The Hospitalist

Pain is a completely subjective experience that is the consequence of the filtering, modulating, and distorting of the afferent nerve activity through the affective and cognitive processes unique to each individual. This module discusses why postoperative pain requires treatment, outlines methods for performing an assessment of pain, provides strategies for using patient-controlled analgesia, and summarizes the use of opioid and non-opioid analgesics in the postoperative setting.

 

Start earning free CME credits today at www.shmconsults.com.

Pain is a completely subjective experience that is the consequence of the filtering, modulating, and distorting of the afferent nerve activity through the affective and cognitive processes unique to each individual. This module discusses why postoperative pain requires treatment, outlines methods for performing an assessment of pain, provides strategies for using patient-controlled analgesia, and summarizes the use of opioid and non-opioid analgesics in the postoperative setting.

 

Start earning free CME credits today at www.shmconsults.com.

Pain is a completely subjective experience that is the consequence of the filtering, modulating, and distorting of the afferent nerve activity through the affective and cognitive processes unique to each individual. This module discusses why postoperative pain requires treatment, outlines methods for performing an assessment of pain, provides strategies for using patient-controlled analgesia, and summarizes the use of opioid and non-opioid analgesics in the postoperative setting.

 

Start earning free CME credits today at www.shmconsults.com.

Increase your confidence about your knowledge and skills with shmConsults, consultative and perioperative medicine essentials for hospitalists. shmConsults modules are free to both SHM members and non-members and offer up to 2.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit per module. New modules include:

Appropriate Use of Targeted Oral Anticoagulants to Prevent Stroke in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

This activity includes thorough discussions on initial management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), appropriate situations for oral anticoagulation in the presence of NVAF, appropriate choice of oral anticoagulant, reversal of oral anticoagulation, and guidelines for oral anticoagulation and stroke prevention in NVAF patients and special-population NVAF patients.

Four modules addressing various aspects of anticoagulation/thrombosis have been updated and include:

• Target-Specific Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prophylaxis in Patients with NVAF
• Management of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation
• Perioperative Bridging of Anticoagulant Therapy
• Perioperative Management of Anticoagulation

Increase your confidence about your knowledge and skills with shmConsults, consultative and perioperative medicine essentials for hospitalists. shmConsults modules are free to both SHM members and non-members and offer up to 2.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit per module. New modules include:

Appropriate Use of Targeted Oral Anticoagulants to Prevent Stroke in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

This activity includes thorough discussions on initial management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), appropriate situations for oral anticoagulation in the presence of NVAF, appropriate choice of oral anticoagulant, reversal of oral anticoagulation, and guidelines for oral anticoagulation and stroke prevention in NVAF patients and special-population NVAF patients.

Four modules addressing various aspects of anticoagulation/thrombosis have been updated and include:

• Target-Specific Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prophylaxis in Patients with NVAF
• Management of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation
• Perioperative Bridging of Anticoagulant Therapy
• Perioperative Management of Anticoagulation

Increase your confidence about your knowledge and skills with shmConsults, consultative and perioperative medicine essentials for hospitalists. shmConsults modules are free to both SHM members and non-members and offer up to 2.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credit per module. New modules include:

Appropriate Use of Targeted Oral Anticoagulants to Prevent Stroke in Patients with Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation

This activity includes thorough discussions on initial management of patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF), appropriate situations for oral anticoagulation in the presence of NVAF, appropriate choice of oral anticoagulant, reversal of oral anticoagulation, and guidelines for oral anticoagulation and stroke prevention in NVAF patients and special-population NVAF patients.

Four modules addressing various aspects of anticoagulation/thrombosis have been updated and include:

• Target-Specific Oral Anticoagulants for Stroke Prophylaxis in Patients with NVAF
• Management of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation
• Perioperative Bridging of Anticoagulant Therapy
• Perioperative Management of Anticoagulation

The Joint Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine (JCPHM), successor to the Strategic Planning (STP) Committee, recently recommended submitting a petition for two-year pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) fellowship certification to the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP), which was completed in 2014. In December 2015, the ABP Board of Directors voted to (1) approve the proposal for a two-year PHM fellowship incorporating scholarly activity with the provision that entrustable professional activities (EPAs) be used as the framework for assessing competencies and (2) not require those who achieve and maintain PHM certification to maintain general pediatrics certification. The proposal for certification of a two-year PHM fellowship will now be submitted to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Concerns regarding the formal certification of PHM as an ABMS-recognized subspecialty have been raised by many stakeholders, including community pediatric hospitalists, pediatric residency program directors, and med-peds physicians.

We feel that the “first, do no harm” guiding principle seems to have been forgotten by the ABP as it attempts to formalize the training of pediatric hospitalists. In December 2015, the ABP voted in favor of a two-year ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship. The intent was to “assure the best care of hospitalized children,” “assure the public,” “accelerate improvements and innovation in quality improvement,” and “raise the level of care of all hospitalized children by establishing best practices in clinical care.” To be clear, these goals are shared by all of us (although there is no indication that the public is seeking additional assurance). Prior to launching broad-scale, time-intensive, and financially costly initiatives, we should ensure that our efforts would achieve—rather than obstruct—their intended aims. In addition to a lack of evidence supporting that subspecialty certification will advance our path toward achieving these goals, there are numerous reasons a required PHM fellowship is unnecessary and potentially even harmful to the hospitalist workforce. The negative unintended consequences need to be weighed heavily.

We have found no data to support that children would receive inferior inpatient care from pediatric hospitalists due to lack of formal certification. Hospital medicine physicians are paving the way in quality improvement, high-value care, medical education, palliative care, and global health, supported in part through training in various non-accredited hospital medicine fellowships. There is nothing stopping pediatric hospitalists from establishing and disseminating best practices in clinical care. Hospitalists are already making strides in providing high-quality care at low costs, as demonstrated by the abundant PHM scholarly work described in the ABP application to the ABMS. The alleged problem of needing to build trust within the community is yet to be demonstrated, as we have leaders at local, regional, and national levels. The chief medical officer of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is a hospitalist as is our surgeon general. Hospital medicine is the fastest-growing specialty in the history of medicine,1 and we should seek to propel rather than fetter our future colleagues.

Below are our reasons for opposing this formal certification.

We already have a fellowship system.

As we all know, advanced training opportunities already exist for those interested in pursuing extra research and quality improvement training. Similar to other pediatric subspecialty fellowships, these PHM fellowships are undersubscribed (20% of PHM fellowships did not fill in 2016),2 with the majority of graduating pediatric residents transitioning to hospitalists opting not to pursue fellowship training. We should continue to let graduating pediatric residents vote with their feet without the undue influence of subspecialty certification.

Subspecialization has opportunity costs that may reduce the PHM pipeline.

Even if we assume an adequate number of fellowship programs could be developed and funded, our fear is that the decision to turn PHM into an accredited subspecialty could paradoxically reduce the pipeline of inpatient providers. Residency is already a three- to four-year endeavor (pediatrics and med-peds) that is poorly compensated and time-intensive. In the absence of evidence supporting the value of additional training, tacking on another two years seems unreasonable in the face of the student loan debt crisis, reduced compensation, and lost time for career advancement. These are significant opportunity costs. While most specialties lead to a significant pay raise to compensate for the added training time, pediatrics remains the lowest-paid physician specialty.3 Should PHM follow the trend of most pediatric subspecialties, pursuit of fellowship training would be a negative financial decision for residency graduates.4 For the health system, increasing debt-to-income ratios runs the risk of creating a medical education bubble market.5

 

More than 25% of med-peds graduates pursue careers in hospital medicine, a percentage that continues to grow, accounting for more than 100 new hospitalists per year.6 As a result, med-peds-trained hospitalists constitute more than 10% of the pediatric hospitalist workforce.6 Requiring PHM fellowship training may reduce this crucial pipeline of practitioners. In a 2014 unpublished survey of 225 med-peds practitioners, 78% of residents and 96% of attendings responded that they would not consider pursuing an ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship.7 This is compounded by a lack of parity with the practice of adult hospital medicine both in compensation and required training and is heightened by the fact that the training in question does not incorporate care for adult patients. There is clear consensus by 96% of med-peds hospitalists that the creation of an ACGME-certified PHM subspecialty will negatively affect the likelihood of med-peds providers pursuing PHM.7

Certification will pose a potential risk to specific patient populations.

We are also concerned that a reduced PHM workforce could disproportionately impact young adults with special healthcare needs and those children cared for in rural or community-based hospitals. Med-peds training equips providers to care for children with chronic diseases that then transition into adulthood; more than 25% provide care for young adults with special healthcare needs.6 With the increasing number of children with chronic health conditions surviving into adulthood,8 med-peds hospitalists serve essential roles in providing care and coordination for this vulnerable population. Furthermore, hospital medicine groups in medical systems that cannot support a full-time categorical pediatric hospitalist tend to employ med-peds physicians or family practitioners. Concerns with PHM certification are thus extended to those family medicine physicians who practice PHM.

Pediatric residency trains pediatricians in inpatient care.

We feel that the decision to move forward on PHM subspecialty certification calls into question the value of pediatric residency training. There is no evidence that clinical inpatient training in pediatrics residency is inadequate. If one leaves residency trained to do anything, it is practicing hospital medicine. A significant portion of residency takes place inpatient, both on wards and in the intensive care units. The 2009 ABP Foundation–funded study of PHM reported that 94% of pediatric hospitalist respondents rated their training in general clinical skills during residency as fully adequate, 85% rated their training in communication skills as fully adequate, and 73% did not believe any additional training beyond residency should be required.9 With respect to med-peds graduates, more than 90% feel equipped to care for children and adults upon residency completion.10 If the ABMS carries forward with this decision, the only clinical work one would be “certified” to do after residency is primary care. However, after completion of residency training, most of us feel at least as comfortable, if not more comfortable, caring for children in the inpatient setting.

Primary care should require subspecialty certification as well.

Furthermore, the decision to create a certified subspecialty begs the question as to why fellowship should not be mandated for those entering the field of primary care. Does the field of primary care not require research to move it forward? Does the field of primary care not require providers who can adeptly apply quality improvement methodologies to improve primary-care delivery? Does the public not require the same type of assurance? By these measures, primary care should require subspecialty certification as well. These arguments could easily be construed as an indictment of residency training.

The target should be residency training.

The PHM ABMS application describes a clinical curriculum consisting of eight core clinical rotations in various settings. That small number emphasizes the fact that extra clinical training is really not needed and that we do not require a complete overhaul of the current training system. The skills in question for the accredited PHM fellowship include communication, negotiation, leadership, quality improvement, pain management, sedation, procedures, transport, billing/coding, autonomous decision making, and scholarly practice. Are most of these not skills that we should foster in all practicing pediatricians? If graduating pediatric residents lack competence in core pediatric skills (e.g., communication, pain management, autonomous decision making), we should target improvements in residency education rather than require years of further training. Pediatrics residency training already requires training in quality improvement and is incorporating “tracks” that target areas of perceived deficiency. Those physicians who actually require specialized hospital-based skills (e.g., sedation, procedures, and transport) could receive core training during residency (e.g., through PHM tracks or electives) and further hone these skills through faculty development efforts. While non-PhD researchers may benefit from additional training in research methodologies, this training comes at the expense of time spent caring for patients on the wards and should not be required training for the majority of pediatric hospitalists pursuing purely clinical roles.

 

Broad-based support for a PHM subspecialty has not been demonstrated.

