All Content

As the debate over how best to address surprise billing continues, new research shows that billing from out-of-network physicians at in-network facilities is adding $40 billion in costs.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers focused on four different types of physicians that account for out-of-network billing: anesthesiologists, pathologists, radiologists, and cases involving an assistant surgeon, which had out-of-network bills in about 10% of claims that were examined as part of the research.

“To give a rough estimate of the savings that could be achieved by eliminating the ability of these four types of specialists to readily bill out of network, we simulated what would happen if all of these specialists received the same average payments as orthopedic surgeons did (164% of Medicare rates),” Zack Cooper, PhD, associate professor of health policy at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a research report published in Health Affairs.

“We estimated that if these physicians were paid the same average rate as orthopedists for all of the services that they delivered in our sample, spending would be lowered on anesthesiologists by 53.5%, on pathologists by 47.4%, on radiologists by 16.3%, and on assistant surgeons by 46.2%,” the authors wrote.

Researchers said that physician spending for these four specialties would be lowered by 13.4% and would lower total spending for people with employer-sponsored insurance by about 3.4%, or $40 billion. If spending on these four specialties were lowered to 150% of Medicare rates, it would lower spending on physicians by 15.3%.

To help combat the issues of surprise billing in a way that lowers total commercial health care spending and helps to preserve a competitive price for physician services, Dr. Cooper and colleagues recommended an approach that would regulate the contracts of physicians who work in hospitals and are not chosen by patients. It would establish a bundled package for services that include the emergency department physicians and the four specialists examined as part of the research and would use the fee associated with the package of services to recruit specialists to work at the hospital.

The authors said this kind of policy would eliminate the possibility of patients seeing out-of-network providers at in-network hospitals and, unlike arbitration (a favored solution among physician groups if it is set up in an agreeable manner), patients are protected without being required to take any action. The policy also sets a competitive rate for these services.

“Under this bundled care approach, physicians would compete to offer their services on the basis of price and quality,” Dr. Cooper and colleagues stated. “Hospitals would compete with one another on the price and quality of their care, including the services provided by the physicians they recruited. Hospitals would also need to compete to retain physicians.”

This approach is not included in any current surprise billing legislation. There was hope that surprise billing would be addressed in a government spending bill that would be signed before year’s end. But a second bipartisan plan was introduced in the House Ways and Means Committee after a bipartisan compromise was reached by the House Energy and Commerce and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committees. This has postponed a decision on surprise billing legislation into the coming year.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cooper Z et al. Health Aff. 2019 Dec 16. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00507.

As the debate over how best to address surprise billing continues, new research shows that billing from out-of-network physicians at in-network facilities is adding $40 billion in costs.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers focused on four different types of physicians that account for out-of-network billing: anesthesiologists, pathologists, radiologists, and cases involving an assistant surgeon, which had out-of-network bills in about 10% of claims that were examined as part of the research.

“To give a rough estimate of the savings that could be achieved by eliminating the ability of these four types of specialists to readily bill out of network, we simulated what would happen if all of these specialists received the same average payments as orthopedic surgeons did (164% of Medicare rates),” Zack Cooper, PhD, associate professor of health policy at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a research report published in Health Affairs.

“We estimated that if these physicians were paid the same average rate as orthopedists for all of the services that they delivered in our sample, spending would be lowered on anesthesiologists by 53.5%, on pathologists by 47.4%, on radiologists by 16.3%, and on assistant surgeons by 46.2%,” the authors wrote.

Researchers said that physician spending for these four specialties would be lowered by 13.4% and would lower total spending for people with employer-sponsored insurance by about 3.4%, or $40 billion. If spending on these four specialties were lowered to 150% of Medicare rates, it would lower spending on physicians by 15.3%.

To help combat the issues of surprise billing in a way that lowers total commercial health care spending and helps to preserve a competitive price for physician services, Dr. Cooper and colleagues recommended an approach that would regulate the contracts of physicians who work in hospitals and are not chosen by patients. It would establish a bundled package for services that include the emergency department physicians and the four specialists examined as part of the research and would use the fee associated with the package of services to recruit specialists to work at the hospital.

The authors said this kind of policy would eliminate the possibility of patients seeing out-of-network providers at in-network hospitals and, unlike arbitration (a favored solution among physician groups if it is set up in an agreeable manner), patients are protected without being required to take any action. The policy also sets a competitive rate for these services.

“Under this bundled care approach, physicians would compete to offer their services on the basis of price and quality,” Dr. Cooper and colleagues stated. “Hospitals would compete with one another on the price and quality of their care, including the services provided by the physicians they recruited. Hospitals would also need to compete to retain physicians.”

This approach is not included in any current surprise billing legislation. There was hope that surprise billing would be addressed in a government spending bill that would be signed before year’s end. But a second bipartisan plan was introduced in the House Ways and Means Committee after a bipartisan compromise was reached by the House Energy and Commerce and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committees. This has postponed a decision on surprise billing legislation into the coming year.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cooper Z et al. Health Aff. 2019 Dec 16. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00507.

As the debate over how best to address surprise billing continues, new research shows that billing from out-of-network physicians at in-network facilities is adding $40 billion in costs.

utah778/Thinkstock

Researchers focused on four different types of physicians that account for out-of-network billing: anesthesiologists, pathologists, radiologists, and cases involving an assistant surgeon, which had out-of-network bills in about 10% of claims that were examined as part of the research.

“To give a rough estimate of the savings that could be achieved by eliminating the ability of these four types of specialists to readily bill out of network, we simulated what would happen if all of these specialists received the same average payments as orthopedic surgeons did (164% of Medicare rates),” Zack Cooper, PhD, associate professor of health policy at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in a research report published in Health Affairs.

“We estimated that if these physicians were paid the same average rate as orthopedists for all of the services that they delivered in our sample, spending would be lowered on anesthesiologists by 53.5%, on pathologists by 47.4%, on radiologists by 16.3%, and on assistant surgeons by 46.2%,” the authors wrote.

Researchers said that physician spending for these four specialties would be lowered by 13.4% and would lower total spending for people with employer-sponsored insurance by about 3.4%, or $40 billion. If spending on these four specialties were lowered to 150% of Medicare rates, it would lower spending on physicians by 15.3%.

To help combat the issues of surprise billing in a way that lowers total commercial health care spending and helps to preserve a competitive price for physician services, Dr. Cooper and colleagues recommended an approach that would regulate the contracts of physicians who work in hospitals and are not chosen by patients. It would establish a bundled package for services that include the emergency department physicians and the four specialists examined as part of the research and would use the fee associated with the package of services to recruit specialists to work at the hospital.

The authors said this kind of policy would eliminate the possibility of patients seeing out-of-network providers at in-network hospitals and, unlike arbitration (a favored solution among physician groups if it is set up in an agreeable manner), patients are protected without being required to take any action. The policy also sets a competitive rate for these services.

“Under this bundled care approach, physicians would compete to offer their services on the basis of price and quality,” Dr. Cooper and colleagues stated. “Hospitals would compete with one another on the price and quality of their care, including the services provided by the physicians they recruited. Hospitals would also need to compete to retain physicians.”

This approach is not included in any current surprise billing legislation. There was hope that surprise billing would be addressed in a government spending bill that would be signed before year’s end. But a second bipartisan plan was introduced in the House Ways and Means Committee after a bipartisan compromise was reached by the House Energy and Commerce and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committees. This has postponed a decision on surprise billing legislation into the coming year.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Cooper Z et al. Health Aff. 2019 Dec 16. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2019.00507.

I have written frequently over the last few years on topics related to the sustainability of the hospital medicine practice model. I continue to be concerned by what I see as a confluence of significant trends that are conspiring to challenge hospital medicine’s status quo.

On one hand, the financial pressures on U.S. hospitals are unrelenting, and their willingness or even ability to continue providing significant funding to support their hospital medicine groups is in question. Combine this with hospitalists’ rapidly evolving clinical scope and the ever-increasing demands of physicians in other specialties for hospitalist support, and the result is hospital medicine groups that will continue to grow in size, complexity, and the demand for ever more financial support.

On the other hand, the hospitalists I interact with in my work all over the country seem more stressed out than ever, and many are questioning whether this is a job that can be satisfying and sustainable for a career. Increasing patient complexity, productivity pressures, a lack of resources to address patients’ social issues, a systole-diastole schedule, the frustration of EHRs and other documentation responsibilities, and feeling “dumped on” by physicians in other specialties all contribute to hospitalist job stress.

A quick look at the literature confirms that in 2019 hospitalist burnout is definitely “a thing.” Interestingly, it’s been a thing for a while; the risk of hospitalist burnout was first identified by Hoff, et al., in 2002 (doi: 10.2307/30902462002). My colleague, John Nelson, MD, MHM, has written a number of times about strategies for preventing or mitigating hospitalist burnout.

As these trends converge, the hospital medicine practice model as we know it may be facing an existential crisis. If that sounds overly dramatic, let me say instead that the hospital medicine practice model will need to evolve significantly over the next decade in order to continue to meet patient and institutional needs while remaining both affordable and sustainable for the clinicians who work in it.

In September 2019, SHM’s Multi-Site Leaders Special Interest Group met in Chicago for their second annual Multi-Site Leaders Summit to explore the theme of sustainability in hospital medicine. The participants held robust discussions about coping with our changing practice environment, issues relating to hospitalist burnout and resiliency, innovative staffing models, the role of technology in HM sustainability, and financial sustainability

At the end of the meeting, the group engaged in a visioning exercise designed to move beyond what we are doing today by envisioning what the future of hospital medicine will look like and what interventions will be necessary for us to get from here to there. I’d like to share this visioning exercise with you and encourage you to “play along” by thinking seriously about the questions it poses.
 

Visioning exercise

Feel free to jot down some thoughts as we go through this exercise. But otherwise, just close your eyes and come along for the ride. Imagine yourself sitting at your desk looking at a desk calendar showing today’s date. Watch the pages flip from today, to tomorrow, to the next day, then to next month, and the next, and then to the next year and so on, until we arrive at December 2029.

Imagine that you look up from your desk, and suddenly realize that you aren’t in your office at all, but instead in a huge auditorium where someone is speaking about an award that is going to be announced. It’s crowded and a little stuffy in the auditorium, but people around you are whispering to each other with an air of eager anticipation, their eyes glued to the stage. You realize that the person being introduced up on the podium is the President of the United States, and the award is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is only awarded to people or groups who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural, or other significant public or private endeavors.”

Today, the Medal is being awarded to the Society of Hospital Medicine on behalf of all hospital medicine leaders nationally, for their collective accomplishments in saving the specialty of hospital medicine and, by doing so, ensuring that sick people are able to continue receiving the care they need in our nation’s hospitals – and that the hospitals themselves have become reliably safe, efficient, and effective in achieving high quality outcomes.

The President says, “At no time in the history of this award until now have we given this, the highest civilian award in the land, to a whole group of physician leaders across an entire specialty. But the achievements of this group of people in preserving and even enhancing the presence of highly energized, dedicated, capable clinicians in our nation’s hospitals against the significant odds they have faced over the last 10 years is nothing short of extraordinary.” There is a standing ovation, as people jump up out of their chairs to cheer and applaud. When the applause finally dies down, the President goes on to list all the accomplishments that made this group of leaders deserving. Listen to what she is saying. Fill it in in your own mind. What is it that this group has accomplished?

[Brief silence]

Up on a huge screen beside the stage, a video starts. In it, there are several hospital and physician executives in a focus group, and one exec says, “The thing that is great about what these leaders have accomplished in the field of hospital medicine is…” Fill it in – what did that executive say? Another leader jumps in: “That’s all fine and wonderful, but the thing that really makes hospital medicine stand out today compared to where they were 10 years ago is…” Listen to what these executives are saying. What accomplishments are they praising?

The video then moves on to show a focus group of recent hospital patients. One patient says, “10 years ago when my mom was in the hospital, the poor hospitalists caring for her seemed completely overwhelmed and burnt out, and the whole care system seemed fragmented and inefficient; but my own recent hospital experience was so different because…” Additional patients chime in, talking about how confident they felt about the care they received in the hospital and the reasons for that. What is it these patients are describing?

SHM’s CEO gets up to accept the award and explains that 10 years ago, a group of multi-site hospital medicine leaders from across the country came together to begin addressing the issue of sustainability; this led to a formal process for developing a vision and a plan for the future of hospital medicine, and the execution of that plan eventually resulted in the outcomes recognized by this award. She acknowledges that over the years many people questioned whether the hospital medicine model should even continue to exist or whether some other model for inpatient care should be adopted. She talks about all the compelling reasons that supported the continued existence of the specialty of hospital medicine. What are some of the reasons she listed? The SHM CEO goes on to describe some of the key things that were done to address the issues associated with sustainability of the hospital medicine practice model. Listen to what she says; what was it that SHM and the hospital leaders it represents did?

As you are leaving the auditorium, you overhear a group of mid-career staff hospitalists talking. They are saying that they didn’t originally believe the specialty would actually change, and they weren’t sure if they could do this job for a career – but that it did change. They begin talking about what it feels like to work as a hospitalist now, and how these changes have improved their lives. Listen to what they are saying. How does it feel to work as a hospitalist?

As you leave the auditorium and go back to your desk, you sit down to record some of the things you heard. What was it the President of the US said as she presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Why did SHM and the hospital medicine leaders it represents deserve the award? What was it that the SHM CEO said was done to bring about the successful changes? What did the staff hospitalists say about working in the specialty?

Whenever you are ready, take a minute to jot down the specifics that came to mind as you read through this exercise. If you are willing to share your thoughts about sustainability in hospital medicine, I’d love to hear from you. Feel free to email me directly at [email protected].

Let’s build the foundation for a sustainable future for our specialty.

Ms. Flores is a partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, La Quinta, Calif. She serves on SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, and helps to coordinate SHM’s bi-annual State of Hospital Medicine Survey. This article appeared originally in SHM’s official blog The Hospital Leader.

