Blood collection

Credit: Charles Haymond

An anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy can elicit complete responses (CRs) in heavily pretreated patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), results of a phase 1 trial suggest.

More than half of the 21 patients enrolled achieved a CR, and most of those patients went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

All 10 patients who underwent HSCT remain leukemia-free at a median follow-up of 10 months.

The CAR T cells did prompt some serious adverse effects, but all effects were fully reversible.

Crystal L. Mackall, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, and her colleagues reported these results in The Lancet.

The phase 1 study enrolled patients ages 1 to 30 years who had relapsed or refractory ALL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Twenty patients had B-cell ALL, and 1 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). All of the patients had been heavily pretreated, and 8 had received a prior HSCT.

Patients received a conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by a single infusion of CAR T cells: either 1×10⁶ CAR-transduced T cells per kg or 3×10⁶ CAR-transduced T cells per kg.

The CAR T cells were produced from each patient’s own peripheral blood mononuclear cells, modified using a gammaretroviral vector encoding the CAR, as well as a CD28 costimulatory moiety. After the dose-escalation phase, an expansion cohort was treated at the maximum-tolerated dose.

Twenty-one patients were enrolled and infused, but 2 of them did not receive the prescribed dose of CAR T cells, as the assigned dose could not be generated. The maximum-tolerated dose was 1×10⁶ CAR T cells per kg.

All toxicities were fully reversible. The most common non-hematologic grade 3 adverse events were fever (n=9), hypokalemia (n=9), fever and neutropenia (n=8), and cytokine release syndrome (n=3). Grade 4 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 3 patients.

At day 28, 12 patients had achieved a minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative CR. One patient had an MRD-positive CR, 1 had an MRD-positive CR with incomplete count recovery, and 3 patients had stable disease. Four patients, including the one with DLBCL, progressed.

Ten of the patients with an MRD-negative CR subsequently underwent HSCT, and all 10 remained disease-free with a median follow-up of 10 months.

“The results show that this treatment is feasible in many patients with ALL and can eradicate chemoresistant disease with an acceptable toxicity profile,” said Gary Schiller, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in this study.

“Further, the findings demonstrate substantially higher response rates than seen in the literature for the most recently approved agent for refractory ALL. CD19-CAR therapy represents a potentially important new tool to address the urgent need for new treatment modalities in these patients.”

Researchers previously reported positive results with this therapy in patients with chemotherapy-refractory DLBCL.

Blood collection

Credit: Charles Haymond

An anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy can elicit complete responses (CRs) in heavily pretreated patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), results of a phase 1 trial suggest.

More than half of the 21 patients enrolled achieved a CR, and most of those patients went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

All 10 patients who underwent HSCT remain leukemia-free at a median follow-up of 10 months.

The CAR T cells did prompt some serious adverse effects, but all effects were fully reversible.

Crystal L. Mackall, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, and her colleagues reported these results in The Lancet.

The phase 1 study enrolled patients ages 1 to 30 years who had relapsed or refractory ALL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Twenty patients had B-cell ALL, and 1 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). All of the patients had been heavily pretreated, and 8 had received a prior HSCT.

Patients received a conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by a single infusion of CAR T cells: either 1×10⁶ CAR-transduced T cells per kg or 3×10⁶ CAR-transduced T cells per kg.

The CAR T cells were produced from each patient’s own peripheral blood mononuclear cells, modified using a gammaretroviral vector encoding the CAR, as well as a CD28 costimulatory moiety. After the dose-escalation phase, an expansion cohort was treated at the maximum-tolerated dose.

Twenty-one patients were enrolled and infused, but 2 of them did not receive the prescribed dose of CAR T cells, as the assigned dose could not be generated. The maximum-tolerated dose was 1×10⁶ CAR T cells per kg.

All toxicities were fully reversible. The most common non-hematologic grade 3 adverse events were fever (n=9), hypokalemia (n=9), fever and neutropenia (n=8), and cytokine release syndrome (n=3). Grade 4 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 3 patients.

At day 28, 12 patients had achieved a minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative CR. One patient had an MRD-positive CR, 1 had an MRD-positive CR with incomplete count recovery, and 3 patients had stable disease. Four patients, including the one with DLBCL, progressed.

Ten of the patients with an MRD-negative CR subsequently underwent HSCT, and all 10 remained disease-free with a median follow-up of 10 months.

“The results show that this treatment is feasible in many patients with ALL and can eradicate chemoresistant disease with an acceptable toxicity profile,” said Gary Schiller, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in this study.

“Further, the findings demonstrate substantially higher response rates than seen in the literature for the most recently approved agent for refractory ALL. CD19-CAR therapy represents a potentially important new tool to address the urgent need for new treatment modalities in these patients.”

Researchers previously reported positive results with this therapy in patients with chemotherapy-refractory DLBCL.

Blood collection

Credit: Charles Haymond

An anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy can elicit complete responses (CRs) in heavily pretreated patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), results of a phase 1 trial suggest.

More than half of the 21 patients enrolled achieved a CR, and most of those patients went on to hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT).

All 10 patients who underwent HSCT remain leukemia-free at a median follow-up of 10 months.

The CAR T cells did prompt some serious adverse effects, but all effects were fully reversible.

Crystal L. Mackall, MD, of the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, and her colleagues reported these results in The Lancet.

The phase 1 study enrolled patients ages 1 to 30 years who had relapsed or refractory ALL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Twenty patients had B-cell ALL, and 1 had diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). All of the patients had been heavily pretreated, and 8 had received a prior HSCT.

Patients received a conditioning regimen of cyclophosphamide and fludarabine, followed by a single infusion of CAR T cells: either 1×10⁶ CAR-transduced T cells per kg or 3×10⁶ CAR-transduced T cells per kg.

The CAR T cells were produced from each patient’s own peripheral blood mononuclear cells, modified using a gammaretroviral vector encoding the CAR, as well as a CD28 costimulatory moiety. After the dose-escalation phase, an expansion cohort was treated at the maximum-tolerated dose.

Twenty-one patients were enrolled and infused, but 2 of them did not receive the prescribed dose of CAR T cells, as the assigned dose could not be generated. The maximum-tolerated dose was 1×10⁶ CAR T cells per kg.

All toxicities were fully reversible. The most common non-hematologic grade 3 adverse events were fever (n=9), hypokalemia (n=9), fever and neutropenia (n=8), and cytokine release syndrome (n=3). Grade 4 cytokine release syndrome occurred in 3 patients.

