The Hospitalist

In 2014, the Society of Hospital Medicine endorsed the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact as a way to address divergent physician licensing requirements among states. The thrust of SHM’s reasoning was that differing licensing policies across state lines not only hinder the ability of hospitalists to quickly adjust staffing to meet the needs of hospitals and patients but also create extensive, costly, and often redundant administrative hurdles for individual hospitalists and hospital medicine groups. For hospitalists looking to relocate to another state, practice in multiple states, provide telemedicine services, or even take on some per diem work, the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact should be of great help.

To briefly summarize, states participating in the compact agree to share information with one another and work together in streamlining the licensing process. For example, the compact aims to reduce redundant licensing requirements by creating one place where physicians submit basic information such as their education credentials. The compact does not establish a national license; a license to practice medicine will still be issued by individual state medical boards. Physicians will still need to be licensed in the state where the patient is located, but the difference is that the process of obtaining a license will be streamlined significantly.

To join the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, state legislatures must enact the compact into state law. Two years in, the compact is now being implemented in 12 states: Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. States where it has been introduced but not yet adopted include Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Licenses via the compact process are not currently being issued, but representatives from the 12 participating states have begun to formally meet and are working out the administrative procedures needed to begin expedited licensure processes. With a core group of states adopting and implementing the compact, it will be important for state officials to hear why adoption of the compact is important to physicians.

This presents an opportunity for hospitalists residing in holdout states to participate in some advocacy work at the state level—on their own, as a group, or even within one of SHM’s many state chapters. To find your local chapter and get involved, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/chapters.

To assist, detailed information on the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact can be found at www.licenseportability.org, and SHM advocacy staff is available to address questions members may have about getting started. You can reach them via email at [email protected]. TH

Josh Boswell is SHM’s director of government affairs.

In 2014, the Society of Hospital Medicine endorsed the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact as a way to address divergent physician licensing requirements among states. The thrust of SHM’s reasoning was that differing licensing policies across state lines not only hinder the ability of hospitalists to quickly adjust staffing to meet the needs of hospitals and patients but also create extensive, costly, and often redundant administrative hurdles for individual hospitalists and hospital medicine groups. For hospitalists looking to relocate to another state, practice in multiple states, provide telemedicine services, or even take on some per diem work, the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact should be of great help.

To briefly summarize, states participating in the compact agree to share information with one another and work together in streamlining the licensing process. For example, the compact aims to reduce redundant licensing requirements by creating one place where physicians submit basic information such as their education credentials. The compact does not establish a national license; a license to practice medicine will still be issued by individual state medical boards. Physicians will still need to be licensed in the state where the patient is located, but the difference is that the process of obtaining a license will be streamlined significantly.

To join the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, state legislatures must enact the compact into state law. Two years in, the compact is now being implemented in 12 states: Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. States where it has been introduced but not yet adopted include Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Licenses via the compact process are not currently being issued, but representatives from the 12 participating states have begun to formally meet and are working out the administrative procedures needed to begin expedited licensure processes. With a core group of states adopting and implementing the compact, it will be important for state officials to hear why adoption of the compact is important to physicians.

This presents an opportunity for hospitalists residing in holdout states to participate in some advocacy work at the state level—on their own, as a group, or even within one of SHM’s many state chapters. To find your local chapter and get involved, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/chapters.

To assist, detailed information on the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact can be found at www.licenseportability.org, and SHM advocacy staff is available to address questions members may have about getting started. You can reach them via email at [email protected]. TH

Josh Boswell is SHM’s director of government affairs.

In 2014, the Society of Hospital Medicine endorsed the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact as a way to address divergent physician licensing requirements among states. The thrust of SHM’s reasoning was that differing licensing policies across state lines not only hinder the ability of hospitalists to quickly adjust staffing to meet the needs of hospitals and patients but also create extensive, costly, and often redundant administrative hurdles for individual hospitalists and hospital medicine groups. For hospitalists looking to relocate to another state, practice in multiple states, provide telemedicine services, or even take on some per diem work, the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact should be of great help.

To briefly summarize, states participating in the compact agree to share information with one another and work together in streamlining the licensing process. For example, the compact aims to reduce redundant licensing requirements by creating one place where physicians submit basic information such as their education credentials. The compact does not establish a national license; a license to practice medicine will still be issued by individual state medical boards. Physicians will still need to be licensed in the state where the patient is located, but the difference is that the process of obtaining a license will be streamlined significantly.

To join the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, state legislatures must enact the compact into state law. Two years in, the compact is now being implemented in 12 states: Alabama, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. States where it has been introduced but not yet adopted include Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

Licenses via the compact process are not currently being issued, but representatives from the 12 participating states have begun to formally meet and are working out the administrative procedures needed to begin expedited licensure processes. With a core group of states adopting and implementing the compact, it will be important for state officials to hear why adoption of the compact is important to physicians.

This presents an opportunity for hospitalists residing in holdout states to participate in some advocacy work at the state level—on their own, as a group, or even within one of SHM’s many state chapters. To find your local chapter and get involved, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/chapters.

To assist, detailed information on the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact can be found at www.licenseportability.org, and SHM advocacy staff is available to address questions members may have about getting started. You can reach them via email at [email protected]. TH

Josh Boswell is SHM’s director of government affairs.

Stella Fitzgibbons, MD, FHM, was an engineer for several years after college. But there wasn’t enough working with people for her taste. So she moved into internal medicine. But then there was, how to put this, something lacking in office work.

“I realized how bored I was with office practice and how much more interesting were the problems at the hospital than outpatient ones,” Dr. Fitzgibbons says.

So she went to work in hospitals. She hasn’t left.

Dr. Fitzgibbons is a hospitalist and ED practitioner with Mint Physician Staffing, primarily in the Apollo Hospital System in The Woodlands, Texas. And the best part of the job for Dr. Fitzgibbons, one of eight new members of Team Hospitalist, the volunteer editorial advisory board of The Hospitalist newsmagazine, is easy to pick.

“Seeing sick people get better,” she says.

Question: Switching careers from engineering to medicine is a big step. What motivated that?

Answer: I wanted to see my efforts helping people I could actually see, and I thought—and still do—that medicine uses my talents better and is far more interesting.

Q: You say office practice became a bit boring. How so? What appealed about the inpatient setting?

A: An internist in the office only sees a tiny fraction of the interesting problems that our field covers. Rheumatoid arthritis is diagnosed by a rheumatologist, who then makes all the decisions. Abdominal pain gets sent to the hospital, where all the diagnostic tests are done.

Fortunately, my multispecialty group arranged for about a quarter of its internists [the youngest quarter in most cases] to manage hospital patients; I figured out pretty quickly that it was only there that I got to see pulmonary hypertension, congestive heart failure, and acute abdomens. Even night call was better at the hospital since office doctors only answered phone calls and never had a chance to do any real evaluation and treatment no matter how sick the caller was.

And a problem at the office was something that made me run behind that odious and impractical appointment schedule; at the hospital I was seeing real illnesses, not people who wanted a prescription med for their sore throat so they wouldn’t be bothered with it on their vacation.

Q: What is your biggest professional challenge?

A: EHRs.

Q: What is your biggest professional reward?

A: When a patient says, “Thanks for taking care of me, doctor.”

Q: What does teaching mean to you, and how has it been gratifying in your career?

A: Teaching means paying it forward, in gratitude to those who taught me, with the reward of seeing light bulbs go off behind the eyes of students and younger doctors who are eager to learn.

Q: When you aren’t working, what is important to you?

A: Family and music and church.

Q: Faith is obviously important to you. How does that help your work as a care provider?

A: I don’t think anybody goes around being religious all the time. But it sometimes makes all the difference knowing that a higher power is looking out for me and the patients.

Q: You’ve described mentoring as fun for you. What exactly do you mean by fun?

A: Mentoring is what we do. Patients, nurses—anybody we work with—need explanations and clarifications. About the third day of med school, docs in training realize that anybody who can help us understand and retain the huge stream of information directed at us is performing a necessary service. Throughout the training period, residents teach students, fellows teach residents, and attending faculty teach everybody. Doctors in training are bright people who want to learn both the facts and how to deal with patients’ side of things, and feeding their desires is very enjoyable.

Q: You’d like to see more physicians than MBAs in decision-making positions. Why? What real changes do you think that would effectuate?

A: Physicians and nurses were administrators for decades before insurance company penny-pinching and government regulations led hospitals to hire “bean counters” to replace them. It is a tremendous change for the worse, to have people making decisions for patients whose primary consideration is the bottom line.

Q: What’s next professionally?

A: Small-volume ERs, where I don’t have to do discharge planning while being harassed by insurance company reps.

Q: Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

A: Retired.

Q: If you weren’t a doctor, what would you be doing right now?

A: Law enforcement.

Q: Devices like iPhones and tablets can take away from patient face time. But they can also be valuable. How do you balance that? How do you encourage younger docs to do so, particularly when they’re much more used to having smartphones glued to their hands?

