The Hospitalist

As far back as 1983 —13 years before the birth of HM—Medicare created what was then called an “inpatient prospective payment system,” which essentially let Medicare pay a fixed amount for the entirety of a hospital stay, based on diagnosis. Then in 1991, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced one payment for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and even included 90-day readmission in the check.

Fast forward to the past 10 years when accountable care organizations (ACOs) and value-based purchasing (VBP) have been the focus of HM executives looking to take the lead in how to make bundled payments work for them.

The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative was introduced by CMS’s Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) in 2011 and is now compiling its first data sets for the next frontier of payments for episodic care.

For rank-and-file hospitalists who have felt inundated by the regulations and promised payment reforms from ACOs and VBPs, why is this program so important?

“The reason this is so special is that it is one of the few CMS programs that allows providers to be in the driver’s seat,” says Kerry Weiner, MD, chief medical officer of acute and post-acute services at TeamHealth-‎IPC The Hospitalist Company. “They have the opportunity to be accountable and to actually be the designers of reengineering care. The other programs that you just mentioned, like value-based purchasing, largely originate from health systems or the federal government and dictate the principles and the metrics that as a provider you’re going to be evaluated upon.

“This model, the bundled model, gives us the flexibility, scale and brackets of risk that we want to accept and thereby gives us a lot more control over what physicians and physician groups can manage successfully.”

BPCI might be a game-changer for HM because it’s the first of the bundled-payment initiatives that truly falls direct to the care provided by hospitalists. In short, the plan covers 48 defined episodes of care and would parse out payments for those episodes in a holistic—and some say more appropriate—way. Currently, a hospitalist would get paid for a patient’s stay in the hospital and a primary-care physician (PCP) could be paid for some follow-up. If the patient ends up back in the hospital quickly, the hospitalist could get paid again and, upon discharge, a PCP could, too.

But under BPCI, pay would be determined based on the episode of care. The details of who gets paid what and the rules that apply are all likely to evolve, of course, but it’s hoped the basic premise of bundled payments would lower the overall cost of healthcare.

How It Works

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2009, it was mandated that the government establish a five-year pilot program by 2013 that bundled payments for inpatient care, according to the American Hospital Association.

The program has now ramped up to include more than 650 participating organization, not including thousands of physicians that then partner with those groups, over four models. The initiative covers defined episodes of care, both medical and surgical, that begin at the time of inpatient admission and stretch 30, 60 or 90 days post-discharge.

And hospitalists are poised to take the lead on how payment models, especially bundled payments, are shaped over the next few years, says John Nelson, MD, MHM, a co-founder and past president of SHM and and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants in Bellevue, Wash. Nelson says his consulting firm has seen an uptick in calls over the past two years dealing with alternative payment models (APMs).

“Hospitalists find themselves at a vitally important nexus of performance and success on new payment models,” he adds.

Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, chief medical officer of Remedy Partners in Darien, Conn., agrees that BPCI and future iterations of bundled payment programs “are likely to be a potent driver of an evolving hospitalist specialty.” His hypothesis is that APMs such as BPCI are an important way for Medicare to reach its stated goal of having 50% of its fee-for-service payments running through APMs by the end of 2018. To further entice that process, physicians who document at least 25% of their revenue as coming through APMs will get a 5% bonus.

“The stakes are high now,” says Dr. Whitcomb, a past SHM president whose employer is an Awardee Convener in the BPCI initiative, meaning it administers the program. “Medicare [has] laid out the

course for the next two and a half, three years and beyond… It will be crucial for hospitalists to have a path to participate broadly in APMs..”

Dr. Whitcomb says BPCI is the program that should excite hospitalists most because it is more applicable to them moving forward than ACOs, heralded by many healthcare executives several years ago as the future of payment reform.

“With a focus on ambulatory care, ACOs have not broadly involved hospitalists,” he says. “If you look at the State of Hospital Medicine surveys, you look at how many hospitalists are meaningfully working at a system level on ACOs and committees and so forth to improve the performance of the ACO, and it’s very low.”

In fact, just 13.9% of HM groups serving adults only had formed or were participating in a functioning ACO, according to SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report. Another 6% were in the process of forming or participating, the paper reported.

“ACOs have not yet widely worked alongside hospitalist teams to optimize where patients go after hospitalization, which is arguably the most important way to deal with post-acute-care utilization” Dr. Whitcomb adds. “whereas nearly all hospitalists working in bundle payments are focusing on a ‘high-value’ transition out of the hospital.”

Improving Care

While BPCI is focused on payment structure, the program could breed process improvements as well as improve care, says hospitalist Patrick Conway, MD, MHM, MSc, CMS’s chief medical officer and deputy administrator for innovation and quality.

“In addition to assessing the quality of patient outcomes and patient experience, CMS is also monitoring for unintended consequences, including whether there is an increase in the number of specific clinical episodes [such as specific elective surgeries] that would not have been expected in the absence of BPCI,” Dr. Conway says. “CMS can audit and intervene if it detects unintended negative consequences for beneficiaries.”

Dr. Whitcomb says two main ways that hospitalists can use BPCI to calculate value is by having better metrics on post-acute facility utilization and reduced readmission.

Immediate past SHM President Robert Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM, says that BPCI is a major stepping stone to merging quality and payment, along the lines of using Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) data in the value-based payment modifier.

“CMS is saying to all of us in the provider world, ‘We want to get out of the business of unit economics, and we want to start paying for episodes of care and providers should be at risk for quality outcomes,” he says. “BPCI, to me, is one of the rungs in the ladder.”

Dr. Harrington, chief medical officer at Reliant Post-Acute Care Solutions in Atlanta, says that the program’s inclusion of acute-care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), physician group practices, long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and home health agencies working together is what differentiates it from past attempts at payment reform.

“Population health is sort of where this is headed,” he adds. “You sit in a CFO seat at a hospital or healthcare system right now, and five years ago, they’d buy an MRI machine and they wanted throughput through that MRI machine and they wanted as many people run through that MRI machine in the fee-for-service world as they could get to go through that machine. Nowadays, you start to look at it from a population health standpoint and the CFO is going to say to you, ‘I don’t want anybody going through that MRI machine unless they have to.’

“So it’s a total reversal of perspective when hospitals either become joined at the hip with the payors or become the payors and they start taking risk on population health and I think BPCI is one way that Medicare has allowed all of us to test the waters and get comfortable with that.”

Getting Involved

Dr. Weiner is aware that some hospitalists are nervous about bundled payments because their reimbursement is, in part based on care provided outside of their control. Take a surgical procedure where a hospitalist managing the post-surgery care is left to deal with any potential mistakes made. Or the process works fine until there is poor management by ambulatory care once the patient is discharged.

“That is the reason this program exists,” he says. “It poses the question, who is going to be accountable for the care outside of the traditional site of care that providers have been practicing in, your traditional boundaries? I would argue that physicians are more or are just as valuable as any other segment of the healthcare system in managing the transitions of care and in managing the gaps in the system.”

Given how HM has moved into post-discharge care via SNFs and other post-acute care facilities in recent years, Dr. Weiner says that while hospitalists can’t actually deliver all of the care in an “episode,” they can shepherd that process.

Hospitalists “have control over where the patient goes after they leave the acute-care facility, for example,” he says. “They write the orders on what level of care is needed, and they should have the intimate knowledge about what’s available in their community to ensure the patient gets the best care possible. As long as they have the accountability and the power to direct care, then they have the ability to negotiate and recommend care that is best for the patient, so they can select the better facilities in the community, the better agencies in the community, the better resources in the community to ensure that there is better care once the patient leaves the hospital.”

Dr. Conway suggests HM practitioners view BPCI as a model based on “quality and value.” He says early participants helped define clinical episodes, length of episode, and risk track, making the program better suited to address the actual needs of hospitalists.

“I would encourage hospital medicine physicians and care teams to view bundled payment models as an opportunity for them and their patients for better care and smarter spending,” he adds. “CMS continues to explore ways to pay for value and not just volume. Many of the organizations that are participating in BPCI have partnered with their physician communities and established gainsharing agreement. …Most importantly, this model focuses on care coordination for patients across episodes of care.

And that’s the key for Dr. Weiner.

Hospitalists who embrace BPCI can shape it as the predominant inpatient funding model for hospitals over the next five or 10 years. HM administrators and practitioners who don’t seize the opportunity to flesh out the program tacitly cede control to people outside the hospital who may not tailor the program nearly as well, he says.

