The Hospitalist

[WpProQuiz 6]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 6]

[WpProQuiz 6]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 6]

[WpProQuiz 6]

[WpProQuiz_toplist 6]

Clinical question: What is the incidence and outcome of patients with ischemic hepatitis?

Background: Ischemic hepatitis, or shock liver, is often diagnosed in patients with massive increase in aminotransferase levels most often exceeding 1000 IU/L in the setting of hepatic hypoperfusion. The data on overall incidence and mortality of these patients are limited.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Variable.

Synopsis: Using a combination of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, the study included 24 papers on incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis published between 1965 and 2015 with a combined total of 1,782 cases. The incidence of ischemic hepatitis varied based on patient location with incidence of 2/1000 in all inpatient admissions and 2.5/100 in ICU admissions. The majority of patients suffered from cardiac comorbidities and decompensation during their admission. Inpatient mortality with ischemic hepatitis was 49%.

Interestingly, only 52.9% of patients had an episode of documented hypotension.

Hospitalists taking care of patients with massive rise in aminotransferases should consider ischemic hepatitis higher in their differential, even in the absence of documented hypotension.

There was significant variability in study design, sample size, and inclusion criteria among the studies, which reduces generalizability of this systematic review.

Bottom line: Ischemic hepatitis is associated with very high mortality and should be suspected in patients with high levels of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase even in the absence of documented hypotension.

Citation: Tapper EB, Sengupta N, Bonder A. The incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2015;128(12):1314-1321.

Short Take

Music Can Help Ease Pain and Anxiety after Surgery

A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that music reduces pain and anxiety and decreases the need for pain medication in postoperative patients regardless of type of music or at what interval of the operative period the music was initiated.

Citation: Hole J, Hirsch M, Ball E, Meads C. Music as an aid for postoperative recovery in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2015;386(10004):1659-1671

Clinical question: What is the incidence and outcome of patients with ischemic hepatitis?

Background: Ischemic hepatitis, or shock liver, is often diagnosed in patients with massive increase in aminotransferase levels most often exceeding 1000 IU/L in the setting of hepatic hypoperfusion. The data on overall incidence and mortality of these patients are limited.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Variable.

Synopsis: Using a combination of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, the study included 24 papers on incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis published between 1965 and 2015 with a combined total of 1,782 cases. The incidence of ischemic hepatitis varied based on patient location with incidence of 2/1000 in all inpatient admissions and 2.5/100 in ICU admissions. The majority of patients suffered from cardiac comorbidities and decompensation during their admission. Inpatient mortality with ischemic hepatitis was 49%.

Interestingly, only 52.9% of patients had an episode of documented hypotension.

Hospitalists taking care of patients with massive rise in aminotransferases should consider ischemic hepatitis higher in their differential, even in the absence of documented hypotension.

There was significant variability in study design, sample size, and inclusion criteria among the studies, which reduces generalizability of this systematic review.

Bottom line: Ischemic hepatitis is associated with very high mortality and should be suspected in patients with high levels of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase even in the absence of documented hypotension.

Citation: Tapper EB, Sengupta N, Bonder A. The incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2015;128(12):1314-1321.

Short Take

Music Can Help Ease Pain and Anxiety after Surgery

A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that music reduces pain and anxiety and decreases the need for pain medication in postoperative patients regardless of type of music or at what interval of the operative period the music was initiated.

Citation: Hole J, Hirsch M, Ball E, Meads C. Music as an aid for postoperative recovery in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2015;386(10004):1659-1671

Clinical question: What is the incidence and outcome of patients with ischemic hepatitis?

Background: Ischemic hepatitis, or shock liver, is often diagnosed in patients with massive increase in aminotransferase levels most often exceeding 1000 IU/L in the setting of hepatic hypoperfusion. The data on overall incidence and mortality of these patients are limited.

Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Setting: Variable.

Synopsis: Using a combination of PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science, the study included 24 papers on incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis published between 1965 and 2015 with a combined total of 1,782 cases. The incidence of ischemic hepatitis varied based on patient location with incidence of 2/1000 in all inpatient admissions and 2.5/100 in ICU admissions. The majority of patients suffered from cardiac comorbidities and decompensation during their admission. Inpatient mortality with ischemic hepatitis was 49%.

Interestingly, only 52.9% of patients had an episode of documented hypotension.

Hospitalists taking care of patients with massive rise in aminotransferases should consider ischemic hepatitis higher in their differential, even in the absence of documented hypotension.

There was significant variability in study design, sample size, and inclusion criteria among the studies, which reduces generalizability of this systematic review.

Bottom line: Ischemic hepatitis is associated with very high mortality and should be suspected in patients with high levels of alanine aminotransferase/aspartate aminotransferase even in the absence of documented hypotension.

Citation: Tapper EB, Sengupta N, Bonder A. The incidence and outcomes of ischemic hepatitis: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Am J Med. 2015;128(12):1314-1321.

Short Take

Music Can Help Ease Pain and Anxiety after Surgery

A systematic review and meta-analysis showed that music reduces pain and anxiety and decreases the need for pain medication in postoperative patients regardless of type of music or at what interval of the operative period the music was initiated.

Citation: Hole J, Hirsch M, Ball E, Meads C. Music as an aid for postoperative recovery in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2015;386(10004):1659-1671

Mona Hanna-Attisha, MD, MPH, the director of the pediatric residency program at Hurley Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Michigan State University, has been instrumental in the fight for clean and safe water for residents in Flint, Mich.

Dr. Hanna-Attisha has been a fundamental co-site leader with the SHM I-PASS mentored implementation program and minimized her role in the program as she became the unofficial spokesperson for the Flint water crisis. In January 2016, Dr. Hanna-Attisha took on the lead role for the Pediatric Public Health Initiative with Michigan State University and Hurley Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Hanna-Attisha is a Michigan native and completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. She completed medical school at Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, completed her residency and chief residency at the Children’s Hospital of Michigan, and earned her master’s degree at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

Dr. Hanna-Attisha’s training and experience has focused heavily on environmental toxins and health disparities, so it’s no surprise that she is deeply involved with addressing the public health emergency in Flint as well as taking measures to ensure continued research and action regarding the impact the contaminated water had on the residents of Flint. Dr. Hanna-Attisha is working with a team of experts to develop evidence-based interventions that will aid in improving the health and development of children and families affected by Flint’s contaminated water. She is educating families on nutrition and diets high in iron, calcium, and vitamin C in order to help manage the effects of contamination.

A report from a Virginia Tech Research Team ignited the investigation into Flint’s water issues and also fueled Dr. Hanna-Attisha’s investigation into the blood-lead levels in the children of Flint. It has been close to two years that the residents of Flint have been exposed to severely toxic levels of lead from the city’s tap water, and Dr. Hanna-Attisha’s analysis of children’s blood-lead levels has been highlighted and published in numerous publications, including the American Journal of Public Health.

The water crisis in Flint hits close to home for Dr. Hanna-Attisha, and the dedication she has to her local community is astounding. It shows in the work she has been doing in her new role with the Pediatric Public Health Initiative.

SHM is proud of all the outstanding work she is doing and appreciates her contributions to the SHM I-PASS program. To keep up to date with Dr. Hanna-Attisha, follow her on Twitter @MonaHannaA.

Mobola Owolabi is senior project manager in SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement.

Mona Hanna-Attisha, MD, MPH, the director of the pediatric residency program at Hurley Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Michigan State University, has been instrumental in the fight for clean and safe water for residents in Flint, Mich.

Dr. Hanna-Attisha has been a fundamental co-site leader with the SHM I-PASS mentored implementation program and minimized her role in the program as she became the unofficial spokesperson for the Flint water crisis. In January 2016, Dr. Hanna-Attisha took on the lead role for the Pediatric Public Health Initiative with Michigan State University and Hurley Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Hanna-Attisha is a Michigan native and completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. She completed medical school at Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, completed her residency and chief residency at the Children’s Hospital of Michigan, and earned her master’s degree at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

Dr. Hanna-Attisha’s training and experience has focused heavily on environmental toxins and health disparities, so it’s no surprise that she is deeply involved with addressing the public health emergency in Flint as well as taking measures to ensure continued research and action regarding the impact the contaminated water had on the residents of Flint. Dr. Hanna-Attisha is working with a team of experts to develop evidence-based interventions that will aid in improving the health and development of children and families affected by Flint’s contaminated water. She is educating families on nutrition and diets high in iron, calcium, and vitamin C in order to help manage the effects of contamination.

A report from a Virginia Tech Research Team ignited the investigation into Flint’s water issues and also fueled Dr. Hanna-Attisha’s investigation into the blood-lead levels in the children of Flint. It has been close to two years that the residents of Flint have been exposed to severely toxic levels of lead from the city’s tap water, and Dr. Hanna-Attisha’s analysis of children’s blood-lead levels has been highlighted and published in numerous publications, including the American Journal of Public Health.

The water crisis in Flint hits close to home for Dr. Hanna-Attisha, and the dedication she has to her local community is astounding. It shows in the work she has been doing in her new role with the Pediatric Public Health Initiative.

SHM is proud of all the outstanding work she is doing and appreciates her contributions to the SHM I-PASS program. To keep up to date with Dr. Hanna-Attisha, follow her on Twitter @MonaHannaA.

Mobola Owolabi is senior project manager in SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement.

Mona Hanna-Attisha, MD, MPH, the director of the pediatric residency program at Hurley Children’s Hospital and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Michigan State University, has been instrumental in the fight for clean and safe water for residents in Flint, Mich.

