Hours after the devastating earthquake that shook the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine physicians, nurses, and administrators were drawing up plans to aid in the relief effort. One day after the quake, a tent hospital was erected at the airport, and dozens of providers were on the ground caring for the wounded, orphaned, and visibly shaken.

Hospitalists Amir Jaffer, MD, FHM, and Lisa Luly-Rivera, MD (photo, at right), recently returned from a five-day medical relief mission. They worked with surgeons and coordinated with nursing staff to ensure patients were properly hydrated and had the right pain medications. The staff also managed patients’ medical conditions and nutrition. Dr. Jaffer, an associate professor and the division chief of hospital medicine at the Miller School of Medicine, oversaw the transfer of 138 patients from a makeshift hospital to the new tent hospital, which opened Jan. 20 and offers spacious wards, a pathology lab, and two operating rooms.

“Most of the patients had a fracture, amputation, infected wound, or a spinal cord injury,” Dr. Jaffer says. “The conditions were dire when we landed. The role of the hospitalists was managing care. We also were involved in triaging patients who were being transferred.”

On Jan. 22, nearly 10 days after the quake, the university opened an imaging center radiology lab. “Some of the patients were splinted and needed X-ray,” Dr. Jaffer says, adding that more than 100 films were completed the first day. “Some patients were being brought in to us a week later who had fractures that had not been cared for.”

One of the poorest countries in the world, Haiti’s lack of infrastructure is wreaking havoc on rescue and relief efforts. The people are afraid to return to their homes, “and they have no place to go,” Dr. Jaffer says.

The 25 hospitalists in the HM group at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine are planning five-day rotations to Haiti. The hospital needs translators, nurses, and internal-medicine specialists to cover the shifts of providers traveling to Haiti. If you’re interested in helping out, send an e-mail to the university. If you’d like to assist relief efforts in Haiti, make a donation to the American Red Cross.

Hours after the devastating earthquake that shook the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine physicians, nurses, and administrators were drawing up plans to aid in the relief effort. One day after the quake, a tent hospital was erected at the airport, and dozens of providers were on the ground caring for the wounded, orphaned, and visibly shaken.

Hospitalists Amir Jaffer, MD, FHM, and Lisa Luly-Rivera, MD (photo, at right), recently returned from a five-day medical relief mission. They worked with surgeons and coordinated with nursing staff to ensure patients were properly hydrated and had the right pain medications. The staff also managed patients’ medical conditions and nutrition. Dr. Jaffer, an associate professor and the division chief of hospital medicine at the Miller School of Medicine, oversaw the transfer of 138 patients from a makeshift hospital to the new tent hospital, which opened Jan. 20 and offers spacious wards, a pathology lab, and two operating rooms.

“Most of the patients had a fracture, amputation, infected wound, or a spinal cord injury,” Dr. Jaffer says. “The conditions were dire when we landed. The role of the hospitalists was managing care. We also were involved in triaging patients who were being transferred.”

On Jan. 22, nearly 10 days after the quake, the university opened an imaging center radiology lab. “Some of the patients were splinted and needed X-ray,” Dr. Jaffer says, adding that more than 100 films were completed the first day. “Some patients were being brought in to us a week later who had fractures that had not been cared for.”

One of the poorest countries in the world, Haiti’s lack of infrastructure is wreaking havoc on rescue and relief efforts. The people are afraid to return to their homes, “and they have no place to go,” Dr. Jaffer says.

The 25 hospitalists in the HM group at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine are planning five-day rotations to Haiti. The hospital needs translators, nurses, and internal-medicine specialists to cover the shifts of providers traveling to Haiti. If you’re interested in helping out, send an e-mail to the university. If you’d like to assist relief efforts in Haiti, make a donation to the American Red Cross.

Hours after the devastating earthquake that shook the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince, University of Miami Miller School of Medicine physicians, nurses, and administrators were drawing up plans to aid in the relief effort. One day after the quake, a tent hospital was erected at the airport, and dozens of providers were on the ground caring for the wounded, orphaned, and visibly shaken.

Hospitalists Amir Jaffer, MD, FHM, and Lisa Luly-Rivera, MD (photo, at right), recently returned from a five-day medical relief mission. They worked with surgeons and coordinated with nursing staff to ensure patients were properly hydrated and had the right pain medications. The staff also managed patients’ medical conditions and nutrition. Dr. Jaffer, an associate professor and the division chief of hospital medicine at the Miller School of Medicine, oversaw the transfer of 138 patients from a makeshift hospital to the new tent hospital, which opened Jan. 20 and offers spacious wards, a pathology lab, and two operating rooms.

“Most of the patients had a fracture, amputation, infected wound, or a spinal cord injury,” Dr. Jaffer says. “The conditions were dire when we landed. The role of the hospitalists was managing care. We also were involved in triaging patients who were being transferred.”

On Jan. 22, nearly 10 days after the quake, the university opened an imaging center radiology lab. “Some of the patients were splinted and needed X-ray,” Dr. Jaffer says, adding that more than 100 films were completed the first day. “Some patients were being brought in to us a week later who had fractures that had not been cared for.”

One of the poorest countries in the world, Haiti’s lack of infrastructure is wreaking havoc on rescue and relief efforts. The people are afraid to return to their homes, “and they have no place to go,” Dr. Jaffer says.

The 25 hospitalists in the HM group at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine are planning five-day rotations to Haiti. The hospital needs translators, nurses, and internal-medicine specialists to cover the shifts of providers traveling to Haiti. If you’re interested in helping out, send an e-mail to the university. If you’d like to assist relief efforts in Haiti, make a donation to the American Red Cross.

A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine (2009;361:2637-2645) questions whether improved planning for hospital discharges decreases readmission rates.

Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, of the Harvard School of Public Health and colleagues examined two publicly reported discharge-planning quality measures from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Hospital Quality Alliance. The measures focus on documentation that discharge instructions were provided to patients with congestive heart failure and patients’ self-reported experience with discharge planning.

The researchers found no correlation with rates of readmission for congestive heart failure and pneumonia, and only weak correlation between the two quality measures. Based on their findings, the team concluded that public reporting of quality-related discharge-planning measures is unlikely to yield significant reductions in rehospitalization rates.

A number of national initiatives, including SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), are focused on improving hospital discharge planning processes and care transitions, which are significant themes in the national health reform debate.

But the NEJM results should not be surprising, says Arpana Vidyarthi, MD, hospitalist and director of quality at the University of California at San Francisco. “Discharge planning is not a five-minute thing you do on the day of discharge. Improving the discharge process actually starts on the day of hospital admission. It is a complex problem and it needs multifaceted, evidence-based solutions,” including process evaluations by hospital teams and the application of supporting communications technology.

A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine (2009;361:2637-2645) questions whether improved planning for hospital discharges decreases readmission rates.

Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, of the Harvard School of Public Health and colleagues examined two publicly reported discharge-planning quality measures from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Hospital Quality Alliance. The measures focus on documentation that discharge instructions were provided to patients with congestive heart failure and patients’ self-reported experience with discharge planning.

The researchers found no correlation with rates of readmission for congestive heart failure and pneumonia, and only weak correlation between the two quality measures. Based on their findings, the team concluded that public reporting of quality-related discharge-planning measures is unlikely to yield significant reductions in rehospitalization rates.

A number of national initiatives, including SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), are focused on improving hospital discharge planning processes and care transitions, which are significant themes in the national health reform debate.

But the NEJM results should not be surprising, says Arpana Vidyarthi, MD, hospitalist and director of quality at the University of California at San Francisco. “Discharge planning is not a five-minute thing you do on the day of discharge. Improving the discharge process actually starts on the day of hospital admission. It is a complex problem and it needs multifaceted, evidence-based solutions,” including process evaluations by hospital teams and the application of supporting communications technology.

A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine (2009;361:2637-2645) questions whether improved planning for hospital discharges decreases readmission rates.

Ashish Jha, MD, MPH, of the Harvard School of Public Health and colleagues examined two publicly reported discharge-planning quality measures from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS) Hospital Quality Alliance. The measures focus on documentation that discharge instructions were provided to patients with congestive heart failure and patients’ self-reported experience with discharge planning.

The researchers found no correlation with rates of readmission for congestive heart failure and pneumonia, and only weak correlation between the two quality measures. Based on their findings, the team concluded that public reporting of quality-related discharge-planning measures is unlikely to yield significant reductions in rehospitalization rates.

A number of national initiatives, including SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions), are focused on improving hospital discharge planning processes and care transitions, which are significant themes in the national health reform debate.

But the NEJM results should not be surprising, says Arpana Vidyarthi, MD, hospitalist and director of quality at the University of California at San Francisco. “Discharge planning is not a five-minute thing you do on the day of discharge. Improving the discharge process actually starts on the day of hospital admission. It is a complex problem and it needs multifaceted, evidence-based solutions,” including process evaluations by hospital teams and the application of supporting communications technology.

DR. HOSPITALIST

Transitions of Care Integral to HM Patient Care

I just finished my internal-medicine training and started a job as a hospitalist. We are a new hospitalist group, and I have been told that “transitions of care” is important to HM groups. I understand that getting information back to the patients’ primary-care physicians (PCPs) is important, but I am worried that I don’t have the whole picture. Is there something I am missing?

E. Parkhurst, MD

Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Congrats on your new job. I am pleased to hear that you are motivated to learn more about transitions of care. It is important to hospitalist groups, but even more important to patients. I suspect your instincts are correct. You have an idea of what is meant by “transitions of care,” but probably do not appreciate all the nuances of the term. I certainly did not when I came out of training many years ago.

Transitions of care is a critical aspect of every patient’s care, and thus should be important to every healthcare provider. Our job is to care for the hospitalized patient and help them navigate through the complex systems of the hospital. How well we guide the patients through these transitions is reflected in their outcomes.

What is the definition of “transitions of care”? I find it useful to think about the patient’s journey when the decision is made to hospitalize the patient. When the patient is hospitalized, it is easy to recognize that the patient’s physical location is different; some, if not all, of the patient’s providers are different, too. The patient might have the same PCP caring for them in the hospital, but the nurses are different. The contrast is more evident if all of the patient’s providers are different. The ED is the point of entry for most patients. This is another location with another group of providers who do not have knowledge of all of the patient’s medical issues.

The hospital discharge is another inevitable transition. Most patients go home, but some will go to another healthcare facility (e.g., rehabilitation hospital) with another group of providers.

As you can see, the admission and discharge from the hospital involves multiple transitions. But multiple transitions also occur within the hospital. The patient could move from the general medical ward to the ICU and back; the patient might spend time in the surgical suite or operating room. Many patients go to radiology or other parts of the hospital for testing or procedures. At each location, the patient has a new group of providers.

But even if a physical location does not change, there could be a transition in care. During the day, one hospitalist or nurse might care for the patient. At night, another group of doctors and nurses are responsible for the patient’s care. Information must be transmitted and received between all of the parties at each transition in order for the appropriate care to proceed.

Effective transitions can improve provider efficiency. Think about how much easier it is to care for a patient whose care you assume when you have a clear understanding of the patient’s issues. Minimizing medical errors and increasing effective communication can reduce medical and legal risks. Effective transitions also minimize the length of hospital stay for the patient and minimize the risk of unnecessary readmission to the hospital. These can result in enhanced financial outcomes.

I think the key to effective and safe transitions of care is to create a mutually-agreed-upon process of communication and a level of expectation from all providers to carry out their role in the process. This is always easier said than done. In fact, the lack of an agreed-upon process often is a common barrier to effective transitions of care. Each participant’s role in the patient’s transitions might compete with another set of agendas.

As you can see, transitions of care is a complex topic, and I have only briefly reviewed it here. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost. TH

Image Source: AMANE KANEKO

DR. HOSPITALIST

Transitions of Care Integral to HM Patient Care

I just finished my internal-medicine training and started a job as a hospitalist. We are a new hospitalist group, and I have been told that “transitions of care” is important to HM groups. I understand that getting information back to the patients’ primary-care physicians (PCPs) is important, but I am worried that I don’t have the whole picture. Is there something I am missing?

E. Parkhurst, MD

Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Congrats on your new job. I am pleased to hear that you are motivated to learn more about transitions of care. It is important to hospitalist groups, but even more important to patients. I suspect your instincts are correct. You have an idea of what is meant by “transitions of care,” but probably do not appreciate all the nuances of the term. I certainly did not when I came out of training many years ago.

Transitions of care is a critical aspect of every patient’s care, and thus should be important to every healthcare provider. Our job is to care for the hospitalized patient and help them navigate through the complex systems of the hospital. How well we guide the patients through these transitions is reflected in their outcomes.

What is the definition of “transitions of care”? I find it useful to think about the patient’s journey when the decision is made to hospitalize the patient. When the patient is hospitalized, it is easy to recognize that the patient’s physical location is different; some, if not all, of the patient’s providers are different, too. The patient might have the same PCP caring for them in the hospital, but the nurses are different. The contrast is more evident if all of the patient’s providers are different. The ED is the point of entry for most patients. This is another location with another group of providers who do not have knowledge of all of the patient’s medical issues.

The hospital discharge is another inevitable transition. Most patients go home, but some will go to another healthcare facility (e.g., rehabilitation hospital) with another group of providers.

As you can see, the admission and discharge from the hospital involves multiple transitions. But multiple transitions also occur within the hospital. The patient could move from the general medical ward to the ICU and back; the patient might spend time in the surgical suite or operating room. Many patients go to radiology or other parts of the hospital for testing or procedures. At each location, the patient has a new group of providers.

But even if a physical location does not change, there could be a transition in care. During the day, one hospitalist or nurse might care for the patient. At night, another group of doctors and nurses are responsible for the patient’s care. Information must be transmitted and received between all of the parties at each transition in order for the appropriate care to proceed.

Effective transitions can improve provider efficiency. Think about how much easier it is to care for a patient whose care you assume when you have a clear understanding of the patient’s issues. Minimizing medical errors and increasing effective communication can reduce medical and legal risks. Effective transitions also minimize the length of hospital stay for the patient and minimize the risk of unnecessary readmission to the hospital. These can result in enhanced financial outcomes.

I think the key to effective and safe transitions of care is to create a mutually-agreed-upon process of communication and a level of expectation from all providers to carry out their role in the process. This is always easier said than done. In fact, the lack of an agreed-upon process often is a common barrier to effective transitions of care. Each participant’s role in the patient’s transitions might compete with another set of agendas.

As you can see, transitions of care is a complex topic, and I have only briefly reviewed it here. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost. TH

Image Source: AMANE KANEKO

DR. HOSPITALIST

Transitions of Care Integral to HM Patient Care

I just finished my internal-medicine training and started a job as a hospitalist. We are a new hospitalist group, and I have been told that “transitions of care” is important to HM groups. I understand that getting information back to the patients’ primary-care physicians (PCPs) is important, but I am worried that I don’t have the whole picture. Is there something I am missing?

E. Parkhurst, MD

Tampa, Fla.

Dr. Hospitalist responds: Congrats on your new job. I am pleased to hear that you are motivated to learn more about transitions of care. It is important to hospitalist groups, but even more important to patients. I suspect your instincts are correct. You have an idea of what is meant by “transitions of care,” but probably do not appreciate all the nuances of the term. I certainly did not when I came out of training many years ago.

Transitions of care is a critical aspect of every patient’s care, and thus should be important to every healthcare provider. Our job is to care for the hospitalized patient and help them navigate through the complex systems of the hospital. How well we guide the patients through these transitions is reflected in their outcomes.

What is the definition of “transitions of care”? I find it useful to think about the patient’s journey when the decision is made to hospitalize the patient. When the patient is hospitalized, it is easy to recognize that the patient’s physical location is different; some, if not all, of the patient’s providers are different, too. The patient might have the same PCP caring for them in the hospital, but the nurses are different. The contrast is more evident if all of the patient’s providers are different. The ED is the point of entry for most patients. This is another location with another group of providers who do not have knowledge of all of the patient’s medical issues.

The hospital discharge is another inevitable transition. Most patients go home, but some will go to another healthcare facility (e.g., rehabilitation hospital) with another group of providers.

As you can see, the admission and discharge from the hospital involves multiple transitions. But multiple transitions also occur within the hospital. The patient could move from the general medical ward to the ICU and back; the patient might spend time in the surgical suite or operating room. Many patients go to radiology or other parts of the hospital for testing or procedures. At each location, the patient has a new group of providers.

But even if a physical location does not change, there could be a transition in care. During the day, one hospitalist or nurse might care for the patient. At night, another group of doctors and nurses are responsible for the patient’s care. Information must be transmitted and received between all of the parties at each transition in order for the appropriate care to proceed.

Effective transitions can improve provider efficiency. Think about how much easier it is to care for a patient whose care you assume when you have a clear understanding of the patient’s issues. Minimizing medical errors and increasing effective communication can reduce medical and legal risks. Effective transitions also minimize the length of hospital stay for the patient and minimize the risk of unnecessary readmission to the hospital. These can result in enhanced financial outcomes.

I think the key to effective and safe transitions of care is to create a mutually-agreed-upon process of communication and a level of expectation from all providers to carry out their role in the process. This is always easier said than done. In fact, the lack of an agreed-upon process often is a common barrier to effective transitions of care. Each participant’s role in the patient’s transitions might compete with another set of agendas.

As you can see, transitions of care is a complex topic, and I have only briefly reviewed it here. For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/boost. TH

Image Source: AMANE KANEKO

John Nelson, MD, FHM, FACP

Editor’s note: This is the first of a three-part series.

My experience is that some, maybe even most, hospitalists tend to assume there is a standard or “right” way to organize things like work schedules, compensation, or even the assignment of patients among the group’s providers. Some will say things like “SHM says the best hospitalist schedule is …” or “The best way to compensate hospitalists is …”

But there really isn’t a “best” way to manage any particular attribute of a practice. Don’t make the mistake of assuming your method is best, or that it’s the way “everybody else does it.” Although scheduling and compensation are marquee issues for hospitalists, approaches to distributing new patients is much less visible. Many groups tend to assume their method is the only reasonable approach. The best approach, however, varies from one practice to the next. You should be open to hearing approaches to scheduling that are different from your own.

Assign Patients by “Load Leveling”

I’ve come across a lot—and I mean a lot—of different approaches to distributing new patients in HM groups around the country, but it seems pretty clear that the most common method is to undertake “load leveling” on a daily or ongoing basis.