I have written frequently over the last few years on topics related to the sustainability of the hospital medicine practice model. I continue to be concerned by what I see as a confluence of significant trends that are conspiring to challenge hospital medicine’s status quo.

On one hand, the financial pressures on U.S. hospitals are unrelenting, and their willingness or even ability to continue providing significant funding to support their hospital medicine groups is in question. Combine this with hospitalists’ rapidly evolving clinical scope and the ever-increasing demands of physicians in other specialties for hospitalist support, and the result is hospital medicine groups that will continue to grow in size, complexity, and the demand for ever more financial support.

On the other hand, the hospitalists I interact with in my work all over the country seem more stressed out than ever, and many are questioning whether this is a job that can be satisfying and sustainable for a career. Increasing patient complexity, productivity pressures, a lack of resources to address patients’ social issues, a systole-diastole schedule, the frustration of EHRs and other documentation responsibilities, and feeling “dumped on” by physicians in other specialties all contribute to hospitalist job stress.

A quick look at the literature confirms that in 2019 hospitalist burnout is definitely “a thing.” Interestingly, it’s been a thing for a while; the risk of hospitalist burnout was first identified by Hoff, et al., in 2002 (doi: 10.2307/30902462002). My colleague, John Nelson, MD, MHM, has written a number of times about strategies for preventing or mitigating hospitalist burnout.

As these trends converge, the hospital medicine practice model as we know it may be facing an existential crisis. If that sounds overly dramatic, let me say instead that the hospital medicine practice model will need to evolve significantly over the next decade in order to continue to meet patient and institutional needs while remaining both affordable and sustainable for the clinicians who work in it.

In September 2019, SHM’s Multi-Site Leaders Special Interest Group met in Chicago for their second annual Multi-Site Leaders Summit to explore the theme of sustainability in hospital medicine. The participants held robust discussions about coping with our changing practice environment, issues relating to hospitalist burnout and resiliency, innovative staffing models, the role of technology in HM sustainability, and financial sustainability

At the end of the meeting, the group engaged in a visioning exercise designed to move beyond what we are doing today by envisioning what the future of hospital medicine will look like and what interventions will be necessary for us to get from here to there. I’d like to share this visioning exercise with you and encourage you to “play along” by thinking seriously about the questions it poses.
 

Visioning exercise

Feel free to jot down some thoughts as we go through this exercise. But otherwise, just close your eyes and come along for the ride. Imagine yourself sitting at your desk looking at a desk calendar showing today’s date. Watch the pages flip from today, to tomorrow, to the next day, then to next month, and the next, and then to the next year and so on, until we arrive at December 2029.

Imagine that you look up from your desk, and suddenly realize that you aren’t in your office at all, but instead in a huge auditorium where someone is speaking about an award that is going to be announced. It’s crowded and a little stuffy in the auditorium, but people around you are whispering to each other with an air of eager anticipation, their eyes glued to the stage. You realize that the person being introduced up on the podium is the President of the United States, and the award is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is only awarded to people or groups who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural, or other significant public or private endeavors.”

Today, the Medal is being awarded to the Society of Hospital Medicine on behalf of all hospital medicine leaders nationally, for their collective accomplishments in saving the specialty of hospital medicine and, by doing so, ensuring that sick people are able to continue receiving the care they need in our nation’s hospitals – and that the hospitals themselves have become reliably safe, efficient, and effective in achieving high quality outcomes.

The President says, “At no time in the history of this award until now have we given this, the highest civilian award in the land, to a whole group of physician leaders across an entire specialty. But the achievements of this group of people in preserving and even enhancing the presence of highly energized, dedicated, capable clinicians in our nation’s hospitals against the significant odds they have faced over the last 10 years is nothing short of extraordinary.” There is a standing ovation, as people jump up out of their chairs to cheer and applaud. When the applause finally dies down, the President goes on to list all the accomplishments that made this group of leaders deserving. Listen to what she is saying. Fill it in in your own mind. What is it that this group has accomplished?

[Brief silence]

Up on a huge screen beside the stage, a video starts. In it, there are several hospital and physician executives in a focus group, and one exec says, “The thing that is great about what these leaders have accomplished in the field of hospital medicine is…” Fill it in – what did that executive say? Another leader jumps in: “That’s all fine and wonderful, but the thing that really makes hospital medicine stand out today compared to where they were 10 years ago is…” Listen to what these executives are saying. What accomplishments are they praising?

The video then moves on to show a focus group of recent hospital patients. One patient says, “10 years ago when my mom was in the hospital, the poor hospitalists caring for her seemed completely overwhelmed and burnt out, and the whole care system seemed fragmented and inefficient; but my own recent hospital experience was so different because…” Additional patients chime in, talking about how confident they felt about the care they received in the hospital and the reasons for that. What is it these patients are describing?

SHM’s CEO gets up to accept the award and explains that 10 years ago, a group of multi-site hospital medicine leaders from across the country came together to begin addressing the issue of sustainability; this led to a formal process for developing a vision and a plan for the future of hospital medicine, and the execution of that plan eventually resulted in the outcomes recognized by this award. She acknowledges that over the years many people questioned whether the hospital medicine model should even continue to exist or whether some other model for inpatient care should be adopted. She talks about all the compelling reasons that supported the continued existence of the specialty of hospital medicine. What are some of the reasons she listed? The SHM CEO goes on to describe some of the key things that were done to address the issues associated with sustainability of the hospital medicine practice model. Listen to what she says; what was it that SHM and the hospital leaders it represents did?

As you are leaving the auditorium, you overhear a group of mid-career staff hospitalists talking. They are saying that they didn’t originally believe the specialty would actually change, and they weren’t sure if they could do this job for a career – but that it did change. They begin talking about what it feels like to work as a hospitalist now, and how these changes have improved their lives. Listen to what they are saying. How does it feel to work as a hospitalist?

As you leave the auditorium and go back to your desk, you sit down to record some of the things you heard. What was it the President of the US said as she presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Why did SHM and the hospital medicine leaders it represents deserve the award? What was it that the SHM CEO said was done to bring about the successful changes? What did the staff hospitalists say about working in the specialty?

Whenever you are ready, take a minute to jot down the specifics that came to mind as you read through this exercise. If you are willing to share your thoughts about sustainability in hospital medicine, I’d love to hear from you. Feel free to email me directly at [email protected].

Let’s build the foundation for a sustainable future for our specialty.

Ms. Flores is a partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, La Quinta, Calif. She serves on SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, and helps to coordinate SHM’s bi-annual State of Hospital Medicine Survey. This article appeared originally in SHM’s official blog The Hospital Leader.

I have written frequently over the last few years on topics related to the sustainability of the hospital medicine practice model. I continue to be concerned by what I see as a confluence of significant trends that are conspiring to challenge hospital medicine’s status quo.

On one hand, the financial pressures on U.S. hospitals are unrelenting, and their willingness or even ability to continue providing significant funding to support their hospital medicine groups is in question. Combine this with hospitalists’ rapidly evolving clinical scope and the ever-increasing demands of physicians in other specialties for hospitalist support, and the result is hospital medicine groups that will continue to grow in size, complexity, and the demand for ever more financial support.

On the other hand, the hospitalists I interact with in my work all over the country seem more stressed out than ever, and many are questioning whether this is a job that can be satisfying and sustainable for a career. Increasing patient complexity, productivity pressures, a lack of resources to address patients’ social issues, a systole-diastole schedule, the frustration of EHRs and other documentation responsibilities, and feeling “dumped on” by physicians in other specialties all contribute to hospitalist job stress.

A quick look at the literature confirms that in 2019 hospitalist burnout is definitely “a thing.” Interestingly, it’s been a thing for a while; the risk of hospitalist burnout was first identified by Hoff, et al., in 2002 (doi: 10.2307/30902462002). My colleague, John Nelson, MD, MHM, has written a number of times about strategies for preventing or mitigating hospitalist burnout.

As these trends converge, the hospital medicine practice model as we know it may be facing an existential crisis. If that sounds overly dramatic, let me say instead that the hospital medicine practice model will need to evolve significantly over the next decade in order to continue to meet patient and institutional needs while remaining both affordable and sustainable for the clinicians who work in it.

In September 2019, SHM’s Multi-Site Leaders Special Interest Group met in Chicago for their second annual Multi-Site Leaders Summit to explore the theme of sustainability in hospital medicine. The participants held robust discussions about coping with our changing practice environment, issues relating to hospitalist burnout and resiliency, innovative staffing models, the role of technology in HM sustainability, and financial sustainability

At the end of the meeting, the group engaged in a visioning exercise designed to move beyond what we are doing today by envisioning what the future of hospital medicine will look like and what interventions will be necessary for us to get from here to there. I’d like to share this visioning exercise with you and encourage you to “play along” by thinking seriously about the questions it poses.
 

Visioning exercise

Feel free to jot down some thoughts as we go through this exercise. But otherwise, just close your eyes and come along for the ride. Imagine yourself sitting at your desk looking at a desk calendar showing today’s date. Watch the pages flip from today, to tomorrow, to the next day, then to next month, and the next, and then to the next year and so on, until we arrive at December 2029.

Imagine that you look up from your desk, and suddenly realize that you aren’t in your office at all, but instead in a huge auditorium where someone is speaking about an award that is going to be announced. It’s crowded and a little stuffy in the auditorium, but people around you are whispering to each other with an air of eager anticipation, their eyes glued to the stage. You realize that the person being introduced up on the podium is the President of the United States, and the award is the Presidential Medal of Freedom, which is only awarded to people or groups who have made “an especially meritorious contribution to the security or national interests of the United States, world peace, cultural, or other significant public or private endeavors.”

Today, the Medal is being awarded to the Society of Hospital Medicine on behalf of all hospital medicine leaders nationally, for their collective accomplishments in saving the specialty of hospital medicine and, by doing so, ensuring that sick people are able to continue receiving the care they need in our nation’s hospitals – and that the hospitals themselves have become reliably safe, efficient, and effective in achieving high quality outcomes.

The President says, “At no time in the history of this award until now have we given this, the highest civilian award in the land, to a whole group of physician leaders across an entire specialty. But the achievements of this group of people in preserving and even enhancing the presence of highly energized, dedicated, capable clinicians in our nation’s hospitals against the significant odds they have faced over the last 10 years is nothing short of extraordinary.” There is a standing ovation, as people jump up out of their chairs to cheer and applaud. When the applause finally dies down, the President goes on to list all the accomplishments that made this group of leaders deserving. Listen to what she is saying. Fill it in in your own mind. What is it that this group has accomplished?

[Brief silence]

Up on a huge screen beside the stage, a video starts. In it, there are several hospital and physician executives in a focus group, and one exec says, “The thing that is great about what these leaders have accomplished in the field of hospital medicine is…” Fill it in – what did that executive say? Another leader jumps in: “That’s all fine and wonderful, but the thing that really makes hospital medicine stand out today compared to where they were 10 years ago is…” Listen to what these executives are saying. What accomplishments are they praising?

The video then moves on to show a focus group of recent hospital patients. One patient says, “10 years ago when my mom was in the hospital, the poor hospitalists caring for her seemed completely overwhelmed and burnt out, and the whole care system seemed fragmented and inefficient; but my own recent hospital experience was so different because…” Additional patients chime in, talking about how confident they felt about the care they received in the hospital and the reasons for that. What is it these patients are describing?

SHM’s CEO gets up to accept the award and explains that 10 years ago, a group of multi-site hospital medicine leaders from across the country came together to begin addressing the issue of sustainability; this led to a formal process for developing a vision and a plan for the future of hospital medicine, and the execution of that plan eventually resulted in the outcomes recognized by this award. She acknowledges that over the years many people questioned whether the hospital medicine model should even continue to exist or whether some other model for inpatient care should be adopted. She talks about all the compelling reasons that supported the continued existence of the specialty of hospital medicine. What are some of the reasons she listed? The SHM CEO goes on to describe some of the key things that were done to address the issues associated with sustainability of the hospital medicine practice model. Listen to what she says; what was it that SHM and the hospital leaders it represents did?

As you are leaving the auditorium, you overhear a group of mid-career staff hospitalists talking. They are saying that they didn’t originally believe the specialty would actually change, and they weren’t sure if they could do this job for a career – but that it did change. They begin talking about what it feels like to work as a hospitalist now, and how these changes have improved their lives. Listen to what they are saying. How does it feel to work as a hospitalist?

As you leave the auditorium and go back to your desk, you sit down to record some of the things you heard. What was it the President of the US said as she presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom? Why did SHM and the hospital medicine leaders it represents deserve the award? What was it that the SHM CEO said was done to bring about the successful changes? What did the staff hospitalists say about working in the specialty?

Whenever you are ready, take a minute to jot down the specifics that came to mind as you read through this exercise. If you are willing to share your thoughts about sustainability in hospital medicine, I’d love to hear from you. Feel free to email me directly at [email protected].

Let’s build the foundation for a sustainable future for our specialty.

Ms. Flores is a partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, La Quinta, Calif. She serves on SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee, and helps to coordinate SHM’s bi-annual State of Hospital Medicine Survey. This article appeared originally in SHM’s official blog The Hospital Leader.

To solve our most pressing national health issues, we must start locally, according to a Health Affairs blog post.

“For example, in [Mecklenburg County] North Carolina, African Americans face rates of cardiovascular disease 22% higher than their white counterparts do. To fight this, an organization called Village HeartBEAT joined forces with more than 60 faith-based groups to reach more than 20,000 people – connecting them with health resources to reduce their cardiovascular risk. As a direct result, rates of smoking decreased from 17.4% to 13.9%, and obesity rates fell from 70% to 64.7%.”

Mecklenburg County is a winner of the Healthiest Cities & Counties Challenge, a collaboration between the Aetna Foundation, the American Public Health Association, and the National Association of Counties, which has awarded more than $1.5 million in grants and prizes over the last 2 years.