Dr. Hanna-Attisha has been a fundamental co-site leader with the SHM I-PASS mentored implementation program and minimized her role in the program as she became the unofficial spokesperson for the Flint water crisis. In January 2016, Dr. Hanna-Attisha took on the lead role for the Pediatric Public Health Initiative with Michigan State University and Hurley Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Hanna-Attisha is a Michigan native and completed her undergraduate degree at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. She completed medical school at Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, completed her residency and chief residency at the Children’s Hospital of Michigan, and earned her master’s degree at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

Dr. Hanna-Attisha’s training and experience has focused heavily on environmental toxins and health disparities, so it’s no surprise that she is deeply involved with addressing the public health emergency in Flint as well as taking measures to ensure continued research and action regarding the impact the contaminated water had on the residents of Flint. Dr. Hanna-Attisha is working with a team of experts to develop evidence-based interventions that will aid in improving the health and development of children and families affected by Flint’s contaminated water. She is educating families on nutrition and diets high in iron, calcium, and vitamin C in order to help manage the effects of contamination.

A report from a Virginia Tech Research Team ignited the investigation into Flint’s water issues and also fueled Dr. Hanna-Attisha’s investigation into the blood-lead levels in the children of Flint. It has been close to two years that the residents of Flint have been exposed to severely toxic levels of lead from the city’s tap water, and Dr. Hanna-Attisha’s analysis of children’s blood-lead levels has been highlighted and published in numerous publications, including the American Journal of Public Health.

The water crisis in Flint hits close to home for Dr. Hanna-Attisha, and the dedication she has to her local community is astounding. It shows in the work she has been doing in her new role with the Pediatric Public Health Initiative.

SHM is proud of all the outstanding work she is doing and appreciates her contributions to the SHM I-PASS program. To keep up to date with Dr. Hanna-Attisha, follow her on Twitter @MonaHannaA.

Mobola Owolabi is senior project manager in SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation and Improvement.

SAN DIEGO — Hospital medicine’s annual extravaganza nestled into the southwestern corner of the country in March, with a record 4,000 hospitalists and others expanding their knowledge of clinical care, management, leadership, technology, and quality improvement.

They listened, they laughed, they learned.

Read more about the knowledge, experiences hospitalists shared at HM16.

Between the nitty-gritty of the workshops, expert panels, and forums, three high-profile speakers offered broad and insightful perspectives:

• U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, a hospitalist by training, on his experiences as a hospitalist and his thoughts on the importance of public health in America;
• New SHM President Brian Harte, MD, SFHM, on the role of hospital medicine in cultivating leadership; and
• Hospitalist pioneer Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, on the future of hospital medicine as it reaches its 20th year since he introduced the term “hospitalist” in a New England Journal of Medicine article.

Dr. Murthy, formerly a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who in 2009 founded Doctors for America, an organization for healthcare improvement in the U.S., said his career as a hospitalist came as a surprise to him.

“When I was in medical school, I didn’t even know what a hospitalist was,” he said. “When I became a hospitalist, I thought it would be a temporary gig, something I did for a couple of years while I figured out what I really wanted to do. But as it turned out, I really loved what I did as a hospitalist. I love teaching. I love caring for patients. I love being part of a tight-knit team.”

He called good health “the key to opportunity,” explaining health is “intrinsically connected to the American dream.”

Hospitalists can play a role in building a “foundation for health,” he said. Four ingredients to this, he said, are creating a culture in which “healthy is equated with happiness” rather than associated with an attitude of “suck it up and eat your spinach”; changing our environment, such as adding sidewalks to encourage walking, to promote healthy behavior change; focusing on the spirit and mind as well as the body; and cultivating our ability to give and receive kindness, which he called “a source of healing.”

Dr. Harte described hospital medicine as “fertile ground” for leadership development.

“Our day-to-day experiences provide a leadership incubator that really no other specialty can claim,” he said.

He said he hopes that over the next several years, hospitalists and SHM make strides in these areas:

• Continuing and expanding membership;
• Continuing to push members and projects to focus on the Triple Aim, particularly patient- and family-centered care; and
• Better understanding hospitalists’ role in the era of risk.

“We need to clarify our position regarding specialty training and our training programs,” he added.

Dr. Harte recognized that such a discussion can get “difficult and contentious and political,” but that “when we look at what we have to do to be clinically effective, and what our current training programs and family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics provide for us, that gap to me only appears to be increasing.”

He said SHM has and will “continue to step up with curricula to fill those gaps.” However, he also said hospitalists “have to question what is the best way to train physicians for the roles of providers in the acute-care setting.”

Dr. Wachter, keeping his tradition of giving the final talk of the four-day conference, retraced the roots and successes of the field over the last 20 years. It was part history lesson, part report card, and part prognostication.

What the field has gotten wrong, so far, amounts to “an amazingly short list,” he said, but it’s not a nonexistent list.

“I think one thing we got wrong was a 7-days-on/7-days-off schedule,” he said, drawing applause. While it might be appealing to a 35-year-old doctor, he added, “I don’t believe this is a viable schedule for a 60-year-old.”

HM modeled itself after its closest cousin, emergency medicine, in which doctors frequently work 10- to 12-hour shifts every other day. Since that every-other-day schedule is not good for continuity, HM essentially strung together shifts for as many consecutive days as possible, leading to the 7-on/7-off. Now, many clinicians won’t consider positions without such a schedule even though it’s not a schedule suitable for everyone.

“I think we’ve shot ourselves in the foot,” he said. “Because what it means is you take all the work that needs to be done and you shove it into a very small amount of space. Therefore, the amount of intensity in that work that you have is, I think, undoable over time. I hope we rethink that.”

He cautioned that SHM is near the age when, all too often, societies begin to be complacent and needs to guard against the instinct to keep doing things as they have always been done.

“We need to instinctively say, ‘Wait a second, am I turning into all of those other societies that have become irrelevant—or less relevant—because of that reflex?’” he questioned.

He predicted that, even though value in care is now becoming an obsession, the digitization of healthcare ultimately will have a deeper impact on medicine.

“You ask me 10 years from now, I’m guessing that the fact that we’ve just gone from analog to digital will have turned out to be a bigger transformation,” he explained. “And the reason I say that is if you look at the history of every other industry that went from analog to digital, eventually the industries got turned upside down.”

Burnout, a prominent topic at the meeting, still doesn’t seem to be worse in hospital medicine than in many other specialties, he said, but it is a concern.

“We need to rethink this. We need to come up with some new practice models using information technology in new ways, collaborating with members of the team in different ways,” he said. “We have to take this issue and figure out a way of solving it.”

Dr. Wachter said hospital medicine needs to keep innovating and finding ways to add value; otherwise, the financial support hospitals give to hospital medicine could begin to shrink.

The field is facing challenges, he said, but he is clearly proud of its accomplishments. He said that before he went out on the stage at an early conference he organized in 1998, during the early days of hospital medicine, his wife asked him, “Are you sure this is a good idea?”

“What I said to her was, ‘It is a good idea, and it will be a good idea if we are successful in recruiting and retaining young people, innovative people who want to change the world,’” he said. “I think we have done that, and I thank all of you for turning this into a good idea.” TH

Thomas R. Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

SAN DIEGO — Hospital medicine’s annual extravaganza nestled into the southwestern corner of the country in March, with a record 4,000 hospitalists and others expanding their knowledge of clinical care, management, leadership, technology, and quality improvement.

They listened, they laughed, they learned.

Read more about the knowledge, experiences hospitalists shared at HM16.

Between the nitty-gritty of the workshops, expert panels, and forums, three high-profile speakers offered broad and insightful perspectives:

• U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, a hospitalist by training, on his experiences as a hospitalist and his thoughts on the importance of public health in America;
• New SHM President Brian Harte, MD, SFHM, on the role of hospital medicine in cultivating leadership; and
• Hospitalist pioneer Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, on the future of hospital medicine as it reaches its 20th year since he introduced the term “hospitalist” in a New England Journal of Medicine article.

Dr. Murthy, formerly a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who in 2009 founded Doctors for America, an organization for healthcare improvement in the U.S., said his career as a hospitalist came as a surprise to him.

“When I was in medical school, I didn’t even know what a hospitalist was,” he said. “When I became a hospitalist, I thought it would be a temporary gig, something I did for a couple of years while I figured out what I really wanted to do. But as it turned out, I really loved what I did as a hospitalist. I love teaching. I love caring for patients. I love being part of a tight-knit team.”

He called good health “the key to opportunity,” explaining health is “intrinsically connected to the American dream.”

Hospitalists can play a role in building a “foundation for health,” he said. Four ingredients to this, he said, are creating a culture in which “healthy is equated with happiness” rather than associated with an attitude of “suck it up and eat your spinach”; changing our environment, such as adding sidewalks to encourage walking, to promote healthy behavior change; focusing on the spirit and mind as well as the body; and cultivating our ability to give and receive kindness, which he called “a source of healing.”

Dr. Harte described hospital medicine as “fertile ground” for leadership development.

“Our day-to-day experiences provide a leadership incubator that really no other specialty can claim,” he said.

He said he hopes that over the next several years, hospitalists and SHM make strides in these areas:

• Continuing and expanding membership;
• Continuing to push members and projects to focus on the Triple Aim, particularly patient- and family-centered care; and
• Better understanding hospitalists’ role in the era of risk.

“We need to clarify our position regarding specialty training and our training programs,” he added.

Dr. Harte recognized that such a discussion can get “difficult and contentious and political,” but that “when we look at what we have to do to be clinically effective, and what our current training programs and family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics provide for us, that gap to me only appears to be increasing.”

He said SHM has and will “continue to step up with curricula to fill those gaps.” However, he also said hospitalists “have to question what is the best way to train physicians for the roles of providers in the acute-care setting.”

Dr. Wachter, keeping his tradition of giving the final talk of the four-day conference, retraced the roots and successes of the field over the last 20 years. It was part history lesson, part report card, and part prognostication.

What the field has gotten wrong, so far, amounts to “an amazingly short list,” he said, but it’s not a nonexistent list.

“I think one thing we got wrong was a 7-days-on/7-days-off schedule,” he said, drawing applause. While it might be appealing to a 35-year-old doctor, he added, “I don’t believe this is a viable schedule for a 60-year-old.”