“Those who have accountability in the end, the systems, the people, the entities, the providers that have the ability, the accountability for it will ultimately design it,” Dr. Weiner adds. “I think physicians, especially hospitalists, should be at that table. We should play an active role in designing the system.” TH

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

The ABCs of $$$s

Hospitalists whoaren’t in leadership, administrative or committee positions may not be familiar with the latest round of alphabet soup that is tied to payment reform and Medicare’s announced push to have 50% of its payments not by fee-for-service by 2018. Here are the most important ones:

• APM: Alternative payment models. The catch-all phrase for a variety of programs and initiatives that are outside the traditional fee-for-service model.
• MACRA: Medicare Access & CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. The act ended the hated sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula and combined CMS’s existing quality reporting programs under one system.
• MIPS: Merit-Based Incentive Payment System. The new program combines parts of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), the value modifier (VM, or value-based payment modifier/VBPM), and the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program into a single program.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

—By Richard Quinn

As far back as 1983 —13 years before the birth of HM—Medicare created what was then called an “inpatient prospective payment system,” which essentially let Medicare pay a fixed amount for the entirety of a hospital stay, based on diagnosis. Then in 1991, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced one payment for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and even included 90-day readmission in the check.

Fast forward to the past 10 years when accountable care organizations (ACOs) and value-based purchasing (VBP) have been the focus of HM executives looking to take the lead in how to make bundled payments work for them.

The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative was introduced by CMS’s Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) in 2011 and is now compiling its first data sets for the next frontier of payments for episodic care.

For rank-and-file hospitalists who have felt inundated by the regulations and promised payment reforms from ACOs and VBPs, why is this program so important?

“The reason this is so special is that it is one of the few CMS programs that allows providers to be in the driver’s seat,” says Kerry Weiner, MD, chief medical officer of acute and post-acute services at TeamHealth-‎IPC The Hospitalist Company. “They have the opportunity to be accountable and to actually be the designers of reengineering care. The other programs that you just mentioned, like value-based purchasing, largely originate from health systems or the federal government and dictate the principles and the metrics that as a provider you’re going to be evaluated upon.

“This model, the bundled model, gives us the flexibility, scale and brackets of risk that we want to accept and thereby gives us a lot more control over what physicians and physician groups can manage successfully.”

BPCI might be a game-changer for HM because it’s the first of the bundled-payment initiatives that truly falls direct to the care provided by hospitalists. In short, the plan covers 48 defined episodes of care and would parse out payments for those episodes in a holistic—and some say more appropriate—way. Currently, a hospitalist would get paid for a patient’s stay in the hospital and a primary-care physician (PCP) could be paid for some follow-up. If the patient ends up back in the hospital quickly, the hospitalist could get paid again and, upon discharge, a PCP could, too.

But under BPCI, pay would be determined based on the episode of care. The details of who gets paid what and the rules that apply are all likely to evolve, of course, but it’s hoped the basic premise of bundled payments would lower the overall cost of healthcare.

How It Works

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2009, it was mandated that the government establish a five-year pilot program by 2013 that bundled payments for inpatient care, according to the American Hospital Association.

The program has now ramped up to include more than 650 participating organization, not including thousands of physicians that then partner with those groups, over four models. The initiative covers defined episodes of care, both medical and surgical, that begin at the time of inpatient admission and stretch 30, 60 or 90 days post-discharge.

And hospitalists are poised to take the lead on how payment models, especially bundled payments, are shaped over the next few years, says John Nelson, MD, MHM, a co-founder and past president of SHM and and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants in Bellevue, Wash. Nelson says his consulting firm has seen an uptick in calls over the past two years dealing with alternative payment models (APMs).

“Hospitalists find themselves at a vitally important nexus of performance and success on new payment models,” he adds.

Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, chief medical officer of Remedy Partners in Darien, Conn., agrees that BPCI and future iterations of bundled payment programs “are likely to be a potent driver of an evolving hospitalist specialty.” His hypothesis is that APMs such as BPCI are an important way for Medicare to reach its stated goal of having 50% of its fee-for-service payments running through APMs by the end of 2018. To further entice that process, physicians who document at least 25% of their revenue as coming through APMs will get a 5% bonus.

“The stakes are high now,” says Dr. Whitcomb, a past SHM president whose employer is an Awardee Convener in the BPCI initiative, meaning it administers the program. “Medicare [has] laid out the

course for the next two and a half, three years and beyond… It will be crucial for hospitalists to have a path to participate broadly in APMs..”

Dr. Whitcomb says BPCI is the program that should excite hospitalists most because it is more applicable to them moving forward than ACOs, heralded by many healthcare executives several years ago as the future of payment reform.

“With a focus on ambulatory care, ACOs have not broadly involved hospitalists,” he says. “If you look at the State of Hospital Medicine surveys, you look at how many hospitalists are meaningfully working at a system level on ACOs and committees and so forth to improve the performance of the ACO, and it’s very low.”

In fact, just 13.9% of HM groups serving adults only had formed or were participating in a functioning ACO, according to SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report. Another 6% were in the process of forming or participating, the paper reported.

“ACOs have not yet widely worked alongside hospitalist teams to optimize where patients go after hospitalization, which is arguably the most important way to deal with post-acute-care utilization” Dr. Whitcomb adds. “whereas nearly all hospitalists working in bundle payments are focusing on a ‘high-value’ transition out of the hospital.”

Improving Care

While BPCI is focused on payment structure, the program could breed process improvements as well as improve care, says hospitalist Patrick Conway, MD, MHM, MSc, CMS’s chief medical officer and deputy administrator for innovation and quality.

“In addition to assessing the quality of patient outcomes and patient experience, CMS is also monitoring for unintended consequences, including whether there is an increase in the number of specific clinical episodes [such as specific elective surgeries] that would not have been expected in the absence of BPCI,” Dr. Conway says. “CMS can audit and intervene if it detects unintended negative consequences for beneficiaries.”

Dr. Whitcomb says two main ways that hospitalists can use BPCI to calculate value is by having better metrics on post-acute facility utilization and reduced readmission.

Immediate past SHM President Robert Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM, says that BPCI is a major stepping stone to merging quality and payment, along the lines of using Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) data in the value-based payment modifier.

“CMS is saying to all of us in the provider world, ‘We want to get out of the business of unit economics, and we want to start paying for episodes of care and providers should be at risk for quality outcomes,” he says. “BPCI, to me, is one of the rungs in the ladder.”

Dr. Harrington, chief medical officer at Reliant Post-Acute Care Solutions in Atlanta, says that the program’s inclusion of acute-care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), physician group practices, long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and home health agencies working together is what differentiates it from past attempts at payment reform.

“Population health is sort of where this is headed,” he adds. “You sit in a CFO seat at a hospital or healthcare system right now, and five years ago, they’d buy an MRI machine and they wanted throughput through that MRI machine and they wanted as many people run through that MRI machine in the fee-for-service world as they could get to go through that machine. Nowadays, you start to look at it from a population health standpoint and the CFO is going to say to you, ‘I don’t want anybody going through that MRI machine unless they have to.’

“So it’s a total reversal of perspective when hospitals either become joined at the hip with the payors or become the payors and they start taking risk on population health and I think BPCI is one way that Medicare has allowed all of us to test the waters and get comfortable with that.”

Getting Involved

Dr. Weiner is aware that some hospitalists are nervous about bundled payments because their reimbursement is, in part based on care provided outside of their control. Take a surgical procedure where a hospitalist managing the post-surgery care is left to deal with any potential mistakes made. Or the process works fine until there is poor management by ambulatory care once the patient is discharged.

“That is the reason this program exists,” he says. “It poses the question, who is going to be accountable for the care outside of the traditional site of care that providers have been practicing in, your traditional boundaries? I would argue that physicians are more or are just as valuable as any other segment of the healthcare system in managing the transitions of care and in managing the gaps in the system.”

Given how HM has moved into post-discharge care via SNFs and other post-acute care facilities in recent years, Dr. Weiner says that while hospitalists can’t actually deliver all of the care in an “episode,” they can shepherd that process.

Hospitalists “have control over where the patient goes after they leave the acute-care facility, for example,” he says. “They write the orders on what level of care is needed, and they should have the intimate knowledge about what’s available in their community to ensure the patient gets the best care possible. As long as they have the accountability and the power to direct care, then they have the ability to negotiate and recommend care that is best for the patient, so they can select the better facilities in the community, the better agencies in the community, the better resources in the community to ensure that there is better care once the patient leaves the hospital.”

Dr. Conway suggests HM practitioners view BPCI as a model based on “quality and value.” He says early participants helped define clinical episodes, length of episode, and risk track, making the program better suited to address the actual needs of hospitalists.

“I would encourage hospital medicine physicians and care teams to view bundled payment models as an opportunity for them and their patients for better care and smarter spending,” he adds. “CMS continues to explore ways to pay for value and not just volume. Many of the organizations that are participating in BPCI have partnered with their physician communities and established gainsharing agreement. …Most importantly, this model focuses on care coordination for patients across episodes of care.

And that’s the key for Dr. Weiner.

Hospitalists who embrace BPCI can shape it as the predominant inpatient funding model for hospitals over the next five or 10 years. HM administrators and practitioners who don’t seize the opportunity to flesh out the program tacitly cede control to people outside the hospital who may not tailor the program nearly as well, he says.