At day 28, 12 patients had achieved a minimal residual disease (MRD)-negative CR. One patient had an MRD-positive CR, 1 had an MRD-positive CR with incomplete count recovery, and 3 patients had stable disease. Four patients, including the one with DLBCL, progressed.

Ten of the patients with an MRD-negative CR subsequently underwent HSCT, and all 10 remained disease-free with a median follow-up of 10 months.

“The results show that this treatment is feasible in many patients with ALL and can eradicate chemoresistant disease with an acceptable toxicity profile,” said Gary Schiller, MD, of the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in this study.

“Further, the findings demonstrate substantially higher response rates than seen in the literature for the most recently approved agent for refractory ALL. CD19-CAR therapy represents a potentially important new tool to address the urgent need for new treatment modalities in these patients.”

Researchers previously reported positive results with this therapy in patients with chemotherapy-refractory DLBCL.

Clinical question: Is greater lactate clearance following resuscitation from cardiac arrest associated with lower mortality and better neurologic outcomes?

Background: Recommendations from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation for monitoring serial lactate levels in post-resuscitation patients are based primarily on extrapolation from other conditions such as sepsis. Two single-retrospective analyses found effective lactate clearance was associated with decreased mortality. This association had not previously been validated in a multicenter, prospective study.

Study design: Multicenter, prospective, observational study.

Setting: Four urban, tertiary-care teaching hospitals.

Synopsis: Absolute lactate levels and the differences in the percent lactate change over 24 hours were compared in 100 patients who suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Ninety-seven percent received therapeutic hypothermia, and overall survival was 46%. Survivors and patients with a good neurologic outcome had lower lactate levels at zero hours (4.1 vs. 7.3), 12 hours (2.2 vs. 6.0), and 24 hours (1.6 vs. 4.4) compared with nonsurvivors and patients with bad neurologic outcomes.

The percent lactate decreased was greater in survivors and in those with good neurologic outcomes (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–4.4).

Nonsurvivors or those with poor neurologic outcomes were less likely to have received bystander CPR, to have suffered a witnessed arrest, or to have had a shockable rhythm at presentation. Superior lactate clearance in survivors and those with good neurologic outcomes suggests a potential role in developing markers of effective resuscitation.

Bottom line: Lower lactate levels and more effective clearance of lactate in patients following cardiac arrest are associated with improved survival and good neurologic outcome.

Citation: Donnino MW, Andersen LW, Giberson T, et al. Initial lactate and lactate change in post-cardiac arrest: a multicenter validation study. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(8):1804-1811.

Clinical question: Is greater lactate clearance following resuscitation from cardiac arrest associated with lower mortality and better neurologic outcomes?

Background: Recommendations from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation for monitoring serial lactate levels in post-resuscitation patients are based primarily on extrapolation from other conditions such as sepsis. Two single-retrospective analyses found effective lactate clearance was associated with decreased mortality. This association had not previously been validated in a multicenter, prospective study.

Study design: Multicenter, prospective, observational study.

Setting: Four urban, tertiary-care teaching hospitals.

Synopsis: Absolute lactate levels and the differences in the percent lactate change over 24 hours were compared in 100 patients who suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Ninety-seven percent received therapeutic hypothermia, and overall survival was 46%. Survivors and patients with a good neurologic outcome had lower lactate levels at zero hours (4.1 vs. 7.3), 12 hours (2.2 vs. 6.0), and 24 hours (1.6 vs. 4.4) compared with nonsurvivors and patients with bad neurologic outcomes.

The percent lactate decreased was greater in survivors and in those with good neurologic outcomes (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–4.4).

Nonsurvivors or those with poor neurologic outcomes were less likely to have received bystander CPR, to have suffered a witnessed arrest, or to have had a shockable rhythm at presentation. Superior lactate clearance in survivors and those with good neurologic outcomes suggests a potential role in developing markers of effective resuscitation.

Bottom line: Lower lactate levels and more effective clearance of lactate in patients following cardiac arrest are associated with improved survival and good neurologic outcome.

Citation: Donnino MW, Andersen LW, Giberson T, et al. Initial lactate and lactate change in post-cardiac arrest: a multicenter validation study. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(8):1804-1811.

Clinical question: Is greater lactate clearance following resuscitation from cardiac arrest associated with lower mortality and better neurologic outcomes?

Background: Recommendations from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation for monitoring serial lactate levels in post-resuscitation patients are based primarily on extrapolation from other conditions such as sepsis. Two single-retrospective analyses found effective lactate clearance was associated with decreased mortality. This association had not previously been validated in a multicenter, prospective study.

Study design: Multicenter, prospective, observational study.

Setting: Four urban, tertiary-care teaching hospitals.

Synopsis: Absolute lactate levels and the differences in the percent lactate change over 24 hours were compared in 100 patients who suffered out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Ninety-seven percent received therapeutic hypothermia, and overall survival was 46%. Survivors and patients with a good neurologic outcome had lower lactate levels at zero hours (4.1 vs. 7.3), 12 hours (2.2 vs. 6.0), and 24 hours (1.6 vs. 4.4) compared with nonsurvivors and patients with bad neurologic outcomes.

The percent lactate decreased was greater in survivors and in those with good neurologic outcomes (odds ratio, 2.2; 95% confidence interval, 1.1–4.4).

Nonsurvivors or those with poor neurologic outcomes were less likely to have received bystander CPR, to have suffered a witnessed arrest, or to have had a shockable rhythm at presentation. Superior lactate clearance in survivors and those with good neurologic outcomes suggests a potential role in developing markers of effective resuscitation.

Bottom line: Lower lactate levels and more effective clearance of lactate in patients following cardiac arrest are associated with improved survival and good neurologic outcome.

Citation: Donnino MW, Andersen LW, Giberson T, et al. Initial lactate and lactate change in post-cardiac arrest: a multicenter validation study. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(8):1804-1811.

Clinical question: Is earlier administration of epinephrine in patients with cardiac arrest due to nonshockable rhythms associated with increased return of spontaneous circulation, survival, and neurologically intact survival?

Background: About 200,000 hospitalized patients in the U.S. have a cardiac arrest, commonly due to nonshockable rhythms. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation has been the only efficacious intervention. There are no well-controlled trials of the use of epinephrine on survival and neurological outcomes.

Study design: Prospective cohort from a large multicenter registry of in-hospital cardiac arrests.

Setting: Data from 570 hospitals from 2000 to 2009.

Synopsis: Authors included 25,095 adults from 570 hospitals who had cardiac arrests in hospital with asystole or pulseless electrical activity as the initial rhythm. Time to first administration of epinephrine was recorded and then separated into quartiles, and odds ratios were evaluated using one to three minutes as the reference group. Outcomes of survival to hospital discharge (10%), return of spontaneous circulation (47%), and survival to hospital discharge with favorable neurologic status (7%) were assessed.