HM modeled itself after its closest cousin, emergency medicine, in which doctors frequently work 10- to 12-hour shifts every other day. Since that every-other-day schedule is not good for continuity, HM essentially strung together shifts for as many consecutive days as possible, leading to the 7-on/7-off. Now, many clinicians won’t consider positions without such a schedule even though it’s not a schedule suitable for everyone.

“I think we’ve shot ourselves in the foot,” he said. “Because what it means is you take all the work that needs to be done and you shove it into a very small amount of space. Therefore, the amount of intensity in that work that you have is, I think, undoable over time. I hope we rethink that.”

He cautioned that SHM is near the age when, all too often, societies begin to be complacent and needs to guard against the instinct to keep doing things as they have always been done.

“We need to instinctively say, ‘Wait a second, am I turning into all of those other societies that have become irrelevant—or less relevant—because of that reflex?’” he questioned.

He predicted that, even though value in care is now becoming an obsession, the digitization of healthcare ultimately will have a deeper impact on medicine.

“You ask me 10 years from now, I’m guessing that the fact that we’ve just gone from analog to digital will have turned out to be a bigger transformation,” he explained. “And the reason I say that is if you look at the history of every other industry that went from analog to digital, eventually the industries got turned upside down.”

Burnout, a prominent topic at the meeting, still doesn’t seem to be worse in hospital medicine than in many other specialties, he said, but it is a concern.

“We need to rethink this. We need to come up with some new practice models using information technology in new ways, collaborating with members of the team in different ways,” he said. “We have to take this issue and figure out a way of solving it.”

Dr. Wachter said hospital medicine needs to keep innovating and finding ways to add value; otherwise, the financial support hospitals give to hospital medicine could begin to shrink.

The field is facing challenges, he said, but he is clearly proud of its accomplishments. He said that before he went out on the stage at an early conference he organized in 1998, during the early days of hospital medicine, his wife asked him, “Are you sure this is a good idea?”

“What I said to her was, ‘It is a good idea, and it will be a good idea if we are successful in recruiting and retaining young people, innovative people who want to change the world,’” he said. “I think we have done that, and I thank all of you for turning this into a good idea.” TH

Thomas R. Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

SAN DIEGO — Hospital medicine’s annual extravaganza nestled into the southwestern corner of the country in March, with a record 4,000 hospitalists and others expanding their knowledge of clinical care, management, leadership, technology, and quality improvement.

They listened, they laughed, they learned.

Read more about the knowledge, experiences hospitalists shared at HM16.

Between the nitty-gritty of the workshops, expert panels, and forums, three high-profile speakers offered broad and insightful perspectives:

• U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA, a hospitalist by training, on his experiences as a hospitalist and his thoughts on the importance of public health in America;
• New SHM President Brian Harte, MD, SFHM, on the role of hospital medicine in cultivating leadership; and
• Hospitalist pioneer Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, on the future of hospital medicine as it reaches its 20th year since he introduced the term “hospitalist” in a New England Journal of Medicine article.

Dr. Murthy, formerly a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who in 2009 founded Doctors for America, an organization for healthcare improvement in the U.S., said his career as a hospitalist came as a surprise to him.

“When I was in medical school, I didn’t even know what a hospitalist was,” he said. “When I became a hospitalist, I thought it would be a temporary gig, something I did for a couple of years while I figured out what I really wanted to do. But as it turned out, I really loved what I did as a hospitalist. I love teaching. I love caring for patients. I love being part of a tight-knit team.”

He called good health “the key to opportunity,” explaining health is “intrinsically connected to the American dream.”

Hospitalists can play a role in building a “foundation for health,” he said. Four ingredients to this, he said, are creating a culture in which “healthy is equated with happiness” rather than associated with an attitude of “suck it up and eat your spinach”; changing our environment, such as adding sidewalks to encourage walking, to promote healthy behavior change; focusing on the spirit and mind as well as the body; and cultivating our ability to give and receive kindness, which he called “a source of healing.”

Dr. Harte described hospital medicine as “fertile ground” for leadership development.

“Our day-to-day experiences provide a leadership incubator that really no other specialty can claim,” he said.

He said he hopes that over the next several years, hospitalists and SHM make strides in these areas:

• Continuing and expanding membership;
• Continuing to push members and projects to focus on the Triple Aim, particularly patient- and family-centered care; and
• Better understanding hospitalists’ role in the era of risk.

“We need to clarify our position regarding specialty training and our training programs,” he added.

Dr. Harte recognized that such a discussion can get “difficult and contentious and political,” but that “when we look at what we have to do to be clinically effective, and what our current training programs and family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics provide for us, that gap to me only appears to be increasing.”

He said SHM has and will “continue to step up with curricula to fill those gaps.” However, he also said hospitalists “have to question what is the best way to train physicians for the roles of providers in the acute-care setting.”

Dr. Wachter, keeping his tradition of giving the final talk of the four-day conference, retraced the roots and successes of the field over the last 20 years. It was part history lesson, part report card, and part prognostication.

What the field has gotten wrong, so far, amounts to “an amazingly short list,” he said, but it’s not a nonexistent list.

“I think one thing we got wrong was a 7-days-on/7-days-off schedule,” he said, drawing applause. While it might be appealing to a 35-year-old doctor, he added, “I don’t believe this is a viable schedule for a 60-year-old.”

HM modeled itself after its closest cousin, emergency medicine, in which doctors frequently work 10- to 12-hour shifts every other day. Since that every-other-day schedule is not good for continuity, HM essentially strung together shifts for as many consecutive days as possible, leading to the 7-on/7-off. Now, many clinicians won’t consider positions without such a schedule even though it’s not a schedule suitable for everyone.

“I think we’ve shot ourselves in the foot,” he said. “Because what it means is you take all the work that needs to be done and you shove it into a very small amount of space. Therefore, the amount of intensity in that work that you have is, I think, undoable over time. I hope we rethink that.”

He cautioned that SHM is near the age when, all too often, societies begin to be complacent and needs to guard against the instinct to keep doing things as they have always been done.

“We need to instinctively say, ‘Wait a second, am I turning into all of those other societies that have become irrelevant—or less relevant—because of that reflex?’” he questioned.

He predicted that, even though value in care is now becoming an obsession, the digitization of healthcare ultimately will have a deeper impact on medicine.

“You ask me 10 years from now, I’m guessing that the fact that we’ve just gone from analog to digital will have turned out to be a bigger transformation,” he explained. “And the reason I say that is if you look at the history of every other industry that went from analog to digital, eventually the industries got turned upside down.”

Burnout, a prominent topic at the meeting, still doesn’t seem to be worse in hospital medicine than in many other specialties, he said, but it is a concern.

“We need to rethink this. We need to come up with some new practice models using information technology in new ways, collaborating with members of the team in different ways,” he said. “We have to take this issue and figure out a way of solving it.”

Dr. Wachter said hospital medicine needs to keep innovating and finding ways to add value; otherwise, the financial support hospitals give to hospital medicine could begin to shrink.

The field is facing challenges, he said, but he is clearly proud of its accomplishments. He said that before he went out on the stage at an early conference he organized in 1998, during the early days of hospital medicine, his wife asked him, “Are you sure this is a good idea?”

“What I said to her was, ‘It is a good idea, and it will be a good idea if we are successful in recruiting and retaining young people, innovative people who want to change the world,’” he said. “I think we have done that, and I thank all of you for turning this into a good idea.” TH

Thomas R. Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

Clinical question: Does AIMS65 risk stratification score predict inpatient mortality in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB)?

Background: Acute UGIB is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, which makes it crucial to identify high-risk patients early. Several prognostic algorithms such as Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and pre-endoscopy (pre-RS) and post-endoscopy (post-RS) Rockall scores are available to triage such patients. The goal of this study was to validate AIMS65 score as a predictor of inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB compared to these other prognostic scores.

Study Design: Retrospective, cohort study.

Setting: Tertiary-care center in Australia, January 2010 to June 2013.

Synopsis: Using ICD-10 diagnosis codes, investigators identified 424 patients with UGIB requiring endoscopy. All patients were risk-stratified using AIMS65, GBS, pre-RS, and post-RS. The AIMS65 score was found to be superior in predicting inpatient mortality compared to GBS and pre-RS scores and statistically superior to all other scores in predicting need for ICU admission.

In addition to being a single-center, retrospective study, other limitations include the use of ICD-10 codes to identify patients. Further prospective studies are needed to further validate the AIMS65 in acute UGIB.

Bottom line: AIMS65 is a simple and useful tool in predicting inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB. However, its applicability in making clinical decisions remains unclear.

Citation: Robertson M, Majumdar A, Boyapati R, et al. Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems [published online ahead of print October 16, 2015]. Gastrointest Endosc. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.021.

Clinical question: Does AIMS65 risk stratification score predict inpatient mortality in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB)?

Background: Acute UGIB is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, which makes it crucial to identify high-risk patients early. Several prognostic algorithms such as Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and pre-endoscopy (pre-RS) and post-endoscopy (post-RS) Rockall scores are available to triage such patients. The goal of this study was to validate AIMS65 score as a predictor of inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB compared to these other prognostic scores.

Study Design: Retrospective, cohort study.

Setting: Tertiary-care center in Australia, January 2010 to June 2013.

Synopsis: Using ICD-10 diagnosis codes, investigators identified 424 patients with UGIB requiring endoscopy. All patients were risk-stratified using AIMS65, GBS, pre-RS, and post-RS. The AIMS65 score was found to be superior in predicting inpatient mortality compared to GBS and pre-RS scores and statistically superior to all other scores in predicting need for ICU admission.

In addition to being a single-center, retrospective study, other limitations include the use of ICD-10 codes to identify patients. Further prospective studies are needed to further validate the AIMS65 in acute UGIB.

Bottom line: AIMS65 is a simple and useful tool in predicting inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB. However, its applicability in making clinical decisions remains unclear.