“Those who have accountability in the end, the systems, the people, the entities, the providers that have the ability, the accountability for it will ultimately design it,” Dr. Weiner adds. “I think physicians, especially hospitalists, should be at that table. We should play an active role in designing the system.” TH

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

The ABCs of $$$s

Hospitalists whoaren’t in leadership, administrative or committee positions may not be familiar with the latest round of alphabet soup that is tied to payment reform and Medicare’s announced push to have 50% of its payments not by fee-for-service by 2018. Here are the most important ones:

• APM: Alternative payment models. The catch-all phrase for a variety of programs and initiatives that are outside the traditional fee-for-service model.
• MACRA: Medicare Access & CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. The act ended the hated sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula and combined CMS’s existing quality reporting programs under one system.
• MIPS: Merit-Based Incentive Payment System. The new program combines parts of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), the value modifier (VM, or value-based payment modifier/VBPM), and the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program into a single program.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

—By Richard Quinn

As far back as 1983 —13 years before the birth of HM—Medicare created what was then called an “inpatient prospective payment system,” which essentially let Medicare pay a fixed amount for the entirety of a hospital stay, based on diagnosis. Then in 1991, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) introduced one payment for coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and even included 90-day readmission in the check.

Fast forward to the past 10 years when accountable care organizations (ACOs) and value-based purchasing (VBP) have been the focus of HM executives looking to take the lead in how to make bundled payments work for them.

The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) initiative was introduced by CMS’s Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) in 2011 and is now compiling its first data sets for the next frontier of payments for episodic care.

For rank-and-file hospitalists who have felt inundated by the regulations and promised payment reforms from ACOs and VBPs, why is this program so important?

“The reason this is so special is that it is one of the few CMS programs that allows providers to be in the driver’s seat,” says Kerry Weiner, MD, chief medical officer of acute and post-acute services at TeamHealth-‎IPC The Hospitalist Company. “They have the opportunity to be accountable and to actually be the designers of reengineering care. The other programs that you just mentioned, like value-based purchasing, largely originate from health systems or the federal government and dictate the principles and the metrics that as a provider you’re going to be evaluated upon.

“This model, the bundled model, gives us the flexibility, scale and brackets of risk that we want to accept and thereby gives us a lot more control over what physicians and physician groups can manage successfully.”

BPCI might be a game-changer for HM because it’s the first of the bundled-payment initiatives that truly falls direct to the care provided by hospitalists. In short, the plan covers 48 defined episodes of care and would parse out payments for those episodes in a holistic—and some say more appropriate—way. Currently, a hospitalist would get paid for a patient’s stay in the hospital and a primary-care physician (PCP) could be paid for some follow-up. If the patient ends up back in the hospital quickly, the hospitalist could get paid again and, upon discharge, a PCP could, too.

But under BPCI, pay would be determined based on the episode of care. The details of who gets paid what and the rules that apply are all likely to evolve, of course, but it’s hoped the basic premise of bundled payments would lower the overall cost of healthcare.

How It Works

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2009, it was mandated that the government establish a five-year pilot program by 2013 that bundled payments for inpatient care, according to the American Hospital Association.

The program has now ramped up to include more than 650 participating organization, not including thousands of physicians that then partner with those groups, over four models. The initiative covers defined episodes of care, both medical and surgical, that begin at the time of inpatient admission and stretch 30, 60 or 90 days post-discharge.

And hospitalists are poised to take the lead on how payment models, especially bundled payments, are shaped over the next few years, says John Nelson, MD, MHM, a co-founder and past president of SHM and and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants in Bellevue, Wash. Nelson says his consulting firm has seen an uptick in calls over the past two years dealing with alternative payment models (APMs).

“Hospitalists find themselves at a vitally important nexus of performance and success on new payment models,” he adds.

Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM, chief medical officer of Remedy Partners in Darien, Conn., agrees that BPCI and future iterations of bundled payment programs “are likely to be a potent driver of an evolving hospitalist specialty.” His hypothesis is that APMs such as BPCI are an important way for Medicare to reach its stated goal of having 50% of its fee-for-service payments running through APMs by the end of 2018. To further entice that process, physicians who document at least 25% of their revenue as coming through APMs will get a 5% bonus.

“The stakes are high now,” says Dr. Whitcomb, a past SHM president whose employer is an Awardee Convener in the BPCI initiative, meaning it administers the program. “Medicare [has] laid out the

course for the next two and a half, three years and beyond… It will be crucial for hospitalists to have a path to participate broadly in APMs..”

Dr. Whitcomb says BPCI is the program that should excite hospitalists most because it is more applicable to them moving forward than ACOs, heralded by many healthcare executives several years ago as the future of payment reform.

“With a focus on ambulatory care, ACOs have not broadly involved hospitalists,” he says. “If you look at the State of Hospital Medicine surveys, you look at how many hospitalists are meaningfully working at a system level on ACOs and committees and so forth to improve the performance of the ACO, and it’s very low.”

In fact, just 13.9% of HM groups serving adults only had formed or were participating in a functioning ACO, according to SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine report. Another 6% were in the process of forming or participating, the paper reported.

“ACOs have not yet widely worked alongside hospitalist teams to optimize where patients go after hospitalization, which is arguably the most important way to deal with post-acute-care utilization” Dr. Whitcomb adds. “whereas nearly all hospitalists working in bundle payments are focusing on a ‘high-value’ transition out of the hospital.”

Improving Care

While BPCI is focused on payment structure, the program could breed process improvements as well as improve care, says hospitalist Patrick Conway, MD, MHM, MSc, CMS’s chief medical officer and deputy administrator for innovation and quality.

“In addition to assessing the quality of patient outcomes and patient experience, CMS is also monitoring for unintended consequences, including whether there is an increase in the number of specific clinical episodes [such as specific elective surgeries] that would not have been expected in the absence of BPCI,” Dr. Conway says. “CMS can audit and intervene if it detects unintended negative consequences for beneficiaries.”

Dr. Whitcomb says two main ways that hospitalists can use BPCI to calculate value is by having better metrics on post-acute facility utilization and reduced readmission.

Immediate past SHM President Robert Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM, says that BPCI is a major stepping stone to merging quality and payment, along the lines of using Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) data in the value-based payment modifier.

“CMS is saying to all of us in the provider world, ‘We want to get out of the business of unit economics, and we want to start paying for episodes of care and providers should be at risk for quality outcomes,” he says. “BPCI, to me, is one of the rungs in the ladder.”

Dr. Harrington, chief medical officer at Reliant Post-Acute Care Solutions in Atlanta, says that the program’s inclusion of acute-care hospitals, skilled nursing facilities (SNFs), physician group practices, long-term care hospitals, inpatient rehabilitation facilities, and home health agencies working together is what differentiates it from past attempts at payment reform.

“Population health is sort of where this is headed,” he adds. “You sit in a CFO seat at a hospital or healthcare system right now, and five years ago, they’d buy an MRI machine and they wanted throughput through that MRI machine and they wanted as many people run through that MRI machine in the fee-for-service world as they could get to go through that machine. Nowadays, you start to look at it from a population health standpoint and the CFO is going to say to you, ‘I don’t want anybody going through that MRI machine unless they have to.’

“So it’s a total reversal of perspective when hospitals either become joined at the hip with the payors or become the payors and they start taking risk on population health and I think BPCI is one way that Medicare has allowed all of us to test the waters and get comfortable with that.”

Getting Involved

Dr. Weiner is aware that some hospitalists are nervous about bundled payments because their reimbursement is, in part based on care provided outside of their control. Take a surgical procedure where a hospitalist managing the post-surgery care is left to deal with any potential mistakes made. Or the process works fine until there is poor management by ambulatory care once the patient is discharged.

“That is the reason this program exists,” he says. “It poses the question, who is going to be accountable for the care outside of the traditional site of care that providers have been practicing in, your traditional boundaries? I would argue that physicians are more or are just as valuable as any other segment of the healthcare system in managing the transitions of care and in managing the gaps in the system.”

Given how HM has moved into post-discharge care via SNFs and other post-acute care facilities in recent years, Dr. Weiner says that while hospitalists can’t actually deliver all of the care in an “episode,” they can shepherd that process.

Hospitalists “have control over where the patient goes after they leave the acute-care facility, for example,” he says. “They write the orders on what level of care is needed, and they should have the intimate knowledge about what’s available in their community to ensure the patient gets the best care possible. As long as they have the accountability and the power to direct care, then they have the ability to negotiate and recommend care that is best for the patient, so they can select the better facilities in the community, the better agencies in the community, the better resources in the community to ensure that there is better care once the patient leaves the hospital.”

Dr. Conway suggests HM practitioners view BPCI as a model based on “quality and value.” He says early participants helped define clinical episodes, length of episode, and risk track, making the program better suited to address the actual needs of hospitalists.

“I would encourage hospital medicine physicians and care teams to view bundled payment models as an opportunity for them and their patients for better care and smarter spending,” he adds. “CMS continues to explore ways to pay for value and not just volume. Many of the organizations that are participating in BPCI have partnered with their physician communities and established gainsharing agreement. …Most importantly, this model focuses on care coordination for patients across episodes of care.