For example, groups that have a separate night shift (the night doctor performs no daytime work the day before or the day after a night shift) typically distribute the night’s new patients with the intent of having each daytime doctor start with the same number of patients. The group might more heavily weight some patients, such as those in the ICU (e.g., each ICU patient counts as 1.5 or two non-ICU patients), but most groups don’t. Over the course of the day shift, new referrals will be distributed evenly among the doctors one at a time, sort of like dealing a deck of cards.

This approach aims to avoid significant imbalances in patient loads and has the potential cultural benefit of everyone sharing equally in busy and slow days. Groups that use it tend to see it as the best option because it is the fairest way to divide up the workload.

Practices that use load-leveling almost always use a schedule built on shifts of a predetermined and fixed duration. For example, say the day shift always works from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. This schedule usually has the majority of compensation paid via a fixed annual salary or fixed shift rate. One potential problem with this approach is that the doctor who is efficient and discharges a lot of patients today is “rewarded” with more new patients tomorrow. Hospitalists who are allergic to work might have an incentive to have a patient wait until tomorrow to discharge to avoid having to assume the care of yet another patient tomorrow morning. Hospital executives who are focused on length-of-stay management might be concerned if they knew this was a potential issue. Of course, the reverse is true as well. In a practice that doesn’t aggressively undertake load-leveling, a less-than-admirable hospitalist could push patients to discharge earlier than optimal just to have one less patient the next day.

Another cost of this approach is that the distribution of patients can be time-consuming each morning. It also offers the opportunity for some in the group to decide they’re treated unfairly. For instance, you might hear the occasional “just last Tuesday, I started with 16 patients, compared with 15 for everyone else. Now you want me to do it again? You’re being unfair to me; it’s someone else’s turn to take the extra patient.”

Assignment by Location

Groups that use “unit-based” hospitalists distribute patients according to the unit the patient is admitted to—and the hospitalist covering that unit. The pros and cons of unit-based hospitalists are many (see “A Unit-Based Approach,” September 2007), but there is an obvious tension between keeping patient loads even among hospitalists and ensuring that all of a hospitalist’s patients are on “their” unit. Practicality usually requires a compromise between pure unit-based assignment and load-leveling.

Uneven Assignments

Some groups assign patients according to a predetermined algorithm and employ load-leveling only when patient loads become extremely unbalanced. For example, Dr. Jones gets all the new referrals today, and Dr. James gets them tomorrow. The idea is that patient loads end up close to even over time, even if they’re unbalanced on any given day.

A system like this allows everyone, including the hospitalists themselves, ED staff, etc., to know who will take the next patient. It decreases the need to communicate the “who’s next” information time after time during the course of the day. In small- to medium-sized practices, it could mean no one needs to function as the triage doctor (i.e., the person who inefficiently answers the service calls, scribbles down clinical information, then calls the hospitalist who is due to take the next patient and relays all the pertinent patient info). This system allows the

hospitalists to know which days will be harder (e.g., taking on the care of new patients) and which days will be easier (e.g., rounding but not assuming care of new patients). Allowing uneven loads also eliminates the need to spend energy working to even the loads and risking that some in the group feel as if they aren’t being treated fairly.

Uncommon yet Intriguing Approaches

Pair referring primary-care physicians (PCPs) with specific hospitalists. I’ve encountered two groups that had hospitalists always admit patients from the same PCPs. In other words, hospitalist Dr. Hancock always serves as attending for patients referred by the same nine PCPs, and hospitalist Dr. Franklin always attends to patients from a different set of PCPs. It seems to me that there could be tremendous benefit in working closely with the same PCPs, most notably getting to know the PCPs’ office staff. But this system raises the risk of creating out-of-balance patient loads, among other problems. It is really attractive to me, but most groups will decide its costs outweigh its benefits.

Hospitalist and patient stay connected during admission. I’m not aware of any group that uses this method (let me know if you do!), but there could be benefits to having each patient see the same hospitalist during each hospital stay. Of course, that is assuming the hospitalist is on duty. Hospitalist and patient could be paired upon the patient’s first admission. The hospitalist could form an excellent relationship with the patient and family; the time spent by the hospitalist getting to know patients on admission would be reduced, and I suspect there might be some benefit in the quality of care.

This method, however, likely results in the most uneven patient loads, and load-leveling would be difficult, if not impossible. Even if hospitalist and patient did form a tight bond, there is a high probability that the hospitalist would be off for the duration of the patient’s next admission. So despite what I suspect are tremendous benefits, this approach may not be feasible for any group.

In next month’s column, I will discuss issues related to the way patients are distributed. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

John Nelson, MD, FHM, FACP

Editor’s note: This is the first of a three-part series.

My experience is that some, maybe even most, hospitalists tend to assume there is a standard or “right” way to organize things like work schedules, compensation, or even the assignment of patients among the group’s providers. Some will say things like “SHM says the best hospitalist schedule is …” or “The best way to compensate hospitalists is …”

But there really isn’t a “best” way to manage any particular attribute of a practice. Don’t make the mistake of assuming your method is best, or that it’s the way “everybody else does it.” Although scheduling and compensation are marquee issues for hospitalists, approaches to distributing new patients is much less visible. Many groups tend to assume their method is the only reasonable approach. The best approach, however, varies from one practice to the next. You should be open to hearing approaches to scheduling that are different from your own.

Assign Patients by “Load Leveling”

I’ve come across a lot—and I mean a lot—of different approaches to distributing new patients in HM groups around the country, but it seems pretty clear that the most common method is to undertake “load leveling” on a daily or ongoing basis.

For example, groups that have a separate night shift (the night doctor performs no daytime work the day before or the day after a night shift) typically distribute the night’s new patients with the intent of having each daytime doctor start with the same number of patients. The group might more heavily weight some patients, such as those in the ICU (e.g., each ICU patient counts as 1.5 or two non-ICU patients), but most groups don’t. Over the course of the day shift, new referrals will be distributed evenly among the doctors one at a time, sort of like dealing a deck of cards.

This approach aims to avoid significant imbalances in patient loads and has the potential cultural benefit of everyone sharing equally in busy and slow days. Groups that use it tend to see it as the best option because it is the fairest way to divide up the workload.

Practices that use load-leveling almost always use a schedule built on shifts of a predetermined and fixed duration. For example, say the day shift always works from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. This schedule usually has the majority of compensation paid via a fixed annual salary or fixed shift rate. One potential problem with this approach is that the doctor who is efficient and discharges a lot of patients today is “rewarded” with more new patients tomorrow. Hospitalists who are allergic to work might have an incentive to have a patient wait until tomorrow to discharge to avoid having to assume the care of yet another patient tomorrow morning. Hospital executives who are focused on length-of-stay management might be concerned if they knew this was a potential issue. Of course, the reverse is true as well. In a practice that doesn’t aggressively undertake load-leveling, a less-than-admirable hospitalist could push patients to discharge earlier than optimal just to have one less patient the next day.

Another cost of this approach is that the distribution of patients can be time-consuming each morning. It also offers the opportunity for some in the group to decide they’re treated unfairly. For instance, you might hear the occasional “just last Tuesday, I started with 16 patients, compared with 15 for everyone else. Now you want me to do it again? You’re being unfair to me; it’s someone else’s turn to take the extra patient.”

Assignment by Location

Groups that use “unit-based” hospitalists distribute patients according to the unit the patient is admitted to—and the hospitalist covering that unit. The pros and cons of unit-based hospitalists are many (see “A Unit-Based Approach,” September 2007), but there is an obvious tension between keeping patient loads even among hospitalists and ensuring that all of a hospitalist’s patients are on “their” unit. Practicality usually requires a compromise between pure unit-based assignment and load-leveling.

Uneven Assignments

Some groups assign patients according to a predetermined algorithm and employ load-leveling only when patient loads become extremely unbalanced. For example, Dr. Jones gets all the new referrals today, and Dr. James gets them tomorrow. The idea is that patient loads end up close to even over time, even if they’re unbalanced on any given day.

A system like this allows everyone, including the hospitalists themselves, ED staff, etc., to know who will take the next patient. It decreases the need to communicate the “who’s next” information time after time during the course of the day. In small- to medium-sized practices, it could mean no one needs to function as the triage doctor (i.e., the person who inefficiently answers the service calls, scribbles down clinical information, then calls the hospitalist who is due to take the next patient and relays all the pertinent patient info). This system allows the

hospitalists to know which days will be harder (e.g., taking on the care of new patients) and which days will be easier (e.g., rounding but not assuming care of new patients). Allowing uneven loads also eliminates the need to spend energy working to even the loads and risking that some in the group feel as if they aren’t being treated fairly.

Uncommon yet Intriguing Approaches

Pair referring primary-care physicians (PCPs) with specific hospitalists. I’ve encountered two groups that had hospitalists always admit patients from the same PCPs. In other words, hospitalist Dr. Hancock always serves as attending for patients referred by the same nine PCPs, and hospitalist Dr. Franklin always attends to patients from a different set of PCPs. It seems to me that there could be tremendous benefit in working closely with the same PCPs, most notably getting to know the PCPs’ office staff. But this system raises the risk of creating out-of-balance patient loads, among other problems. It is really attractive to me, but most groups will decide its costs outweigh its benefits.

Hospitalist and patient stay connected during admission. I’m not aware of any group that uses this method (let me know if you do!), but there could be benefits to having each patient see the same hospitalist during each hospital stay. Of course, that is assuming the hospitalist is on duty. Hospitalist and patient could be paired upon the patient’s first admission. The hospitalist could form an excellent relationship with the patient and family; the time spent by the hospitalist getting to know patients on admission would be reduced, and I suspect there might be some benefit in the quality of care.

This method, however, likely results in the most uneven patient loads, and load-leveling would be difficult, if not impossible. Even if hospitalist and patient did form a tight bond, there is a high probability that the hospitalist would be off for the duration of the patient’s next admission. So despite what I suspect are tremendous benefits, this approach may not be feasible for any group.

In next month’s column, I will discuss issues related to the way patients are distributed. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

John Nelson, MD, FHM, FACP

Editor’s note: This is the first of a three-part series.

My experience is that some, maybe even most, hospitalists tend to assume there is a standard or “right” way to organize things like work schedules, compensation, or even the assignment of patients among the group’s providers. Some will say things like “SHM says the best hospitalist schedule is …” or “The best way to compensate hospitalists is …”

But there really isn’t a “best” way to manage any particular attribute of a practice. Don’t make the mistake of assuming your method is best, or that it’s the way “everybody else does it.” Although scheduling and compensation are marquee issues for hospitalists, approaches to distributing new patients is much less visible. Many groups tend to assume their method is the only reasonable approach. The best approach, however, varies from one practice to the next. You should be open to hearing approaches to scheduling that are different from your own.

Assign Patients by “Load Leveling”

I’ve come across a lot—and I mean a lot—of different approaches to distributing new patients in HM groups around the country, but it seems pretty clear that the most common method is to undertake “load leveling” on a daily or ongoing basis.

For example, groups that have a separate night shift (the night doctor performs no daytime work the day before or the day after a night shift) typically distribute the night’s new patients with the intent of having each daytime doctor start with the same number of patients. The group might more heavily weight some patients, such as those in the ICU (e.g., each ICU patient counts as 1.5 or two non-ICU patients), but most groups don’t. Over the course of the day shift, new referrals will be distributed evenly among the doctors one at a time, sort of like dealing a deck of cards.

This approach aims to avoid significant imbalances in patient loads and has the potential cultural benefit of everyone sharing equally in busy and slow days. Groups that use it tend to see it as the best option because it is the fairest way to divide up the workload.

Practices that use load-leveling almost always use a schedule built on shifts of a predetermined and fixed duration. For example, say the day shift always works from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. This schedule usually has the majority of compensation paid via a fixed annual salary or fixed shift rate. One potential problem with this approach is that the doctor who is efficient and discharges a lot of patients today is “rewarded” with more new patients tomorrow. Hospitalists who are allergic to work might have an incentive to have a patient wait until tomorrow to discharge to avoid having to assume the care of yet another patient tomorrow morning. Hospital executives who are focused on length-of-stay management might be concerned if they knew this was a potential issue. Of course, the reverse is true as well. In a practice that doesn’t aggressively undertake load-leveling, a less-than-admirable hospitalist could push patients to discharge earlier than optimal just to have one less patient the next day.

Another cost of this approach is that the distribution of patients can be time-consuming each morning. It also offers the opportunity for some in the group to decide they’re treated unfairly. For instance, you might hear the occasional “just last Tuesday, I started with 16 patients, compared with 15 for everyone else. Now you want me to do it again? You’re being unfair to me; it’s someone else’s turn to take the extra patient.”

Assignment by Location

Groups that use “unit-based” hospitalists distribute patients according to the unit the patient is admitted to—and the hospitalist covering that unit. The pros and cons of unit-based hospitalists are many (see “A Unit-Based Approach,” September 2007), but there is an obvious tension between keeping patient loads even among hospitalists and ensuring that all of a hospitalist’s patients are on “their” unit. Practicality usually requires a compromise between pure unit-based assignment and load-leveling.

Uneven Assignments

Some groups assign patients according to a predetermined algorithm and employ load-leveling only when patient loads become extremely unbalanced. For example, Dr. Jones gets all the new referrals today, and Dr. James gets them tomorrow. The idea is that patient loads end up close to even over time, even if they’re unbalanced on any given day.

A system like this allows everyone, including the hospitalists themselves, ED staff, etc., to know who will take the next patient. It decreases the need to communicate the “who’s next” information time after time during the course of the day. In small- to medium-sized practices, it could mean no one needs to function as the triage doctor (i.e., the person who inefficiently answers the service calls, scribbles down clinical information, then calls the hospitalist who is due to take the next patient and relays all the pertinent patient info). This system allows the

hospitalists to know which days will be harder (e.g., taking on the care of new patients) and which days will be easier (e.g., rounding but not assuming care of new patients). Allowing uneven loads also eliminates the need to spend energy working to even the loads and risking that some in the group feel as if they aren’t being treated fairly.

Uncommon yet Intriguing Approaches

Pair referring primary-care physicians (PCPs) with specific hospitalists. I’ve encountered two groups that had hospitalists always admit patients from the same PCPs. In other words, hospitalist Dr. Hancock always serves as attending for patients referred by the same nine PCPs, and hospitalist Dr. Franklin always attends to patients from a different set of PCPs. It seems to me that there could be tremendous benefit in working closely with the same PCPs, most notably getting to know the PCPs’ office staff. But this system raises the risk of creating out-of-balance patient loads, among other problems. It is really attractive to me, but most groups will decide its costs outweigh its benefits.

Hospitalist and patient stay connected during admission. I’m not aware of any group that uses this method (let me know if you do!), but there could be benefits to having each patient see the same hospitalist during each hospital stay. Of course, that is assuming the hospitalist is on duty. Hospitalist and patient could be paired upon the patient’s first admission. The hospitalist could form an excellent relationship with the patient and family; the time spent by the hospitalist getting to know patients on admission would be reduced, and I suspect there might be some benefit in the quality of care.

This method, however, likely results in the most uneven patient loads, and load-leveling would be difficult, if not impossible. Even if hospitalist and patient did form a tight bond, there is a high probability that the hospitalist would be off for the duration of the patient’s next admission. So despite what I suspect are tremendous benefits, this approach may not be feasible for any group.

In next month’s column, I will discuss issues related to the way patients are distributed. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Jeff Glasheen, MD, FHM

Four eyes staring, boring through me, unblinking. Locked in a pose holding a hand-scrawled sign commanding their father to ♥♥GET WELL NOW♥♥, the photo of the 14-month-old twin girls was reproduced off a cheap color printer and taped to the window, backlit by the Christmas Eve morning sun. Both the sun and the daughters demanded my attention—the former a brilliant reminder of the glories of the day, the latter the sobering reality of a family rocked by illness.

Mr. Jasper, an otherwise healthy 36-year-old male who recently was diagnosed with a rare, life-threatening disease, would not be spending this holiday with his daughters. In fact, because of our hospital’s flu precautions, he hadn’t seen them in the six weeks he’d been an inpatient. In that time, one of his girls had learned to talk; the other had learned to walk. Mr. Jasper was a distant bystander. He was upset but understanding of his situation—even optimistic, remarkably. However, those girls’ eyes told a different story. What weeks ago shone as the cute countenances of toddlers—silly, carefree, cheerful—now articulated a different tone. “Let my father come home!” they beseeched.

Staring into those eyes on rounds that morning, I was haunted by a thought that had gnawed at my subconscious for weeks. It was likely, albeit not guaranteed, that we’d get Mr. Jasper home to his wife and daughters. However, it would be at a cost. Of course, there would be psychological costs, but I was more acutely concerned with the financial costs. Mr. Jasper, you see, is uninsured.

Healthcare Reform: Too Late for Many

Thousands of miles away, the U.S. Senate was, at that exact time, voting for legislation to greatly reform and expand the U.S. healthcare system. Passed along partisan lines, the bill now awaits reconciliation with the House of Representatives’ bill. From there, it will go before President Obama for signature into law. If passed, this legislation promises to give healthcare coverage to another 30 million Americans.

For Mr. Jasper, this new law will come too late.

It’ll also be too late for Mrs. Anderson, a middle-aged asthmatic now intubated in our ICU, wheezing against constricted bronchioles. Three days earlier, she was seen in the ED for worsening dyspnea, cough, and sputum production. Her symptoms resolved after a few courses of nebulized albuterol and IV steroids, and she was sent home with a prescription for prednisone and inhalers. Unable to afford to fill those prescriptions, her disease progressed, eventually strangling her breathing and tangling her in a healthcare system more willing to pay for the care of disease complications than disease prevention.

Face-to-Face with Catastrophe

Later that morning, I was asked by one of our ED physicians to see Mr. Reynolds and “persuade” him to be admitted to the hospital. Mr. Reynolds has insurance. In fact, of the 11 patients I saw that day, he was one of only three who did. One had Medicaid, the other Medicare.

Mr. Reynolds had a high-deductible, catastrophic-insurance policy. As such, he was wrestling with the decision of whether to come into the hospital to treat his severe cellulitis with IV antibiotics (our formal recommendation), or treat this at home with oral antibiotics. His face wore the torment of the trade-offs. The former surely would cost him his entire $5,000 deductible; the latter, perhaps his life, or at least a limb. As the erythema glared at me, I struggled to recollect a medical school lecture applicable to this situation.

My last patient of the day was Mr. Ramon. He, too, was uninsured. Felled by diabetic ketoacidosis, he was admitted and, as 19-year-olds are wont to do, rebounded quickly. New-onset diabetes, however, was the least of his concerns. With a girlfriend and young child at home, he had to get out of the hospital and return to his job as soon as possible: mouths to feed. Having seen his father lose limbs, kidneys, eyes, and ultimately his life to diabetes, he was motivated to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, motivation doesn’t pay for insulin. I wondered what would come of him in the next 30 years. Would he be able to care for his disease and live a long and prosperous life, or would this admission be just one in a long series of hospital stays?