Citation: Robertson M, Majumdar A, Boyapati R, et al. Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems [published online ahead of print October 16, 2015]. Gastrointest Endosc. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.021.

Clinical question: Does AIMS65 risk stratification score predict inpatient mortality in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleed (UGIB)?

Background: Acute UGIB is associated with significant morbidity and mortality, which makes it crucial to identify high-risk patients early. Several prognostic algorithms such as Glasgow-Blatchford (GBS) and pre-endoscopy (pre-RS) and post-endoscopy (post-RS) Rockall scores are available to triage such patients. The goal of this study was to validate AIMS65 score as a predictor of inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB compared to these other prognostic scores.

Study Design: Retrospective, cohort study.

Setting: Tertiary-care center in Australia, January 2010 to June 2013.

Synopsis: Using ICD-10 diagnosis codes, investigators identified 424 patients with UGIB requiring endoscopy. All patients were risk-stratified using AIMS65, GBS, pre-RS, and post-RS. The AIMS65 score was found to be superior in predicting inpatient mortality compared to GBS and pre-RS scores and statistically superior to all other scores in predicting need for ICU admission.

In addition to being a single-center, retrospective study, other limitations include the use of ICD-10 codes to identify patients. Further prospective studies are needed to further validate the AIMS65 in acute UGIB.

Bottom line: AIMS65 is a simple and useful tool in predicting inpatient mortality in patients with acute UGIB. However, its applicability in making clinical decisions remains unclear.

Citation: Robertson M, Majumdar A, Boyapati R, et al. Risk stratification in acute upper GI bleeding: comparison of the AIMS65 score with the Glasgow-Blatchford and Rockall scoring systems [published online ahead of print October 16, 2015]. Gastrointest Endosc. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2015.10.021.

Interested in a career in hospital medicine? Know someone who is? SHM hosts a series of special events for students and residents on campuses throughout the country. These catered networking receptions feature nationally recognized hospitalists speaking on their careers and the many options and opportunities within the hospital medicine specialty.

Don’t miss the opportunity to consider a career choice in medicine’s fastest growing specialty and network with the hospital medicine community. The tentative 2016 schedule includes stops in the following cities:

Spring: Baltimore, San Antonio, Seattle, Tempe, Ariz.

Fall: Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Louis

Visit www.futureofhospitalmedicine.org/events to learn more and see updated schedule details.

Interested in a career in hospital medicine? Know someone who is? SHM hosts a series of special events for students and residents on campuses throughout the country. These catered networking receptions feature nationally recognized hospitalists speaking on their careers and the many options and opportunities within the hospital medicine specialty.

Don’t miss the opportunity to consider a career choice in medicine’s fastest growing specialty and network with the hospital medicine community. The tentative 2016 schedule includes stops in the following cities:

Spring: Baltimore, San Antonio, Seattle, Tempe, Ariz.

Fall: Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Louis

Visit www.futureofhospitalmedicine.org/events to learn more and see updated schedule details.

Interested in a career in hospital medicine? Know someone who is? SHM hosts a series of special events for students and residents on campuses throughout the country. These catered networking receptions feature nationally recognized hospitalists speaking on their careers and the many options and opportunities within the hospital medicine specialty.

Don’t miss the opportunity to consider a career choice in medicine’s fastest growing specialty and network with the hospital medicine community. The tentative 2016 schedule includes stops in the following cities:

Spring: Baltimore, San Antonio, Seattle, Tempe, Ariz.

Fall: Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Louis

Visit www.futureofhospitalmedicine.org/events to learn more and see updated schedule details.

Editor’s note: Second in a three-part series.

This month continues my list of important issues that help position your hospitalist group for greatest success. SHM’s “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group” is the definitive list, and this is my much smaller list. Last month, I discussed a culture (or mindset) of practice ownership, a formal system of group decision-making, and the importance of hospitalists themselves playing an active role in recruitment.

Policy and Procedure Manual

New protocols and decisions are being implemented every day. It is impossible to keep track of them, especially the ones that come into play infrequently. For example, many adult hospitalist groups have reached decisions about whether to admit teenagers (e.g., admit only 16 and older or 18 and older, etc.) and whether a hospitalist or obstetrician serves as attending for pregnant women admitted for a medical problem like asthma or pneumonia. But ask everyone in your group to recite the policies, and I bet the answers will differ.

My experience is that only about 20% to 25% of hospitalist groups have written these things down in one place, but all should. It doesn’t need to be fancy and could just start as a Word document in which the lead hospitalist or other designated person writes down a handful of policies and then updates them on an ongoing basis. For example, if a group meeting results in adopting a new policy, it could be added to the document as soon as the meeting adjourns. In some cases, a policy is communicated by email; it would be fine to just copy the body of that email into the manual.

This “living” document could be maintained on a shared computer drive accessible from anywhere in or out of the hospital. That way, when the solo night doctor thinks, “Do we admit 17-year-olds or not?,” she has a place to find the answer right away. And the manual will be a real asset to orient new providers to your practice.

You could start the policy and procedure manual by listing categories, including human resource issues like sick-day policy, how to request days off or scheduling changes, clinical policies like which hip fractures are admitted by hospitalists versus orthopedics, billing and coding practices such as always turn in charges at end of each day, and so on.

I’ve seen useful manuals that are about 10 pages and others that run more than 50 pages.

An Effective Performance Dashboard

Every hospitalist group should have some sort of routine performance report (dashboard) provided in the same format at regular intervals, yet in my experience many, or even most, don’t. It is worth the sometimes considerable effort to develop a meaningful dashboard, and in 2006, SHM published a helpful guide. Even though it is getting old, most of the advice is still very relevant even if the metrics we care most about have changed.

I’m a big believer in providing unblinded performance data to all in the hospitalist group. For example, a report of individual work relative value unit (wRVU) productivity would show productivity for each doctor by name. I think it is healthy to be transparent and ensure all in the group know how others are performing. There is nothing like finding out you are a performance outlier to spark an interest in understanding why and what should be done about it.

Roles for NPs and PAs

Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) can be valuable contributors to a successful hospitalist program, and according to the 2014 State of Hospital Medicine Report, 65% of hospitalist groups nationally had at least one such clinician—an increase over prior years.

While the idea of NP/PAs contributing to the practice is a sound one, my experience is that many groups execute the idea poorly and end up creating a role that can be both professionally unsatisfying and not serve as a platform to contribute effectively to the group. A common scenario is a hospitalist group has trouble with recruiting physicians, so it turns to NP/PAs because they are more readily available. But so often the group has thought little about the precise role NP/PAs will serve (nothing more than “they will help out the docs”). Too often the result is NP/PAs who will say many physician hospitalists simply repeat all the work on each patient, which certainly isn’t a rewarding or cost-effective role.

All should be convinced that the practice is better off in terms of increased overall productivity and/or other benefits by investing in NP/PAs than if those same dollars were instead invested in physician staffing. So one economic model to consider is to calculate the total cost (salary, benefits, malpractice, etc.) for an NP/PA and divide that by those costs for a physician. Let’s say that shows an NP/PA costs half as much as a physician (ranges 40% to 60% in my experience). That staffing cost could be considered in “physician FTE equivalents” so that, for example, a practice with four NP/PAs each costing 50% as much as a physician, or two physician equivalents, could be said to have a total of two physician-equivalent FTEs of staffing. Is the practice better off configured that way, or would it be better to have two physicians instead of the four NP/PAs? The answer will vary, but I think every practice should look at NP/PA staffing through this lens, as well as other considerations, to determine whether they’ve made the best choice.

Having NP/PAs and physicians share rounding duties can be tricky to do efficiently. In my experience, NP/PAs can be better positioned to contribute optimally and find greater professional satisfaction if responsible for a specific portion of the group’s work. For example, at a large hospital, NP/PAs might see all orthopedic consults or psych unit admissions reasonably independently, though with physician backup available. Or NP/PAs could serve as evening (“swing”) shift staffing and manage cross-cover and some admissions. In these roles, the division of labor between NP/PAs and physicians is clearer and allows NP/PAs to contribute most effectively. TH

Editor’s note: Second in a three-part series.

This month continues my list of important issues that help position your hospitalist group for greatest success. SHM’s “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group” is the definitive list, and this is my much smaller list. Last month, I discussed a culture (or mindset) of practice ownership, a formal system of group decision-making, and the importance of hospitalists themselves playing an active role in recruitment.

Policy and Procedure Manual

New protocols and decisions are being implemented every day. It is impossible to keep track of them, especially the ones that come into play infrequently. For example, many adult hospitalist groups have reached decisions about whether to admit teenagers (e.g., admit only 16 and older or 18 and older, etc.) and whether a hospitalist or obstetrician serves as attending for pregnant women admitted for a medical problem like asthma or pneumonia. But ask everyone in your group to recite the policies, and I bet the answers will differ.

My experience is that only about 20% to 25% of hospitalist groups have written these things down in one place, but all should. It doesn’t need to be fancy and could just start as a Word document in which the lead hospitalist or other designated person writes down a handful of policies and then updates them on an ongoing basis. For example, if a group meeting results in adopting a new policy, it could be added to the document as soon as the meeting adjourns. In some cases, a policy is communicated by email; it would be fine to just copy the body of that email into the manual.

This “living” document could be maintained on a shared computer drive accessible from anywhere in or out of the hospital. That way, when the solo night doctor thinks, “Do we admit 17-year-olds or not?,” she has a place to find the answer right away. And the manual will be a real asset to orient new providers to your practice.

You could start the policy and procedure manual by listing categories, including human resource issues like sick-day policy, how to request days off or scheduling changes, clinical policies like which hip fractures are admitted by hospitalists versus orthopedics, billing and coding practices such as always turn in charges at end of each day, and so on.

I’ve seen useful manuals that are about 10 pages and others that run more than 50 pages.