While approximately 40 pediatric hospitalists originated the PHM certification petition, we have not seen clear support for subspecialty certification from the community. PHM certification runs the risk of alienating the general pediatrics community, as many outpatient pediatricians continue to care for their patients in the inpatient setting. Furthermore, at tertiary-care medical centers, pediatric subspecialists often serve as hospitalists, yet this stakeholder group has not entered into this conversation. Importantly, the Association of Pediatric Program Directors (APPD) did not endorse this proposal. Many of the APPD members were quite concerned about the harm this certification could cause. While the APA Board and the AAP Board of Directors support PHM subspecialty certification, it is not clear that the rank-and-file members do. The Society of Hospital Medicine did not support or oppose certification. In an era of controversy surrounding certification requirements, prior to making a decision that will alter the direction of an entire field and impact all future residency graduates interested in entering that field, we should ensure there is broad-based support for this decision.

An alternative path has already been established and validated.

A more prudent, cost-effective, and universally acceptable approach would be to follow in the footsteps of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) in establishing a Focused Practice in Pediatric Hospital Medicine program. This approach respects the unique body of knowledge required of those who care for hospitalized children while maintaining the required flexibility to nurture and help to mature existing training pipelines. Core hospital medicine skills should be further honed through residency curricular changes and faculty development efforts, while hospital-based physicians interested in developing niche skills could still do so via already existing fellowships.

When it comes to pediatric hospital medicine, first, do no harm.

Pediatric hospitalists are inpatient generalists by training and clinical approach. Our practices vary from large academic medical centers with every imaginable subspecialty consult service available to remote rural settings that require hospitalists to possess unique and specific skills. Some pediatric hospitalists participate in newborn care, some perform sedations, and some perform a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The current system is meeting the needs of the vast majority of our PHM community. Changes to the residency curriculum that are already under way can address any clinical and quality improvement gaps. More than enough PHM fellowships are available to those who choose to pursue them. The public is not requesting reassurance, and the field is already advancing at a rapid rate both clinically and scholarly. Subspecialty recognition is not necessary and will likely lead to negative unintended consequences. Given the financial constraints on our current system and the need for pediatric hospitalists to be stewards of high-value care, we should make collective decisions that will clearly benefit our patients and health system. As medical professionals, our priority should always be first, do no harm.

Weijen W. Chang, MD, is chief of the Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Leonard Samuel Feldman, MD, is director of the Medicine-Pediatrics Urban Health Residency Program and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Bradley Monash, MD, is associate chief of medicine at University of California, San Francisco and assistant clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at UCSF School of Medicine.

Archna Eniasivam, MD, is assistant clinical professor of medicine at UCSF School of Medicine.

References

1. Chen C, Eagle S. “Should Pediatric HM Pursue Subspecialty Certification, Required Fellowship Training?” The Hospitalist. July 31, 2012
2. Results and Data: Specialties Matching Service 2016 Appointment Year. National Resident Matching Program website. Accessed May 15, 2016.
3. Medscape Pediatrician Compensation Report 2015. Medscape website.  Accessed April 29, 2016.
4. Rochlin JM, Simon HK. Does fellowship pay: what is the long-term financial impact of subspecialty training in pediatrics? Pediatrics. 2001;127(2):254-260.
5. Asch DA, Nicholson S, Vujicic M. Are we in a medical education bubble market? N Engl J Med. 2013;369(21):1973-1975.
6. O’Toole JK, Friedland AR, Gonzaga AM, et al. The practice patterns of recently graduated internal medicine-pediatric hospitalists. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(6):309-314.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine: Survey of Med-Peds Physicians about PHM Certification. May 2014 (unpublished).
8. Goodman DM, Hall M, Levin A, et al. Adults with chronic health conditions originating in childhood: inpatient experience in children’s hospitals. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):5-13.
9. Freed GL, Dunham KM, Research Advisory Committee of the American Board of P. Pediatric hospitalists: training, current practice, and career goals. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(3):179-186.
10. Donnelly MJ, Lubrano L, Radabaugh CL, Lukela MP, Friedland AR, Ruch-Ross HS. The med-peds hospitalist workforce: results from the American Academy of Pediatrics Workforce Survey. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(11):574-579.

The Joint Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine (JCPHM), successor to the Strategic Planning (STP) Committee, recently recommended submitting a petition for two-year pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) fellowship certification to the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP), which was completed in 2014. In December 2015, the ABP Board of Directors voted to (1) approve the proposal for a two-year PHM fellowship incorporating scholarly activity with the provision that entrustable professional activities (EPAs) be used as the framework for assessing competencies and (2) not require those who achieve and maintain PHM certification to maintain general pediatrics certification. The proposal for certification of a two-year PHM fellowship will now be submitted to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Concerns regarding the formal certification of PHM as an ABMS-recognized subspecialty have been raised by many stakeholders, including community pediatric hospitalists, pediatric residency program directors, and med-peds physicians.

We feel that the “first, do no harm” guiding principle seems to have been forgotten by the ABP as it attempts to formalize the training of pediatric hospitalists. In December 2015, the ABP voted in favor of a two-year ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship. The intent was to “assure the best care of hospitalized children,” “assure the public,” “accelerate improvements and innovation in quality improvement,” and “raise the level of care of all hospitalized children by establishing best practices in clinical care.” To be clear, these goals are shared by all of us (although there is no indication that the public is seeking additional assurance). Prior to launching broad-scale, time-intensive, and financially costly initiatives, we should ensure that our efforts would achieve—rather than obstruct—their intended aims. In addition to a lack of evidence supporting that subspecialty certification will advance our path toward achieving these goals, there are numerous reasons a required PHM fellowship is unnecessary and potentially even harmful to the hospitalist workforce. The negative unintended consequences need to be weighed heavily.

We have found no data to support that children would receive inferior inpatient care from pediatric hospitalists due to lack of formal certification. Hospital medicine physicians are paving the way in quality improvement, high-value care, medical education, palliative care, and global health, supported in part through training in various non-accredited hospital medicine fellowships. There is nothing stopping pediatric hospitalists from establishing and disseminating best practices in clinical care. Hospitalists are already making strides in providing high-quality care at low costs, as demonstrated by the abundant PHM scholarly work described in the ABP application to the ABMS. The alleged problem of needing to build trust within the community is yet to be demonstrated, as we have leaders at local, regional, and national levels. The chief medical officer of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is a hospitalist as is our surgeon general. Hospital medicine is the fastest-growing specialty in the history of medicine,1 and we should seek to propel rather than fetter our future colleagues.

Below are our reasons for opposing this formal certification.

We already have a fellowship system.

As we all know, advanced training opportunities already exist for those interested in pursuing extra research and quality improvement training. Similar to other pediatric subspecialty fellowships, these PHM fellowships are undersubscribed (20% of PHM fellowships did not fill in 2016),2 with the majority of graduating pediatric residents transitioning to hospitalists opting not to pursue fellowship training. We should continue to let graduating pediatric residents vote with their feet without the undue influence of subspecialty certification.

Subspecialization has opportunity costs that may reduce the PHM pipeline.

Even if we assume an adequate number of fellowship programs could be developed and funded, our fear is that the decision to turn PHM into an accredited subspecialty could paradoxically reduce the pipeline of inpatient providers. Residency is already a three- to four-year endeavor (pediatrics and med-peds) that is poorly compensated and time-intensive. In the absence of evidence supporting the value of additional training, tacking on another two years seems unreasonable in the face of the student loan debt crisis, reduced compensation, and lost time for career advancement. These are significant opportunity costs. While most specialties lead to a significant pay raise to compensate for the added training time, pediatrics remains the lowest-paid physician specialty.3 Should PHM follow the trend of most pediatric subspecialties, pursuit of fellowship training would be a negative financial decision for residency graduates.4 For the health system, increasing debt-to-income ratios runs the risk of creating a medical education bubble market.5

 

More than 25% of med-peds graduates pursue careers in hospital medicine, a percentage that continues to grow, accounting for more than 100 new hospitalists per year.6 As a result, med-peds-trained hospitalists constitute more than 10% of the pediatric hospitalist workforce.6 Requiring PHM fellowship training may reduce this crucial pipeline of practitioners. In a 2014 unpublished survey of 225 med-peds practitioners, 78% of residents and 96% of attendings responded that they would not consider pursuing an ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship.7 This is compounded by a lack of parity with the practice of adult hospital medicine both in compensation and required training and is heightened by the fact that the training in question does not incorporate care for adult patients. There is clear consensus by 96% of med-peds hospitalists that the creation of an ACGME-certified PHM subspecialty will negatively affect the likelihood of med-peds providers pursuing PHM.7

Certification will pose a potential risk to specific patient populations.

We are also concerned that a reduced PHM workforce could disproportionately impact young adults with special healthcare needs and those children cared for in rural or community-based hospitals. Med-peds training equips providers to care for children with chronic diseases that then transition into adulthood; more than 25% provide care for young adults with special healthcare needs.6 With the increasing number of children with chronic health conditions surviving into adulthood,8 med-peds hospitalists serve essential roles in providing care and coordination for this vulnerable population. Furthermore, hospital medicine groups in medical systems that cannot support a full-time categorical pediatric hospitalist tend to employ med-peds physicians or family practitioners. Concerns with PHM certification are thus extended to those family medicine physicians who practice PHM.

Pediatric residency trains pediatricians in inpatient care.

We feel that the decision to move forward on PHM subspecialty certification calls into question the value of pediatric residency training. There is no evidence that clinical inpatient training in pediatrics residency is inadequate. If one leaves residency trained to do anything, it is practicing hospital medicine. A significant portion of residency takes place inpatient, both on wards and in the intensive care units. The 2009 ABP Foundation–funded study of PHM reported that 94% of pediatric hospitalist respondents rated their training in general clinical skills during residency as fully adequate, 85% rated their training in communication skills as fully adequate, and 73% did not believe any additional training beyond residency should be required.9 With respect to med-peds graduates, more than 90% feel equipped to care for children and adults upon residency completion.10 If the ABMS carries forward with this decision, the only clinical work one would be “certified” to do after residency is primary care. However, after completion of residency training, most of us feel at least as comfortable, if not more comfortable, caring for children in the inpatient setting.

Primary care should require subspecialty certification as well.

Furthermore, the decision to create a certified subspecialty begs the question as to why fellowship should not be mandated for those entering the field of primary care. Does the field of primary care not require research to move it forward? Does the field of primary care not require providers who can adeptly apply quality improvement methodologies to improve primary-care delivery? Does the public not require the same type of assurance? By these measures, primary care should require subspecialty certification as well. These arguments could easily be construed as an indictment of residency training.

The target should be residency training.

The PHM ABMS application describes a clinical curriculum consisting of eight core clinical rotations in various settings. That small number emphasizes the fact that extra clinical training is really not needed and that we do not require a complete overhaul of the current training system. The skills in question for the accredited PHM fellowship include communication, negotiation, leadership, quality improvement, pain management, sedation, procedures, transport, billing/coding, autonomous decision making, and scholarly practice. Are most of these not skills that we should foster in all practicing pediatricians? If graduating pediatric residents lack competence in core pediatric skills (e.g., communication, pain management, autonomous decision making), we should target improvements in residency education rather than require years of further training. Pediatrics residency training already requires training in quality improvement and is incorporating “tracks” that target areas of perceived deficiency. Those physicians who actually require specialized hospital-based skills (e.g., sedation, procedures, and transport) could receive core training during residency (e.g., through PHM tracks or electives) and further hone these skills through faculty development efforts. While non-PhD researchers may benefit from additional training in research methodologies, this training comes at the expense of time spent caring for patients on the wards and should not be required training for the majority of pediatric hospitalists pursuing purely clinical roles.

