• According to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine, about 1 in 5 hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries were readmitted within 30 days after discharge. Unplanned rehospitalizations cost Medicare $17.4 billion in 2004.
• The Project BOOST toolkit has been downloaded more than 4,000 times.
• Project BOOST has been implemented at more than 150 sites nationwide.
• Early data from six sites that have implemented Project BOOST reveal a reduction in 30-day readmission rates to 11.2% from 14.2%, as well as a 21% reduction in 30-day, all-cause readmission rates.

Source: www.hospitalmedicine.org

• According to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine, about 1 in 5 hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries were readmitted within 30 days after discharge. Unplanned rehospitalizations cost Medicare $17.4 billion in 2004.
• The Project BOOST toolkit has been downloaded more than 4,000 times.
• Project BOOST has been implemented at more than 150 sites nationwide.
• Early data from six sites that have implemented Project BOOST reveal a reduction in 30-day readmission rates to 11.2% from 14.2%, as well as a 21% reduction in 30-day, all-cause readmission rates.

Source: www.hospitalmedicine.org

• According to research published in the New England Journal of Medicine, about 1 in 5 hospitalized Medicare beneficiaries were readmitted within 30 days after discharge. Unplanned rehospitalizations cost Medicare $17.4 billion in 2004.
• The Project BOOST toolkit has been downloaded more than 4,000 times.
• Project BOOST has been implemented at more than 150 sites nationwide.
• Early data from six sites that have implemented Project BOOST reveal a reduction in 30-day readmission rates to 11.2% from 14.2%, as well as a 21% reduction in 30-day, all-cause readmission rates.

Source: www.hospitalmedicine.org

For hospitals across the country, 2013 is the year to address readmissions and find practical solutions. In January, the Journal of the American Medical Association dedicated

an entire issue to the vexing problem of hospital readmissions. In his audio summary of the issue, JAMA editor Howard Bauchner, MD, notes that it “came together organically,” based on increased submissions and attention to 30-day readmissions.

Among nearly a dozen articles focused on readmissions, discharge, and transitions of care, Project BOOST principal investigator Mark V. Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, makes the case for a community-based approach in an editorial titled “A Requirement to Reduce Readmissions: Take Care of the Patient, Not Just the Disease.” In the piece, he advocates for “broad patient-centered approaches that engage all members of a care team, especially front-line clinicians and use proven quality-improvement [QI] methods.” He goes on to link the concepts to the principles taught by Project BOOST.

After all, readmissions are expensive, and not just for hospitals, which is why private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are investing resources to improve discharge processes, reduce readmissions, and reduce costs.

Many adverse events that happen after discharge are predictable using assessment tools and methods in the Project BOOST program, Dr. Williams says. Hospitalists can—and should, according to many—improve the system to protect patients.

And while systemwide change doesn’t happen overnight, it does have to start somewhere, as leaders at the 150-plus Project BOOST sites nationwide can attest Now is the time to begin planning to join the Project BOOST 2013 cohort. Applications will be accepted through this summer; training will begin in the fall. But participation is limited, and successful applicants often need time to prepare their applications, which must include letters of support from a site executive and the development of a multidisciplinary team. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

For hospitals across the country, 2013 is the year to address readmissions and find practical solutions. In January, the Journal of the American Medical Association dedicated

an entire issue to the vexing problem of hospital readmissions. In his audio summary of the issue, JAMA editor Howard Bauchner, MD, notes that it “came together organically,” based on increased submissions and attention to 30-day readmissions.

Among nearly a dozen articles focused on readmissions, discharge, and transitions of care, Project BOOST principal investigator Mark V. Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, makes the case for a community-based approach in an editorial titled “A Requirement to Reduce Readmissions: Take Care of the Patient, Not Just the Disease.” In the piece, he advocates for “broad patient-centered approaches that engage all members of a care team, especially front-line clinicians and use proven quality-improvement [QI] methods.” He goes on to link the concepts to the principles taught by Project BOOST.

After all, readmissions are expensive, and not just for hospitals, which is why private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are investing resources to improve discharge processes, reduce readmissions, and reduce costs.

Many adverse events that happen after discharge are predictable using assessment tools and methods in the Project BOOST program, Dr. Williams says. Hospitalists can—and should, according to many—improve the system to protect patients.

And while systemwide change doesn’t happen overnight, it does have to start somewhere, as leaders at the 150-plus Project BOOST sites nationwide can attest Now is the time to begin planning to join the Project BOOST 2013 cohort. Applications will be accepted through this summer; training will begin in the fall. But participation is limited, and successful applicants often need time to prepare their applications, which must include letters of support from a site executive and the development of a multidisciplinary team. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

For hospitals across the country, 2013 is the year to address readmissions and find practical solutions. In January, the Journal of the American Medical Association dedicated

an entire issue to the vexing problem of hospital readmissions. In his audio summary of the issue, JAMA editor Howard Bauchner, MD, notes that it “came together organically,” based on increased submissions and attention to 30-day readmissions.

Among nearly a dozen articles focused on readmissions, discharge, and transitions of care, Project BOOST principal investigator Mark V. Williams, MD, FACP, MHM, makes the case for a community-based approach in an editorial titled “A Requirement to Reduce Readmissions: Take Care of the Patient, Not Just the Disease.” In the piece, he advocates for “broad patient-centered approaches that engage all members of a care team, especially front-line clinicians and use proven quality-improvement [QI] methods.” He goes on to link the concepts to the principles taught by Project BOOST.

After all, readmissions are expensive, and not just for hospitals, which is why private insurers and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) are investing resources to improve discharge processes, reduce readmissions, and reduce costs.

Many adverse events that happen after discharge are predictable using assessment tools and methods in the Project BOOST program, Dr. Williams says. Hospitalists can—and should, according to many—improve the system to protect patients.

And while systemwide change doesn’t happen overnight, it does have to start somewhere, as leaders at the 150-plus Project BOOST sites nationwide can attest Now is the time to begin planning to join the Project BOOST 2013 cohort. Applications will be accepted through this summer; training will begin in the fall. But participation is limited, and successful applicants often need time to prepare their applications, which must include letters of support from a site executive and the development of a multidisciplinary team. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost.

Brendon Shank is SHM’s associate vice president of communications.

By Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM

It is difficult to disagree that patients and their families deserve to be satisfied with the care they receive, and furthermore that a satisfying care experience is the foundation upon which the ability to heal is based. Mention the subject of patient satisfaction, however, to care providers, and prepare for many to respond negatively. For most, this frustration likely stems from the challenges associated with satisfaction measurement, and the application of this measurement to provider performance reporting and reimbursement. Perhaps by focusing so intently on quantifying how happy patients are with their care, we have distracted ourselves from the real goal of creating patient experiences that enable optimal healing.

In some respects, healthcare’s preoccupation with satisfaction measurements seems analogous to administering a final examination before teaching the course material. If so, at this juncture, it would be prudent to back up and examine the curriculum required to master the subject matter necessary to perform well on the test. To this end, it is necessary to:

Identify the contributors to a satisfying patient experience, and Focus specifically on understanding patient expectations.

Expectation Examination

An essential reading on the subject of patient experience and satisfaction is a July/August 2005 article in The Hospitalist titled “Patient Satisfaction: the Hospitalist’s Role,” in which Patrick J. Torcson, MD, MMM, FACP, SFHM, introduces “The First Law of Service.”¹ According to this law, satisfaction can be mathematically defined as equal to patients’ perceptions of the care they received minus their expectations for that care (satisfaction=perception–expectation). Accordingly, if perception meets or exceeds expectation, an associated degree of satisfaction will be generated.

Both perceptions and expectations can be affected to create satisfaction. Remodeling a hospital lobby is an example of an effort to primarily influence patient perception. When considering efforts to influence patient expectations, it is useful to think of universal versus individual patient requirements, needs, desires, values, and goals. Examples of universal patient expectations (meaning expectations held by all or a majority of patients) would include receiving warm meals at scheduled times, having call lights answered in a timely manner, understanding the side effects of medications, and receiving instructions at the time of discharge. Examples of individual patient expectations (meaning expectations that are personally held by individual patients because of reasons unique to individual circumstances not common to everyone) would be need for low-cost medications due to economic hardship, prioritization of functional improvement versus pain elimination, and tolerance of treatment-related side effects.

It might be fair to say that in its pursuit to create satisfying patient experiences, our healthcare system has focused more on influencing perception and universal patient expectations than it has on addressing unique, personally held patient interests. In the future, we should attend more diligently to individual expectations. By doing so, patients will be better engaged, providers will be better informed, and satisfaction will follow.

Shared Decision-Making

You wouldn’t think of retaining a real estate agent to assist you in purchasing a home without informing that person about your personal needs. In order to satisfy you, the agent must understand what you expect in regard to such issues as price, square footage, yard size, community amenities, school district, proximity to work, etc. Just as your needs in shopping for a home can only be met by considering your personal expectations, your patient’s needs can only be met by understanding their individual healthcare requirements.

Unfortunately, understanding an individual patient’s expectations about their healthcare is more challenging than outlining a list of requirements for their ideal home. Although the reasons for this are multiple (see “Barriers to Understanding Patient Expectations,” left), the solution in large part rests in the application of shared decision-making (SDM).

SDM is defined as a collaborative communication process between provider and patient intended to help the patient decide among multiple acceptable healthcare choices in accordance with their preferences and values. SDM has been demonstrated to positively impact patient satisfaction, as well as care quality, resource utilization, and healthcare costs. A cornerstone feature of SDM is the use of decision aids to assist patients in identifying their personal healthcare expectations while simultaneously educating them about how those expectations apply to care plan options. Decision aids also benefit care providers by creating a standardized framework by which to solicit patients’ input regarding their preferences. When navigated appropriately, SDM balances the clinician’s expertise and knowledge with the patient’s goals and values.

Recent investigations into the application of SDM to HM practice have touted its effectiveness (e.g. when applied to low-risk chest pain evaluations) and questioned the creation of unintended negative consequences (e.g. on hospital resource consumption and affordability).^2,3 Despite limited data in the HM setting, several literature reviews examining the effectiveness of SDM across various care sites consistently linked it to greater patient satisfaction.⁴

It is important to realize that policymakers are lauding the promise of SDM and incorporating its use into rules, regulations, and funding opportunities. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires SDM to participate in its accountable-care organization (ACO) programs, and several states recently have enacted legislation to promote SDM. Expect thus to experience future pressure to apply SDM in your hospitalist practice. Organizations dedicated to the advancement of SDM include the Society for Participatory Medicine, the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation, the Society for Medical Decision Making, and the Mayo Clinic. More information and resources are available on their websites.

Conclusions

Satisfaction surveys are tools for measuring the quality of patient care experiences. Although satisfaction surveying is an inexact science, and the application of survey results to performance evaluation is challenging, we must remember that the goal is to optimize patient experience. Necessary in the creation of a satisfying patient experience is a robust understanding of patient expectations. SDM is a promising communication strategy that can help both providers and patients better identify the personally held values and goals that determine patient care expectations.

Dr. Frost is president of SHM.

References

1. Torcson, P. Patient satisfaction: the hospitalist’s role. The Hospitalist website. Available at: http://www.the-hospitalist.org/details/article/256805/Patient_Satisfaction_the_Hospitalists_Role.html. Accessed Jan. 30, 2013.
2. Hess E, et al. The chest pain choice decision aid. A randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:251-259.
3. Tak, HJ, Meltzer, D. Effect of patient preference in medical decision-making on inpatient care [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2012;7(Suppl 2):91.
4. Hostetter, M, Klein S. Helping patients make better treatment choices with decision aids. The Commonwealth Fund website. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Newsletters/Quality-Matters/2012/October-November/In-Focus.aspx. Accessed Jan. 30, 2013.

By Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM

It is difficult to disagree that patients and their families deserve to be satisfied with the care they receive, and furthermore that a satisfying care experience is the foundation upon which the ability to heal is based. Mention the subject of patient satisfaction, however, to care providers, and prepare for many to respond negatively. For most, this frustration likely stems from the challenges associated with satisfaction measurement, and the application of this measurement to provider performance reporting and reimbursement. Perhaps by focusing so intently on quantifying how happy patients are with their care, we have distracted ourselves from the real goal of creating patient experiences that enable optimal healing.

In some respects, healthcare’s preoccupation with satisfaction measurements seems analogous to administering a final examination before teaching the course material. If so, at this juncture, it would be prudent to back up and examine the curriculum required to master the subject matter necessary to perform well on the test. To this end, it is necessary to:

Identify the contributors to a satisfying patient experience, and Focus specifically on understanding patient expectations.

Expectation Examination

An essential reading on the subject of patient experience and satisfaction is a July/August 2005 article in The Hospitalist titled “Patient Satisfaction: the Hospitalist’s Role,” in which Patrick J. Torcson, MD, MMM, FACP, SFHM, introduces “The First Law of Service.”¹ According to this law, satisfaction can be mathematically defined as equal to patients’ perceptions of the care they received minus their expectations for that care (satisfaction=perception–expectation). Accordingly, if perception meets or exceeds expectation, an associated degree of satisfaction will be generated.

Both perceptions and expectations can be affected to create satisfaction. Remodeling a hospital lobby is an example of an effort to primarily influence patient perception. When considering efforts to influence patient expectations, it is useful to think of universal versus individual patient requirements, needs, desires, values, and goals. Examples of universal patient expectations (meaning expectations held by all or a majority of patients) would include receiving warm meals at scheduled times, having call lights answered in a timely manner, understanding the side effects of medications, and receiving instructions at the time of discharge. Examples of individual patient expectations (meaning expectations that are personally held by individual patients because of reasons unique to individual circumstances not common to everyone) would be need for low-cost medications due to economic hardship, prioritization of functional improvement versus pain elimination, and tolerance of treatment-related side effects.

It might be fair to say that in its pursuit to create satisfying patient experiences, our healthcare system has focused more on influencing perception and universal patient expectations than it has on addressing unique, personally held patient interests. In the future, we should attend more diligently to individual expectations. By doing so, patients will be better engaged, providers will be better informed, and satisfaction will follow.

Shared Decision-Making

You wouldn’t think of retaining a real estate agent to assist you in purchasing a home without informing that person about your personal needs. In order to satisfy you, the agent must understand what you expect in regard to such issues as price, square footage, yard size, community amenities, school district, proximity to work, etc. Just as your needs in shopping for a home can only be met by considering your personal expectations, your patient’s needs can only be met by understanding their individual healthcare requirements.

Unfortunately, understanding an individual patient’s expectations about their healthcare is more challenging than outlining a list of requirements for their ideal home. Although the reasons for this are multiple (see “Barriers to Understanding Patient Expectations,” left), the solution in large part rests in the application of shared decision-making (SDM).