An Effective Performance Dashboard

Every hospitalist group should have some sort of routine performance report (dashboard) provided in the same format at regular intervals, yet in my experience many, or even most, don’t. It is worth the sometimes considerable effort to develop a meaningful dashboard, and in 2006, SHM published a helpful guide. Even though it is getting old, most of the advice is still very relevant even if the metrics we care most about have changed.

I’m a big believer in providing unblinded performance data to all in the hospitalist group. For example, a report of individual work relative value unit (wRVU) productivity would show productivity for each doctor by name. I think it is healthy to be transparent and ensure all in the group know how others are performing. There is nothing like finding out you are a performance outlier to spark an interest in understanding why and what should be done about it.

Roles for NPs and PAs

Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) can be valuable contributors to a successful hospitalist program, and according to the 2014 State of Hospital Medicine Report, 65% of hospitalist groups nationally had at least one such clinician—an increase over prior years.

While the idea of NP/PAs contributing to the practice is a sound one, my experience is that many groups execute the idea poorly and end up creating a role that can be both professionally unsatisfying and not serve as a platform to contribute effectively to the group. A common scenario is a hospitalist group has trouble with recruiting physicians, so it turns to NP/PAs because they are more readily available. But so often the group has thought little about the precise role NP/PAs will serve (nothing more than “they will help out the docs”). Too often the result is NP/PAs who will say many physician hospitalists simply repeat all the work on each patient, which certainly isn’t a rewarding or cost-effective role.

All should be convinced that the practice is better off in terms of increased overall productivity and/or other benefits by investing in NP/PAs than if those same dollars were instead invested in physician staffing. So one economic model to consider is to calculate the total cost (salary, benefits, malpractice, etc.) for an NP/PA and divide that by those costs for a physician. Let’s say that shows an NP/PA costs half as much as a physician (ranges 40% to 60% in my experience). That staffing cost could be considered in “physician FTE equivalents” so that, for example, a practice with four NP/PAs each costing 50% as much as a physician, or two physician equivalents, could be said to have a total of two physician-equivalent FTEs of staffing. Is the practice better off configured that way, or would it be better to have two physicians instead of the four NP/PAs? The answer will vary, but I think every practice should look at NP/PA staffing through this lens, as well as other considerations, to determine whether they’ve made the best choice.

Having NP/PAs and physicians share rounding duties can be tricky to do efficiently. In my experience, NP/PAs can be better positioned to contribute optimally and find greater professional satisfaction if responsible for a specific portion of the group’s work. For example, at a large hospital, NP/PAs might see all orthopedic consults or psych unit admissions reasonably independently, though with physician backup available. Or NP/PAs could serve as evening (“swing”) shift staffing and manage cross-cover and some admissions. In these roles, the division of labor between NP/PAs and physicians is clearer and allows NP/PAs to contribute most effectively. TH

Editor’s note: Second in a three-part series.

This month continues my list of important issues that help position your hospitalist group for greatest success. SHM’s “Key Principles and Characteristics of an Effective Hospital Medicine Group” is the definitive list, and this is my much smaller list. Last month, I discussed a culture (or mindset) of practice ownership, a formal system of group decision-making, and the importance of hospitalists themselves playing an active role in recruitment.

Policy and Procedure Manual

New protocols and decisions are being implemented every day. It is impossible to keep track of them, especially the ones that come into play infrequently. For example, many adult hospitalist groups have reached decisions about whether to admit teenagers (e.g., admit only 16 and older or 18 and older, etc.) and whether a hospitalist or obstetrician serves as attending for pregnant women admitted for a medical problem like asthma or pneumonia. But ask everyone in your group to recite the policies, and I bet the answers will differ.

My experience is that only about 20% to 25% of hospitalist groups have written these things down in one place, but all should. It doesn’t need to be fancy and could just start as a Word document in which the lead hospitalist or other designated person writes down a handful of policies and then updates them on an ongoing basis. For example, if a group meeting results in adopting a new policy, it could be added to the document as soon as the meeting adjourns. In some cases, a policy is communicated by email; it would be fine to just copy the body of that email into the manual.

This “living” document could be maintained on a shared computer drive accessible from anywhere in or out of the hospital. That way, when the solo night doctor thinks, “Do we admit 17-year-olds or not?,” she has a place to find the answer right away. And the manual will be a real asset to orient new providers to your practice.

You could start the policy and procedure manual by listing categories, including human resource issues like sick-day policy, how to request days off or scheduling changes, clinical policies like which hip fractures are admitted by hospitalists versus orthopedics, billing and coding practices such as always turn in charges at end of each day, and so on.

I’ve seen useful manuals that are about 10 pages and others that run more than 50 pages.

An Effective Performance Dashboard

Every hospitalist group should have some sort of routine performance report (dashboard) provided in the same format at regular intervals, yet in my experience many, or even most, don’t. It is worth the sometimes considerable effort to develop a meaningful dashboard, and in 2006, SHM published a helpful guide. Even though it is getting old, most of the advice is still very relevant even if the metrics we care most about have changed.

I’m a big believer in providing unblinded performance data to all in the hospitalist group. For example, a report of individual work relative value unit (wRVU) productivity would show productivity for each doctor by name. I think it is healthy to be transparent and ensure all in the group know how others are performing. There is nothing like finding out you are a performance outlier to spark an interest in understanding why and what should be done about it.

Roles for NPs and PAs

Nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) can be valuable contributors to a successful hospitalist program, and according to the 2014 State of Hospital Medicine Report, 65% of hospitalist groups nationally had at least one such clinician—an increase over prior years.

While the idea of NP/PAs contributing to the practice is a sound one, my experience is that many groups execute the idea poorly and end up creating a role that can be both professionally unsatisfying and not serve as a platform to contribute effectively to the group. A common scenario is a hospitalist group has trouble with recruiting physicians, so it turns to NP/PAs because they are more readily available. But so often the group has thought little about the precise role NP/PAs will serve (nothing more than “they will help out the docs”). Too often the result is NP/PAs who will say many physician hospitalists simply repeat all the work on each patient, which certainly isn’t a rewarding or cost-effective role.

All should be convinced that the practice is better off in terms of increased overall productivity and/or other benefits by investing in NP/PAs than if those same dollars were instead invested in physician staffing. So one economic model to consider is to calculate the total cost (salary, benefits, malpractice, etc.) for an NP/PA and divide that by those costs for a physician. Let’s say that shows an NP/PA costs half as much as a physician (ranges 40% to 60% in my experience). That staffing cost could be considered in “physician FTE equivalents” so that, for example, a practice with four NP/PAs each costing 50% as much as a physician, or two physician equivalents, could be said to have a total of two physician-equivalent FTEs of staffing. Is the practice better off configured that way, or would it be better to have two physicians instead of the four NP/PAs? The answer will vary, but I think every practice should look at NP/PA staffing through this lens, as well as other considerations, to determine whether they’ve made the best choice.

Having NP/PAs and physicians share rounding duties can be tricky to do efficiently. In my experience, NP/PAs can be better positioned to contribute optimally and find greater professional satisfaction if responsible for a specific portion of the group’s work. For example, at a large hospital, NP/PAs might see all orthopedic consults or psych unit admissions reasonably independently, though with physician backup available. Or NP/PAs could serve as evening (“swing”) shift staffing and manage cross-cover and some admissions. In these roles, the division of labor between NP/PAs and physicians is clearer and allows NP/PAs to contribute most effectively. TH

(Reuters Health) - Over the last 40 years, heart disease rates have dropped in the U.S. overall, but the changes varied widely by region, with the highest rates of the disease shifting from the Northeast to the South, researchers say.

"The consistent progression southward over the past few decades suggests that the pattern is not random - and could be attributed to geographic differences in prevention and treatment opportunities," said lead author Michele Casper of the CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.

"Identifying those counties and regions with the greatest burden of mortality is a necessary first step to target appropriate resources that will ultimately reduce death rates," Casper told Reuters Health by email.

The researchers used data on heart disease deaths among people age 35 and over in the U.S. collected in two year intervals, between 1973 and 2010, from more than 3,000 counties of the 48 contiguous states.

Every county saw a decline in heart disease deaths. The average decline across the U.S. was 61%, but some counties only saw a decline of 9% while others cut heart disease deaths by 83%.

At the beginning of the study, heart disease deaths were most common in the Northeast through Appalachia and into the Midwest. Coastal North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia also had high rates.

Most counties with the lowest death rates were located in the West, with some low-rate counties also scattered in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi.

By 2010, most high-rate counties were still in the eastern half of the country, but in the South, rather than in the North, with some parts of New England becoming pockets with lower death rates.

Declines were slowest in counties in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and parts of Texas, the authors reported in a paper scheduled for publication in Circulation.

Since the 1970s, national attention on the dangers of cigarette smoking and uncontrolled high blood pressure has led to a significant decline in deaths from coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction, but "heart disease" includes other conditions, such as heart failure, which have not decreased as much, said Dr. Donald A. Barr of Stanford University School of Medicine in California, who wrote an editorial accompanying the new study.

Comparable data for heart failure (associated with diabetes, obesity and underlying hypertension) has not been coming down as fast, Barr told Reuters Health by phone. He noted that heart failure is projected to increase over the next couple of decades, while coronary heart disease is expected to decline.

Heart failure disproportionately affects low-income Americans and African Americans, he said. "These at-risk populations are found in a somewhat higher proportion in those southeastern states."

"Combining heart failure and coronary heart disease under the global term 'heart disease' combines good news with not so good news," Barr said.

There were still meaningful declines in heart disease deaths in the South, Casper noted.

"Heart disease-related deaths are largely preventable, and with targeted public health efforts, it's possible to alleviate much of the heavy burden of this disease and close the geographic gap in declining heart disease death rates," Casper said.

"With collaboration, government agencies, medical care organizations, community groups, businesses and other organizations can provide more local opportunities for physical activity, as well as access to smoke-free spaces, affordable healthy foods, quality healthcare and social and economic well-being," Casper said.