A: I use my iPhone when I’m with patients … but only when they can see the reason I need it to help them, such as looking up the side effects of a medication. Electronic health records can work on an iPad, but I hesitate to use them unless the patient knows just what I am doing, such as looking up results of a lab test that concerns them. Taking a computer on wheels into a patient’s room means that I spend part of the visit looking at a screen instead of at the patient, and I prefer to avoid it if at all possible.

Q: What’s the best book you’ve read recently? Why?

A: The House of Silk by Anthony Horowitz. Great continuation of the Holmes stories, with a seamless link to [Sir Arthur] Conan Doyle’s style.

Q: How many Apple products (phones, iPods, tablets, iTunes, etc.) do you interface with in a given week?

A: Three.

Q: What’s your favorite social network? Do you use it all for work or professional development?

A: Facebook. Heck no, it’s just fun.

Q: What’s next in your Netflix queue?

A: Last two episodes of Game of Thrones season 5.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Stella Fitzgibbons, MD, FHM, was an engineer for several years after college. But there wasn’t enough working with people for her taste. So she moved into internal medicine. But then there was, how to put this, something lacking in office work.

“I realized how bored I was with office practice and how much more interesting were the problems at the hospital than outpatient ones,” Dr. Fitzgibbons says.

So she went to work in hospitals. She hasn’t left.

Dr. Fitzgibbons is a hospitalist and ED practitioner with Mint Physician Staffing, primarily in the Apollo Hospital System in The Woodlands, Texas. And the best part of the job for Dr. Fitzgibbons, one of eight new members of Team Hospitalist, the volunteer editorial advisory board of The Hospitalist newsmagazine, is easy to pick.

“Seeing sick people get better,” she says.

Question: Switching careers from engineering to medicine is a big step. What motivated that?

Answer: I wanted to see my efforts helping people I could actually see, and I thought—and still do—that medicine uses my talents better and is far more interesting.

Q: You say office practice became a bit boring. How so? What appealed about the inpatient setting?

A: An internist in the office only sees a tiny fraction of the interesting problems that our field covers. Rheumatoid arthritis is diagnosed by a rheumatologist, who then makes all the decisions. Abdominal pain gets sent to the hospital, where all the diagnostic tests are done.

Fortunately, my multispecialty group arranged for about a quarter of its internists [the youngest quarter in most cases] to manage hospital patients; I figured out pretty quickly that it was only there that I got to see pulmonary hypertension, congestive heart failure, and acute abdomens. Even night call was better at the hospital since office doctors only answered phone calls and never had a chance to do any real evaluation and treatment no matter how sick the caller was.

And a problem at the office was something that made me run behind that odious and impractical appointment schedule; at the hospital I was seeing real illnesses, not people who wanted a prescription med for their sore throat so they wouldn’t be bothered with it on their vacation.

Q: What is your biggest professional challenge?

A: EHRs.

Q: What is your biggest professional reward?

A: When a patient says, “Thanks for taking care of me, doctor.”

Q: What does teaching mean to you, and how has it been gratifying in your career?

A: Teaching means paying it forward, in gratitude to those who taught me, with the reward of seeing light bulbs go off behind the eyes of students and younger doctors who are eager to learn.

Q: When you aren’t working, what is important to you?

A: Family and music and church.

Q: Faith is obviously important to you. How does that help your work as a care provider?

A: I don’t think anybody goes around being religious all the time. But it sometimes makes all the difference knowing that a higher power is looking out for me and the patients.

Q: You’ve described mentoring as fun for you. What exactly do you mean by fun?

A: Mentoring is what we do. Patients, nurses—anybody we work with—need explanations and clarifications. About the third day of med school, docs in training realize that anybody who can help us understand and retain the huge stream of information directed at us is performing a necessary service. Throughout the training period, residents teach students, fellows teach residents, and attending faculty teach everybody. Doctors in training are bright people who want to learn both the facts and how to deal with patients’ side of things, and feeding their desires is very enjoyable.

Q: You’d like to see more physicians than MBAs in decision-making positions. Why? What real changes do you think that would effectuate?

A: Physicians and nurses were administrators for decades before insurance company penny-pinching and government regulations led hospitals to hire “bean counters” to replace them. It is a tremendous change for the worse, to have people making decisions for patients whose primary consideration is the bottom line.

Q: What’s next professionally?

A: Small-volume ERs, where I don’t have to do discharge planning while being harassed by insurance company reps.

Q: Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

A: Retired.

Q: If you weren’t a doctor, what would you be doing right now?

A: Law enforcement.

Q: Devices like iPhones and tablets can take away from patient face time. But they can also be valuable. How do you balance that? How do you encourage younger docs to do so, particularly when they’re much more used to having smartphones glued to their hands?

A: I use my iPhone when I’m with patients … but only when they can see the reason I need it to help them, such as looking up the side effects of a medication. Electronic health records can work on an iPad, but I hesitate to use them unless the patient knows just what I am doing, such as looking up results of a lab test that concerns them. Taking a computer on wheels into a patient’s room means that I spend part of the visit looking at a screen instead of at the patient, and I prefer to avoid it if at all possible.

Q: What’s the best book you’ve read recently? Why?

A: The House of Silk by Anthony Horowitz. Great continuation of the Holmes stories, with a seamless link to [Sir Arthur] Conan Doyle’s style.

Q: How many Apple products (phones, iPods, tablets, iTunes, etc.) do you interface with in a given week?

A: Three.

Q: What’s your favorite social network? Do you use it all for work or professional development?

A: Facebook. Heck no, it’s just fun.

Q: What’s next in your Netflix queue?

A: Last two episodes of Game of Thrones season 5.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Stella Fitzgibbons, MD, FHM, was an engineer for several years after college. But there wasn’t enough working with people for her taste. So she moved into internal medicine. But then there was, how to put this, something lacking in office work.

“I realized how bored I was with office practice and how much more interesting were the problems at the hospital than outpatient ones,” Dr. Fitzgibbons says.

So she went to work in hospitals. She hasn’t left.

Dr. Fitzgibbons is a hospitalist and ED practitioner with Mint Physician Staffing, primarily in the Apollo Hospital System in The Woodlands, Texas. And the best part of the job for Dr. Fitzgibbons, one of eight new members of Team Hospitalist, the volunteer editorial advisory board of The Hospitalist newsmagazine, is easy to pick.

“Seeing sick people get better,” she says.

Question: Switching careers from engineering to medicine is a big step. What motivated that?

Answer: I wanted to see my efforts helping people I could actually see, and I thought—and still do—that medicine uses my talents better and is far more interesting.

Q: You say office practice became a bit boring. How so? What appealed about the inpatient setting?

A: An internist in the office only sees a tiny fraction of the interesting problems that our field covers. Rheumatoid arthritis is diagnosed by a rheumatologist, who then makes all the decisions. Abdominal pain gets sent to the hospital, where all the diagnostic tests are done.

Fortunately, my multispecialty group arranged for about a quarter of its internists [the youngest quarter in most cases] to manage hospital patients; I figured out pretty quickly that it was only there that I got to see pulmonary hypertension, congestive heart failure, and acute abdomens. Even night call was better at the hospital since office doctors only answered phone calls and never had a chance to do any real evaluation and treatment no matter how sick the caller was.

And a problem at the office was something that made me run behind that odious and impractical appointment schedule; at the hospital I was seeing real illnesses, not people who wanted a prescription med for their sore throat so they wouldn’t be bothered with it on their vacation.

Q: What is your biggest professional challenge?

A: EHRs.

Q: What is your biggest professional reward?

A: When a patient says, “Thanks for taking care of me, doctor.”

Q: What does teaching mean to you, and how has it been gratifying in your career?

A: Teaching means paying it forward, in gratitude to those who taught me, with the reward of seeing light bulbs go off behind the eyes of students and younger doctors who are eager to learn.

Q: When you aren’t working, what is important to you?

A: Family and music and church.

Q: Faith is obviously important to you. How does that help your work as a care provider?

A: I don’t think anybody goes around being religious all the time. But it sometimes makes all the difference knowing that a higher power is looking out for me and the patients.

Q: You’ve described mentoring as fun for you. What exactly do you mean by fun?

A: Mentoring is what we do. Patients, nurses—anybody we work with—need explanations and clarifications. About the third day of med school, docs in training realize that anybody who can help us understand and retain the huge stream of information directed at us is performing a necessary service. Throughout the training period, residents teach students, fellows teach residents, and attending faculty teach everybody. Doctors in training are bright people who want to learn both the facts and how to deal with patients’ side of things, and feeding their desires is very enjoyable.

Q: You’d like to see more physicians than MBAs in decision-making positions. Why? What real changes do you think that would effectuate?

A: Physicians and nurses were administrators for decades before insurance company penny-pinching and government regulations led hospitals to hire “bean counters” to replace them. It is a tremendous change for the worse, to have people making decisions for patients whose primary consideration is the bottom line.