Broken System

Every hospitalist is aware of these issues and could no doubt fill pages with similarly horrific stories of a healthcare system long broken. It’s remarkable how much of my time I spend trying to figure out a way to cobble together a passable (the notion of “gold standard” therapy long gone) therapeutic plan for my patients—the Walmart list of $4 drugs has taken white-coat prominence over my “Pocket Pharmacopoeia.”

This isn’t to say the U.S. healthcare system doesn’t do a lot of great things. It does, and that cannot be discounted. It’s also not to say that the bill before Congress is the answer. Still, the fact that medical costs limit many Americans from accessing needed care and have become the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. should arouse concern in even the most ardent opponents of healthcare reform. Regardless of one’s political leanings and feelings about the current attempts at healthcare reform, it’s difficult to stand by and helplessly watch our patients struggle to maneuver within a system that so often seems to work against so many of them.

What’s easy to lose in the D.C. rhetoric and town-hall warfare is that every day, we delay healthcare reform results in undue patient suffering, both physical and financial. It is a system that is broken and needs, in the words of Mr. Jasper’s daughters, to “get well now.”

Before leaving to celebrate the holiday with my family, I was compelled to return to Mr. Jasper’s room. Unfortunately, the patient was off getting a treatment. But his daughters were still there, faces unchanged. Again, drawn to those eyes, I wondered what would become of this situation.

Would he make it home?

How would his family pay the bills?

What would this mean for his daughters’ future?

Would he and his family be forced to declare bankruptcy?

Would the family ever truly recover?

Staring at the picture in the window, I couldn’t help but think of my own children, also waiting for their father to come home from the hospital to celebrate the holidays.

As I turned to leave, my mind lost in thoughts of untimely illness, ill-fated outcomes, and financial devastation, I realized that in America today, nothing more than circumstances kept me from seeing my own children’s eyes staring back at me from that window. TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

Jeff Glasheen, MD, FHM

Four eyes staring, boring through me, unblinking. Locked in a pose holding a hand-scrawled sign commanding their father to ♥♥GET WELL NOW♥♥, the photo of the 14-month-old twin girls was reproduced off a cheap color printer and taped to the window, backlit by the Christmas Eve morning sun. Both the sun and the daughters demanded my attention—the former a brilliant reminder of the glories of the day, the latter the sobering reality of a family rocked by illness.

Mr. Jasper, an otherwise healthy 36-year-old male who recently was diagnosed with a rare, life-threatening disease, would not be spending this holiday with his daughters. In fact, because of our hospital’s flu precautions, he hadn’t seen them in the six weeks he’d been an inpatient. In that time, one of his girls had learned to talk; the other had learned to walk. Mr. Jasper was a distant bystander. He was upset but understanding of his situation—even optimistic, remarkably. However, those girls’ eyes told a different story. What weeks ago shone as the cute countenances of toddlers—silly, carefree, cheerful—now articulated a different tone. “Let my father come home!” they beseeched.

Staring into those eyes on rounds that morning, I was haunted by a thought that had gnawed at my subconscious for weeks. It was likely, albeit not guaranteed, that we’d get Mr. Jasper home to his wife and daughters. However, it would be at a cost. Of course, there would be psychological costs, but I was more acutely concerned with the financial costs. Mr. Jasper, you see, is uninsured.

Healthcare Reform: Too Late for Many

Thousands of miles away, the U.S. Senate was, at that exact time, voting for legislation to greatly reform and expand the U.S. healthcare system. Passed along partisan lines, the bill now awaits reconciliation with the House of Representatives’ bill. From there, it will go before President Obama for signature into law. If passed, this legislation promises to give healthcare coverage to another 30 million Americans.

For Mr. Jasper, this new law will come too late.

It’ll also be too late for Mrs. Anderson, a middle-aged asthmatic now intubated in our ICU, wheezing against constricted bronchioles. Three days earlier, she was seen in the ED for worsening dyspnea, cough, and sputum production. Her symptoms resolved after a few courses of nebulized albuterol and IV steroids, and she was sent home with a prescription for prednisone and inhalers. Unable to afford to fill those prescriptions, her disease progressed, eventually strangling her breathing and tangling her in a healthcare system more willing to pay for the care of disease complications than disease prevention.

Face-to-Face with Catastrophe

Later that morning, I was asked by one of our ED physicians to see Mr. Reynolds and “persuade” him to be admitted to the hospital. Mr. Reynolds has insurance. In fact, of the 11 patients I saw that day, he was one of only three who did. One had Medicaid, the other Medicare.

Mr. Reynolds had a high-deductible, catastrophic-insurance policy. As such, he was wrestling with the decision of whether to come into the hospital to treat his severe cellulitis with IV antibiotics (our formal recommendation), or treat this at home with oral antibiotics. His face wore the torment of the trade-offs. The former surely would cost him his entire $5,000 deductible; the latter, perhaps his life, or at least a limb. As the erythema glared at me, I struggled to recollect a medical school lecture applicable to this situation.

My last patient of the day was Mr. Ramon. He, too, was uninsured. Felled by diabetic ketoacidosis, he was admitted and, as 19-year-olds are wont to do, rebounded quickly. New-onset diabetes, however, was the least of his concerns. With a girlfriend and young child at home, he had to get out of the hospital and return to his job as soon as possible: mouths to feed. Having seen his father lose limbs, kidneys, eyes, and ultimately his life to diabetes, he was motivated to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, motivation doesn’t pay for insulin. I wondered what would come of him in the next 30 years. Would he be able to care for his disease and live a long and prosperous life, or would this admission be just one in a long series of hospital stays?

Broken System

Every hospitalist is aware of these issues and could no doubt fill pages with similarly horrific stories of a healthcare system long broken. It’s remarkable how much of my time I spend trying to figure out a way to cobble together a passable (the notion of “gold standard” therapy long gone) therapeutic plan for my patients—the Walmart list of $4 drugs has taken white-coat prominence over my “Pocket Pharmacopoeia.”

This isn’t to say the U.S. healthcare system doesn’t do a lot of great things. It does, and that cannot be discounted. It’s also not to say that the bill before Congress is the answer. Still, the fact that medical costs limit many Americans from accessing needed care and have become the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. should arouse concern in even the most ardent opponents of healthcare reform. Regardless of one’s political leanings and feelings about the current attempts at healthcare reform, it’s difficult to stand by and helplessly watch our patients struggle to maneuver within a system that so often seems to work against so many of them.

What’s easy to lose in the D.C. rhetoric and town-hall warfare is that every day, we delay healthcare reform results in undue patient suffering, both physical and financial. It is a system that is broken and needs, in the words of Mr. Jasper’s daughters, to “get well now.”

Before leaving to celebrate the holiday with my family, I was compelled to return to Mr. Jasper’s room. Unfortunately, the patient was off getting a treatment. But his daughters were still there, faces unchanged. Again, drawn to those eyes, I wondered what would become of this situation.

Would he make it home?

How would his family pay the bills?

What would this mean for his daughters’ future?

Would he and his family be forced to declare bankruptcy?

Would the family ever truly recover?

Staring at the picture in the window, I couldn’t help but think of my own children, also waiting for their father to come home from the hospital to celebrate the holidays.

As I turned to leave, my mind lost in thoughts of untimely illness, ill-fated outcomes, and financial devastation, I realized that in America today, nothing more than circumstances kept me from seeing my own children’s eyes staring back at me from that window. TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

Jeff Glasheen, MD, FHM

Four eyes staring, boring through me, unblinking. Locked in a pose holding a hand-scrawled sign commanding their father to ♥♥GET WELL NOW♥♥, the photo of the 14-month-old twin girls was reproduced off a cheap color printer and taped to the window, backlit by the Christmas Eve morning sun. Both the sun and the daughters demanded my attention—the former a brilliant reminder of the glories of the day, the latter the sobering reality of a family rocked by illness.

Mr. Jasper, an otherwise healthy 36-year-old male who recently was diagnosed with a rare, life-threatening disease, would not be spending this holiday with his daughters. In fact, because of our hospital’s flu precautions, he hadn’t seen them in the six weeks he’d been an inpatient. In that time, one of his girls had learned to talk; the other had learned to walk. Mr. Jasper was a distant bystander. He was upset but understanding of his situation—even optimistic, remarkably. However, those girls’ eyes told a different story. What weeks ago shone as the cute countenances of toddlers—silly, carefree, cheerful—now articulated a different tone. “Let my father come home!” they beseeched.

Staring into those eyes on rounds that morning, I was haunted by a thought that had gnawed at my subconscious for weeks. It was likely, albeit not guaranteed, that we’d get Mr. Jasper home to his wife and daughters. However, it would be at a cost. Of course, there would be psychological costs, but I was more acutely concerned with the financial costs. Mr. Jasper, you see, is uninsured.

Healthcare Reform: Too Late for Many

Thousands of miles away, the U.S. Senate was, at that exact time, voting for legislation to greatly reform and expand the U.S. healthcare system. Passed along partisan lines, the bill now awaits reconciliation with the House of Representatives’ bill. From there, it will go before President Obama for signature into law. If passed, this legislation promises to give healthcare coverage to another 30 million Americans.

For Mr. Jasper, this new law will come too late.

It’ll also be too late for Mrs. Anderson, a middle-aged asthmatic now intubated in our ICU, wheezing against constricted bronchioles. Three days earlier, she was seen in the ED for worsening dyspnea, cough, and sputum production. Her symptoms resolved after a few courses of nebulized albuterol and IV steroids, and she was sent home with a prescription for prednisone and inhalers. Unable to afford to fill those prescriptions, her disease progressed, eventually strangling her breathing and tangling her in a healthcare system more willing to pay for the care of disease complications than disease prevention.

Face-to-Face with Catastrophe

Later that morning, I was asked by one of our ED physicians to see Mr. Reynolds and “persuade” him to be admitted to the hospital. Mr. Reynolds has insurance. In fact, of the 11 patients I saw that day, he was one of only three who did. One had Medicaid, the other Medicare.

Mr. Reynolds had a high-deductible, catastrophic-insurance policy. As such, he was wrestling with the decision of whether to come into the hospital to treat his severe cellulitis with IV antibiotics (our formal recommendation), or treat this at home with oral antibiotics. His face wore the torment of the trade-offs. The former surely would cost him his entire $5,000 deductible; the latter, perhaps his life, or at least a limb. As the erythema glared at me, I struggled to recollect a medical school lecture applicable to this situation.

My last patient of the day was Mr. Ramon. He, too, was uninsured. Felled by diabetic ketoacidosis, he was admitted and, as 19-year-olds are wont to do, rebounded quickly. New-onset diabetes, however, was the least of his concerns. With a girlfriend and young child at home, he had to get out of the hospital and return to his job as soon as possible: mouths to feed. Having seen his father lose limbs, kidneys, eyes, and ultimately his life to diabetes, he was motivated to do the right thing.

Unfortunately, motivation doesn’t pay for insulin. I wondered what would come of him in the next 30 years. Would he be able to care for his disease and live a long and prosperous life, or would this admission be just one in a long series of hospital stays?

Broken System

Every hospitalist is aware of these issues and could no doubt fill pages with similarly horrific stories of a healthcare system long broken. It’s remarkable how much of my time I spend trying to figure out a way to cobble together a passable (the notion of “gold standard” therapy long gone) therapeutic plan for my patients—the Walmart list of $4 drugs has taken white-coat prominence over my “Pocket Pharmacopoeia.”

This isn’t to say the U.S. healthcare system doesn’t do a lot of great things. It does, and that cannot be discounted. It’s also not to say that the bill before Congress is the answer. Still, the fact that medical costs limit many Americans from accessing needed care and have become the leading cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. should arouse concern in even the most ardent opponents of healthcare reform. Regardless of one’s political leanings and feelings about the current attempts at healthcare reform, it’s difficult to stand by and helplessly watch our patients struggle to maneuver within a system that so often seems to work against so many of them.

What’s easy to lose in the D.C. rhetoric and town-hall warfare is that every day, we delay healthcare reform results in undue patient suffering, both physical and financial. It is a system that is broken and needs, in the words of Mr. Jasper’s daughters, to “get well now.”

Before leaving to celebrate the holiday with my family, I was compelled to return to Mr. Jasper’s room. Unfortunately, the patient was off getting a treatment. But his daughters were still there, faces unchanged. Again, drawn to those eyes, I wondered what would become of this situation.

Would he make it home?

How would his family pay the bills?

What would this mean for his daughters’ future?

Would he and his family be forced to declare bankruptcy?

Would the family ever truly recover?

Staring at the picture in the window, I couldn’t help but think of my own children, also waiting for their father to come home from the hospital to celebrate the holidays.

As I turned to leave, my mind lost in thoughts of untimely illness, ill-fated outcomes, and financial devastation, I realized that in America today, nothing more than circumstances kept me from seeing my own children’s eyes staring back at me from that window. TH

Dr. Glasheen is associate professor of medicine at the University of Colorado Denver, where he serves as director of the Hospital Medicine Program and the Hospitalist Training Program, and as associate program director of the Internal Medicine Residency Program.

Scott Flanders, MD, FHM

The growth of our medical specialty is old news. Yes, we now number about 30,000; yes, we now manage the medical care of 50% of hospitalized Medicare patients; yes, hospitalists are in two-thirds of U.S. hospitals. I could go on and on. But recently, I have observed a different type of growth altogether. It is the growth of stability.

In the recent history of HM, the focus was on the increasing number of hospitals that had hospitalists, the growth of SHM’s membership, the growth of our annual meeting, and the ever-increasing number of doctors who, at least when surveyed, called themselves hospitalists. It all looked so impressive.

Many of you know, however, that when you lifted up the hood of our field, it was not always as it seemed. HM actually was a bit unstable. Some doctors who called themselves hospitalists were, in reality, biding time until they moved on to a “real job” or went off to do a fellowship. Multiple groups competed for patients within any given hospital, and also competed for doctors. There were numerous jobs available for any given hospitalist, and, as a result, some groups had substantial turnover despite growth in numbers. In these programs, the group photo from one year to the next had an entirely new set of faces.

Instability did not just affect rank-and-file hospitalists; it also existed within programmatic leadership and entire programs. Annually in many hospitals, the hospitalists had to convince administration that the hospital needed hospitalists and that they were worthy of support. Unfortunately, it was not always successful, so some programs vanished.

Five years ago in Michigan, we were working to create a multihospital safety consortium. We had several participating institutions, all with hospitalist programs. One day, my secretary complained that every time she sent an e-mail to the consortium listserv, a handful would bounce back and indicate a handful of e-mail addresses no longer were in service, or note that an individual had “left the program.” Some of them were HM program directors. Follow-up calls showed that the program had a new director or had folded. In some cases, however, they were just too busy figuring out how to survive instead of focus on safety issues.

Fortunately, that all appears to be changing.

From Unknown to Accepted to Counted On

I have seen the change in my own institution. We, of course, continue to negotiate with hospital administration, but it is no longer about whether we should continue the program or not. Negotiations now center on line items in the budget, how much space we need, where we anticipate future growth, and what quality and safety initiatives we’re working on.

I like to think that the HM program is important infrastructure. Just as you can’t imagine a hospital without an ED or an ICU, the same holds true for the HM program.

Perhaps an even better analogy could be found in technologic innovation. Back when Al Gore invented the Internet, having an Internet connection at home was viewed as a luxury. Now, it nearly is a necessity. Just like HM programs! (OK, maybe that was a stretch.)

There also is stability within the faculty ranks. Many of our faculty have been here for years and plan to stay. Turnover has decreased dramatically. This is not unique to our program, but anecdotally is happening everywhere. In fact, we are in the process of launching additional multihospital HM-based safety projects and collaboratives. And when I reach out to programs to ask them to participate, the directors of these programs are the same ones when I last checked. If they have moved on, it has been to assume a local leadership role. The group photos also show all the same old faces, plus a few new ones. There really has been some stabilization in the field.

New Paradigm Here to Stay

The factors behind this newfound stability are numerous. Among them is the recognized importance of a well-managed HM program. In many institutions, the alternatives to hospitalists (primary-care physicians, surgeons managing all post-operative care, specialists admitting their own patients, etc.) have left the building. There is no going back, and there is no “plan B” if HM programs fold.

The recognition by prospective hospitalists—residents and students—that HM is a viable career path has increased interest in the field, and, in turn, has given many programs more choices among qualified applicants. Hospitalists currently employed in a reasonably functioning program are less likely to jump ship every year looking for something slightly better. And I expect the current economic climate has been a factor as well. As hospitals see operating margins erode, plans for infrastructure growth are delayed, funding for new programs shrinks, and hospitalist groups are asked to do more with less. In other words, they are not hiring as many new hospitalists.

In some sense, the perceived slowing in the growth of hospitalists might be concerning. I see it a different way. Slowing growth in overall numbers allows programs and the field to stabilize a bit, and this growth in stability creates enormous opportunity. Programs formerly struggling to survive can begin to innovate. We’ve seen that in Michigan, as the interest among hospitalist programs that want to participate in QI collaborations has grown. And when we hear what some programs are working on, it’s an impressive list of high-impact projects.

Hospitalists are taking ownership of care transitions, prevention of hospital-acquired complications, and disease-based QI initiatives centered on patients with heart failure, COPD, and diabetes.

Nationally, we have seen hospitalist programs coming together to successfully compete for federal research grants or foundation support targeting important national healthcare priorities. If the current healthcare reform legislation passes, it will better position HM to lead the transformation of healthcare in U.S. hospitals.

My big hope is that 10 to 20 years from now, HM is better known for its second phase of growth. Right now, we are more famous for our rapid growth and, to some extent, our impact on efficiency of care. Efficiency clearly is important; dollars saved from waste can be better put to use improving quality. But I want the field to be judged by our ability to innovate, improve the quality of hospital-care delivery, and to generate new knowledge that advances the care of all patients. Those accomplishments will have a more lasting impact on healthcare.

The stabilization of HM is making all of this possible. Our population expects and deserves great things from the nation’s fastest-growing “specialty,” and I am optimistic we will not let them down. TH

Dr. Flanders is president of SHM.

Scott Flanders, MD, FHM

The growth of our medical specialty is old news. Yes, we now number about 30,000; yes, we now manage the medical care of 50% of hospitalized Medicare patients; yes, hospitalists are in two-thirds of U.S. hospitals. I could go on and on. But recently, I have observed a different type of growth altogether. It is the growth of stability.

In the recent history of HM, the focus was on the increasing number of hospitals that had hospitalists, the growth of SHM’s membership, the growth of our annual meeting, and the ever-increasing number of doctors who, at least when surveyed, called themselves hospitalists. It all looked so impressive.

Many of you know, however, that when you lifted up the hood of our field, it was not always as it seemed. HM actually was a bit unstable. Some doctors who called themselves hospitalists were, in reality, biding time until they moved on to a “real job” or went off to do a fellowship. Multiple groups competed for patients within any given hospital, and also competed for doctors. There were numerous jobs available for any given hospitalist, and, as a result, some groups had substantial turnover despite growth in numbers. In these programs, the group photo from one year to the next had an entirely new set of faces.

Instability did not just affect rank-and-file hospitalists; it also existed within programmatic leadership and entire programs. Annually in many hospitals, the hospitalists had to convince administration that the hospital needed hospitalists and that they were worthy of support. Unfortunately, it was not always successful, so some programs vanished.

Five years ago in Michigan, we were working to create a multihospital safety consortium. We had several participating institutions, all with hospitalist programs. One day, my secretary complained that every time she sent an e-mail to the consortium listserv, a handful would bounce back and indicate a handful of e-mail addresses no longer were in service, or note that an individual had “left the program.” Some of them were HM program directors. Follow-up calls showed that the program had a new director or had folded. In some cases, however, they were just too busy figuring out how to survive instead of focus on safety issues.

Fortunately, that all appears to be changing.

From Unknown to Accepted to Counted On

I have seen the change in my own institution. We, of course, continue to negotiate with hospital administration, but it is no longer about whether we should continue the program or not. Negotiations now center on line items in the budget, how much space we need, where we anticipate future growth, and what quality and safety initiatives we’re working on.

I like to think that the HM program is important infrastructure. Just as you can’t imagine a hospital without an ED or an ICU, the same holds true for the HM program.

Perhaps an even better analogy could be found in technologic innovation. Back when Al Gore invented the Internet, having an Internet connection at home was viewed as a luxury. Now, it nearly is a necessity. Just like HM programs! (OK, maybe that was a stretch.)

There also is stability within the faculty ranks. Many of our faculty have been here for years and plan to stay. Turnover has decreased dramatically. This is not unique to our program, but anecdotally is happening everywhere. In fact, we are in the process of launching additional multihospital HM-based safety projects and collaboratives. And when I reach out to programs to ask them to participate, the directors of these programs are the same ones when I last checked. If they have moved on, it has been to assume a local leadership role. The group photos also show all the same old faces, plus a few new ones. There really has been some stabilization in the field.

New Paradigm Here to Stay

The factors behind this newfound stability are numerous. Among them is the recognized importance of a well-managed HM program. In many institutions, the alternatives to hospitalists (primary-care physicians, surgeons managing all post-operative care, specialists admitting their own patients, etc.) have left the building. There is no going back, and there is no “plan B” if HM programs fold.

The recognition by prospective hospitalists—residents and students—that HM is a viable career path has increased interest in the field, and, in turn, has given many programs more choices among qualified applicants. Hospitalists currently employed in a reasonably functioning program are less likely to jump ship every year looking for something slightly better. And I expect the current economic climate has been a factor as well. As hospitals see operating margins erode, plans for infrastructure growth are delayed, funding for new programs shrinks, and hospitalist groups are asked to do more with less. In other words, they are not hiring as many new hospitalists.

In some sense, the perceived slowing in the growth of hospitalists might be concerning. I see it a different way. Slowing growth in overall numbers allows programs and the field to stabilize a bit, and this growth in stability creates enormous opportunity. Programs formerly struggling to survive can begin to innovate. We’ve seen that in Michigan, as the interest among hospitalist programs that want to participate in QI collaborations has grown. And when we hear what some programs are working on, it’s an impressive list of high-impact projects.

Hospitalists are taking ownership of care transitions, prevention of hospital-acquired complications, and disease-based QI initiatives centered on patients with heart failure, COPD, and diabetes.

Nationally, we have seen hospitalist programs coming together to successfully compete for federal research grants or foundation support targeting important national healthcare priorities. If the current healthcare reform legislation passes, it will better position HM to lead the transformation of healthcare in U.S. hospitals.

My big hope is that 10 to 20 years from now, HM is better known for its second phase of growth. Right now, we are more famous for our rapid growth and, to some extent, our impact on efficiency of care. Efficiency clearly is important; dollars saved from waste can be better put to use improving quality. But I want the field to be judged by our ability to innovate, improve the quality of hospital-care delivery, and to generate new knowledge that advances the care of all patients. Those accomplishments will have a more lasting impact on healthcare.

The stabilization of HM is making all of this possible. Our population expects and deserves great things from the nation’s fastest-growing “specialty,” and I am optimistic we will not let them down. TH

Dr. Flanders is president of SHM.

Scott Flanders, MD, FHM

The growth of our medical specialty is old news. Yes, we now number about 30,000; yes, we now manage the medical care of 50% of hospitalized Medicare patients; yes, hospitalists are in two-thirds of U.S. hospitals. I could go on and on. But recently, I have observed a different type of growth altogether. It is the growth of stability.

In the recent history of HM, the focus was on the increasing number of hospitals that had hospitalists, the growth of SHM’s membership, the growth of our annual meeting, and the ever-increasing number of doctors who, at least when surveyed, called themselves hospitalists. It all looked so impressive.

Many of you know, however, that when you lifted up the hood of our field, it was not always as it seemed. HM actually was a bit unstable. Some doctors who called themselves hospitalists were, in reality, biding time until they moved on to a “real job” or went off to do a fellowship. Multiple groups competed for patients within any given hospital, and also competed for doctors. There were numerous jobs available for any given hospitalist, and, as a result, some groups had substantial turnover despite growth in numbers. In these programs, the group photo from one year to the next had an entirely new set of faces.

Instability did not just affect rank-and-file hospitalists; it also existed within programmatic leadership and entire programs. Annually in many hospitals, the hospitalists had to convince administration that the hospital needed hospitalists and that they were worthy of support. Unfortunately, it was not always successful, so some programs vanished.

Five years ago in Michigan, we were working to create a multihospital safety consortium. We had several participating institutions, all with hospitalist programs. One day, my secretary complained that every time she sent an e-mail to the consortium listserv, a handful would bounce back and indicate a handful of e-mail addresses no longer were in service, or note that an individual had “left the program.” Some of them were HM program directors. Follow-up calls showed that the program had a new director or had folded. In some cases, however, they were just too busy figuring out how to survive instead of focus on safety issues.

Fortunately, that all appears to be changing.

From Unknown to Accepted to Counted On

I have seen the change in my own institution. We, of course, continue to negotiate with hospital administration, but it is no longer about whether we should continue the program or not. Negotiations now center on line items in the budget, how much space we need, where we anticipate future growth, and what quality and safety initiatives we’re working on.

I like to think that the HM program is important infrastructure. Just as you can’t imagine a hospital without an ED or an ICU, the same holds true for the HM program.

Perhaps an even better analogy could be found in technologic innovation. Back when Al Gore invented the Internet, having an Internet connection at home was viewed as a luxury. Now, it nearly is a necessity. Just like HM programs! (OK, maybe that was a stretch.)

There also is stability within the faculty ranks. Many of our faculty have been here for years and plan to stay. Turnover has decreased dramatically. This is not unique to our program, but anecdotally is happening everywhere. In fact, we are in the process of launching additional multihospital HM-based safety projects and collaboratives. And when I reach out to programs to ask them to participate, the directors of these programs are the same ones when I last checked. If they have moved on, it has been to assume a local leadership role. The group photos also show all the same old faces, plus a few new ones. There really has been some stabilization in the field.

New Paradigm Here to Stay

The factors behind this newfound stability are numerous. Among them is the recognized importance of a well-managed HM program. In many institutions, the alternatives to hospitalists (primary-care physicians, surgeons managing all post-operative care, specialists admitting their own patients, etc.) have left the building. There is no going back, and there is no “plan B” if HM programs fold.

The recognition by prospective hospitalists—residents and students—that HM is a viable career path has increased interest in the field, and, in turn, has given many programs more choices among qualified applicants. Hospitalists currently employed in a reasonably functioning program are less likely to jump ship every year looking for something slightly better. And I expect the current economic climate has been a factor as well. As hospitals see operating margins erode, plans for infrastructure growth are delayed, funding for new programs shrinks, and hospitalist groups are asked to do more with less. In other words, they are not hiring as many new hospitalists.

In some sense, the perceived slowing in the growth of hospitalists might be concerning. I see it a different way. Slowing growth in overall numbers allows programs and the field to stabilize a bit, and this growth in stability creates enormous opportunity. Programs formerly struggling to survive can begin to innovate. We’ve seen that in Michigan, as the interest among hospitalist programs that want to participate in QI collaborations has grown. And when we hear what some programs are working on, it’s an impressive list of high-impact projects.

Hospitalists are taking ownership of care transitions, prevention of hospital-acquired complications, and disease-based QI initiatives centered on patients with heart failure, COPD, and diabetes.

Nationally, we have seen hospitalist programs coming together to successfully compete for federal research grants or foundation support targeting important national healthcare priorities. If the current healthcare reform legislation passes, it will better position HM to lead the transformation of healthcare in U.S. hospitals.

My big hope is that 10 to 20 years from now, HM is better known for its second phase of growth. Right now, we are more famous for our rapid growth and, to some extent, our impact on efficiency of care. Efficiency clearly is important; dollars saved from waste can be better put to use improving quality. But I want the field to be judged by our ability to innovate, improve the quality of hospital-care delivery, and to generate new knowledge that advances the care of all patients. Those accomplishments will have a more lasting impact on healthcare.

The stabilization of HM is making all of this possible. Our population expects and deserves great things from the nation’s fastest-growing “specialty,” and I am optimistic we will not let them down. TH

Dr. Flanders is president of SHM.

Dr. Aguirre

Felix Aguirre, MD, entered the field of hospital medicine before the term “hospitalist” had been coined. He didn’t realize how quickly the field would explode, but it didn’t take long to find out. Aguirre helped start an inpatient service in 1994, taking care of patients for about 20 primary-care physicians. Within three years, his service cared for the patients of 360 doctors.

Dr. Aguirre cofounded Hospitalists of San Antonio in 2000, and he served as president of the company until it merged with IPC: The Hospitalist Co. three years later.

A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Dr. Aguirre spent several years as an air-traffic controller before attending medical school. He currently is vice president of medical affairs for California-based IPC, which provides management services to hospitalist practices in more than 400 facilities.

“The biggest reward is being part of a growth industry, helping to mold it and move it forward,” says Dr. Aguirre, who is responsible for medical and leadership oversight, as well as developing IPC’s physicians and providers. “I’m very proud it’s starting to get distinction as a separate specialty, and I really like the idea of getting in on the ground floor. Everybody likes to be one of the pioneers of an industry.”

Question: How did West Point help prepare you for your current career?

Answer: As part of your education at West Point, you need to learn to be a follower before you can learn to be a leader. Coming out of the academy, I was pretty cocky and I thought I could do anything. I’ve learned some pretty humbling lessons, and experience teaches you how to temper that attitude.

Q: How about your time as an air-traffic controller?

A: You have to be able to deal with many things at once and be able to deal with pressure. That experience is great for a career in an emergency room and in hospital medicine, where you’re juggling a lot of information and facing situations that require pretty rapid action.

Q: When you entered HM, did you have a sense of how much—and how quickly—the field would grow?

A: No. It really was in its infancy at that time … but when Dr. (Robert) Wachter (coined the term “hospitalist”), it began to pick up momentum. Before long, we could see there wasn’t going to be any slowing down of this type of medicine. It’s great to be a part of an industry that is still a growing industry, especially in this economic climate. It’s needed now more than ever, so I feel I made the correct decision to enter this field.

Q: Why do you feel it’s needed more now than ever?

A: With healthcare, there needs to be more control, clinically as well as financially. I think hospitalists are well positioned right in the middle of the hospital. They are exposed to every aspect of the hospital’s operation and staff, whether it’s the cleaning service or dietary or physical therapy or talking to specialists or other physicians. Who better to help control what happens than the person who is exposed to it?

Q: What is the biggest challenge you face in your current role?

A: One of the big ones is reduction in variance. Everybody is looking for ways to reduce variance in clinical care, and that’s going to continue to be one of the biggest challenges as we grow. If you’re a small mom-and-pop business, it’s pretty easy to control things. That gets more difficult as you grow. The things that worked when you were smaller don’t work in a medium-sized company, let alone when you become a large company. You have to change the way you manage things, which leads to another challenge—adapting to the change.

Q: Is the fear of a hospitalist shortage on your radar screen?

A: It is. But I can tell you this: We won’t stress about it, because it is going to happen. There will be a shortage—there already is. What we have to try to do is position ourselves as the company, or employer, of choice. We get close to 3,000 applicants a year and hire 200 or so, so we’re fortunate in that we have a tremendous amount of exposure to many of the people who are desiring a hospitalist career.

Q: What do you see as the biggest benefit to the IPC model?

A: There are a couple of things I see, not just as advantages but also as strengths. Number one, IPC has extremely strong leadership. All of the people I work with on the senior leadership level are top-notch people. It’s great to be part of an organization that surrounds itself with talent. The next thing is, it’s a great place to work. IPC was selected as one of the 100 best places to work in healthcare (by Modern Healthcare). We made this list, and a lot of other high-profile names in healthcare did not, so we’re very proud of that.

Q: How does the IPC model translate to increased quality of care?

A: We have resources to educate our physicians. There are hospitals around the country with one-person, two-person, or four-person groups that don’t have the resources to do certain types of training. They acquire it by experience. We’re able to orient them to hospital medicine first … and then bring them along slowly and give them the additional training we think they need to succeed. We also have the resources to do ongoing education and monitor quality measures and efficiency measures as well.

Q: You have been a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee for about four years. How important is that role?

A: I think it’s incredibly important. The Public Policy Committee gets to be in tune with what the national issues are, and we can help the society foster and create relationships. We had the chance to meet with members of Congress and other national organizations like CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) and AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), even before healthcare reform became important.

Q: You and other members of the committee went to Washington, D.C., in March. What was the benefit of that trip?

A: We’ve been to Washington several times. We try to do it at least yearly. In previous years, we spent a lot of time just educating people about what hospitalists do. When we first went there, we were surprised by how many members of Congress had never heard of what a hospitalist was. This past year, they were much more aware of what a hospitalist is and how we can help with the goals of healthcare reform.

Q: What’s next for you?

A: I think for now I’m pretty happy with my position and my roles and responsibilities. I help with several different aspects of IPC. I help with some of the risk-management compliance issues. I make presentations to different hospitals and groups we’re thinking of doing business with. I have a varied career, and I enjoy it very much. TH

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Dr. Aguirre

Felix Aguirre, MD, entered the field of hospital medicine before the term “hospitalist” had been coined. He didn’t realize how quickly the field would explode, but it didn’t take long to find out. Aguirre helped start an inpatient service in 1994, taking care of patients for about 20 primary-care physicians. Within three years, his service cared for the patients of 360 doctors.

Dr. Aguirre cofounded Hospitalists of San Antonio in 2000, and he served as president of the company until it merged with IPC: The Hospitalist Co. three years later.

A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Dr. Aguirre spent several years as an air-traffic controller before attending medical school. He currently is vice president of medical affairs for California-based IPC, which provides management services to hospitalist practices in more than 400 facilities.

“The biggest reward is being part of a growth industry, helping to mold it and move it forward,” says Dr. Aguirre, who is responsible for medical and leadership oversight, as well as developing IPC’s physicians and providers. “I’m very proud it’s starting to get distinction as a separate specialty, and I really like the idea of getting in on the ground floor. Everybody likes to be one of the pioneers of an industry.”

Question: How did West Point help prepare you for your current career?

Answer: As part of your education at West Point, you need to learn to be a follower before you can learn to be a leader. Coming out of the academy, I was pretty cocky and I thought I could do anything. I’ve learned some pretty humbling lessons, and experience teaches you how to temper that attitude.

Q: How about your time as an air-traffic controller?

A: You have to be able to deal with many things at once and be able to deal with pressure. That experience is great for a career in an emergency room and in hospital medicine, where you’re juggling a lot of information and facing situations that require pretty rapid action.

Q: When you entered HM, did you have a sense of how much—and how quickly—the field would grow?

A: No. It really was in its infancy at that time … but when Dr. (Robert) Wachter (coined the term “hospitalist”), it began to pick up momentum. Before long, we could see there wasn’t going to be any slowing down of this type of medicine. It’s great to be a part of an industry that is still a growing industry, especially in this economic climate. It’s needed now more than ever, so I feel I made the correct decision to enter this field.

Q: Why do you feel it’s needed more now than ever?

A: With healthcare, there needs to be more control, clinically as well as financially. I think hospitalists are well positioned right in the middle of the hospital. They are exposed to every aspect of the hospital’s operation and staff, whether it’s the cleaning service or dietary or physical therapy or talking to specialists or other physicians. Who better to help control what happens than the person who is exposed to it?

Q: What is the biggest challenge you face in your current role?

A: One of the big ones is reduction in variance. Everybody is looking for ways to reduce variance in clinical care, and that’s going to continue to be one of the biggest challenges as we grow. If you’re a small mom-and-pop business, it’s pretty easy to control things. That gets more difficult as you grow. The things that worked when you were smaller don’t work in a medium-sized company, let alone when you become a large company. You have to change the way you manage things, which leads to another challenge—adapting to the change.

Q: Is the fear of a hospitalist shortage on your radar screen?

A: It is. But I can tell you this: We won’t stress about it, because it is going to happen. There will be a shortage—there already is. What we have to try to do is position ourselves as the company, or employer, of choice. We get close to 3,000 applicants a year and hire 200 or so, so we’re fortunate in that we have a tremendous amount of exposure to many of the people who are desiring a hospitalist career.

Q: What do you see as the biggest benefit to the IPC model?

A: There are a couple of things I see, not just as advantages but also as strengths. Number one, IPC has extremely strong leadership. All of the people I work with on the senior leadership level are top-notch people. It’s great to be part of an organization that surrounds itself with talent. The next thing is, it’s a great place to work. IPC was selected as one of the 100 best places to work in healthcare (by Modern Healthcare). We made this list, and a lot of other high-profile names in healthcare did not, so we’re very proud of that.

Q: How does the IPC model translate to increased quality of care?

A: We have resources to educate our physicians. There are hospitals around the country with one-person, two-person, or four-person groups that don’t have the resources to do certain types of training. They acquire it by experience. We’re able to orient them to hospital medicine first … and then bring them along slowly and give them the additional training we think they need to succeed. We also have the resources to do ongoing education and monitor quality measures and efficiency measures as well.

Q: You have been a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee for about four years. How important is that role?

A: I think it’s incredibly important. The Public Policy Committee gets to be in tune with what the national issues are, and we can help the society foster and create relationships. We had the chance to meet with members of Congress and other national organizations like CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) and AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), even before healthcare reform became important.

Q: You and other members of the committee went to Washington, D.C., in March. What was the benefit of that trip?

A: We’ve been to Washington several times. We try to do it at least yearly. In previous years, we spent a lot of time just educating people about what hospitalists do. When we first went there, we were surprised by how many members of Congress had never heard of what a hospitalist was. This past year, they were much more aware of what a hospitalist is and how we can help with the goals of healthcare reform.

Q: What’s next for you?

A: I think for now I’m pretty happy with my position and my roles and responsibilities. I help with several different aspects of IPC. I help with some of the risk-management compliance issues. I make presentations to different hospitals and groups we’re thinking of doing business with. I have a varied career, and I enjoy it very much. TH

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Dr. Aguirre

Felix Aguirre, MD, entered the field of hospital medicine before the term “hospitalist” had been coined. He didn’t realize how quickly the field would explode, but it didn’t take long to find out. Aguirre helped start an inpatient service in 1994, taking care of patients for about 20 primary-care physicians. Within three years, his service cared for the patients of 360 doctors.

Dr. Aguirre cofounded Hospitalists of San Antonio in 2000, and he served as president of the company until it merged with IPC: The Hospitalist Co. three years later.

A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Dr. Aguirre spent several years as an air-traffic controller before attending medical school. He currently is vice president of medical affairs for California-based IPC, which provides management services to hospitalist practices in more than 400 facilities.

“The biggest reward is being part of a growth industry, helping to mold it and move it forward,” says Dr. Aguirre, who is responsible for medical and leadership oversight, as well as developing IPC’s physicians and providers. “I’m very proud it’s starting to get distinction as a separate specialty, and I really like the idea of getting in on the ground floor. Everybody likes to be one of the pioneers of an industry.”

Question: How did West Point help prepare you for your current career?

Answer: As part of your education at West Point, you need to learn to be a follower before you can learn to be a leader. Coming out of the academy, I was pretty cocky and I thought I could do anything. I’ve learned some pretty humbling lessons, and experience teaches you how to temper that attitude.

Q: How about your time as an air-traffic controller?

A: You have to be able to deal with many things at once and be able to deal with pressure. That experience is great for a career in an emergency room and in hospital medicine, where you’re juggling a lot of information and facing situations that require pretty rapid action.

Q: When you entered HM, did you have a sense of how much—and how quickly—the field would grow?

A: No. It really was in its infancy at that time … but when Dr. (Robert) Wachter (coined the term “hospitalist”), it began to pick up momentum. Before long, we could see there wasn’t going to be any slowing down of this type of medicine. It’s great to be a part of an industry that is still a growing industry, especially in this economic climate. It’s needed now more than ever, so I feel I made the correct decision to enter this field.

Q: Why do you feel it’s needed more now than ever?

A: With healthcare, there needs to be more control, clinically as well as financially. I think hospitalists are well positioned right in the middle of the hospital. They are exposed to every aspect of the hospital’s operation and staff, whether it’s the cleaning service or dietary or physical therapy or talking to specialists or other physicians. Who better to help control what happens than the person who is exposed to it?

Q: What is the biggest challenge you face in your current role?

A: One of the big ones is reduction in variance. Everybody is looking for ways to reduce variance in clinical care, and that’s going to continue to be one of the biggest challenges as we grow. If you’re a small mom-and-pop business, it’s pretty easy to control things. That gets more difficult as you grow. The things that worked when you were smaller don’t work in a medium-sized company, let alone when you become a large company. You have to change the way you manage things, which leads to another challenge—adapting to the change.

Q: Is the fear of a hospitalist shortage on your radar screen?

A: It is. But I can tell you this: We won’t stress about it, because it is going to happen. There will be a shortage—there already is. What we have to try to do is position ourselves as the company, or employer, of choice. We get close to 3,000 applicants a year and hire 200 or so, so we’re fortunate in that we have a tremendous amount of exposure to many of the people who are desiring a hospitalist career.

Q: What do you see as the biggest benefit to the IPC model?

A: There are a couple of things I see, not just as advantages but also as strengths. Number one, IPC has extremely strong leadership. All of the people I work with on the senior leadership level are top-notch people. It’s great to be part of an organization that surrounds itself with talent. The next thing is, it’s a great place to work. IPC was selected as one of the 100 best places to work in healthcare (by Modern Healthcare). We made this list, and a lot of other high-profile names in healthcare did not, so we’re very proud of that.

Q: How does the IPC model translate to increased quality of care?

A: We have resources to educate our physicians. There are hospitals around the country with one-person, two-person, or four-person groups that don’t have the resources to do certain types of training. They acquire it by experience. We’re able to orient them to hospital medicine first … and then bring them along slowly and give them the additional training we think they need to succeed. We also have the resources to do ongoing education and monitor quality measures and efficiency measures as well.

Q: You have been a member of SHM’s Public Policy Committee for about four years. How important is that role?

A: I think it’s incredibly important. The Public Policy Committee gets to be in tune with what the national issues are, and we can help the society foster and create relationships. We had the chance to meet with members of Congress and other national organizations like CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) and AHRQ (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality), even before healthcare reform became important.

Q: You and other members of the committee went to Washington, D.C., in March. What was the benefit of that trip?

A: We’ve been to Washington several times. We try to do it at least yearly. In previous years, we spent a lot of time just educating people about what hospitalists do. When we first went there, we were surprised by how many members of Congress had never heard of what a hospitalist was. This past year, they were much more aware of what a hospitalist is and how we can help with the goals of healthcare reform.

Q: What’s next for you?

A: I think for now I’m pretty happy with my position and my roles and responsibilities. I help with several different aspects of IPC. I help with some of the risk-management compliance issues. I make presentations to different hospitals and groups we’re thinking of doing business with. I have a varied career, and I enjoy it very much. TH

Mark Leiser is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

PRO

When the community is in need, physicians must honor call to duty

Dr. Cereste is a hospitalist and assistant professor of public health in the division of medical ethics at Weill Cornell Medical School and Medical Center in New York City. She is a member of Team Hospitalist.

As the American Medical Association (AMA) states in its inaugural Code of Ethics from 1847: “When pestilence prevails, it is their duty to face the danger and to continue their labors for the alleviation of the suffering, even at the jeopardy of their own lives.”1 It meant doctors have taken on a calling and social duty to treat sick patients, even at personal expense.

Today, the AMA’s Code of Ethics puts it this way: “Physicians should balance immediate benefits to individual patients with ability to care for patients in future.”2 Over two centuries, the focus remains on the physician’s duty to patient and society.

As a former Air Force physician, I believe in this deontological stance. In the Air Force, we often spoke of our sense of duty, of “service before self, and integrity in everything we do.” This code of conduct applies to combat as well as the peacetime challenges of pandemic flu. If the medical corps’ mantra is to “preserve the fighting force,” the mission of the civilian physician is the community’s survival. This implicit contract with society extends from moments of tranquillity to when the peace is disrupted by either manmade disasters (e.g., war) or biological threats (e.g., pandemic disease).

Having made this assertion, a physician’s obligation is not without its limitations. Doctors have a responsibility to protect themselves and their families from undue harm. We have to stay alive for utilitarian reasons in order to serve others. A society without its physician workforce is imperiled and at enhanced risk, so a physician’s self-preservation is also in the interest of the collective.3

All of this compels doctors to stay alive and remain healthy. Our duty can only be achieved by careful action and avoiding forays into Hollywood heroism. No one asked us to be heroes, only dutiful physicians.4

We have to prepare doctors to meet this challenge. Alexander and Wynia surveyed senior physicians: While 80% were willing to treat high-risk patients, as in bioterrorism or a pandemic, only 21% felt logistically prepared to meet such a challenge in practice.5

If we expect physicians to answer the call, we need to equip them with the knowledge, skills, and equipment necessary to safely and effectively meet their professional responsibilities.

That responsibility is one that society owes its physicians. TH

References

1. Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association. American Medical Association Web site. Available at: www.ama-assn.org. Accessed Nov. 30, 2009.
2. American Medical Association. Physician Obligation in Disaster Preparedness and Response. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2004.
3. Simonds AK, Sokol DK. Lives on the line? Ethics and practicalities of duty of care in pandemics and disasters. Eur Respir J. 2009;34(2):303-309.
4. Sokol D. Virulent epidemics and scope of healthcare workers’ duty of care. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(8):1238-1241.
5. Alexander GC, Wynia MK. Ready and willing? Physicians’ sense of preparedness for bioterrorism. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22(5):189-197.

CON

Some healthcare providers should be considered exceptions to rule

Dr. Egan is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado Denver and a member of SHM’s Ethics Committee.

Infectious illnesses frequently affect healthcare providers disproportionately. Whether physicians are obligated to put themselves at risk is not clear. Many sources argue that participation in infectious epidemic or pandemic events is obligatory, but there is another side to the discussion. Healthcare providers might have risk factors that mitigate this obligation. Two such subgroups are providers with pre-existing health concerns and providers who are caregivers for others.

Studies show that not all providers will report to work in the face of an epidemic. One self-reporting study found that 20% of physicians would report to work.1 Every hospital effected by the SARS epidemic had difficulty with employee attrition.2 Thus, the concern is more than hypothetical.

There is a difference in putting oneself at risk for an illness and putting oneself at risk of death. Providers might be immunosuppressed or have, say, an underlying lung disease. Should higher-risk providers with direct patient contact responsibilities have the same obligation as providers who are not?

Providers who care for others will face different challenges. First, if social distancing becomes widespread and schools and daycare centers are closed, providers will face a dilemma over how to care for their dependents. A second issue for providers with responsibilities to care for others is that those dependent populations are likely to be at higher risk of bad outcomes if they are affected. A provider who is infectious puts their family at risk. Children may be disproportionately affected, and people who require assistance are more likely to have comorbid conditions. Should providers with other responsibilities have the same obligation as providers who do not?

Given that risk is not the same among providers, it is unfair to say that responsibility is the same. Parents simply cannot abandon their children. Risk of death is a serious concern for providers at higher risk. Hospitals should have an explicit plan in place for a pandemic; most do have a plan. The plan needs to consider these issues and have explicit provisions.

Another approach would be to ask providers to state their availability. If the hospital knows that a certain group of providers has specific concerns, the plan can take into account what impact those concerns will have. Transparency in the plan, expectations, and resources will better prepare hospitals.

There is a fundamental duty to provide care to patients who need it, and failure to do so is a violation of a societal and professional trust. However, this duty is not absolute. Giving providers that benefit of the doubt—that they will honor their duty to ill or injured patients—means that providers can be trusted to opt out only for valid reasons. The system must be designed to accommodate special needs. A one-size-fits-all approach is bound to fail. TH

References

1. Alexander GC, Wynia MK. Ready and willing? Physicians’ sense of preparedness for bioterrorism. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22(5):189-197.
2. Wynia MK. Ethics and public health emergencies: encouraging responsibility. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(4):1-4.

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent those of the Society of Hospital Medicine or The Hospitalist.

PRO

When the community is in need, physicians must honor call to duty

Dr. Cereste is a hospitalist and assistant professor of public health in the division of medical ethics at Weill Cornell Medical School and Medical Center in New York City. She is a member of Team Hospitalist.

As the American Medical Association (AMA) states in its inaugural Code of Ethics from 1847: “When pestilence prevails, it is their duty to face the danger and to continue their labors for the alleviation of the suffering, even at the jeopardy of their own lives.”1 It meant doctors have taken on a calling and social duty to treat sick patients, even at personal expense.

Today, the AMA’s Code of Ethics puts it this way: “Physicians should balance immediate benefits to individual patients with ability to care for patients in future.”2 Over two centuries, the focus remains on the physician’s duty to patient and society.

As a former Air Force physician, I believe in this deontological stance. In the Air Force, we often spoke of our sense of duty, of “service before self, and integrity in everything we do.” This code of conduct applies to combat as well as the peacetime challenges of pandemic flu. If the medical corps’ mantra is to “preserve the fighting force,” the mission of the civilian physician is the community’s survival. This implicit contract with society extends from moments of tranquillity to when the peace is disrupted by either manmade disasters (e.g., war) or biological threats (e.g., pandemic disease).

Having made this assertion, a physician’s obligation is not without its limitations. Doctors have a responsibility to protect themselves and their families from undue harm. We have to stay alive for utilitarian reasons in order to serve others. A society without its physician workforce is imperiled and at enhanced risk, so a physician’s self-preservation is also in the interest of the collective.3

All of this compels doctors to stay alive and remain healthy. Our duty can only be achieved by careful action and avoiding forays into Hollywood heroism. No one asked us to be heroes, only dutiful physicians.4

We have to prepare doctors to meet this challenge. Alexander and Wynia surveyed senior physicians: While 80% were willing to treat high-risk patients, as in bioterrorism or a pandemic, only 21% felt logistically prepared to meet such a challenge in practice.5

If we expect physicians to answer the call, we need to equip them with the knowledge, skills, and equipment necessary to safely and effectively meet their professional responsibilities.

That responsibility is one that society owes its physicians. TH

References

1. Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association. American Medical Association Web site. Available at: www.ama-assn.org. Accessed Nov. 30, 2009.
2. American Medical Association. Physician Obligation in Disaster Preparedness and Response. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2004.
3. Simonds AK, Sokol DK. Lives on the line? Ethics and practicalities of duty of care in pandemics and disasters. Eur Respir J. 2009;34(2):303-309.
4. Sokol D. Virulent epidemics and scope of healthcare workers’ duty of care. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(8):1238-1241.
5. Alexander GC, Wynia MK. Ready and willing? Physicians’ sense of preparedness for bioterrorism. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22(5):189-197.

CON

Some healthcare providers should be considered exceptions to rule

Dr. Egan is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado Denver and a member of SHM’s Ethics Committee.

Infectious illnesses frequently affect healthcare providers disproportionately. Whether physicians are obligated to put themselves at risk is not clear. Many sources argue that participation in infectious epidemic or pandemic events is obligatory, but there is another side to the discussion. Healthcare providers might have risk factors that mitigate this obligation. Two such subgroups are providers with pre-existing health concerns and providers who are caregivers for others.

Studies show that not all providers will report to work in the face of an epidemic. One self-reporting study found that 20% of physicians would report to work.1 Every hospital effected by the SARS epidemic had difficulty with employee attrition.2 Thus, the concern is more than hypothetical.

There is a difference in putting oneself at risk for an illness and putting oneself at risk of death. Providers might be immunosuppressed or have, say, an underlying lung disease. Should higher-risk providers with direct patient contact responsibilities have the same obligation as providers who are not?

Providers who care for others will face different challenges. First, if social distancing becomes widespread and schools and daycare centers are closed, providers will face a dilemma over how to care for their dependents. A second issue for providers with responsibilities to care for others is that those dependent populations are likely to be at higher risk of bad outcomes if they are affected. A provider who is infectious puts their family at risk. Children may be disproportionately affected, and people who require assistance are more likely to have comorbid conditions. Should providers with other responsibilities have the same obligation as providers who do not?

Given that risk is not the same among providers, it is unfair to say that responsibility is the same. Parents simply cannot abandon their children. Risk of death is a serious concern for providers at higher risk. Hospitals should have an explicit plan in place for a pandemic; most do have a plan. The plan needs to consider these issues and have explicit provisions.

Another approach would be to ask providers to state their availability. If the hospital knows that a certain group of providers has specific concerns, the plan can take into account what impact those concerns will have. Transparency in the plan, expectations, and resources will better prepare hospitals.

There is a fundamental duty to provide care to patients who need it, and failure to do so is a violation of a societal and professional trust. However, this duty is not absolute. Giving providers that benefit of the doubt—that they will honor their duty to ill or injured patients—means that providers can be trusted to opt out only for valid reasons. The system must be designed to accommodate special needs. A one-size-fits-all approach is bound to fail. TH

References

1. Alexander GC, Wynia MK. Ready and willing? Physicians’ sense of preparedness for bioterrorism. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22(5):189-197.
2. Wynia MK. Ethics and public health emergencies: encouraging responsibility. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(4):1-4.

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent those of the Society of Hospital Medicine or The Hospitalist.

PRO

When the community is in need, physicians must honor call to duty

Dr. Cereste is a hospitalist and assistant professor of public health in the division of medical ethics at Weill Cornell Medical School and Medical Center in New York City. She is a member of Team Hospitalist.

As the American Medical Association (AMA) states in its inaugural Code of Ethics from 1847: “When pestilence prevails, it is their duty to face the danger and to continue their labors for the alleviation of the suffering, even at the jeopardy of their own lives.”1 It meant doctors have taken on a calling and social duty to treat sick patients, even at personal expense.

Today, the AMA’s Code of Ethics puts it this way: “Physicians should balance immediate benefits to individual patients with ability to care for patients in future.”2 Over two centuries, the focus remains on the physician’s duty to patient and society.

As a former Air Force physician, I believe in this deontological stance. In the Air Force, we often spoke of our sense of duty, of “service before self, and integrity in everything we do.” This code of conduct applies to combat as well as the peacetime challenges of pandemic flu. If the medical corps’ mantra is to “preserve the fighting force,” the mission of the civilian physician is the community’s survival. This implicit contract with society extends from moments of tranquillity to when the peace is disrupted by either manmade disasters (e.g., war) or biological threats (e.g., pandemic disease).

Having made this assertion, a physician’s obligation is not without its limitations. Doctors have a responsibility to protect themselves and their families from undue harm. We have to stay alive for utilitarian reasons in order to serve others. A society without its physician workforce is imperiled and at enhanced risk, so a physician’s self-preservation is also in the interest of the collective.3

All of this compels doctors to stay alive and remain healthy. Our duty can only be achieved by careful action and avoiding forays into Hollywood heroism. No one asked us to be heroes, only dutiful physicians.4

We have to prepare doctors to meet this challenge. Alexander and Wynia surveyed senior physicians: While 80% were willing to treat high-risk patients, as in bioterrorism or a pandemic, only 21% felt logistically prepared to meet such a challenge in practice.5

If we expect physicians to answer the call, we need to equip them with the knowledge, skills, and equipment necessary to safely and effectively meet their professional responsibilities.

That responsibility is one that society owes its physicians. TH

References

1. Code of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association. American Medical Association Web site. Available at: www.ama-assn.org. Accessed Nov. 30, 2009.
2. American Medical Association. Physician Obligation in Disaster Preparedness and Response. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2004.
3. Simonds AK, Sokol DK. Lives on the line? Ethics and practicalities of duty of care in pandemics and disasters. Eur Respir J. 2009;34(2):303-309.
4. Sokol D. Virulent epidemics and scope of healthcare workers’ duty of care. Emerg Infect Dis. 2006;12(8):1238-1241.
5. Alexander GC, Wynia MK. Ready and willing? Physicians’ sense of preparedness for bioterrorism. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22(5):189-197.

CON

Some healthcare providers should be considered exceptions to rule

Dr. Egan is a hospitalist at the University of Colorado Denver and a member of SHM’s Ethics Committee.

Infectious illnesses frequently affect healthcare providers disproportionately. Whether physicians are obligated to put themselves at risk is not clear. Many sources argue that participation in infectious epidemic or pandemic events is obligatory, but there is another side to the discussion. Healthcare providers might have risk factors that mitigate this obligation. Two such subgroups are providers with pre-existing health concerns and providers who are caregivers for others.

Studies show that not all providers will report to work in the face of an epidemic. One self-reporting study found that 20% of physicians would report to work.1 Every hospital effected by the SARS epidemic had difficulty with employee attrition.2 Thus, the concern is more than hypothetical.

There is a difference in putting oneself at risk for an illness and putting oneself at risk of death. Providers might be immunosuppressed or have, say, an underlying lung disease. Should higher-risk providers with direct patient contact responsibilities have the same obligation as providers who are not?

Providers who care for others will face different challenges. First, if social distancing becomes widespread and schools and daycare centers are closed, providers will face a dilemma over how to care for their dependents. A second issue for providers with responsibilities to care for others is that those dependent populations are likely to be at higher risk of bad outcomes if they are affected. A provider who is infectious puts their family at risk. Children may be disproportionately affected, and people who require assistance are more likely to have comorbid conditions. Should providers with other responsibilities have the same obligation as providers who do not?

Given that risk is not the same among providers, it is unfair to say that responsibility is the same. Parents simply cannot abandon their children. Risk of death is a serious concern for providers at higher risk. Hospitals should have an explicit plan in place for a pandemic; most do have a plan. The plan needs to consider these issues and have explicit provisions.

Another approach would be to ask providers to state their availability. If the hospital knows that a certain group of providers has specific concerns, the plan can take into account what impact those concerns will have. Transparency in the plan, expectations, and resources will better prepare hospitals.

There is a fundamental duty to provide care to patients who need it, and failure to do so is a violation of a societal and professional trust. However, this duty is not absolute. Giving providers that benefit of the doubt—that they will honor their duty to ill or injured patients—means that providers can be trusted to opt out only for valid reasons. The system must be designed to accommodate special needs. A one-size-fits-all approach is bound to fail. TH

References

1. Alexander GC, Wynia MK. Ready and willing? Physicians’ sense of preparedness for bioterrorism. Health Aff (Millwood). 2003;22(5):189-197.
2. Wynia MK. Ethics and public health emergencies: encouraging responsibility. Am J Bioeth. 2007;7(4):1-4.

The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent those of the Society of Hospital Medicine or The Hospitalist.

Accepting a job in a new city, state, or country can be invigorating for professional and personal reasons, but making the actual move often is stressful, irritating, and more than a little overwhelming. Multiple factors are involved when you transition from one community to another.

For hospitalists relocating for a new job, the good news is it’s almost a given you will receive financial assistance and more than a little guidance to make the move as smooth and hassle-free as possible, says Tommy Bohannon, vice president of hospital-based recruiting for Merritt Hawkins & Associates, a recruitment firm that specializes in the placement of permanent physicians. Ninety-eight percent of physician and certified registered nurse anesthetists are provided relocation assistance, according to a Merritt Hawkins review of recruiting incentives conducted from April 2008 to March 2009. The Irving, Texas-based firm found that the average relocation allowance is $10,427, the highest amount offered since it began tracking recruiting incentives in 2005.

The Upper Hand: HM Still in Demand

While the struggling economy has put a damper on relocation allowances in other professions, it has not had a similar effect on HM, says Cheryl Slack, vice president of human resources for Cogent Healthcare, a Brentwood, Tenn.-based company that partners with hospitals to build and manage hospitalist programs. Hospitalists have become harder and harder to recruit as demand for their services continues to far outpace their supply, she says.

“Relocation assistance is the nature of the beast,” says Slack, whose company typically covers a hospitalist’s move from Point A to Point B, storage fees for a few months, and sometimes travel costs to and from their former home to tie up loose ends. “We see it as the cost of doing business.”

Because most relocation allowances are not tied to a time or service commitment, hospitalists can use the money to facilitate their move without the worry of having to pay some of it back if the job doesn’t work out. They can get the most mileage out of the assistance by comparison shopping (see “Internet Resources for Relocations,” right) or using companies that have a relationship with their recruiter or employer. “We actually have an in-house relocation team and a preferred-rate contract with a national moving company,” Bohannon says. “The vast majority of our candidates work with the in-house team. We help them with the physical move itself. We assist them in taking an inventory of their belongings to get an idea of how much it will cost to move, and we get the moving company in contact with them.”

Temporary vs. Permanent Decisions

Hospitalists might want to consider renting or taking advantage of temporary housing, if offered by the new employer, in order to get acclimated with the new community and its neighborhoods, says Christian Rutherford, president and CEO of Kendall & Davis, a St. Louis-based physician recruitment firm. In the current housing market, renting or using temporary housing might be the best option for hospitalists who are still trying to sell their last home.

When hospitalists are ready to buy a home in their new community, they should check with people at their new job or their recruiter to get names of real estate agents who have considerable insight into the community and local property values. “When we first discuss an opportunity with a candidate, we will pass along pretty detailed information about neighborhoods, schools, housing costs, churches, local clubs that cater to their interests, and hobbies,” Bohannon says. “The market has changed to where the candidate is interviewing the opportunity. We’re pretty hands-on to make sure they have access to the information they need to make a good decision.”

Community Comes First

For most job candidates, 50% of the “sale”—the decision to relocate—is the community in which they will work and live, says Mark Dotson, Cogent Healthcare’s senior director of recruitment. Candidates want to know about the neighborhoods, school systems, and cost of living, and nearby entertainment, cultural, and social amenities. Even though a lot of information is available on the Internet, it is not always dependable. Recruiters and potential employers often provide comprehensive community information packets for hospitalists; many organize a community tour while hospitalists are in town for their on-site interview. Some employers and recruiters schedule meetings with real estate agents, school administrators, even Chamber of Commerce representatives.

“I’ve talked to hospitals about providers’ spouses and where they might be able to find work. It’s all part of the recruitment process and determining what the individual provider’s needs are,” says Mimi Hagan, regional director of hospitalist accounts for Hospital Physician Partners of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., a medical management company that partners with hospitals to build emergency and hospitalist practices. “The last thing we want is for a provider to walk into the hospital thinking this isn’t the right fit for them. It’s not good for the provider, it’s not good for the hospital, and it’s not good for us.”

Hagan and Rutherford advise hospitalists who are seriously contemplating relocating and have families to bring their partners with them for the on-site interview. They might want to consider making another trip to their new community with the children in tow. “Relocating to a different area is a really big cultural change. Candidates have to make sure their spouse is as excited about the change as they are,” Rutherford says. “Don’t ever underestimate how much of a strain this can be on the kids and the spouse.” TH

Lisa Ryan is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Accepting a job in a new city, state, or country can be invigorating for professional and personal reasons, but making the actual move often is stressful, irritating, and more than a little overwhelming. Multiple factors are involved when you transition from one community to another.

For hospitalists relocating for a new job, the good news is it’s almost a given you will receive financial assistance and more than a little guidance to make the move as smooth and hassle-free as possible, says Tommy Bohannon, vice president of hospital-based recruiting for Merritt Hawkins & Associates, a recruitment firm that specializes in the placement of permanent physicians. Ninety-eight percent of physician and certified registered nurse anesthetists are provided relocation assistance, according to a Merritt Hawkins review of recruiting incentives conducted from April 2008 to March 2009. The Irving, Texas-based firm found that the average relocation allowance is $10,427, the highest amount offered since it began tracking recruiting incentives in 2005.

The Upper Hand: HM Still in Demand

While the struggling economy has put a damper on relocation allowances in other professions, it has not had a similar effect on HM, says Cheryl Slack, vice president of human resources for Cogent Healthcare, a Brentwood, Tenn.-based company that partners with hospitals to build and manage hospitalist programs. Hospitalists have become harder and harder to recruit as demand for their services continues to far outpace their supply, she says.

“Relocation assistance is the nature of the beast,” says Slack, whose company typically covers a hospitalist’s move from Point A to Point B, storage fees for a few months, and sometimes travel costs to and from their former home to tie up loose ends. “We see it as the cost of doing business.”

Because most relocation allowances are not tied to a time or service commitment, hospitalists can use the money to facilitate their move without the worry of having to pay some of it back if the job doesn’t work out. They can get the most mileage out of the assistance by comparison shopping (see “Internet Resources for Relocations,” right) or using companies that have a relationship with their recruiter or employer. “We actually have an in-house relocation team and a preferred-rate contract with a national moving company,” Bohannon says. “The vast majority of our candidates work with the in-house team. We help them with the physical move itself. We assist them in taking an inventory of their belongings to get an idea of how much it will cost to move, and we get the moving company in contact with them.”

Temporary vs. Permanent Decisions

Hospitalists might want to consider renting or taking advantage of temporary housing, if offered by the new employer, in order to get acclimated with the new community and its neighborhoods, says Christian Rutherford, president and CEO of Kendall & Davis, a St. Louis-based physician recruitment firm. In the current housing market, renting or using temporary housing might be the best option for hospitalists who are still trying to sell their last home.

When hospitalists are ready to buy a home in their new community, they should check with people at their new job or their recruiter to get names of real estate agents who have considerable insight into the community and local property values. “When we first discuss an opportunity with a candidate, we will pass along pretty detailed information about neighborhoods, schools, housing costs, churches, local clubs that cater to their interests, and hobbies,” Bohannon says. “The market has changed to where the candidate is interviewing the opportunity. We’re pretty hands-on to make sure they have access to the information they need to make a good decision.”

Community Comes First

For most job candidates, 50% of the “sale”—the decision to relocate—is the community in which they will work and live, says Mark Dotson, Cogent Healthcare’s senior director of recruitment. Candidates want to know about the neighborhoods, school systems, and cost of living, and nearby entertainment, cultural, and social amenities. Even though a lot of information is available on the Internet, it is not always dependable. Recruiters and potential employers often provide comprehensive community information packets for hospitalists; many organize a community tour while hospitalists are in town for their on-site interview. Some employers and recruiters schedule meetings with real estate agents, school administrators, even Chamber of Commerce representatives.

“I’ve talked to hospitals about providers’ spouses and where they might be able to find work. It’s all part of the recruitment process and determining what the individual provider’s needs are,” says Mimi Hagan, regional director of hospitalist accounts for Hospital Physician Partners of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., a medical management company that partners with hospitals to build emergency and hospitalist practices. “The last thing we want is for a provider to walk into the hospital thinking this isn’t the right fit for them. It’s not good for the provider, it’s not good for the hospital, and it’s not good for us.”

Hagan and Rutherford advise hospitalists who are seriously contemplating relocating and have families to bring their partners with them for the on-site interview. They might want to consider making another trip to their new community with the children in tow. “Relocating to a different area is a really big cultural change. Candidates have to make sure their spouse is as excited about the change as they are,” Rutherford says. “Don’t ever underestimate how much of a strain this can be on the kids and the spouse.” TH

Lisa Ryan is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Accepting a job in a new city, state, or country can be invigorating for professional and personal reasons, but making the actual move often is stressful, irritating, and more than a little overwhelming. Multiple factors are involved when you transition from one community to another.

For hospitalists relocating for a new job, the good news is it’s almost a given you will receive financial assistance and more than a little guidance to make the move as smooth and hassle-free as possible, says Tommy Bohannon, vice president of hospital-based recruiting for Merritt Hawkins & Associates, a recruitment firm that specializes in the placement of permanent physicians. Ninety-eight percent of physician and certified registered nurse anesthetists are provided relocation assistance, according to a Merritt Hawkins review of recruiting incentives conducted from April 2008 to March 2009. The Irving, Texas-based firm found that the average relocation allowance is $10,427, the highest amount offered since it began tracking recruiting incentives in 2005.

The Upper Hand: HM Still in Demand

While the struggling economy has put a damper on relocation allowances in other professions, it has not had a similar effect on HM, says Cheryl Slack, vice president of human resources for Cogent Healthcare, a Brentwood, Tenn.-based company that partners with hospitals to build and manage hospitalist programs. Hospitalists have become harder and harder to recruit as demand for their services continues to far outpace their supply, she says.

“Relocation assistance is the nature of the beast,” says Slack, whose company typically covers a hospitalist’s move from Point A to Point B, storage fees for a few months, and sometimes travel costs to and from their former home to tie up loose ends. “We see it as the cost of doing business.”

Because most relocation allowances are not tied to a time or service commitment, hospitalists can use the money to facilitate their move without the worry of having to pay some of it back if the job doesn’t work out. They can get the most mileage out of the assistance by comparison shopping (see “Internet Resources for Relocations,” right) or using companies that have a relationship with their recruiter or employer. “We actually have an in-house relocation team and a preferred-rate contract with a national moving company,” Bohannon says. “The vast majority of our candidates work with the in-house team. We help them with the physical move itself. We assist them in taking an inventory of their belongings to get an idea of how much it will cost to move, and we get the moving company in contact with them.”

Temporary vs. Permanent Decisions

Hospitalists might want to consider renting or taking advantage of temporary housing, if offered by the new employer, in order to get acclimated with the new community and its neighborhoods, says Christian Rutherford, president and CEO of Kendall & Davis, a St. Louis-based physician recruitment firm. In the current housing market, renting or using temporary housing might be the best option for hospitalists who are still trying to sell their last home.

When hospitalists are ready to buy a home in their new community, they should check with people at their new job or their recruiter to get names of real estate agents who have considerable insight into the community and local property values. “When we first discuss an opportunity with a candidate, we will pass along pretty detailed information about neighborhoods, schools, housing costs, churches, local clubs that cater to their interests, and hobbies,” Bohannon says. “The market has changed to where the candidate is interviewing the opportunity. We’re pretty hands-on to make sure they have access to the information they need to make a good decision.”

Community Comes First

For most job candidates, 50% of the “sale”—the decision to relocate—is the community in which they will work and live, says Mark Dotson, Cogent Healthcare’s senior director of recruitment. Candidates want to know about the neighborhoods, school systems, and cost of living, and nearby entertainment, cultural, and social amenities. Even though a lot of information is available on the Internet, it is not always dependable. Recruiters and potential employers often provide comprehensive community information packets for hospitalists; many organize a community tour while hospitalists are in town for their on-site interview. Some employers and recruiters schedule meetings with real estate agents, school administrators, even Chamber of Commerce representatives.

“I’ve talked to hospitals about providers’ spouses and where they might be able to find work. It’s all part of the recruitment process and determining what the individual provider’s needs are,” says Mimi Hagan, regional director of hospitalist accounts for Hospital Physician Partners of Fort Lauderdale, Fla., a medical management company that partners with hospitals to build emergency and hospitalist practices. “The last thing we want is for a provider to walk into the hospital thinking this isn’t the right fit for them. It’s not good for the provider, it’s not good for the hospital, and it’s not good for us.”

Hagan and Rutherford advise hospitalists who are seriously contemplating relocating and have families to bring their partners with them for the on-site interview. They might want to consider making another trip to their new community with the children in tow. “Relocating to a different area is a really big cultural change. Candidates have to make sure their spouse is as excited about the change as they are,” Rutherford says. “Don’t ever underestimate how much of a strain this can be on the kids and the spouse.” TH

Lisa Ryan is a freelance writer based in New Jersey.

Case

You are asked to admit a 63-year-old male with a history of hypertension and osteoarthritis. The patient, who fell at home, is scheduled for open repair of his femoral neck fracture the following day. The patient reports tripping over his granddaughter’s toys and denies any associated symptoms around the time of his fall. An electrocardiogram (ECG) reveals a QTc (QT) interval of 480 ms. How should this hospitalized patient’s prolonged QT interval be managed?

Overview

Patients with a prolonged QT interval on routine ECG present an interesting dilemma for clinicians. Although QT prolongation—either congenital or acquired—has been associated with dysrhythmias, the risk of torsades de pointes and sudden cardiac death varies considerably based on myriad underlying factors.1 Therefore, the principle job of the clinician who has recognized QT prolongation is to assess and minimize the risk of the development of clinically significant dysrhythmias, and to be prepared to manage them should they arise.

The QT interval encompasses ventricular depolarization and repolarization. This ventricular action potential proceeds through five phases. The initial upstroke (phase 0) of depolarization occurs with the opening of Na+ channels, triggering the inward Na+ current (INa), and causes the interior of the myocytes to become positively charged. This is followed by initial repolarization (phase 1) when the opening of K+ channels causes an outward K+ current (Ito). Next, the plateau phase (phase 2) of the action potential follows with a balance of inward current through Ca2+channels (Ica-L) and outward current through slow rectifier K+ channels (IKs), and then later through delayed, rapid K+ rectifier channels (IKr). Then, the inward current is deactivated, while the outward current increases through the rapid delayed rectifier (IKr) and opening of inward rectifier channels (IK1) to complete repolarization (phase 3). Finally, the action potential returns to baseline (phase 4) and Na+ begins to enter the cell again (see Figure 1, above).

The long QT syndrome (LQTS) is defined by a defect in these cardiac ion channels, which leads to abnormal repolarization, usually lengthening the QT interval and thus predisposing to ventricular dysrhythmias.2 It is estimated that as many as 85% of these syndromes are inherited, and up to 15% are acquired or sporadic.3 Depending on the underlying etiology of the LQTS, manifestations might first be appreciated at any time from in utero through adulthood.4 Symptoms including palpitations, syncope, seizures, or cardiac arrest bring these patients to medical attention.3 These symptoms frequently elicit physical or emotional stress, but they can occur without obvious inciting triggers.5 A 20% mortality risk exists in patients who are symptomatic and untreated in the first year following diagnosis, and up to 50% within 10 years following diagnosis.4

How is Long QT Syndrome Diagnosed?

The LQTS diagnosis is based on clinical history in combination with ECG abnormalities.6 Important historical elements include symptoms of palpitations, syncope, seizures, or cardiac arrest.3 In addition, a family history of unexplained syncope or sudden death, especially at a young age, should raise LQTS suspicion.5

A variety of ECG findings can be witnessed in LQTS patients.4,5 Although the majority of patients have a QTc >440 ms, approximately one-third have a QTc ≤460 ms, and about 10% have normal QTc intervals.5 Other ECG abnormalities include notched, biphasic, or prolonged T-waves, and the presence of U-waves.4,5 Schwartz et al used these elements to publish criteria (see Table 1, right) that physicians can use to assess the probability that a patient has LQTS.7

click for large version

Types of Long QT Syndromes

Because the risk of developing significant dysrhythmias with LQTS is dependent on both the actual QT interval, with risk for sudden cardiac death increased two to three times with QT >440 ms compared with QT <440 ms and the specific underlying genotype, it is important to have an understanding of congenital and acquired LQTS and the associated triggers for torsades de pointes.

Congenital LQTS

Congenital LQTS is caused by mutations in cardiac ion channel proteins, primarily sodium, and potassium channels.5,6 These defects either slow depolarization or lengthen repolarization, leading to heterogeneity of repolarization of the membrane.5 This, in turn, predisposes to ventricular dysrhythmias, including torsades de pointes and subsequent ventricular fibrillation and death.2 Currently, 12 genetic defects have been identified in LQTS. Hundreds of mutations have been described to cause these defects (see Table 2, right).8 Approximately 70% of congenital LQTS are caused by mutations in three genes and are classified as LQTS 1, LQTS 2, and LQTS 3.8 The other seven mutation types account for about 5% of cases; a quarter of LQTS cases have no identified genetic mutations.8

LQTS usually can be distinguished by clinical features and some ECG characteristics, but diagnosis of the specific type requires genetic testing.8,9 The most common types of LQTS are discussed below.

click for large version

• Long QT1 is the most common type, occurring in approximately 40% to 50% of patients diagnosed with LQTS. It is characterized by a defect in the potassium channel alpha subunit leading to IKs reduction.9 These patients typically present with syncope or adrenergic-induced torsades, might have wide, broad-based T-waves on ECG, and respond well to beta-blocker therapy.6 Triggers for these patients include physical exertion or emotional stressors, particularly exercise and swimming. These patients typically present in early childhood.1
• Long QT2 occurs in 35% to 40% of patients and is characterized by a different defect in the alpha subunit of the potassium channel, which leads to reduced IKr.9 ECGs in LQTS2 can demonstrate low-amplitude and notched T-waves. Sudden catecholamine surges related to emotional stress or loud noises and bradycardia can trigger dysrhythmias in Long QT2.6 Thus, beta blockers reduce overall cardiac events in LQTS2 but less effectively than in LQTS1.6 These patients also present in childhood but typically are older than patients with LQTS1.6
• Long QT3 is less common than LQTS1 or LQTS2, at 2% to 8% of LQTS patients, but carries a higher mortality and is not treated effectively with beta blockers. LQTS3 is characterized by a defect in a sodium channel, causing a gain-of-function in the INa.4,9 These patients are more likely to have a fatal dysrhythmia while sleeping, are less susceptible to exercise-induced events, and have increased morbidity and mortality associated with bradycardia.4,9 ECG frequently reveals a relatively long ST segment, followed by a peaked and tall T-wave. Beta-blocker therapy can predispose to dysrhythmias in these patients; therefore, many of these patients will have pacemakers implanted as first-line therapy.6

While less common, Jervell and Lange Nielson syndrome is an autosomal recessive form of LQTS in which affected patients have homozygous mutations in the KCNQ1 or KCNE1 genes. This syndrome occurs in approximately 1% to 7% of LQTS patients, displays a typical QTc >550 ms, can be triggered by exercise and emotional stress, is associated with deafness, and carries a high risk of cardiac events at a young age.6

click for large version

Acquired Syndromes

In addition to congenital LQTS, certain patients can acquire LQTS after being treated with particular drugs or having metabolic abnormalities, namely hypomagnesemia, hypocalcemia, and hypokalemia. Most experts think patients who “acquire” LQTS that predisposes to torsades de pointes have underlying structural heart disease or LQTS genetic carrier mutations that combine with transient initiating events (e.g., drugs or metabolic abnormalities) to induce dysrhythmias.1 In addition to certain drugs, cardiac ischemia, and electrolyte abnormalities, cocaine abuse, HIV, and subarachnoid hemorrhage can induce dysrhythmias in susceptible patients.5

Many types of drugs can cause a prolonged QT interval, and others should be avoided in patients with pre-existing prolonged QT (see Table 3, p. 17). Potentially offending drugs that are frequently encountered by inpatient physicians include amiodarone, diltiazem, erythromycin, clarithromycin, ciprofloxacin, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, haloperidol, ritonavir, and methadone.1 Additionally, drugs that cause electrolyte abnormalities (e.g., diuretics and lithium) should be monitored closely.

Overall, the goals of therapy in LQTS are:

• Decrease the risk of dysrhythmic events;
• Minimize adrenergic response;
• Shorten the QTc;
• Decrease the dispersion of refractoriness; and
• Improve the function of the ion channels.3

Supportive measures should be taken for patients who are acutely symptomatic from LQTS and associated torsades de pointes. In addition to immediate cardioversion for ongoing and hemodynamically significant torsades, intravenous magnesium should be administered, electrolytes corrected, and offending drugs discontinued.5 Temporary transvenous pacing at rates of approximately 100 beats per minute is highly effective in preventing short-term recurrence of torsades in congenital and acquired LQTS, especially in bradycardic patients.5 Isoproterenol infusion increases the heart rate and effectively prevents acute recurrence of torsades in patients with acquired LQTS, but it should be used with caution in patients with structural heart disease.5

Long-term strategies to manage LQTS include:

• Minimizing the risk of triggering cardiac events via adrenergic stimulation;
• Preventing ongoing dysrhythmias;
• Avoiding medications known to prolong the QT interval; and
• Maintaining normal electrolytes and minerals.5

Most patients with congenital long QT should be discouraged from participating in competitive sports, and patients should attempt to eliminate exposures to stress or sudden awakening, though this is not practical in all cases.5 Beta blockers generally are the first-line therapy and are more effective for LQT1 than LQT2 or LQT3.4,5 If patients are still symptomatic despite adequate medical therapy, or have survived cardiac arrest, they should be considered for ICD therapy.4,5 In addition, patients with profound bradycardia benefit from pacemaker implantation.5 Patients who remain symptomatic despite both beta blockade and ICD placement might find cervicothoracic sympathectomy curative.4,5

click for large version

Perioperative Considerations

Although little data is available to guide physicians in the prevention of torsades de pointes during the course of anesthesia, there are a number of considerations that may reduce the chances of symptomatic dysrhythmias.

First, care should be taken to avoid dysrhythmia triggers in LQTS by providing a calm, quiet environment during induction, monitoring, and treating metabolic abnormalities, and providing an appropriate level of anesthesia.10 Beta-blocker therapy should be continued and potentially measured preoperatively by assessing heart rate response during stress testing.5 An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) should be interrogated prior to surgery and inactivated during the operation.5

Finally, Kies et al have recommended general anesthesia with propofol for induction (or throughout), isoflurane as the volatile agent, vecuronium for muscle relaxation, and intravenous fentanyl for analgesia when possible.10

Back to the Case

While the patient had no genetic testing for LQTS, evaluation of previous ECGs demonstrated a prolonged QT interval. The hip fracture repair was considered an urgent procedure, which precluded the ability to undertake genetic testing and consideration for device implantation. The only medication that was known to increase the risk for dysrhythmias in this patient was his diuretic, with the attendant risk of electrolyte abnormalities.

Thus, the patient’s hydrochlorothiazide was discontinued and his pre-existing atenolol continued. The patient’s electrolytes and minerals were monitored closely, and magnesium was administered on the day of surgery. Anesthesia was made aware of the prolonged QT interval, such that they were able to minimize the risk for and anticipate the treatment of dysrhythmias. The patient tolerated the surgery and post-operative period without complication and was scheduled for an outpatient workup and management for his prolonged QT interval.

click for large version

Bottom Line

Long QT syndrome is frequently genetic in origin, but it can be caused by certain medications and perturbations of electrolytes. Beta blockers are the first-line therapy for the majority of LQTS cases, along with discontinuation of drugs that might induce or aggravate the QT prolongation.

Patients who have had cardiac arrest or who remain symptomatic despite beta-blocker therapy should have an ICD implanted.

In the perioperative period, patients’ electrolytes should be monitored and kept within normal limits. If the patient is on a beta blocker, it should be continued, and the anesthesiologist should be made aware of the diagnosis so that the anesthethic plan can be optimized to prevent arrhythmic complications. TH

Dr. Kamali is a medical resident at the University of Colorado Denver. Dr. Stickrath is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Denver and an instructor of medicine at UC Denver. Dr. Prochazka is director of ambulatory care at the Denver VA and professor of medicine at UC Denver. Dr. Varosy is director of cardiac electrophysiology at the Denver VA and assistant professor of medicine at UC Denver.

References

1. Kao LW, Furbee BR. Drug-induced q-T prolongation. Med Clin North Am. 2005;89(6):1125-1144.
2. Marchlinski F. Chapter 226, The Tachyarrhythmias; Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 17e. Available at: www.accessmedicine.com/resourceTOC .aspx?resourceID=4. Accessed Nov. 21, 2009.
3. Zareba W, Cygankiewicz I. Long QT syndrome and short QT syndrome. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2008; 51(3):264-278.
4. Booker PD, Whyte SD, Ladusans EJ. Long QT syndrome and anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90(3):349-366.
5. Khan IA. Long QT syndrome: diagnosis and management. Am Heart J. 2002;143(1):7-14.
6. Morita H, Wu J, Zipes DP. The QT syndromes: long and short. Lancet. 2008;372(9640):750-763.
7. Schwartz PJ, Moss AJ, Vincent GM, Crampton RS. Diagnostic criteria for the long QT syndrome. An update. Circulation. 1993;88(2):782-784.
8. Kapa S, Tester DJ, Salisbury BA, et al. Genetic testing for long-QT syndrome: distinguishing pathogenic mutations from benign variants. Circulation. 2009;120(18):1752-1760.
9. Modell SM, Lehmann MH. The long QT syndrome family of cardiac ion channelopathies: a HuGE review. Genet Med. 2006;8(3):143-155.
10. Kies SJ, Pabelick CM, Hurley HA, White RD, Ackerman MJ. Anesthesia for patients with congenital long QT syndrome. Anesthesiology. 2005;102(1):204-210.
11. Wisely NA, Shipton EA. Long QT syndrome and anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2002;19(12):853-859.

Case

You are asked to admit a 63-year-old male with a history of hypertension and osteoarthritis. The patient, who fell at home, is scheduled for open repair of his femoral neck fracture the following day. The patient reports tripping over his granddaughter’s toys and denies any associated symptoms around the time of his fall. An electrocardiogram (ECG) reveals a QTc (QT) interval of 480 ms. How should this hospitalized patient’s prolonged QT interval be managed?

Overview

Patients with a prolonged QT interval on routine ECG present an interesting dilemma for clinicians. Although QT prolongation—either congenital or acquired—has been associated with dysrhythmias, the risk of torsades de pointes and sudden cardiac death varies considerably based on myriad underlying factors.1 Therefore, the principle job of the clinician who has recognized QT prolongation is to assess and minimize the risk of the development of clinically significant dysrhythmias, and to be prepared to manage them should they arise.

The QT interval encompasses ventricular depolarization and repolarization. This ventricular action potential proceeds through five phases. The initial upstroke (phase 0) of depolarization occurs with the opening of Na+ channels, triggering the inward Na+ current (INa), and causes the interior of the myocytes to become positively charged. This is followed by initial repolarization (phase 1) when the opening of K+ channels causes an outward K+ current (Ito). Next, the plateau phase (phase 2) of the action potential follows with a balance of inward current through Ca2+channels (Ica-L) and outward current through slow rectifier K+ channels (IKs), and then later through delayed, rapid K+ rectifier channels (IKr). Then, the inward current is deactivated, while the outward current increases through the rapid delayed rectifier (IKr) and opening of inward rectifier channels (IK1) to complete repolarization (phase 3). Finally, the action potential returns to baseline (phase 4) and Na+ begins to enter the cell again (see Figure 1, above).

The long QT syndrome (LQTS) is defined by a defect in these cardiac ion channels, which leads to abnormal repolarization, usually lengthening the QT interval and thus predisposing to ventricular dysrhythmias.2 It is estimated that as many as 85% of these syndromes are inherited, and up to 15% are acquired or sporadic.3 Depending on the underlying etiology of the LQTS, manifestations might first be appreciated at any time from in utero through adulthood.4 Symptoms including palpitations, syncope, seizures, or cardiac arrest bring these patients to medical attention.3 These symptoms frequently elicit physical or emotional stress, but they can occur without obvious inciting triggers.5 A 20% mortality risk exists in patients who are symptomatic and untreated in the first year following diagnosis, and up to 50% within 10 years following diagnosis.4

How is Long QT Syndrome Diagnosed?

The LQTS diagnosis is based on clinical history in combination with ECG abnormalities.6 Important historical elements include symptoms of palpitations, syncope, seizures, or cardiac arrest.3 In addition, a family history of unexplained syncope or sudden death, especially at a young age, should raise LQTS suspicion.5

A variety of ECG findings can be witnessed in LQTS patients.4,5 Although the majority of patients have a QTc >440 ms, approximately one-third have a QTc ≤460 ms, and about 10% have normal QTc intervals.5 Other ECG abnormalities include notched, biphasic, or prolonged T-waves, and the presence of U-waves.4,5 Schwartz et al used these elements to publish criteria (see Table 1, right) that physicians can use to assess the probability that a patient has LQTS.7

click for large version

Types of Long QT Syndromes

Because the risk of developing significant dysrhythmias with LQTS is dependent on both the actual QT interval, with risk for sudden cardiac death increased two to three times with QT >440 ms compared with QT <440 ms and the specific underlying genotype, it is important to have an understanding of congenital and acquired LQTS and the associated triggers for torsades de pointes.

Congenital LQTS

Congenital LQTS is caused by mutations in cardiac ion channel proteins, primarily sodium, and potassium channels.5,6 These defects either slow depolarization or lengthen repolarization, leading to heterogeneity of repolarization of the membrane.5 This, in turn, predisposes to ventricular dysrhythmias, including torsades de pointes and subsequent ventricular fibrillation and death.2 Currently, 12 genetic defects have been identified in LQTS. Hundreds of mutations have been described to cause these defects (see Table 2, right).8 Approximately 70% of congenital LQTS are caused by mutations in three genes and are classified as LQTS 1, LQTS 2, and LQTS 3.8 The other seven mutation types account for about 5% of cases; a quarter of LQTS cases have no identified genetic mutations.8

LQTS usually can be distinguished by clinical features and some ECG characteristics, but diagnosis of the specific type requires genetic testing.8,9 The most common types of LQTS are discussed below.

click for large version

• Long QT1 is the most common type, occurring in approximately 40% to 50% of patients diagnosed with LQTS. It is characterized by a defect in the potassium channel alpha subunit leading to IKs reduction.9 These patients typically present with syncope or adrenergic-induced torsades, might have wide, broad-based T-waves on ECG, and respond well to beta-blocker therapy.6 Triggers for these patients include physical exertion or emotional stressors, particularly exercise and swimming. These patients typically present in early childhood.1
• Long QT2 occurs in 35% to 40% of patients and is characterized by a different defect in the alpha subunit of the potassium channel, which leads to reduced IKr.9 ECGs in LQTS2 can demonstrate low-amplitude and notched T-waves. Sudden catecholamine surges related to emotional stress or loud noises and bradycardia can trigger dysrhythmias in Long QT2.6 Thus, beta blockers reduce overall cardiac events in LQTS2 but less effectively than in LQTS1.6 These patients also present in childhood but typically are older than patients with LQTS1.6
• Long QT3 is less common than LQTS1 or LQTS2, at 2% to 8% of LQTS patients, but carries a higher mortality and is not treated effectively with beta blockers. LQTS3 is characterized by a defect in a sodium channel, causing a gain-of-function in the INa.4,9 These patients are more likely to have a fatal dysrhythmia while sleeping, are less susceptible to exercise-induced events, and have increased morbidity and mortality associated with bradycardia.4,9 ECG frequently reveals a relatively long ST segment, followed by a peaked and tall T-wave. Beta-blocker therapy can predispose to dysrhythmias in these patients; therefore, many of these patients will have pacemakers implanted as first-line therapy.6

While less common, Jervell and Lange Nielson syndrome is an autosomal recessive form of LQTS in which affected patients have homozygous mutations in the KCNQ1 or KCNE1 genes. This syndrome occurs in approximately 1% to 7% of LQTS patients, displays a typical QTc >550 ms, can be triggered by exercise and emotional stress, is associated with deafness, and carries a high risk of cardiac events at a young age.6

click for large version

Acquired Syndromes

In addition to congenital LQTS, certain patients can acquire LQTS after being treated with particular drugs or having metabolic abnormalities, namely hypomagnesemia, hypocalcemia, and hypokalemia. Most experts think patients who “acquire” LQTS that predisposes to torsades de pointes have underlying structural heart disease or LQTS genetic carrier mutations that combine with transient initiating events (e.g., drugs or metabolic abnormalities) to induce dysrhythmias.1 In addition to certain drugs, cardiac ischemia, and electrolyte abnormalities, cocaine abuse, HIV, and subarachnoid hemorrhage can induce dysrhythmias in susceptible patients.5

Many types of drugs can cause a prolonged QT interval, and others should be avoided in patients with pre-existing prolonged QT (see Table 3, p. 17). Potentially offending drugs that are frequently encountered by inpatient physicians include amiodarone, diltiazem, erythromycin, clarithromycin, ciprofloxacin, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, haloperidol, ritonavir, and methadone.1 Additionally, drugs that cause electrolyte abnormalities (e.g., diuretics and lithium) should be monitored closely.

Overall, the goals of therapy in LQTS are:

• Decrease the risk of dysrhythmic events;
• Minimize adrenergic response;
• Shorten the QTc;
• Decrease the dispersion of refractoriness; and
• Improve the function of the ion channels.3

Supportive measures should be taken for patients who are acutely symptomatic from LQTS and associated torsades de pointes. In addition to immediate cardioversion for ongoing and hemodynamically significant torsades, intravenous magnesium should be administered, electrolytes corrected, and offending drugs discontinued.5 Temporary transvenous pacing at rates of approximately 100 beats per minute is highly effective in preventing short-term recurrence of torsades in congenital and acquired LQTS, especially in bradycardic patients.5 Isoproterenol infusion increases the heart rate and effectively prevents acute recurrence of torsades in patients with acquired LQTS, but it should be used with caution in patients with structural heart disease.5

Long-term strategies to manage LQTS include:

• Minimizing the risk of triggering cardiac events via adrenergic stimulation;
• Preventing ongoing dysrhythmias;
• Avoiding medications known to prolong the QT interval; and
• Maintaining normal electrolytes and minerals.5

Most patients with congenital long QT should be discouraged from participating in competitive sports, and patients should attempt to eliminate exposures to stress or sudden awakening, though this is not practical in all cases.5 Beta blockers generally are the first-line therapy and are more effective for LQT1 than LQT2 or LQT3.4,5 If patients are still symptomatic despite adequate medical therapy, or have survived cardiac arrest, they should be considered for ICD therapy.4,5 In addition, patients with profound bradycardia benefit from pacemaker implantation.5 Patients who remain symptomatic despite both beta blockade and ICD placement might find cervicothoracic sympathectomy curative.4,5

click for large version

Perioperative Considerations

Although little data is available to guide physicians in the prevention of torsades de pointes during the course of anesthesia, there are a number of considerations that may reduce the chances of symptomatic dysrhythmias.

First, care should be taken to avoid dysrhythmia triggers in LQTS by providing a calm, quiet environment during induction, monitoring, and treating metabolic abnormalities, and providing an appropriate level of anesthesia.10 Beta-blocker therapy should be continued and potentially measured preoperatively by assessing heart rate response during stress testing.5 An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) should be interrogated prior to surgery and inactivated during the operation.5

Finally, Kies et al have recommended general anesthesia with propofol for induction (or throughout), isoflurane as the volatile agent, vecuronium for muscle relaxation, and intravenous fentanyl for analgesia when possible.10

Back to the Case

While the patient had no genetic testing for LQTS, evaluation of previous ECGs demonstrated a prolonged QT interval. The hip fracture repair was considered an urgent procedure, which precluded the ability to undertake genetic testing and consideration for device implantation. The only medication that was known to increase the risk for dysrhythmias in this patient was his diuretic, with the attendant risk of electrolyte abnormalities.

Thus, the patient’s hydrochlorothiazide was discontinued and his pre-existing atenolol continued. The patient’s electrolytes and minerals were monitored closely, and magnesium was administered on the day of surgery. Anesthesia was made aware of the prolonged QT interval, such that they were able to minimize the risk for and anticipate the treatment of dysrhythmias. The patient tolerated the surgery and post-operative period without complication and was scheduled for an outpatient workup and management for his prolonged QT interval.

click for large version

Bottom Line

Long QT syndrome is frequently genetic in origin, but it can be caused by certain medications and perturbations of electrolytes. Beta blockers are the first-line therapy for the majority of LQTS cases, along with discontinuation of drugs that might induce or aggravate the QT prolongation.

Patients who have had cardiac arrest or who remain symptomatic despite beta-blocker therapy should have an ICD implanted.

In the perioperative period, patients’ electrolytes should be monitored and kept within normal limits. If the patient is on a beta blocker, it should be continued, and the anesthesiologist should be made aware of the diagnosis so that the anesthethic plan can be optimized to prevent arrhythmic complications. TH

Dr. Kamali is a medical resident at the University of Colorado Denver. Dr. Stickrath is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Denver and an instructor of medicine at UC Denver. Dr. Prochazka is director of ambulatory care at the Denver VA and professor of medicine at UC Denver. Dr. Varosy is director of cardiac electrophysiology at the Denver VA and assistant professor of medicine at UC Denver.

References

1. Kao LW, Furbee BR. Drug-induced q-T prolongation. Med Clin North Am. 2005;89(6):1125-1144.
2. Marchlinski F. Chapter 226, The Tachyarrhythmias; Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 17e. Available at: www.accessmedicine.com/resourceTOC .aspx?resourceID=4. Accessed Nov. 21, 2009.
3. Zareba W, Cygankiewicz I. Long QT syndrome and short QT syndrome. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2008; 51(3):264-278.
4. Booker PD, Whyte SD, Ladusans EJ. Long QT syndrome and anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90(3):349-366.
5. Khan IA. Long QT syndrome: diagnosis and management. Am Heart J. 2002;143(1):7-14.
6. Morita H, Wu J, Zipes DP. The QT syndromes: long and short. Lancet. 2008;372(9640):750-763.
7. Schwartz PJ, Moss AJ, Vincent GM, Crampton RS. Diagnostic criteria for the long QT syndrome. An update. Circulation. 1993;88(2):782-784.
8. Kapa S, Tester DJ, Salisbury BA, et al. Genetic testing for long-QT syndrome: distinguishing pathogenic mutations from benign variants. Circulation. 2009;120(18):1752-1760.
9. Modell SM, Lehmann MH. The long QT syndrome family of cardiac ion channelopathies: a HuGE review. Genet Med. 2006;8(3):143-155.
10. Kies SJ, Pabelick CM, Hurley HA, White RD, Ackerman MJ. Anesthesia for patients with congenital long QT syndrome. Anesthesiology. 2005;102(1):204-210.
11. Wisely NA, Shipton EA. Long QT syndrome and anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2002;19(12):853-859.

Case

You are asked to admit a 63-year-old male with a history of hypertension and osteoarthritis. The patient, who fell at home, is scheduled for open repair of his femoral neck fracture the following day. The patient reports tripping over his granddaughter’s toys and denies any associated symptoms around the time of his fall. An electrocardiogram (ECG) reveals a QTc (QT) interval of 480 ms. How should this hospitalized patient’s prolonged QT interval be managed?

Overview

Patients with a prolonged QT interval on routine ECG present an interesting dilemma for clinicians. Although QT prolongation—either congenital or acquired—has been associated with dysrhythmias, the risk of torsades de pointes and sudden cardiac death varies considerably based on myriad underlying factors.1 Therefore, the principle job of the clinician who has recognized QT prolongation is to assess and minimize the risk of the development of clinically significant dysrhythmias, and to be prepared to manage them should they arise.

The QT interval encompasses ventricular depolarization and repolarization. This ventricular action potential proceeds through five phases. The initial upstroke (phase 0) of depolarization occurs with the opening of Na+ channels, triggering the inward Na+ current (INa), and causes the interior of the myocytes to become positively charged. This is followed by initial repolarization (phase 1) when the opening of K+ channels causes an outward K+ current (Ito). Next, the plateau phase (phase 2) of the action potential follows with a balance of inward current through Ca2+channels (Ica-L) and outward current through slow rectifier K+ channels (IKs), and then later through delayed, rapid K+ rectifier channels (IKr). Then, the inward current is deactivated, while the outward current increases through the rapid delayed rectifier (IKr) and opening of inward rectifier channels (IK1) to complete repolarization (phase 3). Finally, the action potential returns to baseline (phase 4) and Na+ begins to enter the cell again (see Figure 1, above).

The long QT syndrome (LQTS) is defined by a defect in these cardiac ion channels, which leads to abnormal repolarization, usually lengthening the QT interval and thus predisposing to ventricular dysrhythmias.2 It is estimated that as many as 85% of these syndromes are inherited, and up to 15% are acquired or sporadic.3 Depending on the underlying etiology of the LQTS, manifestations might first be appreciated at any time from in utero through adulthood.4 Symptoms including palpitations, syncope, seizures, or cardiac arrest bring these patients to medical attention.3 These symptoms frequently elicit physical or emotional stress, but they can occur without obvious inciting triggers.5 A 20% mortality risk exists in patients who are symptomatic and untreated in the first year following diagnosis, and up to 50% within 10 years following diagnosis.4

How is Long QT Syndrome Diagnosed?

The LQTS diagnosis is based on clinical history in combination with ECG abnormalities.6 Important historical elements include symptoms of palpitations, syncope, seizures, or cardiac arrest.3 In addition, a family history of unexplained syncope or sudden death, especially at a young age, should raise LQTS suspicion.5

A variety of ECG findings can be witnessed in LQTS patients.4,5 Although the majority of patients have a QTc >440 ms, approximately one-third have a QTc ≤460 ms, and about 10% have normal QTc intervals.5 Other ECG abnormalities include notched, biphasic, or prolonged T-waves, and the presence of U-waves.4,5 Schwartz et al used these elements to publish criteria (see Table 1, right) that physicians can use to assess the probability that a patient has LQTS.7

click for large version

Types of Long QT Syndromes

Because the risk of developing significant dysrhythmias with LQTS is dependent on both the actual QT interval, with risk for sudden cardiac death increased two to three times with QT >440 ms compared with QT <440 ms and the specific underlying genotype, it is important to have an understanding of congenital and acquired LQTS and the associated triggers for torsades de pointes.

Congenital LQTS

Congenital LQTS is caused by mutations in cardiac ion channel proteins, primarily sodium, and potassium channels.5,6 These defects either slow depolarization or lengthen repolarization, leading to heterogeneity of repolarization of the membrane.5 This, in turn, predisposes to ventricular dysrhythmias, including torsades de pointes and subsequent ventricular fibrillation and death.2 Currently, 12 genetic defects have been identified in LQTS. Hundreds of mutations have been described to cause these defects (see Table 2, right).8 Approximately 70% of congenital LQTS are caused by mutations in three genes and are classified as LQTS 1, LQTS 2, and LQTS 3.8 The other seven mutation types account for about 5% of cases; a quarter of LQTS cases have no identified genetic mutations.8

LQTS usually can be distinguished by clinical features and some ECG characteristics, but diagnosis of the specific type requires genetic testing.8,9 The most common types of LQTS are discussed below.

click for large version

• Long QT1 is the most common type, occurring in approximately 40% to 50% of patients diagnosed with LQTS. It is characterized by a defect in the potassium channel alpha subunit leading to IKs reduction.9 These patients typically present with syncope or adrenergic-induced torsades, might have wide, broad-based T-waves on ECG, and respond well to beta-blocker therapy.6 Triggers for these patients include physical exertion or emotional stressors, particularly exercise and swimming. These patients typically present in early childhood.1
• Long QT2 occurs in 35% to 40% of patients and is characterized by a different defect in the alpha subunit of the potassium channel, which leads to reduced IKr.9 ECGs in LQTS2 can demonstrate low-amplitude and notched T-waves. Sudden catecholamine surges related to emotional stress or loud noises and bradycardia can trigger dysrhythmias in Long QT2.6 Thus, beta blockers reduce overall cardiac events in LQTS2 but less effectively than in LQTS1.6 These patients also present in childhood but typically are older than patients with LQTS1.6
• Long QT3 is less common than LQTS1 or LQTS2, at 2% to 8% of LQTS patients, but carries a higher mortality and is not treated effectively with beta blockers. LQTS3 is characterized by a defect in a sodium channel, causing a gain-of-function in the INa.4,9 These patients are more likely to have a fatal dysrhythmia while sleeping, are less susceptible to exercise-induced events, and have increased morbidity and mortality associated with bradycardia.4,9 ECG frequently reveals a relatively long ST segment, followed by a peaked and tall T-wave. Beta-blocker therapy can predispose to dysrhythmias in these patients; therefore, many of these patients will have pacemakers implanted as first-line therapy.6

While less common, Jervell and Lange Nielson syndrome is an autosomal recessive form of LQTS in which affected patients have homozygous mutations in the KCNQ1 or KCNE1 genes. This syndrome occurs in approximately 1% to 7% of LQTS patients, displays a typical QTc >550 ms, can be triggered by exercise and emotional stress, is associated with deafness, and carries a high risk of cardiac events at a young age.6

click for large version

Acquired Syndromes

In addition to congenital LQTS, certain patients can acquire LQTS after being treated with particular drugs or having metabolic abnormalities, namely hypomagnesemia, hypocalcemia, and hypokalemia. Most experts think patients who “acquire” LQTS that predisposes to torsades de pointes have underlying structural heart disease or LQTS genetic carrier mutations that combine with transient initiating events (e.g., drugs or metabolic abnormalities) to induce dysrhythmias.1 In addition to certain drugs, cardiac ischemia, and electrolyte abnormalities, cocaine abuse, HIV, and subarachnoid hemorrhage can induce dysrhythmias in susceptible patients.5

Many types of drugs can cause a prolonged QT interval, and others should be avoided in patients with pre-existing prolonged QT (see Table 3, p. 17). Potentially offending drugs that are frequently encountered by inpatient physicians include amiodarone, diltiazem, erythromycin, clarithromycin, ciprofloxacin, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, haloperidol, ritonavir, and methadone.1 Additionally, drugs that cause electrolyte abnormalities (e.g., diuretics and lithium) should be monitored closely.

Overall, the goals of therapy in LQTS are:

• Decrease the risk of dysrhythmic events;
• Minimize adrenergic response;
• Shorten the QTc;
• Decrease the dispersion of refractoriness; and
• Improve the function of the ion channels.3

Supportive measures should be taken for patients who are acutely symptomatic from LQTS and associated torsades de pointes. In addition to immediate cardioversion for ongoing and hemodynamically significant torsades, intravenous magnesium should be administered, electrolytes corrected, and offending drugs discontinued.5 Temporary transvenous pacing at rates of approximately 100 beats per minute is highly effective in preventing short-term recurrence of torsades in congenital and acquired LQTS, especially in bradycardic patients.5 Isoproterenol infusion increases the heart rate and effectively prevents acute recurrence of torsades in patients with acquired LQTS, but it should be used with caution in patients with structural heart disease.5

Long-term strategies to manage LQTS include:

• Minimizing the risk of triggering cardiac events via adrenergic stimulation;
• Preventing ongoing dysrhythmias;
• Avoiding medications known to prolong the QT interval; and
• Maintaining normal electrolytes and minerals.5

Most patients with congenital long QT should be discouraged from participating in competitive sports, and patients should attempt to eliminate exposures to stress or sudden awakening, though this is not practical in all cases.5 Beta blockers generally are the first-line therapy and are more effective for LQT1 than LQT2 or LQT3.4,5 If patients are still symptomatic despite adequate medical therapy, or have survived cardiac arrest, they should be considered for ICD therapy.4,5 In addition, patients with profound bradycardia benefit from pacemaker implantation.5 Patients who remain symptomatic despite both beta blockade and ICD placement might find cervicothoracic sympathectomy curative.4,5

click for large version

Perioperative Considerations

Although little data is available to guide physicians in the prevention of torsades de pointes during the course of anesthesia, there are a number of considerations that may reduce the chances of symptomatic dysrhythmias.

First, care should be taken to avoid dysrhythmia triggers in LQTS by providing a calm, quiet environment during induction, monitoring, and treating metabolic abnormalities, and providing an appropriate level of anesthesia.10 Beta-blocker therapy should be continued and potentially measured preoperatively by assessing heart rate response during stress testing.5 An implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (AICD) should be interrogated prior to surgery and inactivated during the operation.5

Finally, Kies et al have recommended general anesthesia with propofol for induction (or throughout), isoflurane as the volatile agent, vecuronium for muscle relaxation, and intravenous fentanyl for analgesia when possible.10

Back to the Case

While the patient had no genetic testing for LQTS, evaluation of previous ECGs demonstrated a prolonged QT interval. The hip fracture repair was considered an urgent procedure, which precluded the ability to undertake genetic testing and consideration for device implantation. The only medication that was known to increase the risk for dysrhythmias in this patient was his diuretic, with the attendant risk of electrolyte abnormalities.

Thus, the patient’s hydrochlorothiazide was discontinued and his pre-existing atenolol continued. The patient’s electrolytes and minerals were monitored closely, and magnesium was administered on the day of surgery. Anesthesia was made aware of the prolonged QT interval, such that they were able to minimize the risk for and anticipate the treatment of dysrhythmias. The patient tolerated the surgery and post-operative period without complication and was scheduled for an outpatient workup and management for his prolonged QT interval.

click for large version

Bottom Line

Long QT syndrome is frequently genetic in origin, but it can be caused by certain medications and perturbations of electrolytes. Beta blockers are the first-line therapy for the majority of LQTS cases, along with discontinuation of drugs that might induce or aggravate the QT prolongation.

Patients who have had cardiac arrest or who remain symptomatic despite beta-blocker therapy should have an ICD implanted.

In the perioperative period, patients’ electrolytes should be monitored and kept within normal limits. If the patient is on a beta blocker, it should be continued, and the anesthesiologist should be made aware of the diagnosis so that the anesthethic plan can be optimized to prevent arrhythmic complications. TH

Dr. Kamali is a medical resident at the University of Colorado Denver. Dr. Stickrath is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Denver and an instructor of medicine at UC Denver. Dr. Prochazka is director of ambulatory care at the Denver VA and professor of medicine at UC Denver. Dr. Varosy is director of cardiac electrophysiology at the Denver VA and assistant professor of medicine at UC Denver.

References

1. Kao LW, Furbee BR. Drug-induced q-T prolongation. Med Clin North Am. 2005;89(6):1125-1144.
2. Marchlinski F. Chapter 226, The Tachyarrhythmias; Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, 17e. Available at: www.accessmedicine.com/resourceTOC .aspx?resourceID=4. Accessed Nov. 21, 2009.
3. Zareba W, Cygankiewicz I. Long QT syndrome and short QT syndrome. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2008; 51(3):264-278.
4. Booker PD, Whyte SD, Ladusans EJ. Long QT syndrome and anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90(3):349-366.
5. Khan IA. Long QT syndrome: diagnosis and management. Am Heart J. 2002;143(1):7-14.
6. Morita H, Wu J, Zipes DP. The QT syndromes: long and short. Lancet. 2008;372(9640):750-763.
7. Schwartz PJ, Moss AJ, Vincent GM, Crampton RS. Diagnostic criteria for the long QT syndrome. An update. Circulation. 1993;88(2):782-784.
8. Kapa S, Tester DJ, Salisbury BA, et al. Genetic testing for long-QT syndrome: distinguishing pathogenic mutations from benign variants. Circulation. 2009;120(18):1752-1760.
9. Modell SM, Lehmann MH. The long QT syndrome family of cardiac ion channelopathies: a HuGE review. Genet Med. 2006;8(3):143-155.
10. Kies SJ, Pabelick CM, Hurley HA, White RD, Ackerman MJ. Anesthesia for patients with congenital long QT syndrome. Anesthesiology. 2005;102(1):204-210.
11. Wisely NA, Shipton EA. Long QT syndrome and anaesthesia. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2002;19(12):853-859.