalists, fellowships
An estimated 4,000 pediatric hospitalists now practice in the United States, and 2,100 of those belong to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Section on Hospital Medicine. There are 40 pediatric hospital medicine fellowship programs listed on the website of AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine (http://phmfellows.org/phm-programs/), although formal training assessment criteria will be needed for the American College of Graduate Medical Education to recognize programs that qualify their fellows to sit for the PHM exam. A wide gap is anticipated between the demand for pediatric hospitalists and currently available fellowship training slots to generate new candidates for board certification, although Dr. Rauch projects that fellowship slots will double in coming years.
“My message to the field is that historically, board certification has been the launching point for further development of the field,” Dr. Rauch said. “It leads to standardization of who is a subspecialist. Right now, who is a pediatric hospitalist is subject to wide variation. We need to standardize training and to create for this field the same distinction and stature as other medical subspecialties,” he said, noting that subspecialty status also has ramifications for academic settings, and for career advancement and career satisfaction for the individuals who choose to pursue it.
“I know there has been some hue and cry about this in the field, but in most cases certification will not change a pediatric hospitalist’s ability to obtain a job,” he said. “Already, you can’t become a division leader at a children’s hospital without additional training. This isn’t going to change that reality. But for people who don’t want to follow an academic career path, there will never be enough board-certified or fellowship-trained pediatric hospitalists to fill all of the pediatric positions in all the hospitals in the country. Community hospitals aren’t going to say: We won’t hire you unless you are board certified.”
Is the fellowship good for the field?
The subspecialty development process clearly is moving forward. Those in favor believe it will increase scholarship, research, and recognition for the subspecialty by the public for its specialized body of knowledge. But not everyone in the field agrees. Last fall The Hospitalist published3 an opinion piece questioning the need for fellowship-based board certification in pediatric hospital medicine. The author recommended instead retaining the current voluntary approach to fellowships and establishing a pediatric “focused practice” incorporated into residency training, much as the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have done for hospitalists in adult medicine.
“Will it lead to uncertainty among those currently in residency programs? If you are a pediatric resident and you want to become a board-certified pediatric hospitalist, you’ll need at least 2 years more of training. Is that going to deter qualified individuals?” Dr. Chang said. “The people this decision will impact the most are med-peds doctors – who complete a combined internal medicine and pediatrics residency – and part-timers. They may find themselves in a difficult position if the number of hours don’t add up for them to sit for the boards. For the most part, we’ll have to wait and see for answers to these questions.”
Brian Alverson, MD, FAAP, current chair of the AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine and associate professor of pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I., says he can see both sides of the debate.
But at the same time, there is a significant opportunity cost for doing 2 more years of fellowship training, Dr. Alverson said.
“We don’t know how much the board certification test will improve actual care,” he noted. “Does it truly identify higher quality doctors, or just doctors who are good at taking multiple choice exams? There are a number of people in pediatrics who do a lot of different things in their jobs, and it’s important that they not lose their ability to practice in the field. Two-thirds of our work force is in community hospitals, not academic medical centers. They work hard to provide the backbone of hospital care for young patients, and many of them are unlikely to ever do a fellowship.”
Nonetheless, Dr. Alverson believes pediatric hospitalists needn’t worry. “You still have plenty of time to figure out what’s going to happen in your hospital,” he said.
References
1. Section on Hospital Medicine. Guiding principles for pediatric hospital medicine program. Pediatrics; 2013; 132:782-786.
2. Stucky E. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies. Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
3. Feldman LS, Monash B, Eniasivam A. Why required pediatric hospital medicine fellowships are unnecessary. The Hospitalist Magazine, October 8, 2016.
Pediatric hospital medicine is moving quickly toward recognition as a board-certified, fellowship-trained medical subspecialty, joining 14 other pediatric subspecialties now certified by the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP).
It was approved as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) at its October 2016 board meeting in Chicago in response to a petition from the ABP. Following years of discussion within the field,1 it will take 2 more years to describe pediatric hospital medicine’s specialized knowledge base and write test questions for biannual board exams that are projected to commence in the fall of 2019.
Eventually, starting in 2025, pediatric hospitalists will need to complete a fellowship of 2 years or more if they wish to sit for the exam and become board-certified in the field. But for the next 7 years, hospitalists in current practice will be able to qualify based on their work experience. Maintenance of certification requirements likely will be similar to those in other subspecialties, and doctors certified in pediatric hospital medicine won’t be required to maintain general pediatric certification, Dr. Rauch said.