Q: What’s next professionally?

A: Small-volume ERs, where I don’t have to do discharge planning while being harassed by insurance company reps.

Q: Where do you see yourself in 10 years?

A: Retired.

Q: If you weren’t a doctor, what would you be doing right now?

A: Law enforcement.

Q: Devices like iPhones and tablets can take away from patient face time. But they can also be valuable. How do you balance that? How do you encourage younger docs to do so, particularly when they’re much more used to having smartphones glued to their hands?

A: I use my iPhone when I’m with patients … but only when they can see the reason I need it to help them, such as looking up the side effects of a medication. Electronic health records can work on an iPad, but I hesitate to use them unless the patient knows just what I am doing, such as looking up results of a lab test that concerns them. Taking a computer on wheels into a patient’s room means that I spend part of the visit looking at a screen instead of at the patient, and I prefer to avoid it if at all possible.

Q: What’s the best book you’ve read recently? Why?

A: The House of Silk by Anthony Horowitz. Great continuation of the Holmes stories, with a seamless link to [Sir Arthur] Conan Doyle’s style.

Q: How many Apple products (phones, iPods, tablets, iTunes, etc.) do you interface with in a given week?

A: Three.

Q: What’s your favorite social network? Do you use it all for work or professional development?

A: Facebook. Heck no, it’s just fun.

Q: What’s next in your Netflix queue?

A: Last two episodes of Game of Thrones season 5.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

I think it is really cool that this publication has a series of articles on “What Cardiologists [or infection disease specialists, nephrologists, etc.] Want Hospitalists to Know.” I’m always interested to see which clinical topics made the list and which I’m already reasonably familiar with versus know little about. I’ve added this series to my list of things that are always worth the time to read, along with the “What’s New” section in UpToDate, review articles in major journals, and the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

Not long ago, I worked with a hospitalist group that had agreed to cardiologists’ request that new hospitalists round with a cardiologist for something like three days as part of their orientation. This seems like they’ve taken the idea of “What Cardiologists Want Hospitalists to Know” a lot further than I had ever considered. I’m sure it would have value on many levels, including positioning the new hospitalist to work more effectively with the cardiologists, but I’m not sure it’s worth the cost. And I’m really concerned it sends a signal that the relationship is one way—that is, the hospitalists need to understand what the cardiologists do and want from them and not the reverse. For many reasons, I think this should be a reciprocal relationship, and it seems reasonable that new cardiologists should orient by rounding with hospitalists.

Same goes for the “… Want Hospitalists to Know” series. I’d like to see articles enumerating what hospitalists want doctors in other fields to know either in this magazine or its counterpart in the other specialty. What follows is the first of these. It is my take on non-clinical topics hospitalists want hospital leaders to know, and I’ll leave it to others to write about clinical topics.

We Aren’t on ‘Vacation’ Every Other Week

If you always think of our days off as a vacation, as in, “Those hospitalists get 26 weeks of vacation a year,” you’re making a mistake. A significant portion of our weekdays off are just like your weekends; they’re days to take a breather.

And you’re likely forgetting how many weekends we work.

And maybe lots of nights also.

You probably work more hours annually, but having more days for a breather are one offset for our weekends and nights.

Insisting Hospitalists Work an Entire Shift (12 Hours) Doesn’t Make a Lot of Sense on Slow Days

Staying around after completing clinical work yields no value. Too often, the time is spent watching YouTube or similar activities. And it means the doctor will be much more frustrated, and more likely to lobby for overtime compensation, when needing to stay beyond the scheduled end of the shift on busy days.

Avoid measuring work effort in hours. And in many cases, it is best to avoid precise determinations of when a day shift ends. At most hospitals, you do need at least one daytime doctor to stay on duty until the next shift arrives, but it rarely makes sense to have all of the hospitalists stay.

Your hospitalists need to be professional enough not to dash out the door the minute they’ve put notes on every patient’s chart. Instead, rather than leaving at the first opportunity on slow days, they could do all of the discharge preparation (med rec, discharge summary, etc.) for patients likely ready for discharge the next day; this can help a lot to discharge patients early the next day. Or they could make “secondary” rounds focused on patient satisfaction, etc.

Obs Patients Usually Are No Less Complicated—or Labor-Intensive—to Care For

It’s best to think of observation as solely a payor classification and not a good indicator of risk, complexity, or work required. Unfortunately “observation” is often thought of as shorthand for simple, not sick, easy to manage, etc. While true for a small subset of observation patients, such as younger people with a single problem such as atypical chest pain, it isn’t true for older (Medicare) patients with multiple chronic illnesses, on multiple medications, and with complex social situations.

Shouldn’t We Measure Length of Stay for All Patients in Hours Rather Than Days?

Then we could better understand throughput issues such as whether afternoon discharges for inpatients are late discharges or really very early discharges that weren’t held until the next morning.

Even High-Performing Hospitalist Groups Are Likely to Have Patient Satisfaction Scores on the Lower End of Doctors at Your Hospital

Don’t decide that just because they have much lower scores than the orthopedists, cardiologists, obstetricians, and other specialties, it is the hospitalists who are falling furthest below their potential. It may be the cardiologists who have a long way to go to achieve great scores for their specialty.

This isn’t an excuse. Just about every hospitalist group can do better and should work to make it happen. And because in nearly every hospital more HCAHPS surveys are attributed to hospitalists than any other specialty by a wide margin, our scores have a huge impact on the overall hospital averages. But you should keep in mind that, for a variety of reasons, hospitalists everywhere have physician communication scores that are lower than many or most other specialties.

To my knowledge, there isn’t a data set that provides patient satisfaction scores by specialty. And scores seem to vary a lot by geographic region, e.g., they’re nearly always higher in the South than other parts of the country. So there isn’t a good way to control for all the variables and know you’re setting appropriate improvement goals for each specialty. But your hospitalists will appreciate it if you acknowledge it may be unreasonable to set the same goals across specialties.

We’d Love Your Help Getting Rid of Pagers

Secure text messaging between all caregivers seems to be the way to go, and we will look to the hospital to make an investment in technology to make it possible and train users to ensure that by making messaging easier the volume of messages (interruptions) doesn’t just skyrocket. We, the hospitalists at your hospital, are happy to help with all of this, from vendor selection to plans for implementation. Please ask! TH

I think it is really cool that this publication has a series of articles on “What Cardiologists [or infection disease specialists, nephrologists, etc.] Want Hospitalists to Know.” I’m always interested to see which clinical topics made the list and which I’m already reasonably familiar with versus know little about. I’ve added this series to my list of things that are always worth the time to read, along with the “What’s New” section in UpToDate, review articles in major journals, and the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

Not long ago, I worked with a hospitalist group that had agreed to cardiologists’ request that new hospitalists round with a cardiologist for something like three days as part of their orientation. This seems like they’ve taken the idea of “What Cardiologists Want Hospitalists to Know” a lot further than I had ever considered. I’m sure it would have value on many levels, including positioning the new hospitalist to work more effectively with the cardiologists, but I’m not sure it’s worth the cost. And I’m really concerned it sends a signal that the relationship is one way—that is, the hospitalists need to understand what the cardiologists do and want from them and not the reverse. For many reasons, I think this should be a reciprocal relationship, and it seems reasonable that new cardiologists should orient by rounding with hospitalists.

Same goes for the “… Want Hospitalists to Know” series. I’d like to see articles enumerating what hospitalists want doctors in other fields to know either in this magazine or its counterpart in the other specialty. What follows is the first of these. It is my take on non-clinical topics hospitalists want hospital leaders to know, and I’ll leave it to others to write about clinical topics.

We Aren’t on ‘Vacation’ Every Other Week

If you always think of our days off as a vacation, as in, “Those hospitalists get 26 weeks of vacation a year,” you’re making a mistake. A significant portion of our weekdays off are just like your weekends; they’re days to take a breather.

And you’re likely forgetting how many weekends we work.

And maybe lots of nights also.

You probably work more hours annually, but having more days for a breather are one offset for our weekends and nights.

Insisting Hospitalists Work an Entire Shift (12 Hours) Doesn’t Make a Lot of Sense on Slow Days

Staying around after completing clinical work yields no value. Too often, the time is spent watching YouTube or similar activities. And it means the doctor will be much more frustrated, and more likely to lobby for overtime compensation, when needing to stay beyond the scheduled end of the shift on busy days.

Avoid measuring work effort in hours. And in many cases, it is best to avoid precise determinations of when a day shift ends. At most hospitals, you do need at least one daytime doctor to stay on duty until the next shift arrives, but it rarely makes sense to have all of the hospitalists stay.

Your hospitalists need to be professional enough not to dash out the door the minute they’ve put notes on every patient’s chart. Instead, rather than leaving at the first opportunity on slow days, they could do all of the discharge preparation (med rec, discharge summary, etc.) for patients likely ready for discharge the next day; this can help a lot to discharge patients early the next day. Or they could make “secondary” rounds focused on patient satisfaction, etc.