SDM is defined as a collaborative communication process between provider and patient intended to help the patient decide among multiple acceptable healthcare choices in accordance with their preferences and values. SDM has been demonstrated to positively impact patient satisfaction, as well as care quality, resource utilization, and healthcare costs. A cornerstone feature of SDM is the use of decision aids to assist patients in identifying their personal healthcare expectations while simultaneously educating them about how those expectations apply to care plan options. Decision aids also benefit care providers by creating a standardized framework by which to solicit patients’ input regarding their preferences. When navigated appropriately, SDM balances the clinician’s expertise and knowledge with the patient’s goals and values.

Recent investigations into the application of SDM to HM practice have touted its effectiveness (e.g. when applied to low-risk chest pain evaluations) and questioned the creation of unintended negative consequences (e.g. on hospital resource consumption and affordability).^2,3 Despite limited data in the HM setting, several literature reviews examining the effectiveness of SDM across various care sites consistently linked it to greater patient satisfaction.⁴

It is important to realize that policymakers are lauding the promise of SDM and incorporating its use into rules, regulations, and funding opportunities. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires SDM to participate in its accountable-care organization (ACO) programs, and several states recently have enacted legislation to promote SDM. Expect thus to experience future pressure to apply SDM in your hospitalist practice. Organizations dedicated to the advancement of SDM include the Society for Participatory Medicine, the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation, the Society for Medical Decision Making, and the Mayo Clinic. More information and resources are available on their websites.

Conclusions

Satisfaction surveys are tools for measuring the quality of patient care experiences. Although satisfaction surveying is an inexact science, and the application of survey results to performance evaluation is challenging, we must remember that the goal is to optimize patient experience. Necessary in the creation of a satisfying patient experience is a robust understanding of patient expectations. SDM is a promising communication strategy that can help both providers and patients better identify the personally held values and goals that determine patient care expectations.

Dr. Frost is president of SHM.

References

1. Torcson, P. Patient satisfaction: the hospitalist’s role. The Hospitalist website. Available at: http://www.the-hospitalist.org/details/article/256805/Patient_Satisfaction_the_Hospitalists_Role.html. Accessed Jan. 30, 2013.
2. Hess E, et al. The chest pain choice decision aid. A randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:251-259.
3. Tak, HJ, Meltzer, D. Effect of patient preference in medical decision-making on inpatient care [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2012;7(Suppl 2):91.
4. Hostetter, M, Klein S. Helping patients make better treatment choices with decision aids. The Commonwealth Fund website. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Newsletters/Quality-Matters/2012/October-November/In-Focus.aspx. Accessed Jan. 30, 2013.

By Shaun Frost, MD, SFHM

It is difficult to disagree that patients and their families deserve to be satisfied with the care they receive, and furthermore that a satisfying care experience is the foundation upon which the ability to heal is based. Mention the subject of patient satisfaction, however, to care providers, and prepare for many to respond negatively. For most, this frustration likely stems from the challenges associated with satisfaction measurement, and the application of this measurement to provider performance reporting and reimbursement. Perhaps by focusing so intently on quantifying how happy patients are with their care, we have distracted ourselves from the real goal of creating patient experiences that enable optimal healing.

In some respects, healthcare’s preoccupation with satisfaction measurements seems analogous to administering a final examination before teaching the course material. If so, at this juncture, it would be prudent to back up and examine the curriculum required to master the subject matter necessary to perform well on the test. To this end, it is necessary to:

Identify the contributors to a satisfying patient experience, and Focus specifically on understanding patient expectations.

Expectation Examination

An essential reading on the subject of patient experience and satisfaction is a July/August 2005 article in The Hospitalist titled “Patient Satisfaction: the Hospitalist’s Role,” in which Patrick J. Torcson, MD, MMM, FACP, SFHM, introduces “The First Law of Service.”¹ According to this law, satisfaction can be mathematically defined as equal to patients’ perceptions of the care they received minus their expectations for that care (satisfaction=perception–expectation). Accordingly, if perception meets or exceeds expectation, an associated degree of satisfaction will be generated.

Both perceptions and expectations can be affected to create satisfaction. Remodeling a hospital lobby is an example of an effort to primarily influence patient perception. When considering efforts to influence patient expectations, it is useful to think of universal versus individual patient requirements, needs, desires, values, and goals. Examples of universal patient expectations (meaning expectations held by all or a majority of patients) would include receiving warm meals at scheduled times, having call lights answered in a timely manner, understanding the side effects of medications, and receiving instructions at the time of discharge. Examples of individual patient expectations (meaning expectations that are personally held by individual patients because of reasons unique to individual circumstances not common to everyone) would be need for low-cost medications due to economic hardship, prioritization of functional improvement versus pain elimination, and tolerance of treatment-related side effects.

It might be fair to say that in its pursuit to create satisfying patient experiences, our healthcare system has focused more on influencing perception and universal patient expectations than it has on addressing unique, personally held patient interests. In the future, we should attend more diligently to individual expectations. By doing so, patients will be better engaged, providers will be better informed, and satisfaction will follow.

Shared Decision-Making

You wouldn’t think of retaining a real estate agent to assist you in purchasing a home without informing that person about your personal needs. In order to satisfy you, the agent must understand what you expect in regard to such issues as price, square footage, yard size, community amenities, school district, proximity to work, etc. Just as your needs in shopping for a home can only be met by considering your personal expectations, your patient’s needs can only be met by understanding their individual healthcare requirements.

Unfortunately, understanding an individual patient’s expectations about their healthcare is more challenging than outlining a list of requirements for their ideal home. Although the reasons for this are multiple (see “Barriers to Understanding Patient Expectations,” left), the solution in large part rests in the application of shared decision-making (SDM).

SDM is defined as a collaborative communication process between provider and patient intended to help the patient decide among multiple acceptable healthcare choices in accordance with their preferences and values. SDM has been demonstrated to positively impact patient satisfaction, as well as care quality, resource utilization, and healthcare costs. A cornerstone feature of SDM is the use of decision aids to assist patients in identifying their personal healthcare expectations while simultaneously educating them about how those expectations apply to care plan options. Decision aids also benefit care providers by creating a standardized framework by which to solicit patients’ input regarding their preferences. When navigated appropriately, SDM balances the clinician’s expertise and knowledge with the patient’s goals and values.

Recent investigations into the application of SDM to HM practice have touted its effectiveness (e.g. when applied to low-risk chest pain evaluations) and questioned the creation of unintended negative consequences (e.g. on hospital resource consumption and affordability).^2,3 Despite limited data in the HM setting, several literature reviews examining the effectiveness of SDM across various care sites consistently linked it to greater patient satisfaction.⁴

It is important to realize that policymakers are lauding the promise of SDM and incorporating its use into rules, regulations, and funding opportunities. For example, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) requires SDM to participate in its accountable-care organization (ACO) programs, and several states recently have enacted legislation to promote SDM. Expect thus to experience future pressure to apply SDM in your hospitalist practice. Organizations dedicated to the advancement of SDM include the Society for Participatory Medicine, the Informed Medical Decisions Foundation, the Society for Medical Decision Making, and the Mayo Clinic. More information and resources are available on their websites.

Conclusions

Satisfaction surveys are tools for measuring the quality of patient care experiences. Although satisfaction surveying is an inexact science, and the application of survey results to performance evaluation is challenging, we must remember that the goal is to optimize patient experience. Necessary in the creation of a satisfying patient experience is a robust understanding of patient expectations. SDM is a promising communication strategy that can help both providers and patients better identify the personally held values and goals that determine patient care expectations.

Dr. Frost is president of SHM.

References

1. Torcson, P. Patient satisfaction: the hospitalist’s role. The Hospitalist website. Available at: http://www.the-hospitalist.org/details/article/256805/Patient_Satisfaction_the_Hospitalists_Role.html. Accessed Jan. 30, 2013.
2. Hess E, et al. The chest pain choice decision aid. A randomized trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:251-259.
3. Tak, HJ, Meltzer, D. Effect of patient preference in medical decision-making on inpatient care [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2012;7(Suppl 2):91.
4. Hostetter, M, Klein S. Helping patients make better treatment choices with decision aids. The Commonwealth Fund website. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Newsletters/Quality-Matters/2012/October-November/In-Focus.aspx. Accessed Jan. 30, 2013.

HVBP’s First Efficiency Measure

Move over, cost, LOS—make room for ‘Medicare spending per beneficiary’

The unwritten rule in hospitalist circles is that lower cost and length of stay (LOS) mean higher efficiency, with hospitalists (me included) often pointing to one or both of these as a yardstick of performance in the efficiency domain. But if we lower hospital length of stay and costs while shifting costs to post-hospital care, have we solved anything?

This very question was raised by Kuo and Goodwin’s observational study that revealed that decreased hospital costs and LOS were offset by higher utilization and costs after discharge under hospitalist care.¹

Efficiency As a Domain of Quality

Using the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) six domains of quality as a framework (see Table 1, right), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program seeks to encourage enhanced quality in all of the IOM domains. For HVBP 2015, we see the addition of the first measure in the domain of efficiency.

You may be saying to yourself, “It’s only 2013. Why should I worry about HVBP 2015?” Here’s why: The measurement periods for HVBP 2015 are May to December 2011 (baseline) and May to December 2013 (performance). Hospitals can succeed under HVBP if they demonstrate improvement from baseline or attainment, which indicates maintenance of a high level of performance despite no substantial improvement from baseline. Medicare spending per beneficiary (MSPB) will make up 20% of the 2015 HVBP incentive pool for hospitals.

Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Instead of Costs or LOS

Why did CMS choose to use MSPB as a measure and not simply hospital costs or length of stay? Measuring efficiency of hospital care has proven to be a sticky wicket. If one simply measures and rewards decreased hospital costs and/or length of stay (which you might legitimately argue is exactly what the current DRG system does by paying a case rate to the hospital), one runs the risk of shifting costs to settings beyond the four walls of the hospital, or even fueling higher rates of hospital readmissions. Also, physician costs and other costs (therapy, home care) are not accounted for; they are accounted for under MSPB (described below). Finally, hospital costs and LOS vary substantially across regions and by severity of illness of the patients being analyzed. This makes it difficult to compare, for example, LOS in California versus Massachusetts.

The MSPB is designed to be a comprehensive and equitable metric:

• It seeks to eliminate cost-shifting among settings by widening the time period from three days prior to 30 days post-inpatient-care episode;
• It looks at the full cost of care by including expenses from both Medicare Part A (hospital) and Part B (doctors, PT, OT, home health, others);
• It incorporates risk adjustment by taking into account differences in patient health status; and
• It seeks to level the playing field by using a price standardization methodology that factors in geographic payment differences in wages, practice costs, and payments for indirect medical education and disproportionate share hospitals (those that treat large numbers of the indigent population).

Driving High Performance in Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary

Hospitalists straddle the Part A and Part B elements of Medicare; they have one foot in the hospital and one foot in the physician practice world. They should be able to improve their hospitals’ performance under the MSPB yardstick. Since the performance measurement period starts in May, now is the time to sharpen your focus on MSPB.

Here are the top priorities for MSPB that I recommend for hospitalists:

Reduction of marginally beneficial resource utilization. This is a process of analyzing resource (e.g. pharmacy, radiology, laboratory, blood products) utilization for the purpose of minimizing costly practices that do not benefit the patient. This is an essential practice of a high-functioning hospitalist program. Through its participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign (see “Stop! Think Twice Before You Order,” p. 46), SHM has helped hospitalists have conversations about these practices with patients.

Hospital throughput. Work on “front end” throughput with the ED by having a process in place to quickly evaluate and facilitate potential admissions. Work with case management to assure timely (and early in the day) discharges.

Safe-discharge processes. We reviewed key elements of a safe discharge last month and provided a link to SHM’s Project BOOST (www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost). From the MSPB perspective: A safe discharge minimizes exorbitant spending after discharge.

Documentation integrity. Because MSPB is risk-adjusted, the more the record reflects patient severity of illness, the better your hospital will perform, all else being equal. Work collaboratively with your documentation integrity professionals!

Much of the success of the HM specialty has been built on the tenet that the hospitalist model delivers efficient inpatient care. In the coming years, the specialty’s contribution will increasingly be gauged by the MSPB measure.

Reference

1. Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):152-159.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

HVBP’s First Efficiency Measure

Move over, cost, LOS—make room for ‘Medicare spending per beneficiary’

The unwritten rule in hospitalist circles is that lower cost and length of stay (LOS) mean higher efficiency, with hospitalists (me included) often pointing to one or both of these as a yardstick of performance in the efficiency domain. But if we lower hospital length of stay and costs while shifting costs to post-hospital care, have we solved anything?

This very question was raised by Kuo and Goodwin’s observational study that revealed that decreased hospital costs and LOS were offset by higher utilization and costs after discharge under hospitalist care.¹

Efficiency As a Domain of Quality

Using the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) six domains of quality as a framework (see Table 1, right), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program seeks to encourage enhanced quality in all of the IOM domains. For HVBP 2015, we see the addition of the first measure in the domain of efficiency.

You may be saying to yourself, “It’s only 2013. Why should I worry about HVBP 2015?” Here’s why: The measurement periods for HVBP 2015 are May to December 2011 (baseline) and May to December 2013 (performance). Hospitals can succeed under HVBP if they demonstrate improvement from baseline or attainment, which indicates maintenance of a high level of performance despite no substantial improvement from baseline. Medicare spending per beneficiary (MSPB) will make up 20% of the 2015 HVBP incentive pool for hospitals.

Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Instead of Costs or LOS

Why did CMS choose to use MSPB as a measure and not simply hospital costs or length of stay? Measuring efficiency of hospital care has proven to be a sticky wicket. If one simply measures and rewards decreased hospital costs and/or length of stay (which you might legitimately argue is exactly what the current DRG system does by paying a case rate to the hospital), one runs the risk of shifting costs to settings beyond the four walls of the hospital, or even fueling higher rates of hospital readmissions. Also, physician costs and other costs (therapy, home care) are not accounted for; they are accounted for under MSPB (described below). Finally, hospital costs and LOS vary substantially across regions and by severity of illness of the patients being analyzed. This makes it difficult to compare, for example, LOS in California versus Massachusetts.

The MSPB is designed to be a comprehensive and equitable metric:

• It seeks to eliminate cost-shifting among settings by widening the time period from three days prior to 30 days post-inpatient-care episode;
• It looks at the full cost of care by including expenses from both Medicare Part A (hospital) and Part B (doctors, PT, OT, home health, others);
• It incorporates risk adjustment by taking into account differences in patient health status; and
• It seeks to level the playing field by using a price standardization methodology that factors in geographic payment differences in wages, practice costs, and payments for indirect medical education and disproportionate share hospitals (those that treat large numbers of the indigent population).