And that’s the key for Dr. Weiner.

Hospitalists who embrace BPCI can shape it as the predominant inpatient funding model for hospitals over the next five or 10 years. HM administrators and practitioners who don’t seize the opportunity to flesh out the program tacitly cede control to people outside the hospital who may not tailor the program nearly as well, he says.

“Those who have accountability in the end, the systems, the people, the entities, the providers that have the ability, the accountability for it will ultimately design it,” Dr. Weiner adds. “I think physicians, especially hospitalists, should be at that table. We should play an active role in designing the system.” TH

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

The ABCs of $$$s

Hospitalists whoaren’t in leadership, administrative or committee positions may not be familiar with the latest round of alphabet soup that is tied to payment reform and Medicare’s announced push to have 50% of its payments not by fee-for-service by 2018. Here are the most important ones:

• APM: Alternative payment models. The catch-all phrase for a variety of programs and initiatives that are outside the traditional fee-for-service model.
• MACRA: Medicare Access & CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015. The act ended the hated sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula and combined CMS’s existing quality reporting programs under one system.
• MIPS: Merit-Based Incentive Payment System. The new program combines parts of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS), the value modifier (VM, or value-based payment modifier/VBPM), and the Medicare electronic health record (EHR) incentive program into a single program.

Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

—By Richard Quinn

SHM is now accepting submissions for the Hospital Medicine 2017 (HM17) Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) abstract and poster competition. Seize the opportunity to present your research, innovative ideas, and clinical stories to a national audience at HM17, May 1–4, 2017, in Las Vegas. Learn more by visiting www.hospitalmedicine2017.org.

SHM strongly recommends that you complete your submission well ahead of the deadline of Monday, December 5, 2016. New to SHM? Registration for HM17 includes a complimentary one-year SHM membership. Register online prior to March 6, 2017, to receive the best registration rates.

SHM is now accepting submissions for the Hospital Medicine 2017 (HM17) Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) abstract and poster competition. Seize the opportunity to present your research, innovative ideas, and clinical stories to a national audience at HM17, May 1–4, 2017, in Las Vegas. Learn more by visiting www.hospitalmedicine2017.org.

SHM strongly recommends that you complete your submission well ahead of the deadline of Monday, December 5, 2016. New to SHM? Registration for HM17 includes a complimentary one-year SHM membership. Register online prior to March 6, 2017, to receive the best registration rates.

SHM is now accepting submissions for the Hospital Medicine 2017 (HM17) Research, Innovations, and Clinical Vignettes (RIV) abstract and poster competition. Seize the opportunity to present your research, innovative ideas, and clinical stories to a national audience at HM17, May 1–4, 2017, in Las Vegas. Learn more by visiting www.hospitalmedicine2017.org.

SHM strongly recommends that you complete your submission well ahead of the deadline of Monday, December 5, 2016. New to SHM? Registration for HM17 includes a complimentary one-year SHM membership. Register online prior to March 6, 2017, to receive the best registration rates.

The regular decision application is open through November 30, with a decision on or before December 31, 2016. Learn how you can join other hospitalists who have earned this exclusive designation and recognition at www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.

The regular decision application is open through November 30, with a decision on or before December 31, 2016. Learn how you can join other hospitalists who have earned this exclusive designation and recognition at www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.

The regular decision application is open through November 30, with a decision on or before December 31, 2016. Learn how you can join other hospitalists who have earned this exclusive designation and recognition at www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.

Clinical Question: Does improving hand hygiene compliance from a high level (>80%) to a very high level (>95%) reduce healthcare-associated infections?

Background: Hand hygiene compliance remains an elusive infection prevention parameter to master. Studies show a correlation in reduction of healthcare-associated infections with improved hand hygiene compliance from a low to medium level, but little data exist on very high rates of hand hygiene compliance.

Study Design: Prospective observational.

Setting: University of North Carolina Hospitals.

Synopsis: Researchers recruited all hospital staff to be hand hygiene monitors, thereby using the Hawthorne effect to drive hand hygiene compliance rates. Over a 17-month period, >4,000 unique observers made >140,000 observations. Data showed a significant increase in hand hygiene compliance rates of about 10% (P<0.001) and a significant decrease in overall healthcare-associated infection rates of about 6% (P=0.0066). A reduction in healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile infection of 14% was observed in association with the improved hand hygiene compliance. No association with multidrug-resistant organisms was found.

Bottom Line: There is continued correlation between improved hand hygiene compliance and reduced healthcare-associated infection rates even at very high levels (>95%) of hand hygiene compliance.

Citation: Sickbert-Bennett EE, DiBiase LM, Willis TM, Wolak ES, Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Reduction of healthcare-associated infections by exceeding high compliance with hand hygiene practices. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(9):1628-1630.

Short Take

Avoid Fluoroquinolones in Acute Sinusitis, Acute Exacerbations of Bronchitis, and Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections If Other Treatment Options Exist

Because fluoroquinolones have been associated with potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, and nerves, the FDA recently updated the boxed warning to state that the risk of use likely outweighs the benefit for uncomplicated infections.

Citation: Fluoroquinolone Antibacterial Drugs for Systemic Use: Drug Safety Communication - Warnings Updated Due to Disabling Side Effects. FDA website. Accessed September 9, 2016.

Clinical Question: Does improving hand hygiene compliance from a high level (>80%) to a very high level (>95%) reduce healthcare-associated infections?

Background: Hand hygiene compliance remains an elusive infection prevention parameter to master. Studies show a correlation in reduction of healthcare-associated infections with improved hand hygiene compliance from a low to medium level, but little data exist on very high rates of hand hygiene compliance.

Study Design: Prospective observational.

Setting: University of North Carolina Hospitals.

Synopsis: Researchers recruited all hospital staff to be hand hygiene monitors, thereby using the Hawthorne effect to drive hand hygiene compliance rates. Over a 17-month period, >4,000 unique observers made >140,000 observations. Data showed a significant increase in hand hygiene compliance rates of about 10% (P<0.001) and a significant decrease in overall healthcare-associated infection rates of about 6% (P=0.0066). A reduction in healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile infection of 14% was observed in association with the improved hand hygiene compliance. No association with multidrug-resistant organisms was found.

Bottom Line: There is continued correlation between improved hand hygiene compliance and reduced healthcare-associated infection rates even at very high levels (>95%) of hand hygiene compliance.

Citation: Sickbert-Bennett EE, DiBiase LM, Willis TM, Wolak ES, Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Reduction of healthcare-associated infections by exceeding high compliance with hand hygiene practices. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(9):1628-1630.

Short Take

Avoid Fluoroquinolones in Acute Sinusitis, Acute Exacerbations of Bronchitis, and Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections If Other Treatment Options Exist

Because fluoroquinolones have been associated with potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, and nerves, the FDA recently updated the boxed warning to state that the risk of use likely outweighs the benefit for uncomplicated infections.

Citation: Fluoroquinolone Antibacterial Drugs for Systemic Use: Drug Safety Communication - Warnings Updated Due to Disabling Side Effects. FDA website. Accessed September 9, 2016.

Clinical Question: Does improving hand hygiene compliance from a high level (>80%) to a very high level (>95%) reduce healthcare-associated infections?

Background: Hand hygiene compliance remains an elusive infection prevention parameter to master. Studies show a correlation in reduction of healthcare-associated infections with improved hand hygiene compliance from a low to medium level, but little data exist on very high rates of hand hygiene compliance.

Study Design: Prospective observational.

Setting: University of North Carolina Hospitals.

Synopsis: Researchers recruited all hospital staff to be hand hygiene monitors, thereby using the Hawthorne effect to drive hand hygiene compliance rates. Over a 17-month period, >4,000 unique observers made >140,000 observations. Data showed a significant increase in hand hygiene compliance rates of about 10% (P<0.001) and a significant decrease in overall healthcare-associated infection rates of about 6% (P=0.0066). A reduction in healthcare-associated Clostridium difficile infection of 14% was observed in association with the improved hand hygiene compliance. No association with multidrug-resistant organisms was found.

Bottom Line: There is continued correlation between improved hand hygiene compliance and reduced healthcare-associated infection rates even at very high levels (>95%) of hand hygiene compliance.

Citation: Sickbert-Bennett EE, DiBiase LM, Willis TM, Wolak ES, Weber DJ, Rutala WA. Reduction of healthcare-associated infections by exceeding high compliance with hand hygiene practices. Emerg Infect Dis. 2016;22(9):1628-1630.

Short Take

Avoid Fluoroquinolones in Acute Sinusitis, Acute Exacerbations of Bronchitis, and Uncomplicated Urinary Tract Infections If Other Treatment Options Exist

Because fluoroquinolones have been associated with potentially permanent side effects involving tendons, muscles, joints, and nerves, the FDA recently updated the boxed warning to state that the risk of use likely outweighs the benefit for uncomplicated infections.

