The Hospitalist

Speaker: Lisa Zaoutis, MD, Pediatric Residency Program Director at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Amid the skyscrapers of the Windy City, Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) 2016 swept into town, bringing with it the denizens of pediatric hospitalist programs across the country. Some 1,150 attendees, comprised of hospitalists, PHM program leaders, and advanced care practitioners, gathered to educate and inspire one another in the the care of hospitalized children.

Dr. Lisa Zaoutis, director of the pediatric residency program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, kicked off the conference with the opening plenary. Initially titled “North Star and Space,” she quickly changed the title to, “Changing Our Minds.” Touching on the disconnect between positive experiences that bring physicians into PHM and negative experiences that often drive behavior, she started with the beginning, the evolution of our brains.

“We are wired toward the negative,” stated Dr. Zaoutis. “We are Teflon for positive experiences and Velcro for negative experiences.” In addition, negative experiences are more likely to be stored in our memories. “It’s easy to park negative experiences.”

Delving deeper into neuroanatomy, Dr. Zaoutis spoke of “amygdala hijack,” where chronic stress inherent to the professional lives of pediatric hospitalists lead to anxiety responses that are faster, more robust, and triggered more easily.

But all is not lost, asserted Dr. Zaoutis, as our brains are more plastic than previously known. The “neural Darwinism,” of our brains, as Dr. Zaoutis states, leads to epigenetic intracellular changes, more sensitive synapses, improved blood flow, and even new cells as a result of experience dependent neuroplasticity. For example, stated Dr. Zaoutis, London taxi drivers have thicker white matter in their hippocampus as a result of the effect of learning London city streets, and mindfulness meditators have thicker gray matter in regions that control attention and self-insight.

Key Takeaways:

The lesson for pediatric hospitalists, stated Dr. Zaoutis, is that you can shape your brain for greater joy. “Consciously choose activities,” said Dr. Zaoutis, that counter our evolutionary negativity bias. How is this done?

1. Have a positive experience (you can create one or retrieve a prior one);

2. Enrich it and install it by dwelling on it for at least 15-30 seconds; and

3. Absorb it into your body, which my require somatisizing it – Dr. Zaoutis presses her hand into her chest to aid in this.

Further, spread this to your group by the old medical training technique of “see one, do one, teach one.” See if you can start your signout with the best thing that happened to you in the week. Most importantly, start with observing yourself.

Speaker: Lisa Zaoutis, MD, Pediatric Residency Program Director at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Amid the skyscrapers of the Windy City, Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) 2016 swept into town, bringing with it the denizens of pediatric hospitalist programs across the country. Some 1,150 attendees, comprised of hospitalists, PHM program leaders, and advanced care practitioners, gathered to educate and inspire one another in the the care of hospitalized children.

Dr. Lisa Zaoutis, director of the pediatric residency program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, kicked off the conference with the opening plenary. Initially titled “North Star and Space,” she quickly changed the title to, “Changing Our Minds.” Touching on the disconnect between positive experiences that bring physicians into PHM and negative experiences that often drive behavior, she started with the beginning, the evolution of our brains.

“We are wired toward the negative,” stated Dr. Zaoutis. “We are Teflon for positive experiences and Velcro for negative experiences.” In addition, negative experiences are more likely to be stored in our memories. “It’s easy to park negative experiences.”

Delving deeper into neuroanatomy, Dr. Zaoutis spoke of “amygdala hijack,” where chronic stress inherent to the professional lives of pediatric hospitalists lead to anxiety responses that are faster, more robust, and triggered more easily.

But all is not lost, asserted Dr. Zaoutis, as our brains are more plastic than previously known. The “neural Darwinism,” of our brains, as Dr. Zaoutis states, leads to epigenetic intracellular changes, more sensitive synapses, improved blood flow, and even new cells as a result of experience dependent neuroplasticity. For example, stated Dr. Zaoutis, London taxi drivers have thicker white matter in their hippocampus as a result of the effect of learning London city streets, and mindfulness meditators have thicker gray matter in regions that control attention and self-insight.

Key Takeaways:

The lesson for pediatric hospitalists, stated Dr. Zaoutis, is that you can shape your brain for greater joy. “Consciously choose activities,” said Dr. Zaoutis, that counter our evolutionary negativity bias. How is this done?

1. Have a positive experience (you can create one or retrieve a prior one);

2. Enrich it and install it by dwelling on it for at least 15-30 seconds; and

3. Absorb it into your body, which my require somatisizing it – Dr. Zaoutis presses her hand into her chest to aid in this.

Further, spread this to your group by the old medical training technique of “see one, do one, teach one.” See if you can start your signout with the best thing that happened to you in the week. Most importantly, start with observing yourself.

Speaker: Lisa Zaoutis, MD, Pediatric Residency Program Director at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Amid the skyscrapers of the Windy City, Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) 2016 swept into town, bringing with it the denizens of pediatric hospitalist programs across the country. Some 1,150 attendees, comprised of hospitalists, PHM program leaders, and advanced care practitioners, gathered to educate and inspire one another in the the care of hospitalized children.

Dr. Lisa Zaoutis, director of the pediatric residency program at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, kicked off the conference with the opening plenary. Initially titled “North Star and Space,” she quickly changed the title to, “Changing Our Minds.” Touching on the disconnect between positive experiences that bring physicians into PHM and negative experiences that often drive behavior, she started with the beginning, the evolution of our brains.

“We are wired toward the negative,” stated Dr. Zaoutis. “We are Teflon for positive experiences and Velcro for negative experiences.” In addition, negative experiences are more likely to be stored in our memories. “It’s easy to park negative experiences.”

Delving deeper into neuroanatomy, Dr. Zaoutis spoke of “amygdala hijack,” where chronic stress inherent to the professional lives of pediatric hospitalists lead to anxiety responses that are faster, more robust, and triggered more easily.

But all is not lost, asserted Dr. Zaoutis, as our brains are more plastic than previously known. The “neural Darwinism,” of our brains, as Dr. Zaoutis states, leads to epigenetic intracellular changes, more sensitive synapses, improved blood flow, and even new cells as a result of experience dependent neuroplasticity. For example, stated Dr. Zaoutis, London taxi drivers have thicker white matter in their hippocampus as a result of the effect of learning London city streets, and mindfulness meditators have thicker gray matter in regions that control attention and self-insight.

Key Takeaways:

The lesson for pediatric hospitalists, stated Dr. Zaoutis, is that you can shape your brain for greater joy. “Consciously choose activities,” said Dr. Zaoutis, that counter our evolutionary negativity bias. How is this done?

1. Have a positive experience (you can create one or retrieve a prior one);

2. Enrich it and install it by dwelling on it for at least 15-30 seconds; and

3. Absorb it into your body, which my require somatisizing it – Dr. Zaoutis presses her hand into her chest to aid in this.

Further, spread this to your group by the old medical training technique of “see one, do one, teach one.” See if you can start your signout with the best thing that happened to you in the week. Most importantly, start with observing yourself.

Seven-Module Anticoagulation Series

This comprehensive series of recorded webinars reviews best practices for inpatient anticoagulation, including the evidence-based management of atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, perioperative anticoagulation, and anticoagulant-related bleeding. Features include:

• Seven 60-minute webinar-based sessions accessible on-demand
• Brief introductory materials accompanying each webinar as well as a post-test
• Links to additional resources with each webinar
• 6.5 CME credits for all seven sessions

This module is free for SHM members and non-members.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Performance Improvement CME Activity

Improve quality improvement strategies around acute coronary syndrome (ACS) while earning CME. This tool is a free, self-directed, web-based, yearlong activity designed to help you evaluate your practice. Upon completion of the activity you will receive 20 CME credits. The activity features three stages, including completing a performance assessment measurement through a self-evaluation, building an action plan for personal improvement, and using a performance analysis tool to compare performance from the previous stages.