Driving High Performance in Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary

Hospitalists straddle the Part A and Part B elements of Medicare; they have one foot in the hospital and one foot in the physician practice world. They should be able to improve their hospitals’ performance under the MSPB yardstick. Since the performance measurement period starts in May, now is the time to sharpen your focus on MSPB.

Here are the top priorities for MSPB that I recommend for hospitalists:

Reduction of marginally beneficial resource utilization. This is a process of analyzing resource (e.g. pharmacy, radiology, laboratory, blood products) utilization for the purpose of minimizing costly practices that do not benefit the patient. This is an essential practice of a high-functioning hospitalist program. Through its participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign (see “Stop! Think Twice Before You Order,” p. 46), SHM has helped hospitalists have conversations about these practices with patients.

Hospital throughput. Work on “front end” throughput with the ED by having a process in place to quickly evaluate and facilitate potential admissions. Work with case management to assure timely (and early in the day) discharges.

Safe-discharge processes. We reviewed key elements of a safe discharge last month and provided a link to SHM’s Project BOOST (www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost). From the MSPB perspective: A safe discharge minimizes exorbitant spending after discharge.

Documentation integrity. Because MSPB is risk-adjusted, the more the record reflects patient severity of illness, the better your hospital will perform, all else being equal. Work collaboratively with your documentation integrity professionals!

Much of the success of the HM specialty has been built on the tenet that the hospitalist model delivers efficient inpatient care. In the coming years, the specialty’s contribution will increasingly be gauged by the MSPB measure.

Reference

1. Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):152-159.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

HVBP’s First Efficiency Measure

Move over, cost, LOS—make room for ‘Medicare spending per beneficiary’

The unwritten rule in hospitalist circles is that lower cost and length of stay (LOS) mean higher efficiency, with hospitalists (me included) often pointing to one or both of these as a yardstick of performance in the efficiency domain. But if we lower hospital length of stay and costs while shifting costs to post-hospital care, have we solved anything?

This very question was raised by Kuo and Goodwin’s observational study that revealed that decreased hospital costs and LOS were offset by higher utilization and costs after discharge under hospitalist care.¹

Efficiency As a Domain of Quality

Using the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) six domains of quality as a framework (see Table 1, right), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP) program seeks to encourage enhanced quality in all of the IOM domains. For HVBP 2015, we see the addition of the first measure in the domain of efficiency.

You may be saying to yourself, “It’s only 2013. Why should I worry about HVBP 2015?” Here’s why: The measurement periods for HVBP 2015 are May to December 2011 (baseline) and May to December 2013 (performance). Hospitals can succeed under HVBP if they demonstrate improvement from baseline or attainment, which indicates maintenance of a high level of performance despite no substantial improvement from baseline. Medicare spending per beneficiary (MSPB) will make up 20% of the 2015 HVBP incentive pool for hospitals.

Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary Instead of Costs or LOS

Why did CMS choose to use MSPB as a measure and not simply hospital costs or length of stay? Measuring efficiency of hospital care has proven to be a sticky wicket. If one simply measures and rewards decreased hospital costs and/or length of stay (which you might legitimately argue is exactly what the current DRG system does by paying a case rate to the hospital), one runs the risk of shifting costs to settings beyond the four walls of the hospital, or even fueling higher rates of hospital readmissions. Also, physician costs and other costs (therapy, home care) are not accounted for; they are accounted for under MSPB (described below). Finally, hospital costs and LOS vary substantially across regions and by severity of illness of the patients being analyzed. This makes it difficult to compare, for example, LOS in California versus Massachusetts.

The MSPB is designed to be a comprehensive and equitable metric:

• It seeks to eliminate cost-shifting among settings by widening the time period from three days prior to 30 days post-inpatient-care episode;
• It looks at the full cost of care by including expenses from both Medicare Part A (hospital) and Part B (doctors, PT, OT, home health, others);
• It incorporates risk adjustment by taking into account differences in patient health status; and
• It seeks to level the playing field by using a price standardization methodology that factors in geographic payment differences in wages, practice costs, and payments for indirect medical education and disproportionate share hospitals (those that treat large numbers of the indigent population).

Driving High Performance in Medicare Spending Per Beneficiary

Hospitalists straddle the Part A and Part B elements of Medicare; they have one foot in the hospital and one foot in the physician practice world. They should be able to improve their hospitals’ performance under the MSPB yardstick. Since the performance measurement period starts in May, now is the time to sharpen your focus on MSPB.

Here are the top priorities for MSPB that I recommend for hospitalists:

Reduction of marginally beneficial resource utilization. This is a process of analyzing resource (e.g. pharmacy, radiology, laboratory, blood products) utilization for the purpose of minimizing costly practices that do not benefit the patient. This is an essential practice of a high-functioning hospitalist program. Through its participation in the Choosing Wisely campaign (see “Stop! Think Twice Before You Order,” p. 46), SHM has helped hospitalists have conversations about these practices with patients.

Hospital throughput. Work on “front end” throughput with the ED by having a process in place to quickly evaluate and facilitate potential admissions. Work with case management to assure timely (and early in the day) discharges.

Safe-discharge processes. We reviewed key elements of a safe discharge last month and provided a link to SHM’s Project BOOST (www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost). From the MSPB perspective: A safe discharge minimizes exorbitant spending after discharge.

Documentation integrity. Because MSPB is risk-adjusted, the more the record reflects patient severity of illness, the better your hospital will perform, all else being equal. Work collaboratively with your documentation integrity professionals!

Much of the success of the HM specialty has been built on the tenet that the hospitalist model delivers efficient inpatient care. In the coming years, the specialty’s contribution will increasingly be gauged by the MSPB measure.

Reference

1. Kuo YF, Goodwin JS. Association of hospitalist care with medical utilization after discharge: evidence of cost shift from a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(3):152-159.

Dr. Whitcomb is medical director of healthcare quality at Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. He is a co-founder and past president of SHM. Email him at [email protected].

After years of juggling more than one career, Kulleni Gebreyes, MD, MBA, had a tough decision to make. "I'm a little bit of a glutton for punishment," she admits with a chuckle. While overseeing quality improvement (QI) for a healthcare foundation, she had negotiated to take off every other Friday and work several ED shifts per month on weekends at two local hospitals.

Then, in January 2012, Dr. Gebreyes began a new full-time position as a director at PricewaterhouseCoopers in McLean, Va. It became too time-consuming and exhausting to treat patients and consult in healthcare industries, says the mother of two children, who are 7 and 4.

Dr. Gebreyes is among a growing number of physicians who, after a number of years, opt to give up clinical medicine for nonclinical roles in healthcare or other industries altogether. "You are ready for transition when the new choice excites and energizes you," she explains, "and not necessarily when your first choice disappoints you."

A career shift offers new opportunities for broadening one's horizons while often striking a better work-life balance. Many clinicians make the transition slowly and wisely, and some take an expected financial hit as they carve out an entrepreneurial and creative path.

"Modern medicine is very difficult. You can burn out if you're not careful," says Dan Hale, MD, FAAP, a pediatric hospitalist in the Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

Stepping off the merry-go-round can help you regroup. Fortunately, he adds, hospitalists can exercise more flexibility in scheduling than physicians in different specialties. Some hospitalists prefer to work nights and weekends in order to free up weekdays for other activities. Others decrease their clinical shifts and devote more time to teaching, research, or administration.

For those who decide to leave medicine completely, "hospitalists definitely have people skills day to day in their jobs that are applicable in multiple other careers," says Dr. Hale, a Team Hospitalist member. "Becoming a physician requires so much dedication and hard work, so you will succeed in whatever career you choose."

The Society of Physician Entrepreneurs (www.sopenet.org) is expanding by about 150 to 200 new members each month. Founded in 2008 and officially launched in January 2011, the society has more than 4,700 members globally. The interdisciplinary network includes physicians and innovators in other professions—from law to information technology to product development.

Its purpose is to "bring all the stakeholders together in one virtual space to collaborate," says co-founder and president Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, professor in the departments of otolaryngology, dentistry, and engineering at the University of Colorado Denver, where he directs the graduate program in bio-innovation and entrepreneurship.

"The opportunities for physician entrepreneurs include working with industry, consulting, creating their own company, and much more," Dr. Meyers says. "As domain experts, physicians are in a unique position to add value to the innovation chain.

I have really enjoyed using all of my medical background and knowledge and applying it toward film. It’s very grounding. It gives you a purpose.

–Maren Grainger-Monsen, MD, filmmaker-in-residence and director of the bioethics and film program, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford, Calif.

"However, to leave practice and be successful at something nonclinical requires education, experience, and networks," he says. "Doing what you did successfully in your last career won't be a guarantee of success in your next career, so you have to be willing to pay your dues and accept the risk."

The Writer

Deborah Shlian, MD, MBA, a former family medicine physician and managed-care executive in California, has evolved into a medical management consultant and an author of both fiction and nonfiction titles. Dr. Shlian, who now lives in Boca Raton, Fla., had always wanted to write. Her father, an internist, encouraged the pursuit of medicine, so she followed in his footsteps.

Deborah Shlian, MD, MBA

"I wanted to emulate what he did," she says. Over time, she realized that "doctors have a lot of skills that are applicable to other endeavors."

She and her husband, Joel Shlian, MD, MBA, also a former family medicine physician, fully gave up clinical practice about 10 years ago after doing it part time for a decade. The Shlians met as students at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in 1970. Initially, their new business concentrated on physician executive recruitment. As clients requested other services, the Shlians helped identify nonphysician managers as well. Clients included established, as well as start-up health plans, academic institutions, utilization review, and healthcare consulting companies.

Given the accelerated changes in healthcare delivery, earning a graduate education in business is not a quick and easy avenue to another career. "An MBA should never be viewed as the means to 'get out of medical practice,'" Dr. Shlian says in her new book, "Lessons Learned: Stories from Women in Medical Management," released this month by the American College of Physician Executives.

"In fact, I would submit that if you really hate clinical medicine, medical management is not for you," she says. "It can be every bit as demanding and frustrating as clinical practice."

The Entrepreneur

Jeffrey N. Hausfeld, MD, MBA, FACS, completed an MBA program on evenings and weekends. After graduation in 2005, he gave up his 24-year practice of otolaryngology and facial plastic surgery. He continued his education by obtaining a graduate certificate in leadership coaching and organizational development. Then he became involved in the first of several business ventures, capitalizing on his clinical experience.

Jeffrey N. Hausfeld, MD, MBA, FACS

"Doctors don't have a trusted partner to do their debt collections," says Dr. Hausfeld, co-founder and treasurer of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs. His own negative experiences with debt-collection agencies contributed to his "understanding the obstacles and objections to create this kind of an entity."

You are ready for transition when the new choice excites and energizes you, and not necessarily when your first choice disappoints you.

—Kulleni Gebreyes, MD, MBA, director of healthcare consulting, PricewaterhouseCoopers, McLean, Va.

Hence the emergence of FMS Financial Solutions, based in Greenbelt, Md. "This seemed to be a very natural fit for me," says Dr. Hausfeld, who is the managing director. By collecting money owed to physicians, hospitals, and surgical centers, he has increased the revenues of his business fourfold since 2006. The company has 24 full- and part-time workers.

Meanwhile, his son, Joshua, who joined him in the healthcare MBA program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and now works for an investment banking firm that provides real estate loans for senior housing, introduced Dr. Hausfeld to a group of Midwest-based assisted-living-facility developers. Four years ago, they struck a deal to provide private equity funding and create Memory Care Communities of Illinois, with Dr. Hausfeld serving as president. The 24-hour residential facilities are home to patients with Alzheimer's disease and dementia.

To some degree, he misses practicing medicine, but Dr. Hausfeld is enthusiastic about making a difference in even more people's lives than he did as a physician and surgeon.

"I've done 10,000 ear, nose, and throat operations. If I did 1,000 more, how much would I be changing the world?" Dr. Hausfeld says. Ultimately, "you find a way to leave a bigger footprint."

Deborah Shlian, MD, MBA

His entrepreneurial spirit has led to other consulting roles. For instance, he is trying to help two startup companies—one in the medical device arena, the other in information technology—grow by leaps and bounds.

The Director

Maren Grainger-Monsen, MD, has made her mark as an award-winning physician filmmaker. She is filmmaker-in-residence and director of the bioethics and film program at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics in Palo Alto, Calif. She studied at the London Film School and received her medical training at the University of Washington in Seattle and Stanford University School of Medicine.

"I have really enjoyed using all of my medical background and knowledge and applying it toward film," Dr. Grainger-Monsen says of her position at Stanford, which she has held since 1998. "It's very grounding. It gives you a purpose."

Her one-hour documentary "Rare," which features a family with a very uncommon genetic disease, aired last August on PBS. Another film, "The Revolutionary Optimists," follows a group of aspiring youngsters in the slums of Calcutta, India, who battle poverty and transform their neighborhoods from the inside out. One-hour and 80-minute versions of the film are slated to air on the PBS series "Independent Lens" as part of the Women and Girls Lead Global partnership.

Dr. Grainger-Monsen co-produced and co-directed both films with Nicole Newnham, an independent documentary filmmaker who is in residence at Stanford's bioethics and film program.

As an undergraduate art history major, Dr. Grainger-Monsen became interested in social and ethical issues in medicine. Later, films shown in medical school struck a chord with her. She was amazed at how images could resonate with viewers and trigger animated debate. During the summer between her first and second years of medical school, she was inspired to study film at New York University.

Dr. Grainger-Monsen eventually trained in emergency medicine at Stanford and completed a fellowship in palliative care at Stanford-affiliated Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital. For years, she split her career between working in community ER clinics and producing films. Her films are large-scale projects that may take five years or longer to make, and she raises all the funds to bring them to fruition.

"I really do find documentary filmmaking tremendously gratifying," Dr. Grainger-Monsen says of the chance "to talk with all different kinds of people in all different situations and walk in their shoes, with them, for a time. That is what I'm trying to share with the audience."

In creating character-driven documentaries, she aims to spark discussions about important issues in contemporary medicine. "I hope my films can help increase understanding and empathy," she says, "and result in improvements to the delivery of healthcare and reduction of disparities on multiple levels."

Susan Kreimer is a freelance writer in New York.

After years of juggling more than one career, Kulleni Gebreyes, MD, MBA, had a tough decision to make. "I'm a little bit of a glutton for punishment," she admits with a chuckle. While overseeing quality improvement (QI) for a healthcare foundation, she had negotiated to take off every other Friday and work several ED shifts per month on weekends at two local hospitals.