 

Broad-based support for a PHM subspecialty has not been demonstrated.

While approximately 40 pediatric hospitalists originated the PHM certification petition, we have not seen clear support for subspecialty certification from the community. PHM certification runs the risk of alienating the general pediatrics community, as many outpatient pediatricians continue to care for their patients in the inpatient setting. Furthermore, at tertiary-care medical centers, pediatric subspecialists often serve as hospitalists, yet this stakeholder group has not entered into this conversation. Importantly, the Association of Pediatric Program Directors (APPD) did not endorse this proposal. Many of the APPD members were quite concerned about the harm this certification could cause. While the APA Board and the AAP Board of Directors support PHM subspecialty certification, it is not clear that the rank-and-file members do. The Society of Hospital Medicine did not support or oppose certification. In an era of controversy surrounding certification requirements, prior to making a decision that will alter the direction of an entire field and impact all future residency graduates interested in entering that field, we should ensure there is broad-based support for this decision.

An alternative path has already been established and validated.

A more prudent, cost-effective, and universally acceptable approach would be to follow in the footsteps of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) in establishing a Focused Practice in Pediatric Hospital Medicine program. This approach respects the unique body of knowledge required of those who care for hospitalized children while maintaining the required flexibility to nurture and help to mature existing training pipelines. Core hospital medicine skills should be further honed through residency curricular changes and faculty development efforts, while hospital-based physicians interested in developing niche skills could still do so via already existing fellowships.

When it comes to pediatric hospital medicine, first, do no harm.

Pediatric hospitalists are inpatient generalists by training and clinical approach. Our practices vary from large academic medical centers with every imaginable subspecialty consult service available to remote rural settings that require hospitalists to possess unique and specific skills. Some pediatric hospitalists participate in newborn care, some perform sedations, and some perform a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The current system is meeting the needs of the vast majority of our PHM community. Changes to the residency curriculum that are already under way can address any clinical and quality improvement gaps. More than enough PHM fellowships are available to those who choose to pursue them. The public is not requesting reassurance, and the field is already advancing at a rapid rate both clinically and scholarly. Subspecialty recognition is not necessary and will likely lead to negative unintended consequences. Given the financial constraints on our current system and the need for pediatric hospitalists to be stewards of high-value care, we should make collective decisions that will clearly benefit our patients and health system. As medical professionals, our priority should always be first, do no harm.

Weijen W. Chang, MD, is chief of the Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Leonard Samuel Feldman, MD, is director of the Medicine-Pediatrics Urban Health Residency Program and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Bradley Monash, MD, is associate chief of medicine at University of California, San Francisco and assistant clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at UCSF School of Medicine.

Archna Eniasivam, MD, is assistant clinical professor of medicine at UCSF School of Medicine.

References

1. Chen C, Eagle S. “Should Pediatric HM Pursue Subspecialty Certification, Required Fellowship Training?” The Hospitalist. July 31, 2012
2. Results and Data: Specialties Matching Service 2016 Appointment Year. National Resident Matching Program website. Accessed May 15, 2016.
3. Medscape Pediatrician Compensation Report 2015. Medscape website.  Accessed April 29, 2016.
4. Rochlin JM, Simon HK. Does fellowship pay: what is the long-term financial impact of subspecialty training in pediatrics? Pediatrics. 2001;127(2):254-260.
5. Asch DA, Nicholson S, Vujicic M. Are we in a medical education bubble market? N Engl J Med. 2013;369(21):1973-1975.
6. O’Toole JK, Friedland AR, Gonzaga AM, et al. The practice patterns of recently graduated internal medicine-pediatric hospitalists. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(6):309-314.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine: Survey of Med-Peds Physicians about PHM Certification. May 2014 (unpublished).
8. Goodman DM, Hall M, Levin A, et al. Adults with chronic health conditions originating in childhood: inpatient experience in children’s hospitals. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):5-13.
9. Freed GL, Dunham KM, Research Advisory Committee of the American Board of P. Pediatric hospitalists: training, current practice, and career goals. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(3):179-186.
10. Donnelly MJ, Lubrano L, Radabaugh CL, Lukela MP, Friedland AR, Ruch-Ross HS. The med-peds hospitalist workforce: results from the American Academy of Pediatrics Workforce Survey. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(11):574-579.

The Joint Council of Pediatric Hospital Medicine (JCPHM), successor to the Strategic Planning (STP) Committee, recently recommended submitting a petition for two-year pediatric hospital medicine (PHM) fellowship certification to the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP), which was completed in 2014. In December 2015, the ABP Board of Directors voted to (1) approve the proposal for a two-year PHM fellowship incorporating scholarly activity with the provision that entrustable professional activities (EPAs) be used as the framework for assessing competencies and (2) not require those who achieve and maintain PHM certification to maintain general pediatrics certification. The proposal for certification of a two-year PHM fellowship will now be submitted to the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS). Concerns regarding the formal certification of PHM as an ABMS-recognized subspecialty have been raised by many stakeholders, including community pediatric hospitalists, pediatric residency program directors, and med-peds physicians.

We feel that the “first, do no harm” guiding principle seems to have been forgotten by the ABP as it attempts to formalize the training of pediatric hospitalists. In December 2015, the ABP voted in favor of a two-year ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship. The intent was to “assure the best care of hospitalized children,” “assure the public,” “accelerate improvements and innovation in quality improvement,” and “raise the level of care of all hospitalized children by establishing best practices in clinical care.” To be clear, these goals are shared by all of us (although there is no indication that the public is seeking additional assurance). Prior to launching broad-scale, time-intensive, and financially costly initiatives, we should ensure that our efforts would achieve—rather than obstruct—their intended aims. In addition to a lack of evidence supporting that subspecialty certification will advance our path toward achieving these goals, there are numerous reasons a required PHM fellowship is unnecessary and potentially even harmful to the hospitalist workforce. The negative unintended consequences need to be weighed heavily.

We have found no data to support that children would receive inferior inpatient care from pediatric hospitalists due to lack of formal certification. Hospital medicine physicians are paving the way in quality improvement, high-value care, medical education, palliative care, and global health, supported in part through training in various non-accredited hospital medicine fellowships. There is nothing stopping pediatric hospitalists from establishing and disseminating best practices in clinical care. Hospitalists are already making strides in providing high-quality care at low costs, as demonstrated by the abundant PHM scholarly work described in the ABP application to the ABMS. The alleged problem of needing to build trust within the community is yet to be demonstrated, as we have leaders at local, regional, and national levels. The chief medical officer of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is a hospitalist as is our surgeon general. Hospital medicine is the fastest-growing specialty in the history of medicine,1 and we should seek to propel rather than fetter our future colleagues.

Below are our reasons for opposing this formal certification.

We already have a fellowship system.

As we all know, advanced training opportunities already exist for those interested in pursuing extra research and quality improvement training. Similar to other pediatric subspecialty fellowships, these PHM fellowships are undersubscribed (20% of PHM fellowships did not fill in 2016),2 with the majority of graduating pediatric residents transitioning to hospitalists opting not to pursue fellowship training. We should continue to let graduating pediatric residents vote with their feet without the undue influence of subspecialty certification.

Subspecialization has opportunity costs that may reduce the PHM pipeline.

Even if we assume an adequate number of fellowship programs could be developed and funded, our fear is that the decision to turn PHM into an accredited subspecialty could paradoxically reduce the pipeline of inpatient providers. Residency is already a three- to four-year endeavor (pediatrics and med-peds) that is poorly compensated and time-intensive. In the absence of evidence supporting the value of additional training, tacking on another two years seems unreasonable in the face of the student loan debt crisis, reduced compensation, and lost time for career advancement. These are significant opportunity costs. While most specialties lead to a significant pay raise to compensate for the added training time, pediatrics remains the lowest-paid physician specialty.3 Should PHM follow the trend of most pediatric subspecialties, pursuit of fellowship training would be a negative financial decision for residency graduates.4 For the health system, increasing debt-to-income ratios runs the risk of creating a medical education bubble market.5

 

More than 25% of med-peds graduates pursue careers in hospital medicine, a percentage that continues to grow, accounting for more than 100 new hospitalists per year.6 As a result, med-peds-trained hospitalists constitute more than 10% of the pediatric hospitalist workforce.6 Requiring PHM fellowship training may reduce this crucial pipeline of practitioners. In a 2014 unpublished survey of 225 med-peds practitioners, 78% of residents and 96% of attendings responded that they would not consider pursuing an ACGME-accredited PHM fellowship.7 This is compounded by a lack of parity with the practice of adult hospital medicine both in compensation and required training and is heightened by the fact that the training in question does not incorporate care for adult patients. There is clear consensus by 96% of med-peds hospitalists that the creation of an ACGME-certified PHM subspecialty will negatively affect the likelihood of med-peds providers pursuing PHM.7

Certification will pose a potential risk to specific patient populations.

We are also concerned that a reduced PHM workforce could disproportionately impact young adults with special healthcare needs and those children cared for in rural or community-based hospitals. Med-peds training equips providers to care for children with chronic diseases that then transition into adulthood; more than 25% provide care for young adults with special healthcare needs.6 With the increasing number of children with chronic health conditions surviving into adulthood,8 med-peds hospitalists serve essential roles in providing care and coordination for this vulnerable population. Furthermore, hospital medicine groups in medical systems that cannot support a full-time categorical pediatric hospitalist tend to employ med-peds physicians or family practitioners. Concerns with PHM certification are thus extended to those family medicine physicians who practice PHM.

Pediatric residency trains pediatricians in inpatient care.

We feel that the decision to move forward on PHM subspecialty certification calls into question the value of pediatric residency training. There is no evidence that clinical inpatient training in pediatrics residency is inadequate. If one leaves residency trained to do anything, it is practicing hospital medicine. A significant portion of residency takes place inpatient, both on wards and in the intensive care units. The 2009 ABP Foundation–funded study of PHM reported that 94% of pediatric hospitalist respondents rated their training in general clinical skills during residency as fully adequate, 85% rated their training in communication skills as fully adequate, and 73% did not believe any additional training beyond residency should be required.9 With respect to med-peds graduates, more than 90% feel equipped to care for children and adults upon residency completion.10 If the ABMS carries forward with this decision, the only clinical work one would be “certified” to do after residency is primary care. However, after completion of residency training, most of us feel at least as comfortable, if not more comfortable, caring for children in the inpatient setting.

Primary care should require subspecialty certification as well.

Furthermore, the decision to create a certified subspecialty begs the question as to why fellowship should not be mandated for those entering the field of primary care. Does the field of primary care not require research to move it forward? Does the field of primary care not require providers who can adeptly apply quality improvement methodologies to improve primary-care delivery? Does the public not require the same type of assurance? By these measures, primary care should require subspecialty certification as well. These arguments could easily be construed as an indictment of residency training.

The target should be residency training.