Survival to discharge decreased as the time to administration of the first dose of epinephrine increased. Of those patients receiving epinephrine in one minute, 12% survived. This dropped to 7% for those first receiving epinephrine after seven minutes. Return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge with favorable neurologic status showed a similar stepwise decrease with longer times to first administration of epinephrine.

Bottom line: Earlier administration of epinephrine to patients with cardiac arrest due to nonshockable rhythms is associated with improved survival to discharge, return of spontaneous circulation, and neurologically intact survival.

Citation: Donnino MW, Salciccioli JD, Howell MD, et al. Time to administration of epinephrine and outcome after in-hospital cardiac arrest with non-shockable rhythms: restrospective analysis of large in-hospital data registry. BMJ. 2014;348:g3028.

Clinical question: Is earlier administration of epinephrine in patients with cardiac arrest due to nonshockable rhythms associated with increased return of spontaneous circulation, survival, and neurologically intact survival?

Background: About 200,000 hospitalized patients in the U.S. have a cardiac arrest, commonly due to nonshockable rhythms. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation has been the only efficacious intervention. There are no well-controlled trials of the use of epinephrine on survival and neurological outcomes.

Study design: Prospective cohort from a large multicenter registry of in-hospital cardiac arrests.

Setting: Data from 570 hospitals from 2000 to 2009.

Synopsis: Authors included 25,095 adults from 570 hospitals who had cardiac arrests in hospital with asystole or pulseless electrical activity as the initial rhythm. Time to first administration of epinephrine was recorded and then separated into quartiles, and odds ratios were evaluated using one to three minutes as the reference group. Outcomes of survival to hospital discharge (10%), return of spontaneous circulation (47%), and survival to hospital discharge with favorable neurologic status (7%) were assessed.

Survival to discharge decreased as the time to administration of the first dose of epinephrine increased. Of those patients receiving epinephrine in one minute, 12% survived. This dropped to 7% for those first receiving epinephrine after seven minutes. Return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge with favorable neurologic status showed a similar stepwise decrease with longer times to first administration of epinephrine.

Bottom line: Earlier administration of epinephrine to patients with cardiac arrest due to nonshockable rhythms is associated with improved survival to discharge, return of spontaneous circulation, and neurologically intact survival.

Citation: Donnino MW, Salciccioli JD, Howell MD, et al. Time to administration of epinephrine and outcome after in-hospital cardiac arrest with non-shockable rhythms: restrospective analysis of large in-hospital data registry. BMJ. 2014;348:g3028.

Clinical question: Is earlier administration of epinephrine in patients with cardiac arrest due to nonshockable rhythms associated with increased return of spontaneous circulation, survival, and neurologically intact survival?

Background: About 200,000 hospitalized patients in the U.S. have a cardiac arrest, commonly due to nonshockable rhythms. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation has been the only efficacious intervention. There are no well-controlled trials of the use of epinephrine on survival and neurological outcomes.

Study design: Prospective cohort from a large multicenter registry of in-hospital cardiac arrests.

Setting: Data from 570 hospitals from 2000 to 2009.

Synopsis: Authors included 25,095 adults from 570 hospitals who had cardiac arrests in hospital with asystole or pulseless electrical activity as the initial rhythm. Time to first administration of epinephrine was recorded and then separated into quartiles, and odds ratios were evaluated using one to three minutes as the reference group. Outcomes of survival to hospital discharge (10%), return of spontaneous circulation (47%), and survival to hospital discharge with favorable neurologic status (7%) were assessed.

Survival to discharge decreased as the time to administration of the first dose of epinephrine increased. Of those patients receiving epinephrine in one minute, 12% survived. This dropped to 7% for those first receiving epinephrine after seven minutes. Return of spontaneous circulation and survival to discharge with favorable neurologic status showed a similar stepwise decrease with longer times to first administration of epinephrine.

Bottom line: Earlier administration of epinephrine to patients with cardiac arrest due to nonshockable rhythms is associated with improved survival to discharge, return of spontaneous circulation, and neurologically intact survival.

Citation: Donnino MW, Salciccioli JD, Howell MD, et al. Time to administration of epinephrine and outcome after in-hospital cardiac arrest with non-shockable rhythms: restrospective analysis of large in-hospital data registry. BMJ. 2014;348:g3028.

Clinical question: Is there a more accurate way to predict adverse post-operative outcomes in geriatric patients undergoing elective surgery?

Background: More than half of all operations in the U.S. involve geriatric patients. Most tools hospitalists use to predict post-operative outcomes are focused on cardiovascular events and do not account for frailty. Common in geriatric patients, frailty is thought to influence post-operative outcomes.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: A 1,000-bed academic hospital in Seoul, South Korea.

Synopsis: A cohort of 275 elderly patients (>64 years old) who were scheduled for elective intermediate or high-risk surgery underwent a pre-operative comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) that included measures of frailty. This cohort was then followed for mortality, major post-operative complications (pneumonia, urinary infection, pulmonary embolism, and unplanned transfer to intensive care), length of stay, and transfer to a nursing home. Post-operative complications, transfer to a nursing facility, and one-year mortality were associated with a derived scoring tool that included the Charlson Comorbidity Index, activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), dementia, risk for delirium, mid-arm circumference, and a mini-nutritional assessment.

This tool was more accurate at predicting one-year mortality than the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification.

Bottom line: This study establishes that measures of frailty predict post-operative outcomes in geriatric patients undergoing elective surgery; however, the authors’ tool depends on CGA, which is time-consuming, cumbersome, and depends on indices not familiar to many hospitalists.

Citation: Kim SW, Han HS, Jung HW, et al. Multidimensional frailty scores for the prediction of postoperative mortality risk. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(7):633-640.

Clinical question: Is there a more accurate way to predict adverse post-operative outcomes in geriatric patients undergoing elective surgery?

Background: More than half of all operations in the U.S. involve geriatric patients. Most tools hospitalists use to predict post-operative outcomes are focused on cardiovascular events and do not account for frailty. Common in geriatric patients, frailty is thought to influence post-operative outcomes.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: A 1,000-bed academic hospital in Seoul, South Korea.

Synopsis: A cohort of 275 elderly patients (>64 years old) who were scheduled for elective intermediate or high-risk surgery underwent a pre-operative comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) that included measures of frailty. This cohort was then followed for mortality, major post-operative complications (pneumonia, urinary infection, pulmonary embolism, and unplanned transfer to intensive care), length of stay, and transfer to a nursing home. Post-operative complications, transfer to a nursing facility, and one-year mortality were associated with a derived scoring tool that included the Charlson Comorbidity Index, activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), dementia, risk for delirium, mid-arm circumference, and a mini-nutritional assessment.