Then, in January 2012, Dr. Gebreyes began a new full-time position as a director at PricewaterhouseCoopers in McLean, Va. It became too time-consuming and exhausting to treat patients and consult in healthcare industries, says the mother of two children, who are 7 and 4.

Dr. Gebreyes is among a growing number of physicians who, after a number of years, opt to give up clinical medicine for nonclinical roles in healthcare or other industries altogether. "You are ready for transition when the new choice excites and energizes you," she explains, "and not necessarily when your first choice disappoints you."

A career shift offers new opportunities for broadening one's horizons while often striking a better work-life balance. Many clinicians make the transition slowly and wisely, and some take an expected financial hit as they carve out an entrepreneurial and creative path.

"Modern medicine is very difficult. You can burn out if you're not careful," says Dan Hale, MD, FAAP, a pediatric hospitalist in the Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

Stepping off the merry-go-round can help you regroup. Fortunately, he adds, hospitalists can exercise more flexibility in scheduling than physicians in different specialties. Some hospitalists prefer to work nights and weekends in order to free up weekdays for other activities. Others decrease their clinical shifts and devote more time to teaching, research, or administration.

For those who decide to leave medicine completely, "hospitalists definitely have people skills day to day in their jobs that are applicable in multiple other careers," says Dr. Hale, a Team Hospitalist member. "Becoming a physician requires so much dedication and hard work, so you will succeed in whatever career you choose."

The Society of Physician Entrepreneurs (www.sopenet.org) is expanding by about 150 to 200 new members each month. Founded in 2008 and officially launched in January 2011, the society has more than 4,700 members globally. The interdisciplinary network includes physicians and innovators in other professions—from law to information technology to product development.

Its purpose is to "bring all the stakeholders together in one virtual space to collaborate," says co-founder and president Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, professor in the departments of otolaryngology, dentistry, and engineering at the University of Colorado Denver, where he directs the graduate program in bio-innovation and entrepreneurship.

"The opportunities for physician entrepreneurs include working with industry, consulting, creating their own company, and much more," Dr. Meyers says. "As domain experts, physicians are in a unique position to add value to the innovation chain.

I have really enjoyed using all of my medical background and knowledge and applying it toward film. It’s very grounding. It gives you a purpose.

–Maren Grainger-Monsen, MD, filmmaker-in-residence and director of the bioethics and film program, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford, Calif.

"However, to leave practice and be successful at something nonclinical requires education, experience, and networks," he says. "Doing what you did successfully in your last career won't be a guarantee of success in your next career, so you have to be willing to pay your dues and accept the risk."

The Writer

Deborah Shlian, MD, MBA, a former family medicine physician and managed-care executive in California, has evolved into a medical management consultant and an author of both fiction and nonfiction titles. Dr. Shlian, who now lives in Boca Raton, Fla., had always wanted to write. Her father, an internist, encouraged the pursuit of medicine, so she followed in his footsteps.

Deborah Shlian, MD, MBA

"I wanted to emulate what he did," she says. Over time, she realized that "doctors have a lot of skills that are applicable to other endeavors."

She and her husband, Joel Shlian, MD, MBA, also a former family medicine physician, fully gave up clinical practice about 10 years ago after doing it part time for a decade. The Shlians met as students at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in 1970. Initially, their new business concentrated on physician executive recruitment. As clients requested other services, the Shlians helped identify nonphysician managers as well. Clients included established, as well as start-up health plans, academic institutions, utilization review, and healthcare consulting companies.

Given the accelerated changes in healthcare delivery, earning a graduate education in business is not a quick and easy avenue to another career. "An MBA should never be viewed as the means to 'get out of medical practice,'" Dr. Shlian says in her new book, "Lessons Learned: Stories from Women in Medical Management," released this month by the American College of Physician Executives.

"In fact, I would submit that if you really hate clinical medicine, medical management is not for you," she says. "It can be every bit as demanding and frustrating as clinical practice."

The Entrepreneur

Jeffrey N. Hausfeld, MD, MBA, FACS, completed an MBA program on evenings and weekends. After graduation in 2005, he gave up his 24-year practice of otolaryngology and facial plastic surgery. He continued his education by obtaining a graduate certificate in leadership coaching and organizational development. Then he became involved in the first of several business ventures, capitalizing on his clinical experience.

Jeffrey N. Hausfeld, MD, MBA, FACS

"Doctors don't have a trusted partner to do their debt collections," says Dr. Hausfeld, co-founder and treasurer of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs. His own negative experiences with debt-collection agencies contributed to his "understanding the obstacles and objections to create this kind of an entity."

You are ready for transition when the new choice excites and energizes you, and not necessarily when your first choice disappoints you.

—Kulleni Gebreyes, MD, MBA, director of healthcare consulting, PricewaterhouseCoopers, McLean, Va.

Hence the emergence of FMS Financial Solutions, based in Greenbelt, Md. "This seemed to be a very natural fit for me," says Dr. Hausfeld, who is the managing director. By collecting money owed to physicians, hospitals, and surgical centers, he has increased the revenues of his business fourfold since 2006. The company has 24 full- and part-time workers.

Meanwhile, his son, Joshua, who joined him in the healthcare MBA program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and now works for an investment banking firm that provides real estate loans for senior housing, introduced Dr. Hausfeld to a group of Midwest-based assisted-living-facility developers. Four years ago, they struck a deal to provide private equity funding and create Memory Care Communities of Illinois, with Dr. Hausfeld serving as president. The 24-hour residential facilities are home to patients with Alzheimer's disease and dementia.

To some degree, he misses practicing medicine, but Dr. Hausfeld is enthusiastic about making a difference in even more people's lives than he did as a physician and surgeon.

"I've done 10,000 ear, nose, and throat operations. If I did 1,000 more, how much would I be changing the world?" Dr. Hausfeld says. Ultimately, "you find a way to leave a bigger footprint."

Deborah Shlian, MD, MBA

His entrepreneurial spirit has led to other consulting roles. For instance, he is trying to help two startup companies—one in the medical device arena, the other in information technology—grow by leaps and bounds.

The Director

Maren Grainger-Monsen, MD, has made her mark as an award-winning physician filmmaker. She is filmmaker-in-residence and director of the bioethics and film program at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics in Palo Alto, Calif. She studied at the London Film School and received her medical training at the University of Washington in Seattle and Stanford University School of Medicine.

"I have really enjoyed using all of my medical background and knowledge and applying it toward film," Dr. Grainger-Monsen says of her position at Stanford, which she has held since 1998. "It's very grounding. It gives you a purpose."

Her one-hour documentary "Rare," which features a family with a very uncommon genetic disease, aired last August on PBS. Another film, "The Revolutionary Optimists," follows a group of aspiring youngsters in the slums of Calcutta, India, who battle poverty and transform their neighborhoods from the inside out. One-hour and 80-minute versions of the film are slated to air on the PBS series "Independent Lens" as part of the Women and Girls Lead Global partnership.

Dr. Grainger-Monsen co-produced and co-directed both films with Nicole Newnham, an independent documentary filmmaker who is in residence at Stanford's bioethics and film program.

As an undergraduate art history major, Dr. Grainger-Monsen became interested in social and ethical issues in medicine. Later, films shown in medical school struck a chord with her. She was amazed at how images could resonate with viewers and trigger animated debate. During the summer between her first and second years of medical school, she was inspired to study film at New York University.

Dr. Grainger-Monsen eventually trained in emergency medicine at Stanford and completed a fellowship in palliative care at Stanford-affiliated Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital. For years, she split her career between working in community ER clinics and producing films. Her films are large-scale projects that may take five years or longer to make, and she raises all the funds to bring them to fruition.

"I really do find documentary filmmaking tremendously gratifying," Dr. Grainger-Monsen says of the chance "to talk with all different kinds of people in all different situations and walk in their shoes, with them, for a time. That is what I'm trying to share with the audience."

In creating character-driven documentaries, she aims to spark discussions about important issues in contemporary medicine. "I hope my films can help increase understanding and empathy," she says, "and result in improvements to the delivery of healthcare and reduction of disparities on multiple levels."

Susan Kreimer is a freelance writer in New York.

After years of juggling more than one career, Kulleni Gebreyes, MD, MBA, had a tough decision to make. "I'm a little bit of a glutton for punishment," she admits with a chuckle. While overseeing quality improvement (QI) for a healthcare foundation, she had negotiated to take off every other Friday and work several ED shifts per month on weekends at two local hospitals.

Then, in January 2012, Dr. Gebreyes began a new full-time position as a director at PricewaterhouseCoopers in McLean, Va. It became too time-consuming and exhausting to treat patients and consult in healthcare industries, says the mother of two children, who are 7 and 4.

Dr. Gebreyes is among a growing number of physicians who, after a number of years, opt to give up clinical medicine for nonclinical roles in healthcare or other industries altogether. "You are ready for transition when the new choice excites and energizes you," she explains, "and not necessarily when your first choice disappoints you."

A career shift offers new opportunities for broadening one's horizons while often striking a better work-life balance. Many clinicians make the transition slowly and wisely, and some take an expected financial hit as they carve out an entrepreneurial and creative path.

"Modern medicine is very difficult. You can burn out if you're not careful," says Dan Hale, MD, FAAP, a pediatric hospitalist in the Floating Hospital for Children at Tufts Medical Center in Boston.

Stepping off the merry-go-round can help you regroup. Fortunately, he adds, hospitalists can exercise more flexibility in scheduling than physicians in different specialties. Some hospitalists prefer to work nights and weekends in order to free up weekdays for other activities. Others decrease their clinical shifts and devote more time to teaching, research, or administration.

For those who decide to leave medicine completely, "hospitalists definitely have people skills day to day in their jobs that are applicable in multiple other careers," says Dr. Hale, a Team Hospitalist member. "Becoming a physician requires so much dedication and hard work, so you will succeed in whatever career you choose."

The Society of Physician Entrepreneurs (www.sopenet.org) is expanding by about 150 to 200 new members each month. Founded in 2008 and officially launched in January 2011, the society has more than 4,700 members globally. The interdisciplinary network includes physicians and innovators in other professions—from law to information technology to product development.

Its purpose is to "bring all the stakeholders together in one virtual space to collaborate," says co-founder and president Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA, professor in the departments of otolaryngology, dentistry, and engineering at the University of Colorado Denver, where he directs the graduate program in bio-innovation and entrepreneurship.

"The opportunities for physician entrepreneurs include working with industry, consulting, creating their own company, and much more," Dr. Meyers says. "As domain experts, physicians are in a unique position to add value to the innovation chain.

I have really enjoyed using all of my medical background and knowledge and applying it toward film. It’s very grounding. It gives you a purpose.

–Maren Grainger-Monsen, MD, filmmaker-in-residence and director of the bioethics and film program, Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, Stanford, Calif.

"However, to leave practice and be successful at something nonclinical requires education, experience, and networks," he says. "Doing what you did successfully in your last career won't be a guarantee of success in your next career, so you have to be willing to pay your dues and accept the risk."

The Writer

Deborah Shlian, MD, MBA, a former family medicine physician and managed-care executive in California, has evolved into a medical management consultant and an author of both fiction and nonfiction titles. Dr. Shlian, who now lives in Boca Raton, Fla., had always wanted to write. Her father, an internist, encouraged the pursuit of medicine, so she followed in his footsteps.

Deborah Shlian, MD, MBA

"I wanted to emulate what he did," she says. Over time, she realized that "doctors have a lot of skills that are applicable to other endeavors."

She and her husband, Joel Shlian, MD, MBA, also a former family medicine physician, fully gave up clinical practice about 10 years ago after doing it part time for a decade. The Shlians met as students at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in 1970. Initially, their new business concentrated on physician executive recruitment. As clients requested other services, the Shlians helped identify nonphysician managers as well. Clients included established, as well as start-up health plans, academic institutions, utilization review, and healthcare consulting companies.

Given the accelerated changes in healthcare delivery, earning a graduate education in business is not a quick and easy avenue to another career. "An MBA should never be viewed as the means to 'get out of medical practice,'" Dr. Shlian says in her new book, "Lessons Learned: Stories from Women in Medical Management," released this month by the American College of Physician Executives.

"In fact, I would submit that if you really hate clinical medicine, medical management is not for you," she says. "It can be every bit as demanding and frustrating as clinical practice."

The Entrepreneur

Jeffrey N. Hausfeld, MD, MBA, FACS, completed an MBA program on evenings and weekends. After graduation in 2005, he gave up his 24-year practice of otolaryngology and facial plastic surgery. He continued his education by obtaining a graduate certificate in leadership coaching and organizational development. Then he became involved in the first of several business ventures, capitalizing on his clinical experience.

Jeffrey N. Hausfeld, MD, MBA, FACS

"Doctors don't have a trusted partner to do their debt collections," says Dr. Hausfeld, co-founder and treasurer of the Society of Physician Entrepreneurs. His own negative experiences with debt-collection agencies contributed to his "understanding the obstacles and objections to create this kind of an entity."

You are ready for transition when the new choice excites and energizes you, and not necessarily when your first choice disappoints you.

—Kulleni Gebreyes, MD, MBA, director of healthcare consulting, PricewaterhouseCoopers, McLean, Va.

Hence the emergence of FMS Financial Solutions, based in Greenbelt, Md. "This seemed to be a very natural fit for me," says Dr. Hausfeld, who is the managing director. By collecting money owed to physicians, hospitals, and surgical centers, he has increased the revenues of his business fourfold since 2006. The company has 24 full- and part-time workers.

Meanwhile, his son, Joshua, who joined him in the healthcare MBA program at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and now works for an investment banking firm that provides real estate loans for senior housing, introduced Dr. Hausfeld to a group of Midwest-based assisted-living-facility developers. Four years ago, they struck a deal to provide private equity funding and create Memory Care Communities of Illinois, with Dr. Hausfeld serving as president. The 24-hour residential facilities are home to patients with Alzheimer's disease and dementia.

To some degree, he misses practicing medicine, but Dr. Hausfeld is enthusiastic about making a difference in even more people's lives than he did as a physician and surgeon.

"I've done 10,000 ear, nose, and throat operations. If I did 1,000 more, how much would I be changing the world?" Dr. Hausfeld says. Ultimately, "you find a way to leave a bigger footprint."

Deborah Shlian, MD, MBA

His entrepreneurial spirit has led to other consulting roles. For instance, he is trying to help two startup companies—one in the medical device arena, the other in information technology—grow by leaps and bounds.

The Director

Maren Grainger-Monsen, MD, has made her mark as an award-winning physician filmmaker. She is filmmaker-in-residence and director of the bioethics and film program at the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics in Palo Alto, Calif. She studied at the London Film School and received her medical training at the University of Washington in Seattle and Stanford University School of Medicine.

