All Content

The vaping lung disease outbreak continues, but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it may have peaked and the number of new hospitalized cases reported to the CDC may be decreasing.

HAZEMMKAMAL/Getty Images

In the Dec. 6, 2019, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC has updated information about cases of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI): As of Dec. 3, there have been 2,291 cases reported from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and two U.S. territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands). A total of 48 deaths have been confirmed in 25 states and Washington, D.C., the CDC reported.

The largest number of weekly hospitalized cases occurred during the week of Sept. 15, 2019; since then, hospitalized cases have steadily declined. “Among all hospitalized EVALI patients reported to CDC weekly, the percentage of recent cases (patients hospitalized within the preceding 3 weeks) declined from 58% reported November 12 to 30% reported December 3,” the report stated.

About 80%of hospitalized EVALI patients reported using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)–containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products. “Dank Vapes,” counterfeit THC-containing products of unknown origin, were the most commonly reported THC-containing branded products used. Dank Vapes were used by 56% of hospitalized EVALI patients nationwide, followed by TKO brand (15%), Smart Cart (13%), and Rove (12%).

Of EVALI patients for whom data were available, 67% were male, and the median age was 24 years (range, 13-77 years); 78% were aged under 35 years and 16% were under 18 years. About 75% of EVALI patients were non-Hispanic white and 16% were Hispanic. Among the 48 deaths, 54% of patients were male, and the median age was 52 years (range, 17-75 years).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lozier MJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6849e1.

The vaping lung disease outbreak continues, but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it may have peaked and the number of new hospitalized cases reported to the CDC may be decreasing.

HAZEMMKAMAL/Getty Images

In the Dec. 6, 2019, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC has updated information about cases of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI): As of Dec. 3, there have been 2,291 cases reported from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and two U.S. territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands). A total of 48 deaths have been confirmed in 25 states and Washington, D.C., the CDC reported.

The largest number of weekly hospitalized cases occurred during the week of Sept. 15, 2019; since then, hospitalized cases have steadily declined. “Among all hospitalized EVALI patients reported to CDC weekly, the percentage of recent cases (patients hospitalized within the preceding 3 weeks) declined from 58% reported November 12 to 30% reported December 3,” the report stated.

About 80%of hospitalized EVALI patients reported using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)–containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products. “Dank Vapes,” counterfeit THC-containing products of unknown origin, were the most commonly reported THC-containing branded products used. Dank Vapes were used by 56% of hospitalized EVALI patients nationwide, followed by TKO brand (15%), Smart Cart (13%), and Rove (12%).

Of EVALI patients for whom data were available, 67% were male, and the median age was 24 years (range, 13-77 years); 78% were aged under 35 years and 16% were under 18 years. About 75% of EVALI patients were non-Hispanic white and 16% were Hispanic. Among the 48 deaths, 54% of patients were male, and the median age was 52 years (range, 17-75 years).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lozier MJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6849e1.

The vaping lung disease outbreak continues, but according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, it may have peaked and the number of new hospitalized cases reported to the CDC may be decreasing.

HAZEMMKAMAL/Getty Images

In the Dec. 6, 2019, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the CDC has updated information about cases of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use–associated lung injury (EVALI): As of Dec. 3, there have been 2,291 cases reported from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and two U.S. territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands). A total of 48 deaths have been confirmed in 25 states and Washington, D.C., the CDC reported.

The largest number of weekly hospitalized cases occurred during the week of Sept. 15, 2019; since then, hospitalized cases have steadily declined. “Among all hospitalized EVALI patients reported to CDC weekly, the percentage of recent cases (patients hospitalized within the preceding 3 weeks) declined from 58% reported November 12 to 30% reported December 3,” the report stated.

About 80%of hospitalized EVALI patients reported using tetrahydrocannabinol (THC)–containing e-cigarette, or vaping, products. “Dank Vapes,” counterfeit THC-containing products of unknown origin, were the most commonly reported THC-containing branded products used. Dank Vapes were used by 56% of hospitalized EVALI patients nationwide, followed by TKO brand (15%), Smart Cart (13%), and Rove (12%).

Of EVALI patients for whom data were available, 67% were male, and the median age was 24 years (range, 13-77 years); 78% were aged under 35 years and 16% were under 18 years. About 75% of EVALI patients were non-Hispanic white and 16% were Hispanic. Among the 48 deaths, 54% of patients were male, and the median age was 52 years (range, 17-75 years).

[email protected]

SOURCE: Lozier MJ et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2019 Dec 6. doi: 10.15585/mmwr.mm6849e1.

PHILADELPHIA – A 32-gene screening test for stroke risk identified a subgroup of atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients with an elevated rate of ischemic strokes despite having a low stroke risk by conventional criteria by their CHA2DS2-VASc score in a post-hoc analysis of more than 11,000 patients enrolled in a recent drug trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Overall, AFib patients in the highest tertile for genetic risk based on a 32 gene-loci test had a 31% increase rate of ischemic stroke during a median 2.8 years of follow-up compared with patients in the tertile with the lowest risk based on the 32-loci screen, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. This suggested that the genetic test had roughly the same association with an increased stroke risk as several components of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, such as female sex, an age of 65-74 years old, or having heart failure as a comorbidity, each of which links with an increased risk for ischemic stroke of about 31%-38%, Dr. Marston noted.

The genetic test produced even sharper discrimination among the patients with the lowest stroke risk as measured by their CHA2DS2-VASc score (Circulation. 2012 Aug 14;126[7]: 860-5). Among the slightly more than 3,000 patients in the study with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of three or less, those in the subgroup with the highest risk by the 32-loci screen had a stroke rate during follow-up that was 76% higher than those in the low or intermediate tertile for their genetic score. Among the 796 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of just 1 or 2, those who also fell into the highest level of risk on the 32-loci screen had a stroke rate 3.5-fold higher than those with a similar CHA2DS2-VASc score but in the low and intermediate tertiles by the 32-loci screen.

The additional risk prediction provided by the 32-loci test was statistically significant in the analysis of the 3,071 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3 or less after adjustment for age, sex, ancestry, and the individual components of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, which includes factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and heart failure, said Dr. Marston, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The 3.5-fold elevation among patients with a high genetic-risk score in the cohort of 796 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1 or 2 just missed statistical significance (P = .06), possibly because the number of patients in the analysis was relatively low. Future research should explore the predictive value of the genetic risk score in patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1, the “group where therapeutic decisions could be altered” depending on the genetic risk score, he explained.

Dr. Marston and his associates used data collected in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) trial, which was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the direct-acting oral anticoagulant edoxaban in patients with AFib (New Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 28; 369[21]: 2091-2104). The 32-loci panel to measure a person’s genetic risk for stroke came from a 2018 report by a multinational team of researchers (Nature Genetics. 2018 Apr;50[4]: 524-37). The new analysis applied this 32-loci genetic test panel to 11.164 unrelated AFib patients with European ancestry from the ENGAGE AF-TIMIT 48 database. They divided this cohort into tertiles based on having a low, intermediate, or high stroke risk as assessed by the 32-loci genetic test. The analysis focused on patients enrolled in the trial who had European ancestry because the 32-loci screening test relied predominantly on data collected from people with this genetic background, Dr. Marston said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Marston NA et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 336.

PHILADELPHIA – A 32-gene screening test for stroke risk identified a subgroup of atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients with an elevated rate of ischemic strokes despite having a low stroke risk by conventional criteria by their CHA2DS2-VASc score in a post-hoc analysis of more than 11,000 patients enrolled in a recent drug trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Overall, AFib patients in the highest tertile for genetic risk based on a 32 gene-loci test had a 31% increase rate of ischemic stroke during a median 2.8 years of follow-up compared with patients in the tertile with the lowest risk based on the 32-loci screen, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. This suggested that the genetic test had roughly the same association with an increased stroke risk as several components of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, such as female sex, an age of 65-74 years old, or having heart failure as a comorbidity, each of which links with an increased risk for ischemic stroke of about 31%-38%, Dr. Marston noted.

The genetic test produced even sharper discrimination among the patients with the lowest stroke risk as measured by their CHA2DS2-VASc score (Circulation. 2012 Aug 14;126[7]: 860-5). Among the slightly more than 3,000 patients in the study with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of three or less, those in the subgroup with the highest risk by the 32-loci screen had a stroke rate during follow-up that was 76% higher than those in the low or intermediate tertile for their genetic score. Among the 796 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of just 1 or 2, those who also fell into the highest level of risk on the 32-loci screen had a stroke rate 3.5-fold higher than those with a similar CHA2DS2-VASc score but in the low and intermediate tertiles by the 32-loci screen.

The additional risk prediction provided by the 32-loci test was statistically significant in the analysis of the 3,071 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3 or less after adjustment for age, sex, ancestry, and the individual components of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, which includes factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and heart failure, said Dr. Marston, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The 3.5-fold elevation among patients with a high genetic-risk score in the cohort of 796 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1 or 2 just missed statistical significance (P = .06), possibly because the number of patients in the analysis was relatively low. Future research should explore the predictive value of the genetic risk score in patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1, the “group where therapeutic decisions could be altered” depending on the genetic risk score, he explained.

Dr. Marston and his associates used data collected in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) trial, which was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the direct-acting oral anticoagulant edoxaban in patients with AFib (New Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 28; 369[21]: 2091-2104). The 32-loci panel to measure a person’s genetic risk for stroke came from a 2018 report by a multinational team of researchers (Nature Genetics. 2018 Apr;50[4]: 524-37). The new analysis applied this 32-loci genetic test panel to 11.164 unrelated AFib patients with European ancestry from the ENGAGE AF-TIMIT 48 database. They divided this cohort into tertiles based on having a low, intermediate, or high stroke risk as assessed by the 32-loci genetic test. The analysis focused on patients enrolled in the trial who had European ancestry because the 32-loci screening test relied predominantly on data collected from people with this genetic background, Dr. Marston said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Marston NA et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 336.

PHILADELPHIA – A 32-gene screening test for stroke risk identified a subgroup of atrial fibrillation (AFib) patients with an elevated rate of ischemic strokes despite having a low stroke risk by conventional criteria by their CHA2DS2-VASc score in a post-hoc analysis of more than 11,000 patients enrolled in a recent drug trial.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

Overall, AFib patients in the highest tertile for genetic risk based on a 32 gene-loci test had a 31% increase rate of ischemic stroke during a median 2.8 years of follow-up compared with patients in the tertile with the lowest risk based on the 32-loci screen, Nicholas A. Marston, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions. This suggested that the genetic test had roughly the same association with an increased stroke risk as several components of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, such as female sex, an age of 65-74 years old, or having heart failure as a comorbidity, each of which links with an increased risk for ischemic stroke of about 31%-38%, Dr. Marston noted.