The deadline to participate is fall 2016. This module is free for SHM members and non-members.

Adolescent and Young Adult Inpatient Care: Not a Kid Anymore

This online case-based module allows participants to:

• Identify appropriate interview techniques with the adolescent inpatient
• Recognize the components in a complete psychosocial interview with an adolescent inpatient
• Define the necessary elements of a pelvic examination in an adolescent female inpatient
• Select the appropriate diagnosis, treatment, and partner notification for STI in the inpatient setting
• Earn 10 self-evaluation points when enrolled in the American Board of Pediatrics’ MOC program and 3.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits upon completion of the activity

This module is free for SHM members and $50 for non-members.

Updated Hospital Quality and Patient Safety MOC Self-Assessment (Adult and Pediatrics)

• Quality improvement and patient safety principles such as QI theory, system processes, measurement tools for implementation and error types, disclosure, and prevention strategies
• 26 multiple-choice questions with accompanying answers, rationales, and references
• 8 self-evaluation points for diplomates enrolled in ABIM’s MOC program as well as 2.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits

SHM members receive a special price of $65; the non-member price is $100.

Seven-Module Anticoagulation Series

This comprehensive series of recorded webinars reviews best practices for inpatient anticoagulation, including the evidence-based management of atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, perioperative anticoagulation, and anticoagulant-related bleeding. Features include:

• Seven 60-minute webinar-based sessions accessible on-demand
• Brief introductory materials accompanying each webinar as well as a post-test
• Links to additional resources with each webinar
• 6.5 CME credits for all seven sessions

This module is free for SHM members and non-members.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Performance Improvement CME Activity

Improve quality improvement strategies around acute coronary syndrome (ACS) while earning CME. This tool is a free, self-directed, web-based, yearlong activity designed to help you evaluate your practice. Upon completion of the activity you will receive 20 CME credits. The activity features three stages, including completing a performance assessment measurement through a self-evaluation, building an action plan for personal improvement, and using a performance analysis tool to compare performance from the previous stages.

The deadline to participate is fall 2016. This module is free for SHM members and non-members.

Adolescent and Young Adult Inpatient Care: Not a Kid Anymore

This online case-based module allows participants to:

• Identify appropriate interview techniques with the adolescent inpatient
• Recognize the components in a complete psychosocial interview with an adolescent inpatient
• Define the necessary elements of a pelvic examination in an adolescent female inpatient
• Select the appropriate diagnosis, treatment, and partner notification for STI in the inpatient setting
• Earn 10 self-evaluation points when enrolled in the American Board of Pediatrics’ MOC program and 3.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits upon completion of the activity

This module is free for SHM members and $50 for non-members.

Updated Hospital Quality and Patient Safety MOC Self-Assessment (Adult and Pediatrics)

• Quality improvement and patient safety principles such as QI theory, system processes, measurement tools for implementation and error types, disclosure, and prevention strategies
• 26 multiple-choice questions with accompanying answers, rationales, and references
• 8 self-evaluation points for diplomates enrolled in ABIM’s MOC program as well as 2.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits

SHM members receive a special price of $65; the non-member price is $100.

Seven-Module Anticoagulation Series

This comprehensive series of recorded webinars reviews best practices for inpatient anticoagulation, including the evidence-based management of atrial fibrillation, venous thromboembolism, perioperative anticoagulation, and anticoagulant-related bleeding. Features include:

• Seven 60-minute webinar-based sessions accessible on-demand
• Brief introductory materials accompanying each webinar as well as a post-test
• Links to additional resources with each webinar
• 6.5 CME credits for all seven sessions

This module is free for SHM members and non-members.

Acute Coronary Syndrome Performance Improvement CME Activity

Improve quality improvement strategies around acute coronary syndrome (ACS) while earning CME. This tool is a free, self-directed, web-based, yearlong activity designed to help you evaluate your practice. Upon completion of the activity you will receive 20 CME credits. The activity features three stages, including completing a performance assessment measurement through a self-evaluation, building an action plan for personal improvement, and using a performance analysis tool to compare performance from the previous stages.

The deadline to participate is fall 2016. This module is free for SHM members and non-members.

Adolescent and Young Adult Inpatient Care: Not a Kid Anymore

This online case-based module allows participants to:

• Identify appropriate interview techniques with the adolescent inpatient
• Recognize the components in a complete psychosocial interview with an adolescent inpatient
• Define the necessary elements of a pelvic examination in an adolescent female inpatient
• Select the appropriate diagnosis, treatment, and partner notification for STI in the inpatient setting
• Earn 10 self-evaluation points when enrolled in the American Board of Pediatrics’ MOC program and 3.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits upon completion of the activity

This module is free for SHM members and $50 for non-members.

Updated Hospital Quality and Patient Safety MOC Self-Assessment (Adult and Pediatrics)

• Quality improvement and patient safety principles such as QI theory, system processes, measurement tools for implementation and error types, disclosure, and prevention strategies
• 26 multiple-choice questions with accompanying answers, rationales, and references
• 8 self-evaluation points for diplomates enrolled in ABIM’s MOC program as well as 2.0 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits

SHM members receive a special price of $65; the non-member price is $100.

Presenter: Kenneth Roberts, MD

One of PHM16’s most highly attended sessions was about anticipated updated from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to its guidelines for febrile infants ages 7¬–90 days. The proposed update stresses the need to separate individual components of serious bacterial infections (UTI, bacteremia, and meningitis) as the incidence and clinical course can vary greatly in this population.

The proposed inclusion criteria for infants for this algorithm require an infant to be full-term (37–43 weeks’ gestation), aged 7–90 days, well-appearing, and presenting with a temperature of 38°C. Proposed exclusion criteria include perinatal/prenatal/neonatal maternal fever, infection, or antimicrobial treatment; the presence of any evident infection; being technology-dependent; and the presence of congenital anomalies.

The proposed guideline update will aim to stratify management by ages 7–28 days, 29–60 days, and 61–90 days to provide the most appropriate and directed treatment. It will also include a role for inflammatory markers and allow for a “kinder, gentler” approach, including withholding certain treatments and procedures if infants are at low risk of infection. An active need for observation may be appropriate for certain infants as well.

Key Takeaway

It is likely that the AAP will update its algorithm for the management of well-appearing febrile infants ages 7–28 days, 29–60 days and 60–90 days. It will help standardize care in this population but should not be used as a substitute for clinical judgment. The new guidelines are expected to be published in early 2017.

Chandani DeZure, MD, FAAP, is a pediatric hospitalist at Children’s National Health System and instructor of pediatrics at George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences in Washington, D.C.

Presenter: Kenneth Roberts, MD

One of PHM16’s most highly attended sessions was about anticipated updated from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to its guidelines for febrile infants ages 7¬–90 days. The proposed update stresses the need to separate individual components of serious bacterial infections (UTI, bacteremia, and meningitis) as the incidence and clinical course can vary greatly in this population.

The proposed inclusion criteria for infants for this algorithm require an infant to be full-term (37–43 weeks’ gestation), aged 7–90 days, well-appearing, and presenting with a temperature of 38°C. Proposed exclusion criteria include perinatal/prenatal/neonatal maternal fever, infection, or antimicrobial treatment; the presence of any evident infection; being technology-dependent; and the presence of congenital anomalies.

The proposed guideline update will aim to stratify management by ages 7–28 days, 29–60 days, and 61–90 days to provide the most appropriate and directed treatment. It will also include a role for inflammatory markers and allow for a “kinder, gentler” approach, including withholding certain treatments and procedures if infants are at low risk of infection. An active need for observation may be appropriate for certain infants as well.

Key Takeaway

It is likely that the AAP will update its algorithm for the management of well-appearing febrile infants ages 7–28 days, 29–60 days and 60–90 days. It will help standardize care in this population but should not be used as a substitute for clinical judgment. The new guidelines are expected to be published in early 2017.

Chandani DeZure, MD, FAAP, is a pediatric hospitalist at Children’s National Health System and instructor of pediatrics at George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences in Washington, D.C.

Presenter: Kenneth Roberts, MD

One of PHM16’s most highly attended sessions was about anticipated updated from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) to its guidelines for febrile infants ages 7¬–90 days. The proposed update stresses the need to separate individual components of serious bacterial infections (UTI, bacteremia, and meningitis) as the incidence and clinical course can vary greatly in this population.

The proposed inclusion criteria for infants for this algorithm require an infant to be full-term (37–43 weeks’ gestation), aged 7–90 days, well-appearing, and presenting with a temperature of 38°C. Proposed exclusion criteria include perinatal/prenatal/neonatal maternal fever, infection, or antimicrobial treatment; the presence of any evident infection; being technology-dependent; and the presence of congenital anomalies.

The proposed guideline update will aim to stratify management by ages 7–28 days, 29–60 days, and 61–90 days to provide the most appropriate and directed treatment. It will also include a role for inflammatory markers and allow for a “kinder, gentler” approach, including withholding certain treatments and procedures if infants are at low risk of infection. An active need for observation may be appropriate for certain infants as well.

Key Takeaway

It is likely that the AAP will update its algorithm for the management of well-appearing febrile infants ages 7–28 days, 29–60 days and 60–90 days. It will help standardize care in this population but should not be used as a substitute for clinical judgment. The new guidelines are expected to be published in early 2017.

Chandani DeZure, MD, FAAP, is a pediatric hospitalist at Children’s National Health System and instructor of pediatrics at George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences in Washington, D.C.

Receiving notice from a payor that you are being audited can be alarming. Questions will inevitably run through your mind, such as, Why? How? How much will this cost?

Understanding the types of payor audits and how to navigate the process can make answering those questions easier. In addition, advanced preparation and knowing when to engage legal counsel can be critical to a successful audit outcome.

Audit Types

There are three general types of audits that providers face: Medicare audits, Medicaid audits, and private payor audits.

Medicare audits: The agency responsible for Medicare audits is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). There are three types of Medicare audits. Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) audits focus on providers who deliver high-cost items or services, have high volume, and/or have atypical billing or coding practices. Private contractors perform Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program audits; these contractors are paid a percentage of the amount of any improper payment discovered. Finally, Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC) audits are the most serious of the three audit types. ZPIC audits are performed by CMS contractors who mine the provider’s data for compliance with Medicare coverage and coding policies, investigate fraud, and may prepare cases for civil or criminal referral to CMS or law enforcement agencies.

Medicaid audits: Medicaid audits evaluate compliance with both CMS and applicable state regulations and investigate fraud. Evidence of fraud will be reported to the state attorney general for further review and prosecution.

Private payor audits: Private payor audits consist of informal reviews and formal audits. These audits can be triggered by actual allegations or evidence of noncompliance, or they can be random, in which general compliance is assessed. Audit procedures are typically determined by contract or the payor’s provider handbook and in accordance with applicable state law. The process can consist of prepayment reviews, in which the sufficiency of a claim and its supporting documentation is determined before payment is made to the provider, or post-payment reviews, during which claims are analyzed after the provider has been paid to determine if an overpayment was made and the amount of such overpayment. In the event an overpayment is discovered, a recoupment will be sought from the provider.

Focus

Consistent billing by a provider of high volumes of certain high-level services, high volumes of evaluation and management services, or consistently referring patients for certain testing can create suspicion in mayors.

In recent years, the primary focus of audits has been medical necessity due to payor concerns about specific fraud and abuse issues. Documentation of medical necessity is required during an audit. However, proving medical necessity can be difficult as the definition of “medical necessity” can vary by payor and within a payor depending on the underlying plan. In addition, private payors often have arbitrary and vague guidelines for defining and determining medical necessity, particularly when dealing with physicians or ordering clinicians. For this reason, it is critical that providers read their payor contracts and manuals carefully. If those materials are unclear, it is best to confirm requirements with the payor.

Regardless of the definition, medical necessity is a precondition to coverage for all payors. Proof is required that the services were reasonable and necessary to diagnosis or treat a patient’s medical condition. To satisfy this standard, providers should document the diagnosis for all procedures performed and all diagnostic tests ordered. In the case of repeat procedures, providers should clearly note the outcome of the previous procedure and the basis for reordering.

Responding to an Audit Request

All audit requests must be taken very seriously. Payors tend to copy what other payors are doing, and a problematic audit with one payor can cause other payors to initiate their own audits. Therefore, it is critical to respond appropriately to each audit request. Also, auditors often only check a few billing records. If errors are found, they will then extrapolate those findings, and the provider may be penalized.

Upon receipt of an audit request, it is important to immediately engage legal counsel well-versed in handling payor audits. Having an attorney who understands the audit process and has experience responding to audit requests can help ensure the best possible audit outcome. A negative outcome could result in recovery of overpayments, civil and/or criminal penalties, and exclusion from government programs.

Providers should work with such legal counsel to review the audit request and supply everything reasonably requested. A concerted effort should be made to submit all information to the auditor at one time. If information is missing, the auditor may determine that a significant error rate exists, which could cause the auditor to review all CPT codes to calculate the overpayment made to the provider. If it is not possible to gather the requested material before the auditor’s deadline, an extension should be requested. Any extensions granted should be documented.

It is important that an audit response and supporting documentation be thorough, clear, and concise. It should be submitted in a manner that allows the auditor to quickly review the information and understand the provider’s arguments. It should clearly state what measures the provider has already taken to terminate existing problems and prevent future issues. Competent legal counsel will be able to address procedural, legal, or factual flaws in the auditor’s position.

Advanced Preparation

The best way to ensure compliance and audit readiness is to develop and implement a compliance plan well in advance of any audit. Experienced legal counsel should play a pivotal role in development of such plan. As always, periodic self-audits or independent audits are necessary to proactively identify compliance issues and mitigate their impact.

Finally, regular and periodic training and education should be conducted regarding audit response obligations and responsibilities. Performing these tasks will help ensure a smooth audit experience with minimal infractions and penalties. TH

Receiving notice from a payor that you are being audited can be alarming. Questions will inevitably run through your mind, such as, Why? How? How much will this cost?

Understanding the types of payor audits and how to navigate the process can make answering those questions easier. In addition, advanced preparation and knowing when to engage legal counsel can be critical to a successful audit outcome.

Audit Types

There are three general types of audits that providers face: Medicare audits, Medicaid audits, and private payor audits.

Medicare audits: The agency responsible for Medicare audits is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). There are three types of Medicare audits. Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) audits focus on providers who deliver high-cost items or services, have high volume, and/or have atypical billing or coding practices. Private contractors perform Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program audits; these contractors are paid a percentage of the amount of any improper payment discovered. Finally, Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC) audits are the most serious of the three audit types. ZPIC audits are performed by CMS contractors who mine the provider’s data for compliance with Medicare coverage and coding policies, investigate fraud, and may prepare cases for civil or criminal referral to CMS or law enforcement agencies.

Medicaid audits: Medicaid audits evaluate compliance with both CMS and applicable state regulations and investigate fraud. Evidence of fraud will be reported to the state attorney general for further review and prosecution.

Private payor audits: Private payor audits consist of informal reviews and formal audits. These audits can be triggered by actual allegations or evidence of noncompliance, or they can be random, in which general compliance is assessed. Audit procedures are typically determined by contract or the payor’s provider handbook and in accordance with applicable state law. The process can consist of prepayment reviews, in which the sufficiency of a claim and its supporting documentation is determined before payment is made to the provider, or post-payment reviews, during which claims are analyzed after the provider has been paid to determine if an overpayment was made and the amount of such overpayment. In the event an overpayment is discovered, a recoupment will be sought from the provider.

Focus

Consistent billing by a provider of high volumes of certain high-level services, high volumes of evaluation and management services, or consistently referring patients for certain testing can create suspicion in mayors.

In recent years, the primary focus of audits has been medical necessity due to payor concerns about specific fraud and abuse issues. Documentation of medical necessity is required during an audit. However, proving medical necessity can be difficult as the definition of “medical necessity” can vary by payor and within a payor depending on the underlying plan. In addition, private payors often have arbitrary and vague guidelines for defining and determining medical necessity, particularly when dealing with physicians or ordering clinicians. For this reason, it is critical that providers read their payor contracts and manuals carefully. If those materials are unclear, it is best to confirm requirements with the payor.

Regardless of the definition, medical necessity is a precondition to coverage for all payors. Proof is required that the services were reasonable and necessary to diagnosis or treat a patient’s medical condition. To satisfy this standard, providers should document the diagnosis for all procedures performed and all diagnostic tests ordered. In the case of repeat procedures, providers should clearly note the outcome of the previous procedure and the basis for reordering.

Responding to an Audit Request

All audit requests must be taken very seriously. Payors tend to copy what other payors are doing, and a problematic audit with one payor can cause other payors to initiate their own audits. Therefore, it is critical to respond appropriately to each audit request. Also, auditors often only check a few billing records. If errors are found, they will then extrapolate those findings, and the provider may be penalized.

Upon receipt of an audit request, it is important to immediately engage legal counsel well-versed in handling payor audits. Having an attorney who understands the audit process and has experience responding to audit requests can help ensure the best possible audit outcome. A negative outcome could result in recovery of overpayments, civil and/or criminal penalties, and exclusion from government programs.

Providers should work with such legal counsel to review the audit request and supply everything reasonably requested. A concerted effort should be made to submit all information to the auditor at one time. If information is missing, the auditor may determine that a significant error rate exists, which could cause the auditor to review all CPT codes to calculate the overpayment made to the provider. If it is not possible to gather the requested material before the auditor’s deadline, an extension should be requested. Any extensions granted should be documented.

It is important that an audit response and supporting documentation be thorough, clear, and concise. It should be submitted in a manner that allows the auditor to quickly review the information and understand the provider’s arguments. It should clearly state what measures the provider has already taken to terminate existing problems and prevent future issues. Competent legal counsel will be able to address procedural, legal, or factual flaws in the auditor’s position.

Advanced Preparation

The best way to ensure compliance and audit readiness is to develop and implement a compliance plan well in advance of any audit. Experienced legal counsel should play a pivotal role in development of such plan. As always, periodic self-audits or independent audits are necessary to proactively identify compliance issues and mitigate their impact.

Finally, regular and periodic training and education should be conducted regarding audit response obligations and responsibilities. Performing these tasks will help ensure a smooth audit experience with minimal infractions and penalties. TH

Receiving notice from a payor that you are being audited can be alarming. Questions will inevitably run through your mind, such as, Why? How? How much will this cost?

Understanding the types of payor audits and how to navigate the process can make answering those questions easier. In addition, advanced preparation and knowing when to engage legal counsel can be critical to a successful audit outcome.

Audit Types

There are three general types of audits that providers face: Medicare audits, Medicaid audits, and private payor audits.

Medicare audits: The agency responsible for Medicare audits is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). There are three types of Medicare audits. Comprehensive Error Rate Testing (CERT) audits focus on providers who deliver high-cost items or services, have high volume, and/or have atypical billing or coding practices. Private contractors perform Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) program audits; these contractors are paid a percentage of the amount of any improper payment discovered. Finally, Zone Program Integrity Contractor (ZPIC) audits are the most serious of the three audit types. ZPIC audits are performed by CMS contractors who mine the provider’s data for compliance with Medicare coverage and coding policies, investigate fraud, and may prepare cases for civil or criminal referral to CMS or law enforcement agencies.

Medicaid audits: Medicaid audits evaluate compliance with both CMS and applicable state regulations and investigate fraud. Evidence of fraud will be reported to the state attorney general for further review and prosecution.

Private payor audits: Private payor audits consist of informal reviews and formal audits. These audits can be triggered by actual allegations or evidence of noncompliance, or they can be random, in which general compliance is assessed. Audit procedures are typically determined by contract or the payor’s provider handbook and in accordance with applicable state law. The process can consist of prepayment reviews, in which the sufficiency of a claim and its supporting documentation is determined before payment is made to the provider, or post-payment reviews, during which claims are analyzed after the provider has been paid to determine if an overpayment was made and the amount of such overpayment. In the event an overpayment is discovered, a recoupment will be sought from the provider.

Focus

Consistent billing by a provider of high volumes of certain high-level services, high volumes of evaluation and management services, or consistently referring patients for certain testing can create suspicion in mayors.

In recent years, the primary focus of audits has been medical necessity due to payor concerns about specific fraud and abuse issues. Documentation of medical necessity is required during an audit. However, proving medical necessity can be difficult as the definition of “medical necessity” can vary by payor and within a payor depending on the underlying plan. In addition, private payors often have arbitrary and vague guidelines for defining and determining medical necessity, particularly when dealing with physicians or ordering clinicians. For this reason, it is critical that providers read their payor contracts and manuals carefully. If those materials are unclear, it is best to confirm requirements with the payor.

Regardless of the definition, medical necessity is a precondition to coverage for all payors. Proof is required that the services were reasonable and necessary to diagnosis or treat a patient’s medical condition. To satisfy this standard, providers should document the diagnosis for all procedures performed and all diagnostic tests ordered. In the case of repeat procedures, providers should clearly note the outcome of the previous procedure and the basis for reordering.

Responding to an Audit Request

All audit requests must be taken very seriously. Payors tend to copy what other payors are doing, and a problematic audit with one payor can cause other payors to initiate their own audits. Therefore, it is critical to respond appropriately to each audit request. Also, auditors often only check a few billing records. If errors are found, they will then extrapolate those findings, and the provider may be penalized.

Upon receipt of an audit request, it is important to immediately engage legal counsel well-versed in handling payor audits. Having an attorney who understands the audit process and has experience responding to audit requests can help ensure the best possible audit outcome. A negative outcome could result in recovery of overpayments, civil and/or criminal penalties, and exclusion from government programs.

Providers should work with such legal counsel to review the audit request and supply everything reasonably requested. A concerted effort should be made to submit all information to the auditor at one time. If information is missing, the auditor may determine that a significant error rate exists, which could cause the auditor to review all CPT codes to calculate the overpayment made to the provider. If it is not possible to gather the requested material before the auditor’s deadline, an extension should be requested. Any extensions granted should be documented.

It is important that an audit response and supporting documentation be thorough, clear, and concise. It should be submitted in a manner that allows the auditor to quickly review the information and understand the provider’s arguments. It should clearly state what measures the provider has already taken to terminate existing problems and prevent future issues. Competent legal counsel will be able to address procedural, legal, or factual flaws in the auditor’s position.

Advanced Preparation

The best way to ensure compliance and audit readiness is to develop and implement a compliance plan well in advance of any audit. Experienced legal counsel should play a pivotal role in development of such plan. As always, periodic self-audits or independent audits are necessary to proactively identify compliance issues and mitigate their impact.

Finally, regular and periodic training and education should be conducted regarding audit response obligations and responsibilities. Performing these tasks will help ensure a smooth audit experience with minimal infractions and penalties. TH

Presenters: Mary L Ehlenbach, MD, FAAP; Megan Z Cardoso, MD, FAAP; and Christina Kleier, ARNP, PNP

This session at PHM16 was focused on logistical tips on how to build a pediatric complex care program.  Presenters opened with a discussion of how to define children with medical complexity going through a variety of different methods including some research based aggregation of ICD-10 codes, referral from both families and other providers, and identifying patients by consumption of hospital resources. The presentation continued by highlighting that although medically complex children make up only a small percentage of the overall population of children, they account for about 1/3 of healthcare spending and due to advances in technology and medicine this group of children is growing in numbers. This group makes up about 10% of all pediatric admissions.

The session then went on to break down into four small groups which focused on details about how to create a complex care program and how to evaluate effectiveness of the program. Group 1 discussed methods of identifying patients that the program will serve. This included setting guidelines if a certain group or diagnosis should be excluded from the program. Different models of what services were also discussed which ranged from providing a comprehensive medical home to inpatient consults or care coordination services. The second group focused on what team members it may be beneficial to have involved. Team composition varied widely usually including MDs, NPs, social workers, RNs and at times a documentation expert who could aid with proper billing to boost revenue. The third group focused on how to measure quality services including family surveys of quantitative impact and satisfaction, PCP satisfaction. The final session consisted of the business and financial considerations of beginning a complex care program.

Key Takeaways:

1. Children with medical complexity are a growing population on which a large proportion of healthcare resources are utilized. A program dedicated to serving the needs of this population may be helpful in reducing costs and improving the patient and family experience during hospitalizations.
2. When working to initiate a complex care program:

   • Set clear guidelines about which children the program is intended to serve and in what capacity it will function.
   • Ensure the team composition is sustainable and meets the needs of the patients.
   • Aggregate data about if the program is helping. This may be difficult to quantify since these are mostly qualitative measures.
   • Include team members who are non-clinical to aid in improving hospital revenue and highlighting program benefits to the institution.

Presenters: Mary L Ehlenbach, MD, FAAP; Megan Z Cardoso, MD, FAAP; and Christina Kleier, ARNP, PNP

This session at PHM16 was focused on logistical tips on how to build a pediatric complex care program.  Presenters opened with a discussion of how to define children with medical complexity going through a variety of different methods including some research based aggregation of ICD-10 codes, referral from both families and other providers, and identifying patients by consumption of hospital resources. The presentation continued by highlighting that although medically complex children make up only a small percentage of the overall population of children, they account for about 1/3 of healthcare spending and due to advances in technology and medicine this group of children is growing in numbers. This group makes up about 10% of all pediatric admissions.

The session then went on to break down into four small groups which focused on details about how to create a complex care program and how to evaluate effectiveness of the program. Group 1 discussed methods of identifying patients that the program will serve. This included setting guidelines if a certain group or diagnosis should be excluded from the program. Different models of what services were also discussed which ranged from providing a comprehensive medical home to inpatient consults or care coordination services. The second group focused on what team members it may be beneficial to have involved. Team composition varied widely usually including MDs, NPs, social workers, RNs and at times a documentation expert who could aid with proper billing to boost revenue. The third group focused on how to measure quality services including family surveys of quantitative impact and satisfaction, PCP satisfaction. The final session consisted of the business and financial considerations of beginning a complex care program.

Key Takeaways:

1. Children with medical complexity are a growing population on which a large proportion of healthcare resources are utilized. A program dedicated to serving the needs of this population may be helpful in reducing costs and improving the patient and family experience during hospitalizations.
2. When working to initiate a complex care program:

   • Set clear guidelines about which children the program is intended to serve and in what capacity it will function.
   • Ensure the team composition is sustainable and meets the needs of the patients.
   • Aggregate data about if the program is helping. This may be difficult to quantify since these are mostly qualitative measures.
   • Include team members who are non-clinical to aid in improving hospital revenue and highlighting program benefits to the institution.

Presenters: Mary L Ehlenbach, MD, FAAP; Megan Z Cardoso, MD, FAAP; and Christina Kleier, ARNP, PNP

This session at PHM16 was focused on logistical tips on how to build a pediatric complex care program.  Presenters opened with a discussion of how to define children with medical complexity going through a variety of different methods including some research based aggregation of ICD-10 codes, referral from both families and other providers, and identifying patients by consumption of hospital resources. The presentation continued by highlighting that although medically complex children make up only a small percentage of the overall population of children, they account for about 1/3 of healthcare spending and due to advances in technology and medicine this group of children is growing in numbers. This group makes up about 10% of all pediatric admissions.

The session then went on to break down into four small groups which focused on details about how to create a complex care program and how to evaluate effectiveness of the program. Group 1 discussed methods of identifying patients that the program will serve. This included setting guidelines if a certain group or diagnosis should be excluded from the program. Different models of what services were also discussed which ranged from providing a comprehensive medical home to inpatient consults or care coordination services. The second group focused on what team members it may be beneficial to have involved. Team composition varied widely usually including MDs, NPs, social workers, RNs and at times a documentation expert who could aid with proper billing to boost revenue. The third group focused on how to measure quality services including family surveys of quantitative impact and satisfaction, PCP satisfaction. The final session consisted of the business and financial considerations of beginning a complex care program.

Key Takeaways:

1. Children with medical complexity are a growing population on which a large proportion of healthcare resources are utilized. A program dedicated to serving the needs of this population may be helpful in reducing costs and improving the patient and family experience during hospitalizations.
2. When working to initiate a complex care program:

   • Set clear guidelines about which children the program is intended to serve and in what capacity it will function.
   • Ensure the team composition is sustainable and meets the needs of the patients.
   • Aggregate data about if the program is helping. This may be difficult to quantify since these are mostly qualitative measures.
   • Include team members who are non-clinical to aid in improving hospital revenue and highlighting program benefits to the institution.

The State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report is the most comprehensive survey of hospital medicine in the country and provides current data on hospitalist compensation and productivity, plus covers practice demographics, staffing levels, staff growth, and compensation models.

Order now and be notified directly when the report is released in September 2016 at www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey.

The State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report is the most comprehensive survey of hospital medicine in the country and provides current data on hospitalist compensation and productivity, plus covers practice demographics, staffing levels, staff growth, and compensation models.

Order now and be notified directly when the report is released in September 2016 at www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey.

The State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) report is the most comprehensive survey of hospital medicine in the country and provides current data on hospitalist compensation and productivity, plus covers practice demographics, staffing levels, staff growth, and compensation models.

Order now and be notified directly when the report is released in September 2016 at www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey.

During the course, you will:

• Learn the most current evidence-based clinical practices for key topics in hospital medicine
• Augment your knowledge base to enhance your existing hospital medicine practice
• Expand your knowledge to transition into hospital medicine practice
• Network with like-minded practitioners

To learn more and register, visit www.aapa.org/bootcamp.

During the course, you will:

• Learn the most current evidence-based clinical practices for key topics in hospital medicine
• Augment your knowledge base to enhance your existing hospital medicine practice
• Expand your knowledge to transition into hospital medicine practice
• Network with like-minded practitioners

To learn more and register, visit www.aapa.org/bootcamp.

During the course, you will:

• Learn the most current evidence-based clinical practices for key topics in hospital medicine
• Augment your knowledge base to enhance your existing hospital medicine practice
• Expand your knowledge to transition into hospital medicine practice
• Network with like-minded practitioners

To learn more and register, visit www.aapa.org/bootcamp.

PHM16’s Visual Diagnosis: Signs and Why They Matter session led by Dr. Kenneth Roberts and guest presenters was a review of case presentations in which visual clues were vital to establishing a diagnosis. Though much of the content was presented with pictures, the emphasis was placed on the importance of correct diagnosis to avoid both misdiagnoses/over-diagnoses and the potential harm that may result from inappropriate treatment. This may also translate into poor utilization of resources and significant financial burden that can result from the unnecessary hospitalization of a patient.

Many of the presented cases (such as the Gianotti-Crosti toddler over-diagnosed as eczema herpeticum, a child with pseudochromhidrosis misdiagnosed as a cyanotic disease, the case of phytophotodermatitis mistaken as child abuse, and a teen treated for 2 years for JIA before diagnosis of hypertrophic osteoarthropathy was made) highlighted examples in which there was extensive workup, hospitalization, subspecialty evaluation, and even incorrect treatment of patients.

In other instances, such as Henoch-Schonlein purpura, Waardenburg syndrome, or McCune-Albright syndrome, the correct diagnosis is necessary to help guide management and future treatment, including subspecialty evaluation.

Many diseases with visual presentations also have a benign course and require no treatment, and acknowledging this is important in providing reassurance to a family that may be very anxious over the physical appearance of their child.

This session underscores the need for experience and exposure to various signs, not only with rare medical conditions, but also in common illnesses such as Kawasaki and scarlet fever that may present similarly.

Key Takeaway:

Providers should have a high index of suspicion and use visual clues to make the correct diagnosis in order to guide treatment, avoid harm in children, and ensure appropriate utilization of resources.

PHM16’s Visual Diagnosis: Signs and Why They Matter session led by Dr. Kenneth Roberts and guest presenters was a review of case presentations in which visual clues were vital to establishing a diagnosis. Though much of the content was presented with pictures, the emphasis was placed on the importance of correct diagnosis to avoid both misdiagnoses/over-diagnoses and the potential harm that may result from inappropriate treatment. This may also translate into poor utilization of resources and significant financial burden that can result from the unnecessary hospitalization of a patient.

Many of the presented cases (such as the Gianotti-Crosti toddler over-diagnosed as eczema herpeticum, a child with pseudochromhidrosis misdiagnosed as a cyanotic disease, the case of phytophotodermatitis mistaken as child abuse, and a teen treated for 2 years for JIA before diagnosis of hypertrophic osteoarthropathy was made) highlighted examples in which there was extensive workup, hospitalization, subspecialty evaluation, and even incorrect treatment of patients.

In other instances, such as Henoch-Schonlein purpura, Waardenburg syndrome, or McCune-Albright syndrome, the correct diagnosis is necessary to help guide management and future treatment, including subspecialty evaluation.

Many diseases with visual presentations also have a benign course and require no treatment, and acknowledging this is important in providing reassurance to a family that may be very anxious over the physical appearance of their child.

This session underscores the need for experience and exposure to various signs, not only with rare medical conditions, but also in common illnesses such as Kawasaki and scarlet fever that may present similarly.

Key Takeaway:

Providers should have a high index of suspicion and use visual clues to make the correct diagnosis in order to guide treatment, avoid harm in children, and ensure appropriate utilization of resources.

PHM16’s Visual Diagnosis: Signs and Why They Matter session led by Dr. Kenneth Roberts and guest presenters was a review of case presentations in which visual clues were vital to establishing a diagnosis. Though much of the content was presented with pictures, the emphasis was placed on the importance of correct diagnosis to avoid both misdiagnoses/over-diagnoses and the potential harm that may result from inappropriate treatment. This may also translate into poor utilization of resources and significant financial burden that can result from the unnecessary hospitalization of a patient.

Many of the presented cases (such as the Gianotti-Crosti toddler over-diagnosed as eczema herpeticum, a child with pseudochromhidrosis misdiagnosed as a cyanotic disease, the case of phytophotodermatitis mistaken as child abuse, and a teen treated for 2 years for JIA before diagnosis of hypertrophic osteoarthropathy was made) highlighted examples in which there was extensive workup, hospitalization, subspecialty evaluation, and even incorrect treatment of patients.

In other instances, such as Henoch-Schonlein purpura, Waardenburg syndrome, or McCune-Albright syndrome, the correct diagnosis is necessary to help guide management and future treatment, including subspecialty evaluation.

Many diseases with visual presentations also have a benign course and require no treatment, and acknowledging this is important in providing reassurance to a family that may be very anxious over the physical appearance of their child.

This session underscores the need for experience and exposure to various signs, not only with rare medical conditions, but also in common illnesses such as Kawasaki and scarlet fever that may present similarly.

Key Takeaway:

Providers should have a high index of suspicion and use visual clues to make the correct diagnosis in order to guide treatment, avoid harm in children, and ensure appropriate utilization of resources.

One of PHM16’s most highly-attended sessions was an update on the anticipated AAP guidelines for febrile infants between ages 7-90 days given by Dr. Kenneth Roberts. The goal is to give evidence-based guidelines, not rules, from the most recent literature available. It also stresses the need to separate individual components of serious bacterial infections (UTI, bacteremia, and meningitis) as the incidence and clinical course can vary greatly in this population.

The inclusion criteria for infants for this upcoming algorithm require an infant to be full-term (37-43 weeks gestation), aged 7-90 days, well-appearing, and presenting with a temperature of 38 degrees Celsius.

Exclusion criteria include perinatal/prenatal/neonatal: maternal fever, infection, or antimicrobial treatment, the presence of any evident infection, being technology-dependent, and the presence of congenital anomalies.

The updated guideline will aim to stratify management by age 7-28 days, 29-60 days, and 61 to 90 days to provide the most appropriate and directed treatment.

It will also include a role for inflammatory markers, and allow for a “kinder, gentler” approach to the management of febrile infants aged 7-90 days including withholding certain treatments and procedures if infants are at low risk of infection. An active, not passive, need for observation may be appropriate for certain infants as well. These guidelines should be tailored for individual patients to provide the best care possible while minimizing risk in this population.

Key Takeaway:

An updated AAP Practice guideline algorithm for the management of well-appearing febrile infants 7-28 days, 29-60 days, and 60-90 days will be coming in the near future that will help standardize care in this population, but should not be used as a substitute for clinical judgment.

One of PHM16’s most highly-attended sessions was an update on the anticipated AAP guidelines for febrile infants between ages 7-90 days given by Dr. Kenneth Roberts. The goal is to give evidence-based guidelines, not rules, from the most recent literature available. It also stresses the need to separate individual components of serious bacterial infections (UTI, bacteremia, and meningitis) as the incidence and clinical course can vary greatly in this population.

The inclusion criteria for infants for this upcoming algorithm require an infant to be full-term (37-43 weeks gestation), aged 7-90 days, well-appearing, and presenting with a temperature of 38 degrees Celsius.