"I have really enjoyed using all of my medical background and knowledge and applying it toward film," Dr. Grainger-Monsen says of her position at Stanford, which she has held since 1998. "It's very grounding. It gives you a purpose."

Her one-hour documentary "Rare," which features a family with a very uncommon genetic disease, aired last August on PBS. Another film, "The Revolutionary Optimists," follows a group of aspiring youngsters in the slums of Calcutta, India, who battle poverty and transform their neighborhoods from the inside out. One-hour and 80-minute versions of the film are slated to air on the PBS series "Independent Lens" as part of the Women and Girls Lead Global partnership.

Dr. Grainger-Monsen co-produced and co-directed both films with Nicole Newnham, an independent documentary filmmaker who is in residence at Stanford's bioethics and film program.

As an undergraduate art history major, Dr. Grainger-Monsen became interested in social and ethical issues in medicine. Later, films shown in medical school struck a chord with her. She was amazed at how images could resonate with viewers and trigger animated debate. During the summer between her first and second years of medical school, she was inspired to study film at New York University.

Dr. Grainger-Monsen eventually trained in emergency medicine at Stanford and completed a fellowship in palliative care at Stanford-affiliated Palo Alto Veterans Administration Hospital. For years, she split her career between working in community ER clinics and producing films. Her films are large-scale projects that may take five years or longer to make, and she raises all the funds to bring them to fruition.

"I really do find documentary filmmaking tremendously gratifying," Dr. Grainger-Monsen says of the chance "to talk with all different kinds of people in all different situations and walk in their shoes, with them, for a time. That is what I'm trying to share with the audience."

In creating character-driven documentaries, she aims to spark discussions about important issues in contemporary medicine. "I hope my films can help increase understanding and empathy," she says, "and result in improvements to the delivery of healthcare and reduction of disparities on multiple levels."

Susan Kreimer is a freelance writer in New York.

John Nelson, MD, MHM

In the course of my work with hospitalist practices around the country, I end up speaking with a lot of primary-care physicians (PCPs) who refer patients to hospitalists. I nearly always hear the same three frustrations or complaints from them:

1. “I’m not reliably notified when my patient is admitted or discharged.”
2. “The hospitalists too often make unnecessary or unhelpful changes in patients’ chronic medicines, because they either never get an accurate home medicine list to begin with, or too liberally adjust chronic therapy that should be left to me.”
3. “I wish the hospitalists were more open to directly admitting some patients from my office, to save the patient the stress and expenses of an unnecessary stop in the ED.”

I’ve listed them in ascending order of what I think is difficulty to fix. The first of these can be difficult but not impossible to fix, while the last one—direct admissions—is really tricky to “fix” to the satisfaction of both hospitalists and most PCPs.

Direct Admissions and HM Reluctance

When explaining why they resist direct admissions, most hospitalists raise concerns that I too share. They typically begin with an anecdote, often from years ago, of a patient the PCP described as stable, but was in extremis when arriving to the floor bed and required emergent transfer to the ICU. In fact, I suspect this has happened at least once or twice to nearly every hospitalist. Much to the frustration of PCPs, hospital leaders, and some patients, this concern has led a number of HM groups to adopt a policy of never accepting direct admissions. They insist that all patients are seen first in the ED, which typically means that the ED physician, rather than the hospitalist, is the first doctor the patient encounters at the hospital.

Other reasons cited for reluctance or refusal to accept direct admissions include the longer time required to get test results like blood work or chest X-rays when ordered from the floor versus the ED. And because the patient’s precise time of arrival can’t be known, it is tricky for some groups to determine in advance which hospitalist will be seeing the patient, resulting in a complicated handoff.

Some PCPs, especially those who have practiced for decades, might be remembering the rationale and process for admitting patients years ago and inappropriately request direct admission for a patient who might not even need the hospital. But while it seems clear this happens occasionally, hospitalists could have a bias, leading them to feel like it is a much more common problem than it really is.

All of these are legitimate concerns, though in most settings I don’t think they justify setting a firm rule of “no direct admissions.”

Dearth of Meaningful Data to Guide Policy

There are seemingly an endless number of studies about things like the effects of resident work-hours and the value of handoff communication, so the literature must be full of studies about direct admissions. Surely some of the risks are offset by improvements in safety and fewer handoffs (by eliminating the ED doctor). But sadly, there aren’t any studies to go on. I couldn’t find a single one. (If you know of one or more studies that directly examine direct admissions from PCP offices, please let me know.)

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has a 2008 case study titled “Is It Safe to Be Direct?” (www.webmm.ahrq.gov/case.aspx?caseID=178) that describes and comments on a direct-admit case that didn’t go well, but it is an opinion piece without empiric data.¹

The absence of research studies doesn’t stop a lot of people, including me, from expressing their opinions. Numerous articles and opinion pieces are available on the Internet. They generally summarize that despite having the same goal of safe and efficient patient care, PCPs and hospitalists often see direct admissions a little differently.

An Internet search of ”direct admission + hospitalist” turns up the practice website for a hospitalist group. I found several such sites that do accept direct admissions. Presumably, those hospitalist groups that refuse to accept direct admissions don’t advertise that on their website so don’t turn up in a search. This one is typical:

Hospitalists are also available to facilitate direct admissions to Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Needham, so that patients can avoid a trip through the emergency department. Please note that it is Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Needham policy that the patient needs to have been seen by the primary-care provider or specialist physician within the previous 24 hours to qualify for direct admission status.

Mass General Hospital for Children in Boston has posted a very detailed approach to direct admissions² allowing them only from some PCP groups (presumably those in their system), and only when the patient has been seen in the office on the day of admission. And the hospitalist program at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore advertises its “VIP Direct-Admitting Service.”³

Recommendations

I’ve come to the following conclusions that I think most groups could follow, though I realize thoughtful people can see this differently.

• Most hospitalist groups should not have a policy of refusing all direct admissions. They should thoughtfully listen every time a doctor calls asking to refer a patient directly from an office setting. And, at least some of the time, they should say yes.
• You should more liberally accept direct admissions from PCPs you work with regularly. The better you know the PCP (i.e. have cared for many of that doctor’s patients), the more you can judge the risk the patient will arrive in a condition other than described.
• Requiring that the patient be in the office at the time of the decision to accept the direct admission, or within the preceding 12 or 24 hours, is a good idea.
• Work with your hospital to improve the speed of testing like blood work and X-rays done “on the floor” on new admissions so they’re resulted as quickly as in the ED. Consider notifying in advance the relevant department that you’ll likely be ordering a stat study as soon as the patient arrives. This is sort of like calling a restaurant to get in line for a table before you arrive.
• The hospitalist should have the final say regarding whether a patient is appropriate for direct admission, or whether it is best to stop in the ED first. That is the case for all the practices I mentioned above. But don’t let this insulate you from the very real frustration suffered by PCPs and patients, should you unfairly refuse to allow it.

I don’t have any idea what might be an appropriate portion of direct admissions for a typical hospitalist practice; it’s probably no more than 1% or 2%. But I don’t think it should be zero.

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 course co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

References

1. Kulkarni N, Williams M. Is it safe to be direct? Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website. Available at: http://www.webmm.ahrq.gov/case.aspx?caseID=178. Accessed Feb. 2, 2013.
2. MassGeneral Hospital for Children. Direct admit policy. MassGeneral Hospital for Children website. Available at: http://www.massgeneral.org/children/professionals/direct_admit_policy.aspx. Accessed Feb. 2, 2013.
3. Johns Hopkins Medicine. Hospitalists Introduce VIP Direct-Admitting Service. Johns Hopkins Medicine website. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/gim/news/2010_News_Items/6-17-10.html. Accessed Feb. 2, 2013.

John Nelson, MD, MHM

In the course of my work with hospitalist practices around the country, I end up speaking with a lot of primary-care physicians (PCPs) who refer patients to hospitalists. I nearly always hear the same three frustrations or complaints from them:

1. “I’m not reliably notified when my patient is admitted or discharged.”
2. “The hospitalists too often make unnecessary or unhelpful changes in patients’ chronic medicines, because they either never get an accurate home medicine list to begin with, or too liberally adjust chronic therapy that should be left to me.”
3. “I wish the hospitalists were more open to directly admitting some patients from my office, to save the patient the stress and expenses of an unnecessary stop in the ED.”

I’ve listed them in ascending order of what I think is difficulty to fix. The first of these can be difficult but not impossible to fix, while the last one—direct admissions—is really tricky to “fix” to the satisfaction of both hospitalists and most PCPs.

Direct Admissions and HM Reluctance

When explaining why they resist direct admissions, most hospitalists raise concerns that I too share. They typically begin with an anecdote, often from years ago, of a patient the PCP described as stable, but was in extremis when arriving to the floor bed and required emergent transfer to the ICU. In fact, I suspect this has happened at least once or twice to nearly every hospitalist. Much to the frustration of PCPs, hospital leaders, and some patients, this concern has led a number of HM groups to adopt a policy of never accepting direct admissions. They insist that all patients are seen first in the ED, which typically means that the ED physician, rather than the hospitalist, is the first doctor the patient encounters at the hospital.

Other reasons cited for reluctance or refusal to accept direct admissions include the longer time required to get test results like blood work or chest X-rays when ordered from the floor versus the ED. And because the patient’s precise time of arrival can’t be known, it is tricky for some groups to determine in advance which hospitalist will be seeing the patient, resulting in a complicated handoff.

Some PCPs, especially those who have practiced for decades, might be remembering the rationale and process for admitting patients years ago and inappropriately request direct admission for a patient who might not even need the hospital. But while it seems clear this happens occasionally, hospitalists could have a bias, leading them to feel like it is a much more common problem than it really is.

All of these are legitimate concerns, though in most settings I don’t think they justify setting a firm rule of “no direct admissions.”

Dearth of Meaningful Data to Guide Policy

There are seemingly an endless number of studies about things like the effects of resident work-hours and the value of handoff communication, so the literature must be full of studies about direct admissions. Surely some of the risks are offset by improvements in safety and fewer handoffs (by eliminating the ED doctor). But sadly, there aren’t any studies to go on. I couldn’t find a single one. (If you know of one or more studies that directly examine direct admissions from PCP offices, please let me know.)

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has a 2008 case study titled “Is It Safe to Be Direct?” (www.webmm.ahrq.gov/case.aspx?caseID=178) that describes and comments on a direct-admit case that didn’t go well, but it is an opinion piece without empiric data.¹

The absence of research studies doesn’t stop a lot of people, including me, from expressing their opinions. Numerous articles and opinion pieces are available on the Internet. They generally summarize that despite having the same goal of safe and efficient patient care, PCPs and hospitalists often see direct admissions a little differently.

An Internet search of ”direct admission + hospitalist” turns up the practice website for a hospitalist group. I found several such sites that do accept direct admissions. Presumably, those hospitalist groups that refuse to accept direct admissions don’t advertise that on their website so don’t turn up in a search. This one is typical:

Hospitalists are also available to facilitate direct admissions to Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Needham, so that patients can avoid a trip through the emergency department. Please note that it is Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Needham policy that the patient needs to have been seen by the primary-care provider or specialist physician within the previous 24 hours to qualify for direct admission status.

Mass General Hospital for Children in Boston has posted a very detailed approach to direct admissions² allowing them only from some PCP groups (presumably those in their system), and only when the patient has been seen in the office on the day of admission. And the hospitalist program at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore advertises its “VIP Direct-Admitting Service.”³

Recommendations

I’ve come to the following conclusions that I think most groups could follow, though I realize thoughtful people can see this differently.

• Most hospitalist groups should not have a policy of refusing all direct admissions. They should thoughtfully listen every time a doctor calls asking to refer a patient directly from an office setting. And, at least some of the time, they should say yes.
• You should more liberally accept direct admissions from PCPs you work with regularly. The better you know the PCP (i.e. have cared for many of that doctor’s patients), the more you can judge the risk the patient will arrive in a condition other than described.
• Requiring that the patient be in the office at the time of the decision to accept the direct admission, or within the preceding 12 or 24 hours, is a good idea.
• Work with your hospital to improve the speed of testing like blood work and X-rays done “on the floor” on new admissions so they’re resulted as quickly as in the ED. Consider notifying in advance the relevant department that you’ll likely be ordering a stat study as soon as the patient arrives. This is sort of like calling a restaurant to get in line for a table before you arrive.
• The hospitalist should have the final say regarding whether a patient is appropriate for direct admission, or whether it is best to stop in the ED first. That is the case for all the practices I mentioned above. But don’t let this insulate you from the very real frustration suffered by PCPs and patients, should you unfairly refuse to allow it.

I don’t have any idea what might be an appropriate portion of direct admissions for a typical hospitalist practice; it’s probably no more than 1% or 2%. But I don’t think it should be zero.

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 course co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

References

1. Kulkarni N, Williams M. Is it safe to be direct? Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website. Available at: http://www.webmm.ahrq.gov/case.aspx?caseID=178. Accessed Feb. 2, 2013.
2. MassGeneral Hospital for Children. Direct admit policy. MassGeneral Hospital for Children website. Available at: http://www.massgeneral.org/children/professionals/direct_admit_policy.aspx. Accessed Feb. 2, 2013.
3. Johns Hopkins Medicine. Hospitalists Introduce VIP Direct-Admitting Service. Johns Hopkins Medicine website. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/gim/news/2010_News_Items/6-17-10.html. Accessed Feb. 2, 2013.

John Nelson, MD, MHM

In the course of my work with hospitalist practices around the country, I end up speaking with a lot of primary-care physicians (PCPs) who refer patients to hospitalists. I nearly always hear the same three frustrations or complaints from them:

1. “I’m not reliably notified when my patient is admitted or discharged.”
2. “The hospitalists too often make unnecessary or unhelpful changes in patients’ chronic medicines, because they either never get an accurate home medicine list to begin with, or too liberally adjust chronic therapy that should be left to me.”
3. “I wish the hospitalists were more open to directly admitting some patients from my office, to save the patient the stress and expenses of an unnecessary stop in the ED.”

I’ve listed them in ascending order of what I think is difficulty to fix. The first of these can be difficult but not impossible to fix, while the last one—direct admissions—is really tricky to “fix” to the satisfaction of both hospitalists and most PCPs.

Direct Admissions and HM Reluctance

When explaining why they resist direct admissions, most hospitalists raise concerns that I too share. They typically begin with an anecdote, often from years ago, of a patient the PCP described as stable, but was in extremis when arriving to the floor bed and required emergent transfer to the ICU. In fact, I suspect this has happened at least once or twice to nearly every hospitalist. Much to the frustration of PCPs, hospital leaders, and some patients, this concern has led a number of HM groups to adopt a policy of never accepting direct admissions. They insist that all patients are seen first in the ED, which typically means that the ED physician, rather than the hospitalist, is the first doctor the patient encounters at the hospital.