(Reuters Health) - Over the last 40 years, heart disease rates have dropped in the U.S. overall, but the changes varied widely by region, with the highest rates of the disease shifting from the Northeast to the South, researchers say.

"The consistent progression southward over the past few decades suggests that the pattern is not random - and could be attributed to geographic differences in prevention and treatment opportunities," said lead author Michele Casper of the CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.

"Identifying those counties and regions with the greatest burden of mortality is a necessary first step to target appropriate resources that will ultimately reduce death rates," Casper told Reuters Health by email.

The researchers used data on heart disease deaths among people age 35 and over in the U.S. collected in two year intervals, between 1973 and 2010, from more than 3,000 counties of the 48 contiguous states.

Every county saw a decline in heart disease deaths. The average decline across the U.S. was 61%, but some counties only saw a decline of 9% while others cut heart disease deaths by 83%.

At the beginning of the study, heart disease deaths were most common in the Northeast through Appalachia and into the Midwest. Coastal North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia also had high rates.

Most counties with the lowest death rates were located in the West, with some low-rate counties also scattered in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi.

By 2010, most high-rate counties were still in the eastern half of the country, but in the South, rather than in the North, with some parts of New England becoming pockets with lower death rates.

Declines were slowest in counties in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and parts of Texas, the authors reported in a paper scheduled for publication in Circulation.

Since the 1970s, national attention on the dangers of cigarette smoking and uncontrolled high blood pressure has led to a significant decline in deaths from coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction, but "heart disease" includes other conditions, such as heart failure, which have not decreased as much, said Dr. Donald A. Barr of Stanford University School of Medicine in California, who wrote an editorial accompanying the new study.

Comparable data for heart failure (associated with diabetes, obesity and underlying hypertension) has not been coming down as fast, Barr told Reuters Health by phone. He noted that heart failure is projected to increase over the next couple of decades, while coronary heart disease is expected to decline.

Heart failure disproportionately affects low-income Americans and African Americans, he said. "These at-risk populations are found in a somewhat higher proportion in those southeastern states."

"Combining heart failure and coronary heart disease under the global term 'heart disease' combines good news with not so good news," Barr said.

There were still meaningful declines in heart disease deaths in the South, Casper noted.

"Heart disease-related deaths are largely preventable, and with targeted public health efforts, it's possible to alleviate much of the heavy burden of this disease and close the geographic gap in declining heart disease death rates," Casper said.

"With collaboration, government agencies, medical care organizations, community groups, businesses and other organizations can provide more local opportunities for physical activity, as well as access to smoke-free spaces, affordable healthy foods, quality healthcare and social and economic well-being," Casper said.

(Reuters Health) - Over the last 40 years, heart disease rates have dropped in the U.S. overall, but the changes varied widely by region, with the highest rates of the disease shifting from the Northeast to the South, researchers say.

"The consistent progression southward over the past few decades suggests that the pattern is not random - and could be attributed to geographic differences in prevention and treatment opportunities," said lead author Michele Casper of the CDC's Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.

"Identifying those counties and regions with the greatest burden of mortality is a necessary first step to target appropriate resources that will ultimately reduce death rates," Casper told Reuters Health by email.

The researchers used data on heart disease deaths among people age 35 and over in the U.S. collected in two year intervals, between 1973 and 2010, from more than 3,000 counties of the 48 contiguous states.

Every county saw a decline in heart disease deaths. The average decline across the U.S. was 61%, but some counties only saw a decline of 9% while others cut heart disease deaths by 83%.

At the beginning of the study, heart disease deaths were most common in the Northeast through Appalachia and into the Midwest. Coastal North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia also had high rates.

Most counties with the lowest death rates were located in the West, with some low-rate counties also scattered in Alabama, Florida and Mississippi.

By 2010, most high-rate counties were still in the eastern half of the country, but in the South, rather than in the North, with some parts of New England becoming pockets with lower death rates.

Declines were slowest in counties in Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma and parts of Texas, the authors reported in a paper scheduled for publication in Circulation.

Since the 1970s, national attention on the dangers of cigarette smoking and uncontrolled high blood pressure has led to a significant decline in deaths from coronary heart disease and myocardial infarction, but "heart disease" includes other conditions, such as heart failure, which have not decreased as much, said Dr. Donald A. Barr of Stanford University School of Medicine in California, who wrote an editorial accompanying the new study.

Comparable data for heart failure (associated with diabetes, obesity and underlying hypertension) has not been coming down as fast, Barr told Reuters Health by phone. He noted that heart failure is projected to increase over the next couple of decades, while coronary heart disease is expected to decline.

Heart failure disproportionately affects low-income Americans and African Americans, he said. "These at-risk populations are found in a somewhat higher proportion in those southeastern states."

"Combining heart failure and coronary heart disease under the global term 'heart disease' combines good news with not so good news," Barr said.

There were still meaningful declines in heart disease deaths in the South, Casper noted.

"Heart disease-related deaths are largely preventable, and with targeted public health efforts, it's possible to alleviate much of the heavy burden of this disease and close the geographic gap in declining heart disease death rates," Casper said.

"With collaboration, government agencies, medical care organizations, community groups, businesses and other organizations can provide more local opportunities for physical activity, as well as access to smoke-free spaces, affordable healthy foods, quality healthcare and social and economic well-being," Casper said.

I stumbled upon an absolutely brilliant TED talk about how we need to forget about the “pecking order” within workplaces and how we need to focus on team social connectedness as a strategy to enhance teamwork and productivity.1 I found the analogy in the presenter’s talk so incredibly poignant for the work we do every day in hospital medicine. As we work to solve incredibly challenging problems daily, we do so among continuously changing and highly charged teams. How can we create our teams to be the most effective and productive to serve the greater good?

The speaker, Margaret Heffernan, is an entrepreneur and former CEO of five companies. She tells a story about a study performed by an evolutionary biologist by the name of William Muir of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind.2 Muir undertook a series of studies evaluating the social order and productivity of chickens (as measured by egg production) and the team characteristics that make chickens more or less productive. After watching flocks of chickens for several generations, he picked out the most productive chickens and put them all together in a “super flock.” He then watched their productivity over the next several generations and compared their productivity to those in the regular flock.

What he found was that the regular flock became more productive and most of the members of the super flock were dead!

The most productive members of the super flock had essentially pecked the other members to death. He surmised that the only reason the super chickens were initially productive was by suppressing the productivity of the original flock members. The chickens in the regular flock that were initially less aggressive (and less productive) over time sustained fewer injuries and were able to be more productive in the absence of super chickens. The energy that the animals had previously invested in negative behaviors (pecking, injuries, and healing) was redirected into positive behaviors (making eggs).

Muir and his team have gone on to research a tool to predict social aggressiveness and social agreeableness in individual animals. Those high on the socially agreeable scales (and low on the socially aggressive scales) are more valuable for producing highly effective teams of agricultural animals by enhancing group dynamics, social interactions, and actual productivity.

Backward Thinking

Heffernan argues that we have run most businesses (hospitals included) and many societies (at least capitalistic ones) in the super chicken model. In this model, we view leadership as a trait to be individually owned and perfected, and we think that leaders are supposed to have all the answers. In order to determine our leaders, we charge highly competent people to compete against one another as if in a talent contest. It has long been thought that to be successful as teams, we should recruit the best and brightest, pit them against on another, and see who wins, then promote the winner, put them in charge of everything, and give them all the resources they could want or need to be a super chicken.

But this model inevitably suppresses the remainder of the flock and leads to aggression and waste.

In many scenarios in our hospitals, physicians view themselves as and act like super chickens; we try to be the hardest working, the brightest, and the most powerful. How many times have we heard of or witnessed circumstances where a physician suppresses the candor or opinion from other disciplines on the care team? I think we all know physicians (ourselves included) who demand the role of decision maker and ignore the opinions or needs of the remainder of the team, including patients or their family.

Alternatives

So if we should not be subscribing to the super chicken theory, then what type of leadership structures should we be subscribing to within medical teams to produce the best outcomes for ourselves and for our patients and their families?

A study performed by MIT scientists gives us some insight. Researchers found that when random groups of people are given very difficult problems to solve (e.g., think about diagnostic dilemmas or very difficult patients), certain group attributes made it more likely that the group would be successful in solving these difficult problems. The groups that were most effective were not those with a few people with extremely high IQs or with the highest collective IQ. The teams that were most effective and able to solve difficult problems were those that showed high degrees of social sensitivity among members (i.e., empathy). The highest-performing teams gave roughly equal time to each member (e.g., think about physicians, pharmacists, social workers, case managers, consultants on a typical medical team). They also found the highest-performing teams had more women in them. (I feel so redeemed!)

In summary, what they learned from these experiments was that the most successful teams were more socially connected and more highly attuned and sensitive to one another. This is not to say that highly successful teams were leaderless. There is absolutely a vital role that leaders play in such teams. In Jim Collins’ famous book Good to Great, in studying leadership and teams, he did not find the best leaders were super chickens who autocratically made unilateral decisions. Instead, he found the best leaders function more like facilitators, having the humility and skill to draw out shared solutions from large participatory teams.3 Doesn’t this sound like how a hospitalist should run multidisciplinary rounds?

The other major attribute that the MIT researchers noticed about highly functional teams is that each and every member of the team was extremely willing and able to give and receive help. They found that teams with high mutual understanding and trust were more likely to seamlessly—and almost effortlessly—give and receive help from one another. They ended up acting as one another’s social support network. If any team member was confronted by a difficult problem or situation, each felt confident that it could be easily solved with the collective skill and wisdom of the team.

As a result of such research, some companies have developed and implemented strategies to enhance such social capital, such as synchronizing coffee breaks and disallowing coffee mugs at individual desks. These companies consider it a vital strategic mission to ensure that team members get to know and understand one another and that they serve as a social support network at work. They believe that it is reliance and interdependency that ensures trust and enhances productivity.