Obs Patients Usually Are No Less Complicated—or Labor-Intensive—to Care For

It’s best to think of observation as solely a payor classification and not a good indicator of risk, complexity, or work required. Unfortunately “observation” is often thought of as shorthand for simple, not sick, easy to manage, etc. While true for a small subset of observation patients, such as younger people with a single problem such as atypical chest pain, it isn’t true for older (Medicare) patients with multiple chronic illnesses, on multiple medications, and with complex social situations.

Shouldn’t We Measure Length of Stay for All Patients in Hours Rather Than Days?

Then we could better understand throughput issues such as whether afternoon discharges for inpatients are late discharges or really very early discharges that weren’t held until the next morning.

Even High-Performing Hospitalist Groups Are Likely to Have Patient Satisfaction Scores on the Lower End of Doctors at Your Hospital

Don’t decide that just because they have much lower scores than the orthopedists, cardiologists, obstetricians, and other specialties, it is the hospitalists who are falling furthest below their potential. It may be the cardiologists who have a long way to go to achieve great scores for their specialty.

This isn’t an excuse. Just about every hospitalist group can do better and should work to make it happen. And because in nearly every hospital more HCAHPS surveys are attributed to hospitalists than any other specialty by a wide margin, our scores have a huge impact on the overall hospital averages. But you should keep in mind that, for a variety of reasons, hospitalists everywhere have physician communication scores that are lower than many or most other specialties.

To my knowledge, there isn’t a data set that provides patient satisfaction scores by specialty. And scores seem to vary a lot by geographic region, e.g., they’re nearly always higher in the South than other parts of the country. So there isn’t a good way to control for all the variables and know you’re setting appropriate improvement goals for each specialty. But your hospitalists will appreciate it if you acknowledge it may be unreasonable to set the same goals across specialties.

We’d Love Your Help Getting Rid of Pagers

Secure text messaging between all caregivers seems to be the way to go, and we will look to the hospital to make an investment in technology to make it possible and train users to ensure that by making messaging easier the volume of messages (interruptions) doesn’t just skyrocket. We, the hospitalists at your hospital, are happy to help with all of this, from vendor selection to plans for implementation. Please ask! TH

I think it is really cool that this publication has a series of articles on “What Cardiologists [or infection disease specialists, nephrologists, etc.] Want Hospitalists to Know.” I’m always interested to see which clinical topics made the list and which I’m already reasonably familiar with versus know little about. I’ve added this series to my list of things that are always worth the time to read, along with the “What’s New” section in UpToDate, review articles in major journals, and the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine.

Not long ago, I worked with a hospitalist group that had agreed to cardiologists’ request that new hospitalists round with a cardiologist for something like three days as part of their orientation. This seems like they’ve taken the idea of “What Cardiologists Want Hospitalists to Know” a lot further than I had ever considered. I’m sure it would have value on many levels, including positioning the new hospitalist to work more effectively with the cardiologists, but I’m not sure it’s worth the cost. And I’m really concerned it sends a signal that the relationship is one way—that is, the hospitalists need to understand what the cardiologists do and want from them and not the reverse. For many reasons, I think this should be a reciprocal relationship, and it seems reasonable that new cardiologists should orient by rounding with hospitalists.

Same goes for the “… Want Hospitalists to Know” series. I’d like to see articles enumerating what hospitalists want doctors in other fields to know either in this magazine or its counterpart in the other specialty. What follows is the first of these. It is my take on non-clinical topics hospitalists want hospital leaders to know, and I’ll leave it to others to write about clinical topics.

We Aren’t on ‘Vacation’ Every Other Week

If you always think of our days off as a vacation, as in, “Those hospitalists get 26 weeks of vacation a year,” you’re making a mistake. A significant portion of our weekdays off are just like your weekends; they’re days to take a breather.

And you’re likely forgetting how many weekends we work.

And maybe lots of nights also.

You probably work more hours annually, but having more days for a breather are one offset for our weekends and nights.

Insisting Hospitalists Work an Entire Shift (12 Hours) Doesn’t Make a Lot of Sense on Slow Days

Staying around after completing clinical work yields no value. Too often, the time is spent watching YouTube or similar activities. And it means the doctor will be much more frustrated, and more likely to lobby for overtime compensation, when needing to stay beyond the scheduled end of the shift on busy days.

Avoid measuring work effort in hours. And in many cases, it is best to avoid precise determinations of when a day shift ends. At most hospitals, you do need at least one daytime doctor to stay on duty until the next shift arrives, but it rarely makes sense to have all of the hospitalists stay.

Your hospitalists need to be professional enough not to dash out the door the minute they’ve put notes on every patient’s chart. Instead, rather than leaving at the first opportunity on slow days, they could do all of the discharge preparation (med rec, discharge summary, etc.) for patients likely ready for discharge the next day; this can help a lot to discharge patients early the next day. Or they could make “secondary” rounds focused on patient satisfaction, etc.

Obs Patients Usually Are No Less Complicated—or Labor-Intensive—to Care For

It’s best to think of observation as solely a payor classification and not a good indicator of risk, complexity, or work required. Unfortunately “observation” is often thought of as shorthand for simple, not sick, easy to manage, etc. While true for a small subset of observation patients, such as younger people with a single problem such as atypical chest pain, it isn’t true for older (Medicare) patients with multiple chronic illnesses, on multiple medications, and with complex social situations.

Shouldn’t We Measure Length of Stay for All Patients in Hours Rather Than Days?

Then we could better understand throughput issues such as whether afternoon discharges for inpatients are late discharges or really very early discharges that weren’t held until the next morning.

Even High-Performing Hospitalist Groups Are Likely to Have Patient Satisfaction Scores on the Lower End of Doctors at Your Hospital

Don’t decide that just because they have much lower scores than the orthopedists, cardiologists, obstetricians, and other specialties, it is the hospitalists who are falling furthest below their potential. It may be the cardiologists who have a long way to go to achieve great scores for their specialty.

This isn’t an excuse. Just about every hospitalist group can do better and should work to make it happen. And because in nearly every hospital more HCAHPS surveys are attributed to hospitalists than any other specialty by a wide margin, our scores have a huge impact on the overall hospital averages. But you should keep in mind that, for a variety of reasons, hospitalists everywhere have physician communication scores that are lower than many or most other specialties.

To my knowledge, there isn’t a data set that provides patient satisfaction scores by specialty. And scores seem to vary a lot by geographic region, e.g., they’re nearly always higher in the South than other parts of the country. So there isn’t a good way to control for all the variables and know you’re setting appropriate improvement goals for each specialty. But your hospitalists will appreciate it if you acknowledge it may be unreasonable to set the same goals across specialties.

We’d Love Your Help Getting Rid of Pagers

Secure text messaging between all caregivers seems to be the way to go, and we will look to the hospital to make an investment in technology to make it possible and train users to ensure that by making messaging easier the volume of messages (interruptions) doesn’t just skyrocket. We, the hospitalists at your hospital, are happy to help with all of this, from vendor selection to plans for implementation. Please ask! TH

Clinical question: What are the current recommendations for antithrombotic therapy in various venous thromboembolism (VTE) scenarios?

Background: VTE is commonly encountered with a multitude of therapeutic options. Selecting the optimal anticoagulant is as important as making the diagnosis and requires knowledge of individual patient characteristics to initiate the correct therapy. These factors include malignancy, location of thrombus, and history of recurrent VTE despite anticoagulation.

Study design: Guideline.

Setting: Expert panel.

Synopsis: For VTE patients without cancer, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are now suggested over vitamin K antagonists (Grade 2B). However, there remains no strong evidence to favor one NOAC over another.

Better evidence now supports the prior recommendation to discourage IVC filters for VTE that is being treated with anticoagulation (Grade 1B).

In pulmonary embolism of the subsegmental type without proximal DVT, clinical surveillance is favored over anticoagulation in lower-risk patients (Grade 2C).

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is advised in recurrent VTE treated with non-LMWH, and for recurrences on LMWH, a dose increase of LMWH is advised (Grade 2C).

Finally, routine use of compression stockings for post-thrombotic syndrome prevention is not routinely recommended (Grade 2B).

Limitations include only 20 of the 54 total recommendations being of strong Grade 1 criteria. Additionally, none of the 54 statements are drawn from high-quality evidence.

Further study is needed to continually update our practice in caring for VTE disease as more experience and comparison data are obtained with the use of NOAC drugs.

Bottom line: Anticoagulant therapy recommendations have been updated, but few are strong recommendations and none are based on high-quality evidence.

Citation: Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-352.

Clinical question: What are the current recommendations for antithrombotic therapy in various venous thromboembolism (VTE) scenarios?