Citation: Fluoroquinolone Antibacterial Drugs for Systemic Use: Drug Safety Communication - Warnings Updated Due to Disabling Side Effects. FDA website. Accessed September 9, 2016.

Clinical Question: Does direct observation underestimate physician compliance with hand hygiene (HH) compared to other professional groups due to the Hawthorne effect?

Background: Although it is well-known that HH is imperative to infection control, physician compliance remains suboptimal and is often reported to be below that of nurses. The Hawthorne effect may be contributing to this perceived difference because nurses, who work on the same unit consistently, may more readily recognize hospital auditors.

Study Design: Observational.

Setting: 800-bed acute-care academic hospital in Canada.

Synopsis: Two students were trained to covertly observe physician and nursing HH compliance on inpatient units. For two months, students rotated units every week to minimize risk of discovery. Their findings were compared with data gathered by hospital auditors over the same time period.

Covertly observed HH compliance was 50% (799/1,597 opportunities) compared with 83.7% (2,769/3,309) reported by hospital auditors (P<0.0002). The difference in physician compliance was 19% (73.2% compliance with overt observation versus 54.2% with covert observation). The difference was much higher for nurses at 40.7% (85.8% compliance with overt observation versus 45.1% with covert observation). Attending physician behaviors heavily influenced team behaviors—79.5% of trainees were compliant if their attending was compliant compared with 18.9% if attending was not (P<0.0002).

Bottom Line: Traditional HH audit findings that physicians are less compliant than nurses may be at least partially due to the Hawthorne effect. Nonetheless, all healthcare providers have substantial room for improvement, and attending physicians are powerful role models to effect this change.

Citation: Kovacs-Litman A, Wong K, Shojania KJ, Callery S, Vearncombe M, Leis J. Do physicians clean their hands? Insights from a covert observational study [published online ahead of print July 5, 2016]. J Hosp Med.

Clinical Question: Does direct observation underestimate physician compliance with hand hygiene (HH) compared to other professional groups due to the Hawthorne effect?

Background: Although it is well-known that HH is imperative to infection control, physician compliance remains suboptimal and is often reported to be below that of nurses. The Hawthorne effect may be contributing to this perceived difference because nurses, who work on the same unit consistently, may more readily recognize hospital auditors.

Study Design: Observational.

Setting: 800-bed acute-care academic hospital in Canada.

Synopsis: Two students were trained to covertly observe physician and nursing HH compliance on inpatient units. For two months, students rotated units every week to minimize risk of discovery. Their findings were compared with data gathered by hospital auditors over the same time period.

Covertly observed HH compliance was 50% (799/1,597 opportunities) compared with 83.7% (2,769/3,309) reported by hospital auditors (P<0.0002). The difference in physician compliance was 19% (73.2% compliance with overt observation versus 54.2% with covert observation). The difference was much higher for nurses at 40.7% (85.8% compliance with overt observation versus 45.1% with covert observation). Attending physician behaviors heavily influenced team behaviors—79.5% of trainees were compliant if their attending was compliant compared with 18.9% if attending was not (P<0.0002).

Bottom Line: Traditional HH audit findings that physicians are less compliant than nurses may be at least partially due to the Hawthorne effect. Nonetheless, all healthcare providers have substantial room for improvement, and attending physicians are powerful role models to effect this change.

Citation: Kovacs-Litman A, Wong K, Shojania KJ, Callery S, Vearncombe M, Leis J. Do physicians clean their hands? Insights from a covert observational study [published online ahead of print July 5, 2016]. J Hosp Med.

Clinical Question: Does direct observation underestimate physician compliance with hand hygiene (HH) compared to other professional groups due to the Hawthorne effect?

Background: Although it is well-known that HH is imperative to infection control, physician compliance remains suboptimal and is often reported to be below that of nurses. The Hawthorne effect may be contributing to this perceived difference because nurses, who work on the same unit consistently, may more readily recognize hospital auditors.

Study Design: Observational.

Setting: 800-bed acute-care academic hospital in Canada.

Synopsis: Two students were trained to covertly observe physician and nursing HH compliance on inpatient units. For two months, students rotated units every week to minimize risk of discovery. Their findings were compared with data gathered by hospital auditors over the same time period.

Covertly observed HH compliance was 50% (799/1,597 opportunities) compared with 83.7% (2,769/3,309) reported by hospital auditors (P<0.0002). The difference in physician compliance was 19% (73.2% compliance with overt observation versus 54.2% with covert observation). The difference was much higher for nurses at 40.7% (85.8% compliance with overt observation versus 45.1% with covert observation). Attending physician behaviors heavily influenced team behaviors—79.5% of trainees were compliant if their attending was compliant compared with 18.9% if attending was not (P<0.0002).

Bottom Line: Traditional HH audit findings that physicians are less compliant than nurses may be at least partially due to the Hawthorne effect. Nonetheless, all healthcare providers have substantial room for improvement, and attending physicians are powerful role models to effect this change.

Citation: Kovacs-Litman A, Wong K, Shojania KJ, Callery S, Vearncombe M, Leis J. Do physicians clean their hands? Insights from a covert observational study [published online ahead of print July 5, 2016]. J Hosp Med.

In recognition of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Month, check out SHM’s free guide and toolkit to improve the care of patients hospitalized for an exacerbation of COPD. The toolkit can also help you make changes to COPD care at both the individual patient and institutional level.

Download the guide or view the toolkit today at www.hospitalmedicine.org/copd.

In recognition of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Month, check out SHM’s free guide and toolkit to improve the care of patients hospitalized for an exacerbation of COPD. The toolkit can also help you make changes to COPD care at both the individual patient and institutional level.

Download the guide or view the toolkit today at www.hospitalmedicine.org/copd.

In recognition of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) Month, check out SHM’s free guide and toolkit to improve the care of patients hospitalized for an exacerbation of COPD. The toolkit can also help you make changes to COPD care at both the individual patient and institutional level.

Download the guide or view the toolkit today at www.hospitalmedicine.org/copd.

Delivering feedback is a fundamental skill in medicine. Feedback ensures trainees remain on track to meet expected goals and standards. At some point in our careers, all of us have been on the receiving end of feedback. Many of us have likely had the opportunity to provide feedback to students or junior residents during our training. Moving from the role of trainee to supervisor presents a unique set of challenges and responsibilities to the young hospitalist.

Despite an extensive amount published on feedback, translation from theory to practice remains challenging.1 When surveyed, medical students and residents commonly perceive they do not receive enough feedback.2 Conversely, attendees of faculty development courses frequently indicate their greatest need is learning how to give feedback more effectively.3 Why does this performance gap exist?

The Issues

Careful exploration of our current training model reveals several systemic barriers to effective feedback. For one, many faculty members who supervise trainees are not formally trained educators. As such, they may lack the proper skills set to deliver feedback.1 Additionally, lack of time is often cited in the pressure to complete both clinical and academic duties within a packed workday. If learners aren’t directly observed by their supervisors, the impact and quality of feedback substantially diminishes.4 Likewise, if feedback is not embedded in the local culture and expected by both educator and learner, it can be perceived as a burden rather than a valuable exercise.

Feedback can evoke deep, sometimes subconscious emotional responses in both supervisor and recipient. During verbal interactions with trainees, dialogue tends to assume positive or neutral tones regardless of content.5 To avoid bruising a young learner’s ego, a well-intentioned educator may talk around the actual problem, using indirect statements in an attempt to “soften the blow.” Fearing a negative evaluation, the student may support and reinforce the teacher’s avoidance, further obscuring the message being sent. This concept is known as “vanishing feedback” and is a common barrier to the delivery of effective feedback.4 Educators additionally may shy away from giving constructive feedback because they fear reprisal on teaching evaluations.

Mounting evidence shows physicians, as a whole, tend to overestimate their abilities, and many are not skilled at self-assessment.6 When physician-learners receive feedback incongruent with their own self-perceptions, it may trigger feelings of anger, sadness, guilt, or self-doubt, which may block the receipt of any useful information. The so-called “millennial generation effect,” describing current medical school graduates, may further compound this issue. Millennials are “raised with an emphasis on being special; a previous absence of a balanced focus on weakness may present a barrier to accepting the validity of negative feedback.”1,5 As such, certain learners may intentionally avoid feedback as a method of self-preservation.

A New Approach

Many of us were taught to use the “feedback sandwich,” in which two positive statements surround a single negative corrective comment. This model, however, has some notable weaknesses. Given the ratio of positive to negative statements, educators may concentrate too heavily on the positive, diluting any constructive criticism and leaving learners with a false impression. Alternatively, trainees may learn to ignore positive comments while waiting for the other shoe to drop. As such, any initial positivity may feel insincere and artificial.7

Instead, we advocate using the “reflective feedback conversation,” a model that begins with self-assessment and places the onus on learners to identify their strengths and weaknesses.7 For example, a trainee might remark, “I struggle with controlling my temper when I am stressed.” The educator might reinforce that comment by stating, “I noticed you raised your voice last week when talking with the nurse because she forgot to administer Lasix.” To conclude the conversation, the teacher and student discuss shared goal setting and mutually agree on future improvements. Notably, this model does not facilitate conversation about problems a learner fails to detect. Hence, the educator must be prepared to deliver feedback outside of the learner’s own assessment.