Other reasons cited for reluctance or refusal to accept direct admissions include the longer time required to get test results like blood work or chest X-rays when ordered from the floor versus the ED. And because the patient’s precise time of arrival can’t be known, it is tricky for some groups to determine in advance which hospitalist will be seeing the patient, resulting in a complicated handoff.

Some PCPs, especially those who have practiced for decades, might be remembering the rationale and process for admitting patients years ago and inappropriately request direct admission for a patient who might not even need the hospital. But while it seems clear this happens occasionally, hospitalists could have a bias, leading them to feel like it is a much more common problem than it really is.

All of these are legitimate concerns, though in most settings I don’t think they justify setting a firm rule of “no direct admissions.”

Dearth of Meaningful Data to Guide Policy

There are seemingly an endless number of studies about things like the effects of resident work-hours and the value of handoff communication, so the literature must be full of studies about direct admissions. Surely some of the risks are offset by improvements in safety and fewer handoffs (by eliminating the ED doctor). But sadly, there aren’t any studies to go on. I couldn’t find a single one. (If you know of one or more studies that directly examine direct admissions from PCP offices, please let me know.)

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has a 2008 case study titled “Is It Safe to Be Direct?” (www.webmm.ahrq.gov/case.aspx?caseID=178) that describes and comments on a direct-admit case that didn’t go well, but it is an opinion piece without empiric data.¹

The absence of research studies doesn’t stop a lot of people, including me, from expressing their opinions. Numerous articles and opinion pieces are available on the Internet. They generally summarize that despite having the same goal of safe and efficient patient care, PCPs and hospitalists often see direct admissions a little differently.

An Internet search of ”direct admission + hospitalist” turns up the practice website for a hospitalist group. I found several such sites that do accept direct admissions. Presumably, those hospitalist groups that refuse to accept direct admissions don’t advertise that on their website so don’t turn up in a search. This one is typical:

Hospitalists are also available to facilitate direct admissions to Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Needham, so that patients can avoid a trip through the emergency department. Please note that it is Beth Israel Deaconess Hospital-Needham policy that the patient needs to have been seen by the primary-care provider or specialist physician within the previous 24 hours to qualify for direct admission status.

Mass General Hospital for Children in Boston has posted a very detailed approach to direct admissions² allowing them only from some PCP groups (presumably those in their system), and only when the patient has been seen in the office on the day of admission. And the hospitalist program at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore advertises its “VIP Direct-Admitting Service.”³

Recommendations

I’ve come to the following conclusions that I think most groups could follow, though I realize thoughtful people can see this differently.

• Most hospitalist groups should not have a policy of refusing all direct admissions. They should thoughtfully listen every time a doctor calls asking to refer a patient directly from an office setting. And, at least some of the time, they should say yes.
• You should more liberally accept direct admissions from PCPs you work with regularly. The better you know the PCP (i.e. have cared for many of that doctor’s patients), the more you can judge the risk the patient will arrive in a condition other than described.
• Requiring that the patient be in the office at the time of the decision to accept the direct admission, or within the preceding 12 or 24 hours, is a good idea.
• Work with your hospital to improve the speed of testing like blood work and X-rays done “on the floor” on new admissions so they’re resulted as quickly as in the ED. Consider notifying in advance the relevant department that you’ll likely be ordering a stat study as soon as the patient arrives. This is sort of like calling a restaurant to get in line for a table before you arrive.
• The hospitalist should have the final say regarding whether a patient is appropriate for direct admission, or whether it is best to stop in the ED first. That is the case for all the practices I mentioned above. But don’t let this insulate you from the very real frustration suffered by PCPs and patients, should you unfairly refuse to allow it.

I don’t have any idea what might be an appropriate portion of direct admissions for a typical hospitalist practice; it’s probably no more than 1% or 2%. But I don’t think it should be zero.

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 course co-director for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. Write to him at [email protected].

References

1. Kulkarni N, Williams M. Is it safe to be direct? Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality website. Available at: http://www.webmm.ahrq.gov/case.aspx?caseID=178. Accessed Feb. 2, 2013.
2. MassGeneral Hospital for Children. Direct admit policy. MassGeneral Hospital for Children website. Available at: http://www.massgeneral.org/children/professionals/direct_admit_policy.aspx. Accessed Feb. 2, 2013.
3. Johns Hopkins Medicine. Hospitalists Introduce VIP Direct-Admitting Service. Johns Hopkins Medicine website. Available at: http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/gim/news/2010_News_Items/6-17-10.html. Accessed Feb. 2, 2013.

Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM

Old habits are hard to break. We all get used to doing things in certain ways, and the longer we do it, it becomes increasingly difficult to do them differently. We clearly are clinging to old habits in the healthcare industry, despite compelling evidence that we need to figure out better ways of doing business. Our industry has been in a crisis for a very long time—rising costs, drastic reimbursement reductions from payors, and continually escalating risks and medical errors.

Clearly, something is not working.

This is a time when hospitalists should start thinking about dropping some of our Pulaskis.

Handy, Useful, Versatile, Reliable

A Pulaski is a versatile tool that combines an axe and an adze; it’s most commonly used in firefighting, but it is also used in trail-blazing, gardening, and woodworking (see right). The Pulaski was invented by Ed Pulaski, a forest ranger in the 1910s who almost died in a forest fire after being trapped in an old mine tunnel. After he barely survived, he invented the Pulaski as a means to reduce the risk of future firefighters being trapped in his same situation. For more than 100 years, this tool has come in handy in countless situations. It is versatile, irreplaceable, reliable—a must-have. Unless you don’t need it. And then it becomes a 22-pound handicap.

Donald Berwick, MD, MPP, spoke about the Pulaski 13 years ago in a powerful speech to the National Forum on Quality Improvement in Health Care; his presentation was titled “Escape Fire.”¹ He described the Mann Gulch fire of 1949, which took the lives of 13 young men when the fire did not behave as expected. The men were forced to outrun this fire, up a hill at a 76% slope, with the fire racing at them at 7 miles per hour, at an air temperature of 100 degrees. Only two firefighters survived. Those who perished tried to run up the hill with all of their gear, including their Pulaski, which served, at the time, only to slow them down. One survivor was lucky; he managed to get to the top of hill before the fire engulfed him. The other survivor, Wagner Dodge, was heroic. He realized the situation was hopeless and created a radical, innovative, and immediate solution to the problem at hand: He not only dropped his 22-pound handicap, but he also stopped running up the hill, stood still, and lit his own escape fire to avoid the larger fire at hand. The rest of the pack clung to the only option they could conceive of, which was outrunning the beast, despite the fact that it was traveling twice as fast as they were.

During his speech, Dr. Berwick also spoke of some of his personal experiences within U.S. hospitals that were filled with fear, uncertainty, and at times downright outrage; of misunderstandings, despicable care transitions, and daily medical errors or near misses. About how he and his wife struggled for security, appropriate treatments, and more answers than questions. He spoke of being in some of the best hospitals in the nation, and of being more organized and informed than most patients. Most patients would not possibly fare as well as the Berwicks, being under- or uninsured, of low health literacy, undereducated, or uninformed. It is incomprehensible that we have created a system that is so complicated and difficult to navigate that even the best and the brightest cannot traverse it unscathed. So it seems that sometimes the key to doing something better (or surviving, in the case of the Mann Gulch fire) is not knowing what new tools to adopt, but instead knowing what tools to get rid of.

Seize the Day

There is a dog park near my house that we take our dog to whenever we get a chance. There is a dog that frequents the park, a brown Labrador by the name of Gracie. Gracie’s favorite activity is fetching tennis balls; she dutifully catches the ball (usually in midair) and brings it back to her owner. When she gets back to her owner, she stands in front of him waiting for her order: “Drop it, Gracie.” As soon as Gracie hears the order, she drops the ball immediately. But she won’t drop the ball until ordered to do so—even though, by keeping the ball, she is that much further away from her next favorite activity. It seems like, to do the best for herself, she should come back and drop the ball, which would bring her that much closer to the one thing she loves best.

But she doesn’t. She waits dutifully for someone else to tell her when to drop the ball.

And interestingly, Gracie will not just drop it for anyone. When others at the park want to play with Gracie, and follow the lead of Gracie’s owner, and say “Drop it, Gracie,” she will look at the visitor, and then at her owner, looking for the approval that it really is in fact OK for her to drop it. Even after an approving look, she will hesitatingly drop the ball, and only after the stranger is a safe distance away, in case she needs to retrieve it sooner than later.

Many of us in the healthcare industry often wait for someone else to tell us when to start doing new things, but rarely do we expect, do we hear, or do we initiate the order to stop doing something. We need to think deeply about all the things we do that are useless Pulaskis, and about how to radically change the industry in which we work. Because this inching along is not going fast enough, and there is little evidence that we have made much progress in the last decade. So if you find yourself lugging around a Pulaski (or two), don’t just think about how to drop it, or when to drop it, or whether to drop it on certain days of the week. Just drop it, Gracie.

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. Berwick D. Escape fire: lessons for the future of health care. The Commonwealth Fund website. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/berwick_escapefire_563.pdf. Accessed Jan. 11, 2013.

Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM

Old habits are hard to break. We all get used to doing things in certain ways, and the longer we do it, it becomes increasingly difficult to do them differently. We clearly are clinging to old habits in the healthcare industry, despite compelling evidence that we need to figure out better ways of doing business. Our industry has been in a crisis for a very long time—rising costs, drastic reimbursement reductions from payors, and continually escalating risks and medical errors.

Clearly, something is not working.

This is a time when hospitalists should start thinking about dropping some of our Pulaskis.

Handy, Useful, Versatile, Reliable

A Pulaski is a versatile tool that combines an axe and an adze; it’s most commonly used in firefighting, but it is also used in trail-blazing, gardening, and woodworking (see right). The Pulaski was invented by Ed Pulaski, a forest ranger in the 1910s who almost died in a forest fire after being trapped in an old mine tunnel. After he barely survived, he invented the Pulaski as a means to reduce the risk of future firefighters being trapped in his same situation. For more than 100 years, this tool has come in handy in countless situations. It is versatile, irreplaceable, reliable—a must-have. Unless you don’t need it. And then it becomes a 22-pound handicap.

Donald Berwick, MD, MPP, spoke about the Pulaski 13 years ago in a powerful speech to the National Forum on Quality Improvement in Health Care; his presentation was titled “Escape Fire.”¹ He described the Mann Gulch fire of 1949, which took the lives of 13 young men when the fire did not behave as expected. The men were forced to outrun this fire, up a hill at a 76% slope, with the fire racing at them at 7 miles per hour, at an air temperature of 100 degrees. Only two firefighters survived. Those who perished tried to run up the hill with all of their gear, including their Pulaski, which served, at the time, only to slow them down. One survivor was lucky; he managed to get to the top of hill before the fire engulfed him. The other survivor, Wagner Dodge, was heroic. He realized the situation was hopeless and created a radical, innovative, and immediate solution to the problem at hand: He not only dropped his 22-pound handicap, but he also stopped running up the hill, stood still, and lit his own escape fire to avoid the larger fire at hand. The rest of the pack clung to the only option they could conceive of, which was outrunning the beast, despite the fact that it was traveling twice as fast as they were.

During his speech, Dr. Berwick also spoke of some of his personal experiences within U.S. hospitals that were filled with fear, uncertainty, and at times downright outrage; of misunderstandings, despicable care transitions, and daily medical errors or near misses. About how he and his wife struggled for security, appropriate treatments, and more answers than questions. He spoke of being in some of the best hospitals in the nation, and of being more organized and informed than most patients. Most patients would not possibly fare as well as the Berwicks, being under- or uninsured, of low health literacy, undereducated, or uninformed. It is incomprehensible that we have created a system that is so complicated and difficult to navigate that even the best and the brightest cannot traverse it unscathed. So it seems that sometimes the key to doing something better (or surviving, in the case of the Mann Gulch fire) is not knowing what new tools to adopt, but instead knowing what tools to get rid of.

Seize the Day

There is a dog park near my house that we take our dog to whenever we get a chance. There is a dog that frequents the park, a brown Labrador by the name of Gracie. Gracie’s favorite activity is fetching tennis balls; she dutifully catches the ball (usually in midair) and brings it back to her owner. When she gets back to her owner, she stands in front of him waiting for her order: “Drop it, Gracie.” As soon as Gracie hears the order, she drops the ball immediately. But she won’t drop the ball until ordered to do so—even though, by keeping the ball, she is that much further away from her next favorite activity. It seems like, to do the best for herself, she should come back and drop the ball, which would bring her that much closer to the one thing she loves best.

But she doesn’t. She waits dutifully for someone else to tell her when to drop the ball.

And interestingly, Gracie will not just drop it for anyone. When others at the park want to play with Gracie, and follow the lead of Gracie’s owner, and say “Drop it, Gracie,” she will look at the visitor, and then at her owner, looking for the approval that it really is in fact OK for her to drop it. Even after an approving look, she will hesitatingly drop the ball, and only after the stranger is a safe distance away, in case she needs to retrieve it sooner than later.

Many of us in the healthcare industry often wait for someone else to tell us when to start doing new things, but rarely do we expect, do we hear, or do we initiate the order to stop doing something. We need to think deeply about all the things we do that are useless Pulaskis, and about how to radically change the industry in which we work. Because this inching along is not going fast enough, and there is little evidence that we have made much progress in the last decade. So if you find yourself lugging around a Pulaski (or two), don’t just think about how to drop it, or when to drop it, or whether to drop it on certain days of the week. Just drop it, Gracie.

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. Berwick D. Escape fire: lessons for the future of health care. The Commonwealth Fund website. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/berwick_escapefire_563.pdf. Accessed Jan. 11, 2013.

Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM

Old habits are hard to break. We all get used to doing things in certain ways, and the longer we do it, it becomes increasingly difficult to do them differently. We clearly are clinging to old habits in the healthcare industry, despite compelling evidence that we need to figure out better ways of doing business. Our industry has been in a crisis for a very long time—rising costs, drastic reimbursement reductions from payors, and continually escalating risks and medical errors.

Clearly, something is not working.

This is a time when hospitalists should start thinking about dropping some of our Pulaskis.

Handy, Useful, Versatile, Reliable

A Pulaski is a versatile tool that combines an axe and an adze; it’s most commonly used in firefighting, but it is also used in trail-blazing, gardening, and woodworking (see right). The Pulaski was invented by Ed Pulaski, a forest ranger in the 1910s who almost died in a forest fire after being trapped in an old mine tunnel. After he barely survived, he invented the Pulaski as a means to reduce the risk of future firefighters being trapped in his same situation. For more than 100 years, this tool has come in handy in countless situations. It is versatile, irreplaceable, reliable—a must-have. Unless you don’t need it. And then it becomes a 22-pound handicap.