So what really matters is the mortar, not just the bricks.

HM Takeaway

For hospital medicine teams, what we need to do is accept that teams work best when every member has a voice and is valued. When others look to us (usually seen as team leaders) to make all the decisions (as if we are super chickens), we need to empower our team members to make decisions with us.

We need to actively work toward this model of being a team leader, break any cycles of dependency that we have set up, and produce better outcomes.

We need to avoid acting like super chickens and appreciate and empower a true team effort.

We need to stop accepting that management and promotions occur by talent contests that pit employees against one another and insist that rivalry at every level has to be replaced by social capital and social connectedness.

Only then will our leadership result in creating effective and productive bricks and mortar. TH

References

1. Heffernan M. Margaret Heffernan: why it’s time to forget the pecking order at work. TED Talks. June 16, 2015. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyn_xLrtZaY&feature=youtu.be.
2. Steeves SA. Scientists find method to pick non-competitive animals, improve production. Available at: https://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070212MuirSelection.html.
3. Collins J. Good to Great. New York, N.Y.: HarperBusiness; 2011.

I stumbled upon an absolutely brilliant TED talk about how we need to forget about the “pecking order” within workplaces and how we need to focus on team social connectedness as a strategy to enhance teamwork and productivity.1 I found the analogy in the presenter’s talk so incredibly poignant for the work we do every day in hospital medicine. As we work to solve incredibly challenging problems daily, we do so among continuously changing and highly charged teams. How can we create our teams to be the most effective and productive to serve the greater good?

The speaker, Margaret Heffernan, is an entrepreneur and former CEO of five companies. She tells a story about a study performed by an evolutionary biologist by the name of William Muir of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind.2 Muir undertook a series of studies evaluating the social order and productivity of chickens (as measured by egg production) and the team characteristics that make chickens more or less productive. After watching flocks of chickens for several generations, he picked out the most productive chickens and put them all together in a “super flock.” He then watched their productivity over the next several generations and compared their productivity to those in the regular flock.

What he found was that the regular flock became more productive and most of the members of the super flock were dead!

The most productive members of the super flock had essentially pecked the other members to death. He surmised that the only reason the super chickens were initially productive was by suppressing the productivity of the original flock members. The chickens in the regular flock that were initially less aggressive (and less productive) over time sustained fewer injuries and were able to be more productive in the absence of super chickens. The energy that the animals had previously invested in negative behaviors (pecking, injuries, and healing) was redirected into positive behaviors (making eggs).

Muir and his team have gone on to research a tool to predict social aggressiveness and social agreeableness in individual animals. Those high on the socially agreeable scales (and low on the socially aggressive scales) are more valuable for producing highly effective teams of agricultural animals by enhancing group dynamics, social interactions, and actual productivity.

Backward Thinking

Heffernan argues that we have run most businesses (hospitals included) and many societies (at least capitalistic ones) in the super chicken model. In this model, we view leadership as a trait to be individually owned and perfected, and we think that leaders are supposed to have all the answers. In order to determine our leaders, we charge highly competent people to compete against one another as if in a talent contest. It has long been thought that to be successful as teams, we should recruit the best and brightest, pit them against on another, and see who wins, then promote the winner, put them in charge of everything, and give them all the resources they could want or need to be a super chicken.

But this model inevitably suppresses the remainder of the flock and leads to aggression and waste.

In many scenarios in our hospitals, physicians view themselves as and act like super chickens; we try to be the hardest working, the brightest, and the most powerful. How many times have we heard of or witnessed circumstances where a physician suppresses the candor or opinion from other disciplines on the care team? I think we all know physicians (ourselves included) who demand the role of decision maker and ignore the opinions or needs of the remainder of the team, including patients or their family.

Alternatives

So if we should not be subscribing to the super chicken theory, then what type of leadership structures should we be subscribing to within medical teams to produce the best outcomes for ourselves and for our patients and their families?

A study performed by MIT scientists gives us some insight. Researchers found that when random groups of people are given very difficult problems to solve (e.g., think about diagnostic dilemmas or very difficult patients), certain group attributes made it more likely that the group would be successful in solving these difficult problems. The groups that were most effective were not those with a few people with extremely high IQs or with the highest collective IQ. The teams that were most effective and able to solve difficult problems were those that showed high degrees of social sensitivity among members (i.e., empathy). The highest-performing teams gave roughly equal time to each member (e.g., think about physicians, pharmacists, social workers, case managers, consultants on a typical medical team). They also found the highest-performing teams had more women in them. (I feel so redeemed!)

In summary, what they learned from these experiments was that the most successful teams were more socially connected and more highly attuned and sensitive to one another. This is not to say that highly successful teams were leaderless. There is absolutely a vital role that leaders play in such teams. In Jim Collins’ famous book Good to Great, in studying leadership and teams, he did not find the best leaders were super chickens who autocratically made unilateral decisions. Instead, he found the best leaders function more like facilitators, having the humility and skill to draw out shared solutions from large participatory teams.3 Doesn’t this sound like how a hospitalist should run multidisciplinary rounds?

The other major attribute that the MIT researchers noticed about highly functional teams is that each and every member of the team was extremely willing and able to give and receive help. They found that teams with high mutual understanding and trust were more likely to seamlessly—and almost effortlessly—give and receive help from one another. They ended up acting as one another’s social support network. If any team member was confronted by a difficult problem or situation, each felt confident that it could be easily solved with the collective skill and wisdom of the team.

As a result of such research, some companies have developed and implemented strategies to enhance such social capital, such as synchronizing coffee breaks and disallowing coffee mugs at individual desks. These companies consider it a vital strategic mission to ensure that team members get to know and understand one another and that they serve as a social support network at work. They believe that it is reliance and interdependency that ensures trust and enhances productivity.

So what really matters is the mortar, not just the bricks.

HM Takeaway

For hospital medicine teams, what we need to do is accept that teams work best when every member has a voice and is valued. When others look to us (usually seen as team leaders) to make all the decisions (as if we are super chickens), we need to empower our team members to make decisions with us.

We need to actively work toward this model of being a team leader, break any cycles of dependency that we have set up, and produce better outcomes.

We need to avoid acting like super chickens and appreciate and empower a true team effort.

We need to stop accepting that management and promotions occur by talent contests that pit employees against one another and insist that rivalry at every level has to be replaced by social capital and social connectedness.

Only then will our leadership result in creating effective and productive bricks and mortar. TH

References

1. Heffernan M. Margaret Heffernan: why it’s time to forget the pecking order at work. TED Talks. June 16, 2015. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyn_xLrtZaY&feature=youtu.be.
2. Steeves SA. Scientists find method to pick non-competitive animals, improve production. Available at: https://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070212MuirSelection.html.
3. Collins J. Good to Great. New York, N.Y.: HarperBusiness; 2011.

I stumbled upon an absolutely brilliant TED talk about how we need to forget about the “pecking order” within workplaces and how we need to focus on team social connectedness as a strategy to enhance teamwork and productivity.1 I found the analogy in the presenter’s talk so incredibly poignant for the work we do every day in hospital medicine. As we work to solve incredibly challenging problems daily, we do so among continuously changing and highly charged teams. How can we create our teams to be the most effective and productive to serve the greater good?

The speaker, Margaret Heffernan, is an entrepreneur and former CEO of five companies. She tells a story about a study performed by an evolutionary biologist by the name of William Muir of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Ind.2 Muir undertook a series of studies evaluating the social order and productivity of chickens (as measured by egg production) and the team characteristics that make chickens more or less productive. After watching flocks of chickens for several generations, he picked out the most productive chickens and put them all together in a “super flock.” He then watched their productivity over the next several generations and compared their productivity to those in the regular flock.

What he found was that the regular flock became more productive and most of the members of the super flock were dead!

The most productive members of the super flock had essentially pecked the other members to death. He surmised that the only reason the super chickens were initially productive was by suppressing the productivity of the original flock members. The chickens in the regular flock that were initially less aggressive (and less productive) over time sustained fewer injuries and were able to be more productive in the absence of super chickens. The energy that the animals had previously invested in negative behaviors (pecking, injuries, and healing) was redirected into positive behaviors (making eggs).

Muir and his team have gone on to research a tool to predict social aggressiveness and social agreeableness in individual animals. Those high on the socially agreeable scales (and low on the socially aggressive scales) are more valuable for producing highly effective teams of agricultural animals by enhancing group dynamics, social interactions, and actual productivity.

Backward Thinking

Heffernan argues that we have run most businesses (hospitals included) and many societies (at least capitalistic ones) in the super chicken model. In this model, we view leadership as a trait to be individually owned and perfected, and we think that leaders are supposed to have all the answers. In order to determine our leaders, we charge highly competent people to compete against one another as if in a talent contest. It has long been thought that to be successful as teams, we should recruit the best and brightest, pit them against on another, and see who wins, then promote the winner, put them in charge of everything, and give them all the resources they could want or need to be a super chicken.

But this model inevitably suppresses the remainder of the flock and leads to aggression and waste.

In many scenarios in our hospitals, physicians view themselves as and act like super chickens; we try to be the hardest working, the brightest, and the most powerful. How many times have we heard of or witnessed circumstances where a physician suppresses the candor or opinion from other disciplines on the care team? I think we all know physicians (ourselves included) who demand the role of decision maker and ignore the opinions or needs of the remainder of the team, including patients or their family.

Alternatives

So if we should not be subscribing to the super chicken theory, then what type of leadership structures should we be subscribing to within medical teams to produce the best outcomes for ourselves and for our patients and their families?

A study performed by MIT scientists gives us some insight. Researchers found that when random groups of people are given very difficult problems to solve (e.g., think about diagnostic dilemmas or very difficult patients), certain group attributes made it more likely that the group would be successful in solving these difficult problems. The groups that were most effective were not those with a few people with extremely high IQs or with the highest collective IQ. The teams that were most effective and able to solve difficult problems were those that showed high degrees of social sensitivity among members (i.e., empathy). The highest-performing teams gave roughly equal time to each member (e.g., think about physicians, pharmacists, social workers, case managers, consultants on a typical medical team). They also found the highest-performing teams had more women in them. (I feel so redeemed!)

In summary, what they learned from these experiments was that the most successful teams were more socially connected and more highly attuned and sensitive to one another. This is not to say that highly successful teams were leaderless. There is absolutely a vital role that leaders play in such teams. In Jim Collins’ famous book Good to Great, in studying leadership and teams, he did not find the best leaders were super chickens who autocratically made unilateral decisions. Instead, he found the best leaders function more like facilitators, having the humility and skill to draw out shared solutions from large participatory teams.3 Doesn’t this sound like how a hospitalist should run multidisciplinary rounds?

The other major attribute that the MIT researchers noticed about highly functional teams is that each and every member of the team was extremely willing and able to give and receive help. They found that teams with high mutual understanding and trust were more likely to seamlessly—and almost effortlessly—give and receive help from one another. They ended up acting as one another’s social support network. If any team member was confronted by a difficult problem or situation, each felt confident that it could be easily solved with the collective skill and wisdom of the team.

As a result of such research, some companies have developed and implemented strategies to enhance such social capital, such as synchronizing coffee breaks and disallowing coffee mugs at individual desks. These companies consider it a vital strategic mission to ensure that team members get to know and understand one another and that they serve as a social support network at work. They believe that it is reliance and interdependency that ensures trust and enhances productivity.

So what really matters is the mortar, not just the bricks.

HM Takeaway

For hospital medicine teams, what we need to do is accept that teams work best when every member has a voice and is valued. When others look to us (usually seen as team leaders) to make all the decisions (as if we are super chickens), we need to empower our team members to make decisions with us.

We need to actively work toward this model of being a team leader, break any cycles of dependency that we have set up, and produce better outcomes.

We need to avoid acting like super chickens and appreciate and empower a true team effort.

We need to stop accepting that management and promotions occur by talent contests that pit employees against one another and insist that rivalry at every level has to be replaced by social capital and social connectedness.

Only then will our leadership result in creating effective and productive bricks and mortar. TH

References

1. Heffernan M. Margaret Heffernan: why it’s time to forget the pecking order at work. TED Talks. June 16, 2015. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyn_xLrtZaY&feature=youtu.be.
2. Steeves SA. Scientists find method to pick non-competitive animals, improve production. Available at: https://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070212MuirSelection.html.
3. Collins J. Good to Great. New York, N.Y.: HarperBusiness; 2011.

(Reuters Health) - The proportion of older Americans taking at least five medications or supplements went up in a recent study.

The increase in people using multiple medications - known as polypharmacy - paralleled an increase in the number of older Americans at risk for major drug interactions, researchers found.

"That's a concern from a public health standpoint, because it's getting worse," said Dima Qato, the study's lead author from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Qato and her colleagues previously reported that polypharmacy is common among older Americans. More than half were taking prescription and nonprescription medications between 2005 and 2006.

There have been a lot of changes in U.S. regulations and the pharmacy market since that time, however. Some of those changes include new and less expensive generic drugs and the implementation of Medicare Part D, which is the prescription component of the government-run health insurance program for the elderly or disabled.

To evaluate the change in polypharmacy over time, the researchers compared the 2005-2006 results to data collected from 2010-2011.

Participants in the study were between the ages of 62 and 85 and were living at home. The researchers interviewed 2,351 people in 2005-2006 and 2,206 in 2010-2011.

Overall, about 67 percent were taking five or more medications or supplements in 2010-2011, up from about 53 percent in 2005-2006.

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins rose from about 34 percent to about 46 percent, the researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine. The proportion of people taking blood-thinning medications also increased, from about 33 percent to 43 percent, and use of omega-3 fish oil pills rose from about 5 percent to about 19 percent.

Along with the increase in polypharmacy, the researchers found the risk of major drug interactions nearly doubled, going from about 8 percent to about 15 percent.

"I think we have to keep in mind that while it's important to improve access to medications, we need to make sure they're used safely," said Qato.

On one hand, the new results can be seen as positive, said Dr. Michael Steinman, a gerontologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

We're treating more people with medications that could potentially help them," he said. "But when people have four or five chronic conditions, medications quickly balloon to a large number."

It's important to ensure clear communication between everyone involved in a patient's care, including the patient, said Steinman, who wrote an editorial accompanying the new study.

"You can get rid of problems and excess medications by talking with your doctors," he said.

A separate study reported in the same issue of the journal found that nearly 42 percent of adults did not tell their doctors about the use of complementary or alternative medicine, which includes - among other things - supplements, herbs, homeopathy, special diets and acupuncture.

Many patients said they didn't tell their doctors about these alternative medicines because they weren't asked or because their doctors didn't need to know that information, write Judy Juo and Pamela Jo Johnson, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

"If a person is talking with their doctor about the medications they're using, they should be talking about all the medications they're using," said Steinman.

(Reuters Health) - The proportion of older Americans taking at least five medications or supplements went up in a recent study.

The increase in people using multiple medications - known as polypharmacy - paralleled an increase in the number of older Americans at risk for major drug interactions, researchers found.

"That's a concern from a public health standpoint, because it's getting worse," said Dima Qato, the study's lead author from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Qato and her colleagues previously reported that polypharmacy is common among older Americans. More than half were taking prescription and nonprescription medications between 2005 and 2006.

There have been a lot of changes in U.S. regulations and the pharmacy market since that time, however. Some of those changes include new and less expensive generic drugs and the implementation of Medicare Part D, which is the prescription component of the government-run health insurance program for the elderly or disabled.

To evaluate the change in polypharmacy over time, the researchers compared the 2005-2006 results to data collected from 2010-2011.

Participants in the study were between the ages of 62 and 85 and were living at home. The researchers interviewed 2,351 people in 2005-2006 and 2,206 in 2010-2011.

Overall, about 67 percent were taking five or more medications or supplements in 2010-2011, up from about 53 percent in 2005-2006.

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins rose from about 34 percent to about 46 percent, the researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine. The proportion of people taking blood-thinning medications also increased, from about 33 percent to 43 percent, and use of omega-3 fish oil pills rose from about 5 percent to about 19 percent.

Along with the increase in polypharmacy, the researchers found the risk of major drug interactions nearly doubled, going from about 8 percent to about 15 percent.

"I think we have to keep in mind that while it's important to improve access to medications, we need to make sure they're used safely," said Qato.

On one hand, the new results can be seen as positive, said Dr. Michael Steinman, a gerontologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

We're treating more people with medications that could potentially help them," he said. "But when people have four or five chronic conditions, medications quickly balloon to a large number."

It's important to ensure clear communication between everyone involved in a patient's care, including the patient, said Steinman, who wrote an editorial accompanying the new study.

"You can get rid of problems and excess medications by talking with your doctors," he said.

A separate study reported in the same issue of the journal found that nearly 42 percent of adults did not tell their doctors about the use of complementary or alternative medicine, which includes - among other things - supplements, herbs, homeopathy, special diets and acupuncture.

Many patients said they didn't tell their doctors about these alternative medicines because they weren't asked or because their doctors didn't need to know that information, write Judy Juo and Pamela Jo Johnson, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

"If a person is talking with their doctor about the medications they're using, they should be talking about all the medications they're using," said Steinman.

(Reuters Health) - The proportion of older Americans taking at least five medications or supplements went up in a recent study.

The increase in people using multiple medications - known as polypharmacy - paralleled an increase in the number of older Americans at risk for major drug interactions, researchers found.

"That's a concern from a public health standpoint, because it's getting worse," said Dima Qato, the study's lead author from the University of Illinois at Chicago.

Qato and her colleagues previously reported that polypharmacy is common among older Americans. More than half were taking prescription and nonprescription medications between 2005 and 2006.

There have been a lot of changes in U.S. regulations and the pharmacy market since that time, however. Some of those changes include new and less expensive generic drugs and the implementation of Medicare Part D, which is the prescription component of the government-run health insurance program for the elderly or disabled.

To evaluate the change in polypharmacy over time, the researchers compared the 2005-2006 results to data collected from 2010-2011.

Participants in the study were between the ages of 62 and 85 and were living at home. The researchers interviewed 2,351 people in 2005-2006 and 2,206 in 2010-2011.

Overall, about 67 percent were taking five or more medications or supplements in 2010-2011, up from about 53 percent in 2005-2006.

Use of cholesterol-lowering statins rose from about 34 percent to about 46 percent, the researchers reported in JAMA Internal Medicine. The proportion of people taking blood-thinning medications also increased, from about 33 percent to 43 percent, and use of omega-3 fish oil pills rose from about 5 percent to about 19 percent.

Along with the increase in polypharmacy, the researchers found the risk of major drug interactions nearly doubled, going from about 8 percent to about 15 percent.

"I think we have to keep in mind that while it's important to improve access to medications, we need to make sure they're used safely," said Qato.

On one hand, the new results can be seen as positive, said Dr. Michael Steinman, a gerontologist at the University of California, San Francisco.

We're treating more people with medications that could potentially help them," he said. "But when people have four or five chronic conditions, medications quickly balloon to a large number."

It's important to ensure clear communication between everyone involved in a patient's care, including the patient, said Steinman, who wrote an editorial accompanying the new study.

"You can get rid of problems and excess medications by talking with your doctors," he said.

A separate study reported in the same issue of the journal found that nearly 42 percent of adults did not tell their doctors about the use of complementary or alternative medicine, which includes - among other things - supplements, herbs, homeopathy, special diets and acupuncture.

Many patients said they didn't tell their doctors about these alternative medicines because they weren't asked or because their doctors didn't need to know that information, write Judy Juo and Pamela Jo Johnson, of the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

"If a person is talking with their doctor about the medications they're using, they should be talking about all the medications they're using," said Steinman.