This tool was more accurate at predicting one-year mortality than the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification.

Bottom line: This study establishes that measures of frailty predict post-operative outcomes in geriatric patients undergoing elective surgery; however, the authors’ tool depends on CGA, which is time-consuming, cumbersome, and depends on indices not familiar to many hospitalists.

Citation: Kim SW, Han HS, Jung HW, et al. Multidimensional frailty scores for the prediction of postoperative mortality risk. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(7):633-640.

Clinical question: Is there a more accurate way to predict adverse post-operative outcomes in geriatric patients undergoing elective surgery?

Background: More than half of all operations in the U.S. involve geriatric patients. Most tools hospitalists use to predict post-operative outcomes are focused on cardiovascular events and do not account for frailty. Common in geriatric patients, frailty is thought to influence post-operative outcomes.

Study design: Prospective cohort study.

Setting: A 1,000-bed academic hospital in Seoul, South Korea.

Synopsis: A cohort of 275 elderly patients (>64 years old) who were scheduled for elective intermediate or high-risk surgery underwent a pre-operative comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) that included measures of frailty. This cohort was then followed for mortality, major post-operative complications (pneumonia, urinary infection, pulmonary embolism, and unplanned transfer to intensive care), length of stay, and transfer to a nursing home. Post-operative complications, transfer to a nursing facility, and one-year mortality were associated with a derived scoring tool that included the Charlson Comorbidity Index, activities of daily living (ADL), instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), dementia, risk for delirium, mid-arm circumference, and a mini-nutritional assessment.

This tool was more accurate at predicting one-year mortality than the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification.

Bottom line: This study establishes that measures of frailty predict post-operative outcomes in geriatric patients undergoing elective surgery; however, the authors’ tool depends on CGA, which is time-consuming, cumbersome, and depends on indices not familiar to many hospitalists.

Citation: Kim SW, Han HS, Jung HW, et al. Multidimensional frailty scores for the prediction of postoperative mortality risk. JAMA Surg. 2014;149(7):633-640.

Clinical question: Should angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotension receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) be held the morning of elective joint replacement?

Background: In patients taking ACEI/ARB, the decision regarding whether or not to give these medications on the day of surgery is controversial. UptoDate recommends holding ACEI/ARB the day of surgery; American College of Physicians Guidelines and SHM Consult Medicine recommend giving these drugs on the day of surgery.

Study design: Retrospective cohort (case control) study.

Setting: A large academic hospital in Pennsylvania.

Synopsis: Researchers studied adults undergoing elective spinal fusion, total knee replacement, or total hip replacement, and compared outcomes in 323 patients who were taking an ACEI/ARB (study group) to outcomes in the 579 patients who were not taking an ACEI/ARB (control group) before surgery. It was assumed—but not studied—that the ACEI/ARB was continued the morning of surgery in all patients in the study group, because that was the standard practice at this hospital.

Compared to the control group, the study group had more post-induction hypotension (12.2% vs. 6.7%) and more post-operative acute kidney injury (5.76% vs. 3.28%). Patients who developed acute kidney injury had longer length of stay (5.76 vs. 3.28 days) but no difference in two-year mortality.

Patients in the study group had higher baseline creatinine, were older, were more likely to be taking a diuretic, and were more likely to have diabetes, heart failure, and coronary artery disease. The authors used multiple logistic regression to adjust for these differences. Anesthesia and intra-operative fluid management were not standardized or compared.

Bottom line: ACEI/ARB administration on the morning of elective major orthopedic surgery is likely associated with a higher risk of intra-operative hypotension and acute kidney injury.

Citation: Nielson E, Hennrikus E, Lehman E, Mets B. Angiotensin axis blockade, hypotension, and acute kidney injury in elective major orthopedic surgery. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(5):283-288.

Clinical question: Should angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotension receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) be held the morning of elective joint replacement?

Background: In patients taking ACEI/ARB, the decision regarding whether or not to give these medications on the day of surgery is controversial. UptoDate recommends holding ACEI/ARB the day of surgery; American College of Physicians Guidelines and SHM Consult Medicine recommend giving these drugs on the day of surgery.

Study design: Retrospective cohort (case control) study.

Setting: A large academic hospital in Pennsylvania.

Synopsis: Researchers studied adults undergoing elective spinal fusion, total knee replacement, or total hip replacement, and compared outcomes in 323 patients who were taking an ACEI/ARB (study group) to outcomes in the 579 patients who were not taking an ACEI/ARB (control group) before surgery. It was assumed—but not studied—that the ACEI/ARB was continued the morning of surgery in all patients in the study group, because that was the standard practice at this hospital.

Compared to the control group, the study group had more post-induction hypotension (12.2% vs. 6.7%) and more post-operative acute kidney injury (5.76% vs. 3.28%). Patients who developed acute kidney injury had longer length of stay (5.76 vs. 3.28 days) but no difference in two-year mortality.

Patients in the study group had higher baseline creatinine, were older, were more likely to be taking a diuretic, and were more likely to have diabetes, heart failure, and coronary artery disease. The authors used multiple logistic regression to adjust for these differences. Anesthesia and intra-operative fluid management were not standardized or compared.

Bottom line: ACEI/ARB administration on the morning of elective major orthopedic surgery is likely associated with a higher risk of intra-operative hypotension and acute kidney injury.

Citation: Nielson E, Hennrikus E, Lehman E, Mets B. Angiotensin axis blockade, hypotension, and acute kidney injury in elective major orthopedic surgery. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(5):283-288.

Clinical question: Should angiotension-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotension receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB) be held the morning of elective joint replacement?

Background: In patients taking ACEI/ARB, the decision regarding whether or not to give these medications on the day of surgery is controversial. UptoDate recommends holding ACEI/ARB the day of surgery; American College of Physicians Guidelines and SHM Consult Medicine recommend giving these drugs on the day of surgery.

Study design: Retrospective cohort (case control) study.

Setting: A large academic hospital in Pennsylvania.

Synopsis: Researchers studied adults undergoing elective spinal fusion, total knee replacement, or total hip replacement, and compared outcomes in 323 patients who were taking an ACEI/ARB (study group) to outcomes in the 579 patients who were not taking an ACEI/ARB (control group) before surgery. It was assumed—but not studied—that the ACEI/ARB was continued the morning of surgery in all patients in the study group, because that was the standard practice at this hospital.