The PHM ABMS application describes a clinical curriculum consisting of eight core clinical rotations in various settings. That small number emphasizes the fact that extra clinical training is really not needed and that we do not require a complete overhaul of the current training system. The skills in question for the accredited PHM fellowship include communication, negotiation, leadership, quality improvement, pain management, sedation, procedures, transport, billing/coding, autonomous decision making, and scholarly practice. Are most of these not skills that we should foster in all practicing pediatricians? If graduating pediatric residents lack competence in core pediatric skills (e.g., communication, pain management, autonomous decision making), we should target improvements in residency education rather than require years of further training. Pediatrics residency training already requires training in quality improvement and is incorporating “tracks” that target areas of perceived deficiency. Those physicians who actually require specialized hospital-based skills (e.g., sedation, procedures, and transport) could receive core training during residency (e.g., through PHM tracks or electives) and further hone these skills through faculty development efforts. While non-PhD researchers may benefit from additional training in research methodologies, this training comes at the expense of time spent caring for patients on the wards and should not be required training for the majority of pediatric hospitalists pursuing purely clinical roles.

 

Broad-based support for a PHM subspecialty has not been demonstrated.

While approximately 40 pediatric hospitalists originated the PHM certification petition, we have not seen clear support for subspecialty certification from the community. PHM certification runs the risk of alienating the general pediatrics community, as many outpatient pediatricians continue to care for their patients in the inpatient setting. Furthermore, at tertiary-care medical centers, pediatric subspecialists often serve as hospitalists, yet this stakeholder group has not entered into this conversation. Importantly, the Association of Pediatric Program Directors (APPD) did not endorse this proposal. Many of the APPD members were quite concerned about the harm this certification could cause. While the APA Board and the AAP Board of Directors support PHM subspecialty certification, it is not clear that the rank-and-file members do. The Society of Hospital Medicine did not support or oppose certification. In an era of controversy surrounding certification requirements, prior to making a decision that will alter the direction of an entire field and impact all future residency graduates interested in entering that field, we should ensure there is broad-based support for this decision.

An alternative path has already been established and validated.

A more prudent, cost-effective, and universally acceptable approach would be to follow in the footsteps of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) and American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) in establishing a Focused Practice in Pediatric Hospital Medicine program. This approach respects the unique body of knowledge required of those who care for hospitalized children while maintaining the required flexibility to nurture and help to mature existing training pipelines. Core hospital medicine skills should be further honed through residency curricular changes and faculty development efforts, while hospital-based physicians interested in developing niche skills could still do so via already existing fellowships.

When it comes to pediatric hospital medicine, first, do no harm.

Pediatric hospitalists are inpatient generalists by training and clinical approach. Our practices vary from large academic medical centers with every imaginable subspecialty consult service available to remote rural settings that require hospitalists to possess unique and specific skills. Some pediatric hospitalists participate in newborn care, some perform sedations, and some perform a variety of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. The current system is meeting the needs of the vast majority of our PHM community. Changes to the residency curriculum that are already under way can address any clinical and quality improvement gaps. More than enough PHM fellowships are available to those who choose to pursue them. The public is not requesting reassurance, and the field is already advancing at a rapid rate both clinically and scholarly. Subspecialty recognition is not necessary and will likely lead to negative unintended consequences. Given the financial constraints on our current system and the need for pediatric hospitalists to be stewards of high-value care, we should make collective decisions that will clearly benefit our patients and health system. As medical professionals, our priority should always be first, do no harm.

Weijen W. Chang, MD, is chief of the Division of Pediatric Hospital Medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Leonard Samuel Feldman, MD, is director of the Medicine-Pediatrics Urban Health Residency Program and associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

Bradley Monash, MD, is associate chief of medicine at University of California, San Francisco and assistant clinical professor of medicine and pediatrics at UCSF School of Medicine.

Archna Eniasivam, MD, is assistant clinical professor of medicine at UCSF School of Medicine.

References

1. Chen C, Eagle S. “Should Pediatric HM Pursue Subspecialty Certification, Required Fellowship Training?” The Hospitalist. July 31, 2012
2. Results and Data: Specialties Matching Service 2016 Appointment Year. National Resident Matching Program website. Accessed May 15, 2016.
3. Medscape Pediatrician Compensation Report 2015. Medscape website.  Accessed April 29, 2016.
4. Rochlin JM, Simon HK. Does fellowship pay: what is the long-term financial impact of subspecialty training in pediatrics? Pediatrics. 2001;127(2):254-260.
5. Asch DA, Nicholson S, Vujicic M. Are we in a medical education bubble market? N Engl J Med. 2013;369(21):1973-1975.
6. O’Toole JK, Friedland AR, Gonzaga AM, et al. The practice patterns of recently graduated internal medicine-pediatric hospitalists. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(6):309-314.
7. Society of Hospital Medicine: Survey of Med-Peds Physicians about PHM Certification. May 2014 (unpublished).
8. Goodman DM, Hall M, Levin A, et al. Adults with chronic health conditions originating in childhood: inpatient experience in children’s hospitals. Pediatrics. 2011;128(1):5-13.
9. Freed GL, Dunham KM, Research Advisory Committee of the American Board of P. Pediatric hospitalists: training, current practice, and career goals. J Hosp Med. 2009;4(3):179-186.
10. Donnelly MJ, Lubrano L, Radabaugh CL, Lukela MP, Friedland AR, Ruch-Ross HS. The med-peds hospitalist workforce: results from the American Academy of Pediatrics Workforce Survey. Hosp Pediatr. 2015;5(11):574-579.

Clinical Question: Is there a difference in family-rated quality of care for patients dying with different serious illnesses?

Background: End-of-life care has focused largely on cancer patients. However, other conditions lead to more deaths than cancer in the United States.

Study Design: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

Setting: 146 inpatient Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities.

Synopsis: This study included 57,753 patients who died in inpatient facilities with a diagnosis of cancer, dementia, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cardiopulmonary failure (heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), or frailty. Measures included palliative care consultations, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, death in inpatient hospice, death in the intensive care unit (ICU), and family-reported quality of end-of-life care. Palliative care consultations were given to 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia, which was significantly more than patients with other diagnoses (P < .001).

Approximately one-third of patients with diagnoses other than cancer or dementia died in the ICU, which was more than double the rate among patients with cancer or dementia (P < .001). Rates of excellent quality of end-of-life care were similar for patients with cancer and dementia (59.2% and 59.3%) but lower for other conditions (P = 0.02 when compared with cancer patient). This was mediated by palliative care consultation, setting of death, and DNR status. Difficulty defining frailty and restriction to only the VA system are limitations of this study.

Bottom Line: Increasing access to palliative care, goals-of-care discussions, and preferred setting of death may improve overall quality of end-of-life care.

Citation: Wachterman MW, Pilver C, Smith D, Ersek M, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL. Quality of end-of-life care provided to patients with different serious illnesses. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1095-1102. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1200.

Clinical Question: Is there a difference in family-rated quality of care for patients dying with different serious illnesses?

Background: End-of-life care has focused largely on cancer patients. However, other conditions lead to more deaths than cancer in the United States.

Study Design: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

Setting: 146 inpatient Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities.

Synopsis: This study included 57,753 patients who died in inpatient facilities with a diagnosis of cancer, dementia, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cardiopulmonary failure (heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), or frailty. Measures included palliative care consultations, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, death in inpatient hospice, death in the intensive care unit (ICU), and family-reported quality of end-of-life care. Palliative care consultations were given to 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia, which was significantly more than patients with other diagnoses (P < .001).

Approximately one-third of patients with diagnoses other than cancer or dementia died in the ICU, which was more than double the rate among patients with cancer or dementia (P < .001). Rates of excellent quality of end-of-life care were similar for patients with cancer and dementia (59.2% and 59.3%) but lower for other conditions (P = 0.02 when compared with cancer patient). This was mediated by palliative care consultation, setting of death, and DNR status. Difficulty defining frailty and restriction to only the VA system are limitations of this study.

Bottom Line: Increasing access to palliative care, goals-of-care discussions, and preferred setting of death may improve overall quality of end-of-life care.

Citation: Wachterman MW, Pilver C, Smith D, Ersek M, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL. Quality of end-of-life care provided to patients with different serious illnesses. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1095-1102. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1200.

Clinical Question: Is there a difference in family-rated quality of care for patients dying with different serious illnesses?

Background: End-of-life care has focused largely on cancer patients. However, other conditions lead to more deaths than cancer in the United States.

Study Design: A retrospective cross-sectional study.

Setting: 146 inpatient Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities.

Synopsis: This study included 57,753 patients who died in inpatient facilities with a diagnosis of cancer, dementia, end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cardiopulmonary failure (heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), or frailty. Measures included palliative care consultations, do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders, death in inpatient hospice, death in the intensive care unit (ICU), and family-reported quality of end-of-life care. Palliative care consultations were given to 73.5% of patients with cancer and 61.4% of patients with dementia, which was significantly more than patients with other diagnoses (P < .001).

Approximately one-third of patients with diagnoses other than cancer or dementia died in the ICU, which was more than double the rate among patients with cancer or dementia (P < .001). Rates of excellent quality of end-of-life care were similar for patients with cancer and dementia (59.2% and 59.3%) but lower for other conditions (P = 0.02 when compared with cancer patient). This was mediated by palliative care consultation, setting of death, and DNR status. Difficulty defining frailty and restriction to only the VA system are limitations of this study.

Bottom Line: Increasing access to palliative care, goals-of-care discussions, and preferred setting of death may improve overall quality of end-of-life care.

Citation: Wachterman MW, Pilver C, Smith D, Ersek M, Lipsitz SR, Keating NL. Quality of end-of-life care provided to patients with different serious illnesses. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(8):1095-1102. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.1200.

Clinical Question: How much are insured nonelderly adult patients paying out of pocket for inpatient care, and does that amount vary over time or by patient characteristics, region, or type of insurance?

Background: Prior estimates have been based on patient-reported survey data. This is the first study to find nationwide out-of-pocket expenditure for inpatient hospitalizations.

Study Design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Medical claims data from Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and Humana including 7.3 million hospitalizations from 2009 to 2013.

Synopsis: Authors used the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) database and studied inpatient hospitalization for ages 18–64. The adjusted total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased by 37% (from $738 in 2009 to $1,013 in 2013). Both the mean amount of coinsurance and deductibles increased during this period by 33% (from $518 to $688) and 86% (from $145 to $270), respectively. The mean copayment decreased by 27% (from $75 to $55).

Increase in cost sharing was lowest in individual-market and consumer-directed health plans, although both had highest cost sharing.

Total cost sharing increased in every state. The largest increases were seen in Georgia, Louisiana, and Colorado. In 2013, the states with the highest cost sharing were Utah, Alaska, and Oregon.

Acute myocardial infarction and acute appendicitis saw maximum rise in out-of-pocket spending; both surpassed $1,500 in 2013. Cost sharing associated with procedures was lower.

Bottom Line: Even after adjusting for inflation and case-mix differences, the total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased between 2009 and 2013. Policymakers and patients need to pay attention to these trends.

Citation: Adrion ER, Ryan AM, Seltzer AC, Chen LM, Ayanian JZ, Nallamothu BK. Out-of-pocket spending for hospitalizations among nonelderly adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9)1325-1332.

Short Take

Aspirin Is Being Used Instead of Anticoagulation in Afib

Despite recommendations to anticoagulate patients with CHADS2 /CHA2DS2-VASc scores of ≥2, more than one-third of the patients in a large population of cardiology outpatients were treated with aspirin alone.