Reference

1. Graham G, Benjamin G. “Winning Local Solutions to Our Most Pressing Public Health Needs.” Health Affairs. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190423.202497/full/. Published April 25, 2019.

To solve our most pressing national health issues, we must start locally, according to a Health Affairs blog post.

“For example, in [Mecklenburg County] North Carolina, African Americans face rates of cardiovascular disease 22% higher than their white counterparts do. To fight this, an organization called Village HeartBEAT joined forces with more than 60 faith-based groups to reach more than 20,000 people – connecting them with health resources to reduce their cardiovascular risk. As a direct result, rates of smoking decreased from 17.4% to 13.9%, and obesity rates fell from 70% to 64.7%.”

Mecklenburg County is a winner of the Healthiest Cities & Counties Challenge, a collaboration between the Aetna Foundation, the American Public Health Association, and the National Association of Counties, which has awarded more than $1.5 million in grants and prizes over the last 2 years.

Reference

1. Graham G, Benjamin G. “Winning Local Solutions to Our Most Pressing Public Health Needs.” Health Affairs. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190423.202497/full/. Published April 25, 2019.

To solve our most pressing national health issues, we must start locally, according to a Health Affairs blog post.

“For example, in [Mecklenburg County] North Carolina, African Americans face rates of cardiovascular disease 22% higher than their white counterparts do. To fight this, an organization called Village HeartBEAT joined forces with more than 60 faith-based groups to reach more than 20,000 people – connecting them with health resources to reduce their cardiovascular risk. As a direct result, rates of smoking decreased from 17.4% to 13.9%, and obesity rates fell from 70% to 64.7%.”

Mecklenburg County is a winner of the Healthiest Cities & Counties Challenge, a collaboration between the Aetna Foundation, the American Public Health Association, and the National Association of Counties, which has awarded more than $1.5 million in grants and prizes over the last 2 years.

Reference

1. Graham G, Benjamin G. “Winning Local Solutions to Our Most Pressing Public Health Needs.” Health Affairs. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190423.202497/full/. Published April 25, 2019.

LOS ANGELES – Patients with diabetes had significantly higher adjusted risk of bleeding, cardiovascular-related death, and poorer net outcomes, particularly those treated with insulin, a subanalysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial has shown.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of the study drug, edoxaban – a novel oral anticoagulant drug and a direct factor Xa inhibitor – was generally similar in patients with and without diabetes.

“We know that atrial fibrillation is associated with a fivefold increased risk of stroke,” Anna Plitt, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “Type 2 diabetes is associated with a twofold increased risk of stroke, and longer duration of diabetes is associated with even higher ischemic event rates. The coexistence of [atrial fibrillation] and type 2 diabetes further increases thromboembolic risk.”

Dr. Plitt, a cardiology fellow at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, noted that, although type 2 diabetes is characterized by a prothrombotic and inflammatory state, the mechanism of action by which hyperglycemia and/or insulin resistance leads to the development of atrial fibrillation (AFib) remains unknown. “Given the complex clinical interactions between AFib and type 2 diabetes, care for these patients remains challenging,” she said. “Recommendations for anticoagulation managements vary based on the presence of additional risk factors and which guidelines are followed.”

In the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, 21,105 patients with documented AFib within the previous 12 months were randomized to standard-care warfarin or high-dose edoxaban (60 mg daily) or low-dose edoxaban (30 mg daily). The edoxaban dose was reduced by 50% if creatinine clearance reached 30-50 mL/min, patient weight reached 60 kg or less, or there was concomitant use of a P-glycoprotein inhibitor (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2093-104). The median follow-up was 2.8 years, and the primary efficacy endpoint was stroke or systemic embolic events (SEEs). The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria.

The findings showed that edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin in preventing stroke/SEEs. It also significantly reduced major bleeding, cardiovascular death, and net outcomes. “Therefore, the higher dose of edoxaban was approved globally for treating patients with AFib,” Dr. Plitt said. “The lower-dose regimen was not approved because there was less protection from ischemic stroke, compared with warfarin.”

For the current subanalysis, Dr. Plitt and colleagues set out to further evaluate outcomes of patients enrolled in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, excluding those who were in the low-dose edoxaban group. The presence or absence of diabetes was determined by the local investigator at randomization. The investigators further stratified patients into insulin-treated and non–insulin treated groups and used multivariate Cox regression models to adjust for baseline characteristics across the groups stratified by diabetes status. Next, they analyzed edoxaban concentration, anti–factor Xa activity, and international normalized ratio data and compared outcomes of high-dose edoxaban with those of warfarin.

The primary endpoint and the primary safety endpoint of interest were the same as in the main ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial. Key secondary endpoints included in the subanalysis were cardiovascular death, stroke/SEE, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, SEE, or death because of cardiovascular cause or bleeding), and all-cause death.

In all, 7,624 of the 21,105 patients in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial had diabetes, for a rate of 36%. Most of the patients with diabetes did not require insulin (30%), while 6% did. There were fewer female patients with diabetes than without (37% vs. 39%, respectively). Of note was that history of prior stroke/transient ischemic attack was higher in the no-diabetes group than in the diabetes group (33% vs. 21%), as was congestive heart failure (63% vs. 48%).

The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score for predicting thromboembolic risk (0, low risk; greater than 1, high risk) was 4.6 in the diabetes group and 4.2 in the no-diabetes group. When diabetes was not included in the score, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.6 in the diabetes group. “Because the trial entry criteria required a minimum CHADS2 score of 2, patients without diabetes were enriched with stroke risk factors other than diabetes,” Dr. Plitt said.

Adjusted outcomes from the subanalysis showed that the risk of stroke/SEE was similar between patients with and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 1.08). However, patients with diabetes were at higher adjusted risk for cardiovascular death than patients without diabetes (HR, 1.29), MACE (HR, 1.28), major bleed (HR, 1.28), and the net outcome of stroke, SEE, major bleed, or all-cause death (HR, 1.25).

The researchers also analyzed the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data of high-dose edoxaban, stratified by diabetes status. They found that the parameters were generally similar between patients with and without diabetes, including trough concentrations of edoxaban (34.3 and 37.2 ng/mL, respectively; P = .04), trough exogenous anti–factor Xa activity (0.59 and 0.68 IU/mL; P = .11), and the percentage change from baseline in the peak endogenous anti–factor Xa activity (P = .66). The percentage changes from baseline of the trough endogenous anti–factor Xa activity was slightly lower in patients with diabetes, compared with patients without diabetes (P less than .001). “However, these modest differences between the two groups are of unclear clinical significance,” Dr. Plitt said.

Results from the main ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 showed that the rates of stroke/SEE were reduced by 13% on high-dose edoxaban. However, the subanalysis found no significant effect modification in the reduction in stroke/SEE with edoxaban, compared with warfarin, when stratified by diabetes status (reductions of 16% vs. 7% in the no-diabetes and diabetes groups, respectively; P for interaction = .54). The researchers also observed similar reductions with edoxaban in the risks of secondary outcomes when patients were stratified by diabetes status.

In another finding, patients with diabetes who were treated with insulin were at a higher adjusted risk for all outcomes, compared with those with diabetes who were not treated with insulin. This included stroke/SEE (HR, 1.44), cardiovascular-related death (HR, 1.83), MACE (HR, 1.78), major bleed (HR, 1.31), and net outcome (HR, 1.57).

Next, the researchers compared the study endpoints of high-dose edoxaban and warfarin, with and without insulin. “None of the efficacy, safety, or net outcomes demonstrated evidence of treatment effect modification related to the use of insulin among [patients with diabetes],” she said.

Dr. Plitt disclosed having received honoraria for educational activities from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Patients with diabetes had significantly higher adjusted risk of bleeding, cardiovascular-related death, and poorer net outcomes, particularly those treated with insulin, a subanalysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial has shown.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of the study drug, edoxaban – a novel oral anticoagulant drug and a direct factor Xa inhibitor – was generally similar in patients with and without diabetes.

“We know that atrial fibrillation is associated with a fivefold increased risk of stroke,” Anna Plitt, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “Type 2 diabetes is associated with a twofold increased risk of stroke, and longer duration of diabetes is associated with even higher ischemic event rates. The coexistence of [atrial fibrillation] and type 2 diabetes further increases thromboembolic risk.”

Dr. Plitt, a cardiology fellow at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, noted that, although type 2 diabetes is characterized by a prothrombotic and inflammatory state, the mechanism of action by which hyperglycemia and/or insulin resistance leads to the development of atrial fibrillation (AFib) remains unknown. “Given the complex clinical interactions between AFib and type 2 diabetes, care for these patients remains challenging,” she said. “Recommendations for anticoagulation managements vary based on the presence of additional risk factors and which guidelines are followed.”

In the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, 21,105 patients with documented AFib within the previous 12 months were randomized to standard-care warfarin or high-dose edoxaban (60 mg daily) or low-dose edoxaban (30 mg daily). The edoxaban dose was reduced by 50% if creatinine clearance reached 30-50 mL/min, patient weight reached 60 kg or less, or there was concomitant use of a P-glycoprotein inhibitor (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2093-104). The median follow-up was 2.8 years, and the primary efficacy endpoint was stroke or systemic embolic events (SEEs). The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria.

The findings showed that edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin in preventing stroke/SEEs. It also significantly reduced major bleeding, cardiovascular death, and net outcomes. “Therefore, the higher dose of edoxaban was approved globally for treating patients with AFib,” Dr. Plitt said. “The lower-dose regimen was not approved because there was less protection from ischemic stroke, compared with warfarin.”

For the current subanalysis, Dr. Plitt and colleagues set out to further evaluate outcomes of patients enrolled in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, excluding those who were in the low-dose edoxaban group. The presence or absence of diabetes was determined by the local investigator at randomization. The investigators further stratified patients into insulin-treated and non–insulin treated groups and used multivariate Cox regression models to adjust for baseline characteristics across the groups stratified by diabetes status. Next, they analyzed edoxaban concentration, anti–factor Xa activity, and international normalized ratio data and compared outcomes of high-dose edoxaban with those of warfarin.

The primary endpoint and the primary safety endpoint of interest were the same as in the main ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial. Key secondary endpoints included in the subanalysis were cardiovascular death, stroke/SEE, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, SEE, or death because of cardiovascular cause or bleeding), and all-cause death.

In all, 7,624 of the 21,105 patients in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial had diabetes, for a rate of 36%. Most of the patients with diabetes did not require insulin (30%), while 6% did. There were fewer female patients with diabetes than without (37% vs. 39%, respectively). Of note was that history of prior stroke/transient ischemic attack was higher in the no-diabetes group than in the diabetes group (33% vs. 21%), as was congestive heart failure (63% vs. 48%).

The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score for predicting thromboembolic risk (0, low risk; greater than 1, high risk) was 4.6 in the diabetes group and 4.2 in the no-diabetes group. When diabetes was not included in the score, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.6 in the diabetes group. “Because the trial entry criteria required a minimum CHADS2 score of 2, patients without diabetes were enriched with stroke risk factors other than diabetes,” Dr. Plitt said.

Adjusted outcomes from the subanalysis showed that the risk of stroke/SEE was similar between patients with and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 1.08). However, patients with diabetes were at higher adjusted risk for cardiovascular death than patients without diabetes (HR, 1.29), MACE (HR, 1.28), major bleed (HR, 1.28), and the net outcome of stroke, SEE, major bleed, or all-cause death (HR, 1.25).

The researchers also analyzed the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data of high-dose edoxaban, stratified by diabetes status. They found that the parameters were generally similar between patients with and without diabetes, including trough concentrations of edoxaban (34.3 and 37.2 ng/mL, respectively; P = .04), trough exogenous anti–factor Xa activity (0.59 and 0.68 IU/mL; P = .11), and the percentage change from baseline in the peak endogenous anti–factor Xa activity (P = .66). The percentage changes from baseline of the trough endogenous anti–factor Xa activity was slightly lower in patients with diabetes, compared with patients without diabetes (P less than .001). “However, these modest differences between the two groups are of unclear clinical significance,” Dr. Plitt said.

Results from the main ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 showed that the rates of stroke/SEE were reduced by 13% on high-dose edoxaban. However, the subanalysis found no significant effect modification in the reduction in stroke/SEE with edoxaban, compared with warfarin, when stratified by diabetes status (reductions of 16% vs. 7% in the no-diabetes and diabetes groups, respectively; P for interaction = .54). The researchers also observed similar reductions with edoxaban in the risks of secondary outcomes when patients were stratified by diabetes status.

In another finding, patients with diabetes who were treated with insulin were at a higher adjusted risk for all outcomes, compared with those with diabetes who were not treated with insulin. This included stroke/SEE (HR, 1.44), cardiovascular-related death (HR, 1.83), MACE (HR, 1.78), major bleed (HR, 1.31), and net outcome (HR, 1.57).

Next, the researchers compared the study endpoints of high-dose edoxaban and warfarin, with and without insulin. “None of the efficacy, safety, or net outcomes demonstrated evidence of treatment effect modification related to the use of insulin among [patients with diabetes],” she said.

Dr. Plitt disclosed having received honoraria for educational activities from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – Patients with diabetes had significantly higher adjusted risk of bleeding, cardiovascular-related death, and poorer net outcomes, particularly those treated with insulin, a subanalysis of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial has shown.

Doug Brunk/MDedge News

In addition, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of the study drug, edoxaban – a novel oral anticoagulant drug and a direct factor Xa inhibitor – was generally similar in patients with and without diabetes.

“We know that atrial fibrillation is associated with a fivefold increased risk of stroke,” Anna Plitt, MD, said at the World Congress on Insulin Resistance, Diabetes & Cardiovascular Disease. “Type 2 diabetes is associated with a twofold increased risk of stroke, and longer duration of diabetes is associated with even higher ischemic event rates. The coexistence of [atrial fibrillation] and type 2 diabetes further increases thromboembolic risk.”

Dr. Plitt, a cardiology fellow at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, noted that, although type 2 diabetes is characterized by a prothrombotic and inflammatory state, the mechanism of action by which hyperglycemia and/or insulin resistance leads to the development of atrial fibrillation (AFib) remains unknown. “Given the complex clinical interactions between AFib and type 2 diabetes, care for these patients remains challenging,” she said. “Recommendations for anticoagulation managements vary based on the presence of additional risk factors and which guidelines are followed.”

In the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, 21,105 patients with documented AFib within the previous 12 months were randomized to standard-care warfarin or high-dose edoxaban (60 mg daily) or low-dose edoxaban (30 mg daily). The edoxaban dose was reduced by 50% if creatinine clearance reached 30-50 mL/min, patient weight reached 60 kg or less, or there was concomitant use of a P-glycoprotein inhibitor (N Engl J Med. 2013;369:2093-104). The median follow-up was 2.8 years, and the primary efficacy endpoint was stroke or systemic embolic events (SEEs). The primary safety endpoint was major bleeding, as defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria.

The findings showed that edoxaban was noninferior to warfarin in preventing stroke/SEEs. It also significantly reduced major bleeding, cardiovascular death, and net outcomes. “Therefore, the higher dose of edoxaban was approved globally for treating patients with AFib,” Dr. Plitt said. “The lower-dose regimen was not approved because there was less protection from ischemic stroke, compared with warfarin.”

For the current subanalysis, Dr. Plitt and colleagues set out to further evaluate outcomes of patients enrolled in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial, excluding those who were in the low-dose edoxaban group. The presence or absence of diabetes was determined by the local investigator at randomization. The investigators further stratified patients into insulin-treated and non–insulin treated groups and used multivariate Cox regression models to adjust for baseline characteristics across the groups stratified by diabetes status. Next, they analyzed edoxaban concentration, anti–factor Xa activity, and international normalized ratio data and compared outcomes of high-dose edoxaban with those of warfarin.

The primary endpoint and the primary safety endpoint of interest were the same as in the main ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial. Key secondary endpoints included in the subanalysis were cardiovascular death, stroke/SEE, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, SEE, or death because of cardiovascular cause or bleeding), and all-cause death.

In all, 7,624 of the 21,105 patients in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial had diabetes, for a rate of 36%. Most of the patients with diabetes did not require insulin (30%), while 6% did. There were fewer female patients with diabetes than without (37% vs. 39%, respectively). Of note was that history of prior stroke/transient ischemic attack was higher in the no-diabetes group than in the diabetes group (33% vs. 21%), as was congestive heart failure (63% vs. 48%).

The mean CHA2DS2-VASc score for predicting thromboembolic risk (0, low risk; greater than 1, high risk) was 4.6 in the diabetes group and 4.2 in the no-diabetes group. When diabetes was not included in the score, the mean CHA2DS2-VASc score was 3.6 in the diabetes group. “Because the trial entry criteria required a minimum CHADS2 score of 2, patients without diabetes were enriched with stroke risk factors other than diabetes,” Dr. Plitt said.

Adjusted outcomes from the subanalysis showed that the risk of stroke/SEE was similar between patients with and without diabetes (hazard ratio, 1.08). However, patients with diabetes were at higher adjusted risk for cardiovascular death than patients without diabetes (HR, 1.29), MACE (HR, 1.28), major bleed (HR, 1.28), and the net outcome of stroke, SEE, major bleed, or all-cause death (HR, 1.25).

The researchers also analyzed the pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic data of high-dose edoxaban, stratified by diabetes status. They found that the parameters were generally similar between patients with and without diabetes, including trough concentrations of edoxaban (34.3 and 37.2 ng/mL, respectively; P = .04), trough exogenous anti–factor Xa activity (0.59 and 0.68 IU/mL; P = .11), and the percentage change from baseline in the peak endogenous anti–factor Xa activity (P = .66). The percentage changes from baseline of the trough endogenous anti–factor Xa activity was slightly lower in patients with diabetes, compared with patients without diabetes (P less than .001). “However, these modest differences between the two groups are of unclear clinical significance,” Dr. Plitt said.

Results from the main ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 showed that the rates of stroke/SEE were reduced by 13% on high-dose edoxaban. However, the subanalysis found no significant effect modification in the reduction in stroke/SEE with edoxaban, compared with warfarin, when stratified by diabetes status (reductions of 16% vs. 7% in the no-diabetes and diabetes groups, respectively; P for interaction = .54). The researchers also observed similar reductions with edoxaban in the risks of secondary outcomes when patients were stratified by diabetes status.

In another finding, patients with diabetes who were treated with insulin were at a higher adjusted risk for all outcomes, compared with those with diabetes who were not treated with insulin. This included stroke/SEE (HR, 1.44), cardiovascular-related death (HR, 1.83), MACE (HR, 1.78), major bleed (HR, 1.31), and net outcome (HR, 1.57).

Next, the researchers compared the study endpoints of high-dose edoxaban and warfarin, with and without insulin. “None of the efficacy, safety, or net outcomes demonstrated evidence of treatment effect modification related to the use of insulin among [patients with diabetes],” she said.

Dr. Plitt disclosed having received honoraria for educational activities from Bristol-Myers Squibb.

[email protected]

It is a well-known fact that health care expenditure in the United States occupies a large proportion of its gross domestic product. In fact, it was 17.8% in 2016, almost twice what is expended in other advanced countries. However, this expenditure does not necessarily translate into optimal patient outcomes.

In 2012, the Institute of Medicine reported that the U.S. health care system wastes $750 billion per year in spending that does not provide any meaningful outcome to patients or the system; and patients can also suffer a financial impact from the delivery of low-value care.

In 2013, the Pediatrics Committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine published five recommendations through the Choosing Wisely® campaign aimed to decrease the use of low-value interventions. These recommendations were:

1. Do not order chest radiographs (CXR) in children with asthma or bronchiolitis.

2. Do not use systemic corticosteroids in children aged under 2 years with a lower respiratory tract infection.

3. Do not use bronchodilators in children with bronchiolitis.

4. Do not treat gastroesophageal reflux in infants routinely with acid suppression therapy.

5. Do not use continuous pulse oximetry routinely in children with acute respiratory illness unless they are on supplemental oxygen.

This publication led to the implementation of quality improvement initiatives across different hospitals and institutions nationally. Eventually, a team of hospitalists developed a report card that could help measure the utilization of these interventions in hospitals that were part of the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA). The data stemming from the report card analysis would allow for benchmarking and comparing performance, as well as determining the secular trend in utilization of these procedures across the different institutions of the CHA.

Reyes et al. recently published the impact of utilization of these scorecards among all hospital members of the CHA in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, noting a positive impact of the SHM Choosing Wisely® recommendation in decreasing the utilization of low-value interventions. The authors compared the performance before and after the publication of the recommendations for a 9-year period (2008-2017). The most relevant impact occurred in children with bronchiolitis, with a decrease of 36% of bronchodilator use and of 31% in CXR utilization. In children with asthma, CXR utilization decreased by 20.8%. The authors found that, although there was a steady decrease in the utilization of low-value services, this was still limited.

What factors could impact the effectiveness of high-value quality initiatives? First of all, quality improvement requires a substantial investment of collective effort and time. It requires a change in culture that often involves changing longstanding paradigms. The Choosing Wisely® recommendations target a very specific, low-clinical-severity population – the focus is on “uncomplicated” disease. This is important as you don’t want to pursue aggressive unnecessary intervention in children and potentially cause harm – for example, unnecessary use of steroids in a child with uncomplicated bronchiolitis who may improve with nasal suctioning alone. There is a need to appraise patients with more complex presentation of these diseases (for example, patients that require escalation of care to ICU), and this is beyond the scope of Choosing Wisely®. Further research is needed to see if higher-value care interventions can be implemented among these higher acuity and severity patients.

In our institution, we have created specific care paths that facilitate following these recommendations. Essentially, we have leveraged the EHR order sets to avoid the inclusion of low-value interventions; all stakeholders (respiratory therapy, nursing, etc.) are aware of the care path and ensure compliance. Even further, as a consequence of the change in culture toward high-value care, we have identified low-value interventions in settings where high-value quality improvement can be implemented – for example, we found that at least 20% of noncritically ill children undergoing an appendectomy receive unnecessary antacid prophylaxis treatment.

Changes always start small; quality improvement requires a lot of effort, and we must focus our energy on “low-hanging fruit,” and also begin tackling higher complexity tasks. In the Choosing Wisely® manuscript cited above, the authors found that there was a change in performance with a tendency toward higher-value care, yet the change was not as substantial as originally thought.

How can we tackle higher complexity tasks if we find it difficult to implement solutions for those of lower complexity? My answer is simple. Maintain a consistent and continuous focus on high value, and ensure the message is iterative and redundant with feedback on performance, decrease in costs, and enhanced patient outcomes.

Dr. Auron is the quality improvement and patient safety officer in the department of hospital medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. He also serves as associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the staff department of hospital medicine and department of pediatric hospital medicine. This article first appeared on the Hospital Leader, SHM’s official blog, at hospitalleader.org.

It is a well-known fact that health care expenditure in the United States occupies a large proportion of its gross domestic product. In fact, it was 17.8% in 2016, almost twice what is expended in other advanced countries. However, this expenditure does not necessarily translate into optimal patient outcomes.

In 2012, the Institute of Medicine reported that the U.S. health care system wastes $750 billion per year in spending that does not provide any meaningful outcome to patients or the system; and patients can also suffer a financial impact from the delivery of low-value care.

In 2013, the Pediatrics Committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine published five recommendations through the Choosing Wisely® campaign aimed to decrease the use of low-value interventions. These recommendations were:

1. Do not order chest radiographs (CXR) in children with asthma or bronchiolitis.

2. Do not use systemic corticosteroids in children aged under 2 years with a lower respiratory tract infection.

3. Do not use bronchodilators in children with bronchiolitis.

4. Do not treat gastroesophageal reflux in infants routinely with acid suppression therapy.

5. Do not use continuous pulse oximetry routinely in children with acute respiratory illness unless they are on supplemental oxygen.

This publication led to the implementation of quality improvement initiatives across different hospitals and institutions nationally. Eventually, a team of hospitalists developed a report card that could help measure the utilization of these interventions in hospitals that were part of the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA). The data stemming from the report card analysis would allow for benchmarking and comparing performance, as well as determining the secular trend in utilization of these procedures across the different institutions of the CHA.

Reyes et al. recently published the impact of utilization of these scorecards among all hospital members of the CHA in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, noting a positive impact of the SHM Choosing Wisely® recommendation in decreasing the utilization of low-value interventions. The authors compared the performance before and after the publication of the recommendations for a 9-year period (2008-2017). The most relevant impact occurred in children with bronchiolitis, with a decrease of 36% of bronchodilator use and of 31% in CXR utilization. In children with asthma, CXR utilization decreased by 20.8%. The authors found that, although there was a steady decrease in the utilization of low-value services, this was still limited.

What factors could impact the effectiveness of high-value quality initiatives? First of all, quality improvement requires a substantial investment of collective effort and time. It requires a change in culture that often involves changing longstanding paradigms. The Choosing Wisely® recommendations target a very specific, low-clinical-severity population – the focus is on “uncomplicated” disease. This is important as you don’t want to pursue aggressive unnecessary intervention in children and potentially cause harm – for example, unnecessary use of steroids in a child with uncomplicated bronchiolitis who may improve with nasal suctioning alone. There is a need to appraise patients with more complex presentation of these diseases (for example, patients that require escalation of care to ICU), and this is beyond the scope of Choosing Wisely®. Further research is needed to see if higher-value care interventions can be implemented among these higher acuity and severity patients.

In our institution, we have created specific care paths that facilitate following these recommendations. Essentially, we have leveraged the EHR order sets to avoid the inclusion of low-value interventions; all stakeholders (respiratory therapy, nursing, etc.) are aware of the care path and ensure compliance. Even further, as a consequence of the change in culture toward high-value care, we have identified low-value interventions in settings where high-value quality improvement can be implemented – for example, we found that at least 20% of noncritically ill children undergoing an appendectomy receive unnecessary antacid prophylaxis treatment.

Changes always start small; quality improvement requires a lot of effort, and we must focus our energy on “low-hanging fruit,” and also begin tackling higher complexity tasks. In the Choosing Wisely® manuscript cited above, the authors found that there was a change in performance with a tendency toward higher-value care, yet the change was not as substantial as originally thought.

How can we tackle higher complexity tasks if we find it difficult to implement solutions for those of lower complexity? My answer is simple. Maintain a consistent and continuous focus on high value, and ensure the message is iterative and redundant with feedback on performance, decrease in costs, and enhanced patient outcomes.

Dr. Auron is the quality improvement and patient safety officer in the department of hospital medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. He also serves as associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the staff department of hospital medicine and department of pediatric hospital medicine. This article first appeared on the Hospital Leader, SHM’s official blog, at hospitalleader.org.

It is a well-known fact that health care expenditure in the United States occupies a large proportion of its gross domestic product. In fact, it was 17.8% in 2016, almost twice what is expended in other advanced countries. However, this expenditure does not necessarily translate into optimal patient outcomes.

In 2012, the Institute of Medicine reported that the U.S. health care system wastes $750 billion per year in spending that does not provide any meaningful outcome to patients or the system; and patients can also suffer a financial impact from the delivery of low-value care.

In 2013, the Pediatrics Committee of the Society of Hospital Medicine published five recommendations through the Choosing Wisely® campaign aimed to decrease the use of low-value interventions. These recommendations were:

1. Do not order chest radiographs (CXR) in children with asthma or bronchiolitis.

2. Do not use systemic corticosteroids in children aged under 2 years with a lower respiratory tract infection.

3. Do not use bronchodilators in children with bronchiolitis.

4. Do not treat gastroesophageal reflux in infants routinely with acid suppression therapy.

5. Do not use continuous pulse oximetry routinely in children with acute respiratory illness unless they are on supplemental oxygen.

This publication led to the implementation of quality improvement initiatives across different hospitals and institutions nationally. Eventually, a team of hospitalists developed a report card that could help measure the utilization of these interventions in hospitals that were part of the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA). The data stemming from the report card analysis would allow for benchmarking and comparing performance, as well as determining the secular trend in utilization of these procedures across the different institutions of the CHA.

Reyes et al. recently published the impact of utilization of these scorecards among all hospital members of the CHA in the Journal of Hospital Medicine, noting a positive impact of the SHM Choosing Wisely® recommendation in decreasing the utilization of low-value interventions. The authors compared the performance before and after the publication of the recommendations for a 9-year period (2008-2017). The most relevant impact occurred in children with bronchiolitis, with a decrease of 36% of bronchodilator use and of 31% in CXR utilization. In children with asthma, CXR utilization decreased by 20.8%. The authors found that, although there was a steady decrease in the utilization of low-value services, this was still limited.

What factors could impact the effectiveness of high-value quality initiatives? First of all, quality improvement requires a substantial investment of collective effort and time. It requires a change in culture that often involves changing longstanding paradigms. The Choosing Wisely® recommendations target a very specific, low-clinical-severity population – the focus is on “uncomplicated” disease. This is important as you don’t want to pursue aggressive unnecessary intervention in children and potentially cause harm – for example, unnecessary use of steroids in a child with uncomplicated bronchiolitis who may improve with nasal suctioning alone. There is a need to appraise patients with more complex presentation of these diseases (for example, patients that require escalation of care to ICU), and this is beyond the scope of Choosing Wisely®. Further research is needed to see if higher-value care interventions can be implemented among these higher acuity and severity patients.

In our institution, we have created specific care paths that facilitate following these recommendations. Essentially, we have leveraged the EHR order sets to avoid the inclusion of low-value interventions; all stakeholders (respiratory therapy, nursing, etc.) are aware of the care path and ensure compliance. Even further, as a consequence of the change in culture toward high-value care, we have identified low-value interventions in settings where high-value quality improvement can be implemented – for example, we found that at least 20% of noncritically ill children undergoing an appendectomy receive unnecessary antacid prophylaxis treatment.

Changes always start small; quality improvement requires a lot of effort, and we must focus our energy on “low-hanging fruit,” and also begin tackling higher complexity tasks. In the Choosing Wisely® manuscript cited above, the authors found that there was a change in performance with a tendency toward higher-value care, yet the change was not as substantial as originally thought.

How can we tackle higher complexity tasks if we find it difficult to implement solutions for those of lower complexity? My answer is simple. Maintain a consistent and continuous focus on high value, and ensure the message is iterative and redundant with feedback on performance, decrease in costs, and enhanced patient outcomes.

Dr. Auron is the quality improvement and patient safety officer in the department of hospital medicine at the Cleveland Clinic. He also serves as associate professor of medicine and pediatrics in the staff department of hospital medicine and department of pediatric hospital medicine. This article first appeared on the Hospital Leader, SHM’s official blog, at hospitalleader.org.

You’ve probably heard of a “nocturnist,” but have you ever heard of a “weekendist?”

The field of hospital medicine (HM) has evolved dramatically since the term “hospitalist” was introduced in the literature in 1996.¹ There is a saying in HM that “if you know one HM program, you know one HM program,” alluding to the fact that every HM program is unique. The diversity of individual HM programs combined with the overall evolution of the field has expanded the range of jobs available in HM.

The nomenclature of adding an -ist to the end of the specific roles (e.g., nocturnist, weekendist) has become commonplace. These roles have developed with the increasing need for day and night staffing at many hospitals secondary to increased and more complex patients, less availability of residents because of work hour restrictions, and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) rules that require overnight supervision of residents

Additionally, the field of HM increasingly includes physicians trained in internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, and medicine-pediatrics (med-peds). In this article, we describe the variety of roles available to trainees joining HM and the multitude of different training backgrounds hospitalists come from.

Nocturnists

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report notes that 76.1% of adult-only HM groups have nocturnists, hospitalists who work primarily at night to admit and to provide coverage for admitted patients.² Nocturnists often provide benefit to the rest of their hospitalist group by allowing fewer required night shifts for those that prefer to work during the day.

Nocturnists may choose a nighttime schedule for several reasons, including the ability to be home more during the day. They also have the potential to work fewer total hours or shifts while still earning a similar or increased income, compared with predominantly daytime hospitalists, increasing their flexibility to pursue other interests. These nocturnists become experts in navigating the admission process and responding to inpatient emergencies often with less support when compared with daytime hospitalists.

In addition to career nocturnist work, nocturnist jobs can be a great fit for those residency graduates who are undecided about fellowship and enjoy the acuity of inpatient medicine. It provides an opportunity to hone their clinical skill set prior to specialized training while earning an attending salary, and offers flexible hours which may allow for research or other endeavors. In academic centers, nocturnist educational roles take on a different character as well and may involve more 1:1 educational experiences. The role of nocturnists as educators is expanding as ACGME rules call for more oversight and educational opportunities for residents who are working at night.

However, challenges exist for nocturnists, including keeping abreast of new changes in their HM groups and hospital systems and engaging in quality initiatives, given that most meetings occur during the day. Additionally, nocturnists must adapt to sleeping during the day, potentially getting less sleep then they would otherwise and being “off cycle” with family and friends. For nocturnists raising children, being off cycle may be advantageous as it can allow them to be home with their children after school.

Weekendists

Another common hospitalist role is the weekendist, hospitalists who spend much of their clinical time preferentially working weekends. Similar to nocturnists, weekendists provide benefit to their hospitalist group by allowing others to have more weekends off.

Weekendists may prefer working weekends because of fewer total shifts or hours and/or higher compensation per shift. Additionally, weekendists have the flexibility to do other work on weekdays, such as research or another hospitalist job. For those that do nonclinical work during the week, a weekendist position may allow them to keep their clinical skills up to date. However, weekendists may face intense clinical days with a higher census because of fewer hospitalists rounding on the weekends.

Weekendists must balance having more potential time available during the weekdays but less time on the weekends to devote to family and friends. Furthermore, weekendists may feel less engaged with nonclinical opportunities, including quality improvement, educational offerings, and teaching opportunities.

SNFists

With increasing emphasis on transitions of care and the desire to avoid readmission penalties, some hospitalists have transitioned to work partly or primarily in skilled nursing facilities (SNF) and have been referred to as “SNFists.” Some of these hospitalists may split their clinical time between SNFs and acute care hospitals, while others may work exclusively at SNFs.

SNFists have the potential to be invaluable in improving transitions of care after discharge to post–acute care facilities because of increased provider presence in these facilities, comfort with medically complex patients, and appreciation of government regulations.⁴ SNFists may face potential challenges of needing to staff more than one post–acute care hospital and of having less resources available, compared with an acute care hospital.

Specific specialty hospitalists

For a variety of reasons including clinical interest, many hospitalists have become specialized with regards to their primary inpatient population. Some hospitalists spend the majority of their clinical time on a specific service in the hospital, often working closely with the subspecialist caring for that patient. These hospitalists may focus on hematology, oncology, bone-marrow transplant, neurology, cardiology, surgery services, or critical care, among others. Hospitalists focused on a specific service often become knowledge experts in that specialty. Conversely, by focusing on a specific service, certain pathologies may be less commonly seen, which may narrow the breadth of the hospital medicine job.

Hospitalist training

Internal medicine hospitalists may be the most common hospitalists encountered in many hospitals and at each Society of Hospital Medicine annual conference, but there has also been rapid growth in hospitalists from other specialties and backgrounds.

Family medicine hospitalists are a part of 64.9% of HM groups and about 9% of family medicine graduates are choosing HM as a career path.^2,3 Most family medicine hospitalists work in adult HM groups, but some, particularly in rural or academic settings, care for pediatric, newborn, and/or maternity patients. Similarly, pediatric hospitalists have become entrenched at many hospitals where children are admitted. These pediatric hospitalists, like adult hospitalists, may work in a variety of different clinical roles including in EDs, newborn nurseries, and inpatient wards or ICUs; they may also provide consult, sedation, or procedural services.

Med-peds hospitalists that split time between internal medicine and pediatrics are becoming more commonplace in the field. Many work at academic centers where they often work on each side separately, doing the same work as their internal medicine or pediatrics colleagues, and then switching to the other side after a period of time. Some centers offer unique roles for med-peds hospitalists including working on adult consult teams in children’s hospitals, where they provide consult care to older patients that may still receive their care at a children’s hospital. There are also nonacademic hospitals that primarily staff med-peds hospitalists, where they can provide the full spectrum of care from the newborn nursery to the inpatient pediatric and adult wards.

Hospital medicine is a young field that is constantly changing with new and developing roles for hospitalists from a wide variety of backgrounds. Stick around to see which “-ist” will come next in HM.

Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Dr. Sanyal-Dey is an academic hospitalist at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center and the University of California, San Francisco, where she is the director of clinical operations, and director of the faculty inpatient service. Dr. Chang is associate professor and interprofessional education thread director (MD curriculum) at Washington University, St. Louis. Dr. Kwan is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and associate professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is the chair of SHM’s Physicians in Training committee. Dr. Seymour is family medicine hospitalist education director at the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts.

References

1. Wachter RM, Goldman L. The Emerging Role of “Hospitalists” in the American Health Care System. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(7):514-7.

2. 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report. Philadelphia: Society of Hospital Medicine, 2018.

3. Weaver SP, Hill J. Academician Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding the Use of Hospitalists: A CERA Study. Fam Med. 2015;47(5):357-61.

4. Teno JM et al. Temporal Trends in the Numbers of Skilled Nursing Facility Specialists From 2007 Through 2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(9):1376-8.

You’ve probably heard of a “nocturnist,” but have you ever heard of a “weekendist?”

The field of hospital medicine (HM) has evolved dramatically since the term “hospitalist” was introduced in the literature in 1996.¹ There is a saying in HM that “if you know one HM program, you know one HM program,” alluding to the fact that every HM program is unique. The diversity of individual HM programs combined with the overall evolution of the field has expanded the range of jobs available in HM.

The nomenclature of adding an -ist to the end of the specific roles (e.g., nocturnist, weekendist) has become commonplace. These roles have developed with the increasing need for day and night staffing at many hospitals secondary to increased and more complex patients, less availability of residents because of work hour restrictions, and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) rules that require overnight supervision of residents

Additionally, the field of HM increasingly includes physicians trained in internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, and medicine-pediatrics (med-peds). In this article, we describe the variety of roles available to trainees joining HM and the multitude of different training backgrounds hospitalists come from.

Nocturnists

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report notes that 76.1% of adult-only HM groups have nocturnists, hospitalists who work primarily at night to admit and to provide coverage for admitted patients.² Nocturnists often provide benefit to the rest of their hospitalist group by allowing fewer required night shifts for those that prefer to work during the day.

Nocturnists may choose a nighttime schedule for several reasons, including the ability to be home more during the day. They also have the potential to work fewer total hours or shifts while still earning a similar or increased income, compared with predominantly daytime hospitalists, increasing their flexibility to pursue other interests. These nocturnists become experts in navigating the admission process and responding to inpatient emergencies often with less support when compared with daytime hospitalists.

In addition to career nocturnist work, nocturnist jobs can be a great fit for those residency graduates who are undecided about fellowship and enjoy the acuity of inpatient medicine. It provides an opportunity to hone their clinical skill set prior to specialized training while earning an attending salary, and offers flexible hours which may allow for research or other endeavors. In academic centers, nocturnist educational roles take on a different character as well and may involve more 1:1 educational experiences. The role of nocturnists as educators is expanding as ACGME rules call for more oversight and educational opportunities for residents who are working at night.

However, challenges exist for nocturnists, including keeping abreast of new changes in their HM groups and hospital systems and engaging in quality initiatives, given that most meetings occur during the day. Additionally, nocturnists must adapt to sleeping during the day, potentially getting less sleep then they would otherwise and being “off cycle” with family and friends. For nocturnists raising children, being off cycle may be advantageous as it can allow them to be home with their children after school.

Weekendists

Another common hospitalist role is the weekendist, hospitalists who spend much of their clinical time preferentially working weekends. Similar to nocturnists, weekendists provide benefit to their hospitalist group by allowing others to have more weekends off.

Weekendists may prefer working weekends because of fewer total shifts or hours and/or higher compensation per shift. Additionally, weekendists have the flexibility to do other work on weekdays, such as research or another hospitalist job. For those that do nonclinical work during the week, a weekendist position may allow them to keep their clinical skills up to date. However, weekendists may face intense clinical days with a higher census because of fewer hospitalists rounding on the weekends.

Weekendists must balance having more potential time available during the weekdays but less time on the weekends to devote to family and friends. Furthermore, weekendists may feel less engaged with nonclinical opportunities, including quality improvement, educational offerings, and teaching opportunities.

SNFists

With increasing emphasis on transitions of care and the desire to avoid readmission penalties, some hospitalists have transitioned to work partly or primarily in skilled nursing facilities (SNF) and have been referred to as “SNFists.” Some of these hospitalists may split their clinical time between SNFs and acute care hospitals, while others may work exclusively at SNFs.

SNFists have the potential to be invaluable in improving transitions of care after discharge to post–acute care facilities because of increased provider presence in these facilities, comfort with medically complex patients, and appreciation of government regulations.⁴ SNFists may face potential challenges of needing to staff more than one post–acute care hospital and of having less resources available, compared with an acute care hospital.

Specific specialty hospitalists

For a variety of reasons including clinical interest, many hospitalists have become specialized with regards to their primary inpatient population. Some hospitalists spend the majority of their clinical time on a specific service in the hospital, often working closely with the subspecialist caring for that patient. These hospitalists may focus on hematology, oncology, bone-marrow transplant, neurology, cardiology, surgery services, or critical care, among others. Hospitalists focused on a specific service often become knowledge experts in that specialty. Conversely, by focusing on a specific service, certain pathologies may be less commonly seen, which may narrow the breadth of the hospital medicine job.

Hospitalist training

Internal medicine hospitalists may be the most common hospitalists encountered in many hospitals and at each Society of Hospital Medicine annual conference, but there has also been rapid growth in hospitalists from other specialties and backgrounds.

Family medicine hospitalists are a part of 64.9% of HM groups and about 9% of family medicine graduates are choosing HM as a career path.^2,3 Most family medicine hospitalists work in adult HM groups, but some, particularly in rural or academic settings, care for pediatric, newborn, and/or maternity patients. Similarly, pediatric hospitalists have become entrenched at many hospitals where children are admitted. These pediatric hospitalists, like adult hospitalists, may work in a variety of different clinical roles including in EDs, newborn nurseries, and inpatient wards or ICUs; they may also provide consult, sedation, or procedural services.

Med-peds hospitalists that split time between internal medicine and pediatrics are becoming more commonplace in the field. Many work at academic centers where they often work on each side separately, doing the same work as their internal medicine or pediatrics colleagues, and then switching to the other side after a period of time. Some centers offer unique roles for med-peds hospitalists including working on adult consult teams in children’s hospitals, where they provide consult care to older patients that may still receive their care at a children’s hospital. There are also nonacademic hospitals that primarily staff med-peds hospitalists, where they can provide the full spectrum of care from the newborn nursery to the inpatient pediatric and adult wards.

Hospital medicine is a young field that is constantly changing with new and developing roles for hospitalists from a wide variety of backgrounds. Stick around to see which “-ist” will come next in HM.

Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Dr. Sanyal-Dey is an academic hospitalist at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center and the University of California, San Francisco, where she is the director of clinical operations, and director of the faculty inpatient service. Dr. Chang is associate professor and interprofessional education thread director (MD curriculum) at Washington University, St. Louis. Dr. Kwan is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and associate professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is the chair of SHM’s Physicians in Training committee. Dr. Seymour is family medicine hospitalist education director at the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts.

References

1. Wachter RM, Goldman L. The Emerging Role of “Hospitalists” in the American Health Care System. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(7):514-7.

2. 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report. Philadelphia: Society of Hospital Medicine, 2018.

3. Weaver SP, Hill J. Academician Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding the Use of Hospitalists: A CERA Study. Fam Med. 2015;47(5):357-61.

4. Teno JM et al. Temporal Trends in the Numbers of Skilled Nursing Facility Specialists From 2007 Through 2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(9):1376-8.

You’ve probably heard of a “nocturnist,” but have you ever heard of a “weekendist?”

The field of hospital medicine (HM) has evolved dramatically since the term “hospitalist” was introduced in the literature in 1996.¹ There is a saying in HM that “if you know one HM program, you know one HM program,” alluding to the fact that every HM program is unique. The diversity of individual HM programs combined with the overall evolution of the field has expanded the range of jobs available in HM.

The nomenclature of adding an -ist to the end of the specific roles (e.g., nocturnist, weekendist) has become commonplace. These roles have developed with the increasing need for day and night staffing at many hospitals secondary to increased and more complex patients, less availability of residents because of work hour restrictions, and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) rules that require overnight supervision of residents

Additionally, the field of HM increasingly includes physicians trained in internal medicine, family medicine, pediatrics, and medicine-pediatrics (med-peds). In this article, we describe the variety of roles available to trainees joining HM and the multitude of different training backgrounds hospitalists come from.

Nocturnists

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report notes that 76.1% of adult-only HM groups have nocturnists, hospitalists who work primarily at night to admit and to provide coverage for admitted patients.² Nocturnists often provide benefit to the rest of their hospitalist group by allowing fewer required night shifts for those that prefer to work during the day.

Nocturnists may choose a nighttime schedule for several reasons, including the ability to be home more during the day. They also have the potential to work fewer total hours or shifts while still earning a similar or increased income, compared with predominantly daytime hospitalists, increasing their flexibility to pursue other interests. These nocturnists become experts in navigating the admission process and responding to inpatient emergencies often with less support when compared with daytime hospitalists.

In addition to career nocturnist work, nocturnist jobs can be a great fit for those residency graduates who are undecided about fellowship and enjoy the acuity of inpatient medicine. It provides an opportunity to hone their clinical skill set prior to specialized training while earning an attending salary, and offers flexible hours which may allow for research or other endeavors. In academic centers, nocturnist educational roles take on a different character as well and may involve more 1:1 educational experiences. The role of nocturnists as educators is expanding as ACGME rules call for more oversight and educational opportunities for residents who are working at night.

However, challenges exist for nocturnists, including keeping abreast of new changes in their HM groups and hospital systems and engaging in quality initiatives, given that most meetings occur during the day. Additionally, nocturnists must adapt to sleeping during the day, potentially getting less sleep then they would otherwise and being “off cycle” with family and friends. For nocturnists raising children, being off cycle may be advantageous as it can allow them to be home with their children after school.

Weekendists

Another common hospitalist role is the weekendist, hospitalists who spend much of their clinical time preferentially working weekends. Similar to nocturnists, weekendists provide benefit to their hospitalist group by allowing others to have more weekends off.

Weekendists may prefer working weekends because of fewer total shifts or hours and/or higher compensation per shift. Additionally, weekendists have the flexibility to do other work on weekdays, such as research or another hospitalist job. For those that do nonclinical work during the week, a weekendist position may allow them to keep their clinical skills up to date. However, weekendists may face intense clinical days with a higher census because of fewer hospitalists rounding on the weekends.

Weekendists must balance having more potential time available during the weekdays but less time on the weekends to devote to family and friends. Furthermore, weekendists may feel less engaged with nonclinical opportunities, including quality improvement, educational offerings, and teaching opportunities.

SNFists

With increasing emphasis on transitions of care and the desire to avoid readmission penalties, some hospitalists have transitioned to work partly or primarily in skilled nursing facilities (SNF) and have been referred to as “SNFists.” Some of these hospitalists may split their clinical time between SNFs and acute care hospitals, while others may work exclusively at SNFs.

SNFists have the potential to be invaluable in improving transitions of care after discharge to post–acute care facilities because of increased provider presence in these facilities, comfort with medically complex patients, and appreciation of government regulations.⁴ SNFists may face potential challenges of needing to staff more than one post–acute care hospital and of having less resources available, compared with an acute care hospital.

Specific specialty hospitalists

For a variety of reasons including clinical interest, many hospitalists have become specialized with regards to their primary inpatient population. Some hospitalists spend the majority of their clinical time on a specific service in the hospital, often working closely with the subspecialist caring for that patient. These hospitalists may focus on hematology, oncology, bone-marrow transplant, neurology, cardiology, surgery services, or critical care, among others. Hospitalists focused on a specific service often become knowledge experts in that specialty. Conversely, by focusing on a specific service, certain pathologies may be less commonly seen, which may narrow the breadth of the hospital medicine job.

Hospitalist training

Internal medicine hospitalists may be the most common hospitalists encountered in many hospitals and at each Society of Hospital Medicine annual conference, but there has also been rapid growth in hospitalists from other specialties and backgrounds.

Family medicine hospitalists are a part of 64.9% of HM groups and about 9% of family medicine graduates are choosing HM as a career path.^2,3 Most family medicine hospitalists work in adult HM groups, but some, particularly in rural or academic settings, care for pediatric, newborn, and/or maternity patients. Similarly, pediatric hospitalists have become entrenched at many hospitals where children are admitted. These pediatric hospitalists, like adult hospitalists, may work in a variety of different clinical roles including in EDs, newborn nurseries, and inpatient wards or ICUs; they may also provide consult, sedation, or procedural services.

Med-peds hospitalists that split time between internal medicine and pediatrics are becoming more commonplace in the field. Many work at academic centers where they often work on each side separately, doing the same work as their internal medicine or pediatrics colleagues, and then switching to the other side after a period of time. Some centers offer unique roles for med-peds hospitalists including working on adult consult teams in children’s hospitals, where they provide consult care to older patients that may still receive their care at a children’s hospital. There are also nonacademic hospitals that primarily staff med-peds hospitalists, where they can provide the full spectrum of care from the newborn nursery to the inpatient pediatric and adult wards.

Hospital medicine is a young field that is constantly changing with new and developing roles for hospitalists from a wide variety of backgrounds. Stick around to see which “-ist” will come next in HM.

Dr. Hall is a med-peds hospitalist and assistant professor at the University of Kentucky, Lexington. Dr. Sanyal-Dey is an academic hospitalist at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center and the University of California, San Francisco, where she is the director of clinical operations, and director of the faculty inpatient service. Dr. Chang is associate professor and interprofessional education thread director (MD curriculum) at Washington University, St. Louis. Dr. Kwan is a hospitalist at the Veterans Affairs San Diego Healthcare System and associate professor at the University of California, San Diego. He is the chair of SHM’s Physicians in Training committee. Dr. Seymour is family medicine hospitalist education director at the University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, and associate professor at the University of Massachusetts.

References

1. Wachter RM, Goldman L. The Emerging Role of “Hospitalists” in the American Health Care System. N Engl J Med. 1996;335(7):514-7.

2. 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report. Philadelphia: Society of Hospital Medicine, 2018.

3. Weaver SP, Hill J. Academician Attitudes and Beliefs Regarding the Use of Hospitalists: A CERA Study. Fam Med. 2015;47(5):357-61.

4. Teno JM et al. Temporal Trends in the Numbers of Skilled Nursing Facility Specialists From 2007 Through 2014. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(9):1376-8.

Sepsis is a leading cause of death and disease among patients in hospitals, and it’s the subject of a recent quality improvement study in the Journal for Healthcare Quality.

“The number of cases per year has been increasing in the U.S., and it is the most expensive condition treated in U.S. hospitals,” said lead author M. Courtney Hughes, PhD, of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb.

But early identification of symptoms can be complex and difficult for clinicians, meaning there’s a continuing need for research studies examining sepsis identification and prevention. “The purpose of this study was to examine a quality improvement project that consisted of clinical alerts, audit and feedback, and staff education at an integrated health care system in the Midwest,” she said.

In a retrospective analysis, the researchers examined data from three health systems to determine the impact of a 10-month sepsis quality improvement program that consisted of clinical alerts, audit and feedback, and staff education. The results showed that, compared with the control group, the intervention group significantly decreased length of stay and costs per stay.

“One way to improve sepsis health outcomes and decrease costs may be for hospitals to implement a sepsis quality improvement program,” Dr. Hughes said. “Also, providing sepsis performance data and education to hospital providers and administrators can arm staff with the knowledge and tools necessary for improving processes and performance related to sepsis.”  

Dr. Hughes said that she hopes this work will encourage hospitalists to seek sepsis-related performance data and training. “By doing so, they may help achieve earlier diagnosis of sepsis cases and initiation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle.”
 

Reference

Hughes MC et al. A quality improvement project to improve sepsis-related outcomes at an integrated healthcare system. J Healthc Qual. Published online 2019 Mar 14. doi: 10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000193.

Sepsis is a leading cause of death and disease among patients in hospitals, and it’s the subject of a recent quality improvement study in the Journal for Healthcare Quality.

“The number of cases per year has been increasing in the U.S., and it is the most expensive condition treated in U.S. hospitals,” said lead author M. Courtney Hughes, PhD, of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb.

But early identification of symptoms can be complex and difficult for clinicians, meaning there’s a continuing need for research studies examining sepsis identification and prevention. “The purpose of this study was to examine a quality improvement project that consisted of clinical alerts, audit and feedback, and staff education at an integrated health care system in the Midwest,” she said.

In a retrospective analysis, the researchers examined data from three health systems to determine the impact of a 10-month sepsis quality improvement program that consisted of clinical alerts, audit and feedback, and staff education. The results showed that, compared with the control group, the intervention group significantly decreased length of stay and costs per stay.

“One way to improve sepsis health outcomes and decrease costs may be for hospitals to implement a sepsis quality improvement program,” Dr. Hughes said. “Also, providing sepsis performance data and education to hospital providers and administrators can arm staff with the knowledge and tools necessary for improving processes and performance related to sepsis.”  

Dr. Hughes said that she hopes this work will encourage hospitalists to seek sepsis-related performance data and training. “By doing so, they may help achieve earlier diagnosis of sepsis cases and initiation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle.”
 

Reference

Hughes MC et al. A quality improvement project to improve sepsis-related outcomes at an integrated healthcare system. J Healthc Qual. Published online 2019 Mar 14. doi: 10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000193.

Sepsis is a leading cause of death and disease among patients in hospitals, and it’s the subject of a recent quality improvement study in the Journal for Healthcare Quality.

“The number of cases per year has been increasing in the U.S., and it is the most expensive condition treated in U.S. hospitals,” said lead author M. Courtney Hughes, PhD, of Northern Illinois University in DeKalb.

But early identification of symptoms can be complex and difficult for clinicians, meaning there’s a continuing need for research studies examining sepsis identification and prevention. “The purpose of this study was to examine a quality improvement project that consisted of clinical alerts, audit and feedback, and staff education at an integrated health care system in the Midwest,” she said.

In a retrospective analysis, the researchers examined data from three health systems to determine the impact of a 10-month sepsis quality improvement program that consisted of clinical alerts, audit and feedback, and staff education. The results showed that, compared with the control group, the intervention group significantly decreased length of stay and costs per stay.

“One way to improve sepsis health outcomes and decrease costs may be for hospitals to implement a sepsis quality improvement program,” Dr. Hughes said. “Also, providing sepsis performance data and education to hospital providers and administrators can arm staff with the knowledge and tools necessary for improving processes and performance related to sepsis.”  

Dr. Hughes said that she hopes this work will encourage hospitalists to seek sepsis-related performance data and training. “By doing so, they may help achieve earlier diagnosis of sepsis cases and initiation of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle.”
 

Reference

Hughes MC et al. A quality improvement project to improve sepsis-related outcomes at an integrated healthcare system. J Healthc Qual. Published online 2019 Mar 14. doi: 10.1097/JHQ.0000000000000193.

ORLANDO – The latest American Society of Hematology guideline on venous thromboembolism (VTE) tackles 30 key questions regarding prophylaxis in hospitalized patients undergoing surgery, according to the chair of the guideline panel, who highlighted 9 of those questions during a special session at the society’s annual meeting.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The clinical practice guideline, published just about a week before the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, focuses mainly on pharmacologic prophylaxis in specific surgical settings, said David R. Anderson, MD, dean of the faculty of medicine of Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S.

“Our guidelines focused upon clinically important symptomatic outcomes, with less emphasis being placed on asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis detected by screening tests,” Dr. Anderson said.

At the special education session, Dr. Anderson highlighted several specific recommendations on prophylaxis in surgical patients.

Pharmacologic prophylaxis is not recommended for patients experiencing major trauma deemed to be at high risk of bleeding. Its use does reduce risk of symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by about 10 events per 1,000 patients treated; however, Dr. Anderson said, the panel’s opinion was that this benefit was outweighed by increased risk of major bleeding, at 24 events per 1,000 patients treated.

“We do recommend, however that this risk of bleeding must be reevaluated over the course of recovery of patients, and this may change the decision around this intervention over time,” Dr. Anderson told attendees at the special session.

That’s because pharmacologic prophylaxis is recommended in surgical patients at low to moderate risk of bleeding. In this scenario, the incremental risk of major bleeding (14 events per 1,000 patients treated) is outweighed by the benefit of the reduction of symptomatic VTE events, according to Dr. Anderson.

When pharmacologic prophylaxis is used, the panel recommends combined prophylaxis – mechanical prophylaxis in addition to pharmacologic prophylaxis – especially in those patients at high or very high risk of VTE. Evidence shows that the combination approach significantly reduces risk of PE, and strongly suggests it may also reduce risk of symptomatic proximal DVT, Dr. Anderson said.

In surgical patients not receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis, mechanical prophylaxis is recommended over no mechanical prophylaxis, he added. Moreover, in those patients receiving mechanical prophylaxis, the ASH panel recommends use of intermittent compression devices over graduated compression stockings.

The panel comes out against prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion in the guidelines. Dr. Anderson said that the “small reduction” in PE risk seen in observational studies is outweighed by increased risk of DVT, and a resulting trend for increased mortality, associated with insertion of the devices.

“We did not consider other risks of IVC filters such as filter embolization or perforation, which again would be complications that would support our recommendation against routine use of these devices in patients undergoing major surgery,” he said.

In terms of the type of pharmacologic prophylaxis to use, the panel said low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin would be reasonable choices in this setting. Available data do not demonstrate any significant differences between these choices for major clinical outcomes, Dr. Anderson added.

The guideline also addresses duration of pharmacologic prophylaxis, stating that extended prophylaxis – of at least 3 weeks – is favored over short-term prophylaxis, or up to 2 weeks of treatment. The extended approach significantly reduces risk of symptomatic PE and proximal DVT, though most of the supporting data come from studies of major joint arthroplasty and major general surgical procedures for patients with cancer. “We need more studies in other clinical areas to examine this particular question,” Dr. Anderson said.

The guideline on prophylaxis in surgical patients was published in Blood Advances (2019 Dec 3;3[23]:3898-944). Six other ASH VTE guidelines, all published in 2018, covered prophylaxis in medical patients, diagnosis, VTE in pregnancy, optimal anticoagulation, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and pediatric considerations. The guidelines are available on the ASH website.

Dr. Anderson reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

ORLANDO – The latest American Society of Hematology guideline on venous thromboembolism (VTE) tackles 30 key questions regarding prophylaxis in hospitalized patients undergoing surgery, according to the chair of the guideline panel, who highlighted 9 of those questions during a special session at the society’s annual meeting.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The clinical practice guideline, published just about a week before the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, focuses mainly on pharmacologic prophylaxis in specific surgical settings, said David R. Anderson, MD, dean of the faculty of medicine of Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S.

“Our guidelines focused upon clinically important symptomatic outcomes, with less emphasis being placed on asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis detected by screening tests,” Dr. Anderson said.

At the special education session, Dr. Anderson highlighted several specific recommendations on prophylaxis in surgical patients.

Pharmacologic prophylaxis is not recommended for patients experiencing major trauma deemed to be at high risk of bleeding. Its use does reduce risk of symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by about 10 events per 1,000 patients treated; however, Dr. Anderson said, the panel’s opinion was that this benefit was outweighed by increased risk of major bleeding, at 24 events per 1,000 patients treated.

“We do recommend, however that this risk of bleeding must be reevaluated over the course of recovery of patients, and this may change the decision around this intervention over time,” Dr. Anderson told attendees at the special session.

That’s because pharmacologic prophylaxis is recommended in surgical patients at low to moderate risk of bleeding. In this scenario, the incremental risk of major bleeding (14 events per 1,000 patients treated) is outweighed by the benefit of the reduction of symptomatic VTE events, according to Dr. Anderson.

When pharmacologic prophylaxis is used, the panel recommends combined prophylaxis – mechanical prophylaxis in addition to pharmacologic prophylaxis – especially in those patients at high or very high risk of VTE. Evidence shows that the combination approach significantly reduces risk of PE, and strongly suggests it may also reduce risk of symptomatic proximal DVT, Dr. Anderson said.

In surgical patients not receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis, mechanical prophylaxis is recommended over no mechanical prophylaxis, he added. Moreover, in those patients receiving mechanical prophylaxis, the ASH panel recommends use of intermittent compression devices over graduated compression stockings.

The panel comes out against prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion in the guidelines. Dr. Anderson said that the “small reduction” in PE risk seen in observational studies is outweighed by increased risk of DVT, and a resulting trend for increased mortality, associated with insertion of the devices.

“We did not consider other risks of IVC filters such as filter embolization or perforation, which again would be complications that would support our recommendation against routine use of these devices in patients undergoing major surgery,” he said.

In terms of the type of pharmacologic prophylaxis to use, the panel said low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin would be reasonable choices in this setting. Available data do not demonstrate any significant differences between these choices for major clinical outcomes, Dr. Anderson added.

The guideline also addresses duration of pharmacologic prophylaxis, stating that extended prophylaxis – of at least 3 weeks – is favored over short-term prophylaxis, or up to 2 weeks of treatment. The extended approach significantly reduces risk of symptomatic PE and proximal DVT, though most of the supporting data come from studies of major joint arthroplasty and major general surgical procedures for patients with cancer. “We need more studies in other clinical areas to examine this particular question,” Dr. Anderson said.

The guideline on prophylaxis in surgical patients was published in Blood Advances (2019 Dec 3;3[23]:3898-944). Six other ASH VTE guidelines, all published in 2018, covered prophylaxis in medical patients, diagnosis, VTE in pregnancy, optimal anticoagulation, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and pediatric considerations. The guidelines are available on the ASH website.

Dr. Anderson reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

ORLANDO – The latest American Society of Hematology guideline on venous thromboembolism (VTE) tackles 30 key questions regarding prophylaxis in hospitalized patients undergoing surgery, according to the chair of the guideline panel, who highlighted 9 of those questions during a special session at the society’s annual meeting.

Andrew D. Bowser/MDedge News

The clinical practice guideline, published just about a week before the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, focuses mainly on pharmacologic prophylaxis in specific surgical settings, said David R. Anderson, MD, dean of the faculty of medicine of Dalhousie University, Halifax, N.S.

“Our guidelines focused upon clinically important symptomatic outcomes, with less emphasis being placed on asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis detected by screening tests,” Dr. Anderson said.

At the special education session, Dr. Anderson highlighted several specific recommendations on prophylaxis in surgical patients.

Pharmacologic prophylaxis is not recommended for patients experiencing major trauma deemed to be at high risk of bleeding. Its use does reduce risk of symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT) by about 10 events per 1,000 patients treated; however, Dr. Anderson said, the panel’s opinion was that this benefit was outweighed by increased risk of major bleeding, at 24 events per 1,000 patients treated.

“We do recommend, however that this risk of bleeding must be reevaluated over the course of recovery of patients, and this may change the decision around this intervention over time,” Dr. Anderson told attendees at the special session.

That’s because pharmacologic prophylaxis is recommended in surgical patients at low to moderate risk of bleeding. In this scenario, the incremental risk of major bleeding (14 events per 1,000 patients treated) is outweighed by the benefit of the reduction of symptomatic VTE events, according to Dr. Anderson.

When pharmacologic prophylaxis is used, the panel recommends combined prophylaxis – mechanical prophylaxis in addition to pharmacologic prophylaxis – especially in those patients at high or very high risk of VTE. Evidence shows that the combination approach significantly reduces risk of PE, and strongly suggests it may also reduce risk of symptomatic proximal DVT, Dr. Anderson said.

In surgical patients not receiving pharmacologic prophylaxis, mechanical prophylaxis is recommended over no mechanical prophylaxis, he added. Moreover, in those patients receiving mechanical prophylaxis, the ASH panel recommends use of intermittent compression devices over graduated compression stockings.

The panel comes out against prophylactic inferior vena cava (IVC) filter insertion in the guidelines. Dr. Anderson said that the “small reduction” in PE risk seen in observational studies is outweighed by increased risk of DVT, and a resulting trend for increased mortality, associated with insertion of the devices.

“We did not consider other risks of IVC filters such as filter embolization or perforation, which again would be complications that would support our recommendation against routine use of these devices in patients undergoing major surgery,” he said.

In terms of the type of pharmacologic prophylaxis to use, the panel said low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin would be reasonable choices in this setting. Available data do not demonstrate any significant differences between these choices for major clinical outcomes, Dr. Anderson added.

The guideline also addresses duration of pharmacologic prophylaxis, stating that extended prophylaxis – of at least 3 weeks – is favored over short-term prophylaxis, or up to 2 weeks of treatment. The extended approach significantly reduces risk of symptomatic PE and proximal DVT, though most of the supporting data come from studies of major joint arthroplasty and major general surgical procedures for patients with cancer. “We need more studies in other clinical areas to examine this particular question,” Dr. Anderson said.

The guideline on prophylaxis in surgical patients was published in Blood Advances (2019 Dec 3;3[23]:3898-944). Six other ASH VTE guidelines, all published in 2018, covered prophylaxis in medical patients, diagnosis, VTE in pregnancy, optimal anticoagulation, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, and pediatric considerations. The guidelines are available on the ASH website.

Dr. Anderson reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

BALTIMORE – Patients hospitalized for epilepsy may have higher odds of death if they have a secondary diagnosis of arrhythmia, whereas the presence of apnea alone may not significantly increase mortality, according to an analysis of data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“If you have someone with arrhythmia and epilepsy, you have to be more concerned about possible SUDEP [sudden unexpected death in epilepsy],” relative to someone with apnea and epilepsy, said senior study author Sanjay P. Singh, MD, professor of neurology at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb.

Research indicates that apnea and cardiac arrhythmias may contribute to SUDEP, and the incidence of SUDEP is higher in patients with intractable epilepsy.

To identify the prevalence of apnea, arrhythmia, and both conditions in epilepsy hospitalizations, as well as the prevalence of intractable epilepsy and mortality, Dr. Singh and colleagues performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of pediatric and adult epilepsy hospitalizations between 2003 and 2014 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. They determined apnea and arrhythmia diagnoses using ICD-9-CM codes.

Among more than 2.6 million epilepsy hospitalizations, the prevalence of apnea was 2.75%, the prevalence of arrhythmia was 8.91%, and the prevalence of both was 0.49%. The proportion of patients with intractable epilepsy was 7.7%. Among the more than 207,000 hospitalizations with intractable epilepsy, the prevalence of apnea was 3.62%, the prevalence of arrhythmia was 3.34%, and the prevalence of both was 0.36%. The prevalence trend of apnea, arrhythmia, and both together increased between 2003 and 2014.

“In univariate analysis, prevalence of mortality was highest among patients with arrhythmia,” the researchers reported, at – 3.1% in patients with arrhythmia versus 0.48% in patients with apnea, 2.91% in patients with both, and 0.46% in patients without apnea or arrhythmia.

In a multivariable regression analysis, significant and independent predictors of death included intractable epilepsy (odds ratio, 1.17), apnea (OR, 0.84), arrhythmia (OR, 3.29), and the presence of both apnea and arrhythmia (OR, 3.24). When hospitalization was complicated by intractable epilepsy, the odds of death rose with the presence of apnea (OR, 2.07), arrhythmia (OR, 8.39), and with both apnea and arrhythmia (OR, 11.64).

The results highlight the importance of effective epilepsy management, said first author Urvish K. Patel, MBBS, also with Creighton University. “If we can stop [conversion to intractable epilepsy], then this odds ratio can go down.”

Attention to arrhythmias, as well as the combination of arrhythmias and apnea, may “be important in identifying patients at risk for SUDEP,” the authors concluded.

The researchers had no disclosures and reported receiving no outside funding for their work.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Patel UK et al. AES 2019, Abstract 2.140.

BALTIMORE – Patients hospitalized for epilepsy may have higher odds of death if they have a secondary diagnosis of arrhythmia, whereas the presence of apnea alone may not significantly increase mortality, according to an analysis of data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“If you have someone with arrhythmia and epilepsy, you have to be more concerned about possible SUDEP [sudden unexpected death in epilepsy],” relative to someone with apnea and epilepsy, said senior study author Sanjay P. Singh, MD, professor of neurology at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb.

Research indicates that apnea and cardiac arrhythmias may contribute to SUDEP, and the incidence of SUDEP is higher in patients with intractable epilepsy.

To identify the prevalence of apnea, arrhythmia, and both conditions in epilepsy hospitalizations, as well as the prevalence of intractable epilepsy and mortality, Dr. Singh and colleagues performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of pediatric and adult epilepsy hospitalizations between 2003 and 2014 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. They determined apnea and arrhythmia diagnoses using ICD-9-CM codes.

Among more than 2.6 million epilepsy hospitalizations, the prevalence of apnea was 2.75%, the prevalence of arrhythmia was 8.91%, and the prevalence of both was 0.49%. The proportion of patients with intractable epilepsy was 7.7%. Among the more than 207,000 hospitalizations with intractable epilepsy, the prevalence of apnea was 3.62%, the prevalence of arrhythmia was 3.34%, and the prevalence of both was 0.36%. The prevalence trend of apnea, arrhythmia, and both together increased between 2003 and 2014.

“In univariate analysis, prevalence of mortality was highest among patients with arrhythmia,” the researchers reported, at – 3.1% in patients with arrhythmia versus 0.48% in patients with apnea, 2.91% in patients with both, and 0.46% in patients without apnea or arrhythmia.

In a multivariable regression analysis, significant and independent predictors of death included intractable epilepsy (odds ratio, 1.17), apnea (OR, 0.84), arrhythmia (OR, 3.29), and the presence of both apnea and arrhythmia (OR, 3.24). When hospitalization was complicated by intractable epilepsy, the odds of death rose with the presence of apnea (OR, 2.07), arrhythmia (OR, 8.39), and with both apnea and arrhythmia (OR, 11.64).

The results highlight the importance of effective epilepsy management, said first author Urvish K. Patel, MBBS, also with Creighton University. “If we can stop [conversion to intractable epilepsy], then this odds ratio can go down.”

Attention to arrhythmias, as well as the combination of arrhythmias and apnea, may “be important in identifying patients at risk for SUDEP,” the authors concluded.

The researchers had no disclosures and reported receiving no outside funding for their work.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Patel UK et al. AES 2019, Abstract 2.140.

BALTIMORE – Patients hospitalized for epilepsy may have higher odds of death if they have a secondary diagnosis of arrhythmia, whereas the presence of apnea alone may not significantly increase mortality, according to an analysis of data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample presented at the annual meeting of the American Epilepsy Society.

Jake Remaly/MDedge News

“If you have someone with arrhythmia and epilepsy, you have to be more concerned about possible SUDEP [sudden unexpected death in epilepsy],” relative to someone with apnea and epilepsy, said senior study author Sanjay P. Singh, MD, professor of neurology at Creighton University, Omaha, Neb.

Research indicates that apnea and cardiac arrhythmias may contribute to SUDEP, and the incidence of SUDEP is higher in patients with intractable epilepsy.

To identify the prevalence of apnea, arrhythmia, and both conditions in epilepsy hospitalizations, as well as the prevalence of intractable epilepsy and mortality, Dr. Singh and colleagues performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of pediatric and adult epilepsy hospitalizations between 2003 and 2014 in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. They determined apnea and arrhythmia diagnoses using ICD-9-CM codes.

Among more than 2.6 million epilepsy hospitalizations, the prevalence of apnea was 2.75%, the prevalence of arrhythmia was 8.91%, and the prevalence of both was 0.49%. The proportion of patients with intractable epilepsy was 7.7%. Among the more than 207,000 hospitalizations with intractable epilepsy, the prevalence of apnea was 3.62%, the prevalence of arrhythmia was 3.34%, and the prevalence of both was 0.36%. The prevalence trend of apnea, arrhythmia, and both together increased between 2003 and 2014.

“In univariate analysis, prevalence of mortality was highest among patients with arrhythmia,” the researchers reported, at – 3.1% in patients with arrhythmia versus 0.48% in patients with apnea, 2.91% in patients with both, and 0.46% in patients without apnea or arrhythmia.

In a multivariable regression analysis, significant and independent predictors of death included intractable epilepsy (odds ratio, 1.17), apnea (OR, 0.84), arrhythmia (OR, 3.29), and the presence of both apnea and arrhythmia (OR, 3.24). When hospitalization was complicated by intractable epilepsy, the odds of death rose with the presence of apnea (OR, 2.07), arrhythmia (OR, 8.39), and with both apnea and arrhythmia (OR, 11.64).

The results highlight the importance of effective epilepsy management, said first author Urvish K. Patel, MBBS, also with Creighton University. “If we can stop [conversion to intractable epilepsy], then this odds ratio can go down.”

Attention to arrhythmias, as well as the combination of arrhythmias and apnea, may “be important in identifying patients at risk for SUDEP,” the authors concluded.

The researchers had no disclosures and reported receiving no outside funding for their work.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Patel UK et al. AES 2019, Abstract 2.140.

Many hospitalists agree that their most productive and also sometimes least productive work can happen in the setting of interdisciplinary rounds. How can this paradox be true?

Most hospitals strive to assemble the health care team every day for a brief discussion of each patient’s needs as well as barriers to a safe/successful discharge. On most floors this requires a well-choreographed “dance” of nurses, case managers, social workers, physicians, and advanced practice providers coming together at agreed-upon times. All team members commit to efficient synchronized swimming through the most high-yield details for each patient in order to benefit the patients and families being served.

Of course, there are always challenges to this process in the unpredictable world of patients with acute needs. One variable that is at least partially controllable and tends to promote a more cohesive interdisciplinary experience is that of hospitalist unit-based rounding.

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) survey reveals that 68% of hospital medicine groups serving adults with greater than 30 physicians employ some degree of unit-based rounding; this trend decreases with smaller group size. About 54% of academic hospital medicine groups use some amount of unit-based rounding. Not surprisingly, smaller hospitals are less likely to have this routine, likely because of fewer total nursing units.

One of the most obvious benefits to unit-based rounding is that the physician or advanced practice provider is more reliably able to participate in the interdisciplinary discussions that day. When more of the team members are at the table each day, patients and families have the best chance of hearing a consistent message around the treatment and discharge plans.

There are challenges to unit-based rounding as well. If patients transfer to different floors for any variety of reasons, strict unit-based rounding may increase handoffs in care. If a hospital has times when it isn’t completely full and nursing units have a varying percentage of being occupied, strict unit-based rounding can cause significant workload inequities among physicians on different units, depending on numbers of patients on each unit.

If there is no attempt at unit-based rounding in larger hospitals, some physicians may be running among five or more units. They work to find different care managers, nurses, and pharmacists – not to mention the challenges of catching patients in their rooms between their departures for diagnostic studies and procedures.

It is often good to balance the benefit of promoting unit-based rounds with the reality of everyday patient care. Some groups maintain that the physician/patient relationship trumps the idea of perfect unit-based rounding. In other words, if a physician establishes a relationship with a patient while they are in the ED being admitted or boarding from overnight, that physician will continue seeing the patient regardless of the patient being assigned to a different unit. It can help for groups to agree that the pursuit of unit-based rounding may create some inequity in the numbers of patients seen each day because of these issues.

In a larger hospital, certain units are often dedicated to specialty care such as cardiac or stroke care. While most hospitalists want to maintain general medical knowledge, there are some who may enjoy having portions of their practice devoted to perioperative medicine or cardiac care, for instance. This promotes familiarity among hospitalists and groups of consultant physicians and nurse practitioners/physician assistants. Over time this allows for enhanced teamwork among those physicians, the nursing team, and the specialty physicians.

Depending on the group’s schedule, patients can be reassigned coinciding with the primary change of service day. This resets the physicians’ patients in the most ideal unit-based way on the evening prior to the first day of rounding for that week or group of shifts.

No matter how you do it, the goal of unit-based rounding is time efficiency for the care team and care coordination benefits for patients and families. If you have other suggestions or questions, go online to SHM HMX to join the discussion.

Take-home message: Unit-based rounding likely has its benefits. Don’t let the inability to achieve perfection in patient distribution to the physicians each day lead to abandonment of attempting these processes.
 

Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.

Many hospitalists agree that their most productive and also sometimes least productive work can happen in the setting of interdisciplinary rounds. How can this paradox be true?

Most hospitals strive to assemble the health care team every day for a brief discussion of each patient’s needs as well as barriers to a safe/successful discharge. On most floors this requires a well-choreographed “dance” of nurses, case managers, social workers, physicians, and advanced practice providers coming together at agreed-upon times. All team members commit to efficient synchronized swimming through the most high-yield details for each patient in order to benefit the patients and families being served.

Of course, there are always challenges to this process in the unpredictable world of patients with acute needs. One variable that is at least partially controllable and tends to promote a more cohesive interdisciplinary experience is that of hospitalist unit-based rounding.

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) survey reveals that 68% of hospital medicine groups serving adults with greater than 30 physicians employ some degree of unit-based rounding; this trend decreases with smaller group size. About 54% of academic hospital medicine groups use some amount of unit-based rounding. Not surprisingly, smaller hospitals are less likely to have this routine, likely because of fewer total nursing units.

One of the most obvious benefits to unit-based rounding is that the physician or advanced practice provider is more reliably able to participate in the interdisciplinary discussions that day. When more of the team members are at the table each day, patients and families have the best chance of hearing a consistent message around the treatment and discharge plans.

There are challenges to unit-based rounding as well. If patients transfer to different floors for any variety of reasons, strict unit-based rounding may increase handoffs in care. If a hospital has times when it isn’t completely full and nursing units have a varying percentage of being occupied, strict unit-based rounding can cause significant workload inequities among physicians on different units, depending on numbers of patients on each unit.

If there is no attempt at unit-based rounding in larger hospitals, some physicians may be running among five or more units. They work to find different care managers, nurses, and pharmacists – not to mention the challenges of catching patients in their rooms between their departures for diagnostic studies and procedures.

It is often good to balance the benefit of promoting unit-based rounds with the reality of everyday patient care. Some groups maintain that the physician/patient relationship trumps the idea of perfect unit-based rounding. In other words, if a physician establishes a relationship with a patient while they are in the ED being admitted or boarding from overnight, that physician will continue seeing the patient regardless of the patient being assigned to a different unit. It can help for groups to agree that the pursuit of unit-based rounding may create some inequity in the numbers of patients seen each day because of these issues.

In a larger hospital, certain units are often dedicated to specialty care such as cardiac or stroke care. While most hospitalists want to maintain general medical knowledge, there are some who may enjoy having portions of their practice devoted to perioperative medicine or cardiac care, for instance. This promotes familiarity among hospitalists and groups of consultant physicians and nurse practitioners/physician assistants. Over time this allows for enhanced teamwork among those physicians, the nursing team, and the specialty physicians.

Depending on the group’s schedule, patients can be reassigned coinciding with the primary change of service day. This resets the physicians’ patients in the most ideal unit-based way on the evening prior to the first day of rounding for that week or group of shifts.

No matter how you do it, the goal of unit-based rounding is time efficiency for the care team and care coordination benefits for patients and families. If you have other suggestions or questions, go online to SHM HMX to join the discussion.

Take-home message: Unit-based rounding likely has its benefits. Don’t let the inability to achieve perfection in patient distribution to the physicians each day lead to abandonment of attempting these processes.
 

Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.

Many hospitalists agree that their most productive and also sometimes least productive work can happen in the setting of interdisciplinary rounds. How can this paradox be true?

Most hospitals strive to assemble the health care team every day for a brief discussion of each patient’s needs as well as barriers to a safe/successful discharge. On most floors this requires a well-choreographed “dance” of nurses, case managers, social workers, physicians, and advanced practice providers coming together at agreed-upon times. All team members commit to efficient synchronized swimming through the most high-yield details for each patient in order to benefit the patients and families being served.

Of course, there are always challenges to this process in the unpredictable world of patients with acute needs. One variable that is at least partially controllable and tends to promote a more cohesive interdisciplinary experience is that of hospitalist unit-based rounding.

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) survey reveals that 68% of hospital medicine groups serving adults with greater than 30 physicians employ some degree of unit-based rounding; this trend decreases with smaller group size. About 54% of academic hospital medicine groups use some amount of unit-based rounding. Not surprisingly, smaller hospitals are less likely to have this routine, likely because of fewer total nursing units.

One of the most obvious benefits to unit-based rounding is that the physician or advanced practice provider is more reliably able to participate in the interdisciplinary discussions that day. When more of the team members are at the table each day, patients and families have the best chance of hearing a consistent message around the treatment and discharge plans.

There are challenges to unit-based rounding as well. If patients transfer to different floors for any variety of reasons, strict unit-based rounding may increase handoffs in care. If a hospital has times when it isn’t completely full and nursing units have a varying percentage of being occupied, strict unit-based rounding can cause significant workload inequities among physicians on different units, depending on numbers of patients on each unit.

If there is no attempt at unit-based rounding in larger hospitals, some physicians may be running among five or more units. They work to find different care managers, nurses, and pharmacists – not to mention the challenges of catching patients in their rooms between their departures for diagnostic studies and procedures.

It is often good to balance the benefit of promoting unit-based rounds with the reality of everyday patient care. Some groups maintain that the physician/patient relationship trumps the idea of perfect unit-based rounding. In other words, if a physician establishes a relationship with a patient while they are in the ED being admitted or boarding from overnight, that physician will continue seeing the patient regardless of the patient being assigned to a different unit. It can help for groups to agree that the pursuit of unit-based rounding may create some inequity in the numbers of patients seen each day because of these issues.

In a larger hospital, certain units are often dedicated to specialty care such as cardiac or stroke care. While most hospitalists want to maintain general medical knowledge, there are some who may enjoy having portions of their practice devoted to perioperative medicine or cardiac care, for instance. This promotes familiarity among hospitalists and groups of consultant physicians and nurse practitioners/physician assistants. Over time this allows for enhanced teamwork among those physicians, the nursing team, and the specialty physicians.

Depending on the group’s schedule, patients can be reassigned coinciding with the primary change of service day. This resets the physicians’ patients in the most ideal unit-based way on the evening prior to the first day of rounding for that week or group of shifts.

No matter how you do it, the goal of unit-based rounding is time efficiency for the care team and care coordination benefits for patients and families. If you have other suggestions or questions, go online to SHM HMX to join the discussion.

Take-home message: Unit-based rounding likely has its benefits. Don’t let the inability to achieve perfection in patient distribution to the physicians each day lead to abandonment of attempting these processes.
 

Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.