Donald Berwick, MD, MPP, spoke about the Pulaski 13 years ago in a powerful speech to the National Forum on Quality Improvement in Health Care; his presentation was titled “Escape Fire.”¹ He described the Mann Gulch fire of 1949, which took the lives of 13 young men when the fire did not behave as expected. The men were forced to outrun this fire, up a hill at a 76% slope, with the fire racing at them at 7 miles per hour, at an air temperature of 100 degrees. Only two firefighters survived. Those who perished tried to run up the hill with all of their gear, including their Pulaski, which served, at the time, only to slow them down. One survivor was lucky; he managed to get to the top of hill before the fire engulfed him. The other survivor, Wagner Dodge, was heroic. He realized the situation was hopeless and created a radical, innovative, and immediate solution to the problem at hand: He not only dropped his 22-pound handicap, but he also stopped running up the hill, stood still, and lit his own escape fire to avoid the larger fire at hand. The rest of the pack clung to the only option they could conceive of, which was outrunning the beast, despite the fact that it was traveling twice as fast as they were.

During his speech, Dr. Berwick also spoke of some of his personal experiences within U.S. hospitals that were filled with fear, uncertainty, and at times downright outrage; of misunderstandings, despicable care transitions, and daily medical errors or near misses. About how he and his wife struggled for security, appropriate treatments, and more answers than questions. He spoke of being in some of the best hospitals in the nation, and of being more organized and informed than most patients. Most patients would not possibly fare as well as the Berwicks, being under- or uninsured, of low health literacy, undereducated, or uninformed. It is incomprehensible that we have created a system that is so complicated and difficult to navigate that even the best and the brightest cannot traverse it unscathed. So it seems that sometimes the key to doing something better (or surviving, in the case of the Mann Gulch fire) is not knowing what new tools to adopt, but instead knowing what tools to get rid of.

Seize the Day

There is a dog park near my house that we take our dog to whenever we get a chance. There is a dog that frequents the park, a brown Labrador by the name of Gracie. Gracie’s favorite activity is fetching tennis balls; she dutifully catches the ball (usually in midair) and brings it back to her owner. When she gets back to her owner, she stands in front of him waiting for her order: “Drop it, Gracie.” As soon as Gracie hears the order, she drops the ball immediately. But she won’t drop the ball until ordered to do so—even though, by keeping the ball, she is that much further away from her next favorite activity. It seems like, to do the best for herself, she should come back and drop the ball, which would bring her that much closer to the one thing she loves best.

But she doesn’t. She waits dutifully for someone else to tell her when to drop the ball.

And interestingly, Gracie will not just drop it for anyone. When others at the park want to play with Gracie, and follow the lead of Gracie’s owner, and say “Drop it, Gracie,” she will look at the visitor, and then at her owner, looking for the approval that it really is in fact OK for her to drop it. Even after an approving look, she will hesitatingly drop the ball, and only after the stranger is a safe distance away, in case she needs to retrieve it sooner than later.

Many of us in the healthcare industry often wait for someone else to tell us when to start doing new things, but rarely do we expect, do we hear, or do we initiate the order to stop doing something. We need to think deeply about all the things we do that are useless Pulaskis, and about how to radically change the industry in which we work. Because this inching along is not going fast enough, and there is little evidence that we have made much progress in the last decade. So if you find yourself lugging around a Pulaski (or two), don’t just think about how to drop it, or when to drop it, or whether to drop it on certain days of the week. Just drop it, Gracie.

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. Berwick D. Escape fire: lessons for the future of health care. The Commonwealth Fund website. Available at: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/usr_doc/berwick_escapefire_563.pdf. Accessed Jan. 11, 2013.

The Choosing Wisely campaign is focused on better decision-making, improved quality, and decreased healthcare costs. Such focus on efficiency and cost-effectiveness also was part of the initial motivation for developing hospital medicine, says one of HM’s pioneering doctors.

Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, who heads the division of hospital medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, compares the current national obsession about healthcare waste with the medical quality and patient safety movements of the past decade.

“It’s the right time, the right message, and the right messenger,” says Dr. Wachter, who also chairs the American Board of Internal Medicine and sits on the board of the ABIM Foundation. “We’re a little scared about raised expectations. Delivering on them is going to be more difficult, even, than patient safety was, because ultimately it will require curtailing some income streams. You can’t reach the final outcome of cutting costs in healthcare without someone making less money.”

Dr. Wachter expects the medical community to hear “similar kinds of drumbeats about waste” from every corner of healthcare. “I think hospitalists should be active and enthusiastic partners in the Choosing Wisely campaign,” he says, “and leaders in American healthcare’s efforts to figure out how to purge waste from the system and decrease unnecessary expense.

The Choosing Wisely campaign is focused on better decision-making, improved quality, and decreased healthcare costs. Such focus on efficiency and cost-effectiveness also was part of the initial motivation for developing hospital medicine, says one of HM’s pioneering doctors.

Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, who heads the division of hospital medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, compares the current national obsession about healthcare waste with the medical quality and patient safety movements of the past decade.

“It’s the right time, the right message, and the right messenger,” says Dr. Wachter, who also chairs the American Board of Internal Medicine and sits on the board of the ABIM Foundation. “We’re a little scared about raised expectations. Delivering on them is going to be more difficult, even, than patient safety was, because ultimately it will require curtailing some income streams. You can’t reach the final outcome of cutting costs in healthcare without someone making less money.”

Dr. Wachter expects the medical community to hear “similar kinds of drumbeats about waste” from every corner of healthcare. “I think hospitalists should be active and enthusiastic partners in the Choosing Wisely campaign,” he says, “and leaders in American healthcare’s efforts to figure out how to purge waste from the system and decrease unnecessary expense.

The Choosing Wisely campaign is focused on better decision-making, improved quality, and decreased healthcare costs. Such focus on efficiency and cost-effectiveness also was part of the initial motivation for developing hospital medicine, says one of HM’s pioneering doctors.

Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, who heads the division of hospital medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, compares the current national obsession about healthcare waste with the medical quality and patient safety movements of the past decade.

“It’s the right time, the right message, and the right messenger,” says Dr. Wachter, who also chairs the American Board of Internal Medicine and sits on the board of the ABIM Foundation. “We’re a little scared about raised expectations. Delivering on them is going to be more difficult, even, than patient safety was, because ultimately it will require curtailing some income streams. You can’t reach the final outcome of cutting costs in healthcare without someone making less money.”

Dr. Wachter expects the medical community to hear “similar kinds of drumbeats about waste” from every corner of healthcare. “I think hospitalists should be active and enthusiastic partners in the Choosing Wisely campaign,” he says, “and leaders in American healthcare’s efforts to figure out how to purge waste from the system and decrease unnecessary expense.

Every year, thousands of hospitalists gather to share their experiences, challenges, and energy with each other at SHM’s annual meeting. In 2013, hospitalists can do all of that while visiting the nation’s capital.

And make a real difference by advocating on Capitol Hill for quality improvement and safety in hospitals.

And enjoy all the amenities of a first-class hotel and conference center under one roof.

And get ahead of the curve on some of the most pressing topics in healthcare, such as the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign.

But in order to do all of that, hospitalists have to register for HM13, and must do so quickly to save $50. The early registration deadline is March 19, earlier than in prior years. So don’t wait—sign up now at www.hospitalmedicine2013.org.

Choosing Wisely

Are you ready to make wise choices? HM13 provides unprecedented access to the hospitalist experts who developed the lists of recommendations for the Choosing Wisely campaign with two educational sessions and a pre-course.

Before HM13 kicks off, hospitalists John Bulger, DO, FACP, SFHM, and Ian Jenkins, MD, will direct a full-day Choosing Wisely pre-course on Thursday, May 16, featuring didactic sessions in the morning with national experts in QI on such topics as teambuilding and making the case for quality. The afternoon session will encompass highly interactive workgroups utilizing skills learned in the morning to develop a plan for how to “choose wisely.” Attendees will apply quality methodologies to frequently overutilized tests or procedures, resulting in an actual plan for embedding “avoids” or “never-dos” into their own practice in their own institutions.

On Saturday, May 18, Douglas Carlson, MD, and Ricardo Quinonez, MD, FAAP, FHM, will present “Addressing Overuse in Pediatric Hospital Medicine: The ABIM Choosing Wisely Campaign—PHM Recommendations,” and on Sunday, May 19, Drs. Bulger and Jenkins will present “Choosing Wisely: 5 Things Physicians and Patients Should Question.”

New Featured Speaker

Back by popular demand, hospitalist Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, FAAP, SFHM, chief medical officer and the director of the Office of Clinical Standards and Quality Centers for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), will speak on the role hospitalists will play as change agents for healthcare reform and patient safety in the years to come. Dr. Conway replaces quality expert Peter Pronovost, MD, who had a scheduling conflict and will not be able to speak at HM13.

Get Your Conference In Hand

Hospitalists continue to be ahead of the curve, and the technology at HM13 is no exception. This year’s HM13 At Hand conference app for smartphones and tablets enables conference-goers to plan their schedule ahead of time, download meeting content, play a scavenger hunt for prizes, and socialize with other attendees.

The app’s scheduling feature offers attendees the chance to explore their options ahead of time or make changes on the fly to their HM13 experience.

For links to download the HM13 app, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org.

Every year, thousands of hospitalists gather to share their experiences, challenges, and energy with each other at SHM’s annual meeting. In 2013, hospitalists can do all of that while visiting the nation’s capital.

And make a real difference by advocating on Capitol Hill for quality improvement and safety in hospitals.

And enjoy all the amenities of a first-class hotel and conference center under one roof.

And get ahead of the curve on some of the most pressing topics in healthcare, such as the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign.

But in order to do all of that, hospitalists have to register for HM13, and must do so quickly to save $50. The early registration deadline is March 19, earlier than in prior years. So don’t wait—sign up now at www.hospitalmedicine2013.org.

Choosing Wisely

Are you ready to make wise choices? HM13 provides unprecedented access to the hospitalist experts who developed the lists of recommendations for the Choosing Wisely campaign with two educational sessions and a pre-course.

Before HM13 kicks off, hospitalists John Bulger, DO, FACP, SFHM, and Ian Jenkins, MD, will direct a full-day Choosing Wisely pre-course on Thursday, May 16, featuring didactic sessions in the morning with national experts in QI on such topics as teambuilding and making the case for quality. The afternoon session will encompass highly interactive workgroups utilizing skills learned in the morning to develop a plan for how to “choose wisely.” Attendees will apply quality methodologies to frequently overutilized tests or procedures, resulting in an actual plan for embedding “avoids” or “never-dos” into their own practice in their own institutions.

On Saturday, May 18, Douglas Carlson, MD, and Ricardo Quinonez, MD, FAAP, FHM, will present “Addressing Overuse in Pediatric Hospital Medicine: The ABIM Choosing Wisely Campaign—PHM Recommendations,” and on Sunday, May 19, Drs. Bulger and Jenkins will present “Choosing Wisely: 5 Things Physicians and Patients Should Question.”

New Featured Speaker

Back by popular demand, hospitalist Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, FAAP, SFHM, chief medical officer and the director of the Office of Clinical Standards and Quality Centers for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), will speak on the role hospitalists will play as change agents for healthcare reform and patient safety in the years to come. Dr. Conway replaces quality expert Peter Pronovost, MD, who had a scheduling conflict and will not be able to speak at HM13.

Get Your Conference In Hand

Hospitalists continue to be ahead of the curve, and the technology at HM13 is no exception. This year’s HM13 At Hand conference app for smartphones and tablets enables conference-goers to plan their schedule ahead of time, download meeting content, play a scavenger hunt for prizes, and socialize with other attendees.

The app’s scheduling feature offers attendees the chance to explore their options ahead of time or make changes on the fly to their HM13 experience.

For links to download the HM13 app, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org.

Every year, thousands of hospitalists gather to share their experiences, challenges, and energy with each other at SHM’s annual meeting. In 2013, hospitalists can do all of that while visiting the nation’s capital.

And make a real difference by advocating on Capitol Hill for quality improvement and safety in hospitals.

And enjoy all the amenities of a first-class hotel and conference center under one roof.

And get ahead of the curve on some of the most pressing topics in healthcare, such as the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign.

But in order to do all of that, hospitalists have to register for HM13, and must do so quickly to save $50. The early registration deadline is March 19, earlier than in prior years. So don’t wait—sign up now at www.hospitalmedicine2013.org.

Choosing Wisely

Are you ready to make wise choices? HM13 provides unprecedented access to the hospitalist experts who developed the lists of recommendations for the Choosing Wisely campaign with two educational sessions and a pre-course.

Before HM13 kicks off, hospitalists John Bulger, DO, FACP, SFHM, and Ian Jenkins, MD, will direct a full-day Choosing Wisely pre-course on Thursday, May 16, featuring didactic sessions in the morning with national experts in QI on such topics as teambuilding and making the case for quality. The afternoon session will encompass highly interactive workgroups utilizing skills learned in the morning to develop a plan for how to “choose wisely.” Attendees will apply quality methodologies to frequently overutilized tests or procedures, resulting in an actual plan for embedding “avoids” or “never-dos” into their own practice in their own institutions.

On Saturday, May 18, Douglas Carlson, MD, and Ricardo Quinonez, MD, FAAP, FHM, will present “Addressing Overuse in Pediatric Hospital Medicine: The ABIM Choosing Wisely Campaign—PHM Recommendations,” and on Sunday, May 19, Drs. Bulger and Jenkins will present “Choosing Wisely: 5 Things Physicians and Patients Should Question.”

New Featured Speaker

Back by popular demand, hospitalist Patrick Conway, MD, MSc, FAAP, SFHM, chief medical officer and the director of the Office of Clinical Standards and Quality Centers for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), will speak on the role hospitalists will play as change agents for healthcare reform and patient safety in the years to come. Dr. Conway replaces quality expert Peter Pronovost, MD, who had a scheduling conflict and will not be able to speak at HM13.

Get Your Conference In Hand

Hospitalists continue to be ahead of the curve, and the technology at HM13 is no exception. This year’s HM13 At Hand conference app for smartphones and tablets enables conference-goers to plan their schedule ahead of time, download meeting content, play a scavenger hunt for prizes, and socialize with other attendees.

The app’s scheduling feature offers attendees the chance to explore their options ahead of time or make changes on the fly to their HM13 experience.

For links to download the HM13 app, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org.

Have you ever prescribed stress ulcer prophylaxis therapy to patients at low risk for gastrointestinal complications? Have you ever repeated CBC or chemistry testing in the face of clinical and lab stability? Have you once or twice ordered bronchodilators for children with bronchiolitis?