Citation: Hsu JC, Maddox TM, Kennedy K, et al. Aspirin instead of oral anticoagulant prescription in atrial fibrillation patients at risk for stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(25):2913-2923.

Clinical Question: How much are insured nonelderly adult patients paying out of pocket for inpatient care, and does that amount vary over time or by patient characteristics, region, or type of insurance?

Background: Prior estimates have been based on patient-reported survey data. This is the first study to find nationwide out-of-pocket expenditure for inpatient hospitalizations.

Study Design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Medical claims data from Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and Humana including 7.3 million hospitalizations from 2009 to 2013.

Synopsis: Authors used the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) database and studied inpatient hospitalization for ages 18–64. The adjusted total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased by 37% (from $738 in 2009 to $1,013 in 2013). Both the mean amount of coinsurance and deductibles increased during this period by 33% (from $518 to $688) and 86% (from $145 to $270), respectively. The mean copayment decreased by 27% (from $75 to $55).

Increase in cost sharing was lowest in individual-market and consumer-directed health plans, although both had highest cost sharing.

Total cost sharing increased in every state. The largest increases were seen in Georgia, Louisiana, and Colorado. In 2013, the states with the highest cost sharing were Utah, Alaska, and Oregon.

Acute myocardial infarction and acute appendicitis saw maximum rise in out-of-pocket spending; both surpassed $1,500 in 2013. Cost sharing associated with procedures was lower.

Bottom Line: Even after adjusting for inflation and case-mix differences, the total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased between 2009 and 2013. Policymakers and patients need to pay attention to these trends.

Citation: Adrion ER, Ryan AM, Seltzer AC, Chen LM, Ayanian JZ, Nallamothu BK. Out-of-pocket spending for hospitalizations among nonelderly adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9)1325-1332.

Short Take

Aspirin Is Being Used Instead of Anticoagulation in Afib

Despite recommendations to anticoagulate patients with CHADS2 /CHA2DS2-VASc scores of ≥2, more than one-third of the patients in a large population of cardiology outpatients were treated with aspirin alone.

Citation: Hsu JC, Maddox TM, Kennedy K, et al. Aspirin instead of oral anticoagulant prescription in atrial fibrillation patients at risk for stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(25):2913-2923.

Clinical Question: How much are insured nonelderly adult patients paying out of pocket for inpatient care, and does that amount vary over time or by patient characteristics, region, or type of insurance?

Background: Prior estimates have been based on patient-reported survey data. This is the first study to find nationwide out-of-pocket expenditure for inpatient hospitalizations.

Study Design: Retrospective analysis.

Setting: Medical claims data from Aetna, UnitedHealthcare, and Humana including 7.3 million hospitalizations from 2009 to 2013.

Synopsis: Authors used the Health Care Cost Institute (HCCI) database and studied inpatient hospitalization for ages 18–64. The adjusted total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased by 37% (from $738 in 2009 to $1,013 in 2013). Both the mean amount of coinsurance and deductibles increased during this period by 33% (from $518 to $688) and 86% (from $145 to $270), respectively. The mean copayment decreased by 27% (from $75 to $55).

Increase in cost sharing was lowest in individual-market and consumer-directed health plans, although both had highest cost sharing.

Total cost sharing increased in every state. The largest increases were seen in Georgia, Louisiana, and Colorado. In 2013, the states with the highest cost sharing were Utah, Alaska, and Oregon.

Acute myocardial infarction and acute appendicitis saw maximum rise in out-of-pocket spending; both surpassed $1,500 in 2013. Cost sharing associated with procedures was lower.

Bottom Line: Even after adjusting for inflation and case-mix differences, the total cost sharing per inpatient hospitalization increased between 2009 and 2013. Policymakers and patients need to pay attention to these trends.

Citation: Adrion ER, Ryan AM, Seltzer AC, Chen LM, Ayanian JZ, Nallamothu BK. Out-of-pocket spending for hospitalizations among nonelderly adults. JAMA Intern Med. 2016;176(9)1325-1332.

Short Take

Aspirin Is Being Used Instead of Anticoagulation in Afib

Despite recommendations to anticoagulate patients with CHADS2 /CHA2DS2-VASc scores of ≥2, more than one-third of the patients in a large population of cardiology outpatients were treated with aspirin alone.

Citation: Hsu JC, Maddox TM, Kennedy K, et al. Aspirin instead of oral anticoagulant prescription in atrial fibrillation patients at risk for stroke. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67(25):2913-2923.

The aviation safety model is often discussed in a healthcare context but in a way that may miss the most important points, a new article in BMJ Quality & Safety suggests.

The article, “Learning from Near Misses in Aviation: So Much More to It Than You Thought” by Robert Wears, MD, PhD, MS, of University of Florida’s Department of Emergency Medicine, suggests healthcare still has important lessons to learn from aviation. The article focuses on a book called Close Calls: Managing Risk and Resilience in Airline Flight Safety by Carl Macrae.

“Although the book itself is about airlines, it has important lessons for improving safety in healthcare, especially with respect to management of incidents or ‘near misses,’” Dr. Wears writes. “Its rich descriptions and detailed explanation of the practical, everyday work of flight safety investigators should be required reading for anyone interested in patient safety. It will destroy many of the myths and misconceptions about reporting systems and learning from incidents that have caused us to expend so much effort for such meager results; it will also overturn the normative model of safety prevalent in healthcare.”

Dr. Wears says he wanted to write the article for two reasons.

“First, the patient safety orthodoxy has been obsessed with systems for reporting incidents, accidents, hazards, general ‘hiccups’ in clinical work for years, but almost nothing of value has come from this effort despite frequent badgering of physicians to report more,” he says. “Second, mainstream patient safety has also been enamored of the aviation safety model, but its ideas about how aviation safety is actually accomplished are naive and simplistic.”

He emphasizes that patient safety efforts to date have focused on the wrong things: too much on acquiring and storing reports and too little on analyzing them to develop an understanding of the systems in which hazards to patients arise.

“Making sense of incidents is far more important than classifying, counting, or trending them,” Dr. Wears says.

Hospitalists are on the front line of these issues, of course.

“Hospitalists regularly encounter hazards to patients in their daily work and, for the most part, successfully manage to mitigate or work around them, but the hazards remain in the system, only to pop up again sometime later. … A rich description of how a successful and effective safety reporting and analysis effort really works—not how we imagine it to work—could help us exchange our current wasteful and ineffective approach for something better,” he says.

Reference

1. Wears R. Learning from near misses in aviation: so much more to it than you thought [published online ahead of print September 1, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005990.

The aviation safety model is often discussed in a healthcare context but in a way that may miss the most important points, a new article in BMJ Quality & Safety suggests.

The article, “Learning from Near Misses in Aviation: So Much More to It Than You Thought” by Robert Wears, MD, PhD, MS, of University of Florida’s Department of Emergency Medicine, suggests healthcare still has important lessons to learn from aviation. The article focuses on a book called Close Calls: Managing Risk and Resilience in Airline Flight Safety by Carl Macrae.

“Although the book itself is about airlines, it has important lessons for improving safety in healthcare, especially with respect to management of incidents or ‘near misses,’” Dr. Wears writes. “Its rich descriptions and detailed explanation of the practical, everyday work of flight safety investigators should be required reading for anyone interested in patient safety. It will destroy many of the myths and misconceptions about reporting systems and learning from incidents that have caused us to expend so much effort for such meager results; it will also overturn the normative model of safety prevalent in healthcare.”

Dr. Wears says he wanted to write the article for two reasons.

“First, the patient safety orthodoxy has been obsessed with systems for reporting incidents, accidents, hazards, general ‘hiccups’ in clinical work for years, but almost nothing of value has come from this effort despite frequent badgering of physicians to report more,” he says. “Second, mainstream patient safety has also been enamored of the aviation safety model, but its ideas about how aviation safety is actually accomplished are naive and simplistic.”

He emphasizes that patient safety efforts to date have focused on the wrong things: too much on acquiring and storing reports and too little on analyzing them to develop an understanding of the systems in which hazards to patients arise.

“Making sense of incidents is far more important than classifying, counting, or trending them,” Dr. Wears says.

Hospitalists are on the front line of these issues, of course.

“Hospitalists regularly encounter hazards to patients in their daily work and, for the most part, successfully manage to mitigate or work around them, but the hazards remain in the system, only to pop up again sometime later. … A rich description of how a successful and effective safety reporting and analysis effort really works—not how we imagine it to work—could help us exchange our current wasteful and ineffective approach for something better,” he says.

Reference

1. Wears R. Learning from near misses in aviation: so much more to it than you thought [published online ahead of print September 1, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005990.

The aviation safety model is often discussed in a healthcare context but in a way that may miss the most important points, a new article in BMJ Quality & Safety suggests.

The article, “Learning from Near Misses in Aviation: So Much More to It Than You Thought” by Robert Wears, MD, PhD, MS, of University of Florida’s Department of Emergency Medicine, suggests healthcare still has important lessons to learn from aviation. The article focuses on a book called Close Calls: Managing Risk and Resilience in Airline Flight Safety by Carl Macrae.

“Although the book itself is about airlines, it has important lessons for improving safety in healthcare, especially with respect to management of incidents or ‘near misses,’” Dr. Wears writes. “Its rich descriptions and detailed explanation of the practical, everyday work of flight safety investigators should be required reading for anyone interested in patient safety. It will destroy many of the myths and misconceptions about reporting systems and learning from incidents that have caused us to expend so much effort for such meager results; it will also overturn the normative model of safety prevalent in healthcare.”

Dr. Wears says he wanted to write the article for two reasons.

“First, the patient safety orthodoxy has been obsessed with systems for reporting incidents, accidents, hazards, general ‘hiccups’ in clinical work for years, but almost nothing of value has come from this effort despite frequent badgering of physicians to report more,” he says. “Second, mainstream patient safety has also been enamored of the aviation safety model, but its ideas about how aviation safety is actually accomplished are naive and simplistic.”

He emphasizes that patient safety efforts to date have focused on the wrong things: too much on acquiring and storing reports and too little on analyzing them to develop an understanding of the systems in which hazards to patients arise.

“Making sense of incidents is far more important than classifying, counting, or trending them,” Dr. Wears says.

Hospitalists are on the front line of these issues, of course.

“Hospitalists regularly encounter hazards to patients in their daily work and, for the most part, successfully manage to mitigate or work around them, but the hazards remain in the system, only to pop up again sometime later. … A rich description of how a successful and effective safety reporting and analysis effort really works—not how we imagine it to work—could help us exchange our current wasteful and ineffective approach for something better,” he says.

Reference

1. Wears R. Learning from near misses in aviation: so much more to it than you thought [published online ahead of print September 1, 2016]. BMJ Qual Saf. doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2016-005990.

One of the biggest complaints of hospital patients today is poor sleep, which is not conducive to healing or good health in general.

“The reason I’m interested, as a cardiologist, is that sleep disorders are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality,” says Peter M. Farrehi, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and lead author of a recent sleep study published in The American Journal of Medicine.

Most information about sleeping in the hospital comes from ICU studies, he says.

Dr. Farrehi wanted to actually test an intervention rather than simply survey patients. All patients received an eye mask, ear plugs, and a white-noise machine, then were randomized to receive an education-based script on the importance of using these sleep-enhancing tools or a discussion about the general benefits of sleep.

“To avoid bias in the study both from the research staff and also hospital staff, I didn't want only the intervention to have the tools,” he says. “This was a double-blind, randomized control trial in the hospital, which is really unusual.”