Compared to the control group, the study group had more post-induction hypotension (12.2% vs. 6.7%) and more post-operative acute kidney injury (5.76% vs. 3.28%). Patients who developed acute kidney injury had longer length of stay (5.76 vs. 3.28 days) but no difference in two-year mortality.

Patients in the study group had higher baseline creatinine, were older, were more likely to be taking a diuretic, and were more likely to have diabetes, heart failure, and coronary artery disease. The authors used multiple logistic regression to adjust for these differences. Anesthesia and intra-operative fluid management were not standardized or compared.

Bottom line: ACEI/ARB administration on the morning of elective major orthopedic surgery is likely associated with a higher risk of intra-operative hypotension and acute kidney injury.

Citation: Nielson E, Hennrikus E, Lehman E, Mets B. Angiotensin axis blockade, hypotension, and acute kidney injury in elective major orthopedic surgery. J Hosp Med. 2014;9(5):283-288.

Clinical question: Is the use of beta blockers within 24 hours of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery without recent myocardial infarction (MI) associated with decreased peri-operative mortality?

Background: Several retrospective observational studies suggest a reduction in peri-operative mortality with CABG surgery if beta blockers are administered prior to surgery. Although the use of beta blockers pre-operatively for CABG is now a quality measure, the use of pre-operative beta blockers is still controversial due to the results of more recent studies, with the observed benefit thought to be driven mainly by patients with recent MI.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: More than 1,100 U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ National Adult Cardiac Surgery database identified 506,110 adult patients (without MI within 21 days) nonemergently undergoing CABG surgery. Beta blocker use was defined as receiving a beta blocker within 24 hours before surgery. Although most patients (86%) received beta blockers prior to surgery, there was no significant difference in operative mortality, permanent stroke, prolonged ventilation, and renal failure between patients receiving beta blockers and those who did not, although atrial fibrillation (Afib) was more common with pre-operative beta blocker use.

Bottom line: For patients undergoing nonemergent CABG surgery without recent MI, pre-operative beta blocker use is not associated with improved outcomes and is associated with slightly higher rates of Afib.

Citation: Brinkman W, Herbert MA, O’Brien S, et al. Preoperative beta-blocker use in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: national database analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1320-1327.

Clinical question: Is the use of beta blockers within 24 hours of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery without recent myocardial infarction (MI) associated with decreased peri-operative mortality?

Background: Several retrospective observational studies suggest a reduction in peri-operative mortality with CABG surgery if beta blockers are administered prior to surgery. Although the use of beta blockers pre-operatively for CABG is now a quality measure, the use of pre-operative beta blockers is still controversial due to the results of more recent studies, with the observed benefit thought to be driven mainly by patients with recent MI.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: More than 1,100 U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ National Adult Cardiac Surgery database identified 506,110 adult patients (without MI within 21 days) nonemergently undergoing CABG surgery. Beta blocker use was defined as receiving a beta blocker within 24 hours before surgery. Although most patients (86%) received beta blockers prior to surgery, there was no significant difference in operative mortality, permanent stroke, prolonged ventilation, and renal failure between patients receiving beta blockers and those who did not, although atrial fibrillation (Afib) was more common with pre-operative beta blocker use.

Bottom line: For patients undergoing nonemergent CABG surgery without recent MI, pre-operative beta blocker use is not associated with improved outcomes and is associated with slightly higher rates of Afib.

Citation: Brinkman W, Herbert MA, O’Brien S, et al. Preoperative beta-blocker use in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: national database analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1320-1327.

Clinical question: Is the use of beta blockers within 24 hours of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery without recent myocardial infarction (MI) associated with decreased peri-operative mortality?

Background: Several retrospective observational studies suggest a reduction in peri-operative mortality with CABG surgery if beta blockers are administered prior to surgery. Although the use of beta blockers pre-operatively for CABG is now a quality measure, the use of pre-operative beta blockers is still controversial due to the results of more recent studies, with the observed benefit thought to be driven mainly by patients with recent MI.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: More than 1,100 U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: The Society of Thoracic Surgeons’ National Adult Cardiac Surgery database identified 506,110 adult patients (without MI within 21 days) nonemergently undergoing CABG surgery. Beta blocker use was defined as receiving a beta blocker within 24 hours before surgery. Although most patients (86%) received beta blockers prior to surgery, there was no significant difference in operative mortality, permanent stroke, prolonged ventilation, and renal failure between patients receiving beta blockers and those who did not, although atrial fibrillation (Afib) was more common with pre-operative beta blocker use.

Bottom line: For patients undergoing nonemergent CABG surgery without recent MI, pre-operative beta blocker use is not associated with improved outcomes and is associated with slightly higher rates of Afib.

Citation: Brinkman W, Herbert MA, O’Brien S, et al. Preoperative beta-blocker use in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: national database analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1320-1327.

Clinical question: Does the CAM-S, a modified version of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), which measures delirium severity, correlate with clinical outcomes?

Background: In 1990, Dr. Sharon Inouye developed the CAM, which is a common, standard measure to identify the presence of delirium. Although other scoring systems exist to quantify delirium severity, Dr. Inouye proposes an extension of the CAM (CAM-S) to measure delirium severity.

Study design: Validation analysis.

Setting: Three academic medical centers in the U.S.

Synopsis: Two validation cohorts of patients 70 years or older without dementia and moderate-to-high-risk of developing delirium during hospitalization were studied. The first cohort comprised 300 patients scheduled for elective, noncardiac surgery; the second cohort was made up of 250 patients admitted to an inpatient medical service. The CAM-S uses the same items as the original CAM and rates each symptom 0 for absent, 1 for mild, or 2 for marked; acute onset of fluctuation receives 0 (absent) or 1 (present). Higher CAM-S scores appear to correlate with various outcome measures, including increased length of stay, new nursing home placement, and 90-day mortality.

Bottom line: Higher scores on the CAM-S, a scoring system based on the CAM and designed to measure delirium severity, are associated with worse in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes.

Citation: Inouye SK, Kosar CM, Tommet D, et al. The CAM-S: development and validation of a new scoring system for delirium severity in 2 cohorts. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(8):526-533.

Clinical question: Does the CAM-S, a modified version of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), which measures delirium severity, correlate with clinical outcomes?

Background: In 1990, Dr. Sharon Inouye developed the CAM, which is a common, standard measure to identify the presence of delirium. Although other scoring systems exist to quantify delirium severity, Dr. Inouye proposes an extension of the CAM (CAM-S) to measure delirium severity.

Study design: Validation analysis.