Background: VTE is commonly encountered with a multitude of therapeutic options. Selecting the optimal anticoagulant is as important as making the diagnosis and requires knowledge of individual patient characteristics to initiate the correct therapy. These factors include malignancy, location of thrombus, and history of recurrent VTE despite anticoagulation.

Study design: Guideline.

Setting: Expert panel.

Synopsis: For VTE patients without cancer, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are now suggested over vitamin K antagonists (Grade 2B). However, there remains no strong evidence to favor one NOAC over another.

Better evidence now supports the prior recommendation to discourage IVC filters for VTE that is being treated with anticoagulation (Grade 1B).

In pulmonary embolism of the subsegmental type without proximal DVT, clinical surveillance is favored over anticoagulation in lower-risk patients (Grade 2C).

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is advised in recurrent VTE treated with non-LMWH, and for recurrences on LMWH, a dose increase of LMWH is advised (Grade 2C).

Finally, routine use of compression stockings for post-thrombotic syndrome prevention is not routinely recommended (Grade 2B).

Limitations include only 20 of the 54 total recommendations being of strong Grade 1 criteria. Additionally, none of the 54 statements are drawn from high-quality evidence.

Further study is needed to continually update our practice in caring for VTE disease as more experience and comparison data are obtained with the use of NOAC drugs.

Bottom line: Anticoagulant therapy recommendations have been updated, but few are strong recommendations and none are based on high-quality evidence.

Citation: Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-352.

Clinical question: What are the current recommendations for antithrombotic therapy in various venous thromboembolism (VTE) scenarios?

Background: VTE is commonly encountered with a multitude of therapeutic options. Selecting the optimal anticoagulant is as important as making the diagnosis and requires knowledge of individual patient characteristics to initiate the correct therapy. These factors include malignancy, location of thrombus, and history of recurrent VTE despite anticoagulation.

Study design: Guideline.

Setting: Expert panel.

Synopsis: For VTE patients without cancer, non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOAC) are now suggested over vitamin K antagonists (Grade 2B). However, there remains no strong evidence to favor one NOAC over another.

Better evidence now supports the prior recommendation to discourage IVC filters for VTE that is being treated with anticoagulation (Grade 1B).

In pulmonary embolism of the subsegmental type without proximal DVT, clinical surveillance is favored over anticoagulation in lower-risk patients (Grade 2C).

Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) is advised in recurrent VTE treated with non-LMWH, and for recurrences on LMWH, a dose increase of LMWH is advised (Grade 2C).

Finally, routine use of compression stockings for post-thrombotic syndrome prevention is not routinely recommended (Grade 2B).

Limitations include only 20 of the 54 total recommendations being of strong Grade 1 criteria. Additionally, none of the 54 statements are drawn from high-quality evidence.

Further study is needed to continually update our practice in caring for VTE disease as more experience and comparison data are obtained with the use of NOAC drugs.

Bottom line: Anticoagulant therapy recommendations have been updated, but few are strong recommendations and none are based on high-quality evidence.

Citation: Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-352.

Clinical question: Is tamsulosin efficacious as an expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones ≤10 mm in diameter?

Background: Ureteric calculi are a common reason for hospital admission, and use of medical expulsive therapy during observation periods for small caliber stones has gained much attention recently. Specifically, tamsulosin has been suggested as a medical therapy for small stones.

Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Setting: Five EDs in Australia.

Synopsis: A total of 403 patients participated in the study, based on inclusion criteria of age older than 18 years with symptoms and CT evidence of ureteric stones Exclusion criteria included fever, glomerular filtration rate <60, and calculi >10 mm. Patients were randomized to placebo or 0.4 mg tamsulosin daily for 28 days. The outcome was stone expulsion demonstrated by absence of calculi on repeat CT. Stone passage in the entire group occurred in 87% of the tamsulosin arm and 81.9% of the placebo, with a 95% CI of -3.0% to 13%, which was not a significant difference with P=0.22.

Interestingly, in a subgroup analysis of larger stones 5–10 mm, 83% of tamsulosin subjects compared to 61% of placebo subjects had stone passage that was significant at a 22% difference and P=.03.

Limitations included compliance in both groups, applicability to other populations given study based in Australia, and the lack of follow-through with CT scan at 28 days in 17% of the original group, resulting in missing outcome data.

Bottom line: Patients with ureteric stones 5–10 mm in size demonstrate increased spontaneous stone expulsion with the addition of tamsulosin and should thus be offered this therapy.

Citation: Furyk J, Chu K, Banks C, et al. Distal ureteric stones and tamsulosin: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;67(1):86-95.e2.

Short Take

Low Diagnostic Yield of Blood Cultures in Hospitalized Medical Patients

Prospective cohort study of patients hospitalized on a medical service demonstrated a true positive rate of blood cultures that was lower than previously studied. Using objective clinical predictors may improve likelihood of true positive blood cultures.

Citation: Linsenmeyer K, Gupta K, Strymish JM, Dhanani M, Brecher SM, Breu AC. Culture if spikes? Indications and yield of blood cultures in hospitalized medical patients [published online ahead of print January 13, 2016]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2541.

Clinical question: Is tamsulosin efficacious as an expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones ≤10 mm in diameter?

Background: Ureteric calculi are a common reason for hospital admission, and use of medical expulsive therapy during observation periods for small caliber stones has gained much attention recently. Specifically, tamsulosin has been suggested as a medical therapy for small stones.

Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Setting: Five EDs in Australia.

Synopsis: A total of 403 patients participated in the study, based on inclusion criteria of age older than 18 years with symptoms and CT evidence of ureteric stones Exclusion criteria included fever, glomerular filtration rate <60, and calculi >10 mm. Patients were randomized to placebo or 0.4 mg tamsulosin daily for 28 days. The outcome was stone expulsion demonstrated by absence of calculi on repeat CT. Stone passage in the entire group occurred in 87% of the tamsulosin arm and 81.9% of the placebo, with a 95% CI of -3.0% to 13%, which was not a significant difference with P=0.22.

Interestingly, in a subgroup analysis of larger stones 5–10 mm, 83% of tamsulosin subjects compared to 61% of placebo subjects had stone passage that was significant at a 22% difference and P=.03.

Limitations included compliance in both groups, applicability to other populations given study based in Australia, and the lack of follow-through with CT scan at 28 days in 17% of the original group, resulting in missing outcome data.

Bottom line: Patients with ureteric stones 5–10 mm in size demonstrate increased spontaneous stone expulsion with the addition of tamsulosin and should thus be offered this therapy.

Citation: Furyk J, Chu K, Banks C, et al. Distal ureteric stones and tamsulosin: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;67(1):86-95.e2.

Short Take

Low Diagnostic Yield of Blood Cultures in Hospitalized Medical Patients

Prospective cohort study of patients hospitalized on a medical service demonstrated a true positive rate of blood cultures that was lower than previously studied. Using objective clinical predictors may improve likelihood of true positive blood cultures.

Citation: Linsenmeyer K, Gupta K, Strymish JM, Dhanani M, Brecher SM, Breu AC. Culture if spikes? Indications and yield of blood cultures in hospitalized medical patients [published online ahead of print January 13, 2016]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2541.

Clinical question: Is tamsulosin efficacious as an expulsive therapy for distal ureter stones ≤10 mm in diameter?

Background: Ureteric calculi are a common reason for hospital admission, and use of medical expulsive therapy during observation periods for small caliber stones has gained much attention recently. Specifically, tamsulosin has been suggested as a medical therapy for small stones.

Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

Setting: Five EDs in Australia.

Synopsis: A total of 403 patients participated in the study, based on inclusion criteria of age older than 18 years with symptoms and CT evidence of ureteric stones Exclusion criteria included fever, glomerular filtration rate <60, and calculi >10 mm. Patients were randomized to placebo or 0.4 mg tamsulosin daily for 28 days. The outcome was stone expulsion demonstrated by absence of calculi on repeat CT. Stone passage in the entire group occurred in 87% of the tamsulosin arm and 81.9% of the placebo, with a 95% CI of -3.0% to 13%, which was not a significant difference with P=0.22.

Interestingly, in a subgroup analysis of larger stones 5–10 mm, 83% of tamsulosin subjects compared to 61% of placebo subjects had stone passage that was significant at a 22% difference and P=.03.

Limitations included compliance in both groups, applicability to other populations given study based in Australia, and the lack of follow-through with CT scan at 28 days in 17% of the original group, resulting in missing outcome data.

Bottom line: Patients with ureteric stones 5–10 mm in size demonstrate increased spontaneous stone expulsion with the addition of tamsulosin and should thus be offered this therapy.

Citation: Furyk J, Chu K, Banks C, et al. Distal ureteric stones and tamsulosin: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2016;67(1):86-95.e2.

Short Take

Low Diagnostic Yield of Blood Cultures in Hospitalized Medical Patients

Prospective cohort study of patients hospitalized on a medical service demonstrated a true positive rate of blood cultures that was lower than previously studied. Using objective clinical predictors may improve likelihood of true positive blood cultures.

Citation: Linsenmeyer K, Gupta K, Strymish JM, Dhanani M, Brecher SM, Breu AC. Culture if spikes? Indications and yield of blood cultures in hospitalized medical patients [published online ahead of print January 13, 2016]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2541.

The industry’s first certification for home health and hospices that provide top-caliber community-based palliative care services in the patient’s place of residence is being launched by The Joint Commission.

“As healthcare continues to evolve and the Affordable Care Act is beginning to impact the industry, one of the things that has come to light is that many patients over the years have experienced unnecessary hospitalization admissions when the management of their disease stage really required palliative care,” says Margherita Labson, RN, MSHSA, CPHQ, executive director of The Joint Commission’s Home Care Program. “For those of us in the home care environment in the community, we’ve always tried to manage this, but the current models of care didn’t really meet the needs of these patients because the Medicare benefit is an episodic payment program that’s built for rehab and restoration, not for maintenance.”

The Joint Commission’s new program, she says, provides value to patients, results in a lower rate of a necessary readmission, and contributes to patient satisfaction and improved outcomes of care.

Surveys for Community-Based Palliative Care (CBPC) Certification will begin on July 1. Certification is awarded for a three-year period, and the certification’s framework helps providers design, deliver, and validate patient-centered care and services. Key CBPC certification requirements include:

• A robust interdisciplinary care team
• Customized, comprehensive care plans
• After-hours care and services
• Use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
• A defined hand-off communications process

“This helps to address perhaps one of the key frustrations of hospitalists: the repeated readmissions of patients struggling with serious chronic illnesses,” Labson says. “It helps reduce the number of inappropriate hospital admissions and allows the hospitalist to focus on the admission and successful management of those patients that are appropriate for hospital intervention or acute-care intervention at that point.”

The industry’s first certification for home health and hospices that provide top-caliber community-based palliative care services in the patient’s place of residence is being launched by The Joint Commission.

“As healthcare continues to evolve and the Affordable Care Act is beginning to impact the industry, one of the things that has come to light is that many patients over the years have experienced unnecessary hospitalization admissions when the management of their disease stage really required palliative care,” says Margherita Labson, RN, MSHSA, CPHQ, executive director of The Joint Commission’s Home Care Program. “For those of us in the home care environment in the community, we’ve always tried to manage this, but the current models of care didn’t really meet the needs of these patients because the Medicare benefit is an episodic payment program that’s built for rehab and restoration, not for maintenance.”

The Joint Commission’s new program, she says, provides value to patients, results in a lower rate of a necessary readmission, and contributes to patient satisfaction and improved outcomes of care.

Surveys for Community-Based Palliative Care (CBPC) Certification will begin on July 1. Certification is awarded for a three-year period, and the certification’s framework helps providers design, deliver, and validate patient-centered care and services. Key CBPC certification requirements include:

• A robust interdisciplinary care team
• Customized, comprehensive care plans
• After-hours care and services
• Use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
• A defined hand-off communications process

“This helps to address perhaps one of the key frustrations of hospitalists: the repeated readmissions of patients struggling with serious chronic illnesses,” Labson says. “It helps reduce the number of inappropriate hospital admissions and allows the hospitalist to focus on the admission and successful management of those patients that are appropriate for hospital intervention or acute-care intervention at that point.”

The industry’s first certification for home health and hospices that provide top-caliber community-based palliative care services in the patient’s place of residence is being launched by The Joint Commission.

“As healthcare continues to evolve and the Affordable Care Act is beginning to impact the industry, one of the things that has come to light is that many patients over the years have experienced unnecessary hospitalization admissions when the management of their disease stage really required palliative care,” says Margherita Labson, RN, MSHSA, CPHQ, executive director of The Joint Commission’s Home Care Program. “For those of us in the home care environment in the community, we’ve always tried to manage this, but the current models of care didn’t really meet the needs of these patients because the Medicare benefit is an episodic payment program that’s built for rehab and restoration, not for maintenance.”

The Joint Commission’s new program, she says, provides value to patients, results in a lower rate of a necessary readmission, and contributes to patient satisfaction and improved outcomes of care.

Surveys for Community-Based Palliative Care (CBPC) Certification will begin on July 1. Certification is awarded for a three-year period, and the certification’s framework helps providers design, deliver, and validate patient-centered care and services. Key CBPC certification requirements include:

• A robust interdisciplinary care team
• Customized, comprehensive care plans
• After-hours care and services
• Use of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines
• A defined hand-off communications process

“This helps to address perhaps one of the key frustrations of hospitalists: the repeated readmissions of patients struggling with serious chronic illnesses,” Labson says. “It helps reduce the number of inappropriate hospital admissions and allows the hospitalist to focus on the admission and successful management of those patients that are appropriate for hospital intervention or acute-care intervention at that point.”

Heart failure patients who had early follow-up (within seven days of discharge) with general medicine or cardiology providers had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, according to a study from Kaiser Permanente published in the journal Medical Care.

“We found that follow-up within the first seven days post-discharge—mostly done through in-person clinic visits—was independently associated with a 19% lower chance of readmission, whereas initial follow-up after seven days was not significantly associated with readmission,” says lead researcher Keane K. Lee, MD, MS, a cardiologist and research scientist with Kaiser Permanente. “Perhaps as important, we also observed that telephone visits, mostly done by non-physician providers, within seven days after hospital discharge were associated with a non-statistically significant trend toward lower 30-day readmission rates, even after carefully accounting for potential differences between patients.

“This finding that telephone visits could reduce readmissions has never been reported and has potentially important implications. Contact by telephone with non-physicians may be more convenient for patients and family members and be more practical and cost-effective when implemented on a large scale.”

Dr. Lee suggests hospitalists have a role in creating a system to reliably arrange this follow-up.

“Hospitalists serve as a key part of the process to help patients transition successfully from the hospital back home,” Dr. Lee says.

Reference

1. Lee KK, Yang J, Hernandez AF, Steimle AE, Go S. Post-discharge follow-up characteristics associated with 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization. Med Care. 2016;54(4):365-372.

Heart failure patients who had early follow-up (within seven days of discharge) with general medicine or cardiology providers had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, according to a study from Kaiser Permanente published in the journal Medical Care.

“We found that follow-up within the first seven days post-discharge—mostly done through in-person clinic visits—was independently associated with a 19% lower chance of readmission, whereas initial follow-up after seven days was not significantly associated with readmission,” says lead researcher Keane K. Lee, MD, MS, a cardiologist and research scientist with Kaiser Permanente. “Perhaps as important, we also observed that telephone visits, mostly done by non-physician providers, within seven days after hospital discharge were associated with a non-statistically significant trend toward lower 30-day readmission rates, even after carefully accounting for potential differences between patients.

“This finding that telephone visits could reduce readmissions has never been reported and has potentially important implications. Contact by telephone with non-physicians may be more convenient for patients and family members and be more practical and cost-effective when implemented on a large scale.”

Dr. Lee suggests hospitalists have a role in creating a system to reliably arrange this follow-up.

“Hospitalists serve as a key part of the process to help patients transition successfully from the hospital back home,” Dr. Lee says.

Reference

1. Lee KK, Yang J, Hernandez AF, Steimle AE, Go S. Post-discharge follow-up characteristics associated with 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization. Med Care. 2016;54(4):365-372.

Heart failure patients who had early follow-up (within seven days of discharge) with general medicine or cardiology providers had a lower risk of being readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, according to a study from Kaiser Permanente published in the journal Medical Care.

“We found that follow-up within the first seven days post-discharge—mostly done through in-person clinic visits—was independently associated with a 19% lower chance of readmission, whereas initial follow-up after seven days was not significantly associated with readmission,” says lead researcher Keane K. Lee, MD, MS, a cardiologist and research scientist with Kaiser Permanente. “Perhaps as important, we also observed that telephone visits, mostly done by non-physician providers, within seven days after hospital discharge were associated with a non-statistically significant trend toward lower 30-day readmission rates, even after carefully accounting for potential differences between patients.

“This finding that telephone visits could reduce readmissions has never been reported and has potentially important implications. Contact by telephone with non-physicians may be more convenient for patients and family members and be more practical and cost-effective when implemented on a large scale.”

Dr. Lee suggests hospitalists have a role in creating a system to reliably arrange this follow-up.

“Hospitalists serve as a key part of the process to help patients transition successfully from the hospital back home,” Dr. Lee says.

Reference

1. Lee KK, Yang J, Hernandez AF, Steimle AE, Go S. Post-discharge follow-up characteristics associated with 30-day readmission after heart failure hospitalization. Med Care. 2016;54(4):365-372.

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

I am a seasoned hospitalist at a large academic medical center in the Northeast and have recently become more bothered by how our group is being coerced to aggressively bill for our services. It seems the current reimbursement environment has pushed some of our leaders to demand more aggressive billing from our hospitalists. How should I respond?

Sincerely,

A Seasoned Hospitalist

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

As another “seasoned” hospitalist, I, too, have seen the wide pendulum swing from when internist inpatient billing was an afterthought and done by others to the current system of billing classes, RVU enticement, and reminders of how to construct the note. Enter the electronic health record, and now instead of clinical notes being used as a form of communication among clinicians, it does seem today to be created more for billing purposes.

How did we get here?

Physicians have to accept some of the blame. I can recall when I was an orderly at our local hospital in the mid 1970s and some physician “rounds” consisted of standing in a patient’s doorway and calling out, “How are you doing today, Mrs. Smith?” I must admit to having no idea how these docs were billing, but I do know that Medicare allowed for twice-daily billing for hospital visits back then. I also recall some of the paltry progress notes that consisted of one-liners like “pt doing well today.”

Like most corrective actions, the response has overshot the intended mark and made the daily progress note more ritualistic than informative. When the first attempts by the American Medical Association and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were released in the early 1990s, I’m sure most docs had no idea it would morph into its current level of significance for reimbursement—and that one day docs would be asked to implement, keep up with changes and modifications (think ICD-10), and use daily. Don’t get me wrong: I, like most hospitalists, recognize the clinical utility of a concise and well-written note. But when an otherwise complete H&P gets down-coded from a level 99223 to a 99221 because I leave off the family history of a 95-year-old man, of course I believe something is wrong with the system.

Also, human nature being what it is, I have always felt that if you incentivize people to increase production of an item, whether it’s a widget or an RVU, you will have some who will learn to game the system, consciously or subconsciously. With healthcare spending in the U.S. approaching 20% of gross domestic product, we as physicians should not be placed in positions of increased financial gain at the expense of our country’s economic health and viability. After all, we’re citizens first and physicians second.

You should recognize the need for proper coding and billing as inherent to the hospital’s financial viability, and if done correctly, it should not create an ethical or legal conflict for you. In the vast majority of cases, a well-written note can be properly billed and coded without creating angst.

Good luck! TH

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

I am a seasoned hospitalist at a large academic medical center in the Northeast and have recently become more bothered by how our group is being coerced to aggressively bill for our services. It seems the current reimbursement environment has pushed some of our leaders to demand more aggressive billing from our hospitalists. How should I respond?

Sincerely,

A Seasoned Hospitalist

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

As another “seasoned” hospitalist, I, too, have seen the wide pendulum swing from when internist inpatient billing was an afterthought and done by others to the current system of billing classes, RVU enticement, and reminders of how to construct the note. Enter the electronic health record, and now instead of clinical notes being used as a form of communication among clinicians, it does seem today to be created more for billing purposes.

How did we get here?

Physicians have to accept some of the blame. I can recall when I was an orderly at our local hospital in the mid 1970s and some physician “rounds” consisted of standing in a patient’s doorway and calling out, “How are you doing today, Mrs. Smith?” I must admit to having no idea how these docs were billing, but I do know that Medicare allowed for twice-daily billing for hospital visits back then. I also recall some of the paltry progress notes that consisted of one-liners like “pt doing well today.”

Like most corrective actions, the response has overshot the intended mark and made the daily progress note more ritualistic than informative. When the first attempts by the American Medical Association and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were released in the early 1990s, I’m sure most docs had no idea it would morph into its current level of significance for reimbursement—and that one day docs would be asked to implement, keep up with changes and modifications (think ICD-10), and use daily. Don’t get me wrong: I, like most hospitalists, recognize the clinical utility of a concise and well-written note. But when an otherwise complete H&P gets down-coded from a level 99223 to a 99221 because I leave off the family history of a 95-year-old man, of course I believe something is wrong with the system.

Also, human nature being what it is, I have always felt that if you incentivize people to increase production of an item, whether it’s a widget or an RVU, you will have some who will learn to game the system, consciously or subconsciously. With healthcare spending in the U.S. approaching 20% of gross domestic product, we as physicians should not be placed in positions of increased financial gain at the expense of our country’s economic health and viability. After all, we’re citizens first and physicians second.

You should recognize the need for proper coding and billing as inherent to the hospital’s financial viability, and if done correctly, it should not create an ethical or legal conflict for you. In the vast majority of cases, a well-written note can be properly billed and coded without creating angst.

Good luck! TH

Dear Dr. Hospitalist:

I am a seasoned hospitalist at a large academic medical center in the Northeast and have recently become more bothered by how our group is being coerced to aggressively bill for our services. It seems the current reimbursement environment has pushed some of our leaders to demand more aggressive billing from our hospitalists. How should I respond?

Sincerely,

A Seasoned Hospitalist

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

As another “seasoned” hospitalist, I, too, have seen the wide pendulum swing from when internist inpatient billing was an afterthought and done by others to the current system of billing classes, RVU enticement, and reminders of how to construct the note. Enter the electronic health record, and now instead of clinical notes being used as a form of communication among clinicians, it does seem today to be created more for billing purposes.

How did we get here?

Physicians have to accept some of the blame. I can recall when I was an orderly at our local hospital in the mid 1970s and some physician “rounds” consisted of standing in a patient’s doorway and calling out, “How are you doing today, Mrs. Smith?” I must admit to having no idea how these docs were billing, but I do know that Medicare allowed for twice-daily billing for hospital visits back then. I also recall some of the paltry progress notes that consisted of one-liners like “pt doing well today.”

Like most corrective actions, the response has overshot the intended mark and made the daily progress note more ritualistic than informative. When the first attempts by the American Medical Association and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were released in the early 1990s, I’m sure most docs had no idea it would morph into its current level of significance for reimbursement—and that one day docs would be asked to implement, keep up with changes and modifications (think ICD-10), and use daily. Don’t get me wrong: I, like most hospitalists, recognize the clinical utility of a concise and well-written note. But when an otherwise complete H&P gets down-coded from a level 99223 to a 99221 because I leave off the family history of a 95-year-old man, of course I believe something is wrong with the system.

Also, human nature being what it is, I have always felt that if you incentivize people to increase production of an item, whether it’s a widget or an RVU, you will have some who will learn to game the system, consciously or subconsciously. With healthcare spending in the U.S. approaching 20% of gross domestic product, we as physicians should not be placed in positions of increased financial gain at the expense of our country’s economic health and viability. After all, we’re citizens first and physicians second.

You should recognize the need for proper coding and billing as inherent to the hospital’s financial viability, and if done correctly, it should not create an ethical or legal conflict for you. In the vast majority of cases, a well-written note can be properly billed and coded without creating angst.

Good luck! TH

Clinical question: Do claim-prone physicians account for a substantial share of all paid malpractice claims?

Background: Many studies have compared physicians who have multiple malpractice claims against them with colleagues who have few or no claims against them and have identified systemic differences in their age, sex, and specialty. However, only a few published studies have analyzed the nature of maldistribution itself.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB).

Synopsis: The NPDB is a confidential data repository created by Congress in 1986. Information was obtained on all payments reported to the NPDB against physicians in the U.S. between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2014. The study sample consisted of 66,426 paid claims against 54,099 physicians.

Physicians in four specialty groups accounted for more than half the claims: internal medicine (15%), obstetrics and gynecology (13%), general surgery (12%), and family medicine (11%). One percent of all physicians accounted for 32% of paid claims. Physicians’ risk of future paid claims increased monotonically with their number of previous paid claims. Physicians who had two paid claims had almost twice the risk of having another one (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.86–2.07).

Risk also varied widely according to specialty. Compared with internal medicine physicians, neurosurgeons had approximately double the risk of recurrence (HR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.77–3.03).

The study has some limitations. Some malpractice payments do not reach the NPDB. The study also focused on paid claims only.

Bottom line: A small group of U.S. physicians accounted for a disproportionately large share of paid malpractice claims. Several physician characteristics, most notably the number of previous claims and physician specialty, were significantly associated with recurrence of claims.

Citation: Studdert DM, Bismark MM, Mello MM, Singh H, Spittal MJ. Prevalence and characteristics of physicians prone to malpractice claims. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(4):354-362. doi:10.1056/nejmsa1506137.

Clinical question: Do claim-prone physicians account for a substantial share of all paid malpractice claims?

Background: Many studies have compared physicians who have multiple malpractice claims against them with colleagues who have few or no claims against them and have identified systemic differences in their age, sex, and specialty. However, only a few published studies have analyzed the nature of maldistribution itself.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB).

Synopsis: The NPDB is a confidential data repository created by Congress in 1986. Information was obtained on all payments reported to the NPDB against physicians in the U.S. between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2014. The study sample consisted of 66,426 paid claims against 54,099 physicians.

Physicians in four specialty groups accounted for more than half the claims: internal medicine (15%), obstetrics and gynecology (13%), general surgery (12%), and family medicine (11%). One percent of all physicians accounted for 32% of paid claims. Physicians’ risk of future paid claims increased monotonically with their number of previous paid claims. Physicians who had two paid claims had almost twice the risk of having another one (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.86–2.07).

Risk also varied widely according to specialty. Compared with internal medicine physicians, neurosurgeons had approximately double the risk of recurrence (HR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.77–3.03).

The study has some limitations. Some malpractice payments do not reach the NPDB. The study also focused on paid claims only.

Bottom line: A small group of U.S. physicians accounted for a disproportionately large share of paid malpractice claims. Several physician characteristics, most notably the number of previous claims and physician specialty, were significantly associated with recurrence of claims.

Citation: Studdert DM, Bismark MM, Mello MM, Singh H, Spittal MJ. Prevalence and characteristics of physicians prone to malpractice claims. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(4):354-362. doi:10.1056/nejmsa1506137.

Clinical question: Do claim-prone physicians account for a substantial share of all paid malpractice claims?

Background: Many studies have compared physicians who have multiple malpractice claims against them with colleagues who have few or no claims against them and have identified systemic differences in their age, sex, and specialty. However, only a few published studies have analyzed the nature of maldistribution itself.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Using data from the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB).

Synopsis: The NPDB is a confidential data repository created by Congress in 1986. Information was obtained on all payments reported to the NPDB against physicians in the U.S. between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2014. The study sample consisted of 66,426 paid claims against 54,099 physicians.

Physicians in four specialty groups accounted for more than half the claims: internal medicine (15%), obstetrics and gynecology (13%), general surgery (12%), and family medicine (11%). One percent of all physicians accounted for 32% of paid claims. Physicians’ risk of future paid claims increased monotonically with their number of previous paid claims. Physicians who had two paid claims had almost twice the risk of having another one (HR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.86–2.07).

Risk also varied widely according to specialty. Compared with internal medicine physicians, neurosurgeons had approximately double the risk of recurrence (HR, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.77–3.03).

The study has some limitations. Some malpractice payments do not reach the NPDB. The study also focused on paid claims only.

Bottom line: A small group of U.S. physicians accounted for a disproportionately large share of paid malpractice claims. Several physician characteristics, most notably the number of previous claims and physician specialty, were significantly associated with recurrence of claims.

Citation: Studdert DM, Bismark MM, Mello MM, Singh H, Spittal MJ. Prevalence and characteristics of physicians prone to malpractice claims. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(4):354-362. doi:10.1056/nejmsa1506137.

Clinical question: What is the association of preoperative frailty on one-year postoperative mortality?

Background: Frailty is an aggregate expression of susceptibility to poor outcomes owing to age and disease-related deficits that accumulate with multiple domains. Frailty in this study was defined by the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) frailty-defining diagnoses indicator. It is a binary variable that uses 12 clusters of frailty-defining diagnoses.

Study design: Population-based retrospective cohort study.

Setting: All hospital and physician services funded through the public health care system in Toronto.

Synopsis: The study had 202,980 patients who underwent major elective non-cardiac surgery. Frailty-defining diagnoses were present in 6,289 patients (3.1%). Mean age for the frail population was about 77 years. Joint replacements were the most common procedures for the frail and non-frail groups. Knee replacements were more prevalent in the non-frail group. One year after surgery, 855 frail patients (13.6%) and 9,433 non-frail patients (4.8%) died (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98; 95% CI, 2.78–3.20). When adjusted for age, sex, neighborhood income quintile, and procedure, one-year mortality risk remained significantly higher in the frail group. One-year risk of death was significantly higher in frail patients for all surgical procedures, especially with total joint arthroplasty.

The relative hazard ratio of mortality in frail versus non-frail was extremely high in the early postoperative period, most notably at postoperative day three.

One major weakness of the study is that there is no universal definition of frailty, plus the results are difficult to generalize across populations.

Bottom line: Presence of preoperative frailty-defining diagnoses is associated with increased risk for one-year postoperative mortality; the risk appears to be very high in the early postoperative period.

Citation: McIsaac D, Bryson G, van Walraven C. Association of frailty and 1-year postoperative mortality following major elective noncardiac surgery: a population-based cohort study [published online ahead of print January 20, 2016]. JAMA Surg. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.5085.

Short Take

Early Discharge Associated with Longer Length of Stay

Retrospective analysis showed early discharge before noon was associated with longer length of stay, especially among emergent admissions. However, multiple metrics should be used to measure true effectiveness of an early discharge program.

Citation: Rajkomar A, Valencia V, Novelero M, Mourad M, Auerbach A. The association between discharge before noon and length of stay in medical and surgical patients [published online ahead of print December 30, 2015]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2529.

Clinical question: What is the association of preoperative frailty on one-year postoperative mortality?

Background: Frailty is an aggregate expression of susceptibility to poor outcomes owing to age and disease-related deficits that accumulate with multiple domains. Frailty in this study was defined by the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) frailty-defining diagnoses indicator. It is a binary variable that uses 12 clusters of frailty-defining diagnoses.

Study design: Population-based retrospective cohort study.

Setting: All hospital and physician services funded through the public health care system in Toronto.

Synopsis: The study had 202,980 patients who underwent major elective non-cardiac surgery. Frailty-defining diagnoses were present in 6,289 patients (3.1%). Mean age for the frail population was about 77 years. Joint replacements were the most common procedures for the frail and non-frail groups. Knee replacements were more prevalent in the non-frail group. One year after surgery, 855 frail patients (13.6%) and 9,433 non-frail patients (4.8%) died (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98; 95% CI, 2.78–3.20). When adjusted for age, sex, neighborhood income quintile, and procedure, one-year mortality risk remained significantly higher in the frail group. One-year risk of death was significantly higher in frail patients for all surgical procedures, especially with total joint arthroplasty.

The relative hazard ratio of mortality in frail versus non-frail was extremely high in the early postoperative period, most notably at postoperative day three.

One major weakness of the study is that there is no universal definition of frailty, plus the results are difficult to generalize across populations.

Bottom line: Presence of preoperative frailty-defining diagnoses is associated with increased risk for one-year postoperative mortality; the risk appears to be very high in the early postoperative period.

Citation: McIsaac D, Bryson G, van Walraven C. Association of frailty and 1-year postoperative mortality following major elective noncardiac surgery: a population-based cohort study [published online ahead of print January 20, 2016]. JAMA Surg. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.5085.

Short Take

Early Discharge Associated with Longer Length of Stay

Retrospective analysis showed early discharge before noon was associated with longer length of stay, especially among emergent admissions. However, multiple metrics should be used to measure true effectiveness of an early discharge program.

Citation: Rajkomar A, Valencia V, Novelero M, Mourad M, Auerbach A. The association between discharge before noon and length of stay in medical and surgical patients [published online ahead of print December 30, 2015]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2529.

Clinical question: What is the association of preoperative frailty on one-year postoperative mortality?

Background: Frailty is an aggregate expression of susceptibility to poor outcomes owing to age and disease-related deficits that accumulate with multiple domains. Frailty in this study was defined by the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACG) frailty-defining diagnoses indicator. It is a binary variable that uses 12 clusters of frailty-defining diagnoses.

Study design: Population-based retrospective cohort study.

Setting: All hospital and physician services funded through the public health care system in Toronto.

Synopsis: The study had 202,980 patients who underwent major elective non-cardiac surgery. Frailty-defining diagnoses were present in 6,289 patients (3.1%). Mean age for the frail population was about 77 years. Joint replacements were the most common procedures for the frail and non-frail groups. Knee replacements were more prevalent in the non-frail group. One year after surgery, 855 frail patients (13.6%) and 9,433 non-frail patients (4.8%) died (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 2.98; 95% CI, 2.78–3.20). When adjusted for age, sex, neighborhood income quintile, and procedure, one-year mortality risk remained significantly higher in the frail group. One-year risk of death was significantly higher in frail patients for all surgical procedures, especially with total joint arthroplasty.

The relative hazard ratio of mortality in frail versus non-frail was extremely high in the early postoperative period, most notably at postoperative day three.

One major weakness of the study is that there is no universal definition of frailty, plus the results are difficult to generalize across populations.

Bottom line: Presence of preoperative frailty-defining diagnoses is associated with increased risk for one-year postoperative mortality; the risk appears to be very high in the early postoperative period.

Citation: McIsaac D, Bryson G, van Walraven C. Association of frailty and 1-year postoperative mortality following major elective noncardiac surgery: a population-based cohort study [published online ahead of print January 20, 2016]. JAMA Surg. doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2015.5085.

Short Take

Early Discharge Associated with Longer Length of Stay

Retrospective analysis showed early discharge before noon was associated with longer length of stay, especially among emergent admissions. However, multiple metrics should be used to measure true effectiveness of an early discharge program.

Citation: Rajkomar A, Valencia V, Novelero M, Mourad M, Auerbach A. The association between discharge before noon and length of stay in medical and surgical patients [published online ahead of print December 30, 2015]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2529.