Patients in the group that was taught about the sleep-enhancing tools had a statistically significant difference in their perceptions of fatigue and a trend toward improving their sleep and wake disturbances.

Dr. Farrehi suggests hospitalists talk to their patients complaining of poor sleep about these sleep tools. If they are not available in their hospital, hospitalists might refer their medical director to this paper to see if there is any interest in purchasing these sleep tools.

Reference

1. 1. Farrehi PM, Clore KR, Scott JR, Vanini G, Clauw DJ. Efficacy of sleep tool education during hospitalization: a randomized controlled trial [published online ahead of print August 23, 2016]. Am J Med. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.08.001.

One of the biggest complaints of hospital patients today is poor sleep, which is not conducive to healing or good health in general.

“The reason I’m interested, as a cardiologist, is that sleep disorders are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality,” says Peter M. Farrehi, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and lead author of a recent sleep study published in The American Journal of Medicine.

Most information about sleeping in the hospital comes from ICU studies, he says.

Dr. Farrehi wanted to actually test an intervention rather than simply survey patients. All patients received an eye mask, ear plugs, and a white-noise machine, then were randomized to receive an education-based script on the importance of using these sleep-enhancing tools or a discussion about the general benefits of sleep.

“To avoid bias in the study both from the research staff and also hospital staff, I didn't want only the intervention to have the tools,” he says. “This was a double-blind, randomized control trial in the hospital, which is really unusual.”

Patients in the group that was taught about the sleep-enhancing tools had a statistically significant difference in their perceptions of fatigue and a trend toward improving their sleep and wake disturbances.

Dr. Farrehi suggests hospitalists talk to their patients complaining of poor sleep about these sleep tools. If they are not available in their hospital, hospitalists might refer their medical director to this paper to see if there is any interest in purchasing these sleep tools.

Reference

1. 1. Farrehi PM, Clore KR, Scott JR, Vanini G, Clauw DJ. Efficacy of sleep tool education during hospitalization: a randomized controlled trial [published online ahead of print August 23, 2016]. Am J Med. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.08.001.

One of the biggest complaints of hospital patients today is poor sleep, which is not conducive to healing or good health in general.

“The reason I’m interested, as a cardiologist, is that sleep disorders are associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular mortality,” says Peter M. Farrehi, MD, assistant professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan and lead author of a recent sleep study published in The American Journal of Medicine.

Most information about sleeping in the hospital comes from ICU studies, he says.

Dr. Farrehi wanted to actually test an intervention rather than simply survey patients. All patients received an eye mask, ear plugs, and a white-noise machine, then were randomized to receive an education-based script on the importance of using these sleep-enhancing tools or a discussion about the general benefits of sleep.

“To avoid bias in the study both from the research staff and also hospital staff, I didn't want only the intervention to have the tools,” he says. “This was a double-blind, randomized control trial in the hospital, which is really unusual.”

Patients in the group that was taught about the sleep-enhancing tools had a statistically significant difference in their perceptions of fatigue and a trend toward improving their sleep and wake disturbances.

Dr. Farrehi suggests hospitalists talk to their patients complaining of poor sleep about these sleep tools. If they are not available in their hospital, hospitalists might refer their medical director to this paper to see if there is any interest in purchasing these sleep tools.

Reference

1. 1. Farrehi PM, Clore KR, Scott JR, Vanini G, Clauw DJ. Efficacy of sleep tool education during hospitalization: a randomized controlled trial [published online ahead of print August 23, 2016]. Am J Med. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.08.001.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one or more of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.”

View a chart outlining key communication tactics

What I Say and Do

Before entering a patient’s room, I take a “mindful moment,” a brief mindfulness practice to boost empathy. This is a quick, simple, and effective way for me to rehab my empathy muscle.

Why I Do It

From empathy comes our desire to care about another human being, to connect with them, and to understand and be understood.

Many of the colleagues I talk to about patient experience echo the same sentiment: They feel powerless to change someone else’s experience, which is bundled with the immovable variables of their own perceptions and contexts.

While I believe there is truth to that, we can certainly change our experience, and that is what matters to patients. As my mentor and coach Anya Sophia Mann reminded me recently, “We are not responsible for the patient experience. We are responsible for our own experience, which we then bring to our patients. Your heart connection to your own empathic center is beautifully contagious and will spread to those around you throughout your day.”

How I Do It

We may think that empathy is an innate talent, but the literature supports that it is a skill like any other that can be taught, practiced, and deliberately and consciously turned up and down like the brightness on your smartphone.

A heartfelt patient experience starts with the feeling of connection to our own heart. But we can’t think our way into a feeling. If I let my head lead the way, I shield my heart from participating in true communication with the patient. We are both left without connection, without a sense of purpose, without fulfillment—empty and tired.

For the antidote, I choose to create an experience for my body to feel rather than an idea for my head to think about. Ironically, mindfulness starts not with the mind but with the body and, more precisely, with the breath.

Before entering the patient’s room, usually as I’m rubbing the hand sanitizer between my fingers, I take a deep breath that expands my belly instead of my chest, then I exhale, leaving plenty of time for the complete out breath. Next, I make the choice to be curious about the sensations in my body: “What have I carried with me from my interaction with the previous patient (or the nurse or the driver in front of me during my commute)? Does my jaw feel tight? Where do I feel stuck? Where exactly does that lump in my throat begin and end?”

The instruction here is just to notice without judgment. From that place of noticing, I have done a quick erasing of my emotional whiteboard to create space where I can respond rather than react to what is most important to my patient. I invite you to try these steps and notice what shifts happen for you and your patients. You won’t know it until you try it—and feel it—for yourself.

1. Pause long enough to feel the ground supporting you under both feet.
2. Take a deep, cleansing belly breath. Exhale fully without added effort.
3. Notice, without judgment, the sensations in your body.
4. Feel the space created by the melting and releasing of those feelings.
5. Bring that feeling of space with you as you begin the conversation with the patient.

 

---

Michael Donlin, ACNP-BC, FHM, is an inpatient nurse practitioner for the Department of Medicine, VA Boston Healthcare System.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one or more of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.”

View a chart outlining key communication tactics

What I Say and Do

Before entering a patient’s room, I take a “mindful moment,” a brief mindfulness practice to boost empathy. This is a quick, simple, and effective way for me to rehab my empathy muscle.

Why I Do It

From empathy comes our desire to care about another human being, to connect with them, and to understand and be understood.

Many of the colleagues I talk to about patient experience echo the same sentiment: They feel powerless to change someone else’s experience, which is bundled with the immovable variables of their own perceptions and contexts.

While I believe there is truth to that, we can certainly change our experience, and that is what matters to patients. As my mentor and coach Anya Sophia Mann reminded me recently, “We are not responsible for the patient experience. We are responsible for our own experience, which we then bring to our patients. Your heart connection to your own empathic center is beautifully contagious and will spread to those around you throughout your day.”

How I Do It

We may think that empathy is an innate talent, but the literature supports that it is a skill like any other that can be taught, practiced, and deliberately and consciously turned up and down like the brightness on your smartphone.

A heartfelt patient experience starts with the feeling of connection to our own heart. But we can’t think our way into a feeling. If I let my head lead the way, I shield my heart from participating in true communication with the patient. We are both left without connection, without a sense of purpose, without fulfillment—empty and tired.

For the antidote, I choose to create an experience for my body to feel rather than an idea for my head to think about. Ironically, mindfulness starts not with the mind but with the body and, more precisely, with the breath.

Before entering the patient’s room, usually as I’m rubbing the hand sanitizer between my fingers, I take a deep breath that expands my belly instead of my chest, then I exhale, leaving plenty of time for the complete out breath. Next, I make the choice to be curious about the sensations in my body: “What have I carried with me from my interaction with the previous patient (or the nurse or the driver in front of me during my commute)? Does my jaw feel tight? Where do I feel stuck? Where exactly does that lump in my throat begin and end?”

The instruction here is just to notice without judgment. From that place of noticing, I have done a quick erasing of my emotional whiteboard to create space where I can respond rather than react to what is most important to my patient. I invite you to try these steps and notice what shifts happen for you and your patients. You won’t know it until you try it—and feel it—for yourself.

1. Pause long enough to feel the ground supporting you under both feet.
2. Take a deep, cleansing belly breath. Exhale fully without added effort.
3. Notice, without judgment, the sensations in your body.
4. Feel the space created by the melting and releasing of those feelings.
5. Bring that feeling of space with you as you begin the conversation with the patient.

 

---

Michael Donlin, ACNP-BC, FHM, is an inpatient nurse practitioner for the Department of Medicine, VA Boston Healthcare System.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one or more of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.”

View a chart outlining key communication tactics

What I Say and Do

Before entering a patient’s room, I take a “mindful moment,” a brief mindfulness practice to boost empathy. This is a quick, simple, and effective way for me to rehab my empathy muscle.

Why I Do It

From empathy comes our desire to care about another human being, to connect with them, and to understand and be understood.

Many of the colleagues I talk to about patient experience echo the same sentiment: They feel powerless to change someone else’s experience, which is bundled with the immovable variables of their own perceptions and contexts.

While I believe there is truth to that, we can certainly change our experience, and that is what matters to patients. As my mentor and coach Anya Sophia Mann reminded me recently, “We are not responsible for the patient experience. We are responsible for our own experience, which we then bring to our patients. Your heart connection to your own empathic center is beautifully contagious and will spread to those around you throughout your day.”

How I Do It

We may think that empathy is an innate talent, but the literature supports that it is a skill like any other that can be taught, practiced, and deliberately and consciously turned up and down like the brightness on your smartphone.

A heartfelt patient experience starts with the feeling of connection to our own heart. But we can’t think our way into a feeling. If I let my head lead the way, I shield my heart from participating in true communication with the patient. We are both left without connection, without a sense of purpose, without fulfillment—empty and tired.

For the antidote, I choose to create an experience for my body to feel rather than an idea for my head to think about. Ironically, mindfulness starts not with the mind but with the body and, more precisely, with the breath.

Before entering the patient’s room, usually as I’m rubbing the hand sanitizer between my fingers, I take a deep breath that expands my belly instead of my chest, then I exhale, leaving plenty of time for the complete out breath. Next, I make the choice to be curious about the sensations in my body: “What have I carried with me from my interaction with the previous patient (or the nurse or the driver in front of me during my commute)? Does my jaw feel tight? Where do I feel stuck? Where exactly does that lump in my throat begin and end?”

The instruction here is just to notice without judgment. From that place of noticing, I have done a quick erasing of my emotional whiteboard to create space where I can respond rather than react to what is most important to my patient. I invite you to try these steps and notice what shifts happen for you and your patients. You won’t know it until you try it—and feel it—for yourself.

1. Pause long enough to feel the ground supporting you under both feet.
2. Take a deep, cleansing belly breath. Exhale fully without added effort.
3. Notice, without judgment, the sensations in your body.
4. Feel the space created by the melting and releasing of those feelings.
5. Bring that feeling of space with you as you begin the conversation with the patient.

 

---

Michael Donlin, ACNP-BC, FHM, is an inpatient nurse practitioner for the Department of Medicine, VA Boston Healthcare System.

The Case

A 74-year-old man with Alzheimer’s dementia presents with urinary tract infection (UTI), hypovolemia, and hypernatremia. He also has chronic dysphagia with a history of aspiration pneumonia and has been on thickened liquids at home for the past five months. As his infection is treated, he improves and requests water to drink.