Setting: Three academic medical centers in the U.S.

Synopsis: Two validation cohorts of patients 70 years or older without dementia and moderate-to-high-risk of developing delirium during hospitalization were studied. The first cohort comprised 300 patients scheduled for elective, noncardiac surgery; the second cohort was made up of 250 patients admitted to an inpatient medical service. The CAM-S uses the same items as the original CAM and rates each symptom 0 for absent, 1 for mild, or 2 for marked; acute onset of fluctuation receives 0 (absent) or 1 (present). Higher CAM-S scores appear to correlate with various outcome measures, including increased length of stay, new nursing home placement, and 90-day mortality.

Bottom line: Higher scores on the CAM-S, a scoring system based on the CAM and designed to measure delirium severity, are associated with worse in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes.

Citation: Inouye SK, Kosar CM, Tommet D, et al. The CAM-S: development and validation of a new scoring system for delirium severity in 2 cohorts. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(8):526-533.

Clinical question: Does the CAM-S, a modified version of the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), which measures delirium severity, correlate with clinical outcomes?

Background: In 1990, Dr. Sharon Inouye developed the CAM, which is a common, standard measure to identify the presence of delirium. Although other scoring systems exist to quantify delirium severity, Dr. Inouye proposes an extension of the CAM (CAM-S) to measure delirium severity.

Study design: Validation analysis.

Setting: Three academic medical centers in the U.S.

Synopsis: Two validation cohorts of patients 70 years or older without dementia and moderate-to-high-risk of developing delirium during hospitalization were studied. The first cohort comprised 300 patients scheduled for elective, noncardiac surgery; the second cohort was made up of 250 patients admitted to an inpatient medical service. The CAM-S uses the same items as the original CAM and rates each symptom 0 for absent, 1 for mild, or 2 for marked; acute onset of fluctuation receives 0 (absent) or 1 (present). Higher CAM-S scores appear to correlate with various outcome measures, including increased length of stay, new nursing home placement, and 90-day mortality.

Bottom line: Higher scores on the CAM-S, a scoring system based on the CAM and designed to measure delirium severity, are associated with worse in-hospital and post-discharge outcomes.

Citation: Inouye SK, Kosar CM, Tommet D, et al. The CAM-S: development and validation of a new scoring system for delirium severity in 2 cohorts. Ann Intern Med. 2014;160(8):526-533.

Clinical question: What are the mortality benefits and bleeding risks associated with thrombolytic therapy, compared with other anticoagulants, in pulmonary embolism (PE)?

Background: Thrombolytics are not routinely administered for PE but can be considered in patients with hemodynamic instability with massive PE and those not responding to anticoagulation.

Study design: Meta-analysis.

Setting: Sixteen randomized clinical trials (RCTs) occurring in a variety of settings.

Synopsis: Trials involving 2,115 patients (thrombolytic therapy cohort 1,061; anticoagulation cohort 1,054) with PE were studied, with special attention given to those patients with intermediate risk PEs defined by subclinical cardiovascular compromise. Thrombolytics were compared with low molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, vitamin K antagonists, and fondaparinux. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included risk of recurrence of the PE and intracranial hemorrhage.

Thrombolytic therapy was associated with lower all-cause mortality and with higher risk of bleeding. There was a 9.24% rate of major bleeding in the thrombolytic therapy cohort and a 3.42% rate in the anticoagulation cohort. Intracranial hemorrhage was greater in the thrombolytic therapy cohort (1.46% vs. 0.19%). Patients with intermediate risk PE had greater major bleeding rate (7.74% vs. 2.25%) and lower mortality (1.39% vs. 2.92%) with thrombolytics compared to anticoagulation. A net clinical benefit calculation (mortality benefit accounting for intracranial hemorrhage risk) was performed and demonstrated a net clinical benefit of 0.81% (95% CI, 0.65%-1.01%) for those patients who received thrombolytics versus other anticoagulation.

Bottom line: This study suggested a mortality benefit of thrombolytics overall, including those patients with intermediate risk PE.

Citation: Chatterjee S, Chakraborty A, Weinberg I, et al. Thrombolysis for pulmonary embolism and risk of all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311(23):2414-2421.

Clinical question: What are the mortality benefits and bleeding risks associated with thrombolytic therapy, compared with other anticoagulants, in pulmonary embolism (PE)?

Background: Thrombolytics are not routinely administered for PE but can be considered in patients with hemodynamic instability with massive PE and those not responding to anticoagulation.

Study design: Meta-analysis.

Setting: Sixteen randomized clinical trials (RCTs) occurring in a variety of settings.

Synopsis: Trials involving 2,115 patients (thrombolytic therapy cohort 1,061; anticoagulation cohort 1,054) with PE were studied, with special attention given to those patients with intermediate risk PEs defined by subclinical cardiovascular compromise. Thrombolytics were compared with low molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, vitamin K antagonists, and fondaparinux. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included risk of recurrence of the PE and intracranial hemorrhage.

Thrombolytic therapy was associated with lower all-cause mortality and with higher risk of bleeding. There was a 9.24% rate of major bleeding in the thrombolytic therapy cohort and a 3.42% rate in the anticoagulation cohort. Intracranial hemorrhage was greater in the thrombolytic therapy cohort (1.46% vs. 0.19%). Patients with intermediate risk PE had greater major bleeding rate (7.74% vs. 2.25%) and lower mortality (1.39% vs. 2.92%) with thrombolytics compared to anticoagulation. A net clinical benefit calculation (mortality benefit accounting for intracranial hemorrhage risk) was performed and demonstrated a net clinical benefit of 0.81% (95% CI, 0.65%-1.01%) for those patients who received thrombolytics versus other anticoagulation.

Bottom line: This study suggested a mortality benefit of thrombolytics overall, including those patients with intermediate risk PE.

Citation: Chatterjee S, Chakraborty A, Weinberg I, et al. Thrombolysis for pulmonary embolism and risk of all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311(23):2414-2421.

Clinical question: What are the mortality benefits and bleeding risks associated with thrombolytic therapy, compared with other anticoagulants, in pulmonary embolism (PE)?

Background: Thrombolytics are not routinely administered for PE but can be considered in patients with hemodynamic instability with massive PE and those not responding to anticoagulation.

Study design: Meta-analysis.

Setting: Sixteen randomized clinical trials (RCTs) occurring in a variety of settings.

Synopsis: Trials involving 2,115 patients (thrombolytic therapy cohort 1,061; anticoagulation cohort 1,054) with PE were studied, with special attention given to those patients with intermediate risk PEs defined by subclinical cardiovascular compromise. Thrombolytics were compared with low molecular weight heparin, unfractionated heparin, vitamin K antagonists, and fondaparinux. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included risk of recurrence of the PE and intracranial hemorrhage.