Formal eligibility criteria have not been set, but likely will include working half-time overall in pediatric-related activities, and quarter-time in clinical practice in pediatric hospital medicine for 4 years prior to qualifying for the exam. How the hours might break down between clinical and other hospital responsibilities, and between pediatric or adult patients, still needs to be determined, Dr. Rauch said. He added that the experiential pathway is likely to be defined broadly, with latitude for determinations based on percentages of time worked, rather than absolute number of hours worked. Local pediatric institutions will be granted latitude to determine how that “plays out” in real world situations, he said, “and an ABP credentialing committee will be available to hear appeals for people who have complicated life circumstances.”
“I was part of a committee that explored these issues. We were an independent group of hospitalists who decided that board certification was a good way to advance the field,” Dr. Quinonez said. “We’ve seen what subspecialty certification has done, for example, for pediatric emergency medicine and pediatric critical care medicine – advancing them tremendously from a research standpoint and helping to develop a distinct body of knowledge reflecting increased severity of illness in hospitalized children.”
Discrepancy between practicing hospitalists, fellowships
An estimated 4,000 pediatric hospitalists now practice in the United States, and 2,100 of those belong to the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Section on Hospital Medicine. There are 40 pediatric hospital medicine fellowship programs listed on the website of AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine (http://phmfellows.org/phm-programs/), although formal training assessment criteria will be needed for the American College of Graduate Medical Education to recognize programs that qualify their fellows to sit for the PHM exam. A wide gap is anticipated between the demand for pediatric hospitalists and currently available fellowship training slots to generate new candidates for board certification, although Dr. Rauch projects that fellowship slots will double in coming years.
“My message to the field is that historically, board certification has been the launching point for further development of the field,” Dr. Rauch said. “It leads to standardization of who is a subspecialist. Right now, who is a pediatric hospitalist is subject to wide variation. We need to standardize training and to create for this field the same distinction and stature as other medical subspecialties,” he said, noting that subspecialty status also has ramifications for academic settings, and for career advancement and career satisfaction for the individuals who choose to pursue it.
“I know there has been some hue and cry about this in the field, but in most cases certification will not change a pediatric hospitalist’s ability to obtain a job,” he said. “Already, you can’t become a division leader at a children’s hospital without additional training. This isn’t going to change that reality. But for people who don’t want to follow an academic career path, there will never be enough board-certified or fellowship-trained pediatric hospitalists to fill all of the pediatric positions in all the hospitals in the country. Community hospitals aren’t going to say: We won’t hire you unless you are board certified.”
Is the fellowship good for the field?
The subspecialty development process clearly is moving forward. Those in favor believe it will increase scholarship, research, and recognition for the subspecialty by the public for its specialized body of knowledge. But not everyone in the field agrees. Last fall The Hospitalist published3 an opinion piece questioning the need for fellowship-based board certification in pediatric hospital medicine. The author recommended instead retaining the current voluntary approach to fellowships and establishing a pediatric “focused practice” incorporated into residency training, much as the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have done for hospitalists in adult medicine.
“Will it lead to uncertainty among those currently in residency programs? If you are a pediatric resident and you want to become a board-certified pediatric hospitalist, you’ll need at least 2 years more of training. Is that going to deter qualified individuals?” Dr. Chang said. “The people this decision will impact the most are med-peds doctors – who complete a combined internal medicine and pediatrics residency – and part-timers. They may find themselves in a difficult position if the number of hours don’t add up for them to sit for the boards. For the most part, we’ll have to wait and see for answers to these questions.”
Brian Alverson, MD, FAAP, current chair of the AAP’s Section on Hospital Medicine and associate professor of pediatrics at Brown University, Providence, R.I., says he can see both sides of the debate.
But at the same time, there is a significant opportunity cost for doing 2 more years of fellowship training, Dr. Alverson said.
“We don’t know how much the board certification test will improve actual care,” he noted. “Does it truly identify higher quality doctors, or just doctors who are good at taking multiple choice exams? There are a number of people in pediatrics who do a lot of different things in their jobs, and it’s important that they not lose their ability to practice in the field. Two-thirds of our work force is in community hospitals, not academic medical centers. They work hard to provide the backbone of hospital care for young patients, and many of them are unlikely to ever do a fellowship.”
Nonetheless, Dr. Alverson believes pediatric hospitalists needn’t worry. “You still have plenty of time to figure out what’s going to happen in your hospital,” he said.
References
1. Section on Hospital Medicine. Guiding principles for pediatric hospital medicine program. Pediatrics; 2013; 132:782-786.
2. Stucky E. The Pediatric Hospital Medicine Core Competencies. Wiley-Blackwell; 2010.
3. Feldman LS, Monash B, Eniasivam A. Why required pediatric hospital medicine fellowships are unnecessary. The Hospitalist Magazine, October 8, 2016.
Hospitalizations may speed up cognitive decline in older adults
LONDON – Older adult patients who already had cognitive decline when they were admitted to a hospital often left with a significantly accelerated rate of decline, according to findings from a large longitudinal cohort study.
The study found up to a 62% acceleration of prehospital cognitive decline after any hospitalization. Urgent or emergency hospitalizations exacted the biggest toll on cognitive health, Bryan James, PhD, said at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
Cognitive decline after hospitalization in older patients is a common occurrence but still poorly understood, he said. “Some data suggest this could actually be seen as a public health crisis since 40% of all hospitalized patients in the U.S. are older than 65, and the risk of past-hospitalization cognitive impairment rises with age.
“Given the risk to cognitive health, older patients, families, and physicians require information on when to admit to the hospital,” Dr. James said. “We wondered if those who decline rapidly after the hospital admission were already declining before. Our second question was whether elective hospital admissions are associated with the same negative cognitive outcomes as nonelective (emergent or urgent) admissions.”
To examine this, Dr. James and his colleagues used patient data from the Rush Memory and Aging Project, which provides each participant with an annual cognitive assessment consisting of 19 neuropsychological tests. They linked these data to each patient’s Medicare claims record, allowing them to assess cognitive function both before and after the index hospitalization.
The cohort comprised 930 patients who were followed for a mean of 5 years. Hospitalized patients were older (81 vs. 79 years). Most patients in both groups had at least one medical condition, such as hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, thyroid disease, head injury, or stroke. Cognition was already impaired in many of the hospitalized patients; 62% had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 35% had dementia. Among the nonhospitalized subjects, 49% had MCI and 24% had dementia.
Of the cohort, 66% experienced a hospitalization during follow-up. Most hospitalizations (57%) were either for urgent or emergency problems. The rest were elective admissions. The main outcome was change in global cognition – an averaged z-score of all 19 tests of working memory, episodic memory, semantic memory, visuospatial processing, and perceptual speed.
Elective admissions were mostly planned surgeries (94%), and unplanned surgeries occurred in 64% of the nonelective admissions. Most of the elective admissions (81%) involved anesthesia, compared with 32% of the nonelective admissions. About 40% of each group required a stay in the intensive care unit. Around 11% in each group had a critical illness – a stroke, hemorrhage, or brain trauma in about 6% of each group.
A multivariate analysis looked at the change in cognition during two time points: 2 years before the index hospitalization and up to 8 years after it. As could be expected of aged subjects in a memory study cohort, most patients experienced a decline in cognition over the study period. However, nonhospitalized patients continued on a smooth linear slope of decline. Hospitalized patients experienced a significant 62% increased rate of decline, even after controlling for age, education, comorbidities, depression, Activities of Daily Living disability, and physical activity.
Visuospatial processing was the only domain not significantly affected by a hospital admission. All of the memory domains, as well as perceptual speed, declined significantly faster after hospitalization than before.
The second analysis examined which type of admission was most dangerous for cognitive health. This controlled for even more potential confounding factors, including length of stay, surgery and anesthesia, Charlson comorbidity index, critical illness, brain injury, and number of hospitalizations during the follow-up period.
Urgent and emergency admissions drove virtually all of the increase in decline, Dr. James said, with a 60% increase in the rate of decline, compared with the prehospitalization rate. Patients who had elective admissions showed no variance from their baseline rate of decline, and, in fact, followed the same slope as nonhospitalized patients. Again, change was seen in the global score and in all the memory domains and perceptual speed. Only visuospatial processing was unaffected.
“It’s unclear why the urgent and emergent admissions drove this finding, even after we controlled for illness and injury severity and other factors,” Dr. James said. “Obviously, we need more research in this area.”
He had no financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
LONDON – Older adult patients who already had cognitive decline when they were admitted to a hospital often left with a significantly accelerated rate of decline, according to findings from a large longitudinal cohort study.
The study found up to a 62% acceleration of prehospital cognitive decline after any hospitalization. Urgent or emergency hospitalizations exacted the biggest toll on cognitive health, Bryan James, PhD, said at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
Cognitive decline after hospitalization in older patients is a common occurrence but still poorly understood, he said. “Some data suggest this could actually be seen as a public health crisis since 40% of all hospitalized patients in the U.S. are older than 65, and the risk of past-hospitalization cognitive impairment rises with age.
“Given the risk to cognitive health, older patients, families, and physicians require information on when to admit to the hospital,” Dr. James said. “We wondered if those who decline rapidly after the hospital admission were already declining before. Our second question was whether elective hospital admissions are associated with the same negative cognitive outcomes as nonelective (emergent or urgent) admissions.”
To examine this, Dr. James and his colleagues used patient data from the Rush Memory and Aging Project, which provides each participant with an annual cognitive assessment consisting of 19 neuropsychological tests. They linked these data to each patient’s Medicare claims record, allowing them to assess cognitive function both before and after the index hospitalization.
The cohort comprised 930 patients who were followed for a mean of 5 years. Hospitalized patients were older (81 vs. 79 years). Most patients in both groups had at least one medical condition, such as hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, thyroid disease, head injury, or stroke. Cognition was already impaired in many of the hospitalized patients; 62% had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 35% had dementia. Among the nonhospitalized subjects, 49% had MCI and 24% had dementia.
Of the cohort, 66% experienced a hospitalization during follow-up. Most hospitalizations (57%) were either for urgent or emergency problems. The rest were elective admissions. The main outcome was change in global cognition – an averaged z-score of all 19 tests of working memory, episodic memory, semantic memory, visuospatial processing, and perceptual speed.
Elective admissions were mostly planned surgeries (94%), and unplanned surgeries occurred in 64% of the nonelective admissions. Most of the elective admissions (81%) involved anesthesia, compared with 32% of the nonelective admissions. About 40% of each group required a stay in the intensive care unit. Around 11% in each group had a critical illness – a stroke, hemorrhage, or brain trauma in about 6% of each group.
A multivariate analysis looked at the change in cognition during two time points: 2 years before the index hospitalization and up to 8 years after it. As could be expected of aged subjects in a memory study cohort, most patients experienced a decline in cognition over the study period. However, nonhospitalized patients continued on a smooth linear slope of decline. Hospitalized patients experienced a significant 62% increased rate of decline, even after controlling for age, education, comorbidities, depression, Activities of Daily Living disability, and physical activity.
Visuospatial processing was the only domain not significantly affected by a hospital admission. All of the memory domains, as well as perceptual speed, declined significantly faster after hospitalization than before.
The second analysis examined which type of admission was most dangerous for cognitive health. This controlled for even more potential confounding factors, including length of stay, surgery and anesthesia, Charlson comorbidity index, critical illness, brain injury, and number of hospitalizations during the follow-up period.
Urgent and emergency admissions drove virtually all of the increase in decline, Dr. James said, with a 60% increase in the rate of decline, compared with the prehospitalization rate. Patients who had elective admissions showed no variance from their baseline rate of decline, and, in fact, followed the same slope as nonhospitalized patients. Again, change was seen in the global score and in all the memory domains and perceptual speed. Only visuospatial processing was unaffected.
“It’s unclear why the urgent and emergent admissions drove this finding, even after we controlled for illness and injury severity and other factors,” Dr. James said. “Obviously, we need more research in this area.”
He had no financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
LONDON – Older adult patients who already had cognitive decline when they were admitted to a hospital often left with a significantly accelerated rate of decline, according to findings from a large longitudinal cohort study.
The study found up to a 62% acceleration of prehospital cognitive decline after any hospitalization. Urgent or emergency hospitalizations exacted the biggest toll on cognitive health, Bryan James, PhD, said at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.
Cognitive decline after hospitalization in older patients is a common occurrence but still poorly understood, he said. “Some data suggest this could actually be seen as a public health crisis since 40% of all hospitalized patients in the U.S. are older than 65, and the risk of past-hospitalization cognitive impairment rises with age.
“Given the risk to cognitive health, older patients, families, and physicians require information on when to admit to the hospital,” Dr. James said. “We wondered if those who decline rapidly after the hospital admission were already declining before. Our second question was whether elective hospital admissions are associated with the same negative cognitive outcomes as nonelective (emergent or urgent) admissions.”