If you answered “yes” to any of those questions, you might want to reconsider some of your practices. That’s the message hospitalist leaders have for adult and pediatric HM practitioners interested in curbing wasteful healthcare spending.

SHM has joined the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign, a multiyear effort to spark national dialogue about waste in the healthcare system and the kinds of common treatments that doctors and patients should think twice about before deciding to pursue. Ad hoc subcommittees of SHM’s Hospital Quality and Patient Safety Committee created lists of five adult and five pediatric treatments that hospitalists and their patients should question. Those lists were shared alongside 15 other medical specialty societies at a Feb. 21 news conference in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Wolfson

Choosing Wisely (www.choosingwisely.org) has been recognized by the professional and consumer media in a big way, says Daniel Wolfson, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the ABIM Foundation, which is affiliated with but distinct from the American Board of Internal Medicine (www.abim.org). “The conversation about overuse is now on the table, and people recognize that it’s an important subject to talk about—without the kind of hysterics that we’ve seen previously around, for example, rationing,” he says. “We’re talking about treatments that are not beneficial and potentially are harmful to patients … things that are ordered for many patients when the benefit does not exceed the risk. These are not absolutes; there are times when a treatment might be indicated because of a certain history or clinical finding. But be clear on what those circumstances are.”

SHM is excited to be a partner in the Choosing Wisely campaign, says Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Healthcare Improvement and Innovation. With its broad professional and consumer outreach and emphasis on informing and engaging the consumer, the Choosing Wisely effort meshes well with the center’s QI and patient safety goals.

“We acknowledge that there is waste in our system. We also believe that if you have an engaged, empowered patient, together you will make better choices, have less waste, and probably also reduce costs,” Dr. Maynard says.

Developing SHM’s “think twice” lists under a tight deadline was a challenge, says John Bulger, DO, FACP, SFHM, chief quality officer at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and chair of the adult committee. It was especially difficult trying to encourage the broadest possible input from experts in the field. SHM board and committee members were asked for suggested treatments that should be targeted as wasteful, and a preliminary list of 100 was grouped, whittled down, and sent to SHM members to vote on. The committee conducted two blind votes and sent a list of seven recommendations to the SHM board, which made the final choices for submission to the ABIM Foundation.

“The ABIM Foundation has fairly strict guidelines for Choosing Wisely,” Dr. Bulger says. The process was meant to be transparent and well documented, and the SHM committees will publish an article in the Journal of Hospital Medicine describing how its lists were compiled. Choices were to be made based on the evidence for treatments that lie within the specialty’s purview. “Because our practice is so diverse, you can find many core treatments that hospitalists impact on a daily basis and that are unique to the work of hospital medicine,” Dr. Bulger adds.

Fourteen pediatric hospitalists followed a similar process in developing its five suggestions.

“While this issue has been addressed in adult settings, in pediatrics, discussions about waste are almost nonexistent,” says Ricardo Quinonez, MD, FHM, a pediatric hospitalist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston and chair of the pediatric ad-hoc committee. “I don’t think anyone was too surprised by our list, which is heavy on respiratory illnesses. That’s what kids get admitted to the hospital for.”

Dr. Quinonez

Dr. Quinonez suggests pediatric hospitalists use the list to engage with their specialist colleagues about appropriate treatment choices. “If you want to improve quality, here’s a place to start,” he says.

Dr. Bulger

Dr. Bulger encourages hospitalists to stop and take a long look at the lists and think about ways to improve their own practice. He encourages hospitalists to take the recommendations to their hospitals’ quality-improvement (QI) committees and start collecting baseline data, he says, adding that “we should be able to come back a year from now and show that we’ve been able to change practice using these lists.”

A full-day pre-course, “QI for High Value Healthcare: Making the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely Campaign a Reality,” co-led by Dr. Bulger and Ian Jenkins, MD, of the University of California at San Diego, is planned for HM13 in Washington, D.C., in May (www.hospitalmedicine2013.org).

“[The pre-course] will feature the Choosing Wisely list and how you can both implement and improve on it,” Dr. Maynard says. Longer-term, SHM hopes to compile protocols, order sets, checklists, and other tools for posting on its technical assistance web pages. “Eventually, there may be a mentored implementation program and toolkit, based on best practices from the field. … Lots of people have done bits and pieces of this in their local settings. What’s lacking is a cohesive, portable approach, and that’s what we have our eyes on.”

Wolfson says the ABIM Foundation plans to conduct surveys in the next six months to gauge whether physicians think they should be stewards of healthcare resources. “I think you’ll start to see at leading institutions where it’s no longer just ‘Why didn’t you order this test?’ But ‘Why did you—and what were you hoping to learn from it?’” he says. “Just asking that question is a good start—and saying to yourself: Am I choosing wisely?”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Have you ever prescribed stress ulcer prophylaxis therapy to patients at low risk for gastrointestinal complications? Have you ever repeated CBC or chemistry testing in the face of clinical and lab stability? Have you once or twice ordered bronchodilators for children with bronchiolitis?

If you answered “yes” to any of those questions, you might want to reconsider some of your practices. That’s the message hospitalist leaders have for adult and pediatric HM practitioners interested in curbing wasteful healthcare spending.

SHM has joined the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign, a multiyear effort to spark national dialogue about waste in the healthcare system and the kinds of common treatments that doctors and patients should think twice about before deciding to pursue. Ad hoc subcommittees of SHM’s Hospital Quality and Patient Safety Committee created lists of five adult and five pediatric treatments that hospitalists and their patients should question. Those lists were shared alongside 15 other medical specialty societies at a Feb. 21 news conference in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Wolfson

Choosing Wisely (www.choosingwisely.org) has been recognized by the professional and consumer media in a big way, says Daniel Wolfson, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the ABIM Foundation, which is affiliated with but distinct from the American Board of Internal Medicine (www.abim.org). “The conversation about overuse is now on the table, and people recognize that it’s an important subject to talk about—without the kind of hysterics that we’ve seen previously around, for example, rationing,” he says. “We’re talking about treatments that are not beneficial and potentially are harmful to patients … things that are ordered for many patients when the benefit does not exceed the risk. These are not absolutes; there are times when a treatment might be indicated because of a certain history or clinical finding. But be clear on what those circumstances are.”

SHM is excited to be a partner in the Choosing Wisely campaign, says Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Healthcare Improvement and Innovation. With its broad professional and consumer outreach and emphasis on informing and engaging the consumer, the Choosing Wisely effort meshes well with the center’s QI and patient safety goals.

“We acknowledge that there is waste in our system. We also believe that if you have an engaged, empowered patient, together you will make better choices, have less waste, and probably also reduce costs,” Dr. Maynard says.

Developing SHM’s “think twice” lists under a tight deadline was a challenge, says John Bulger, DO, FACP, SFHM, chief quality officer at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and chair of the adult committee. It was especially difficult trying to encourage the broadest possible input from experts in the field. SHM board and committee members were asked for suggested treatments that should be targeted as wasteful, and a preliminary list of 100 was grouped, whittled down, and sent to SHM members to vote on. The committee conducted two blind votes and sent a list of seven recommendations to the SHM board, which made the final choices for submission to the ABIM Foundation.

“The ABIM Foundation has fairly strict guidelines for Choosing Wisely,” Dr. Bulger says. The process was meant to be transparent and well documented, and the SHM committees will publish an article in the Journal of Hospital Medicine describing how its lists were compiled. Choices were to be made based on the evidence for treatments that lie within the specialty’s purview. “Because our practice is so diverse, you can find many core treatments that hospitalists impact on a daily basis and that are unique to the work of hospital medicine,” Dr. Bulger adds.

Fourteen pediatric hospitalists followed a similar process in developing its five suggestions.

“While this issue has been addressed in adult settings, in pediatrics, discussions about waste are almost nonexistent,” says Ricardo Quinonez, MD, FHM, a pediatric hospitalist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston and chair of the pediatric ad-hoc committee. “I don’t think anyone was too surprised by our list, which is heavy on respiratory illnesses. That’s what kids get admitted to the hospital for.”

Dr. Quinonez

Dr. Quinonez suggests pediatric hospitalists use the list to engage with their specialist colleagues about appropriate treatment choices. “If you want to improve quality, here’s a place to start,” he says.

Dr. Bulger

Dr. Bulger encourages hospitalists to stop and take a long look at the lists and think about ways to improve their own practice. He encourages hospitalists to take the recommendations to their hospitals’ quality-improvement (QI) committees and start collecting baseline data, he says, adding that “we should be able to come back a year from now and show that we’ve been able to change practice using these lists.”

A full-day pre-course, “QI for High Value Healthcare: Making the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely Campaign a Reality,” co-led by Dr. Bulger and Ian Jenkins, MD, of the University of California at San Diego, is planned for HM13 in Washington, D.C., in May (www.hospitalmedicine2013.org).

“[The pre-course] will feature the Choosing Wisely list and how you can both implement and improve on it,” Dr. Maynard says. Longer-term, SHM hopes to compile protocols, order sets, checklists, and other tools for posting on its technical assistance web pages. “Eventually, there may be a mentored implementation program and toolkit, based on best practices from the field. … Lots of people have done bits and pieces of this in their local settings. What’s lacking is a cohesive, portable approach, and that’s what we have our eyes on.”

Wolfson says the ABIM Foundation plans to conduct surveys in the next six months to gauge whether physicians think they should be stewards of healthcare resources. “I think you’ll start to see at leading institutions where it’s no longer just ‘Why didn’t you order this test?’ But ‘Why did you—and what were you hoping to learn from it?’” he says. “Just asking that question is a good start—and saying to yourself: Am I choosing wisely?”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

Have you ever prescribed stress ulcer prophylaxis therapy to patients at low risk for gastrointestinal complications? Have you ever repeated CBC or chemistry testing in the face of clinical and lab stability? Have you once or twice ordered bronchodilators for children with bronchiolitis?

If you answered “yes” to any of those questions, you might want to reconsider some of your practices. That’s the message hospitalist leaders have for adult and pediatric HM practitioners interested in curbing wasteful healthcare spending.

SHM has joined the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation’s Choosing Wisely campaign, a multiyear effort to spark national dialogue about waste in the healthcare system and the kinds of common treatments that doctors and patients should think twice about before deciding to pursue. Ad hoc subcommittees of SHM’s Hospital Quality and Patient Safety Committee created lists of five adult and five pediatric treatments that hospitalists and their patients should question. Those lists were shared alongside 15 other medical specialty societies at a Feb. 21 news conference in Washington, D.C.

Dr. Wolfson

Choosing Wisely (www.choosingwisely.org) has been recognized by the professional and consumer media in a big way, says Daniel Wolfson, executive vice president and chief operating officer of the ABIM Foundation, which is affiliated with but distinct from the American Board of Internal Medicine (www.abim.org). “The conversation about overuse is now on the table, and people recognize that it’s an important subject to talk about—without the kind of hysterics that we’ve seen previously around, for example, rationing,” he says. “We’re talking about treatments that are not beneficial and potentially are harmful to patients … things that are ordered for many patients when the benefit does not exceed the risk. These are not absolutes; there are times when a treatment might be indicated because of a certain history or clinical finding. But be clear on what those circumstances are.”

SHM is excited to be a partner in the Choosing Wisely campaign, says Gregory Maynard, MD, MSc, SFHM, senior vice president of SHM’s Center for Healthcare Improvement and Innovation. With its broad professional and consumer outreach and emphasis on informing and engaging the consumer, the Choosing Wisely effort meshes well with the center’s QI and patient safety goals.

“We acknowledge that there is waste in our system. We also believe that if you have an engaged, empowered patient, together you will make better choices, have less waste, and probably also reduce costs,” Dr. Maynard says.

Developing SHM’s “think twice” lists under a tight deadline was a challenge, says John Bulger, DO, FACP, SFHM, chief quality officer at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Pa., and chair of the adult committee. It was especially difficult trying to encourage the broadest possible input from experts in the field. SHM board and committee members were asked for suggested treatments that should be targeted as wasteful, and a preliminary list of 100 was grouped, whittled down, and sent to SHM members to vote on. The committee conducted two blind votes and sent a list of seven recommendations to the SHM board, which made the final choices for submission to the ABIM Foundation.

“The ABIM Foundation has fairly strict guidelines for Choosing Wisely,” Dr. Bulger says. The process was meant to be transparent and well documented, and the SHM committees will publish an article in the Journal of Hospital Medicine describing how its lists were compiled. Choices were to be made based on the evidence for treatments that lie within the specialty’s purview. “Because our practice is so diverse, you can find many core treatments that hospitalists impact on a daily basis and that are unique to the work of hospital medicine,” Dr. Bulger adds.

Fourteen pediatric hospitalists followed a similar process in developing its five suggestions.

“While this issue has been addressed in adult settings, in pediatrics, discussions about waste are almost nonexistent,” says Ricardo Quinonez, MD, FHM, a pediatric hospitalist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston and chair of the pediatric ad-hoc committee. “I don’t think anyone was too surprised by our list, which is heavy on respiratory illnesses. That’s what kids get admitted to the hospital for.”

Dr. Quinonez

Dr. Quinonez suggests pediatric hospitalists use the list to engage with their specialist colleagues about appropriate treatment choices. “If you want to improve quality, here’s a place to start,” he says.

Dr. Bulger

Dr. Bulger encourages hospitalists to stop and take a long look at the lists and think about ways to improve their own practice. He encourages hospitalists to take the recommendations to their hospitals’ quality-improvement (QI) committees and start collecting baseline data, he says, adding that “we should be able to come back a year from now and show that we’ve been able to change practice using these lists.”

A full-day pre-course, “QI for High Value Healthcare: Making the ABIM Foundation’s Choosing Wisely Campaign a Reality,” co-led by Dr. Bulger and Ian Jenkins, MD, of the University of California at San Diego, is planned for HM13 in Washington, D.C., in May (www.hospitalmedicine2013.org).

“[The pre-course] will feature the Choosing Wisely list and how you can both implement and improve on it,” Dr. Maynard says. Longer-term, SHM hopes to compile protocols, order sets, checklists, and other tools for posting on its technical assistance web pages. “Eventually, there may be a mentored implementation program and toolkit, based on best practices from the field. … Lots of people have done bits and pieces of this in their local settings. What’s lacking is a cohesive, portable approach, and that’s what we have our eyes on.”

Wolfson says the ABIM Foundation plans to conduct surveys in the next six months to gauge whether physicians think they should be stewards of healthcare resources. “I think you’ll start to see at leading institutions where it’s no longer just ‘Why didn’t you order this test?’ But ‘Why did you—and what were you hoping to learn from it?’” he says. “Just asking that question is a good start—and saying to yourself: Am I choosing wisely?”

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.