Background

Dysphagia is a very common problem, particularly among elderly patients. The exact prevalence is unknown, but it is estimated to occur in up to 30% of the elderly population. Dysphagia is defined as difficulty or discomfort in swallowing and is traditionally classified as either oropharyngeal or esophageal in origin. Normal aging as well as chronic illness may lead to decreased connective tissue elasticity, muscle mass, and oral secretions, which affect swallowing performance.1 Stroke is a common predisposing condition.2 Dysphagia predisposes patients to dehydration, malnutrition, and electrolyte derangements. The most feared immediate complication is aspiration pneumonia (AP) resulting from impaired clearance of oral secretions.3

The diagnosis of dysphagia is clinical, and assessments from patients and family are often sufficient. The optimal test to assess the severity of dysphagia is a bedside swallow evaluation using small amounts of water.1 Video-assisted fluoroscopic examinations can identify problem areas within the oropharynx and esophagus and may help determine the etiology of dysphagia.

What evidence supports various treatment options for dysphagia?

Access to Water

Water is a thin liquid with low viscosity, which allows for rapid transit through the oropharynx. In debilitated and elderly patients, thin liquids easily reach the epiglottis and enter the trachea before pharyngeal muscles compensate. As such, access to water and other thin liquids is often restricted in patients suspected to have dysphagia.4

However, allowing access to water improves patient satisfaction, reduces the development of dehydration, and does not increase the incidence of AP. Bedside therapy interventions such as correct positioning and chin-tuck and sipping technique as well as attention to oral hygiene are recommended prior to more noxious options such as thickened liquids.1 The Frazier water protocol may help provide logistical guidance for facilities interested in improving access to water for patients with dysphagia.

Liquid Modification

Many clinicians manage dysphagia through restricting access to all thin liquids. In the hospital setting where video fluoroscopy and speech therapy are readily available, clinicians frequently employ the use of modified diets with thickened liquids in order to minimize the risk of aspiration despite the lack of high-quality evidence supporting liquid modification.2 Patients associate thickened liquids and restricted diets with a reduction in quality of life. Compliance studies have shown that only a minority of patients are compliant with thickened liquids at five days. In addition, thickening liquids has not been shown to decrease the risk of AP nor improve nutritional status, and it may actually cause harm by increasing the risk of dehydration and UTI.4

Tube Feeding

In patients with severe dysphagia in whom conservative management is not feasible or has failed, maintaining adequate nutrition can be a challenge. There are encouraging data with nutritionally enriching and modifying the texture of solid foods.1 Alternative methods of enteral nutrition delivery are often also considered. The most common vehicles of delivery are nasogastric tubes, post-pyloric feeding tubes, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. In theory, bypassing the pharynx and esophagus could result in fewer aspiration events and less AP.3 However, nasogastric, post-pyloric, or PEG feeding does not decrease the risk of AP. For patients with advanced dementia, there have been no randomized trials demonstrating an improvement in mortality with tube feeds.4 Tube feeding also carries with it a slight procedural risk and a high incidence of associated diarrhea, plus is associated with electrolyte derangements such as hypernatremia. The decision to pursue tube feeding should be weighed heavily in every patient and is highly influenced by the etiology and anticipated duration of dysphagia.

 

Selective Digestive Decontamination

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) is a protocol-based treatment that aims to eradicate potentially pathogenic gut flora, particularly aerobic gram-negatives, in critically ill patients to reduce the impact of aspiration events. The utilization of SDD and the available literature center firmly on critically ill and ventilated patients. Subsequent studies have demonstrated recolonization after protocol cessation, and long-term effects are currently undefined.5 Until it can be studied in broader populations and proven to have clinical benefit, employing SSD in non-critically ill patients with dysphagia remains unsupported.

Multimodal Approach

Many rehabilitation centers incorporate a therapist-driven swallowing treatment program. Evidence suggests patient and family counseling alone may not be effective, so these programs variably incorporate diet/liquid modification, strengthening exercises, sensory processing techniques, and even neuromuscular electrical stimulation for muscle building.1 Accordingly, these programs are resource-intensive.

Management

Dysphagia remains a significant clinical problem for hospitalized patients. The existing literature and practice guidelines generally support a “less is more” approach. Though liquid/diet modification is common practice, it is not based in solid evidence and may contribute to unnecessary tube feeding. The best current evidence supports allowing access to water and ice chips. The ideal management plan for each patient will differ and should incorporate patient and family preferences in a multidisciplinary approach.

Back to the Case

Our patient requests water. He coughs after drinking during a bedside swallow evaluation. The risks of potential aspiration and AP are explained, and he expresses his understanding. He reiterates his choice to be allowed access to water as it is important to his quality of life. The speech therapy team is consulted and provides instruction on chin-tuck positioning, oral care, and timing water between meals rather than while eating food. He does well for the remainder of the hospital stay, and by time of discharge, his electrolytes are corrected, and he is much more comfortable being allowed to drink water. He is discharged home and encouraged to continue with these conservative measures.

Bottom Line

Evidence to support many common interventions for dysphagia is lacking; patients with dysphagia are best managed via a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach that provides access to water whenever possible. TH

---

Vijay G. Paryani, MD, is an internal medicine resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Kentucky. Joseph R. Sweigart, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky. Laura C. Fanucchi, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky.

References

1. Karagiannis MJ, Chivers L, Karagiannis TC. Effects of oral intake of water in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. BMC Geriatr. 2011;11(2):9.
2. Foley N, Teasell R, Salter K, Kruger E, Martino R. Dysphagia treatment post stroke: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Age Ageing. 2008;37(3):258-264.
3. Marik PE. Aspiration pneumonitis and aspiration pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(9):665-671.
4. Loeb MB, Becker M, Eady A, Walker-Dilks C. Interventions to prevent aspiration pneumonia in older adults: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(7):1018-1022.
5. Gosney M, Martin MV, Wright AE. The role of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in acute stroke. Age Ageing 2006;35(1):42-47.

 

The Case

A 74-year-old man with Alzheimer’s dementia presents with urinary tract infection (UTI), hypovolemia, and hypernatremia. He also has chronic dysphagia with a history of aspiration pneumonia and has been on thickened liquids at home for the past five months. As his infection is treated, he improves and requests water to drink.

Background

Dysphagia is a very common problem, particularly among elderly patients. The exact prevalence is unknown, but it is estimated to occur in up to 30% of the elderly population. Dysphagia is defined as difficulty or discomfort in swallowing and is traditionally classified as either oropharyngeal or esophageal in origin. Normal aging as well as chronic illness may lead to decreased connective tissue elasticity, muscle mass, and oral secretions, which affect swallowing performance.1 Stroke is a common predisposing condition.2 Dysphagia predisposes patients to dehydration, malnutrition, and electrolyte derangements. The most feared immediate complication is aspiration pneumonia (AP) resulting from impaired clearance of oral secretions.3

The diagnosis of dysphagia is clinical, and assessments from patients and family are often sufficient. The optimal test to assess the severity of dysphagia is a bedside swallow evaluation using small amounts of water.1 Video-assisted fluoroscopic examinations can identify problem areas within the oropharynx and esophagus and may help determine the etiology of dysphagia.

What evidence supports various treatment options for dysphagia?

Access to Water

Water is a thin liquid with low viscosity, which allows for rapid transit through the oropharynx. In debilitated and elderly patients, thin liquids easily reach the epiglottis and enter the trachea before pharyngeal muscles compensate. As such, access to water and other thin liquids is often restricted in patients suspected to have dysphagia.4

However, allowing access to water improves patient satisfaction, reduces the development of dehydration, and does not increase the incidence of AP. Bedside therapy interventions such as correct positioning and chin-tuck and sipping technique as well as attention to oral hygiene are recommended prior to more noxious options such as thickened liquids.1 The Frazier water protocol may help provide logistical guidance for facilities interested in improving access to water for patients with dysphagia.

Liquid Modification

Many clinicians manage dysphagia through restricting access to all thin liquids. In the hospital setting where video fluoroscopy and speech therapy are readily available, clinicians frequently employ the use of modified diets with thickened liquids in order to minimize the risk of aspiration despite the lack of high-quality evidence supporting liquid modification.2 Patients associate thickened liquids and restricted diets with a reduction in quality of life. Compliance studies have shown that only a minority of patients are compliant with thickened liquids at five days. In addition, thickening liquids has not been shown to decrease the risk of AP nor improve nutritional status, and it may actually cause harm by increasing the risk of dehydration and UTI.4

Tube Feeding

In patients with severe dysphagia in whom conservative management is not feasible or has failed, maintaining adequate nutrition can be a challenge. There are encouraging data with nutritionally enriching and modifying the texture of solid foods.1 Alternative methods of enteral nutrition delivery are often also considered. The most common vehicles of delivery are nasogastric tubes, post-pyloric feeding tubes, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. In theory, bypassing the pharynx and esophagus could result in fewer aspiration events and less AP.3 However, nasogastric, post-pyloric, or PEG feeding does not decrease the risk of AP. For patients with advanced dementia, there have been no randomized trials demonstrating an improvement in mortality with tube feeds.4 Tube feeding also carries with it a slight procedural risk and a high incidence of associated diarrhea, plus is associated with electrolyte derangements such as hypernatremia. The decision to pursue tube feeding should be weighed heavily in every patient and is highly influenced by the etiology and anticipated duration of dysphagia.

 

Selective Digestive Decontamination

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) is a protocol-based treatment that aims to eradicate potentially pathogenic gut flora, particularly aerobic gram-negatives, in critically ill patients to reduce the impact of aspiration events. The utilization of SDD and the available literature center firmly on critically ill and ventilated patients. Subsequent studies have demonstrated recolonization after protocol cessation, and long-term effects are currently undefined.5 Until it can be studied in broader populations and proven to have clinical benefit, employing SSD in non-critically ill patients with dysphagia remains unsupported.

Multimodal Approach

Many rehabilitation centers incorporate a therapist-driven swallowing treatment program. Evidence suggests patient and family counseling alone may not be effective, so these programs variably incorporate diet/liquid modification, strengthening exercises, sensory processing techniques, and even neuromuscular electrical stimulation for muscle building.1 Accordingly, these programs are resource-intensive.

Management

Dysphagia remains a significant clinical problem for hospitalized patients. The existing literature and practice guidelines generally support a “less is more” approach. Though liquid/diet modification is common practice, it is not based in solid evidence and may contribute to unnecessary tube feeding. The best current evidence supports allowing access to water and ice chips. The ideal management plan for each patient will differ and should incorporate patient and family preferences in a multidisciplinary approach.

Back to the Case

Our patient requests water. He coughs after drinking during a bedside swallow evaluation. The risks of potential aspiration and AP are explained, and he expresses his understanding. He reiterates his choice to be allowed access to water as it is important to his quality of life. The speech therapy team is consulted and provides instruction on chin-tuck positioning, oral care, and timing water between meals rather than while eating food. He does well for the remainder of the hospital stay, and by time of discharge, his electrolytes are corrected, and he is much more comfortable being allowed to drink water. He is discharged home and encouraged to continue with these conservative measures.

Bottom Line

Evidence to support many common interventions for dysphagia is lacking; patients with dysphagia are best managed via a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach that provides access to water whenever possible. TH

---

Vijay G. Paryani, MD, is an internal medicine resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Kentucky. Joseph R. Sweigart, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky. Laura C. Fanucchi, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky.