Here are our favorite tips and tricks for delivering effective feedback:

1. Establish a positive learning climate. Educators must partner with learners to generate an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect.1,3,4,8 An example of how to ally with learners is to announce early on, “As a teacher, I really value feedback. As such, I plan on giving feedback throughout the rotation because I want you to be the best doctor you can possibly be.”
2. Require reflection. Effective feedback hinges on learners’ ability to self-assess.2,5,7 One approach is starting each feedback session with a simple open-ended question, such as, “How do you think you are doing?” Alternatively, you could be more specific, such as, “How do you think you did in managing the patient’s electrolytes when he went into diabetic ketoacidosis?”
3. Be prompt. Feedback should be timely.1,4,7,8 An important distinction between feedback and evaluation is that feedback is formative, enabling learners to make needed changes before the end of a course, whereas evaluation is summative and presents a distinct judgment.1,4 If feedback is withheld until the end of the rotation, learners will not have an opportunity to remediate behaviors.
4. Take advantage of different formats. Try a brief, concrete suggestion on the fly. A statement that might occur on bedside rounds is, “Allow me to show you a better technique to measure the liver span.” Or use a teachable event, such as a medical error or a particularly challenging case. Pulling interns aside after they deliver sobering news is a great opportunity to provide feedback in a semiformal fashion. Finally, formal sit-down feedback should be scheduled halfway through each rotation to ensure learners are on track and to address any major issues, such as professionalism or an inadequate clinical performance.2
5. Be specific. Focus on behaviors and examples rather than judgments.1,2,4,7,8 For example, we have all experienced the inattentive student. Instead of framing feedback as, “It seems like you don’t care about medicine because you weren’t paying attention on rounds,” one could say, “I noticed you were fidgeting and looking at your phone during Aaron’s presentation.” Feedback should be based on firsthand observations and should be descriptive, utilizing neutral language.
6. Avoid information overload. Feedback is best consumed in small snacks rather than an all-you-can-eat buffet.1,7 Your goal should not be to completely overhaul a learner but rather to focus on a few observable, correctable behaviors.
7. Be empathetic. To make negative feedback less threatening, take yourself off the pedestal. An example of this could be saying, “As a third-year medical student, I struggled to remember all the right questions to ask, so performing a thorough review of systems helped me to catch the things I would miss.”
8. Confirm understanding. It is important to know the learner has heard the feedback and to conclude the session with an action plan.

Just as hospitals engage in continuous quality improvement, as professionals, we should all strive for continuous self-improvement. Giving and receiving feedback is critical to personal growth. It is our hope that by using these tips, all of us will improve, creating a new generation of providers who give effective and useful feedback.

References

1. Anderson PA. Giving feedback on clinical skills: are we starving our young? J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4(2):154-158. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-000295.1.
2. Branch WT, Paranjape A. Feedback and reflection: teaching methods for clinical settings. Acad Med. 2002;77(12 Pt 1):1185-1188.
3. Hewson MG, Little ML. Giving feedback in medical education: verification of recommended techniques. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(2):111-116.
4. Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983;250(6):777-781.
5. Bing-You RG, Trowbridge RL. Why medical educators may be failing at feedback. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1330-1331.
6. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1094-1102.
7. Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. BMJ. 2008;337:a1961.
8. Ramani S, Krackov SK. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach. 2012;34(10):787-791.

Delivering feedback is a fundamental skill in medicine. Feedback ensures trainees remain on track to meet expected goals and standards. At some point in our careers, all of us have been on the receiving end of feedback. Many of us have likely had the opportunity to provide feedback to students or junior residents during our training. Moving from the role of trainee to supervisor presents a unique set of challenges and responsibilities to the young hospitalist.

Despite an extensive amount published on feedback, translation from theory to practice remains challenging.1 When surveyed, medical students and residents commonly perceive they do not receive enough feedback.2 Conversely, attendees of faculty development courses frequently indicate their greatest need is learning how to give feedback more effectively.3 Why does this performance gap exist?

The Issues

Careful exploration of our current training model reveals several systemic barriers to effective feedback. For one, many faculty members who supervise trainees are not formally trained educators. As such, they may lack the proper skills set to deliver feedback.1 Additionally, lack of time is often cited in the pressure to complete both clinical and academic duties within a packed workday. If learners aren’t directly observed by their supervisors, the impact and quality of feedback substantially diminishes.4 Likewise, if feedback is not embedded in the local culture and expected by both educator and learner, it can be perceived as a burden rather than a valuable exercise.

Feedback can evoke deep, sometimes subconscious emotional responses in both supervisor and recipient. During verbal interactions with trainees, dialogue tends to assume positive or neutral tones regardless of content.5 To avoid bruising a young learner’s ego, a well-intentioned educator may talk around the actual problem, using indirect statements in an attempt to “soften the blow.” Fearing a negative evaluation, the student may support and reinforce the teacher’s avoidance, further obscuring the message being sent. This concept is known as “vanishing feedback” and is a common barrier to the delivery of effective feedback.4 Educators additionally may shy away from giving constructive feedback because they fear reprisal on teaching evaluations.

Mounting evidence shows physicians, as a whole, tend to overestimate their abilities, and many are not skilled at self-assessment.6 When physician-learners receive feedback incongruent with their own self-perceptions, it may trigger feelings of anger, sadness, guilt, or self-doubt, which may block the receipt of any useful information. The so-called “millennial generation effect,” describing current medical school graduates, may further compound this issue. Millennials are “raised with an emphasis on being special; a previous absence of a balanced focus on weakness may present a barrier to accepting the validity of negative feedback.”1,5 As such, certain learners may intentionally avoid feedback as a method of self-preservation.

A New Approach

Many of us were taught to use the “feedback sandwich,” in which two positive statements surround a single negative corrective comment. This model, however, has some notable weaknesses. Given the ratio of positive to negative statements, educators may concentrate too heavily on the positive, diluting any constructive criticism and leaving learners with a false impression. Alternatively, trainees may learn to ignore positive comments while waiting for the other shoe to drop. As such, any initial positivity may feel insincere and artificial.7

Instead, we advocate using the “reflective feedback conversation,” a model that begins with self-assessment and places the onus on learners to identify their strengths and weaknesses.7 For example, a trainee might remark, “I struggle with controlling my temper when I am stressed.” The educator might reinforce that comment by stating, “I noticed you raised your voice last week when talking with the nurse because she forgot to administer Lasix.” To conclude the conversation, the teacher and student discuss shared goal setting and mutually agree on future improvements. Notably, this model does not facilitate conversation about problems a learner fails to detect. Hence, the educator must be prepared to deliver feedback outside of the learner’s own assessment.

Here are our favorite tips and tricks for delivering effective feedback:

1. Establish a positive learning climate. Educators must partner with learners to generate an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect.1,3,4,8 An example of how to ally with learners is to announce early on, “As a teacher, I really value feedback. As such, I plan on giving feedback throughout the rotation because I want you to be the best doctor you can possibly be.”
2. Require reflection. Effective feedback hinges on learners’ ability to self-assess.2,5,7 One approach is starting each feedback session with a simple open-ended question, such as, “How do you think you are doing?” Alternatively, you could be more specific, such as, “How do you think you did in managing the patient’s electrolytes when he went into diabetic ketoacidosis?”
3. Be prompt. Feedback should be timely.1,4,7,8 An important distinction between feedback and evaluation is that feedback is formative, enabling learners to make needed changes before the end of a course, whereas evaluation is summative and presents a distinct judgment.1,4 If feedback is withheld until the end of the rotation, learners will not have an opportunity to remediate behaviors.
4. Take advantage of different formats. Try a brief, concrete suggestion on the fly. A statement that might occur on bedside rounds is, “Allow me to show you a better technique to measure the liver span.” Or use a teachable event, such as a medical error or a particularly challenging case. Pulling interns aside after they deliver sobering news is a great opportunity to provide feedback in a semiformal fashion. Finally, formal sit-down feedback should be scheduled halfway through each rotation to ensure learners are on track and to address any major issues, such as professionalism or an inadequate clinical performance.2
5. Be specific. Focus on behaviors and examples rather than judgments.1,2,4,7,8 For example, we have all experienced the inattentive student. Instead of framing feedback as, “It seems like you don’t care about medicine because you weren’t paying attention on rounds,” one could say, “I noticed you were fidgeting and looking at your phone during Aaron’s presentation.” Feedback should be based on firsthand observations and should be descriptive, utilizing neutral language.
6. Avoid information overload. Feedback is best consumed in small snacks rather than an all-you-can-eat buffet.1,7 Your goal should not be to completely overhaul a learner but rather to focus on a few observable, correctable behaviors.
7. Be empathetic. To make negative feedback less threatening, take yourself off the pedestal. An example of this could be saying, “As a third-year medical student, I struggled to remember all the right questions to ask, so performing a thorough review of systems helped me to catch the things I would miss.”
8. Confirm understanding. It is important to know the learner has heard the feedback and to conclude the session with an action plan.

Just as hospitals engage in continuous quality improvement, as professionals, we should all strive for continuous self-improvement. Giving and receiving feedback is critical to personal growth. It is our hope that by using these tips, all of us will improve, creating a new generation of providers who give effective and useful feedback.

References

1. Anderson PA. Giving feedback on clinical skills: are we starving our young? J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4(2):154-158. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-000295.1.
2. Branch WT, Paranjape A. Feedback and reflection: teaching methods for clinical settings. Acad Med. 2002;77(12 Pt 1):1185-1188.
3. Hewson MG, Little ML. Giving feedback in medical education: verification of recommended techniques. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(2):111-116.
4. Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983;250(6):777-781.
5. Bing-You RG, Trowbridge RL. Why medical educators may be failing at feedback. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1330-1331.
6. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1094-1102.
7. Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. BMJ. 2008;337:a1961.
8. Ramani S, Krackov SK. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach. 2012;34(10):787-791.

Delivering feedback is a fundamental skill in medicine. Feedback ensures trainees remain on track to meet expected goals and standards. At some point in our careers, all of us have been on the receiving end of feedback. Many of us have likely had the opportunity to provide feedback to students or junior residents during our training. Moving from the role of trainee to supervisor presents a unique set of challenges and responsibilities to the young hospitalist.

Despite an extensive amount published on feedback, translation from theory to practice remains challenging.1 When surveyed, medical students and residents commonly perceive they do not receive enough feedback.2 Conversely, attendees of faculty development courses frequently indicate their greatest need is learning how to give feedback more effectively.3 Why does this performance gap exist?

The Issues

Careful exploration of our current training model reveals several systemic barriers to effective feedback. For one, many faculty members who supervise trainees are not formally trained educators. As such, they may lack the proper skills set to deliver feedback.1 Additionally, lack of time is often cited in the pressure to complete both clinical and academic duties within a packed workday. If learners aren’t directly observed by their supervisors, the impact and quality of feedback substantially diminishes.4 Likewise, if feedback is not embedded in the local culture and expected by both educator and learner, it can be perceived as a burden rather than a valuable exercise.

Feedback can evoke deep, sometimes subconscious emotional responses in both supervisor and recipient. During verbal interactions with trainees, dialogue tends to assume positive or neutral tones regardless of content.5 To avoid bruising a young learner’s ego, a well-intentioned educator may talk around the actual problem, using indirect statements in an attempt to “soften the blow.” Fearing a negative evaluation, the student may support and reinforce the teacher’s avoidance, further obscuring the message being sent. This concept is known as “vanishing feedback” and is a common barrier to the delivery of effective feedback.4 Educators additionally may shy away from giving constructive feedback because they fear reprisal on teaching evaluations.

Mounting evidence shows physicians, as a whole, tend to overestimate their abilities, and many are not skilled at self-assessment.6 When physician-learners receive feedback incongruent with their own self-perceptions, it may trigger feelings of anger, sadness, guilt, or self-doubt, which may block the receipt of any useful information. The so-called “millennial generation effect,” describing current medical school graduates, may further compound this issue. Millennials are “raised with an emphasis on being special; a previous absence of a balanced focus on weakness may present a barrier to accepting the validity of negative feedback.”1,5 As such, certain learners may intentionally avoid feedback as a method of self-preservation.

A New Approach

Many of us were taught to use the “feedback sandwich,” in which two positive statements surround a single negative corrective comment. This model, however, has some notable weaknesses. Given the ratio of positive to negative statements, educators may concentrate too heavily on the positive, diluting any constructive criticism and leaving learners with a false impression. Alternatively, trainees may learn to ignore positive comments while waiting for the other shoe to drop. As such, any initial positivity may feel insincere and artificial.7

Instead, we advocate using the “reflective feedback conversation,” a model that begins with self-assessment and places the onus on learners to identify their strengths and weaknesses.7 For example, a trainee might remark, “I struggle with controlling my temper when I am stressed.” The educator might reinforce that comment by stating, “I noticed you raised your voice last week when talking with the nurse because she forgot to administer Lasix.” To conclude the conversation, the teacher and student discuss shared goal setting and mutually agree on future improvements. Notably, this model does not facilitate conversation about problems a learner fails to detect. Hence, the educator must be prepared to deliver feedback outside of the learner’s own assessment.

Here are our favorite tips and tricks for delivering effective feedback:

1. Establish a positive learning climate. Educators must partner with learners to generate an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect.1,3,4,8 An example of how to ally with learners is to announce early on, “As a teacher, I really value feedback. As such, I plan on giving feedback throughout the rotation because I want you to be the best doctor you can possibly be.”
2. Require reflection. Effective feedback hinges on learners’ ability to self-assess.2,5,7 One approach is starting each feedback session with a simple open-ended question, such as, “How do you think you are doing?” Alternatively, you could be more specific, such as, “How do you think you did in managing the patient’s electrolytes when he went into diabetic ketoacidosis?”
3. Be prompt. Feedback should be timely.1,4,7,8 An important distinction between feedback and evaluation is that feedback is formative, enabling learners to make needed changes before the end of a course, whereas evaluation is summative and presents a distinct judgment.1,4 If feedback is withheld until the end of the rotation, learners will not have an opportunity to remediate behaviors.
4. Take advantage of different formats. Try a brief, concrete suggestion on the fly. A statement that might occur on bedside rounds is, “Allow me to show you a better technique to measure the liver span.” Or use a teachable event, such as a medical error or a particularly challenging case. Pulling interns aside after they deliver sobering news is a great opportunity to provide feedback in a semiformal fashion. Finally, formal sit-down feedback should be scheduled halfway through each rotation to ensure learners are on track and to address any major issues, such as professionalism or an inadequate clinical performance.2
5. Be specific. Focus on behaviors and examples rather than judgments.1,2,4,7,8 For example, we have all experienced the inattentive student. Instead of framing feedback as, “It seems like you don’t care about medicine because you weren’t paying attention on rounds,” one could say, “I noticed you were fidgeting and looking at your phone during Aaron’s presentation.” Feedback should be based on firsthand observations and should be descriptive, utilizing neutral language.
6. Avoid information overload. Feedback is best consumed in small snacks rather than an all-you-can-eat buffet.1,7 Your goal should not be to completely overhaul a learner but rather to focus on a few observable, correctable behaviors.
7. Be empathetic. To make negative feedback less threatening, take yourself off the pedestal. An example of this could be saying, “As a third-year medical student, I struggled to remember all the right questions to ask, so performing a thorough review of systems helped me to catch the things I would miss.”
8. Confirm understanding. It is important to know the learner has heard the feedback and to conclude the session with an action plan.

Just as hospitals engage in continuous quality improvement, as professionals, we should all strive for continuous self-improvement. Giving and receiving feedback is critical to personal growth. It is our hope that by using these tips, all of us will improve, creating a new generation of providers who give effective and useful feedback.

References

1. Anderson PA. Giving feedback on clinical skills: are we starving our young? J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4(2):154-158. doi:10.4300/JGME-D-11-000295.1.
2. Branch WT, Paranjape A. Feedback and reflection: teaching methods for clinical settings. Acad Med. 2002;77(12 Pt 1):1185-1188.
3. Hewson MG, Little ML. Giving feedback in medical education: verification of recommended techniques. J Gen Intern Med. 1998;13(2):111-116.
4. Ende J. Feedback in clinical medical education. JAMA. 1983;250(6):777-781.
5. Bing-You RG, Trowbridge RL. Why medical educators may be failing at feedback. JAMA. 2009;302(12):1330-1331.
6. Davis DA, Mazmanian PE, Fordis M, Van Harrison R, Thorpe KE, Perrier L. Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review. JAMA. 2006;296(9):1094-1102.
7. Cantillon P, Sargeant J. Giving feedback in clinical settings. BMJ. 2008;337:a1961.
8. Ramani S, Krackov SK. Twelve tips for giving feedback effectively in the clinical environment. Med Teach. 2012;34(10):787-791.

Clinical Question: Is there a mortality difference in nondiabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) treated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)?

Background: Randomized clinical trials have shown a mortality benefit of CABG over PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) for diabetic patients. The best strategy for nondiabetics, however, has not been well established.

Study Design: Pooled individual patient data from two large randomized clinical trials.

Setting: Multicenter, multinational (Europe, United States, Asia).

Synopsis: Excluding patients with left main disease, a total of 1,275 nondiabetic patients with two- or three-vessel CAD were analyzed. After median follow-up of 61 months, the CABG group had significantly fewer deaths from any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43–0.98; P=0.039) as well as fewer deaths from cardiac causes (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25–0.78; P=0.005) when compared to PCI with DES. The benefit was primarily seen at five-year follow-up in patients with intermediate to severe disease, with a nonsignificant difference detected in patients with less severe disease.

Despite the increasing popularity of DES, this study suggests that for nondiabetic patients with CAD, there is a mortality benefit at five years favoring CABG over PCI with DES. However, in this study stents used for PCI included both older and newer generation DES; a study using only newer DES may reduce the differences in outcomes between the groups.

Bottom Line: Five-year mortality is lower in nondiabetic patients with multivessel CAD treated with CABG compared with PCI with DES.

Citation: Chang M, Ahn JM, Lee CW, et al. Long-term mortality after coronary revascularization in nondiabetic patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(1):29-36.

Clinical Question: Is there a mortality difference in nondiabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) treated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)?

Background: Randomized clinical trials have shown a mortality benefit of CABG over PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) for diabetic patients. The best strategy for nondiabetics, however, has not been well established.

Study Design: Pooled individual patient data from two large randomized clinical trials.

Setting: Multicenter, multinational (Europe, United States, Asia).

Synopsis: Excluding patients with left main disease, a total of 1,275 nondiabetic patients with two- or three-vessel CAD were analyzed. After median follow-up of 61 months, the CABG group had significantly fewer deaths from any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43–0.98; P=0.039) as well as fewer deaths from cardiac causes (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25–0.78; P=0.005) when compared to PCI with DES. The benefit was primarily seen at five-year follow-up in patients with intermediate to severe disease, with a nonsignificant difference detected in patients with less severe disease.

Despite the increasing popularity of DES, this study suggests that for nondiabetic patients with CAD, there is a mortality benefit at five years favoring CABG over PCI with DES. However, in this study stents used for PCI included both older and newer generation DES; a study using only newer DES may reduce the differences in outcomes between the groups.

Bottom Line: Five-year mortality is lower in nondiabetic patients with multivessel CAD treated with CABG compared with PCI with DES.

Citation: Chang M, Ahn JM, Lee CW, et al. Long-term mortality after coronary revascularization in nondiabetic patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(1):29-36.

Clinical Question: Is there a mortality difference in nondiabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) treated with coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)?

Background: Randomized clinical trials have shown a mortality benefit of CABG over PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) for diabetic patients. The best strategy for nondiabetics, however, has not been well established.

Study Design: Pooled individual patient data from two large randomized clinical trials.

Setting: Multicenter, multinational (Europe, United States, Asia).

Synopsis: Excluding patients with left main disease, a total of 1,275 nondiabetic patients with two- or three-vessel CAD were analyzed. After median follow-up of 61 months, the CABG group had significantly fewer deaths from any cause (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.43–0.98; P=0.039) as well as fewer deaths from cardiac causes (HR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25–0.78; P=0.005) when compared to PCI with DES. The benefit was primarily seen at five-year follow-up in patients with intermediate to severe disease, with a nonsignificant difference detected in patients with less severe disease.

Despite the increasing popularity of DES, this study suggests that for nondiabetic patients with CAD, there is a mortality benefit at five years favoring CABG over PCI with DES. However, in this study stents used for PCI included both older and newer generation DES; a study using only newer DES may reduce the differences in outcomes between the groups.

Bottom Line: Five-year mortality is lower in nondiabetic patients with multivessel CAD treated with CABG compared with PCI with DES.

Citation: Chang M, Ahn JM, Lee CW, et al. Long-term mortality after coronary revascularization in nondiabetic patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(1):29-36.

Clinical Question: What is the incidence of neutropenia in patients treated with prolonged courses of ceftaroline?

Background: Ceftaroline, a new broad-spectrum cephalosporin antibiotic, is FDA approved for the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Other than a few case reports, previous studies have not assessed the incidence of neutropenia in patients receiving ceftaroline for off-label indications or for prolonged courses.

Study Design: Retrospective chart review.

Setting: Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Synopsis: The authors identified 67 patients who received ceftaroline for seven or more consecutive days. Overall, ceftaroline exposure for two or more weeks was associated with a 10%–14% incidence of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count less than 1,800 cells/mm3), and ceftaroline exposure for three or more weeks was associated with a 21% incidence of neutropenia. Both the mean duration of ceftaroline exposure and the total number of ceftaroline doses were associated with incident neutropenia.

This is the first study to systematically assess the incidence of ceftaroline-associated neutropenia. The data support a correlation between cumulative ceftaroline exposure and neutropenia. Hospitalists managing patients with prolonged courses of ceftaroline should carefully monitor hematologic studies during treatment.

Bottom Line: The overall rate of neutropenia in patients receiving prolonged courses of ceftaroline is significant, and it is associated with duration of ceftaroline exposure and total number of doses received.

Citation: Furtek KJ, Kubiak DW, Barra M, Varughese C, Ashbaugh CD, Koo S. High incidence of neutropenia in patients with prolonged ceftaroline exposure. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(7):2010-2013.

Short Take

New Guidelines from IDSA/ATS for Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia Can Safely Be Implemented for Hospitalized Patients

A multicenter, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial of 312 patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) found that stopping antibiotics after five days was not associated with worse outcomes and may reduce readmissions.

Citation: Uranga A, España PP, Bilbao A, et al. Duration of antibiotic treatment in community-acquired pneumonia: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9):1257-1265.

Clinical Question: What is the incidence of neutropenia in patients treated with prolonged courses of ceftaroline?

Background: Ceftaroline, a new broad-spectrum cephalosporin antibiotic, is FDA approved for the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Other than a few case reports, previous studies have not assessed the incidence of neutropenia in patients receiving ceftaroline for off-label indications or for prolonged courses.

Study Design: Retrospective chart review.

Setting: Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Synopsis: The authors identified 67 patients who received ceftaroline for seven or more consecutive days. Overall, ceftaroline exposure for two or more weeks was associated with a 10%–14% incidence of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count less than 1,800 cells/mm3), and ceftaroline exposure for three or more weeks was associated with a 21% incidence of neutropenia. Both the mean duration of ceftaroline exposure and the total number of ceftaroline doses were associated with incident neutropenia.

This is the first study to systematically assess the incidence of ceftaroline-associated neutropenia. The data support a correlation between cumulative ceftaroline exposure and neutropenia. Hospitalists managing patients with prolonged courses of ceftaroline should carefully monitor hematologic studies during treatment.

Bottom Line: The overall rate of neutropenia in patients receiving prolonged courses of ceftaroline is significant, and it is associated with duration of ceftaroline exposure and total number of doses received.

Citation: Furtek KJ, Kubiak DW, Barra M, Varughese C, Ashbaugh CD, Koo S. High incidence of neutropenia in patients with prolonged ceftaroline exposure. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(7):2010-2013.

Short Take

New Guidelines from IDSA/ATS for Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia Can Safely Be Implemented for Hospitalized Patients

A multicenter, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial of 312 patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) found that stopping antibiotics after five days was not associated with worse outcomes and may reduce readmissions.

Citation: Uranga A, España PP, Bilbao A, et al. Duration of antibiotic treatment in community-acquired pneumonia: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9):1257-1265.

Clinical Question: What is the incidence of neutropenia in patients treated with prolonged courses of ceftaroline?

Background: Ceftaroline, a new broad-spectrum cephalosporin antibiotic, is FDA approved for the treatment of skin and soft-tissue infections and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). Other than a few case reports, previous studies have not assessed the incidence of neutropenia in patients receiving ceftaroline for off-label indications or for prolonged courses.

Study Design: Retrospective chart review.

Setting: Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Synopsis: The authors identified 67 patients who received ceftaroline for seven or more consecutive days. Overall, ceftaroline exposure for two or more weeks was associated with a 10%–14% incidence of neutropenia (absolute neutrophil count less than 1,800 cells/mm3), and ceftaroline exposure for three or more weeks was associated with a 21% incidence of neutropenia. Both the mean duration of ceftaroline exposure and the total number of ceftaroline doses were associated with incident neutropenia.

This is the first study to systematically assess the incidence of ceftaroline-associated neutropenia. The data support a correlation between cumulative ceftaroline exposure and neutropenia. Hospitalists managing patients with prolonged courses of ceftaroline should carefully monitor hematologic studies during treatment.

Bottom Line: The overall rate of neutropenia in patients receiving prolonged courses of ceftaroline is significant, and it is associated with duration of ceftaroline exposure and total number of doses received.

Citation: Furtek KJ, Kubiak DW, Barra M, Varughese C, Ashbaugh CD, Koo S. High incidence of neutropenia in patients with prolonged ceftaroline exposure. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2016;71(7):2010-2013.

Short Take

New Guidelines from IDSA/ATS for Patients with Community-Acquired Pneumonia Can Safely Be Implemented for Hospitalized Patients

A multicenter, non-inferiority randomized clinical trial of 312 patients with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) found that stopping antibiotics after five days was not associated with worse outcomes and may reduce readmissions.

Citation: Uranga A, España PP, Bilbao A, et al. Duration of antibiotic treatment in community-acquired pneumonia: a multicenter randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9):1257-1265.