Thrombolytic therapy was associated with lower all-cause mortality and with higher risk of bleeding. There was a 9.24% rate of major bleeding in the thrombolytic therapy cohort and a 3.42% rate in the anticoagulation cohort. Intracranial hemorrhage was greater in the thrombolytic therapy cohort (1.46% vs. 0.19%). Patients with intermediate risk PE had greater major bleeding rate (7.74% vs. 2.25%) and lower mortality (1.39% vs. 2.92%) with thrombolytics compared to anticoagulation. A net clinical benefit calculation (mortality benefit accounting for intracranial hemorrhage risk) was performed and demonstrated a net clinical benefit of 0.81% (95% CI, 0.65%-1.01%) for those patients who received thrombolytics versus other anticoagulation.

Bottom line: This study suggested a mortality benefit of thrombolytics overall, including those patients with intermediate risk PE.

Citation: Chatterjee S, Chakraborty A, Weinberg I, et al. Thrombolysis for pulmonary embolism and risk of all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2014;311(23):2414-2421.

Clinical question: Which interventions are most effective to prevent 30-day readmissions in medical or surgical patients?

Background: Preventing early readmissions has become a national priority. This study set out to determine which intervention had the largest impact on the prevention of early readmission.

Study design: Meta-analysis.

Setting: Forty-seven studies in multiple locations.

Synopsis: This study evaluated 47 randomized trials that assessed the effectiveness of peri-discharge interventions on the risk of all-cause or unplanned 30-day readmissions for medical and surgical patients. Outcomes included unplanned readmissions, all-cause readmissions, and a composite of unplanned and all-cause readmissions plus out-of-hospital deaths.

The included studies reported up to seven methods of preventing readmissions, including involvement of case management, home visits, education of patients, and self-care support. In 42 trials reporting readmission rates, the pooled relative risk of readmission was 0.82 (95 % CI, 0.73-0.91; P<0.001) within 30 days.

Multiple subgroup analyses noted that the most effective interventions on hospital readmission were those that were more complex and those that sought to augment patient capacity to access and enact dependable post-discharge care.

Limitations included single-center academic studies, lack of standard for dealing with missing data, existence of publication bias, and differing methods used to evaluate intervention effects.

Bottom line: This study was the largest of its kind, to date, and suggests that the interventions analyzed in this study, although complex (e.g. enhancing capacity for self-care at home), were efficacious in reducing 30-day readmissions.

Citation: Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Kessler M, et al. Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(7):1095-1107.

Clinical question: Which interventions are most effective to prevent 30-day readmissions in medical or surgical patients?

Background: Preventing early readmissions has become a national priority. This study set out to determine which intervention had the largest impact on the prevention of early readmission.

Study design: Meta-analysis.

Setting: Forty-seven studies in multiple locations.

Synopsis: This study evaluated 47 randomized trials that assessed the effectiveness of peri-discharge interventions on the risk of all-cause or unplanned 30-day readmissions for medical and surgical patients. Outcomes included unplanned readmissions, all-cause readmissions, and a composite of unplanned and all-cause readmissions plus out-of-hospital deaths.

The included studies reported up to seven methods of preventing readmissions, including involvement of case management, home visits, education of patients, and self-care support. In 42 trials reporting readmission rates, the pooled relative risk of readmission was 0.82 (95 % CI, 0.73-0.91; P<0.001) within 30 days.

Multiple subgroup analyses noted that the most effective interventions on hospital readmission were those that were more complex and those that sought to augment patient capacity to access and enact dependable post-discharge care.

Limitations included single-center academic studies, lack of standard for dealing with missing data, existence of publication bias, and differing methods used to evaluate intervention effects.

Bottom line: This study was the largest of its kind, to date, and suggests that the interventions analyzed in this study, although complex (e.g. enhancing capacity for self-care at home), were efficacious in reducing 30-day readmissions.

Citation: Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Kessler M, et al. Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(7):1095-1107.

Clinical question: Which interventions are most effective to prevent 30-day readmissions in medical or surgical patients?

Background: Preventing early readmissions has become a national priority. This study set out to determine which intervention had the largest impact on the prevention of early readmission.

Study design: Meta-analysis.

Setting: Forty-seven studies in multiple locations.

Synopsis: This study evaluated 47 randomized trials that assessed the effectiveness of peri-discharge interventions on the risk of all-cause or unplanned 30-day readmissions for medical and surgical patients. Outcomes included unplanned readmissions, all-cause readmissions, and a composite of unplanned and all-cause readmissions plus out-of-hospital deaths.

The included studies reported up to seven methods of preventing readmissions, including involvement of case management, home visits, education of patients, and self-care support. In 42 trials reporting readmission rates, the pooled relative risk of readmission was 0.82 (95 % CI, 0.73-0.91; P<0.001) within 30 days.

Multiple subgroup analyses noted that the most effective interventions on hospital readmission were those that were more complex and those that sought to augment patient capacity to access and enact dependable post-discharge care.

Limitations included single-center academic studies, lack of standard for dealing with missing data, existence of publication bias, and differing methods used to evaluate intervention effects.

Bottom line: This study was the largest of its kind, to date, and suggests that the interventions analyzed in this study, although complex (e.g. enhancing capacity for self-care at home), were efficacious in reducing 30-day readmissions.

Citation: Leppin AL, Gionfriddo MR, Kessler M, et al. Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(7):1095-1107.

For the last six months or so, not a week has gone by in which someone hasn’t asked me when the new SHM survey report will be released. The anticipation level is high, and rightly so. This will be the first new look at hospitalist practice characteristics in two years, and boy, have they been an eventful two years!

On behalf of SHM and the SHM Practice Analysis Committee (PAC), I’m thrilled to introduce SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SOHM) and the resumption of the monthly “Survey Insights” article written by PAC members. Here are a few key things you should know about the new SOHM report:

• The content is more wide-ranging than ever. SHM leaves the collection of hospitalist compensation and productivity data to the Medical Group Management Association—SHM licenses compensation and production data from MGMA and has incorporated it into the new SOHM report—but covers just about every other aspect of hospitalist group structure and operations imaginable. In addition to traditional questions regarding scope of services, staffing and scheduling models, and financial support, this year’s report includes new information about hospitalist back-up staffing plans, how academic hospitalist time is allocated, accountable care organization participation, electronic health record use, and the presence of other hospital-focused practice specialties.

Use the report to assess how your practice compares to your peers, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be—they only tell you what currently is..