References

1. Karagiannis MJ, Chivers L, Karagiannis TC. Effects of oral intake of water in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. BMC Geriatr. 2011;11(2):9.
2. Foley N, Teasell R, Salter K, Kruger E, Martino R. Dysphagia treatment post stroke: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Age Ageing. 2008;37(3):258-264.
3. Marik PE. Aspiration pneumonitis and aspiration pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(9):665-671.
4. Loeb MB, Becker M, Eady A, Walker-Dilks C. Interventions to prevent aspiration pneumonia in older adults: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(7):1018-1022.
5. Gosney M, Martin MV, Wright AE. The role of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in acute stroke. Age Ageing 2006;35(1):42-47.

 

The Case

A 74-year-old man with Alzheimer’s dementia presents with urinary tract infection (UTI), hypovolemia, and hypernatremia. He also has chronic dysphagia with a history of aspiration pneumonia and has been on thickened liquids at home for the past five months. As his infection is treated, he improves and requests water to drink.

Background

Dysphagia is a very common problem, particularly among elderly patients. The exact prevalence is unknown, but it is estimated to occur in up to 30% of the elderly population. Dysphagia is defined as difficulty or discomfort in swallowing and is traditionally classified as either oropharyngeal or esophageal in origin. Normal aging as well as chronic illness may lead to decreased connective tissue elasticity, muscle mass, and oral secretions, which affect swallowing performance.1 Stroke is a common predisposing condition.2 Dysphagia predisposes patients to dehydration, malnutrition, and electrolyte derangements. The most feared immediate complication is aspiration pneumonia (AP) resulting from impaired clearance of oral secretions.3

The diagnosis of dysphagia is clinical, and assessments from patients and family are often sufficient. The optimal test to assess the severity of dysphagia is a bedside swallow evaluation using small amounts of water.1 Video-assisted fluoroscopic examinations can identify problem areas within the oropharynx and esophagus and may help determine the etiology of dysphagia.

What evidence supports various treatment options for dysphagia?

Access to Water

Water is a thin liquid with low viscosity, which allows for rapid transit through the oropharynx. In debilitated and elderly patients, thin liquids easily reach the epiglottis and enter the trachea before pharyngeal muscles compensate. As such, access to water and other thin liquids is often restricted in patients suspected to have dysphagia.4

However, allowing access to water improves patient satisfaction, reduces the development of dehydration, and does not increase the incidence of AP. Bedside therapy interventions such as correct positioning and chin-tuck and sipping technique as well as attention to oral hygiene are recommended prior to more noxious options such as thickened liquids.1 The Frazier water protocol may help provide logistical guidance for facilities interested in improving access to water for patients with dysphagia.

Liquid Modification

Many clinicians manage dysphagia through restricting access to all thin liquids. In the hospital setting where video fluoroscopy and speech therapy are readily available, clinicians frequently employ the use of modified diets with thickened liquids in order to minimize the risk of aspiration despite the lack of high-quality evidence supporting liquid modification.2 Patients associate thickened liquids and restricted diets with a reduction in quality of life. Compliance studies have shown that only a minority of patients are compliant with thickened liquids at five days. In addition, thickening liquids has not been shown to decrease the risk of AP nor improve nutritional status, and it may actually cause harm by increasing the risk of dehydration and UTI.4

Tube Feeding

In patients with severe dysphagia in whom conservative management is not feasible or has failed, maintaining adequate nutrition can be a challenge. There are encouraging data with nutritionally enriching and modifying the texture of solid foods.1 Alternative methods of enteral nutrition delivery are often also considered. The most common vehicles of delivery are nasogastric tubes, post-pyloric feeding tubes, and percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tubes. In theory, bypassing the pharynx and esophagus could result in fewer aspiration events and less AP.3 However, nasogastric, post-pyloric, or PEG feeding does not decrease the risk of AP. For patients with advanced dementia, there have been no randomized trials demonstrating an improvement in mortality with tube feeds.4 Tube feeding also carries with it a slight procedural risk and a high incidence of associated diarrhea, plus is associated with electrolyte derangements such as hypernatremia. The decision to pursue tube feeding should be weighed heavily in every patient and is highly influenced by the etiology and anticipated duration of dysphagia.

 

Selective Digestive Decontamination

Selective digestive decontamination (SDD) is a protocol-based treatment that aims to eradicate potentially pathogenic gut flora, particularly aerobic gram-negatives, in critically ill patients to reduce the impact of aspiration events. The utilization of SDD and the available literature center firmly on critically ill and ventilated patients. Subsequent studies have demonstrated recolonization after protocol cessation, and long-term effects are currently undefined.5 Until it can be studied in broader populations and proven to have clinical benefit, employing SSD in non-critically ill patients with dysphagia remains unsupported.

Multimodal Approach

Many rehabilitation centers incorporate a therapist-driven swallowing treatment program. Evidence suggests patient and family counseling alone may not be effective, so these programs variably incorporate diet/liquid modification, strengthening exercises, sensory processing techniques, and even neuromuscular electrical stimulation for muscle building.1 Accordingly, these programs are resource-intensive.

Management

Dysphagia remains a significant clinical problem for hospitalized patients. The existing literature and practice guidelines generally support a “less is more” approach. Though liquid/diet modification is common practice, it is not based in solid evidence and may contribute to unnecessary tube feeding. The best current evidence supports allowing access to water and ice chips. The ideal management plan for each patient will differ and should incorporate patient and family preferences in a multidisciplinary approach.

Back to the Case

Our patient requests water. He coughs after drinking during a bedside swallow evaluation. The risks of potential aspiration and AP are explained, and he expresses his understanding. He reiterates his choice to be allowed access to water as it is important to his quality of life. The speech therapy team is consulted and provides instruction on chin-tuck positioning, oral care, and timing water between meals rather than while eating food. He does well for the remainder of the hospital stay, and by time of discharge, his electrolytes are corrected, and he is much more comfortable being allowed to drink water. He is discharged home and encouraged to continue with these conservative measures.

Bottom Line

Evidence to support many common interventions for dysphagia is lacking; patients with dysphagia are best managed via a multidisciplinary, multimodal approach that provides access to water whenever possible. TH

---

Vijay G. Paryani, MD, is an internal medicine resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of Kentucky. Joseph R. Sweigart, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky. Laura C. Fanucchi, MD, is a hospitalist and assistant professor of hospital medicine in the division of hospital medicine at the University of Kentucky.

References

1. Karagiannis MJ, Chivers L, Karagiannis TC. Effects of oral intake of water in patients with oropharyngeal dysphagia. BMC Geriatr. 2011;11(2):9.
2. Foley N, Teasell R, Salter K, Kruger E, Martino R. Dysphagia treatment post stroke: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Age Ageing. 2008;37(3):258-264.
3. Marik PE. Aspiration pneumonitis and aspiration pneumonia. N Engl J Med. 2001;344(9):665-671.
4. Loeb MB, Becker M, Eady A, Walker-Dilks C. Interventions to prevent aspiration pneumonia in older adults: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2003;51(7):1018-1022.
5. Gosney M, Martin MV, Wright AE. The role of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in acute stroke. Age Ageing 2006;35(1):42-47.

 

Clinical Question: What are current recommendations for diagnosis, management, and prevention of acute gastrointestinal infection in immune-competent adults?

Background: Acute diarrheal infection is a leading cause of healthcare visits and lost quality of life. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there are 47.8 million cases annually, with a healthcare economy burden of $150 million.

Study Design: American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) practice guideline.

Setting: Expert panel.

Synopsis: Stool diagnostic studies may be used for dysentery with moderate-severe disease and symptoms lasting more than seven days (strong recommendation, low level of evidence). Traditional diagnostic methods in most cases fail to reveal etiology (strong recommendation, low level of evidence). Treatment with probiotics or prebiotics is not recommended (strong recommendation, moderate level of evidence). Bismuth subsalicylates may be considered for prophylaxis against traveler’s diarrhea (strong recommendation, high level of evidence). Short-term antibiotic chemoprophylaxis also may be considered for high-risk groups (strong recommendation, high level of evidence). Empiric antimicrobial therapy is not recommended except in cases of traveler’s diarrhea (strong recommendation, high level of evidence). Loperamide may be used as an adjunct to antibiotics for traveler’s diarrhea (strong recommendation, moderate level of evidence).

Bottom Line: ACG acute diarrheal illness guidelines have been updated. Few recommendations are strong, and very few have high levels of evidence.

Citation: Riddle MS, DuPont HL, Conner BA. ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of acute diarrheal infections in adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(5):602-622.

Clinical Question: What are current recommendations for diagnosis, management, and prevention of acute gastrointestinal infection in immune-competent adults?

Background: Acute diarrheal infection is a leading cause of healthcare visits and lost quality of life. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there are 47.8 million cases annually, with a healthcare economy burden of $150 million.

Study Design: American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) practice guideline.

Setting: Expert panel.

Synopsis: Stool diagnostic studies may be used for dysentery with moderate-severe disease and symptoms lasting more than seven days (strong recommendation, low level of evidence). Traditional diagnostic methods in most cases fail to reveal etiology (strong recommendation, low level of evidence). Treatment with probiotics or prebiotics is not recommended (strong recommendation, moderate level of evidence). Bismuth subsalicylates may be considered for prophylaxis against traveler’s diarrhea (strong recommendation, high level of evidence). Short-term antibiotic chemoprophylaxis also may be considered for high-risk groups (strong recommendation, high level of evidence). Empiric antimicrobial therapy is not recommended except in cases of traveler’s diarrhea (strong recommendation, high level of evidence). Loperamide may be used as an adjunct to antibiotics for traveler’s diarrhea (strong recommendation, moderate level of evidence).

Bottom Line: ACG acute diarrheal illness guidelines have been updated. Few recommendations are strong, and very few have high levels of evidence.

Citation: Riddle MS, DuPont HL, Conner BA. ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of acute diarrheal infections in adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(5):602-622.

Clinical Question: What are current recommendations for diagnosis, management, and prevention of acute gastrointestinal infection in immune-competent adults?

Background: Acute diarrheal infection is a leading cause of healthcare visits and lost quality of life. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates there are 47.8 million cases annually, with a healthcare economy burden of $150 million.

Study Design: American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) practice guideline.

Setting: Expert panel.

Synopsis: Stool diagnostic studies may be used for dysentery with moderate-severe disease and symptoms lasting more than seven days (strong recommendation, low level of evidence). Traditional diagnostic methods in most cases fail to reveal etiology (strong recommendation, low level of evidence). Treatment with probiotics or prebiotics is not recommended (strong recommendation, moderate level of evidence). Bismuth subsalicylates may be considered for prophylaxis against traveler’s diarrhea (strong recommendation, high level of evidence). Short-term antibiotic chemoprophylaxis also may be considered for high-risk groups (strong recommendation, high level of evidence). Empiric antimicrobial therapy is not recommended except in cases of traveler’s diarrhea (strong recommendation, high level of evidence). Loperamide may be used as an adjunct to antibiotics for traveler’s diarrhea (strong recommendation, moderate level of evidence).

Bottom Line: ACG acute diarrheal illness guidelines have been updated. Few recommendations are strong, and very few have high levels of evidence.

Citation: Riddle MS, DuPont HL, Conner BA. ACG clinical guideline: diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of acute diarrheal infections in adults. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(5):602-622.