Exclusion criteria include perinatal/prenatal/neonatal: maternal fever, infection, or antimicrobial treatment, the presence of any evident infection, being technology-dependent, and the presence of congenital anomalies.

The updated guideline will aim to stratify management by age 7-28 days, 29-60 days, and 61 to 90 days to provide the most appropriate and directed treatment.

It will also include a role for inflammatory markers, and allow for a “kinder, gentler” approach to the management of febrile infants aged 7-90 days including withholding certain treatments and procedures if infants are at low risk of infection. An active, not passive, need for observation may be appropriate for certain infants as well. These guidelines should be tailored for individual patients to provide the best care possible while minimizing risk in this population.

Key Takeaway:

An updated AAP Practice guideline algorithm for the management of well-appearing febrile infants 7-28 days, 29-60 days, and 60-90 days will be coming in the near future that will help standardize care in this population, but should not be used as a substitute for clinical judgment.

One of PHM16’s most highly-attended sessions was an update on the anticipated AAP guidelines for febrile infants between ages 7-90 days given by Dr. Kenneth Roberts. The goal is to give evidence-based guidelines, not rules, from the most recent literature available. It also stresses the need to separate individual components of serious bacterial infections (UTI, bacteremia, and meningitis) as the incidence and clinical course can vary greatly in this population.

The inclusion criteria for infants for this upcoming algorithm require an infant to be full-term (37-43 weeks gestation), aged 7-90 days, well-appearing, and presenting with a temperature of 38 degrees Celsius.

Exclusion criteria include perinatal/prenatal/neonatal: maternal fever, infection, or antimicrobial treatment, the presence of any evident infection, being technology-dependent, and the presence of congenital anomalies.

The updated guideline will aim to stratify management by age 7-28 days, 29-60 days, and 61 to 90 days to provide the most appropriate and directed treatment.

It will also include a role for inflammatory markers, and allow for a “kinder, gentler” approach to the management of febrile infants aged 7-90 days including withholding certain treatments and procedures if infants are at low risk of infection. An active, not passive, need for observation may be appropriate for certain infants as well. These guidelines should be tailored for individual patients to provide the best care possible while minimizing risk in this population.

Key Takeaway:

An updated AAP Practice guideline algorithm for the management of well-appearing febrile infants 7-28 days, 29-60 days, and 60-90 days will be coming in the near future that will help standardize care in this population, but should not be used as a substitute for clinical judgment.

Linden Spital, NP, a psychiatric mental-health nurse practitioner, staffs the Psychiatric Consultation Liaison Service at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Nearly every hospital larger than about 200 beds, she says, could benefit from a similar service, and hospitalists could play an important role in creating it.

I wrote about the idea for a generally similar service in my April 2015 column, but at the time, I didn’t know of an institution that had something like this in place.

Along with her hospitalist colleagues, Anupama (Anu) Goyal, MBChB, and Rob Chang, MD, Linden has launched a service to provide assistance to bedside caregivers dealing with very difficult patients (eg, those who are verbally or physically threatening to staff, unreasonably demanding and angry, have bizarre behavior, etc.).

Sample Cases

Two recent cases illustrate the role of the service. A female patient in her 60s had several admissions characterized by what many caregivers agreed were unreasonably precise demands regarding how her care should be delivered. She was verbally abusive of caregivers, especially those who were young or of a different race, and her family member tended to reinforce these maladaptive behaviors. Staff found it very stressful to care for her and had concerns that her care suffered as a result.

Linden served as a resource and support for staff, plus worked with providers to set limits on the patient and family behavior and to separate patient behaviors that were and weren’t modifiable. Linden’s efforts helped clarify the goals for the patient’s care and reduced staff distress. Even though the patient’s behavior didn’t change significantly, staff anecdotally reported less distress and concern that the patient’s care suffered as a result.

Another case involved a man in his 50s who had a progressive neurodegenerative disease and was admitted because of increasingly aggressive behavior in his skilled-nursing facility (SNF). Providers at the SNF attributed the poor behavior to changes in medications. His behavior was very difficult to manage, and staff asked for Linden’s help. She worked with the patient and realized much of his difficult behavior stemmed from his frustration with communicating verbally because of his neurologic disease. Rather than pursue increasing psychotropics, Linden promoted efforts to develop a system of hand signals the patient could use to communicate needs. His behavior improved, presumably by reducing his own frustration and improving his autonomy.

Atypical Consults

This psychiatric consultation liaison service has some overlap with traditional inpatient psychiatry services, but it is configured so that the caregiver is essentially embedded on the medical units of the hospital and assists in the care of patients who wouldn’t typically be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. For example, patients and/or families who act out because of anger over being on observation status are appropriate for this service but would usually not be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. The two examples above aren’t ideal cases for a standard psychiatry consult; however, the attending hospitalist needed help nonetheless.

Operational Details

The liaison service started with a successful trial on two hospital units in 2013. Linden began serving as the sole clinician on the service in January 2015. She is available during the daytime on weekdays, and any staff can request her participation in the care of a patient. Her visits are billed when appropriate, but many aren’t billed (for example, if her primary work was to conference with staff regarding management of a patient).

Consults can be requested by anyone (nurses, etc., as well as physicians, though only the latter would be billable) via an electronic health record entry that helps ensure whether the request is for this service versus the inpatient psychiatry service. The order includes a standard list of potential reasons for consult that can be selected and amplified with free text comments. She also receives verbal consult requests as she moves through the hospital.

Linden’s position is budgeted through the psychiatry department and funded by the hospital with only modest professional fee collections.

An Idea That Is Catching On?

Anu Goyal made me aware of a study from 2004 that summarized findings from experience with a similar service at Washington University in St. Louis, but the service was cancelled after a short time due to its cost.1 She also found a few studies from the 1990s and a 2001 study from Australia that report on a similar service.

But maybe the idea is catching on again, at least a little.

On April 25, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Hospitals Test Putting Psychiatrists on Medical Wards.”2 It described programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. They share some similarities with the service at the University of Michigan. However, according to the article, the three big-city programs tilt more toward a traditional consultation model than what Linden does.

I think every hospital should be thinking about a service other than traditional consult psychiatry that could help with challenging patient behavior. The University of Michigan model or similar ones seem like a good place to start. TH

Reference

1. Yakimo R, Kurlowicz L, Murray R. Evaluation of outcomes in psychiatric consultation-liaison nursing practice. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2004;18(6):215-227.

   2. Ladnado L. Hospitals test putting psychiatrists on medical wards. The Wall Street Journal website. Accessed July 3, 2016.

Linden Spital, NP, a psychiatric mental-health nurse practitioner, staffs the Psychiatric Consultation Liaison Service at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Nearly every hospital larger than about 200 beds, she says, could benefit from a similar service, and hospitalists could play an important role in creating it.

I wrote about the idea for a generally similar service in my April 2015 column, but at the time, I didn’t know of an institution that had something like this in place.

Along with her hospitalist colleagues, Anupama (Anu) Goyal, MBChB, and Rob Chang, MD, Linden has launched a service to provide assistance to bedside caregivers dealing with very difficult patients (eg, those who are verbally or physically threatening to staff, unreasonably demanding and angry, have bizarre behavior, etc.).

Sample Cases

Two recent cases illustrate the role of the service. A female patient in her 60s had several admissions characterized by what many caregivers agreed were unreasonably precise demands regarding how her care should be delivered. She was verbally abusive of caregivers, especially those who were young or of a different race, and her family member tended to reinforce these maladaptive behaviors. Staff found it very stressful to care for her and had concerns that her care suffered as a result.

Linden served as a resource and support for staff, plus worked with providers to set limits on the patient and family behavior and to separate patient behaviors that were and weren’t modifiable. Linden’s efforts helped clarify the goals for the patient’s care and reduced staff distress. Even though the patient’s behavior didn’t change significantly, staff anecdotally reported less distress and concern that the patient’s care suffered as a result.

Another case involved a man in his 50s who had a progressive neurodegenerative disease and was admitted because of increasingly aggressive behavior in his skilled-nursing facility (SNF). Providers at the SNF attributed the poor behavior to changes in medications. His behavior was very difficult to manage, and staff asked for Linden’s help. She worked with the patient and realized much of his difficult behavior stemmed from his frustration with communicating verbally because of his neurologic disease. Rather than pursue increasing psychotropics, Linden promoted efforts to develop a system of hand signals the patient could use to communicate needs. His behavior improved, presumably by reducing his own frustration and improving his autonomy.

Atypical Consults

This psychiatric consultation liaison service has some overlap with traditional inpatient psychiatry services, but it is configured so that the caregiver is essentially embedded on the medical units of the hospital and assists in the care of patients who wouldn’t typically be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. For example, patients and/or families who act out because of anger over being on observation status are appropriate for this service but would usually not be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. The two examples above aren’t ideal cases for a standard psychiatry consult; however, the attending hospitalist needed help nonetheless.

Operational Details

The liaison service started with a successful trial on two hospital units in 2013. Linden began serving as the sole clinician on the service in January 2015. She is available during the daytime on weekdays, and any staff can request her participation in the care of a patient. Her visits are billed when appropriate, but many aren’t billed (for example, if her primary work was to conference with staff regarding management of a patient).

Consults can be requested by anyone (nurses, etc., as well as physicians, though only the latter would be billable) via an electronic health record entry that helps ensure whether the request is for this service versus the inpatient psychiatry service. The order includes a standard list of potential reasons for consult that can be selected and amplified with free text comments. She also receives verbal consult requests as she moves through the hospital.

Linden’s position is budgeted through the psychiatry department and funded by the hospital with only modest professional fee collections.

An Idea That Is Catching On?

Anu Goyal made me aware of a study from 2004 that summarized findings from experience with a similar service at Washington University in St. Louis, but the service was cancelled after a short time due to its cost.1 She also found a few studies from the 1990s and a 2001 study from Australia that report on a similar service.

But maybe the idea is catching on again, at least a little.

On April 25, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Hospitals Test Putting Psychiatrists on Medical Wards.”2 It described programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. They share some similarities with the service at the University of Michigan. However, according to the article, the three big-city programs tilt more toward a traditional consultation model than what Linden does.

I think every hospital should be thinking about a service other than traditional consult psychiatry that could help with challenging patient behavior. The University of Michigan model or similar ones seem like a good place to start. TH

Reference

1. Yakimo R, Kurlowicz L, Murray R. Evaluation of outcomes in psychiatric consultation-liaison nursing practice. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2004;18(6):215-227.

   2. Ladnado L. Hospitals test putting psychiatrists on medical wards. The Wall Street Journal website. Accessed July 3, 2016.

Linden Spital, NP, a psychiatric mental-health nurse practitioner, staffs the Psychiatric Consultation Liaison Service at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. Nearly every hospital larger than about 200 beds, she says, could benefit from a similar service, and hospitalists could play an important role in creating it.

I wrote about the idea for a generally similar service in my April 2015 column, but at the time, I didn’t know of an institution that had something like this in place.

Along with her hospitalist colleagues, Anupama (Anu) Goyal, MBChB, and Rob Chang, MD, Linden has launched a service to provide assistance to bedside caregivers dealing with very difficult patients (eg, those who are verbally or physically threatening to staff, unreasonably demanding and angry, have bizarre behavior, etc.).

Sample Cases

Two recent cases illustrate the role of the service. A female patient in her 60s had several admissions characterized by what many caregivers agreed were unreasonably precise demands regarding how her care should be delivered. She was verbally abusive of caregivers, especially those who were young or of a different race, and her family member tended to reinforce these maladaptive behaviors. Staff found it very stressful to care for her and had concerns that her care suffered as a result.

Linden served as a resource and support for staff, plus worked with providers to set limits on the patient and family behavior and to separate patient behaviors that were and weren’t modifiable. Linden’s efforts helped clarify the goals for the patient’s care and reduced staff distress. Even though the patient’s behavior didn’t change significantly, staff anecdotally reported less distress and concern that the patient’s care suffered as a result.

Another case involved a man in his 50s who had a progressive neurodegenerative disease and was admitted because of increasingly aggressive behavior in his skilled-nursing facility (SNF). Providers at the SNF attributed the poor behavior to changes in medications. His behavior was very difficult to manage, and staff asked for Linden’s help. She worked with the patient and realized much of his difficult behavior stemmed from his frustration with communicating verbally because of his neurologic disease. Rather than pursue increasing psychotropics, Linden promoted efforts to develop a system of hand signals the patient could use to communicate needs. His behavior improved, presumably by reducing his own frustration and improving his autonomy.

Atypical Consults

This psychiatric consultation liaison service has some overlap with traditional inpatient psychiatry services, but it is configured so that the caregiver is essentially embedded on the medical units of the hospital and assists in the care of patients who wouldn’t typically be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. For example, patients and/or families who act out because of anger over being on observation status are appropriate for this service but would usually not be appropriate for a psychiatry consult. The two examples above aren’t ideal cases for a standard psychiatry consult; however, the attending hospitalist needed help nonetheless.

Operational Details

The liaison service started with a successful trial on two hospital units in 2013. Linden began serving as the sole clinician on the service in January 2015. She is available during the daytime on weekdays, and any staff can request her participation in the care of a patient. Her visits are billed when appropriate, but many aren’t billed (for example, if her primary work was to conference with staff regarding management of a patient).

Consults can be requested by anyone (nurses, etc., as well as physicians, though only the latter would be billable) via an electronic health record entry that helps ensure whether the request is for this service versus the inpatient psychiatry service. The order includes a standard list of potential reasons for consult that can be selected and amplified with free text comments. She also receives verbal consult requests as she moves through the hospital.

Linden’s position is budgeted through the psychiatry department and funded by the hospital with only modest professional fee collections.

An Idea That Is Catching On?

Anu Goyal made me aware of a study from 2004 that summarized findings from experience with a similar service at Washington University in St. Louis, but the service was cancelled after a short time due to its cost.1 She also found a few studies from the 1990s and a 2001 study from Australia that report on a similar service.

But maybe the idea is catching on again, at least a little.

On April 25, The Wall Street Journal published an article titled “Hospitals Test Putting Psychiatrists on Medical Wards.”2 It described programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, and NewYork-Presbyterian/Columbia University Medical Center in New York City. They share some similarities with the service at the University of Michigan. However, according to the article, the three big-city programs tilt more toward a traditional consultation model than what Linden does.

I think every hospital should be thinking about a service other than traditional consult psychiatry that could help with challenging patient behavior. The University of Michigan model or similar ones seem like a good place to start. TH

Reference

1. Yakimo R, Kurlowicz L, Murray R. Evaluation of outcomes in psychiatric consultation-liaison nursing practice. Arch Psychiatr Nurs. 2004;18(6):215-227.

   2. Ladnado L. Hospitals test putting psychiatrists on medical wards. The Wall Street Journal website. Accessed July 3, 2016.