—Leslie Flores, MHA

• The number of survey participants is larger than ever. This year SHM received eligible responses from 499 different hospitalist groups, an increase of about 7% over 2012. Respondents continue to represent all employer/ownership models and geographic regions, in roughly similar proportions to previous surveys. And we continue to get good participation by both academic and nonacademic hospital medicine groups. This means we have more—and more reliable—information than ever for different subgroups of hospitalists.
• The report is more accessible and easier to read than it has ever been. This year SHM has produced the SOHM report in full color, with professional layout and graphics; it’s a pleasure to read compared to previous versions. And, for the first time, SHM is making available a web-based version of the full report, so that you can refer to it anywhere and at any time.

As a consultant, I refer to my copy of the SOHM report almost every day and find it indispensable as a source of context when offering advice to my clients. And I’m always interested to see the diverse ways in which hospitalist groups across the country use survey information to make decisions about how to run their practices and to explain their environments to hospital leaders and other stakeholders.

I encourage you to obtain a copy of the SOHM report and review it carefully; you’ll almost certainly find more than one interesting and useful tidbit of information. Use the report to assess how your practice compares to your peers, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be—they only tell you what currently is. New best practices not reflected in survey data are emerging all the time, and the ways others do things won’t always be right for your group’s unique situation and needs. Whether you are partners or employees, you and your colleagues “own” the success of your practice and are the best judges of what is right for you.

Leslie Flores is a PAC member and partner of Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants.

For the last six months or so, not a week has gone by in which someone hasn’t asked me when the new SHM survey report will be released. The anticipation level is high, and rightly so. This will be the first new look at hospitalist practice characteristics in two years, and boy, have they been an eventful two years!

On behalf of SHM and the SHM Practice Analysis Committee (PAC), I’m thrilled to introduce SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SOHM) and the resumption of the monthly “Survey Insights” article written by PAC members. Here are a few key things you should know about the new SOHM report:

• The content is more wide-ranging than ever. SHM leaves the collection of hospitalist compensation and productivity data to the Medical Group Management Association—SHM licenses compensation and production data from MGMA and has incorporated it into the new SOHM report—but covers just about every other aspect of hospitalist group structure and operations imaginable. In addition to traditional questions regarding scope of services, staffing and scheduling models, and financial support, this year’s report includes new information about hospitalist back-up staffing plans, how academic hospitalist time is allocated, accountable care organization participation, electronic health record use, and the presence of other hospital-focused practice specialties.

Use the report to assess how your practice compares to your peers, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be—they only tell you what currently is..

—Leslie Flores, MHA

• The number of survey participants is larger than ever. This year SHM received eligible responses from 499 different hospitalist groups, an increase of about 7% over 2012. Respondents continue to represent all employer/ownership models and geographic regions, in roughly similar proportions to previous surveys. And we continue to get good participation by both academic and nonacademic hospital medicine groups. This means we have more—and more reliable—information than ever for different subgroups of hospitalists.
• The report is more accessible and easier to read than it has ever been. This year SHM has produced the SOHM report in full color, with professional layout and graphics; it’s a pleasure to read compared to previous versions. And, for the first time, SHM is making available a web-based version of the full report, so that you can refer to it anywhere and at any time.

As a consultant, I refer to my copy of the SOHM report almost every day and find it indispensable as a source of context when offering advice to my clients. And I’m always interested to see the diverse ways in which hospitalist groups across the country use survey information to make decisions about how to run their practices and to explain their environments to hospital leaders and other stakeholders.

I encourage you to obtain a copy of the SOHM report and review it carefully; you’ll almost certainly find more than one interesting and useful tidbit of information. Use the report to assess how your practice compares to your peers, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be—they only tell you what currently is. New best practices not reflected in survey data are emerging all the time, and the ways others do things won’t always be right for your group’s unique situation and needs. Whether you are partners or employees, you and your colleagues “own” the success of your practice and are the best judges of what is right for you.

Leslie Flores is a PAC member and partner of Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants.

For the last six months or so, not a week has gone by in which someone hasn’t asked me when the new SHM survey report will be released. The anticipation level is high, and rightly so. This will be the first new look at hospitalist practice characteristics in two years, and boy, have they been an eventful two years!

On behalf of SHM and the SHM Practice Analysis Committee (PAC), I’m thrilled to introduce SHM’s 2014 State of Hospital Medicine Report (SOHM) and the resumption of the monthly “Survey Insights” article written by PAC members. Here are a few key things you should know about the new SOHM report:

• The content is more wide-ranging than ever. SHM leaves the collection of hospitalist compensation and productivity data to the Medical Group Management Association—SHM licenses compensation and production data from MGMA and has incorporated it into the new SOHM report—but covers just about every other aspect of hospitalist group structure and operations imaginable. In addition to traditional questions regarding scope of services, staffing and scheduling models, and financial support, this year’s report includes new information about hospitalist back-up staffing plans, how academic hospitalist time is allocated, accountable care organization participation, electronic health record use, and the presence of other hospital-focused practice specialties.

Use the report to assess how your practice compares to your peers, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be—they only tell you what currently is..

—Leslie Flores, MHA

• The number of survey participants is larger than ever. This year SHM received eligible responses from 499 different hospitalist groups, an increase of about 7% over 2012. Respondents continue to represent all employer/ownership models and geographic regions, in roughly similar proportions to previous surveys. And we continue to get good participation by both academic and nonacademic hospital medicine groups. This means we have more—and more reliable—information than ever for different subgroups of hospitalists.
• The report is more accessible and easier to read than it has ever been. This year SHM has produced the SOHM report in full color, with professional layout and graphics; it’s a pleasure to read compared to previous versions. And, for the first time, SHM is making available a web-based version of the full report, so that you can refer to it anywhere and at any time.

As a consultant, I refer to my copy of the SOHM report almost every day and find it indispensable as a source of context when offering advice to my clients. And I’m always interested to see the diverse ways in which hospitalist groups across the country use survey information to make decisions about how to run their practices and to explain their environments to hospital leaders and other stakeholders.

I encourage you to obtain a copy of the SOHM report and review it carefully; you’ll almost certainly find more than one interesting and useful tidbit of information. Use the report to assess how your practice compares to your peers, but always keep in mind that surveys don’t tell you what should be—they only tell you what currently is. New best practices not reflected in survey data are emerging all the time, and the ways others do things won’t always be right for your group’s unique situation and needs. Whether you are partners or employees, you and your colleagues “own” the success of your practice and are the best judges of what is right for you.

Leslie Flores is a PAC member and partner of Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants.