Leaving a job is never an easy decision, whether it is made voluntarily or not. A physician terminating a relationship with an employer may face emotionally charged conversations, difficult financial considerations, and long-term legal consequences. As you plan your exit strategy, it is critical for you to be aware of these issues and address them proactively with your employer. This can minimize hard feelings and surprises down the road for you, your former employer, and your colleagues.

In today’s competitive climate, a physician might work for several employers during the length of his or her career. With the tighter financial medical market and pressures from managed care mounting, employers are less likely to tolerate a nonproductive employee. Interoffice or personality conflicts may become intolerable for an unhappy or stressed physician. Physician turnover is a more common occurrence, and if not handled properly, it can be disruptive for all parties involved.

The following steps are meant for physicians contemplating leaving their place of employment or who may be asked to leave in the near future.

Step 1: Consider the Employment Agreement

Ideally, physician-separation matters are addressed preemptively when the physician enters the employer-employee relationship and signs an employment agreement. Thus, before contemplating a move, you should always start by reviewing the terms of your current employment agreement. A well-drafted employment agreement should specify the grounds for termination, both for cause (i.e. a specific set of reasons for immediate termination) and without cause (i.e. either party may terminate voluntarily). The agreement should specify the parties’ rights and obligations following a termination. These rights and obligations likely will vary depending on the basis for termination.

Typically, an employer will provide malpractice insurance for its physicians during the term of employment. However, physicians may be responsible for the cost of “tail coverage” upon the termination of employment. This is designed to protect the departing physician’s professional acts after leaving the employ of an employer with claims-made coverage. Because the coverage can be quite costly, a well-drafted employment agreement often will set forth which party is responsible for the procurement and payment of tail coverage. It is prudent for a departing physician to review the employment agreement to identify who has the affirmative obligation to provide the tail coverage, as it can be a costly surprise at termination.

The employment agreement also must be reviewed to determine the proper method to provide notice of termination (such as first-class mail, overnight courier, or hand delivery). Often, employment agreements will include a clause titled “Notice” that outlines the delivery method for proper notice to the employer.

Step 2: Consider a Termination/Separation Agreement

Entering into a termination agreement (sometimes referred to as a separation agreement) between the departing physician and the employer may address and resolve many of the outstanding issues that are not otherwise addressed in the employment agreement. A termination agreement may avoid unnecessary problems down the road and potentially acrimonious and costly litigation.

The termination agreement can fill in the gaps where the employment agreement is silent (or if an employment agreement does not exist). The key elements of a termination agreement often include:

• The effective date of the separation as well as what exactly is ending (e.g. employment, co-ownership, board membership, medical staff privileges);
• Payment and buyout terms;
• The physician’s removal from any management or administrative position (e.g. member of the governing board);
• Deferred compensation payments or severance pay that may need to be calculated and distributed;
• Employer obligations (if any) to provide the departing physician’s fringe benefits and business expenses, including retirement-plan contributions, health insurance, life insurance, medical dues, etc.; and
• Unused vacation days, bonuses, or expenses due.

If previously addressed in the employment agreement, the parties should reaffirm their respective rights and obligations regarding medical records, confidential information, noncompetition and nonsolicitation provisions. Otherwise, the termination agreement should identify the physician’s competitive and solicitation activities post-termination.

A noncompetition provision should include the geographic territory in which and the time period during which the departing physician cannot compete with the former employer. It is important to remember courts will render these provisions as unenforceable and invalid if improperly drafted or overly broad. It is common to see nondisparagement provisions, whereby each party agrees to refrain from making any negative or false statements regarding the other. Nondisclosure provisions are common as well with regards to what may be disclosed to third parties.

The separation agreement also should address the return of company property, including office key, credit card, computer, cell phone, and beeper. Patient records and charts should be completed and returned to the employer. Often, the departing physician will still be allowed reasonable access to patient records post-termination for certain authorized purposes (e.g. defending disciplinary actions, malpractice claims, and billing/payer claims and audits), usually at the physician’s own expense.

The termination agreement may also outline how patients will be notified about the physician’s departure. If a patient wishes to continue treatment with the departing physician, the former employer must be ready to transition the patient.

A well-written termination agreement will provide for mutual releases. However, there are often exclusions from the mutual releases, such as pre-termination date liabilities; medical malpractice claims resulting from the physician’s misconduct; or taxes, interests, and penalties covering the pre-termination date.

Step 3: Severance Pay

Depending on the circumstances surrounding the termination and employment agreements, a physician may be entitled to severance payments beginning on the date of termination and/or for a period of time post-termination. The departing physician should determine whether severance is appropriate and whether he or she is willing to forego severance payments in exchange for other benefits. Depending on the dollar amount and the physician’s career objectives, it may be worthwhile to sacrifice severance payments for a less onerous noncompete provision, for example.

Step 4: Take the High Road

Because you never know when your paths might cross with former coworkers or employers, it is always sensible to remain discreet and level-headed during this trying period. Although it is natural to discuss an impending move with others, a prudent physician will avoid water-cooler gossip.

In the event conflicts arise, limit the public disclosure of these disputes. Neither side wins the public relations battle, and often, both sides lose. This is a circumstance where experienced legal counsel can be invaluable as you navigate these potentially rocky waters. You would be well served to seek legal advice to discuss your intentions before making an actual move.

As always, remember conversations you have with counsel are typically protected by attorney-client privilege. It is always advisable to secure legal counsel to review the terms of an employment agreement, negotiate a fair termination/separation agreement, and serve as an advocate during this challenging career move.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at [email protected].

Leaving a job is never an easy decision, whether it is made voluntarily or not. A physician terminating a relationship with an employer may face emotionally charged conversations, difficult financial considerations, and long-term legal consequences. As you plan your exit strategy, it is critical for you to be aware of these issues and address them proactively with your employer. This can minimize hard feelings and surprises down the road for you, your former employer, and your colleagues.

In today’s competitive climate, a physician might work for several employers during the length of his or her career. With the tighter financial medical market and pressures from managed care mounting, employers are less likely to tolerate a nonproductive employee. Interoffice or personality conflicts may become intolerable for an unhappy or stressed physician. Physician turnover is a more common occurrence, and if not handled properly, it can be disruptive for all parties involved.

The following steps are meant for physicians contemplating leaving their place of employment or who may be asked to leave in the near future.

Step 1: Consider the Employment Agreement

Ideally, physician-separation matters are addressed preemptively when the physician enters the employer-employee relationship and signs an employment agreement. Thus, before contemplating a move, you should always start by reviewing the terms of your current employment agreement. A well-drafted employment agreement should specify the grounds for termination, both for cause (i.e. a specific set of reasons for immediate termination) and without cause (i.e. either party may terminate voluntarily). The agreement should specify the parties’ rights and obligations following a termination. These rights and obligations likely will vary depending on the basis for termination.

Typically, an employer will provide malpractice insurance for its physicians during the term of employment. However, physicians may be responsible for the cost of “tail coverage” upon the termination of employment. This is designed to protect the departing physician’s professional acts after leaving the employ of an employer with claims-made coverage. Because the coverage can be quite costly, a well-drafted employment agreement often will set forth which party is responsible for the procurement and payment of tail coverage. It is prudent for a departing physician to review the employment agreement to identify who has the affirmative obligation to provide the tail coverage, as it can be a costly surprise at termination.

The employment agreement also must be reviewed to determine the proper method to provide notice of termination (such as first-class mail, overnight courier, or hand delivery). Often, employment agreements will include a clause titled “Notice” that outlines the delivery method for proper notice to the employer.

Step 2: Consider a Termination/Separation Agreement

Entering into a termination agreement (sometimes referred to as a separation agreement) between the departing physician and the employer may address and resolve many of the outstanding issues that are not otherwise addressed in the employment agreement. A termination agreement may avoid unnecessary problems down the road and potentially acrimonious and costly litigation.

The termination agreement can fill in the gaps where the employment agreement is silent (or if an employment agreement does not exist). The key elements of a termination agreement often include:

• The effective date of the separation as well as what exactly is ending (e.g. employment, co-ownership, board membership, medical staff privileges);
• Payment and buyout terms;
• The physician’s removal from any management or administrative position (e.g. member of the governing board);
• Deferred compensation payments or severance pay that may need to be calculated and distributed;
• Employer obligations (if any) to provide the departing physician’s fringe benefits and business expenses, including retirement-plan contributions, health insurance, life insurance, medical dues, etc.; and
• Unused vacation days, bonuses, or expenses due.

If previously addressed in the employment agreement, the parties should reaffirm their respective rights and obligations regarding medical records, confidential information, noncompetition and nonsolicitation provisions. Otherwise, the termination agreement should identify the physician’s competitive and solicitation activities post-termination.

A noncompetition provision should include the geographic territory in which and the time period during which the departing physician cannot compete with the former employer. It is important to remember courts will render these provisions as unenforceable and invalid if improperly drafted or overly broad. It is common to see nondisparagement provisions, whereby each party agrees to refrain from making any negative or false statements regarding the other. Nondisclosure provisions are common as well with regards to what may be disclosed to third parties.

The separation agreement also should address the return of company property, including office key, credit card, computer, cell phone, and beeper. Patient records and charts should be completed and returned to the employer. Often, the departing physician will still be allowed reasonable access to patient records post-termination for certain authorized purposes (e.g. defending disciplinary actions, malpractice claims, and billing/payer claims and audits), usually at the physician’s own expense.

The termination agreement may also outline how patients will be notified about the physician’s departure. If a patient wishes to continue treatment with the departing physician, the former employer must be ready to transition the patient.

A well-written termination agreement will provide for mutual releases. However, there are often exclusions from the mutual releases, such as pre-termination date liabilities; medical malpractice claims resulting from the physician’s misconduct; or taxes, interests, and penalties covering the pre-termination date.

Step 3: Severance Pay

Depending on the circumstances surrounding the termination and employment agreements, a physician may be entitled to severance payments beginning on the date of termination and/or for a period of time post-termination. The departing physician should determine whether severance is appropriate and whether he or she is willing to forego severance payments in exchange for other benefits. Depending on the dollar amount and the physician’s career objectives, it may be worthwhile to sacrifice severance payments for a less onerous noncompete provision, for example.

Step 4: Take the High Road

Because you never know when your paths might cross with former coworkers or employers, it is always sensible to remain discreet and level-headed during this trying period. Although it is natural to discuss an impending move with others, a prudent physician will avoid water-cooler gossip.

In the event conflicts arise, limit the public disclosure of these disputes. Neither side wins the public relations battle, and often, both sides lose. This is a circumstance where experienced legal counsel can be invaluable as you navigate these potentially rocky waters. You would be well served to seek legal advice to discuss your intentions before making an actual move.

As always, remember conversations you have with counsel are typically protected by attorney-client privilege. It is always advisable to secure legal counsel to review the terms of an employment agreement, negotiate a fair termination/separation agreement, and serve as an advocate during this challenging career move.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at [email protected].

Leaving a job is never an easy decision, whether it is made voluntarily or not. A physician terminating a relationship with an employer may face emotionally charged conversations, difficult financial considerations, and long-term legal consequences. As you plan your exit strategy, it is critical for you to be aware of these issues and address them proactively with your employer. This can minimize hard feelings and surprises down the road for you, your former employer, and your colleagues.

In today’s competitive climate, a physician might work for several employers during the length of his or her career. With the tighter financial medical market and pressures from managed care mounting, employers are less likely to tolerate a nonproductive employee. Interoffice or personality conflicts may become intolerable for an unhappy or stressed physician. Physician turnover is a more common occurrence, and if not handled properly, it can be disruptive for all parties involved.

The following steps are meant for physicians contemplating leaving their place of employment or who may be asked to leave in the near future.

Step 1: Consider the Employment Agreement

Ideally, physician-separation matters are addressed preemptively when the physician enters the employer-employee relationship and signs an employment agreement. Thus, before contemplating a move, you should always start by reviewing the terms of your current employment agreement. A well-drafted employment agreement should specify the grounds for termination, both for cause (i.e. a specific set of reasons for immediate termination) and without cause (i.e. either party may terminate voluntarily). The agreement should specify the parties’ rights and obligations following a termination. These rights and obligations likely will vary depending on the basis for termination.

Typically, an employer will provide malpractice insurance for its physicians during the term of employment. However, physicians may be responsible for the cost of “tail coverage” upon the termination of employment. This is designed to protect the departing physician’s professional acts after leaving the employ of an employer with claims-made coverage. Because the coverage can be quite costly, a well-drafted employment agreement often will set forth which party is responsible for the procurement and payment of tail coverage. It is prudent for a departing physician to review the employment agreement to identify who has the affirmative obligation to provide the tail coverage, as it can be a costly surprise at termination.

The employment agreement also must be reviewed to determine the proper method to provide notice of termination (such as first-class mail, overnight courier, or hand delivery). Often, employment agreements will include a clause titled “Notice” that outlines the delivery method for proper notice to the employer.

Step 2: Consider a Termination/Separation Agreement

Entering into a termination agreement (sometimes referred to as a separation agreement) between the departing physician and the employer may address and resolve many of the outstanding issues that are not otherwise addressed in the employment agreement. A termination agreement may avoid unnecessary problems down the road and potentially acrimonious and costly litigation.

The termination agreement can fill in the gaps where the employment agreement is silent (or if an employment agreement does not exist). The key elements of a termination agreement often include:

• The effective date of the separation as well as what exactly is ending (e.g. employment, co-ownership, board membership, medical staff privileges);
• Payment and buyout terms;
• The physician’s removal from any management or administrative position (e.g. member of the governing board);
• Deferred compensation payments or severance pay that may need to be calculated and distributed;
• Employer obligations (if any) to provide the departing physician’s fringe benefits and business expenses, including retirement-plan contributions, health insurance, life insurance, medical dues, etc.; and
• Unused vacation days, bonuses, or expenses due.

If previously addressed in the employment agreement, the parties should reaffirm their respective rights and obligations regarding medical records, confidential information, noncompetition and nonsolicitation provisions. Otherwise, the termination agreement should identify the physician’s competitive and solicitation activities post-termination.

A noncompetition provision should include the geographic territory in which and the time period during which the departing physician cannot compete with the former employer. It is important to remember courts will render these provisions as unenforceable and invalid if improperly drafted or overly broad. It is common to see nondisparagement provisions, whereby each party agrees to refrain from making any negative or false statements regarding the other. Nondisclosure provisions are common as well with regards to what may be disclosed to third parties.

The separation agreement also should address the return of company property, including office key, credit card, computer, cell phone, and beeper. Patient records and charts should be completed and returned to the employer. Often, the departing physician will still be allowed reasonable access to patient records post-termination for certain authorized purposes (e.g. defending disciplinary actions, malpractice claims, and billing/payer claims and audits), usually at the physician’s own expense.

The termination agreement may also outline how patients will be notified about the physician’s departure. If a patient wishes to continue treatment with the departing physician, the former employer must be ready to transition the patient.

A well-written termination agreement will provide for mutual releases. However, there are often exclusions from the mutual releases, such as pre-termination date liabilities; medical malpractice claims resulting from the physician’s misconduct; or taxes, interests, and penalties covering the pre-termination date.

Step 3: Severance Pay

Depending on the circumstances surrounding the termination and employment agreements, a physician may be entitled to severance payments beginning on the date of termination and/or for a period of time post-termination. The departing physician should determine whether severance is appropriate and whether he or she is willing to forego severance payments in exchange for other benefits. Depending on the dollar amount and the physician’s career objectives, it may be worthwhile to sacrifice severance payments for a less onerous noncompete provision, for example.

Step 4: Take the High Road

Because you never know when your paths might cross with former coworkers or employers, it is always sensible to remain discreet and level-headed during this trying period. Although it is natural to discuss an impending move with others, a prudent physician will avoid water-cooler gossip.

In the event conflicts arise, limit the public disclosure of these disputes. Neither side wins the public relations battle, and often, both sides lose. This is a circumstance where experienced legal counsel can be invaluable as you navigate these potentially rocky waters. You would be well served to seek legal advice to discuss your intentions before making an actual move.

As always, remember conversations you have with counsel are typically protected by attorney-client privilege. It is always advisable to secure legal counsel to review the terms of an employment agreement, negotiate a fair termination/separation agreement, and serve as an advocate during this challenging career move.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at [email protected].

Dr. Tappenden

Health-care reform is on everyone’s mind these days, and SHM, along with numerous other groups, believes some reform goals can be achieved through the stomach.

Data show an effective program of nutritional intervention during a patient’s hospital stay can go a long way toward improving patient outcomes and reducing costs.¹ Hospitalists, however, often have little formal nutrition training. A multidisciplinary approach to patient nutrition that brings together multiple stakeholders—hospitalists, nurses, and dietitians—might effectively address this need with a team tactic, according to Melissa Parkhurst, MD, medical director of the hospital medicine section at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.¹

Between 20% and 50% of inpatients suffer from malnutrition.² Many patients, especially the elderly, are malnourished on admission. Many more become malnourished within a few days of their hospital stay due to NPO orders and the effects of disease on metabolism.2 Malnutrition has been associated with worsened discharge status, longer length of stay, higher costs, and greater mortality, as well as increased risk of:²

• Nosocomial infections;
• Falls;
• Pressure ulcers; and
• 30-day readmissions.

Dr. Tappenden

To address malnutrition prevalence and its detrimental effects, SHM and the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses (AMSN), the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), and Abbott Nutrition have formed the Alliance for Patient Nutrition. Kelly Tappenden, MD, PhD, professor of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana, says the alliance aims to raise awareness of the impact nutrition can have on patient outcomes (see “Three Steps to Better Nutrition,” below).

The campaign is being initiated with the publication of a consensus paper in several peer-reviewed journals. A baseline survey will be conducted among professionals represented in the alliance to assess their familiarity with the prevalence of malnutrition in a hospital setting. The next step is to foster this change in patient care by providing resources on the alliance’s website (www.malnutrition.com), including malnutrition screening tools, a toolkit to facilitate multidisciplinary collaboration, and continuing medical education (CME) information.

Dr. Parkhurst

As a founding member of the alliance, SHM is communicating this message to its members, encouraging hospitalists to lead the way in transforming hospital culture to recognize the critical role nutrition plays in patient care.

“Nutrition matters,” Dr. Parkhurst says. “You can be winning the battle and losing the war if you are not paying attention to patient nutrition.”

Team Approach

Dr. Quatrara

Beth Quatrara, DNP, RN, director of the nursing research program at the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville and nursing spokesperson for the alliance, says several shortcomings can be identified in the nutritional care U.S. hospitals provide from admission through discharge and beyond. For example, the Joint Commission requires that all patients be screened for malnutrition risk within 48 hours of admission. But screening is often as cursory as looking at the patient and deciding that he or she “looks fine.” Diets often are set for patients with no thought to taste, texture, or cultural preferences, or even to such practical matters as ascertaining whether the patient has dentures, Quatrara says. Meal trays are left when patients are out of their rooms for procedures and retrieved by dietary staff before patients return. And except for calorie count orders, accurate records often are not kept of actual food consumption.

The alliance, which is made possible with support from Abbott's nutrition business, recommends that physicians implement a three-step plan to improve patient outcomes. The approach begins with an evaluation of a patient’s nutritional status on admission using a simple, validated screening tool, such as the Malnutrition Screening Tool. When an at-risk status is determined, a more in-depth screening is performed. “When patients at risk for malnutrition can be identified faster, appropriate interventions can be put into place sooner,” Quatrara says.

The second step is nutrition intervention with a personalized nutritional care plan that takes into account the individual’s health conditions, caloric needs, physical limitations, tastes, and preferences. An interdisciplinary team approach can transform hospital nutrition, bringing together hospitalists, nurses, nursing assistants, registered dietitians, and the dietary staff to collaboratively develop a nutrition care plan that will be central to patient’s overall treatment, Dr. Tappenden says.

“There is a science behind nutrition and metabolic care,” Dr. Tappenden says. “Just like any other aspect of patient care, we can’t just throw out a blanket solution.”

But nutritional care cannot stop with developing this plan at the outset. Patients must be rescreened throughout their time at the hospital to measure any changes in nutritional status due to disease progression or treatment success.

For optimal impact, all members of the nutritional care team—nurses, nursing assistants, dietary support staff, and family members—should take responsibility for an essential component of the patient’s care: tracking and reporting consumption to the physician to open a dialogue about balancing an individual’s needs with tastes and preferences.

The hospitalist’s final step is developing a discharge plan that includes nutrition care and education so that patients, families, and caregivers can implement better nutrition at home.

“Nutrition makes sense,” Dr. Tappenden says. “Everything we are working toward in healthcare reform can be achieved by taking more care to make nutrition part of the solution.”

Maybelle Cowan-Lincoln is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Kirkland LL, Kashiwagi DT, Brantley S, Scheurer D, Varkey P. Nutrition in the hospitalized patient. J Hosp Med. 2013;8:52-58.
2. Alliance for Patient Nutrition. Malnutrition Backgrounder.
3. Banks M, Bauer J, Graves N, Ash S. Malnutrition and pressure ulcer risk in adults in Australian health care facilities. Clin Nutr. 2010;26:896-901.
4. Fry DE, Pine M, Jones BL, Meimban RJ. Patient characteristics and the occurrence of never events. Arch Surg. 2010;145:148-151.
5. Gariballa S, Forster S, Walters S, Powers H. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of nutritional supplementation during acute illness. Am J Med. 2006;119:693-699.
6. Neelemaat F, Lips P, Bosmans J, Thijs A, Seidell JC, van Bokhorst-de van der Schuerer MA. Short-term oral nutritional intervention with protein and vitamin D decreases falls in malnourished older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:691-699.
7. Brugler L, DiPrinzio MJ, Bernstein L. The five-year evolution of a malnutrition treatment program in a community hospital. J Qual Improv. 1999;25:191-206.
8. Stratton PJ, et al. Enteral nutritional support in prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. 2005;4:422-450.
9. Lawson RM, Doshi MK, Barton JR, Cobden I. The effect of unselected post-operative nutritional supplementation on nutritional status and clinical outcomes of elderly orthopaedic patients. Clin Nutr. 2003;22:39-46.

Dr. Tappenden

Health-care reform is on everyone’s mind these days, and SHM, along with numerous other groups, believes some reform goals can be achieved through the stomach.

Data show an effective program of nutritional intervention during a patient’s hospital stay can go a long way toward improving patient outcomes and reducing costs.¹ Hospitalists, however, often have little formal nutrition training. A multidisciplinary approach to patient nutrition that brings together multiple stakeholders—hospitalists, nurses, and dietitians—might effectively address this need with a team tactic, according to Melissa Parkhurst, MD, medical director of the hospital medicine section at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.¹

Between 20% and 50% of inpatients suffer from malnutrition.² Many patients, especially the elderly, are malnourished on admission. Many more become malnourished within a few days of their hospital stay due to NPO orders and the effects of disease on metabolism.2 Malnutrition has been associated with worsened discharge status, longer length of stay, higher costs, and greater mortality, as well as increased risk of:²

• Nosocomial infections;
• Falls;
• Pressure ulcers; and
• 30-day readmissions.

Dr. Tappenden

To address malnutrition prevalence and its detrimental effects, SHM and the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses (AMSN), the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), and Abbott Nutrition have formed the Alliance for Patient Nutrition. Kelly Tappenden, MD, PhD, professor of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana, says the alliance aims to raise awareness of the impact nutrition can have on patient outcomes (see “Three Steps to Better Nutrition,” below).

The campaign is being initiated with the publication of a consensus paper in several peer-reviewed journals. A baseline survey will be conducted among professionals represented in the alliance to assess their familiarity with the prevalence of malnutrition in a hospital setting. The next step is to foster this change in patient care by providing resources on the alliance’s website (www.malnutrition.com), including malnutrition screening tools, a toolkit to facilitate multidisciplinary collaboration, and continuing medical education (CME) information.

Dr. Parkhurst

As a founding member of the alliance, SHM is communicating this message to its members, encouraging hospitalists to lead the way in transforming hospital culture to recognize the critical role nutrition plays in patient care.

“Nutrition matters,” Dr. Parkhurst says. “You can be winning the battle and losing the war if you are not paying attention to patient nutrition.”

Team Approach

Dr. Quatrara

Beth Quatrara, DNP, RN, director of the nursing research program at the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville and nursing spokesperson for the alliance, says several shortcomings can be identified in the nutritional care U.S. hospitals provide from admission through discharge and beyond. For example, the Joint Commission requires that all patients be screened for malnutrition risk within 48 hours of admission. But screening is often as cursory as looking at the patient and deciding that he or she “looks fine.” Diets often are set for patients with no thought to taste, texture, or cultural preferences, or even to such practical matters as ascertaining whether the patient has dentures, Quatrara says. Meal trays are left when patients are out of their rooms for procedures and retrieved by dietary staff before patients return. And except for calorie count orders, accurate records often are not kept of actual food consumption.

The alliance, which is made possible with support from Abbott's nutrition business, recommends that physicians implement a three-step plan to improve patient outcomes. The approach begins with an evaluation of a patient’s nutritional status on admission using a simple, validated screening tool, such as the Malnutrition Screening Tool. When an at-risk status is determined, a more in-depth screening is performed. “When patients at risk for malnutrition can be identified faster, appropriate interventions can be put into place sooner,” Quatrara says.

The second step is nutrition intervention with a personalized nutritional care plan that takes into account the individual’s health conditions, caloric needs, physical limitations, tastes, and preferences. An interdisciplinary team approach can transform hospital nutrition, bringing together hospitalists, nurses, nursing assistants, registered dietitians, and the dietary staff to collaboratively develop a nutrition care plan that will be central to patient’s overall treatment, Dr. Tappenden says.

“There is a science behind nutrition and metabolic care,” Dr. Tappenden says. “Just like any other aspect of patient care, we can’t just throw out a blanket solution.”

But nutritional care cannot stop with developing this plan at the outset. Patients must be rescreened throughout their time at the hospital to measure any changes in nutritional status due to disease progression or treatment success.

For optimal impact, all members of the nutritional care team—nurses, nursing assistants, dietary support staff, and family members—should take responsibility for an essential component of the patient’s care: tracking and reporting consumption to the physician to open a dialogue about balancing an individual’s needs with tastes and preferences.

The hospitalist’s final step is developing a discharge plan that includes nutrition care and education so that patients, families, and caregivers can implement better nutrition at home.

“Nutrition makes sense,” Dr. Tappenden says. “Everything we are working toward in healthcare reform can be achieved by taking more care to make nutrition part of the solution.”

Maybelle Cowan-Lincoln is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Kirkland LL, Kashiwagi DT, Brantley S, Scheurer D, Varkey P. Nutrition in the hospitalized patient. J Hosp Med. 2013;8:52-58.
2. Alliance for Patient Nutrition. Malnutrition Backgrounder.
3. Banks M, Bauer J, Graves N, Ash S. Malnutrition and pressure ulcer risk in adults in Australian health care facilities. Clin Nutr. 2010;26:896-901.
4. Fry DE, Pine M, Jones BL, Meimban RJ. Patient characteristics and the occurrence of never events. Arch Surg. 2010;145:148-151.
5. Gariballa S, Forster S, Walters S, Powers H. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of nutritional supplementation during acute illness. Am J Med. 2006;119:693-699.
6. Neelemaat F, Lips P, Bosmans J, Thijs A, Seidell JC, van Bokhorst-de van der Schuerer MA. Short-term oral nutritional intervention with protein and vitamin D decreases falls in malnourished older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:691-699.
7. Brugler L, DiPrinzio MJ, Bernstein L. The five-year evolution of a malnutrition treatment program in a community hospital. J Qual Improv. 1999;25:191-206.
8. Stratton PJ, et al. Enteral nutritional support in prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. 2005;4:422-450.
9. Lawson RM, Doshi MK, Barton JR, Cobden I. The effect of unselected post-operative nutritional supplementation on nutritional status and clinical outcomes of elderly orthopaedic patients. Clin Nutr. 2003;22:39-46.

Dr. Tappenden

Health-care reform is on everyone’s mind these days, and SHM, along with numerous other groups, believes some reform goals can be achieved through the stomach.

Data show an effective program of nutritional intervention during a patient’s hospital stay can go a long way toward improving patient outcomes and reducing costs.¹ Hospitalists, however, often have little formal nutrition training. A multidisciplinary approach to patient nutrition that brings together multiple stakeholders—hospitalists, nurses, and dietitians—might effectively address this need with a team tactic, according to Melissa Parkhurst, MD, medical director of the hospital medicine section at the University of Kansas Medical Center in Kansas City.¹

Between 20% and 50% of inpatients suffer from malnutrition.² Many patients, especially the elderly, are malnourished on admission. Many more become malnourished within a few days of their hospital stay due to NPO orders and the effects of disease on metabolism.2 Malnutrition has been associated with worsened discharge status, longer length of stay, higher costs, and greater mortality, as well as increased risk of:²

• Nosocomial infections;
• Falls;
• Pressure ulcers; and
• 30-day readmissions.

Dr. Tappenden

To address malnutrition prevalence and its detrimental effects, SHM and the Academy of Medical-Surgical Nurses (AMSN), the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (AND), the American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (ASPEN), and Abbott Nutrition have formed the Alliance for Patient Nutrition. Kelly Tappenden, MD, PhD, professor of food science and human nutrition at the University of Illinois at Urbana, says the alliance aims to raise awareness of the impact nutrition can have on patient outcomes (see “Three Steps to Better Nutrition,” below).

The campaign is being initiated with the publication of a consensus paper in several peer-reviewed journals. A baseline survey will be conducted among professionals represented in the alliance to assess their familiarity with the prevalence of malnutrition in a hospital setting. The next step is to foster this change in patient care by providing resources on the alliance’s website (www.malnutrition.com), including malnutrition screening tools, a toolkit to facilitate multidisciplinary collaboration, and continuing medical education (CME) information.

Dr. Parkhurst

As a founding member of the alliance, SHM is communicating this message to its members, encouraging hospitalists to lead the way in transforming hospital culture to recognize the critical role nutrition plays in patient care.

“Nutrition matters,” Dr. Parkhurst says. “You can be winning the battle and losing the war if you are not paying attention to patient nutrition.”

Team Approach

Dr. Quatrara

Beth Quatrara, DNP, RN, director of the nursing research program at the University of Virginia Health System in Charlottesville and nursing spokesperson for the alliance, says several shortcomings can be identified in the nutritional care U.S. hospitals provide from admission through discharge and beyond. For example, the Joint Commission requires that all patients be screened for malnutrition risk within 48 hours of admission. But screening is often as cursory as looking at the patient and deciding that he or she “looks fine.” Diets often are set for patients with no thought to taste, texture, or cultural preferences, or even to such practical matters as ascertaining whether the patient has dentures, Quatrara says. Meal trays are left when patients are out of their rooms for procedures and retrieved by dietary staff before patients return. And except for calorie count orders, accurate records often are not kept of actual food consumption.

The alliance, which is made possible with support from Abbott's nutrition business, recommends that physicians implement a three-step plan to improve patient outcomes. The approach begins with an evaluation of a patient’s nutritional status on admission using a simple, validated screening tool, such as the Malnutrition Screening Tool. When an at-risk status is determined, a more in-depth screening is performed. “When patients at risk for malnutrition can be identified faster, appropriate interventions can be put into place sooner,” Quatrara says.

The second step is nutrition intervention with a personalized nutritional care plan that takes into account the individual’s health conditions, caloric needs, physical limitations, tastes, and preferences. An interdisciplinary team approach can transform hospital nutrition, bringing together hospitalists, nurses, nursing assistants, registered dietitians, and the dietary staff to collaboratively develop a nutrition care plan that will be central to patient’s overall treatment, Dr. Tappenden says.

“There is a science behind nutrition and metabolic care,” Dr. Tappenden says. “Just like any other aspect of patient care, we can’t just throw out a blanket solution.”

But nutritional care cannot stop with developing this plan at the outset. Patients must be rescreened throughout their time at the hospital to measure any changes in nutritional status due to disease progression or treatment success.

For optimal impact, all members of the nutritional care team—nurses, nursing assistants, dietary support staff, and family members—should take responsibility for an essential component of the patient’s care: tracking and reporting consumption to the physician to open a dialogue about balancing an individual’s needs with tastes and preferences.

The hospitalist’s final step is developing a discharge plan that includes nutrition care and education so that patients, families, and caregivers can implement better nutrition at home.

“Nutrition makes sense,” Dr. Tappenden says. “Everything we are working toward in healthcare reform can be achieved by taking more care to make nutrition part of the solution.”

Maybelle Cowan-Lincoln is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Kirkland LL, Kashiwagi DT, Brantley S, Scheurer D, Varkey P. Nutrition in the hospitalized patient. J Hosp Med. 2013;8:52-58.
2. Alliance for Patient Nutrition. Malnutrition Backgrounder.
3. Banks M, Bauer J, Graves N, Ash S. Malnutrition and pressure ulcer risk in adults in Australian health care facilities. Clin Nutr. 2010;26:896-901.
4. Fry DE, Pine M, Jones BL, Meimban RJ. Patient characteristics and the occurrence of never events. Arch Surg. 2010;145:148-151.
5. Gariballa S, Forster S, Walters S, Powers H. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of nutritional supplementation during acute illness. Am J Med. 2006;119:693-699.
6. Neelemaat F, Lips P, Bosmans J, Thijs A, Seidell JC, van Bokhorst-de van der Schuerer MA. Short-term oral nutritional intervention with protein and vitamin D decreases falls in malnourished older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012;60:691-699.
7. Brugler L, DiPrinzio MJ, Bernstein L. The five-year evolution of a malnutrition treatment program in a community hospital. J Qual Improv. 1999;25:191-206.
8. Stratton PJ, et al. Enteral nutritional support in prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ageing Res Rev. 2005;4:422-450.
9. Lawson RM, Doshi MK, Barton JR, Cobden I. The effect of unselected post-operative nutritional supplementation on nutritional status and clinical outcomes of elderly orthopaedic patients. Clin Nutr. 2003;22:39-46.

Empathy: ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

In today’s increasingly hyper-measured healthcare world, we are looking more and more at measures of patient outcomes. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) touts the Triple Aim principle as the lens through which we should be approaching our work. The Triple Aim is the three-part goal and simultaneous focus of improving the health of the community and our patients, improving affordability of care, and finally and perhaps most elusively, improving the patient experience. Who wouldn’t want to hit on these admirable goals? How do we do it?

In approaching the health aspect of the Triple Aim, we, as hospitalists, have tried-and-true frameworks of process improvement. Clinical research and peer-reviewed publication advance the knowledge of what medicines and procedures can improve care. Although powerful and generally truthful, this system results in a slow diffusion of practice improvement, not to mention idiosyncratic and nonstandardized care. This has led to a new toolkit of improvement techniques: continuous quality improvement, Lean, and Six Sigma. We learn and adopt these and watch our scores go up at a steady pace.

Improving affordability has its challenges, some huge, like our basic cultural ethos that “more is better.” Yet affordability is still something we can grasp. It is rooted in systems we are all familiar with, from basic personal finance to resource allocation to generally accepted accounting principles. We all can grasp that the current system of pay for widgets is teetering at the edge, just waiting for a shove from CMS to send it to its doom. Once this happens, affordability likely will become something we can start to make serious headway against.

Improving the experience of patients and families is perhaps the toughest of the three and where I would like to focus.

Patients First

First, a question: Are experience scores reflective of the true experience of a patient?

Two weeks after discharge, when patients receive their HCAHPS questionnaire in the mail, do they remember the details of their stay? And who was their doctor anyway? The cardiologist who placed a stent? The on-call doctor? The hospitalist who visited them every morning? If all we focus on is the scores, and we lack faith that the scores represent the true experience of patients, then how can we ever truly create a more satisfying experience for our patients?

I believe that the answer lies with empathy. What’s unique about this part of the Triple Aim is that many of the answers are within us. Gaining empathy with our patients requires us to ask questions of them and also to ask questions of ourselves. It requires us to invoke ancient methods of learning and thinking, like walking in another’s shoes for a day or using the Golden Rule. Experience doesn’t lend itself to being taught by PowerPoint. It must be lived and channeled back and out through our emotional selves as empathy.

Using the wisdom of patients themselves is one way to understand their needs and develop the empathy to motivate us to change how we do things in health care. Many organizations around the country have used some form of patient focus group to help learn from patients. Park Nicollet, a large health system in Minnesota, has incorporated family councils in nearly every clinic and care area. They usually are patients or caregivers from the area, bound together by a common disease or location. They dedicate their time, often meeting monthly, to share their stories, give opinions on care processes, and even to shape the design of a care area. Currently, there are more than 100 patient councils in the system, and the number continues to grow.

Film, when done skillfully, is a powerful tool in helping us gain empathy. The Cleveland Clinic has produced an amazing short film called “Empathy: The Human Connection to Patient Care.” It follows patients, families, and staff through the care system. As the camera focuses on each person, floating text appears near them, explaining their situation, inner thoughts, or fears, all overlaid by an emotional piano score. Tears will flow. Understanding follows.

Jim Merlino, MD, Cleveland Clinic’s chief experience officer, explains, “We need to understand that being on the other side of health care is frightening, and our job, our responsibility as people responsible for other people, is to help ease that fear.” Cleveland Clinic has done a remarkable job in reminding us why we went in to health care.

Morgan Spurlock of “Super Size Me” fame produced a reality series called “30 Days.” In each episode, a participant spent 30 days in the shoes of another. In the “Life in a Wheelchair” episode, Super Bowl-winning football player Ray Crockett lives in a wheelchair for 30 days and explores what it is like going through recovery and the healthcare system. He meets several rehabbing paraplegics and quadriplegics and accompanies them through their daily lives at home and the hospital. Viewers gain empathy directly in seeing these patients struggle to get better and work with the healthcare system. We also gain empathy watching Crockett gain empathy. The combination is powerful.

In Patients’ Shoes

In addition to listening and observation, we can begin to literally walk in the shoes of our patients.

I recently attended IHI’s International Forum in London. The National Health Service (NHS) in England is using a new tool to help providers understand what it is like for geriatric patients who must navigate the healthcare system with diminished senses and capabilities. Providers put on an age-simulation suit (www.age-simulation-suit.com) that mimics the impairments of aging. Special goggles fog the vision and narrow the visual field. Head mobility is reduced so that it becomes difficult to see beyond the field cuts. Earmuffs reduce high-frequency hearing and the ability to understand speech clearly. The overall suit impedes motion and reduces strength. Thick gloves make it difficult to coordinate fine motions. Wearing this suit and trying to go through a hospital or clinic setting instantly makes the wearer gain empathy for our patients’ needs.

Most important, be a patient. SHM immediate past president Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM, whose personal mission during his tenure was to help the society understand patient experience, explained it best to me. “In one episode in the hospital with a family member, I learned more about patient experience than all the reading and self-educating I have been doing for the last year.”

I think any of us who have been a patient in the hospital, or accompanied a loved one, comes out frustrated that the healthcare system is so convoluted and lacking in clarity for patients. Then there is often a sense of renewal, hopefully,followed by evangelism to spread their newfound empathy to others in the system.

In our busy work lives as hospitalists, it isn’t easy turning our daily focus away from efficiency and productivity. Yet we must always remain mindful of that core idea every one of us wrote down as the heart of our personal statements on our applications to medical school. Do you remember writing something like this? “I want to help people and relieve suffering in their time of need.”

Empathy is the start of our work.

Dr. Kealey is medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn. He is an SHM board member and SHM president-elect.

Empathy: ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

In today’s increasingly hyper-measured healthcare world, we are looking more and more at measures of patient outcomes. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) touts the Triple Aim principle as the lens through which we should be approaching our work. The Triple Aim is the three-part goal and simultaneous focus of improving the health of the community and our patients, improving affordability of care, and finally and perhaps most elusively, improving the patient experience. Who wouldn’t want to hit on these admirable goals? How do we do it?

In approaching the health aspect of the Triple Aim, we, as hospitalists, have tried-and-true frameworks of process improvement. Clinical research and peer-reviewed publication advance the knowledge of what medicines and procedures can improve care. Although powerful and generally truthful, this system results in a slow diffusion of practice improvement, not to mention idiosyncratic and nonstandardized care. This has led to a new toolkit of improvement techniques: continuous quality improvement, Lean, and Six Sigma. We learn and adopt these and watch our scores go up at a steady pace.

Improving affordability has its challenges, some huge, like our basic cultural ethos that “more is better.” Yet affordability is still something we can grasp. It is rooted in systems we are all familiar with, from basic personal finance to resource allocation to generally accepted accounting principles. We all can grasp that the current system of pay for widgets is teetering at the edge, just waiting for a shove from CMS to send it to its doom. Once this happens, affordability likely will become something we can start to make serious headway against.

Improving the experience of patients and families is perhaps the toughest of the three and where I would like to focus.

Patients First

First, a question: Are experience scores reflective of the true experience of a patient?

Two weeks after discharge, when patients receive their HCAHPS questionnaire in the mail, do they remember the details of their stay? And who was their doctor anyway? The cardiologist who placed a stent? The on-call doctor? The hospitalist who visited them every morning? If all we focus on is the scores, and we lack faith that the scores represent the true experience of patients, then how can we ever truly create a more satisfying experience for our patients?

I believe that the answer lies with empathy. What’s unique about this part of the Triple Aim is that many of the answers are within us. Gaining empathy with our patients requires us to ask questions of them and also to ask questions of ourselves. It requires us to invoke ancient methods of learning and thinking, like walking in another’s shoes for a day or using the Golden Rule. Experience doesn’t lend itself to being taught by PowerPoint. It must be lived and channeled back and out through our emotional selves as empathy.

Using the wisdom of patients themselves is one way to understand their needs and develop the empathy to motivate us to change how we do things in health care. Many organizations around the country have used some form of patient focus group to help learn from patients. Park Nicollet, a large health system in Minnesota, has incorporated family councils in nearly every clinic and care area. They usually are patients or caregivers from the area, bound together by a common disease or location. They dedicate their time, often meeting monthly, to share their stories, give opinions on care processes, and even to shape the design of a care area. Currently, there are more than 100 patient councils in the system, and the number continues to grow.

Film, when done skillfully, is a powerful tool in helping us gain empathy. The Cleveland Clinic has produced an amazing short film called “Empathy: The Human Connection to Patient Care.” It follows patients, families, and staff through the care system. As the camera focuses on each person, floating text appears near them, explaining their situation, inner thoughts, or fears, all overlaid by an emotional piano score. Tears will flow. Understanding follows.

Jim Merlino, MD, Cleveland Clinic’s chief experience officer, explains, “We need to understand that being on the other side of health care is frightening, and our job, our responsibility as people responsible for other people, is to help ease that fear.” Cleveland Clinic has done a remarkable job in reminding us why we went in to health care.

Morgan Spurlock of “Super Size Me” fame produced a reality series called “30 Days.” In each episode, a participant spent 30 days in the shoes of another. In the “Life in a Wheelchair” episode, Super Bowl-winning football player Ray Crockett lives in a wheelchair for 30 days and explores what it is like going through recovery and the healthcare system. He meets several rehabbing paraplegics and quadriplegics and accompanies them through their daily lives at home and the hospital. Viewers gain empathy directly in seeing these patients struggle to get better and work with the healthcare system. We also gain empathy watching Crockett gain empathy. The combination is powerful.

In Patients’ Shoes

In addition to listening and observation, we can begin to literally walk in the shoes of our patients.

I recently attended IHI’s International Forum in London. The National Health Service (NHS) in England is using a new tool to help providers understand what it is like for geriatric patients who must navigate the healthcare system with diminished senses and capabilities. Providers put on an age-simulation suit (www.age-simulation-suit.com) that mimics the impairments of aging. Special goggles fog the vision and narrow the visual field. Head mobility is reduced so that it becomes difficult to see beyond the field cuts. Earmuffs reduce high-frequency hearing and the ability to understand speech clearly. The overall suit impedes motion and reduces strength. Thick gloves make it difficult to coordinate fine motions. Wearing this suit and trying to go through a hospital or clinic setting instantly makes the wearer gain empathy for our patients’ needs.

Most important, be a patient. SHM immediate past president Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM, whose personal mission during his tenure was to help the society understand patient experience, explained it best to me. “In one episode in the hospital with a family member, I learned more about patient experience than all the reading and self-educating I have been doing for the last year.”

I think any of us who have been a patient in the hospital, or accompanied a loved one, comes out frustrated that the healthcare system is so convoluted and lacking in clarity for patients. Then there is often a sense of renewal, hopefully,followed by evangelism to spread their newfound empathy to others in the system.

In our busy work lives as hospitalists, it isn’t easy turning our daily focus away from efficiency and productivity. Yet we must always remain mindful of that core idea every one of us wrote down as the heart of our personal statements on our applications to medical school. Do you remember writing something like this? “I want to help people and relieve suffering in their time of need.”

Empathy is the start of our work.

Dr. Kealey is medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn. He is an SHM board member and SHM president-elect.

Empathy: ability to understand and share the feelings of another.

In today’s increasingly hyper-measured healthcare world, we are looking more and more at measures of patient outcomes. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) touts the Triple Aim principle as the lens through which we should be approaching our work. The Triple Aim is the three-part goal and simultaneous focus of improving the health of the community and our patients, improving affordability of care, and finally and perhaps most elusively, improving the patient experience. Who wouldn’t want to hit on these admirable goals? How do we do it?

In approaching the health aspect of the Triple Aim, we, as hospitalists, have tried-and-true frameworks of process improvement. Clinical research and peer-reviewed publication advance the knowledge of what medicines and procedures can improve care. Although powerful and generally truthful, this system results in a slow diffusion of practice improvement, not to mention idiosyncratic and nonstandardized care. This has led to a new toolkit of improvement techniques: continuous quality improvement, Lean, and Six Sigma. We learn and adopt these and watch our scores go up at a steady pace.

Improving affordability has its challenges, some huge, like our basic cultural ethos that “more is better.” Yet affordability is still something we can grasp. It is rooted in systems we are all familiar with, from basic personal finance to resource allocation to generally accepted accounting principles. We all can grasp that the current system of pay for widgets is teetering at the edge, just waiting for a shove from CMS to send it to its doom. Once this happens, affordability likely will become something we can start to make serious headway against.

Improving the experience of patients and families is perhaps the toughest of the three and where I would like to focus.

Patients First

First, a question: Are experience scores reflective of the true experience of a patient?

Two weeks after discharge, when patients receive their HCAHPS questionnaire in the mail, do they remember the details of their stay? And who was their doctor anyway? The cardiologist who placed a stent? The on-call doctor? The hospitalist who visited them every morning? If all we focus on is the scores, and we lack faith that the scores represent the true experience of patients, then how can we ever truly create a more satisfying experience for our patients?

I believe that the answer lies with empathy. What’s unique about this part of the Triple Aim is that many of the answers are within us. Gaining empathy with our patients requires us to ask questions of them and also to ask questions of ourselves. It requires us to invoke ancient methods of learning and thinking, like walking in another’s shoes for a day or using the Golden Rule. Experience doesn’t lend itself to being taught by PowerPoint. It must be lived and channeled back and out through our emotional selves as empathy.

Using the wisdom of patients themselves is one way to understand their needs and develop the empathy to motivate us to change how we do things in health care. Many organizations around the country have used some form of patient focus group to help learn from patients. Park Nicollet, a large health system in Minnesota, has incorporated family councils in nearly every clinic and care area. They usually are patients or caregivers from the area, bound together by a common disease or location. They dedicate their time, often meeting monthly, to share their stories, give opinions on care processes, and even to shape the design of a care area. Currently, there are more than 100 patient councils in the system, and the number continues to grow.

Film, when done skillfully, is a powerful tool in helping us gain empathy. The Cleveland Clinic has produced an amazing short film called “Empathy: The Human Connection to Patient Care.” It follows patients, families, and staff through the care system. As the camera focuses on each person, floating text appears near them, explaining their situation, inner thoughts, or fears, all overlaid by an emotional piano score. Tears will flow. Understanding follows.

Jim Merlino, MD, Cleveland Clinic’s chief experience officer, explains, “We need to understand that being on the other side of health care is frightening, and our job, our responsibility as people responsible for other people, is to help ease that fear.” Cleveland Clinic has done a remarkable job in reminding us why we went in to health care.

Morgan Spurlock of “Super Size Me” fame produced a reality series called “30 Days.” In each episode, a participant spent 30 days in the shoes of another. In the “Life in a Wheelchair” episode, Super Bowl-winning football player Ray Crockett lives in a wheelchair for 30 days and explores what it is like going through recovery and the healthcare system. He meets several rehabbing paraplegics and quadriplegics and accompanies them through their daily lives at home and the hospital. Viewers gain empathy directly in seeing these patients struggle to get better and work with the healthcare system. We also gain empathy watching Crockett gain empathy. The combination is powerful.

In Patients’ Shoes

In addition to listening and observation, we can begin to literally walk in the shoes of our patients.

I recently attended IHI’s International Forum in London. The National Health Service (NHS) in England is using a new tool to help providers understand what it is like for geriatric patients who must navigate the healthcare system with diminished senses and capabilities. Providers put on an age-simulation suit (www.age-simulation-suit.com) that mimics the impairments of aging. Special goggles fog the vision and narrow the visual field. Head mobility is reduced so that it becomes difficult to see beyond the field cuts. Earmuffs reduce high-frequency hearing and the ability to understand speech clearly. The overall suit impedes motion and reduces strength. Thick gloves make it difficult to coordinate fine motions. Wearing this suit and trying to go through a hospital or clinic setting instantly makes the wearer gain empathy for our patients’ needs.

Most important, be a patient. SHM immediate past president Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM, whose personal mission during his tenure was to help the society understand patient experience, explained it best to me. “In one episode in the hospital with a family member, I learned more about patient experience than all the reading and self-educating I have been doing for the last year.”

I think any of us who have been a patient in the hospital, or accompanied a loved one, comes out frustrated that the healthcare system is so convoluted and lacking in clarity for patients. Then there is often a sense of renewal, hopefully,followed by evangelism to spread their newfound empathy to others in the system.

In our busy work lives as hospitalists, it isn’t easy turning our daily focus away from efficiency and productivity. Yet we must always remain mindful of that core idea every one of us wrote down as the heart of our personal statements on our applications to medical school. Do you remember writing something like this? “I want to help people and relieve suffering in their time of need.”

Empathy is the start of our work.

Dr. Kealey is medical director of hospital specialties at HealthPartners Medical Group in St. Paul, Minn. He is an SHM board member and SHM president-elect.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released a few Fact Sheets on how they anticipate funding changes on a few of their programs that were implemented (or sustained) under the Affordable Care Act. As a background, CMS pays most acute-care hospitals by prospectively determining payment based on a patient’s diagnosis and the severity of illness within that diagnosis (e.g. “MS-DRG”). These payment amounts are updated annually after evaluating several factors, including the costs associated with the delivery of care.

One of the most major changes described in the Fact Sheet that will affect hospitalists is how CMS will review inpatient stays based on the number of nights in the hospital. CMS has proposed that any patient who stays in the hospital for two or more “midnights” should be appropriate for payment under Medicare Part A. For those who stay in the hospital for only one (or zero) midnights, payment under Medicare Part A will only be appropriate if:

1. There is sufficient documentation at the time of admission that the anticipated length of stay is two or more nights; and.
2. Further documentation that circumstances changed, and the hospital stay ended prematurely because of those changes.

Overall for hospitalists, this should substantially simplify the admitting process, whereby most inpatients being admitted with the anticipation of two or more nights should qualify for an inpatient stay. This also reduces the administrative burden of correcting the “inpatient” versus “observation” designation, which keeps many hospital staffs entirely too busy. This change also should relieve a significant burden from the patients and their families, who if kept in observation for a period of time, may have to pay substantially out of pocket to make up for the difference between the cost of the stay and the reimbursement from CMS for observation status. So this is one of the moves that CMS is making to simplify (and not complicate) an already too-complicated payment system. This should go into effect October 2013 and will be a sigh of much relief from many of us.

A few other anticipated changes that will affect hospitalists include:

Payments for Unfunded Care

Another major change that will go into affect October 2013 is the amount of monies received by hospitals that care for unfunded patients. These payments historically have been made to “Disproportionate Share Hospitals” (DSH), which are hospitals that care for a higher percentage of unfunded patients. Under the Affordable Care Act, only 25% of these payments will be distributed to DSH hospitals; the remaining 75% will be reduced based on the number of uninsured in the U.S., then redistributed to DSH hospitals based on their portion of uninsured care delivered.

Most DSH hospitals should expect a decrease in DSH payments, the amount of which will depend on their share of unfunded patients.

Any reduction in the “bottom line” to the hospital can affect hospitalists, especially those who are directly employed by the hospital.

Hospital-Acquired Conditions

CMS has long had the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) program in effect, which has the ability to reduce the amount of payment for inpatients who acquire a HAC during their hospital stay. Starting in October 2014, CMS will impose additional financial penalties for hospitals with high HAC rates.

Specifically, those hospitals in the highest 25th percentile of HAC rates will be penalized 1% of their overall CMS payments. Another proposed change is that the following be included in the HAC reduction plan (two “domains” of measures):

• Domain No. 1: Six of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), including pressure ulcers, foreign bodies left in after surgery, iatrogenic pneumothorax, postoperative physiologic or metabolic derangements, postoperative VTE, and accidental puncture/laceration.
• Domain No. 2: Central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).

The domains will be weighted equally, and an average score will determine the total score. There will be some methodology for risk adjustment, and hospitals will be given a review and comment period to validate their own scores.

Most hospitalists have at least indirect control over many of these HACs,and all need to pay very close attention to their hospital’s rates of these now and in the future.

Readmissions

As we all know, the Hospital Readmission Reduction program went into effect October 2012; it placed 1% of CMS payments at risk. This will increase to 2% of payments as of October 2013. CMS will continue to use AMI, CHF, and pneumonia as the three conditions under which the readmissions are measured but will put in some methodology to account for planned readmissions.

In addition, in October 2014, they plan to add readmission rates for COPD and for hip/knee arthroplasty.

Hospitalists will continue to need to progress their transitions of care programs, at least for these five patients conditions but more likely (and more effectively) for all hospital discharges.

Quality Measures

Currently more than 99% of acute-care hospitals participate in the pay-for-reporting quality program through CMS, the results of which have been displayed on the Hospital Compare website (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov) for years. The program started in 2004 with 10 quality metrics and now includes 57 metrics. These include process and outcome measures for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia, as well as process measures for surgical care, HACs, and patient-satisfaction surveys, among others.

This program will continue to expand over time, including hospital-acquired MRSA and Clostridium difficile rates. The few hospitals not participating will have their CMS annual payments reduced by 2%.

EHR Incentives

CMS is evaluating ways to reduce the burden of reporting by aligning EHR incentives with the Inpatient Quality Reporting program.

Summary

After an open commentary period, the Final Rule will be published Aug. 1, and will become effective for discharges on or after Oct. 1. Although CMS will continue to expand the total number of measures that need to be reported, and the penalties for non-reporting or low performance will continue to escalate, CMS is at least attempting to reduce the overall burden of reporting by combining measures and programs over time and using EHRs to facilitate the bulk of reporting over time.

The global message to hospitalists is: Continue to focus on reducing the burden of HACs, enhance throughput, and carefully and thoughtfully transition patients to the next provider after their hospital discharge. All in all, although at times this can feel overwhelming, these changes represent the right direction to move for high-quality and safe patient care.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. Fact Sheets: CMS proposals to improve quality of care during hospital inpatient stays. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid website. Available at: www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=4586&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&srchOpt=0&srchData=&keywordType=All&chkNewsType=6&intPage=&showAll=&pYear=&year=&desc=&cboOrder=date. Accessed May 1, 2013.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released a few Fact Sheets on how they anticipate funding changes on a few of their programs that were implemented (or sustained) under the Affordable Care Act. As a background, CMS pays most acute-care hospitals by prospectively determining payment based on a patient’s diagnosis and the severity of illness within that diagnosis (e.g. “MS-DRG”). These payment amounts are updated annually after evaluating several factors, including the costs associated with the delivery of care.

One of the most major changes described in the Fact Sheet that will affect hospitalists is how CMS will review inpatient stays based on the number of nights in the hospital. CMS has proposed that any patient who stays in the hospital for two or more “midnights” should be appropriate for payment under Medicare Part A. For those who stay in the hospital for only one (or zero) midnights, payment under Medicare Part A will only be appropriate if:

1. There is sufficient documentation at the time of admission that the anticipated length of stay is two or more nights; and.
2. Further documentation that circumstances changed, and the hospital stay ended prematurely because of those changes.

Overall for hospitalists, this should substantially simplify the admitting process, whereby most inpatients being admitted with the anticipation of two or more nights should qualify for an inpatient stay. This also reduces the administrative burden of correcting the “inpatient” versus “observation” designation, which keeps many hospital staffs entirely too busy. This change also should relieve a significant burden from the patients and their families, who if kept in observation for a period of time, may have to pay substantially out of pocket to make up for the difference between the cost of the stay and the reimbursement from CMS for observation status. So this is one of the moves that CMS is making to simplify (and not complicate) an already too-complicated payment system. This should go into effect October 2013 and will be a sigh of much relief from many of us.

A few other anticipated changes that will affect hospitalists include:

Payments for Unfunded Care

Another major change that will go into affect October 2013 is the amount of monies received by hospitals that care for unfunded patients. These payments historically have been made to “Disproportionate Share Hospitals” (DSH), which are hospitals that care for a higher percentage of unfunded patients. Under the Affordable Care Act, only 25% of these payments will be distributed to DSH hospitals; the remaining 75% will be reduced based on the number of uninsured in the U.S., then redistributed to DSH hospitals based on their portion of uninsured care delivered.

Most DSH hospitals should expect a decrease in DSH payments, the amount of which will depend on their share of unfunded patients.

Any reduction in the “bottom line” to the hospital can affect hospitalists, especially those who are directly employed by the hospital.

Hospital-Acquired Conditions

CMS has long had the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) program in effect, which has the ability to reduce the amount of payment for inpatients who acquire a HAC during their hospital stay. Starting in October 2014, CMS will impose additional financial penalties for hospitals with high HAC rates.

Specifically, those hospitals in the highest 25th percentile of HAC rates will be penalized 1% of their overall CMS payments. Another proposed change is that the following be included in the HAC reduction plan (two “domains” of measures):

• Domain No. 1: Six of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), including pressure ulcers, foreign bodies left in after surgery, iatrogenic pneumothorax, postoperative physiologic or metabolic derangements, postoperative VTE, and accidental puncture/laceration.
• Domain No. 2: Central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).

The domains will be weighted equally, and an average score will determine the total score. There will be some methodology for risk adjustment, and hospitals will be given a review and comment period to validate their own scores.

Most hospitalists have at least indirect control over many of these HACs,and all need to pay very close attention to their hospital’s rates of these now and in the future.

Readmissions

As we all know, the Hospital Readmission Reduction program went into effect October 2012; it placed 1% of CMS payments at risk. This will increase to 2% of payments as of October 2013. CMS will continue to use AMI, CHF, and pneumonia as the three conditions under which the readmissions are measured but will put in some methodology to account for planned readmissions.

In addition, in October 2014, they plan to add readmission rates for COPD and for hip/knee arthroplasty.

Hospitalists will continue to need to progress their transitions of care programs, at least for these five patients conditions but more likely (and more effectively) for all hospital discharges.

Quality Measures

Currently more than 99% of acute-care hospitals participate in the pay-for-reporting quality program through CMS, the results of which have been displayed on the Hospital Compare website (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov) for years. The program started in 2004 with 10 quality metrics and now includes 57 metrics. These include process and outcome measures for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia, as well as process measures for surgical care, HACs, and patient-satisfaction surveys, among others.

This program will continue to expand over time, including hospital-acquired MRSA and Clostridium difficile rates. The few hospitals not participating will have their CMS annual payments reduced by 2%.

EHR Incentives

CMS is evaluating ways to reduce the burden of reporting by aligning EHR incentives with the Inpatient Quality Reporting program.

Summary

After an open commentary period, the Final Rule will be published Aug. 1, and will become effective for discharges on or after Oct. 1. Although CMS will continue to expand the total number of measures that need to be reported, and the penalties for non-reporting or low performance will continue to escalate, CMS is at least attempting to reduce the overall burden of reporting by combining measures and programs over time and using EHRs to facilitate the bulk of reporting over time.

The global message to hospitalists is: Continue to focus on reducing the burden of HACs, enhance throughput, and carefully and thoughtfully transition patients to the next provider after their hospital discharge. All in all, although at times this can feel overwhelming, these changes represent the right direction to move for high-quality and safe patient care.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. Fact Sheets: CMS proposals to improve quality of care during hospital inpatient stays. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid website. Available at: www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=4586&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&srchOpt=0&srchData=&keywordType=All&chkNewsType=6&intPage=&showAll=&pYear=&year=&desc=&cboOrder=date. Accessed May 1, 2013.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) recently released a few Fact Sheets on how they anticipate funding changes on a few of their programs that were implemented (or sustained) under the Affordable Care Act. As a background, CMS pays most acute-care hospitals by prospectively determining payment based on a patient’s diagnosis and the severity of illness within that diagnosis (e.g. “MS-DRG”). These payment amounts are updated annually after evaluating several factors, including the costs associated with the delivery of care.

One of the most major changes described in the Fact Sheet that will affect hospitalists is how CMS will review inpatient stays based on the number of nights in the hospital. CMS has proposed that any patient who stays in the hospital for two or more “midnights” should be appropriate for payment under Medicare Part A. For those who stay in the hospital for only one (or zero) midnights, payment under Medicare Part A will only be appropriate if:

1. There is sufficient documentation at the time of admission that the anticipated length of stay is two or more nights; and.
2. Further documentation that circumstances changed, and the hospital stay ended prematurely because of those changes.

Overall for hospitalists, this should substantially simplify the admitting process, whereby most inpatients being admitted with the anticipation of two or more nights should qualify for an inpatient stay. This also reduces the administrative burden of correcting the “inpatient” versus “observation” designation, which keeps many hospital staffs entirely too busy. This change also should relieve a significant burden from the patients and their families, who if kept in observation for a period of time, may have to pay substantially out of pocket to make up for the difference between the cost of the stay and the reimbursement from CMS for observation status. So this is one of the moves that CMS is making to simplify (and not complicate) an already too-complicated payment system. This should go into effect October 2013 and will be a sigh of much relief from many of us.

A few other anticipated changes that will affect hospitalists include:

Payments for Unfunded Care

Another major change that will go into affect October 2013 is the amount of monies received by hospitals that care for unfunded patients. These payments historically have been made to “Disproportionate Share Hospitals” (DSH), which are hospitals that care for a higher percentage of unfunded patients. Under the Affordable Care Act, only 25% of these payments will be distributed to DSH hospitals; the remaining 75% will be reduced based on the number of uninsured in the U.S., then redistributed to DSH hospitals based on their portion of uninsured care delivered.

Most DSH hospitals should expect a decrease in DSH payments, the amount of which will depend on their share of unfunded patients.

Any reduction in the “bottom line” to the hospital can affect hospitalists, especially those who are directly employed by the hospital.

Hospital-Acquired Conditions

CMS has long had the Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) program in effect, which has the ability to reduce the amount of payment for inpatients who acquire a HAC during their hospital stay. Starting in October 2014, CMS will impose additional financial penalties for hospitals with high HAC rates.

Specifically, those hospitals in the highest 25th percentile of HAC rates will be penalized 1% of their overall CMS payments. Another proposed change is that the following be included in the HAC reduction plan (two “domains” of measures):

• Domain No. 1: Six of the AHRQ Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs), including pressure ulcers, foreign bodies left in after surgery, iatrogenic pneumothorax, postoperative physiologic or metabolic derangements, postoperative VTE, and accidental puncture/laceration.
• Domain No. 2: Central-line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs).

The domains will be weighted equally, and an average score will determine the total score. There will be some methodology for risk adjustment, and hospitals will be given a review and comment period to validate their own scores.

Most hospitalists have at least indirect control over many of these HACs,and all need to pay very close attention to their hospital’s rates of these now and in the future.

Readmissions

As we all know, the Hospital Readmission Reduction program went into effect October 2012; it placed 1% of CMS payments at risk. This will increase to 2% of payments as of October 2013. CMS will continue to use AMI, CHF, and pneumonia as the three conditions under which the readmissions are measured but will put in some methodology to account for planned readmissions.

In addition, in October 2014, they plan to add readmission rates for COPD and for hip/knee arthroplasty.

Hospitalists will continue to need to progress their transitions of care programs, at least for these five patients conditions but more likely (and more effectively) for all hospital discharges.

Quality Measures

Currently more than 99% of acute-care hospitals participate in the pay-for-reporting quality program through CMS, the results of which have been displayed on the Hospital Compare website (www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov) for years. The program started in 2004 with 10 quality metrics and now includes 57 metrics. These include process and outcome measures for AMI, CHF, and pneumonia, as well as process measures for surgical care, HACs, and patient-satisfaction surveys, among others.

This program will continue to expand over time, including hospital-acquired MRSA and Clostridium difficile rates. The few hospitals not participating will have their CMS annual payments reduced by 2%.

EHR Incentives

CMS is evaluating ways to reduce the burden of reporting by aligning EHR incentives with the Inpatient Quality Reporting program.

Summary

After an open commentary period, the Final Rule will be published Aug. 1, and will become effective for discharges on or after Oct. 1. Although CMS will continue to expand the total number of measures that need to be reported, and the penalties for non-reporting or low performance will continue to escalate, CMS is at least attempting to reduce the overall burden of reporting by combining measures and programs over time and using EHRs to facilitate the bulk of reporting over time.

The global message to hospitalists is: Continue to focus on reducing the burden of HACs, enhance throughput, and carefully and thoughtfully transition patients to the next provider after their hospital discharge. All in all, although at times this can feel overwhelming, these changes represent the right direction to move for high-quality and safe patient care.

Dr. Scheurer is a hospitalist and chief quality officer at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston. She is physician editor of The Hospitalist. Email her at [email protected].

Reference

1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid. Fact Sheets: CMS proposals to improve quality of care during hospital inpatient stays. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid website. Available at: www.cms.gov/apps/media/press/factsheet.asp?Counter=4586&intNumPerPage=10&checkDate=&checkKey=&srchType=1&numDays=3500&srchOpt=0&srchData=&keywordType=All&chkNewsType=6&intPage=&showAll=&pYear=&year=&desc=&cboOrder=date. Accessed May 1, 2013.

Funeral-home representatives sometimes make multiple trips to a hospital or doctor’s office to get a death certificate signed, often waiting in the lobby for hours. I first realized this in the 1980s when starting post-residency practice as a hospitalist. I began asking these guys (they are nearly always men, in my experience) how much time they typically invest getting each certificate signed. They told of walking halfway across a golf course to catch the doctor on the 13th hole or making the 90-minute drive (each way) to a doctor’s office, sometimes finding the doctor had just left, only to repeat the process several times before getting the signature.

When the Clinton administration made electronic signatures via the Internet valid, I thought about starting a business charging funeral homes something like $200 for getting the doctor to sign it electronically within 48 hours. I would use about half of the $200 to provide an incentive for the doctor to sign quickly (sign within 48 hours, and you’ll get a $100 gift card!), then use the rest to fund the company. Since funeral homes probably spend much more than $200 per certificate paying their staff to drive around getting signatures on paper, I thought they would jump at this idea.

I never pursued it, but that doesn’t stop me from loudly proclaiming to friends and family that it was a “can’t-miss” blockbuster Internet business idea. Of course, I never tested that theory, but it makes for fun chest-thumping at parties.

A number of states, including Florida, Texas, and others, now have in place online completion of death certificates. Indiana has required use of its online death certificate since 2011; there is no option to use paper. I suspect nearly every state will do the same before long. But that alone won’t ensure timely completion. Doctors and others who complete the certificates need to ensure they respond quickly, something they often fail to do.

It Really Matters

Lack of a death certificate can hold up burial or cremation, and things like life-insurance payouts and estate settlement are delayed. For a grieving family, these things only add to their pain.

I’m aware of a tragic case from a few years ago in which a certificate was passed around to a number of doctors, each of whom thought with some justification that someone else should sign it. It sat in two different mailboxes for many days while the intended recipients were vacationing. All of this delayed the burial, and the poor family had to send updates to loved ones saying, “We don’t know when Dad’s funeral will be.” About three weeks later, the certificate was completed and the funeral held. What a terribly sad story!

Some states have laws governing how quickly certificates must be signed. A thought-provoking 2004 Medical Staff Update from Stanford University says that California requires a signature within 15 hours of death, though I wonder how often this is enforced.

Improving Turnaround Time

There are several things hospitalists could consider to improve timely completion of death certificates:

• Ensure doctors liberally complete them for one another. Don’t let one doctor’s absence delay, even for a day, getting it completed and signed. This means the “covering” doctor has access to the discharge (death) summary in the medical record.
• When several doctors in different specialties are caring for a patient at the time of death, nearly any of them could reasonably sign the certificate. It might be appropriate to adopt a policy that whichever doctor (e.g. hospitalist, intensivist, or oncologist) who had contact with the patient and is presented with the certificate should go ahead and sign it rather than passing it along to one of the other specialties, regardless of which served as attending.
• Consider creating a central access point at your hospital for receipt of death certificates. Ideally, a funeral-home representative can deliver it to one person at the hospital who will do the leg work of getting a doctor to sign it quickly. Delays are likely if the funeral-home representative has to “shop it around” to different departments and physician offices. A hospital staffer should be able to navigate this quickly.
• Pressure EMR vendors to include some sort of death-certificate functionality in the future. I don’t know if some have it already, but it seems like it shouldn’t be too difficult for an EMR to spit out a prefilled certificate in much the same way e-prescribing works. It could even be delivered electronically to the funeral home.
• For hospitalists with 24-hour, on-site presence, it could be reasonable to have an on-duty hospitalist complete the certificate at the time of death rather than waiting for the funeral home to initiate the process. This was standard when I was a resident, and it may be a practical approach in many settings.
• Consider copying one hospital I worked with previously: They created a hospitalist salary bonus for timely completion. I assure you this policy was very effective.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

Funeral-home representatives sometimes make multiple trips to a hospital or doctor’s office to get a death certificate signed, often waiting in the lobby for hours. I first realized this in the 1980s when starting post-residency practice as a hospitalist. I began asking these guys (they are nearly always men, in my experience) how much time they typically invest getting each certificate signed. They told of walking halfway across a golf course to catch the doctor on the 13th hole or making the 90-minute drive (each way) to a doctor’s office, sometimes finding the doctor had just left, only to repeat the process several times before getting the signature.

When the Clinton administration made electronic signatures via the Internet valid, I thought about starting a business charging funeral homes something like $200 for getting the doctor to sign it electronically within 48 hours. I would use about half of the $200 to provide an incentive for the doctor to sign quickly (sign within 48 hours, and you’ll get a $100 gift card!), then use the rest to fund the company. Since funeral homes probably spend much more than $200 per certificate paying their staff to drive around getting signatures on paper, I thought they would jump at this idea.

I never pursued it, but that doesn’t stop me from loudly proclaiming to friends and family that it was a “can’t-miss” blockbuster Internet business idea. Of course, I never tested that theory, but it makes for fun chest-thumping at parties.

A number of states, including Florida, Texas, and others, now have in place online completion of death certificates. Indiana has required use of its online death certificate since 2011; there is no option to use paper. I suspect nearly every state will do the same before long. But that alone won’t ensure timely completion. Doctors and others who complete the certificates need to ensure they respond quickly, something they often fail to do.

It Really Matters

Lack of a death certificate can hold up burial or cremation, and things like life-insurance payouts and estate settlement are delayed. For a grieving family, these things only add to their pain.

I’m aware of a tragic case from a few years ago in which a certificate was passed around to a number of doctors, each of whom thought with some justification that someone else should sign it. It sat in two different mailboxes for many days while the intended recipients were vacationing. All of this delayed the burial, and the poor family had to send updates to loved ones saying, “We don’t know when Dad’s funeral will be.” About three weeks later, the certificate was completed and the funeral held. What a terribly sad story!

Some states have laws governing how quickly certificates must be signed. A thought-provoking 2004 Medical Staff Update from Stanford University says that California requires a signature within 15 hours of death, though I wonder how often this is enforced.

Improving Turnaround Time

There are several things hospitalists could consider to improve timely completion of death certificates:

• Ensure doctors liberally complete them for one another. Don’t let one doctor’s absence delay, even for a day, getting it completed and signed. This means the “covering” doctor has access to the discharge (death) summary in the medical record.
• When several doctors in different specialties are caring for a patient at the time of death, nearly any of them could reasonably sign the certificate. It might be appropriate to adopt a policy that whichever doctor (e.g. hospitalist, intensivist, or oncologist) who had contact with the patient and is presented with the certificate should go ahead and sign it rather than passing it along to one of the other specialties, regardless of which served as attending.
• Consider creating a central access point at your hospital for receipt of death certificates. Ideally, a funeral-home representative can deliver it to one person at the hospital who will do the leg work of getting a doctor to sign it quickly. Delays are likely if the funeral-home representative has to “shop it around” to different departments and physician offices. A hospital staffer should be able to navigate this quickly.
• Pressure EMR vendors to include some sort of death-certificate functionality in the future. I don’t know if some have it already, but it seems like it shouldn’t be too difficult for an EMR to spit out a prefilled certificate in much the same way e-prescribing works. It could even be delivered electronically to the funeral home.
• For hospitalists with 24-hour, on-site presence, it could be reasonable to have an on-duty hospitalist complete the certificate at the time of death rather than waiting for the funeral home to initiate the process. This was standard when I was a resident, and it may be a practical approach in many settings.
• Consider copying one hospital I worked with previously: They created a hospitalist salary bonus for timely completion. I assure you this policy was very effective.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

Funeral-home representatives sometimes make multiple trips to a hospital or doctor’s office to get a death certificate signed, often waiting in the lobby for hours. I first realized this in the 1980s when starting post-residency practice as a hospitalist. I began asking these guys (they are nearly always men, in my experience) how much time they typically invest getting each certificate signed. They told of walking halfway across a golf course to catch the doctor on the 13th hole or making the 90-minute drive (each way) to a doctor’s office, sometimes finding the doctor had just left, only to repeat the process several times before getting the signature.

When the Clinton administration made electronic signatures via the Internet valid, I thought about starting a business charging funeral homes something like $200 for getting the doctor to sign it electronically within 48 hours. I would use about half of the $200 to provide an incentive for the doctor to sign quickly (sign within 48 hours, and you’ll get a $100 gift card!), then use the rest to fund the company. Since funeral homes probably spend much more than $200 per certificate paying their staff to drive around getting signatures on paper, I thought they would jump at this idea.

I never pursued it, but that doesn’t stop me from loudly proclaiming to friends and family that it was a “can’t-miss” blockbuster Internet business idea. Of course, I never tested that theory, but it makes for fun chest-thumping at parties.

A number of states, including Florida, Texas, and others, now have in place online completion of death certificates. Indiana has required use of its online death certificate since 2011; there is no option to use paper. I suspect nearly every state will do the same before long. But that alone won’t ensure timely completion. Doctors and others who complete the certificates need to ensure they respond quickly, something they often fail to do.

It Really Matters

Lack of a death certificate can hold up burial or cremation, and things like life-insurance payouts and estate settlement are delayed. For a grieving family, these things only add to their pain.

I’m aware of a tragic case from a few years ago in which a certificate was passed around to a number of doctors, each of whom thought with some justification that someone else should sign it. It sat in two different mailboxes for many days while the intended recipients were vacationing. All of this delayed the burial, and the poor family had to send updates to loved ones saying, “We don’t know when Dad’s funeral will be.” About three weeks later, the certificate was completed and the funeral held. What a terribly sad story!

Some states have laws governing how quickly certificates must be signed. A thought-provoking 2004 Medical Staff Update from Stanford University says that California requires a signature within 15 hours of death, though I wonder how often this is enforced.

Improving Turnaround Time

There are several things hospitalists could consider to improve timely completion of death certificates:

• Ensure doctors liberally complete them for one another. Don’t let one doctor’s absence delay, even for a day, getting it completed and signed. This means the “covering” doctor has access to the discharge (death) summary in the medical record.
• When several doctors in different specialties are caring for a patient at the time of death, nearly any of them could reasonably sign the certificate. It might be appropriate to adopt a policy that whichever doctor (e.g. hospitalist, intensivist, or oncologist) who had contact with the patient and is presented with the certificate should go ahead and sign it rather than passing it along to one of the other specialties, regardless of which served as attending.
• Consider creating a central access point at your hospital for receipt of death certificates. Ideally, a funeral-home representative can deliver it to one person at the hospital who will do the leg work of getting a doctor to sign it quickly. Delays are likely if the funeral-home representative has to “shop it around” to different departments and physician offices. A hospital staffer should be able to navigate this quickly.
• Pressure EMR vendors to include some sort of death-certificate functionality in the future. I don’t know if some have it already, but it seems like it shouldn’t be too difficult for an EMR to spit out a prefilled certificate in much the same way e-prescribing works. It could even be delivered electronically to the funeral home.
• For hospitalists with 24-hour, on-site presence, it could be reasonable to have an on-duty hospitalist complete the certificate at the time of death rather than waiting for the funeral home to initiate the process. This was standard when I was a resident, and it may be a practical approach in many settings.
• Consider copying one hospital I worked with previously: They created a hospitalist salary bonus for timely completion. I assure you this policy was very effective.

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988. He is co-founder and past president of SHM, and principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants. He is co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

Dr. Hospitalist

I am a third-year internal-medicine resident and currently looking for a nocturnist opportunity. I have no experience in negotiating a job or salary. When I interview for a job, should I negotiate for salary? How do I know that the salary is correct and what others in the same group are getting? Thanks for the help.

–Santhosh Mannem, New York City

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Salary discussions are always intriguing, mainly because you won’t really know what everyone else is getting paid. There are several places to get some information. To begin, find out the general salary range for the market in which you want to work. Just because an annual salary might be $240,000 in Emporia, Kan., doesn’t mean a thing if you are looking for a job in Salt Lake City or Seattle. You can use the online resources through SHM (www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey) to paint a pretty good picture of salary by region, but remember that these are ranges only.

When I think of job offers, I like to take total compensation and break it down by category. For example, benefits are not negotiable—your employer cannot vary the health insurance coverage they provide by physician. Still, you need to consider benefits as an important part of the package. A good health insurance plan won’t mean as much to a single physician as it would to one with a family, so consider your individual needs. I strongly encourage you to make a line item for every potential benefit: health, dental, disability, life, continuing medical education (CME), professional dues, retirement plans (potentially with an employer match), malpractice insurance costs, and so on. A job with a “salary” of $300,000 but no benefits would pale in comparison to a job paying $250,000 with full benefits.

Don’t discount the value of benefits; get the numbers and assign a dollar amount. If the group is not being transparent on benefits, walk away.

With strict regard to salary, you probably will get little to no information as to what the rest of the group members are paid. Feel free to ask, but expect some vague answers. Most often, there is a fairly tight convergence of salaries within a given market, and it’s always better to interview for more than one job in the same location. You mentioned that you’d like to work as a nocturnist, which is good. These positions are recruited heavily and tend to command a higher initial salary.

Overall, your ability to negotiate a higher salary is going to be rather limited. However, there is another calculation worth mentioning: You need to find out how much you are being paid per unit of work so you can compare jobs. Here are some of the items to help you figure out a formula that works for you: annual salary, contracted shifts per year/month, pay per shift, admits/census per shift, number of weekends, and potential bonus thresholds. Use these numbers (metrics) to more accurately compare different jobs. There is no magic formula; it just depends on what is important to you, but you will get a much better picture if you combine these metrics with your benefit analysis.

As a nocturnist, I would not expect to hit any productivity metrics. If you are that busy, it’s probably a miserable job. In a business sense, nights almost always lose money.

One thing that can always be negotiated: a signing bonus and/or loan forgiveness. Often, a practice won’t want to continually offer higher starting salaries since eventually this causes wage creep across the practice. However, they can be much more flexible when it comes to “one-time” payments. This keeps the overall salary structure for the practice intact and is usually much more agreeable for your employer. As always, it’s a supply-and-demand issue, but if you are a nocturnist looking at a high-demand area, I would negotiate hard for a signing bonus and maybe even a contract-renewal bonus after your first year.

It never hurts to get creative, either. I remember negotiating my first job; I offered to sign a two-year contract (instead of one) if they would let me take off six months the first year. They said yes, I did some traveling that first year on my new salary, and I stayed with the practice for 11 years. Don’t get so caught up in salary numbers that you lose sight of what’s really important to you and whether the job would be the right fit.

Good luck and welcome to hospital medicine. You’ll love it.

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to [email protected].

Dr. Hospitalist

I am a third-year internal-medicine resident and currently looking for a nocturnist opportunity. I have no experience in negotiating a job or salary. When I interview for a job, should I negotiate for salary? How do I know that the salary is correct and what others in the same group are getting? Thanks for the help.

–Santhosh Mannem, New York City

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Salary discussions are always intriguing, mainly because you won’t really know what everyone else is getting paid. There are several places to get some information. To begin, find out the general salary range for the market in which you want to work. Just because an annual salary might be $240,000 in Emporia, Kan., doesn’t mean a thing if you are looking for a job in Salt Lake City or Seattle. You can use the online resources through SHM (www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey) to paint a pretty good picture of salary by region, but remember that these are ranges only.

When I think of job offers, I like to take total compensation and break it down by category. For example, benefits are not negotiable—your employer cannot vary the health insurance coverage they provide by physician. Still, you need to consider benefits as an important part of the package. A good health insurance plan won’t mean as much to a single physician as it would to one with a family, so consider your individual needs. I strongly encourage you to make a line item for every potential benefit: health, dental, disability, life, continuing medical education (CME), professional dues, retirement plans (potentially with an employer match), malpractice insurance costs, and so on. A job with a “salary” of $300,000 but no benefits would pale in comparison to a job paying $250,000 with full benefits.

Don’t discount the value of benefits; get the numbers and assign a dollar amount. If the group is not being transparent on benefits, walk away.

With strict regard to salary, you probably will get little to no information as to what the rest of the group members are paid. Feel free to ask, but expect some vague answers. Most often, there is a fairly tight convergence of salaries within a given market, and it’s always better to interview for more than one job in the same location. You mentioned that you’d like to work as a nocturnist, which is good. These positions are recruited heavily and tend to command a higher initial salary.

Overall, your ability to negotiate a higher salary is going to be rather limited. However, there is another calculation worth mentioning: You need to find out how much you are being paid per unit of work so you can compare jobs. Here are some of the items to help you figure out a formula that works for you: annual salary, contracted shifts per year/month, pay per shift, admits/census per shift, number of weekends, and potential bonus thresholds. Use these numbers (metrics) to more accurately compare different jobs. There is no magic formula; it just depends on what is important to you, but you will get a much better picture if you combine these metrics with your benefit analysis.

As a nocturnist, I would not expect to hit any productivity metrics. If you are that busy, it’s probably a miserable job. In a business sense, nights almost always lose money.

One thing that can always be negotiated: a signing bonus and/or loan forgiveness. Often, a practice won’t want to continually offer higher starting salaries since eventually this causes wage creep across the practice. However, they can be much more flexible when it comes to “one-time” payments. This keeps the overall salary structure for the practice intact and is usually much more agreeable for your employer. As always, it’s a supply-and-demand issue, but if you are a nocturnist looking at a high-demand area, I would negotiate hard for a signing bonus and maybe even a contract-renewal bonus after your first year.

It never hurts to get creative, either. I remember negotiating my first job; I offered to sign a two-year contract (instead of one) if they would let me take off six months the first year. They said yes, I did some traveling that first year on my new salary, and I stayed with the practice for 11 years. Don’t get so caught up in salary numbers that you lose sight of what’s really important to you and whether the job would be the right fit.

Good luck and welcome to hospital medicine. You’ll love it.

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to [email protected].

Dr. Hospitalist

I am a third-year internal-medicine resident and currently looking for a nocturnist opportunity. I have no experience in negotiating a job or salary. When I interview for a job, should I negotiate for salary? How do I know that the salary is correct and what others in the same group are getting? Thanks for the help.

–Santhosh Mannem, New York City

Dr. Hospitalist responds:

Salary discussions are always intriguing, mainly because you won’t really know what everyone else is getting paid. There are several places to get some information. To begin, find out the general salary range for the market in which you want to work. Just because an annual salary might be $240,000 in Emporia, Kan., doesn’t mean a thing if you are looking for a job in Salt Lake City or Seattle. You can use the online resources through SHM (www.hospitalmedicine.org/survey) to paint a pretty good picture of salary by region, but remember that these are ranges only.

When I think of job offers, I like to take total compensation and break it down by category. For example, benefits are not negotiable—your employer cannot vary the health insurance coverage they provide by physician. Still, you need to consider benefits as an important part of the package. A good health insurance plan won’t mean as much to a single physician as it would to one with a family, so consider your individual needs. I strongly encourage you to make a line item for every potential benefit: health, dental, disability, life, continuing medical education (CME), professional dues, retirement plans (potentially with an employer match), malpractice insurance costs, and so on. A job with a “salary” of $300,000 but no benefits would pale in comparison to a job paying $250,000 with full benefits.

Don’t discount the value of benefits; get the numbers and assign a dollar amount. If the group is not being transparent on benefits, walk away.

With strict regard to salary, you probably will get little to no information as to what the rest of the group members are paid. Feel free to ask, but expect some vague answers. Most often, there is a fairly tight convergence of salaries within a given market, and it’s always better to interview for more than one job in the same location. You mentioned that you’d like to work as a nocturnist, which is good. These positions are recruited heavily and tend to command a higher initial salary.

Overall, your ability to negotiate a higher salary is going to be rather limited. However, there is another calculation worth mentioning: You need to find out how much you are being paid per unit of work so you can compare jobs. Here are some of the items to help you figure out a formula that works for you: annual salary, contracted shifts per year/month, pay per shift, admits/census per shift, number of weekends, and potential bonus thresholds. Use these numbers (metrics) to more accurately compare different jobs. There is no magic formula; it just depends on what is important to you, but you will get a much better picture if you combine these metrics with your benefit analysis.

As a nocturnist, I would not expect to hit any productivity metrics. If you are that busy, it’s probably a miserable job. In a business sense, nights almost always lose money.

One thing that can always be negotiated: a signing bonus and/or loan forgiveness. Often, a practice won’t want to continually offer higher starting salaries since eventually this causes wage creep across the practice. However, they can be much more flexible when it comes to “one-time” payments. This keeps the overall salary structure for the practice intact and is usually much more agreeable for your employer. As always, it’s a supply-and-demand issue, but if you are a nocturnist looking at a high-demand area, I would negotiate hard for a signing bonus and maybe even a contract-renewal bonus after your first year.

It never hurts to get creative, either. I remember negotiating my first job; I offered to sign a two-year contract (instead of one) if they would let me take off six months the first year. They said yes, I did some traveling that first year on my new salary, and I stayed with the practice for 11 years. Don’t get so caught up in salary numbers that you lose sight of what’s really important to you and whether the job would be the right fit.

Good luck and welcome to hospital medicine. You’ll love it.

Do you have a problem or concern that you’d like Dr. Hospitalist to address? Email your questions to [email protected].

ANSWER
The correct answer is dermatoheliosis (choice “d”), also correctly termed photoaging. This condition manifests as a number of specific skin changes, including the items named (choices “a,” “b,” and “c”)—all of which were present on this patient.

DISCUSSION
The consequences of chronic overexposure to UV radiation constitute the most common reason patients present to dermatology practices in the United States. The bulk of this damage takes decades to appear, by which time patients have forgotten about their earlier sun exposure (in fact, they often deny any exposure) and even the painful sunburns that taught them to avoid the sun in the first place.

In general, the effects of sunburns sustained in childhood or young adulthood do not usually manifest until the patient is in his/her 50s or 60s, although patients who are less sun-tolerant (our definition of “fair”) may show signs of damage considerably earlier.

However, with the popularity of artificial tanning among teenagers (and even preteens in some cases), evidence of sun damage is being seen at younger ages than ever. Basal cell carcinomas, once unheard of in teenagers, are being found with increasing frequency in this age-group. In patients ages 12 to 15, there has been a 100-fold increase in the incidence of melanoma—theorized to be due, in part, to the effects of artificial tanning.

This particular patient is typical of cases in which sun damage was obtained more passively. At one time in the US, having a tan was decidedly unfashionable; it marked one as a member of “the lower classes.” But that all began to change after WWI: Hemlines and hairlines rose, Prohibition created a new generation of drinkers and scofflaws, clothing began to be more revealing, and suddenly it was fashionable for women to shave their legs and get a tan.

About that same time, many men began to ignore the long-held tradition of wearing hats and long sleeves when outside, inevitably tanned, and thus gained approval from the opposite sex. Most went off to war in the 1940s, many to the Pacific theater, where they had even more exposure to the sun.

Following WWII, a great number of these men returned to their jobs as farmers, ranchers, or construction workers. Golfing became the “in” sport during leisure time. It’s this generation we’re seeing now for sun-related pathology. Even if they had been inclined to use it, effective sunscreen was not generally available until the early 1970s.

The patient depicted here has a typical collection of the pre-cancerous sun damage known as dermatoheliosis: solar elastosis, actinic keratoses, telangiectasias, and solar atrophy (which affects the arms more than the face). The latter, along with the effects of wind, heat, cold, smoking, and drinking alcohol, constitute the main causes of extrinsic aging.

TREATMENT
Short of heroic efforts, not much will be done for this patient’s dermatoheliosis. However, he was strongly advised to return to dermatology twice a year to watch for the arrival of the basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas that are almost certainly headed his way.

ANSWER
The correct answer is dermatoheliosis (choice “d”), also correctly termed photoaging. This condition manifests as a number of specific skin changes, including the items named (choices “a,” “b,” and “c”)—all of which were present on this patient.

DISCUSSION
The consequences of chronic overexposure to UV radiation constitute the most common reason patients present to dermatology practices in the United States. The bulk of this damage takes decades to appear, by which time patients have forgotten about their earlier sun exposure (in fact, they often deny any exposure) and even the painful sunburns that taught them to avoid the sun in the first place.

In general, the effects of sunburns sustained in childhood or young adulthood do not usually manifest until the patient is in his/her 50s or 60s, although patients who are less sun-tolerant (our definition of “fair”) may show signs of damage considerably earlier.

However, with the popularity of artificial tanning among teenagers (and even preteens in some cases), evidence of sun damage is being seen at younger ages than ever. Basal cell carcinomas, once unheard of in teenagers, are being found with increasing frequency in this age-group. In patients ages 12 to 15, there has been a 100-fold increase in the incidence of melanoma—theorized to be due, in part, to the effects of artificial tanning.

This particular patient is typical of cases in which sun damage was obtained more passively. At one time in the US, having a tan was decidedly unfashionable; it marked one as a member of “the lower classes.” But that all began to change after WWI: Hemlines and hairlines rose, Prohibition created a new generation of drinkers and scofflaws, clothing began to be more revealing, and suddenly it was fashionable for women to shave their legs and get a tan.

About that same time, many men began to ignore the long-held tradition of wearing hats and long sleeves when outside, inevitably tanned, and thus gained approval from the opposite sex. Most went off to war in the 1940s, many to the Pacific theater, where they had even more exposure to the sun.

Following WWII, a great number of these men returned to their jobs as farmers, ranchers, or construction workers. Golfing became the “in” sport during leisure time. It’s this generation we’re seeing now for sun-related pathology. Even if they had been inclined to use it, effective sunscreen was not generally available until the early 1970s.

The patient depicted here has a typical collection of the pre-cancerous sun damage known as dermatoheliosis: solar elastosis, actinic keratoses, telangiectasias, and solar atrophy (which affects the arms more than the face). The latter, along with the effects of wind, heat, cold, smoking, and drinking alcohol, constitute the main causes of extrinsic aging.

TREATMENT
Short of heroic efforts, not much will be done for this patient’s dermatoheliosis. However, he was strongly advised to return to dermatology twice a year to watch for the arrival of the basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas that are almost certainly headed his way.

ANSWER
The correct answer is dermatoheliosis (choice “d”), also correctly termed photoaging. This condition manifests as a number of specific skin changes, including the items named (choices “a,” “b,” and “c”)—all of which were present on this patient.

DISCUSSION
The consequences of chronic overexposure to UV radiation constitute the most common reason patients present to dermatology practices in the United States. The bulk of this damage takes decades to appear, by which time patients have forgotten about their earlier sun exposure (in fact, they often deny any exposure) and even the painful sunburns that taught them to avoid the sun in the first place.

In general, the effects of sunburns sustained in childhood or young adulthood do not usually manifest until the patient is in his/her 50s or 60s, although patients who are less sun-tolerant (our definition of “fair”) may show signs of damage considerably earlier.

However, with the popularity of artificial tanning among teenagers (and even preteens in some cases), evidence of sun damage is being seen at younger ages than ever. Basal cell carcinomas, once unheard of in teenagers, are being found with increasing frequency in this age-group. In patients ages 12 to 15, there has been a 100-fold increase in the incidence of melanoma—theorized to be due, in part, to the effects of artificial tanning.

This particular patient is typical of cases in which sun damage was obtained more passively. At one time in the US, having a tan was decidedly unfashionable; it marked one as a member of “the lower classes.” But that all began to change after WWI: Hemlines and hairlines rose, Prohibition created a new generation of drinkers and scofflaws, clothing began to be more revealing, and suddenly it was fashionable for women to shave their legs and get a tan.

About that same time, many men began to ignore the long-held tradition of wearing hats and long sleeves when outside, inevitably tanned, and thus gained approval from the opposite sex. Most went off to war in the 1940s, many to the Pacific theater, where they had even more exposure to the sun.

Following WWII, a great number of these men returned to their jobs as farmers, ranchers, or construction workers. Golfing became the “in” sport during leisure time. It’s this generation we’re seeing now for sun-related pathology. Even if they had been inclined to use it, effective sunscreen was not generally available until the early 1970s.

The patient depicted here has a typical collection of the pre-cancerous sun damage known as dermatoheliosis: solar elastosis, actinic keratoses, telangiectasias, and solar atrophy (which affects the arms more than the face). The latter, along with the effects of wind, heat, cold, smoking, and drinking alcohol, constitute the main causes of extrinsic aging.

TREATMENT
Short of heroic efforts, not much will be done for this patient’s dermatoheliosis. However, he was strongly advised to return to dermatology twice a year to watch for the arrival of the basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas that are almost certainly headed his way.

You might remember from medical school that psychiatrists use a five Axis system when evaluating patients. (Or at least they used to. The recent fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders eliminated the Axis system.)

Axis I refers to psychiatric pathology, such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or generalized anxiety disorder. Axis II refers to personality disorders, such as borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Axis III covers the medical conditions that the patient has. Axis IV, quite appropriately, lists social and environmental factors contributing to the pathology. Axis V is the global assessment of function.

This five Axis system at the very least reminds us that the individual is more than just the sum of his or her illnesses. Rather than existing in a vacuum, the individual interacts with the world. The system acknowledges that the individual influences the environment (through Axis V) and is influenced by it (Axis IV).

Though we are not psychiatrists, I do think that rheumatologists are generally attuned to the five Axis system anyway. We may not explicitly identify the axes, but we are most definitely interested in our patients’ level of function and how much support is available to them. We are familiar with depression and anxiety, and we don’t shy away from frank discussions with our patients about their emotional well-being.

But where I find my education lacking is in how to manage patients with Axis II (personality) disorders. And yet, I dare say, this is no less important than the other axes. At the very least, it affects my interaction with the patient.

For example, a patient with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis who also has obsessive-compulsive personality disorder was extremely anxious and perseverated on his risk of lymphoma to the point of sleepless nights and frequent phone calls to me. There are patients with narcissistic personality disorder who feel entitled to special treatment and are unhappy even with standard care. Patients with histrionic personality disorder are emotionally labile and have a tendency toward hyperbole.

Most problematic for me are patients with borderline personality disorder. I meet one or two of them every year. By definition they split the world into absolutes, good and bad. They have a pathologic fear of being abandoned, so they heap you with praises that feel contrived and insincere, yet they will roll their eyeballs and speak disparagingly of your colleagues – mostly a bad sign. They are impulsive, argumentative, and frequently self-destructive. These traits make it difficult to manage their care appropriately, with challenges that run the gamut from potential patient noncompliance to exhausting physician goodwill. But they are patients, and we have a responsibility to provide them with the best possible care.

I envy the physician who can talk to these patients, address their concerns, gain their trust, and still be able to set boundaries and maintain objectivity. No one taught me how to do these things. No one even warned me that I would need to do these things. Truthfully, though, these are skills that cannot be taught effectively in a classroom setting. Rather, in this, as in many other situations, experience is the best teacher.

Dr. Chan practices rheumatology in Pawtucket, R.I.

You might remember from medical school that psychiatrists use a five Axis system when evaluating patients. (Or at least they used to. The recent fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders eliminated the Axis system.)

Axis I refers to psychiatric pathology, such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or generalized anxiety disorder. Axis II refers to personality disorders, such as borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Axis III covers the medical conditions that the patient has. Axis IV, quite appropriately, lists social and environmental factors contributing to the pathology. Axis V is the global assessment of function.

This five Axis system at the very least reminds us that the individual is more than just the sum of his or her illnesses. Rather than existing in a vacuum, the individual interacts with the world. The system acknowledges that the individual influences the environment (through Axis V) and is influenced by it (Axis IV).

Though we are not psychiatrists, I do think that rheumatologists are generally attuned to the five Axis system anyway. We may not explicitly identify the axes, but we are most definitely interested in our patients’ level of function and how much support is available to them. We are familiar with depression and anxiety, and we don’t shy away from frank discussions with our patients about their emotional well-being.

But where I find my education lacking is in how to manage patients with Axis II (personality) disorders. And yet, I dare say, this is no less important than the other axes. At the very least, it affects my interaction with the patient.

For example, a patient with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis who also has obsessive-compulsive personality disorder was extremely anxious and perseverated on his risk of lymphoma to the point of sleepless nights and frequent phone calls to me. There are patients with narcissistic personality disorder who feel entitled to special treatment and are unhappy even with standard care. Patients with histrionic personality disorder are emotionally labile and have a tendency toward hyperbole.

Most problematic for me are patients with borderline personality disorder. I meet one or two of them every year. By definition they split the world into absolutes, good and bad. They have a pathologic fear of being abandoned, so they heap you with praises that feel contrived and insincere, yet they will roll their eyeballs and speak disparagingly of your colleagues – mostly a bad sign. They are impulsive, argumentative, and frequently self-destructive. These traits make it difficult to manage their care appropriately, with challenges that run the gamut from potential patient noncompliance to exhausting physician goodwill. But they are patients, and we have a responsibility to provide them with the best possible care.

I envy the physician who can talk to these patients, address their concerns, gain their trust, and still be able to set boundaries and maintain objectivity. No one taught me how to do these things. No one even warned me that I would need to do these things. Truthfully, though, these are skills that cannot be taught effectively in a classroom setting. Rather, in this, as in many other situations, experience is the best teacher.

Dr. Chan practices rheumatology in Pawtucket, R.I.

You might remember from medical school that psychiatrists use a five Axis system when evaluating patients. (Or at least they used to. The recent fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders eliminated the Axis system.)

Axis I refers to psychiatric pathology, such as major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, or generalized anxiety disorder. Axis II refers to personality disorders, such as borderline personality disorder, narcissistic personality disorder, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Axis III covers the medical conditions that the patient has. Axis IV, quite appropriately, lists social and environmental factors contributing to the pathology. Axis V is the global assessment of function.

This five Axis system at the very least reminds us that the individual is more than just the sum of his or her illnesses. Rather than existing in a vacuum, the individual interacts with the world. The system acknowledges that the individual influences the environment (through Axis V) and is influenced by it (Axis IV).

Though we are not psychiatrists, I do think that rheumatologists are generally attuned to the five Axis system anyway. We may not explicitly identify the axes, but we are most definitely interested in our patients’ level of function and how much support is available to them. We are familiar with depression and anxiety, and we don’t shy away from frank discussions with our patients about their emotional well-being.

But where I find my education lacking is in how to manage patients with Axis II (personality) disorders. And yet, I dare say, this is no less important than the other axes. At the very least, it affects my interaction with the patient.

For example, a patient with newly diagnosed rheumatoid arthritis who also has obsessive-compulsive personality disorder was extremely anxious and perseverated on his risk of lymphoma to the point of sleepless nights and frequent phone calls to me. There are patients with narcissistic personality disorder who feel entitled to special treatment and are unhappy even with standard care. Patients with histrionic personality disorder are emotionally labile and have a tendency toward hyperbole.

Most problematic for me are patients with borderline personality disorder. I meet one or two of them every year. By definition they split the world into absolutes, good and bad. They have a pathologic fear of being abandoned, so they heap you with praises that feel contrived and insincere, yet they will roll their eyeballs and speak disparagingly of your colleagues – mostly a bad sign. They are impulsive, argumentative, and frequently self-destructive. These traits make it difficult to manage their care appropriately, with challenges that run the gamut from potential patient noncompliance to exhausting physician goodwill. But they are patients, and we have a responsibility to provide them with the best possible care.

I envy the physician who can talk to these patients, address their concerns, gain their trust, and still be able to set boundaries and maintain objectivity. No one taught me how to do these things. No one even warned me that I would need to do these things. Truthfully, though, these are skills that cannot be taught effectively in a classroom setting. Rather, in this, as in many other situations, experience is the best teacher.

Dr. Chan practices rheumatology in Pawtucket, R.I.

It’s unclear which treatment is best, because there have been no head-to-head comparisons of treatments for Rhus (plant-induced) contact dermatitis. That said, topical high-potency steroids slightly improve pruritus and the appearance of the rash (strength of recommendation [SOR]: B, small cohort studies).

Neither topical pimecrolimus (an immunomodulatory drug) nor jewelweed extract are helpful (SOR: B, 1 small randomized controlled trial [RCT]).

Oral steroids improve symptoms in severe cases (SOR: C, expert opinion).

Evidence summary

Two prospective, self-controlled cohort studies (N=30) showed that high-potency topical steroids improved symptoms associated with artificially induced Rhus dermatitis in a group with a history of that type of dermatitis.

The first study found that 0.05% clobetasol propionate ointment applied twice a day significantly reduced overall vesiculation, erythema, induration, and pruritus compared with the control (P<.05, .01, .01, and .05, respectively).¹ Investigators evaluated erythema, induration, and pruritus on a scale of 0 to 3 (absent, mild, moderate, or severe) and graded vesiculation on a similar 0- to 3-point scale (a frank bulla was graded 3). They started treatment at 12, 24, and 48 hours after exposure and followed patients for 14 days. The greatest difference in mean scores—a reduction in vesiculation scores of approximately 1 point—occurred between 2 and 7 days of therapy.

The second study compared improvement in symptoms of Rhus dermatitis with daily application of topical steroids of different potencies and a control ointment.² Investigators evaluated healing using a 0- to 4-point scale (0=clearing and 4=marked edema, erythema, and vesiculation). They found that lower-potency topical steroids such as 1% hydrocortisone and 0.1% triamcinolone were equivalent to the control ointment, but high-potency (class IV) steroid ointments produced significant improvement in symptoms (by a mean of 1.07 points vs the control ointment; supporting statistics not given).

A systematic review of contact dermatitis treatment and prevention identified 4 “good-quality” RCTs that evaluated effective remedies for nickel-induced allergic contact dermatitis in a predominantly female Caucasian population.³ All found that moderately high-potency topical steroid therapy improved symptoms, but heterogeneity among the studies made it impossible to determine the best agent.

Topical immunomodulatory drugs and jewelweed are no help

In a double-blinded RCT of 12 adults with a history of Rhus dermatitis and a significant reaction to tincture of poison ivy, topical pimecrolimus didn’t improve the duration or severity of symptoms (P=nonsignificant).⁴

A similar RCT from a dermatology clinic of 10 adults with confirmed sensitivity to poison oak or ivy found that topical jewelweed extract didn’t improve symptoms of artificially induced Rhus dermatitis. Investigators didn’t report P values.⁵

Oral steroids haven’t been studied

No studies have evaluated the effectiveness of oral steroids for Rhus dermatitis. Expert opinion recommends prednisone (60 mg daily, tapered over 14 days) for severe and widespread cases of poison ivy dermatitis.^6,7

Recommendations

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology jointly recommend topical corticosteroids as firstline treatment for localized allergic contact dermatitis. They advise giving systemic corticosteroids for lesions covering more than 20% of body surface area (for example, prednisone 0.5-1 mg/kg per day for 5-7 days, then 50% of the dose for another 5-7 days).⁶

The American Academy of Dermatology hasn’t issued guidelines on plant-induced dermatitis.

A dermatology textbook states that topical steroids are effective during the early stages of an outbreak, when vesicles and blisters aren’t yet present, and that systemic steroids are extremely effective for severe outbreaks. The authors recommend treating weepy lesions with tepid baths, wet to dry soaks, or calamine lotion to dry the lesions.⁷

It’s unclear which treatment is best, because there have been no head-to-head comparisons of treatments for Rhus (plant-induced) contact dermatitis. That said, topical high-potency steroids slightly improve pruritus and the appearance of the rash (strength of recommendation [SOR]: B, small cohort studies).

Neither topical pimecrolimus (an immunomodulatory drug) nor jewelweed extract are helpful (SOR: B, 1 small randomized controlled trial [RCT]).

Oral steroids improve symptoms in severe cases (SOR: C, expert opinion).

Evidence summary

Two prospective, self-controlled cohort studies (N=30) showed that high-potency topical steroids improved symptoms associated with artificially induced Rhus dermatitis in a group with a history of that type of dermatitis.

The first study found that 0.05% clobetasol propionate ointment applied twice a day significantly reduced overall vesiculation, erythema, induration, and pruritus compared with the control (P<.05, .01, .01, and .05, respectively).¹ Investigators evaluated erythema, induration, and pruritus on a scale of 0 to 3 (absent, mild, moderate, or severe) and graded vesiculation on a similar 0- to 3-point scale (a frank bulla was graded 3). They started treatment at 12, 24, and 48 hours after exposure and followed patients for 14 days. The greatest difference in mean scores—a reduction in vesiculation scores of approximately 1 point—occurred between 2 and 7 days of therapy.

The second study compared improvement in symptoms of Rhus dermatitis with daily application of topical steroids of different potencies and a control ointment.² Investigators evaluated healing using a 0- to 4-point scale (0=clearing and 4=marked edema, erythema, and vesiculation). They found that lower-potency topical steroids such as 1% hydrocortisone and 0.1% triamcinolone were equivalent to the control ointment, but high-potency (class IV) steroid ointments produced significant improvement in symptoms (by a mean of 1.07 points vs the control ointment; supporting statistics not given).

A systematic review of contact dermatitis treatment and prevention identified 4 “good-quality” RCTs that evaluated effective remedies for nickel-induced allergic contact dermatitis in a predominantly female Caucasian population.³ All found that moderately high-potency topical steroid therapy improved symptoms, but heterogeneity among the studies made it impossible to determine the best agent.

Topical immunomodulatory drugs and jewelweed are no help

In a double-blinded RCT of 12 adults with a history of Rhus dermatitis and a significant reaction to tincture of poison ivy, topical pimecrolimus didn’t improve the duration or severity of symptoms (P=nonsignificant).⁴

A similar RCT from a dermatology clinic of 10 adults with confirmed sensitivity to poison oak or ivy found that topical jewelweed extract didn’t improve symptoms of artificially induced Rhus dermatitis. Investigators didn’t report P values.⁵

Oral steroids haven’t been studied

No studies have evaluated the effectiveness of oral steroids for Rhus dermatitis. Expert opinion recommends prednisone (60 mg daily, tapered over 14 days) for severe and widespread cases of poison ivy dermatitis.^6,7

Recommendations

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology jointly recommend topical corticosteroids as firstline treatment for localized allergic contact dermatitis. They advise giving systemic corticosteroids for lesions covering more than 20% of body surface area (for example, prednisone 0.5-1 mg/kg per day for 5-7 days, then 50% of the dose for another 5-7 days).⁶

The American Academy of Dermatology hasn’t issued guidelines on plant-induced dermatitis.

A dermatology textbook states that topical steroids are effective during the early stages of an outbreak, when vesicles and blisters aren’t yet present, and that systemic steroids are extremely effective for severe outbreaks. The authors recommend treating weepy lesions with tepid baths, wet to dry soaks, or calamine lotion to dry the lesions.⁷

It’s unclear which treatment is best, because there have been no head-to-head comparisons of treatments for Rhus (plant-induced) contact dermatitis. That said, topical high-potency steroids slightly improve pruritus and the appearance of the rash (strength of recommendation [SOR]: B, small cohort studies).

Neither topical pimecrolimus (an immunomodulatory drug) nor jewelweed extract are helpful (SOR: B, 1 small randomized controlled trial [RCT]).

Oral steroids improve symptoms in severe cases (SOR: C, expert opinion).

Evidence summary

Two prospective, self-controlled cohort studies (N=30) showed that high-potency topical steroids improved symptoms associated with artificially induced Rhus dermatitis in a group with a history of that type of dermatitis.

The first study found that 0.05% clobetasol propionate ointment applied twice a day significantly reduced overall vesiculation, erythema, induration, and pruritus compared with the control (P<.05, .01, .01, and .05, respectively).¹ Investigators evaluated erythema, induration, and pruritus on a scale of 0 to 3 (absent, mild, moderate, or severe) and graded vesiculation on a similar 0- to 3-point scale (a frank bulla was graded 3). They started treatment at 12, 24, and 48 hours after exposure and followed patients for 14 days. The greatest difference in mean scores—a reduction in vesiculation scores of approximately 1 point—occurred between 2 and 7 days of therapy.

The second study compared improvement in symptoms of Rhus dermatitis with daily application of topical steroids of different potencies and a control ointment.² Investigators evaluated healing using a 0- to 4-point scale (0=clearing and 4=marked edema, erythema, and vesiculation). They found that lower-potency topical steroids such as 1% hydrocortisone and 0.1% triamcinolone were equivalent to the control ointment, but high-potency (class IV) steroid ointments produced significant improvement in symptoms (by a mean of 1.07 points vs the control ointment; supporting statistics not given).

A systematic review of contact dermatitis treatment and prevention identified 4 “good-quality” RCTs that evaluated effective remedies for nickel-induced allergic contact dermatitis in a predominantly female Caucasian population.³ All found that moderately high-potency topical steroid therapy improved symptoms, but heterogeneity among the studies made it impossible to determine the best agent.

Topical immunomodulatory drugs and jewelweed are no help

In a double-blinded RCT of 12 adults with a history of Rhus dermatitis and a significant reaction to tincture of poison ivy, topical pimecrolimus didn’t improve the duration or severity of symptoms (P=nonsignificant).⁴

A similar RCT from a dermatology clinic of 10 adults with confirmed sensitivity to poison oak or ivy found that topical jewelweed extract didn’t improve symptoms of artificially induced Rhus dermatitis. Investigators didn’t report P values.⁵

Oral steroids haven’t been studied

No studies have evaluated the effectiveness of oral steroids for Rhus dermatitis. Expert opinion recommends prednisone (60 mg daily, tapered over 14 days) for severe and widespread cases of poison ivy dermatitis.^6,7

Recommendations

The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology jointly recommend topical corticosteroids as firstline treatment for localized allergic contact dermatitis. They advise giving systemic corticosteroids for lesions covering more than 20% of body surface area (for example, prednisone 0.5-1 mg/kg per day for 5-7 days, then 50% of the dose for another 5-7 days).⁶

The American Academy of Dermatology hasn’t issued guidelines on plant-induced dermatitis.

A dermatology textbook states that topical steroids are effective during the early stages of an outbreak, when vesicles and blisters aren’t yet present, and that systemic steroids are extremely effective for severe outbreaks. The authors recommend treating weepy lesions with tepid baths, wet to dry soaks, or calamine lotion to dry the lesions.⁷