To examine this, Dr. James and his colleagues used patient data from the Rush Memory and Aging Project, which provides each participant with an annual cognitive assessment consisting of 19 neuropsychological tests. They linked these data to each patient’s Medicare claims record, allowing them to assess cognitive function both before and after the index hospitalization.
The cohort comprised 930 patients who were followed for a mean of 5 years. Hospitalized patients were older (81 vs. 79 years). Most patients in both groups had at least one medical condition, such as hypertension, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, thyroid disease, head injury, or stroke. Cognition was already impaired in many of the hospitalized patients; 62% had mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and 35% had dementia. Among the nonhospitalized subjects, 49% had MCI and 24% had dementia.
Of the cohort, 66% experienced a hospitalization during follow-up. Most hospitalizations (57%) were either for urgent or emergency problems. The rest were elective admissions. The main outcome was change in global cognition – an averaged z-score of all 19 tests of working memory, episodic memory, semantic memory, visuospatial processing, and perceptual speed.
Elective admissions were mostly planned surgeries (94%), and unplanned surgeries occurred in 64% of the nonelective admissions. Most of the elective admissions (81%) involved anesthesia, compared with 32% of the nonelective admissions. About 40% of each group required a stay in the intensive care unit. Around 11% in each group had a critical illness – a stroke, hemorrhage, or brain trauma in about 6% of each group.
A multivariate analysis looked at the change in cognition during two time points: 2 years before the index hospitalization and up to 8 years after it. As could be expected of aged subjects in a memory study cohort, most patients experienced a decline in cognition over the study period. However, nonhospitalized patients continued on a smooth linear slope of decline. Hospitalized patients experienced a significant 62% increased rate of decline, even after controlling for age, education, comorbidities, depression, Activities of Daily Living disability, and physical activity.
Visuospatial processing was the only domain not significantly affected by a hospital admission. All of the memory domains, as well as perceptual speed, declined significantly faster after hospitalization than before.
The second analysis examined which type of admission was most dangerous for cognitive health. This controlled for even more potential confounding factors, including length of stay, surgery and anesthesia, Charlson comorbidity index, critical illness, brain injury, and number of hospitalizations during the follow-up period.
Urgent and emergency admissions drove virtually all of the increase in decline, Dr. James said, with a 60% increase in the rate of decline, compared with the prehospitalization rate. Patients who had elective admissions showed no variance from their baseline rate of decline, and, in fact, followed the same slope as nonhospitalized patients. Again, change was seen in the global score and in all the memory domains and perceptual speed. Only visuospatial processing was unaffected.
“It’s unclear why the urgent and emergent admissions drove this finding, even after we controlled for illness and injury severity and other factors,” Dr. James said. “Obviously, we need more research in this area.”
He had no financial disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @alz_gal
AT AAIC 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Urgent or emergency admissions accelerated the rate of cognitive decline by 60%, compared with the prehospitalization rate. Elective admissions did not change the rate of cognitive decline.
Data source: The 930 patients were drawn from the Rush Memory and Aging Project.
Disclosures: The presenter had no financial disclosures.
New tool predicts antimicrobial resistance in sepsis
Use of a clinical decision tree predicted antibiotic resistance in sepsis patients infected with gram-negative bacteria, based on data from 1,618 patients.
Increasing rates of bacterial resistance have “contributed to the unwarranted empiric administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics, further promoting resistance emergence across microbial species,” said M. Cristina Vazquez Guillamet, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and her colleagues (Clin Infect Dis. cix612. 2017 Jul 10. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix612).
The researchers identified adults with sepsis or septic shock caused by bloodstream infections who were treated at a single center between 2008 and 2015. They developed clinical decision trees using the CHAID algorithm (Chi squared Automatic Interaction Detection) to analyze risk factors for resistance associated with three antibiotics: piperacillin-tazobactam (PT), cefepime (CE), and meropenem (ME).
Overall, resistance rates to PT, CE, and ME were 29%, 22%, and 9%, respectively, and 6.6% of the isolates were resistant to all three antibiotics.
Factors associated with increased resistance risk included residence in a nursing home, transfer from an outside hospital, and prior antibiotics use. Resistance to ME was associated with infection with Pseudomonas or Acinetobacter spp, the researchers noted, and resistance to PT was associated with central nervous system and central venous catheter infections.
Clinical decision trees were able to separate patients at low risk for resistance to PT and CE, as well as those with a risk greater than 30% of resistance to PT, CE, or ME. “We also found good overall agreement between the accuracies of the [multivariable logistic regression] models and the decision tree analyses for predicting antibiotic resistance,” the researchers said.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and incomplete reporting of previous antibiotic exposure, the researchers noted. However, the results “provide a framework for how empiric antibiotics can be tailored according to decision tree patient clusters,” they said.
Combining user-friendly clinical decision trees and multivariable logistic regression models may offer the best opportunities for hospitals to derive local models to help with antimicrobial prescription.
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Use of a clinical decision tree predicted antibiotic resistance in sepsis patients infected with gram-negative bacteria, based on data from 1,618 patients.
Increasing rates of bacterial resistance have “contributed to the unwarranted empiric administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics, further promoting resistance emergence across microbial species,” said M. Cristina Vazquez Guillamet, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and her colleagues (Clin Infect Dis. cix612. 2017 Jul 10. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix612).
The researchers identified adults with sepsis or septic shock caused by bloodstream infections who were treated at a single center between 2008 and 2015. They developed clinical decision trees using the CHAID algorithm (Chi squared Automatic Interaction Detection) to analyze risk factors for resistance associated with three antibiotics: piperacillin-tazobactam (PT), cefepime (CE), and meropenem (ME).
Overall, resistance rates to PT, CE, and ME were 29%, 22%, and 9%, respectively, and 6.6% of the isolates were resistant to all three antibiotics.
Factors associated with increased resistance risk included residence in a nursing home, transfer from an outside hospital, and prior antibiotics use. Resistance to ME was associated with infection with Pseudomonas or Acinetobacter spp, the researchers noted, and resistance to PT was associated with central nervous system and central venous catheter infections.
Clinical decision trees were able to separate patients at low risk for resistance to PT and CE, as well as those with a risk greater than 30% of resistance to PT, CE, or ME. “We also found good overall agreement between the accuracies of the [multivariable logistic regression] models and the decision tree analyses for predicting antibiotic resistance,” the researchers said.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and incomplete reporting of previous antibiotic exposure, the researchers noted. However, the results “provide a framework for how empiric antibiotics can be tailored according to decision tree patient clusters,” they said.
Combining user-friendly clinical decision trees and multivariable logistic regression models may offer the best opportunities for hospitals to derive local models to help with antimicrobial prescription.
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Use of a clinical decision tree predicted antibiotic resistance in sepsis patients infected with gram-negative bacteria, based on data from 1,618 patients.
Increasing rates of bacterial resistance have “contributed to the unwarranted empiric administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics, further promoting resistance emergence across microbial species,” said M. Cristina Vazquez Guillamet, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and her colleagues (Clin Infect Dis. cix612. 2017 Jul 10. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix612).
The researchers identified adults with sepsis or septic shock caused by bloodstream infections who were treated at a single center between 2008 and 2015. They developed clinical decision trees using the CHAID algorithm (Chi squared Automatic Interaction Detection) to analyze risk factors for resistance associated with three antibiotics: piperacillin-tazobactam (PT), cefepime (CE), and meropenem (ME).
Overall, resistance rates to PT, CE, and ME were 29%, 22%, and 9%, respectively, and 6.6% of the isolates were resistant to all three antibiotics.
Factors associated with increased resistance risk included residence in a nursing home, transfer from an outside hospital, and prior antibiotics use. Resistance to ME was associated with infection with Pseudomonas or Acinetobacter spp, the researchers noted, and resistance to PT was associated with central nervous system and central venous catheter infections.
Clinical decision trees were able to separate patients at low risk for resistance to PT and CE, as well as those with a risk greater than 30% of resistance to PT, CE, or ME. “We also found good overall agreement between the accuracies of the [multivariable logistic regression] models and the decision tree analyses for predicting antibiotic resistance,” the researchers said.
The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and incomplete reporting of previous antibiotic exposure, the researchers noted. However, the results “provide a framework for how empiric antibiotics can be tailored according to decision tree patient clusters,” they said.
Combining user-friendly clinical decision trees and multivariable logistic regression models may offer the best opportunities for hospitals to derive local models to help with antimicrobial prescription.
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM CLINICAL INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The model found prevalence rates for resistance to piperacillin-tazobactam, cefepime, and meropenem of 28.6%, 21.8%, and 8.5%, respectively.
Data source: A review of 1,618 adults with sepsis.
Disclosures: The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.