The genetic test produced even sharper discrimination among the patients with the lowest stroke risk as measured by their CHA2DS2-VASc score (Circulation. 2012 Aug 14;126[7]: 860-5). Among the slightly more than 3,000 patients in the study with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of three or less, those in the subgroup with the highest risk by the 32-loci screen had a stroke rate during follow-up that was 76% higher than those in the low or intermediate tertile for their genetic score. Among the 796 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of just 1 or 2, those who also fell into the highest level of risk on the 32-loci screen had a stroke rate 3.5-fold higher than those with a similar CHA2DS2-VASc score but in the low and intermediate tertiles by the 32-loci screen.

The additional risk prediction provided by the 32-loci test was statistically significant in the analysis of the 3,071 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 3 or less after adjustment for age, sex, ancestry, and the individual components of the CHA2DS2-VASc score, which includes factors such as hypertension, diabetes, and heart failure, said Dr. Marston, a cardiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. The 3.5-fold elevation among patients with a high genetic-risk score in the cohort of 796 patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 1 or 2 just missed statistical significance (P = .06), possibly because the number of patients in the analysis was relatively low. Future research should explore the predictive value of the genetic risk score in patients with a CHA2DS2-VASc score of 0 or 1, the “group where therapeutic decisions could be altered” depending on the genetic risk score, he explained.

Dr. Marston and his associates used data collected in the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 (Effective Anticoagulation with Factor Xa Next Generation in Atrial Fibrillation–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 48) trial, which was designed to assess the safety and efficacy of the direct-acting oral anticoagulant edoxaban in patients with AFib (New Engl J Med. 2013 Nov 28; 369[21]: 2091-2104). The 32-loci panel to measure a person’s genetic risk for stroke came from a 2018 report by a multinational team of researchers (Nature Genetics. 2018 Apr;50[4]: 524-37). The new analysis applied this 32-loci genetic test panel to 11.164 unrelated AFib patients with European ancestry from the ENGAGE AF-TIMIT 48 database. They divided this cohort into tertiles based on having a low, intermediate, or high stroke risk as assessed by the 32-loci genetic test. The analysis focused on patients enrolled in the trial who had European ancestry because the 32-loci screening test relied predominantly on data collected from people with this genetic background, Dr. Marston said.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Marston NA et al. AHA 2019, Abstract 336.

PHILADELPHIA – The definition and treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should change based on recent findings and analyses from major trials, said a key heart failure leader at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The people charged with writing U.S. guidelines for heart failure management already have enough evidence to change the recommended way of using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Accumulated evidence from studies and more than 5 years of experience in routine practice with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) combination sacubitril/valsartan for treating HFrEF patients justifies striking the existing recommendation to first start patients on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and only after that switching to sacubitril/valsartan, a sequence that has rankled some clinicians as an unnecessary delay and barrier to starting patients on the ARNI regimen.

U.S. guidelines should now suggest that ARNI treatment start immediately, suggested Dr. Yancy, who chaired the AHA/American College of Cardiology panel that updated U.S. guidelines for heart failure management in 2013 (Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128[16]:e240-327), 2016 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep;68[13]:1476-88), and 2017 (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8; 136[6]:e137-61).

Expanding the heart failure group for sacubitril/valsartan

Dr. Yancy also proposed a second major and immediate change to the existing heart failure guideline based on a new appreciation of a heart failure population that could benefit from ARNI treatment: patients with “mid-range” heart failure, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41%-49% that places them between patients with HFrEF with an ejection fraction of 40% or less, and those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) of 50% or more. As yet unchanged in the 2013 AHA/ACC heart failure guideline is the proposition that patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 41%-49% have “borderline” heart failure with characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes “similar to patients with HFpEF.”

That premise should now go out the window, urged Dr. Yancy, based on a new analysis of data collected from both the recent PARAGON-HF trial of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF and ejection fractions of 45% or higher (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20) and the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial that established sacubitril/valsartan as a treatment for patients with HFrEF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). A combined analysis of the more than 13,000 total patients in both studies suggested that “patients with ejection fraction lower than normal, which includes those with so-called heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or borderline ejection fraction, would likely benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with RAS inhibition,” concluded the authors of the new analysis (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044586).

Dr. Yancy argued that, based on this new analysis, a further revision to the 2013 guideline should say that patients with heart failure with a LVEF of 41%-49% have characteristics, treatment responses, and outcomes that “appear similar to those of patient with HFrEF,” a sharp departure from the existing text that lumps these patients with the HFpEF subgroup. “There appears to be a signal that extends the benefit of ARNI to patients with ejection fractions above the current threshold for HFrEF but below what is typically HFpEF,” he said.

Bringing SGLT2 inhibitors into heart failure management

Dr. Yancy also cited recently reported data from another landmark trial, DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), as an impetus for both another immediate change to the guideline and for a potential second change pending a report of confirmatory evidence that may arrive in 2020.

The DAPA-HF results showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) was just as effective for preventing all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations and urgent visits in patients without type 2 diabetes as it is in patients with type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008), a remarkable finding for an agent that came onto the U.S. market as a diabetes drug specifically aimed at reducing levels of glycosylated hemoglobin.

Dr. Yancy proposed an immediate guideline change to acknowledge the proven protection against incident heart failure that treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor gives patients with type 2 diabetes. There is now “a strong opportunity to use an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes to reduce the incidence of heart failure,” he said.

And he added that, if results from EMPEROR REDUCED (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), studying the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in HFrEF patients with and without type 2 diabetes, can confirm the efficacy of a second drug from this class in preventing heart failure events in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes, then the time will have arrived for another guideline change to establish the SGLT2 inhibitors as a new “foundational” drug for the management of all HFrEF patients, regardless of their level of glycemic control. The SGLT2 inhibitors are a particularly attractive additional drug because they are taken once daily orally with no need for dosage adjustment, so far they have shown excellent safety in patients without diabetes with no episodes of hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis, and they have even shown evidence for heart failure benefit in patients older than 75 years, Dr. Yancy noted.

Dr. Yancy had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – The definition and treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should change based on recent findings and analyses from major trials, said a key heart failure leader at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The people charged with writing U.S. guidelines for heart failure management already have enough evidence to change the recommended way of using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Accumulated evidence from studies and more than 5 years of experience in routine practice with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) combination sacubitril/valsartan for treating HFrEF patients justifies striking the existing recommendation to first start patients on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and only after that switching to sacubitril/valsartan, a sequence that has rankled some clinicians as an unnecessary delay and barrier to starting patients on the ARNI regimen.

U.S. guidelines should now suggest that ARNI treatment start immediately, suggested Dr. Yancy, who chaired the AHA/American College of Cardiology panel that updated U.S. guidelines for heart failure management in 2013 (Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128[16]:e240-327), 2016 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep;68[13]:1476-88), and 2017 (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8; 136[6]:e137-61).

Expanding the heart failure group for sacubitril/valsartan

Dr. Yancy also proposed a second major and immediate change to the existing heart failure guideline based on a new appreciation of a heart failure population that could benefit from ARNI treatment: patients with “mid-range” heart failure, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41%-49% that places them between patients with HFrEF with an ejection fraction of 40% or less, and those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) of 50% or more. As yet unchanged in the 2013 AHA/ACC heart failure guideline is the proposition that patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 41%-49% have “borderline” heart failure with characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes “similar to patients with HFpEF.”

That premise should now go out the window, urged Dr. Yancy, based on a new analysis of data collected from both the recent PARAGON-HF trial of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF and ejection fractions of 45% or higher (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20) and the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial that established sacubitril/valsartan as a treatment for patients with HFrEF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). A combined analysis of the more than 13,000 total patients in both studies suggested that “patients with ejection fraction lower than normal, which includes those with so-called heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or borderline ejection fraction, would likely benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with RAS inhibition,” concluded the authors of the new analysis (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044586).

Dr. Yancy argued that, based on this new analysis, a further revision to the 2013 guideline should say that patients with heart failure with a LVEF of 41%-49% have characteristics, treatment responses, and outcomes that “appear similar to those of patient with HFrEF,” a sharp departure from the existing text that lumps these patients with the HFpEF subgroup. “There appears to be a signal that extends the benefit of ARNI to patients with ejection fractions above the current threshold for HFrEF but below what is typically HFpEF,” he said.

Bringing SGLT2 inhibitors into heart failure management

Dr. Yancy also cited recently reported data from another landmark trial, DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), as an impetus for both another immediate change to the guideline and for a potential second change pending a report of confirmatory evidence that may arrive in 2020.

The DAPA-HF results showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) was just as effective for preventing all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations and urgent visits in patients without type 2 diabetes as it is in patients with type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008), a remarkable finding for an agent that came onto the U.S. market as a diabetes drug specifically aimed at reducing levels of glycosylated hemoglobin.

Dr. Yancy proposed an immediate guideline change to acknowledge the proven protection against incident heart failure that treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor gives patients with type 2 diabetes. There is now “a strong opportunity to use an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes to reduce the incidence of heart failure,” he said.

And he added that, if results from EMPEROR REDUCED (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), studying the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in HFrEF patients with and without type 2 diabetes, can confirm the efficacy of a second drug from this class in preventing heart failure events in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes, then the time will have arrived for another guideline change to establish the SGLT2 inhibitors as a new “foundational” drug for the management of all HFrEF patients, regardless of their level of glycemic control. The SGLT2 inhibitors are a particularly attractive additional drug because they are taken once daily orally with no need for dosage adjustment, so far they have shown excellent safety in patients without diabetes with no episodes of hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis, and they have even shown evidence for heart failure benefit in patients older than 75 years, Dr. Yancy noted.

Dr. Yancy had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

PHILADELPHIA – The definition and treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction should change based on recent findings and analyses from major trials, said a key heart failure leader at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Mitchel L. Zoler/MDedge News

The people charged with writing U.S. guidelines for heart failure management already have enough evidence to change the recommended way of using sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, professor of medicine and chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Accumulated evidence from studies and more than 5 years of experience in routine practice with the angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor (ARNI) combination sacubitril/valsartan for treating HFrEF patients justifies striking the existing recommendation to first start patients on an ACE inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker and only after that switching to sacubitril/valsartan, a sequence that has rankled some clinicians as an unnecessary delay and barrier to starting patients on the ARNI regimen.

U.S. guidelines should now suggest that ARNI treatment start immediately, suggested Dr. Yancy, who chaired the AHA/American College of Cardiology panel that updated U.S. guidelines for heart failure management in 2013 (Circulation. 2013 Oct 15;128[16]:e240-327), 2016 (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Sep;68[13]:1476-88), and 2017 (Circulation. 2017 Aug 8; 136[6]:e137-61).

Expanding the heart failure group for sacubitril/valsartan

Dr. Yancy also proposed a second major and immediate change to the existing heart failure guideline based on a new appreciation of a heart failure population that could benefit from ARNI treatment: patients with “mid-range” heart failure, defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 41%-49% that places them between patients with HFrEF with an ejection fraction of 40% or less, and those with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) of 50% or more. As yet unchanged in the 2013 AHA/ACC heart failure guideline is the proposition that patients with heart failure and an ejection fraction of 41%-49% have “borderline” heart failure with characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes “similar to patients with HFpEF.”

That premise should now go out the window, urged Dr. Yancy, based on a new analysis of data collected from both the recent PARAGON-HF trial of sacubitril/valsartan in patients with HFpEF and ejection fractions of 45% or higher (N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 24;381[17]:1609-20) and the landmark PARADIGM-HF trial that established sacubitril/valsartan as a treatment for patients with HFrEF (N Engl J Med. 2014 Sep 11;371[11]:993-1004). A combined analysis of the more than 13,000 total patients in both studies suggested that “patients with ejection fraction lower than normal, which includes those with so-called heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction or borderline ejection fraction, would likely benefit from sacubitril/valsartan, compared with RAS inhibition,” concluded the authors of the new analysis (Circulation. 2019 Nov 17. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.119.044586).

Dr. Yancy argued that, based on this new analysis, a further revision to the 2013 guideline should say that patients with heart failure with a LVEF of 41%-49% have characteristics, treatment responses, and outcomes that “appear similar to those of patient with HFrEF,” a sharp departure from the existing text that lumps these patients with the HFpEF subgroup. “There appears to be a signal that extends the benefit of ARNI to patients with ejection fractions above the current threshold for HFrEF but below what is typically HFpEF,” he said.

Bringing SGLT2 inhibitors into heart failure management

Dr. Yancy also cited recently reported data from another landmark trial, DAPA-HF (Dapagliflozin and Prevention of Adverse Outcomes in Heart Failure), as an impetus for both another immediate change to the guideline and for a potential second change pending a report of confirmatory evidence that may arrive in 2020.

The DAPA-HF results showed that the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitor dapagliflozin (Farxiga) was just as effective for preventing all-cause death and heart failure hospitalizations and urgent visits in patients without type 2 diabetes as it is in patients with type 2 diabetes (N Engl J Med. 2019 Nov 21;381[21]:1995-2008), a remarkable finding for an agent that came onto the U.S. market as a diabetes drug specifically aimed at reducing levels of glycosylated hemoglobin.

Dr. Yancy proposed an immediate guideline change to acknowledge the proven protection against incident heart failure that treatment with a SGLT2 inhibitor gives patients with type 2 diabetes. There is now “a strong opportunity to use an SGLT2 inhibitor in patients with type 2 diabetes to reduce the incidence of heart failure,” he said.

And he added that, if results from EMPEROR REDUCED (Empagliflozin Outcome Trial in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction), studying the SGLT2 inhibitor empagliflozin (Jardiance) in HFrEF patients with and without type 2 diabetes, can confirm the efficacy of a second drug from this class in preventing heart failure events in patients with HFrEF but without diabetes, then the time will have arrived for another guideline change to establish the SGLT2 inhibitors as a new “foundational” drug for the management of all HFrEF patients, regardless of their level of glycemic control. The SGLT2 inhibitors are a particularly attractive additional drug because they are taken once daily orally with no need for dosage adjustment, so far they have shown excellent safety in patients without diabetes with no episodes of hypoglycemia or ketoacidosis, and they have even shown evidence for heart failure benefit in patients older than 75 years, Dr. Yancy noted.

Dr. Yancy had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

ORLANDO – Combining aspirin and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or the prevention of stroke associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) without a clear indication was associated with increased bleeding risks in a large registry-based cohort.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The study, which involved a cohort of 2,045 patients who were followed at 6 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan during January 2009–June 2019, also found no apparent improvement in thrombosis incidence with the addition of aspirin, Jordan K. Schaefer, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Of the cohort patients, 639 adults who received a DOAC plus aspirin after VTE or for NVAF without a clear indication were compared with 639 propensity-matched controls. The bleeding event rate per 100 patient years was 39.50 vs. 32.32 at an average of 15.2 months of follow-up in the combination therapy and DOAC monotherapy groups, respectively, said Dr. Schaefer of the division of hematology/oncology, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“This result was statistically significant for clinically relevant non-major bleeding, with an 18.7 rate per 100 patient years, compared with 13.5 for DOAC monotherapy,” (P = .02), he said. “We also saw a significant increase in non-major bleeding with combination therapy, compared with direct oral anticoagulant monotherapy” (rate, 32.82 vs. 25.88; P =.04).

No significant difference was seen overall (P =.07) or for other specific types of bleeding, he noted.

The observed rates of thrombosis in the groups, respectively, were 2.35 and 2.23 per 100 patient years (P =.95), he said, noting that patients on combination therapy also had more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, but those differences were not statistically significant.

“Direct-acting oral anticoagulants, which include apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban, are increasingly used in clinical practice for indications that include the prevention of strokes for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease,” Dr. Schaefer said.

Aspirin is commonly used in clinical practice for various indications, including primary prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and colorectal cancer, as well as for thromboprophylaxis in patients with certain blood disorders or with certain cardiac devices, he added.

“Aspirin is used for the secondary prevention of thrombosis for patients with known coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, or carotid artery disease,” he said. “And while adding aspirin to a DOAC is often appropriate after acute coronary syndromes or percutaneous coronary intervention, many patients receive the combination therapy without a clear indication, he said, noting that increasing evidence in recent years, largely from patients treated with warfarin and aspirin, suggest that the approach may do more harm than good for certain patients.

Specifically, there’s a question of whether aspirin is increasing the rates of bleeding without protecting patients from adverse thrombotic outcomes.

“This has specifically been a concern for patients who are on full-dose anticoagulation,” he said.

In the current study, patient demographics, comorbidities, and concurrent medications were well balanced in the treatment and control groups after propensity score matching, he said, noting that patients with a history of heart valve replacement, recent MI, or less than 3 months of follow-up were excluded.

“These findings need to be confirmed in larger studies, but until such data [are] available, clinicians and patients should continue to balance the relative risks and benefits of adding aspirin to their direct oral anticoagulant therapy,” Dr. Schaefer said. “Further research needs to evaluate key subgroups to see if any particular population may benefit from combination therapy compared to DOAC therapy alone.”

Dr. Schaefer reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schaeffer J et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 787.

ORLANDO – Combining aspirin and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or the prevention of stroke associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) without a clear indication was associated with increased bleeding risks in a large registry-based cohort.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The study, which involved a cohort of 2,045 patients who were followed at 6 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan during January 2009–June 2019, also found no apparent improvement in thrombosis incidence with the addition of aspirin, Jordan K. Schaefer, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Of the cohort patients, 639 adults who received a DOAC plus aspirin after VTE or for NVAF without a clear indication were compared with 639 propensity-matched controls. The bleeding event rate per 100 patient years was 39.50 vs. 32.32 at an average of 15.2 months of follow-up in the combination therapy and DOAC monotherapy groups, respectively, said Dr. Schaefer of the division of hematology/oncology, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“This result was statistically significant for clinically relevant non-major bleeding, with an 18.7 rate per 100 patient years, compared with 13.5 for DOAC monotherapy,” (P = .02), he said. “We also saw a significant increase in non-major bleeding with combination therapy, compared with direct oral anticoagulant monotherapy” (rate, 32.82 vs. 25.88; P =.04).

No significant difference was seen overall (P =.07) or for other specific types of bleeding, he noted.

The observed rates of thrombosis in the groups, respectively, were 2.35 and 2.23 per 100 patient years (P =.95), he said, noting that patients on combination therapy also had more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, but those differences were not statistically significant.

“Direct-acting oral anticoagulants, which include apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban, are increasingly used in clinical practice for indications that include the prevention of strokes for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease,” Dr. Schaefer said.

Aspirin is commonly used in clinical practice for various indications, including primary prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and colorectal cancer, as well as for thromboprophylaxis in patients with certain blood disorders or with certain cardiac devices, he added.

“Aspirin is used for the secondary prevention of thrombosis for patients with known coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, or carotid artery disease,” he said. “And while adding aspirin to a DOAC is often appropriate after acute coronary syndromes or percutaneous coronary intervention, many patients receive the combination therapy without a clear indication, he said, noting that increasing evidence in recent years, largely from patients treated with warfarin and aspirin, suggest that the approach may do more harm than good for certain patients.

Specifically, there’s a question of whether aspirin is increasing the rates of bleeding without protecting patients from adverse thrombotic outcomes.

“This has specifically been a concern for patients who are on full-dose anticoagulation,” he said.

In the current study, patient demographics, comorbidities, and concurrent medications were well balanced in the treatment and control groups after propensity score matching, he said, noting that patients with a history of heart valve replacement, recent MI, or less than 3 months of follow-up were excluded.

“These findings need to be confirmed in larger studies, but until such data [are] available, clinicians and patients should continue to balance the relative risks and benefits of adding aspirin to their direct oral anticoagulant therapy,” Dr. Schaefer said. “Further research needs to evaluate key subgroups to see if any particular population may benefit from combination therapy compared to DOAC therapy alone.”

Dr. Schaefer reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schaeffer J et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 787.

ORLANDO – Combining aspirin and direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy for the secondary prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) or the prevention of stroke associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) without a clear indication was associated with increased bleeding risks in a large registry-based cohort.

Sharon Worcester/MDedge News

The study, which involved a cohort of 2,045 patients who were followed at 6 anticoagulation clinics in Michigan during January 2009–June 2019, also found no apparent improvement in thrombosis incidence with the addition of aspirin, Jordan K. Schaefer, MD, reported during a press briefing at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Of the cohort patients, 639 adults who received a DOAC plus aspirin after VTE or for NVAF without a clear indication were compared with 639 propensity-matched controls. The bleeding event rate per 100 patient years was 39.50 vs. 32.32 at an average of 15.2 months of follow-up in the combination therapy and DOAC monotherapy groups, respectively, said Dr. Schaefer of the division of hematology/oncology, department of internal medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“This result was statistically significant for clinically relevant non-major bleeding, with an 18.7 rate per 100 patient years, compared with 13.5 for DOAC monotherapy,” (P = .02), he said. “We also saw a significant increase in non-major bleeding with combination therapy, compared with direct oral anticoagulant monotherapy” (rate, 32.82 vs. 25.88; P =.04).

No significant difference was seen overall (P =.07) or for other specific types of bleeding, he noted.

The observed rates of thrombosis in the groups, respectively, were 2.35 and 2.23 per 100 patient years (P =.95), he said, noting that patients on combination therapy also had more emergency department visits and hospitalizations, but those differences were not statistically significant.

“Direct-acting oral anticoagulants, which include apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban, are increasingly used in clinical practice for indications that include the prevention of strokes for patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, and the treatment and secondary prevention of venous thromboembolic disease,” Dr. Schaefer said.

Aspirin is commonly used in clinical practice for various indications, including primary prevention of heart attacks, strokes, and colorectal cancer, as well as for thromboprophylaxis in patients with certain blood disorders or with certain cardiac devices, he added.

“Aspirin is used for the secondary prevention of thrombosis for patients with known coronary artery disease, peripheral artery disease, or carotid artery disease,” he said. “And while adding aspirin to a DOAC is often appropriate after acute coronary syndromes or percutaneous coronary intervention, many patients receive the combination therapy without a clear indication, he said, noting that increasing evidence in recent years, largely from patients treated with warfarin and aspirin, suggest that the approach may do more harm than good for certain patients.

Specifically, there’s a question of whether aspirin is increasing the rates of bleeding without protecting patients from adverse thrombotic outcomes.

“This has specifically been a concern for patients who are on full-dose anticoagulation,” he said.

In the current study, patient demographics, comorbidities, and concurrent medications were well balanced in the treatment and control groups after propensity score matching, he said, noting that patients with a history of heart valve replacement, recent MI, or less than 3 months of follow-up were excluded.

“These findings need to be confirmed in larger studies, but until such data [are] available, clinicians and patients should continue to balance the relative risks and benefits of adding aspirin to their direct oral anticoagulant therapy,” Dr. Schaefer said. “Further research needs to evaluate key subgroups to see if any particular population may benefit from combination therapy compared to DOAC therapy alone.”

Dr. Schaefer reported having no disclosures.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Schaeffer J et al. ASH 2019. Abstract 787.

It’s been a decade since flu activity levels were this high this early in the season.

For the week ending Nov. 30, outpatient visits for influenza-like illness reached 3.5% of all visits to health care providers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Dec. 6. That is the highest pre-December rate since the pandemic of 2009-2010, when the rate peaked at 7.7% in mid-October, CDC data show.

For the last week of November, eight states and Puerto Rico reported activity levels at the high point of the CDC’s 1-10 scale, which is at least five more states than any of the past five flu seasons. Three of the last five seasons had no states at level 10 this early in the season.

Another 4 states at levels 8 and 9 put a total of 13 jurisdictions in the “high” range of flu activity, with another 14 states in the “moderate” range of levels 6 and 7. Geographically speaking, 24 jurisdictions are experiencing regional or widespread activity, which is up from the 15 reported last week, the CDC’s influenza division said.

The hospitalization rate to date for the 2019-2020 season – 2.7 per 100,000 population – is “similar to what has been seen at this time during other recent seasons,” the CDC said.

One influenza-related pediatric death was reported during the week ending Nov. 30, which brings the total for the season to six, according to the CDC report.

[email protected]

It’s been a decade since flu activity levels were this high this early in the season.

For the week ending Nov. 30, outpatient visits for influenza-like illness reached 3.5% of all visits to health care providers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Dec. 6. That is the highest pre-December rate since the pandemic of 2009-2010, when the rate peaked at 7.7% in mid-October, CDC data show.

For the last week of November, eight states and Puerto Rico reported activity levels at the high point of the CDC’s 1-10 scale, which is at least five more states than any of the past five flu seasons. Three of the last five seasons had no states at level 10 this early in the season.

Another 4 states at levels 8 and 9 put a total of 13 jurisdictions in the “high” range of flu activity, with another 14 states in the “moderate” range of levels 6 and 7. Geographically speaking, 24 jurisdictions are experiencing regional or widespread activity, which is up from the 15 reported last week, the CDC’s influenza division said.

The hospitalization rate to date for the 2019-2020 season – 2.7 per 100,000 population – is “similar to what has been seen at this time during other recent seasons,” the CDC said.

One influenza-related pediatric death was reported during the week ending Nov. 30, which brings the total for the season to six, according to the CDC report.

[email protected]

It’s been a decade since flu activity levels were this high this early in the season.

For the week ending Nov. 30, outpatient visits for influenza-like illness reached 3.5% of all visits to health care providers, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Dec. 6. That is the highest pre-December rate since the pandemic of 2009-2010, when the rate peaked at 7.7% in mid-October, CDC data show.

For the last week of November, eight states and Puerto Rico reported activity levels at the high point of the CDC’s 1-10 scale, which is at least five more states than any of the past five flu seasons. Three of the last five seasons had no states at level 10 this early in the season.

Another 4 states at levels 8 and 9 put a total of 13 jurisdictions in the “high” range of flu activity, with another 14 states in the “moderate” range of levels 6 and 7. Geographically speaking, 24 jurisdictions are experiencing regional or widespread activity, which is up from the 15 reported last week, the CDC’s influenza division said.

The hospitalization rate to date for the 2019-2020 season – 2.7 per 100,000 population – is “similar to what has been seen at this time during other recent seasons,” the CDC said.

One influenza-related pediatric death was reported during the week ending Nov. 30, which brings the total for the season to six, according to the CDC report.

[email protected]

As fall arrives, new interns are rapidly gaining clinical confidence, and residency recruitment season is ramping up. It’s also time to announce the opening of the SHM Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant Program applications; we are now recruiting our sixth group of scholars for the summer and longitudinal programs.

Since its creation in 2015, the grant has supported 23 students in this incredible opportunity to allow trainees to engage in scholarly work with guidance from a mentor to better understand the practice of hospital medicine and to further grow our robust pipeline.

The 2018-2019 cohort of scholars, Matthew Fallon, Philip Huang, and Erin Rainosek, just concluded their projects and are currently preparing their abstracts for submission for Hospital Medicine 2020, where there is a track for Early-Career Hospitalists. The projects targeted a diverse set of domains, including improving upon the patient experience, readmission quality metrics, geographic cohorting, and clinical documentation integrity – all highly relevant topics for a practicing hospitalist.

Matthew Fallon collaborated with his mentor, Dr. Venkata Andukuri, at Creighton University, to reduce the rate of hospital readmission for patients with heart failure, by analyzing retrospective data in a root cause analysis to identify factors that influence readmission rate, then targeting those directly. They also integrated the patient experience by seeking out patient input as to the challenges they face in the management of their heart failure.

Philip Huang worked with his mentor, Dr. Ethan Kuperman, at the Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, to improve geographic localization for hospitalized patients to improve care efficiency. They worked closely with an industrial engineering team to create a workflow model integrated into the hospital EHR to designate patient location and were able to better understand the role that other professions play in improving the health care delivery.

Finally, Erin Rainosek teamed up with her mentor, Dr. Luci Leykum, at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, to apply a design thinking strategy to redesign the health care experience for hospitalized patients. She engaged in over 120 hours of patient interviews and ultimately identified key themes that impact the experience of care, which will serve as target areas moving forward.

The student scholars in this cohort gained significant insight into the patient experience and quality issues relevant to the field of hospital medicine. We are proud of their accomplishments and look forward to their future successes and careers in hospital medicine. If you would like to learn more about the experience of our scholars this past summer, they have posted full write-ups on the Future Hospitalist RoundUp blog in HMX, SHM’s online community.

For students interested in becoming scholars, SHM offers two options to eligible medical students – the Summer Program and the Longitudinal Program. Both programs allow students to participate in projects related to quality improvement, patient safety, clinical research or hospital operations, in order to learn more about career paths in hospital medicine. Students will have the opportunity to conduct scholarly work with a mentor in these domains, with the option of participating over the summer during a 6-10-week period or longitudinally throughout the course of a year.

Discover additional benefits and how to apply on the SHM website. Applications will close in late January 2020.

Dr. Gottenborg is director of the Hospitalist Training Program within the Internal Medicine Residency Program at the University of Colorado. Dr. Duckett is assistant professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina.

As fall arrives, new interns are rapidly gaining clinical confidence, and residency recruitment season is ramping up. It’s also time to announce the opening of the SHM Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant Program applications; we are now recruiting our sixth group of scholars for the summer and longitudinal programs.

Since its creation in 2015, the grant has supported 23 students in this incredible opportunity to allow trainees to engage in scholarly work with guidance from a mentor to better understand the practice of hospital medicine and to further grow our robust pipeline.

The 2018-2019 cohort of scholars, Matthew Fallon, Philip Huang, and Erin Rainosek, just concluded their projects and are currently preparing their abstracts for submission for Hospital Medicine 2020, where there is a track for Early-Career Hospitalists. The projects targeted a diverse set of domains, including improving upon the patient experience, readmission quality metrics, geographic cohorting, and clinical documentation integrity – all highly relevant topics for a practicing hospitalist.

Matthew Fallon collaborated with his mentor, Dr. Venkata Andukuri, at Creighton University, to reduce the rate of hospital readmission for patients with heart failure, by analyzing retrospective data in a root cause analysis to identify factors that influence readmission rate, then targeting those directly. They also integrated the patient experience by seeking out patient input as to the challenges they face in the management of their heart failure.

Philip Huang worked with his mentor, Dr. Ethan Kuperman, at the Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, to improve geographic localization for hospitalized patients to improve care efficiency. They worked closely with an industrial engineering team to create a workflow model integrated into the hospital EHR to designate patient location and were able to better understand the role that other professions play in improving the health care delivery.

Finally, Erin Rainosek teamed up with her mentor, Dr. Luci Leykum, at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, to apply a design thinking strategy to redesign the health care experience for hospitalized patients. She engaged in over 120 hours of patient interviews and ultimately identified key themes that impact the experience of care, which will serve as target areas moving forward.

The student scholars in this cohort gained significant insight into the patient experience and quality issues relevant to the field of hospital medicine. We are proud of their accomplishments and look forward to their future successes and careers in hospital medicine. If you would like to learn more about the experience of our scholars this past summer, they have posted full write-ups on the Future Hospitalist RoundUp blog in HMX, SHM’s online community.

For students interested in becoming scholars, SHM offers two options to eligible medical students – the Summer Program and the Longitudinal Program. Both programs allow students to participate in projects related to quality improvement, patient safety, clinical research or hospital operations, in order to learn more about career paths in hospital medicine. Students will have the opportunity to conduct scholarly work with a mentor in these domains, with the option of participating over the summer during a 6-10-week period or longitudinally throughout the course of a year.

Discover additional benefits and how to apply on the SHM website. Applications will close in late January 2020.

Dr. Gottenborg is director of the Hospitalist Training Program within the Internal Medicine Residency Program at the University of Colorado. Dr. Duckett is assistant professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina.

As fall arrives, new interns are rapidly gaining clinical confidence, and residency recruitment season is ramping up. It’s also time to announce the opening of the SHM Student Hospitalist Scholar Grant Program applications; we are now recruiting our sixth group of scholars for the summer and longitudinal programs.

Since its creation in 2015, the grant has supported 23 students in this incredible opportunity to allow trainees to engage in scholarly work with guidance from a mentor to better understand the practice of hospital medicine and to further grow our robust pipeline.

The 2018-2019 cohort of scholars, Matthew Fallon, Philip Huang, and Erin Rainosek, just concluded their projects and are currently preparing their abstracts for submission for Hospital Medicine 2020, where there is a track for Early-Career Hospitalists. The projects targeted a diverse set of domains, including improving upon the patient experience, readmission quality metrics, geographic cohorting, and clinical documentation integrity – all highly relevant topics for a practicing hospitalist.

Matthew Fallon collaborated with his mentor, Dr. Venkata Andukuri, at Creighton University, to reduce the rate of hospital readmission for patients with heart failure, by analyzing retrospective data in a root cause analysis to identify factors that influence readmission rate, then targeting those directly. They also integrated the patient experience by seeking out patient input as to the challenges they face in the management of their heart failure.

Philip Huang worked with his mentor, Dr. Ethan Kuperman, at the Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa, to improve geographic localization for hospitalized patients to improve care efficiency. They worked closely with an industrial engineering team to create a workflow model integrated into the hospital EHR to designate patient location and were able to better understand the role that other professions play in improving the health care delivery.

Finally, Erin Rainosek teamed up with her mentor, Dr. Luci Leykum, at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, to apply a design thinking strategy to redesign the health care experience for hospitalized patients. She engaged in over 120 hours of patient interviews and ultimately identified key themes that impact the experience of care, which will serve as target areas moving forward.

The student scholars in this cohort gained significant insight into the patient experience and quality issues relevant to the field of hospital medicine. We are proud of their accomplishments and look forward to their future successes and careers in hospital medicine. If you would like to learn more about the experience of our scholars this past summer, they have posted full write-ups on the Future Hospitalist RoundUp blog in HMX, SHM’s online community.

For students interested in becoming scholars, SHM offers two options to eligible medical students – the Summer Program and the Longitudinal Program. Both programs allow students to participate in projects related to quality improvement, patient safety, clinical research or hospital operations, in order to learn more about career paths in hospital medicine. Students will have the opportunity to conduct scholarly work with a mentor in these domains, with the option of participating over the summer during a 6-10-week period or longitudinally throughout the course of a year.

Discover additional benefits and how to apply on the SHM website. Applications will close in late January 2020.

Dr. Gottenborg is director of the Hospitalist Training Program within the Internal Medicine Residency Program at the University of Colorado. Dr. Duckett is assistant professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina.

A Vietnam veteran steered clear of the health care system for years, then showed up at the hospital with pneumonia and respiratory failure. He was whisked to the intensive care unit, and cancerous masses were found.

The situation – as described by Jeffrey Frank, MD, director of quality and performance at Vituity, a physician group in Emeryville, Calif. – then got worse.

“No one was there for him,” Dr. Frank said. “He’s laying in the ICU, he does not have the capacity to make decisions, let alone communicate. So the care team needs guidance.”

Too often, hospitalists find themselves in confusing situations involving patients near the end of their lives, having to determine how to go about treating a patient or withholding treatment when patients are not in a position to announce their wishes. When family is present, the health care team thinks the most sensible course of treatment is at odds with what the family wants to be done.

At the Society of Hospital Medicine 2019 Annual Conference, hospitalists with palliative care training offered advice on how to go about handling these difficult situations, which can sometimes become more manageable with certain strategies.

For situations in which there is no designated representative to speak for a patient who is unresponsive – the so-called “unbefriended patient” or “unrepresented patient” – any source of information can be valuable. And health care providers should seek out this input, Dr. Frank said.

“When there is a visitor at the bedside, and as long as they know the person, and they can start giving the medical providers some information about what the patient would have wanted, most of us will talk with that person and that’s actually a good habit,” he said.

Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have regulations on whom health care providers should talk to when there is no obvious representative, Dr. Frank said, noting that most of these regulations follow a classic family-tree order. But in the discouraging results of many surveys of health care providers on the subject, most clinicians say that they do not know the regulations in their state, Dr. Frank said. But he said such results betray a silver lining because clinicians say that they would be inclined to use a family tree–style hierarchy in deciding with whom they should speak about end of life decisions.

Hospitalists should at least know whether their hospital has a policy on unrepresented patients, Dr. Frank said.

“That’s your road map on how to get through consenting this patient – what am I going to do with Mr. Smith?” he said. “You may ask yourself, ‘Do I just keep treating him and treating him?’ If you have a policy at your hospital, it will protect you from liability, as well as give you a sense of process.”
 

Conflicts in communication

An even worse situation, perhaps, is one that many hospitalists have seen: A patient is teetering at the edge of life, and a spouse arrives, along with two daughters from out of state who have not seen their father in a year, said Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, director of the ethics curriculum at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

“The family requests that the medical team do everything, including intubation and attempts at resuscitation if needed,” she said. “The family says he was fine prior to this admission. Another thing I hear a lot is, ‘He was even sicker than this last year, and he got better.’ ”

Meanwhile, “the medical team consensus is that he is not going to survive this illness,” Dr. Gundersen said.

The situation is so common and problematic that it has a name – the “Daughter from California Syndrome.” (According to medical literature says, it’s called the “Daughter from Chicago Syndrome” in California.)

“This is one of the most agonizing things that happens to us in medicine,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It affects us, it affects our nurses, it affects the entire medical team. It’s agonizing when we feel like treatment has somehow turned to torture.”

Dr. Gundersen said the medical staff should avoid using the word “futile,” or similar language, with families.

“Words matter,” she said. “Inappropriate language can inadvertently convey the feeling that, ‘They’re giving up on my dad – they think it’s hopeless.’ That can make families and the medical team dig in their heels further.”

Sometimes it can be hard to define the terms of decision making. Even if the family and the medical team can agree that no “nonbeneficial treatments” should be administered, Dr. Gundersen said, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean less than a 1% chance of working; less than a 5% chance?

If the medical staff thinks a mode of care won’t be effective, but the family still insists, some states have laws that could help the medical team. In Texas, for example, if the medical team thinks the care they’re giving isn’t helping the patient, and the patient is likely going to have a poor outcome, there’s a legal process that the team can go through, Dr. Gundersen said. But even these laws are seen as potentially problematic because of concerns that they put too much power in the hands of a hospital committee.

Dr. Gundersen strongly advised getting at the root causes of a family’s apprehension. They might not have been informed early enough about the dire nature of an illness to feel they can make a decision comfortably. They also may be receiving information in a piecemeal manner or information that is inconsistent. Another common fear expressed by families is a concern over abandonment by the medical team if a decision is made to forgo a certain treatment. Also, sometimes the goals of care might not be properly detailed and discussed, she said.

But better communication can help overcome these snags, Dr. Gundersen said.

She suggested that sometimes it’s helpful to clarify things with the family, for example, what do they mean by “Do everything”?

“Does it mean ‘I want you to do everything to prolong their life even if they suffer,’ or does it mean ‘I want you do to everything that’s reasonable to try to prolong their life but not at the risk of increased suffering,’ or anywhere in between. Really just having these clarifying conversations is helpful.”

She also emphasized the importance of talking about interests, such as not wanting a patient to suffer, instead of taking positions, such as flatly recommending the withdrawal of treatment.

“It’s easy for both sides to kind of dig in their heels and not communicate effectively,” Dr. Gundersen said.
 

‘Emotional torture’

There are times when, no matter how skillfully the medical team communicates, they stand at an impasse with the family.

“This is emotional torture for us,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It’s moral distress. We kind of dread these situations. In these cases, trying to support yourself and your team emotionally is the most important thing.”

Ami Doshi, MD, director of palliative care inpatient services at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, described the case of a baby girl that touched on the especially painful issues that can arise in pediatric cases. The 2-month-old girl had been born after a pregnancy affected by polyhydramnios and had an abnormal neurological exam and brain MRI, as well as congenital abnormalities. She’d been intubated for respiratory failure and was now on high-flow nasal cannula therapy. The girl was intolerant to feeding and was put on a nasojejunal feeding tube and then a gastrostomy-jejunostomy tube.

But the baby’s vomiting continued, and she had bradycardia and hypoxia so severe she needed bag mask ventilation to recover. The mother started to feel like she was “torturing” the baby.

The family decided to stop respiratory support but to continue artificial nutrition and hydration, which Dr. Doshi said, has an elevated status in the human psyche. Mentioning discontinuing feeding is fraught with complexity, she said.

“The notion of feeding is such a basic instinct, especially with a baby, that tackling the notion of discontinuing any sort of feeds, orally or tube feeds, is fraught with emotion and angst at times,” Dr. Doshi said.

The girl had respiratory events but recovered from them on her own, but the vomiting and retching continued. Eventually the artificial nutrition and hydration was stopped. But after 5 days, the medical staff began feeling uncomfortable, Dr. Doshi said. “We’re starting to hear from nurses, doctors, other people, that something just doesn’t feel right about what’s happening: ‘She seems okay,’ and, ‘Is it really okay for us to be doing this?’ and ‘Gosh, this is taking a long time.’ ”

The medical staff had, in a sense, joined the family on the emotional roller coaster.

Dr. Doshi said it’s important to remember that there is no ethical or moral distinction between withdrawing a medical intervention and withholding one.

“Stopping an intervention once it has started is no different ethically or legally than not starting it in the first place,” she said.

According to Dr. Doshi, there is a general consensus among medical societies that artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical intervention just like any other and that it should be evaluated within the same framework: Is it overly burdensome? Are we doing harm? Is it consistent with the goal of care? In so doing, be sure to respect patient autonomy and obtain informed consent.

As with so much in medicine, careful communication is a must.

“Paint a picture of what the patient’s trajectory is going to look like with and without artificial nutrition and hydration. At the end of the day, having done all of that, we’re going to ultimately respect what the patient or the surrogate decision maker decides,” Dr. Doshi said.

After assessment the data and the chances of success, and still without clarity about how to proceed, a good option might be considering a “time-limited trial” in which the medical team sits with the family and agrees on a time frame for an intervention and chooses predetermined endpoints for assessing success or failure.

“This can be very powerful to help us understand whether it is beneficial, but also – from the family’s perspective – to know everything was tried,” Dr. Doshi said.

Hospitalists should emphasize what is being added to treatment so that families don’t think only of what is being taken away, she said.

“Usually we are adding a lot – symptom management, a lot of psychosocial support. So what are all the other ways that we’re going to continue to care for the patient, even when we are withdrawing or withholding a specific intervention?” Dr. Doshi noted.

Sometimes, the best healer of distress in the midst of end of life decision making is time itself, Dr. Gundersen said.

In a condolence call, she once spoke with a family member involved in an agonizing case in which the medical team and family were at odds. Yet the man told her: “I know that you all were telling us the entire time that this was going to happen, but I guess we just had to go through our own process.”

A Vietnam veteran steered clear of the health care system for years, then showed up at the hospital with pneumonia and respiratory failure. He was whisked to the intensive care unit, and cancerous masses were found.

The situation – as described by Jeffrey Frank, MD, director of quality and performance at Vituity, a physician group in Emeryville, Calif. – then got worse.

“No one was there for him,” Dr. Frank said. “He’s laying in the ICU, he does not have the capacity to make decisions, let alone communicate. So the care team needs guidance.”

Too often, hospitalists find themselves in confusing situations involving patients near the end of their lives, having to determine how to go about treating a patient or withholding treatment when patients are not in a position to announce their wishes. When family is present, the health care team thinks the most sensible course of treatment is at odds with what the family wants to be done.

At the Society of Hospital Medicine 2019 Annual Conference, hospitalists with palliative care training offered advice on how to go about handling these difficult situations, which can sometimes become more manageable with certain strategies.

For situations in which there is no designated representative to speak for a patient who is unresponsive – the so-called “unbefriended patient” or “unrepresented patient” – any source of information can be valuable. And health care providers should seek out this input, Dr. Frank said.

“When there is a visitor at the bedside, and as long as they know the person, and they can start giving the medical providers some information about what the patient would have wanted, most of us will talk with that person and that’s actually a good habit,” he said.

Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have regulations on whom health care providers should talk to when there is no obvious representative, Dr. Frank said, noting that most of these regulations follow a classic family-tree order. But in the discouraging results of many surveys of health care providers on the subject, most clinicians say that they do not know the regulations in their state, Dr. Frank said. But he said such results betray a silver lining because clinicians say that they would be inclined to use a family tree–style hierarchy in deciding with whom they should speak about end of life decisions.

Hospitalists should at least know whether their hospital has a policy on unrepresented patients, Dr. Frank said.

“That’s your road map on how to get through consenting this patient – what am I going to do with Mr. Smith?” he said. “You may ask yourself, ‘Do I just keep treating him and treating him?’ If you have a policy at your hospital, it will protect you from liability, as well as give you a sense of process.”
 

Conflicts in communication

An even worse situation, perhaps, is one that many hospitalists have seen: A patient is teetering at the edge of life, and a spouse arrives, along with two daughters from out of state who have not seen their father in a year, said Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, director of the ethics curriculum at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

“The family requests that the medical team do everything, including intubation and attempts at resuscitation if needed,” she said. “The family says he was fine prior to this admission. Another thing I hear a lot is, ‘He was even sicker than this last year, and he got better.’ ”

Meanwhile, “the medical team consensus is that he is not going to survive this illness,” Dr. Gundersen said.

The situation is so common and problematic that it has a name – the “Daughter from California Syndrome.” (According to medical literature says, it’s called the “Daughter from Chicago Syndrome” in California.)

“This is one of the most agonizing things that happens to us in medicine,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It affects us, it affects our nurses, it affects the entire medical team. It’s agonizing when we feel like treatment has somehow turned to torture.”

Dr. Gundersen said the medical staff should avoid using the word “futile,” or similar language, with families.

“Words matter,” she said. “Inappropriate language can inadvertently convey the feeling that, ‘They’re giving up on my dad – they think it’s hopeless.’ That can make families and the medical team dig in their heels further.”

Sometimes it can be hard to define the terms of decision making. Even if the family and the medical team can agree that no “nonbeneficial treatments” should be administered, Dr. Gundersen said, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean less than a 1% chance of working; less than a 5% chance?

If the medical staff thinks a mode of care won’t be effective, but the family still insists, some states have laws that could help the medical team. In Texas, for example, if the medical team thinks the care they’re giving isn’t helping the patient, and the patient is likely going to have a poor outcome, there’s a legal process that the team can go through, Dr. Gundersen said. But even these laws are seen as potentially problematic because of concerns that they put too much power in the hands of a hospital committee.

Dr. Gundersen strongly advised getting at the root causes of a family’s apprehension. They might not have been informed early enough about the dire nature of an illness to feel they can make a decision comfortably. They also may be receiving information in a piecemeal manner or information that is inconsistent. Another common fear expressed by families is a concern over abandonment by the medical team if a decision is made to forgo a certain treatment. Also, sometimes the goals of care might not be properly detailed and discussed, she said.

But better communication can help overcome these snags, Dr. Gundersen said.

She suggested that sometimes it’s helpful to clarify things with the family, for example, what do they mean by “Do everything”?

“Does it mean ‘I want you to do everything to prolong their life even if they suffer,’ or does it mean ‘I want you do to everything that’s reasonable to try to prolong their life but not at the risk of increased suffering,’ or anywhere in between. Really just having these clarifying conversations is helpful.”

She also emphasized the importance of talking about interests, such as not wanting a patient to suffer, instead of taking positions, such as flatly recommending the withdrawal of treatment.

“It’s easy for both sides to kind of dig in their heels and not communicate effectively,” Dr. Gundersen said.
 

‘Emotional torture’

There are times when, no matter how skillfully the medical team communicates, they stand at an impasse with the family.

“This is emotional torture for us,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It’s moral distress. We kind of dread these situations. In these cases, trying to support yourself and your team emotionally is the most important thing.”

Ami Doshi, MD, director of palliative care inpatient services at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, described the case of a baby girl that touched on the especially painful issues that can arise in pediatric cases. The 2-month-old girl had been born after a pregnancy affected by polyhydramnios and had an abnormal neurological exam and brain MRI, as well as congenital abnormalities. She’d been intubated for respiratory failure and was now on high-flow nasal cannula therapy. The girl was intolerant to feeding and was put on a nasojejunal feeding tube and then a gastrostomy-jejunostomy tube.

But the baby’s vomiting continued, and she had bradycardia and hypoxia so severe she needed bag mask ventilation to recover. The mother started to feel like she was “torturing” the baby.

The family decided to stop respiratory support but to continue artificial nutrition and hydration, which Dr. Doshi said, has an elevated status in the human psyche. Mentioning discontinuing feeding is fraught with complexity, she said.

“The notion of feeding is such a basic instinct, especially with a baby, that tackling the notion of discontinuing any sort of feeds, orally or tube feeds, is fraught with emotion and angst at times,” Dr. Doshi said.

The girl had respiratory events but recovered from them on her own, but the vomiting and retching continued. Eventually the artificial nutrition and hydration was stopped. But after 5 days, the medical staff began feeling uncomfortable, Dr. Doshi said. “We’re starting to hear from nurses, doctors, other people, that something just doesn’t feel right about what’s happening: ‘She seems okay,’ and, ‘Is it really okay for us to be doing this?’ and ‘Gosh, this is taking a long time.’ ”

The medical staff had, in a sense, joined the family on the emotional roller coaster.

Dr. Doshi said it’s important to remember that there is no ethical or moral distinction between withdrawing a medical intervention and withholding one.

“Stopping an intervention once it has started is no different ethically or legally than not starting it in the first place,” she said.

According to Dr. Doshi, there is a general consensus among medical societies that artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical intervention just like any other and that it should be evaluated within the same framework: Is it overly burdensome? Are we doing harm? Is it consistent with the goal of care? In so doing, be sure to respect patient autonomy and obtain informed consent.

As with so much in medicine, careful communication is a must.

“Paint a picture of what the patient’s trajectory is going to look like with and without artificial nutrition and hydration. At the end of the day, having done all of that, we’re going to ultimately respect what the patient or the surrogate decision maker decides,” Dr. Doshi said.

After assessment the data and the chances of success, and still without clarity about how to proceed, a good option might be considering a “time-limited trial” in which the medical team sits with the family and agrees on a time frame for an intervention and chooses predetermined endpoints for assessing success or failure.

“This can be very powerful to help us understand whether it is beneficial, but also – from the family’s perspective – to know everything was tried,” Dr. Doshi said.

Hospitalists should emphasize what is being added to treatment so that families don’t think only of what is being taken away, she said.

“Usually we are adding a lot – symptom management, a lot of psychosocial support. So what are all the other ways that we’re going to continue to care for the patient, even when we are withdrawing or withholding a specific intervention?” Dr. Doshi noted.

Sometimes, the best healer of distress in the midst of end of life decision making is time itself, Dr. Gundersen said.

In a condolence call, she once spoke with a family member involved in an agonizing case in which the medical team and family were at odds. Yet the man told her: “I know that you all were telling us the entire time that this was going to happen, but I guess we just had to go through our own process.”

A Vietnam veteran steered clear of the health care system for years, then showed up at the hospital with pneumonia and respiratory failure. He was whisked to the intensive care unit, and cancerous masses were found.

The situation – as described by Jeffrey Frank, MD, director of quality and performance at Vituity, a physician group in Emeryville, Calif. – then got worse.

“No one was there for him,” Dr. Frank said. “He’s laying in the ICU, he does not have the capacity to make decisions, let alone communicate. So the care team needs guidance.”

Too often, hospitalists find themselves in confusing situations involving patients near the end of their lives, having to determine how to go about treating a patient or withholding treatment when patients are not in a position to announce their wishes. When family is present, the health care team thinks the most sensible course of treatment is at odds with what the family wants to be done.

At the Society of Hospital Medicine 2019 Annual Conference, hospitalists with palliative care training offered advice on how to go about handling these difficult situations, which can sometimes become more manageable with certain strategies.

For situations in which there is no designated representative to speak for a patient who is unresponsive – the so-called “unbefriended patient” or “unrepresented patient” – any source of information can be valuable. And health care providers should seek out this input, Dr. Frank said.

“When there is a visitor at the bedside, and as long as they know the person, and they can start giving the medical providers some information about what the patient would have wanted, most of us will talk with that person and that’s actually a good habit,” he said.

Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia have regulations on whom health care providers should talk to when there is no obvious representative, Dr. Frank said, noting that most of these regulations follow a classic family-tree order. But in the discouraging results of many surveys of health care providers on the subject, most clinicians say that they do not know the regulations in their state, Dr. Frank said. But he said such results betray a silver lining because clinicians say that they would be inclined to use a family tree–style hierarchy in deciding with whom they should speak about end of life decisions.

Hospitalists should at least know whether their hospital has a policy on unrepresented patients, Dr. Frank said.

“That’s your road map on how to get through consenting this patient – what am I going to do with Mr. Smith?” he said. “You may ask yourself, ‘Do I just keep treating him and treating him?’ If you have a policy at your hospital, it will protect you from liability, as well as give you a sense of process.”
 

Conflicts in communication

An even worse situation, perhaps, is one that many hospitalists have seen: A patient is teetering at the edge of life, and a spouse arrives, along with two daughters from out of state who have not seen their father in a year, said Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, director of the ethics curriculum at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton.

“The family requests that the medical team do everything, including intubation and attempts at resuscitation if needed,” she said. “The family says he was fine prior to this admission. Another thing I hear a lot is, ‘He was even sicker than this last year, and he got better.’ ”

Meanwhile, “the medical team consensus is that he is not going to survive this illness,” Dr. Gundersen said.

The situation is so common and problematic that it has a name – the “Daughter from California Syndrome.” (According to medical literature says, it’s called the “Daughter from Chicago Syndrome” in California.)

“This is one of the most agonizing things that happens to us in medicine,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It affects us, it affects our nurses, it affects the entire medical team. It’s agonizing when we feel like treatment has somehow turned to torture.”

Dr. Gundersen said the medical staff should avoid using the word “futile,” or similar language, with families.

“Words matter,” she said. “Inappropriate language can inadvertently convey the feeling that, ‘They’re giving up on my dad – they think it’s hopeless.’ That can make families and the medical team dig in their heels further.”

Sometimes it can be hard to define the terms of decision making. Even if the family and the medical team can agree that no “nonbeneficial treatments” should be administered, Dr. Gundersen said, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean less than a 1% chance of working; less than a 5% chance?

If the medical staff thinks a mode of care won’t be effective, but the family still insists, some states have laws that could help the medical team. In Texas, for example, if the medical team thinks the care they’re giving isn’t helping the patient, and the patient is likely going to have a poor outcome, there’s a legal process that the team can go through, Dr. Gundersen said. But even these laws are seen as potentially problematic because of concerns that they put too much power in the hands of a hospital committee.

Dr. Gundersen strongly advised getting at the root causes of a family’s apprehension. They might not have been informed early enough about the dire nature of an illness to feel they can make a decision comfortably. They also may be receiving information in a piecemeal manner or information that is inconsistent. Another common fear expressed by families is a concern over abandonment by the medical team if a decision is made to forgo a certain treatment. Also, sometimes the goals of care might not be properly detailed and discussed, she said.

But better communication can help overcome these snags, Dr. Gundersen said.

She suggested that sometimes it’s helpful to clarify things with the family, for example, what do they mean by “Do everything”?

“Does it mean ‘I want you to do everything to prolong their life even if they suffer,’ or does it mean ‘I want you do to everything that’s reasonable to try to prolong their life but not at the risk of increased suffering,’ or anywhere in between. Really just having these clarifying conversations is helpful.”

She also emphasized the importance of talking about interests, such as not wanting a patient to suffer, instead of taking positions, such as flatly recommending the withdrawal of treatment.

“It’s easy for both sides to kind of dig in their heels and not communicate effectively,” Dr. Gundersen said.
 

‘Emotional torture’

There are times when, no matter how skillfully the medical team communicates, they stand at an impasse with the family.

“This is emotional torture for us,” Dr. Gundersen said. “It’s moral distress. We kind of dread these situations. In these cases, trying to support yourself and your team emotionally is the most important thing.”

Ami Doshi, MD, director of palliative care inpatient services at Rady Children’s Hospital in San Diego, described the case of a baby girl that touched on the especially painful issues that can arise in pediatric cases. The 2-month-old girl had been born after a pregnancy affected by polyhydramnios and had an abnormal neurological exam and brain MRI, as well as congenital abnormalities. She’d been intubated for respiratory failure and was now on high-flow nasal cannula therapy. The girl was intolerant to feeding and was put on a nasojejunal feeding tube and then a gastrostomy-jejunostomy tube.

But the baby’s vomiting continued, and she had bradycardia and hypoxia so severe she needed bag mask ventilation to recover. The mother started to feel like she was “torturing” the baby.

The family decided to stop respiratory support but to continue artificial nutrition and hydration, which Dr. Doshi said, has an elevated status in the human psyche. Mentioning discontinuing feeding is fraught with complexity, she said.

“The notion of feeding is such a basic instinct, especially with a baby, that tackling the notion of discontinuing any sort of feeds, orally or tube feeds, is fraught with emotion and angst at times,” Dr. Doshi said.

The girl had respiratory events but recovered from them on her own, but the vomiting and retching continued. Eventually the artificial nutrition and hydration was stopped. But after 5 days, the medical staff began feeling uncomfortable, Dr. Doshi said. “We’re starting to hear from nurses, doctors, other people, that something just doesn’t feel right about what’s happening: ‘She seems okay,’ and, ‘Is it really okay for us to be doing this?’ and ‘Gosh, this is taking a long time.’ ”

The medical staff had, in a sense, joined the family on the emotional roller coaster.

Dr. Doshi said it’s important to remember that there is no ethical or moral distinction between withdrawing a medical intervention and withholding one.

“Stopping an intervention once it has started is no different ethically or legally than not starting it in the first place,” she said.

According to Dr. Doshi, there is a general consensus among medical societies that artificial nutrition and hydration is a medical intervention just like any other and that it should be evaluated within the same framework: Is it overly burdensome? Are we doing harm? Is it consistent with the goal of care? In so doing, be sure to respect patient autonomy and obtain informed consent.

As with so much in medicine, careful communication is a must.

“Paint a picture of what the patient’s trajectory is going to look like with and without artificial nutrition and hydration. At the end of the day, having done all of that, we’re going to ultimately respect what the patient or the surrogate decision maker decides,” Dr. Doshi said.

After assessment the data and the chances of success, and still without clarity about how to proceed, a good option might be considering a “time-limited trial” in which the medical team sits with the family and agrees on a time frame for an intervention and chooses predetermined endpoints for assessing success or failure.

“This can be very powerful to help us understand whether it is beneficial, but also – from the family’s perspective – to know everything was tried,” Dr. Doshi said.

Hospitalists should emphasize what is being added to treatment so that families don’t think only of what is being taken away, she said.

“Usually we are adding a lot – symptom management, a lot of psychosocial support. So what are all the other ways that we’re going to continue to care for the patient, even when we are withdrawing or withholding a specific intervention?” Dr. Doshi noted.

Sometimes, the best healer of distress in the midst of end of life decision making is time itself, Dr. Gundersen said.

In a condolence call, she once spoke with a family member involved in an agonizing case in which the medical team and family were at odds. Yet the man told her: “I know that you all were telling us the entire time that this was going to happen, but I guess we just had to go through our own process.”

CHICAGO – Individuals who sustain gunshot wounds have an increased risk for rehospitalization years, and even decades, after their initial injury.

Kateywhat/ThinkStock

A study of individuals at a single institution who were hospitalized and had a prior history of gunshot wound found some patterns of injury that set patients up for a greater likelihood of readmission.

In particular, patients who sustained visceral gunshot wounds were over six times more likely to be readmitted to the hospital, Corbin Pomeranz, MD, a radiology resident at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Dr. Pomeranz led the retrospective study that begins to fill a knowledge gap about what happens over the long term to those who sustain gunshot wounds.

“There continues to be profound lack of substantial information related to gun violence, particularly in predicting long-term outcomes,” Dr. Pomeranz and coauthors wrote in the abstract accompanying the presentation.

The researchers performed a single-site retrospective analysis over 3 months in 2018, tapping into an imaging database and looking for inpatient imaging exams that were nonacute, but related to gunshot wounds. From this information, the researchers went back to the original gunshot wound injury imaging, and recorded the pattern of injury, classifying wounds as neurologic, vascular, visceral, musculoskeletal, or involving multiple systems.

The investigators were able to glean additional information including the initial admitting hospital unit, information about interval admissions or surgeries, and demographic data. Regarding the nature of the gunshot injury itself, Dr. Pomeranz and coauthors went back to the earlier imaging studies to note bullet morphology, recording whether the bullet was intact, deformed, or had splintered into shrapnel within injured tissues.

In all, 174 imaging studies involving 110 patients were examined. Men made up 92% of the study population; the average age was 49.7 years. Neurologic and visceral gunshot wounds were moderately correlated with subsequent readmission (r = .436; P less than .001). However, some of this effect was blunted when patient age was controlled for in the statistical analysis.

Patients who were initially admitted to the intensive care unit, and who presumably had more severe injuries, were also more likely to be readmitted (r = .494, P less than .001). Here, “controlling for age had very little effect on the strength of the relationship between these two variables,” noted Dr. Pomeranz and coauthors.

A more elaborate statistical model incorporated several independent variables including age, type of injury, and body region involved, as well as bullet morphology. In this model, visceral injury was the strongest predictor for readmission, with an odds ratio of 6.44.

Dr. Pomeranz said that both the initial gunshot wound and subsequent gaps in care can contribute to readmissions. A patient who has a spinal cord injury may not be reimbursed adequately for supportive cushioning, or an appropriate wheelchair, and so may require admission for decubitus ulcers.

The number of admissions for osteomyelitis, which made up more than half of the subsequent admissions, initially surprised Dr. Pomeranz, until he realized that lack of mobility and sensory losses from gunshot-induced spinal cord injuries could easily lead to nonhealing lower extremity wounds, with osteomyelitis as a sequela.

Several patients were admitted for small bowel obstructions with no interval surgery since treatment for the gunshot wound. These readmissions, said Dr. Pomeranz, were assessed as related to the gunshot wound since it’s extremely rare for a patient with no history of abdominal surgery and no malignancy to have a small bowel obstruction. Exploratory laparotomies are common in the context of abdominal trauma caused by gunshot wounds, and either the gunshot itself or the laparotomy was the likely cause of adhesions.

Dr. Pomeranz acknowledged the many limitations of the study, but pointed out that some will be addressed when he and his coauthors conduct a larger study they have planned to look at readmissions from gunshot wounds at multiple hospitals in the Philadelphia area. The small sample size in the current study meant that the impact of socioeconomic status and other lifestyle and social variables and comorbidities couldn’t be adequately addressed in the statistical analysis. By casting a wider net within the greater Philadelphia area, the investigators should be able to track patients who receive care in more than one hospital system, increasing participant numbers, he said.

“Morbidity and outcomes from gun violence can only be assessed after a firm understanding of injury patterns on imaging,” noted Dr. Pomeranz. He said that interdisciplinary research investigating individual and societal short- and long-term costs of gun violence is sorely needed to inform public policy.

Dr. Pomeranz reported no outside sources of funding and reported that he had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pomeranz C et al. RSNA 2019, Presentation HP226-SD-THA3.

CHICAGO – Individuals who sustain gunshot wounds have an increased risk for rehospitalization years, and even decades, after their initial injury.

Kateywhat/ThinkStock

A study of individuals at a single institution who were hospitalized and had a prior history of gunshot wound found some patterns of injury that set patients up for a greater likelihood of readmission.

In particular, patients who sustained visceral gunshot wounds were over six times more likely to be readmitted to the hospital, Corbin Pomeranz, MD, a radiology resident at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Dr. Pomeranz led the retrospective study that begins to fill a knowledge gap about what happens over the long term to those who sustain gunshot wounds.

“There continues to be profound lack of substantial information related to gun violence, particularly in predicting long-term outcomes,” Dr. Pomeranz and coauthors wrote in the abstract accompanying the presentation.

The researchers performed a single-site retrospective analysis over 3 months in 2018, tapping into an imaging database and looking for inpatient imaging exams that were nonacute, but related to gunshot wounds. From this information, the researchers went back to the original gunshot wound injury imaging, and recorded the pattern of injury, classifying wounds as neurologic, vascular, visceral, musculoskeletal, or involving multiple systems.

The investigators were able to glean additional information including the initial admitting hospital unit, information about interval admissions or surgeries, and demographic data. Regarding the nature of the gunshot injury itself, Dr. Pomeranz and coauthors went back to the earlier imaging studies to note bullet morphology, recording whether the bullet was intact, deformed, or had splintered into shrapnel within injured tissues.

In all, 174 imaging studies involving 110 patients were examined. Men made up 92% of the study population; the average age was 49.7 years. Neurologic and visceral gunshot wounds were moderately correlated with subsequent readmission (r = .436; P less than .001). However, some of this effect was blunted when patient age was controlled for in the statistical analysis.

Patients who were initially admitted to the intensive care unit, and who presumably had more severe injuries, were also more likely to be readmitted (r = .494, P less than .001). Here, “controlling for age had very little effect on the strength of the relationship between these two variables,” noted Dr. Pomeranz and coauthors.

A more elaborate statistical model incorporated several independent variables including age, type of injury, and body region involved, as well as bullet morphology. In this model, visceral injury was the strongest predictor for readmission, with an odds ratio of 6.44.

Dr. Pomeranz said that both the initial gunshot wound and subsequent gaps in care can contribute to readmissions. A patient who has a spinal cord injury may not be reimbursed adequately for supportive cushioning, or an appropriate wheelchair, and so may require admission for decubitus ulcers.

The number of admissions for osteomyelitis, which made up more than half of the subsequent admissions, initially surprised Dr. Pomeranz, until he realized that lack of mobility and sensory losses from gunshot-induced spinal cord injuries could easily lead to nonhealing lower extremity wounds, with osteomyelitis as a sequela.

Several patients were admitted for small bowel obstructions with no interval surgery since treatment for the gunshot wound. These readmissions, said Dr. Pomeranz, were assessed as related to the gunshot wound since it’s extremely rare for a patient with no history of abdominal surgery and no malignancy to have a small bowel obstruction. Exploratory laparotomies are common in the context of abdominal trauma caused by gunshot wounds, and either the gunshot itself or the laparotomy was the likely cause of adhesions.

Dr. Pomeranz acknowledged the many limitations of the study, but pointed out that some will be addressed when he and his coauthors conduct a larger study they have planned to look at readmissions from gunshot wounds at multiple hospitals in the Philadelphia area. The small sample size in the current study meant that the impact of socioeconomic status and other lifestyle and social variables and comorbidities couldn’t be adequately addressed in the statistical analysis. By casting a wider net within the greater Philadelphia area, the investigators should be able to track patients who receive care in more than one hospital system, increasing participant numbers, he said.

“Morbidity and outcomes from gun violence can only be assessed after a firm understanding of injury patterns on imaging,” noted Dr. Pomeranz. He said that interdisciplinary research investigating individual and societal short- and long-term costs of gun violence is sorely needed to inform public policy.

Dr. Pomeranz reported no outside sources of funding and reported that he had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pomeranz C et al. RSNA 2019, Presentation HP226-SD-THA3.

CHICAGO – Individuals who sustain gunshot wounds have an increased risk for rehospitalization years, and even decades, after their initial injury.

Kateywhat/ThinkStock

A study of individuals at a single institution who were hospitalized and had a prior history of gunshot wound found some patterns of injury that set patients up for a greater likelihood of readmission.

In particular, patients who sustained visceral gunshot wounds were over six times more likely to be readmitted to the hospital, Corbin Pomeranz, MD, a radiology resident at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. Dr. Pomeranz led the retrospective study that begins to fill a knowledge gap about what happens over the long term to those who sustain gunshot wounds.

“There continues to be profound lack of substantial information related to gun violence, particularly in predicting long-term outcomes,” Dr. Pomeranz and coauthors wrote in the abstract accompanying the presentation.

The researchers performed a single-site retrospective analysis over 3 months in 2018, tapping into an imaging database and looking for inpatient imaging exams that were nonacute, but related to gunshot wounds. From this information, the researchers went back to the original gunshot wound injury imaging, and recorded the pattern of injury, classifying wounds as neurologic, vascular, visceral, musculoskeletal, or involving multiple systems.

The investigators were able to glean additional information including the initial admitting hospital unit, information about interval admissions or surgeries, and demographic data. Regarding the nature of the gunshot injury itself, Dr. Pomeranz and coauthors went back to the earlier imaging studies to note bullet morphology, recording whether the bullet was intact, deformed, or had splintered into shrapnel within injured tissues.

In all, 174 imaging studies involving 110 patients were examined. Men made up 92% of the study population; the average age was 49.7 years. Neurologic and visceral gunshot wounds were moderately correlated with subsequent readmission (r = .436; P less than .001). However, some of this effect was blunted when patient age was controlled for in the statistical analysis.

Patients who were initially admitted to the intensive care unit, and who presumably had more severe injuries, were also more likely to be readmitted (r = .494, P less than .001). Here, “controlling for age had very little effect on the strength of the relationship between these two variables,” noted Dr. Pomeranz and coauthors.

A more elaborate statistical model incorporated several independent variables including age, type of injury, and body region involved, as well as bullet morphology. In this model, visceral injury was the strongest predictor for readmission, with an odds ratio of 6.44.

Dr. Pomeranz said that both the initial gunshot wound and subsequent gaps in care can contribute to readmissions. A patient who has a spinal cord injury may not be reimbursed adequately for supportive cushioning, or an appropriate wheelchair, and so may require admission for decubitus ulcers.

The number of admissions for osteomyelitis, which made up more than half of the subsequent admissions, initially surprised Dr. Pomeranz, until he realized that lack of mobility and sensory losses from gunshot-induced spinal cord injuries could easily lead to nonhealing lower extremity wounds, with osteomyelitis as a sequela.

Several patients were admitted for small bowel obstructions with no interval surgery since treatment for the gunshot wound. These readmissions, said Dr. Pomeranz, were assessed as related to the gunshot wound since it’s extremely rare for a patient with no history of abdominal surgery and no malignancy to have a small bowel obstruction. Exploratory laparotomies are common in the context of abdominal trauma caused by gunshot wounds, and either the gunshot itself or the laparotomy was the likely cause of adhesions.

Dr. Pomeranz acknowledged the many limitations of the study, but pointed out that some will be addressed when he and his coauthors conduct a larger study they have planned to look at readmissions from gunshot wounds at multiple hospitals in the Philadelphia area. The small sample size in the current study meant that the impact of socioeconomic status and other lifestyle and social variables and comorbidities couldn’t be adequately addressed in the statistical analysis. By casting a wider net within the greater Philadelphia area, the investigators should be able to track patients who receive care in more than one hospital system, increasing participant numbers, he said.

“Morbidity and outcomes from gun violence can only be assessed after a firm understanding of injury patterns on imaging,” noted Dr. Pomeranz. He said that interdisciplinary research investigating individual and societal short- and long-term costs of gun violence is sorely needed to inform public policy.

Dr. Pomeranz reported no outside sources of funding and reported that he had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Pomeranz C et al. RSNA 2019, Presentation HP226-SD-THA3.

While plenty of anecdotal and other evidence exists to connect the use of electronic health records to physician burnout, new research puts a more standard, quantifiable measure to it in an effort to help measure progress in improving the usability of EHRs.

Leah-Anne Thompson/Thinkstock

Researchers used the System Usability Scale (SUS), “favored as an industry standard as a short, simple, and reliable measurement of technology usability with solid benchmarks to easily interpret its results, as the measure in this research, Edward Melnick, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

“The previous studies have definitely hinted at [the link between EHRs and burnout], but never really quantified it,” Dr. Melnick said in an interview.

Among the 870 physicians evaluating their EHRs’ usability, the mean score on a scale of 0-100 (higher being more usable) was 45.9. As a point of comparison, Microsoft Excel has an SUS score of 57, digital video recorders score 74, Amazon scores 82, microwave ovens score 87, and Google search scores 93.

“A score of 45.9 is in the bottom 9% of usability scores across studies in other industries and is categorized as in the ‘not acceptable’ range with a grade of F,” the authors wrote. “In aggregate, 733 of 870 (84.2%) of respondents rated their EHR less than 68 on the SUS, the average score across industries.”

In tying the SUS results to burnout, which was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the authors noted that the scores “were strongly and independently associated with physician burnout in a dose-response relationship. The odds of burnout were lower for each 1 point more favorable SUS score, a finding that persisted after adjusting for an extensive array of other personal and professional characteristics. The relationship between SUS score and burnout also persisted when emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were treated as continuous variables.”

The authors did note that, despite the strong relationship, they could not determine a causation given the cross-sectional nature of the data.

“I’m hoping that this paper will spark conversation and drive change and be a way of tracking improvements,” Dr. Melnick said. “So, if you bring in something new and say this is going to be better, how do you know it is going to be better? Well maybe you measure it using the System Usability Scale” to give it a quantifiable measure of improvement. He said it is an advantage “of having a metric that has been standardized and used in other industries,” allowing EHR stakeholders to measure improvement. “Once you can measure it, you can manage it and make improvements faster.”

The findings “will not come as a surprise to anyone who practices medicine,” Patrice Harris, MD, president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement. “It is a national imperative to overhaul the design and use of EHRs and reframe the technology to focus primarily on its most critical function: helping physicians care for patients. Significantly enhancing EHR usability is key and the AMA is working to ensure a new generation of EHRs are designed to prioritize time with patients, rather than overload physicians with type-and-click tasks.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stanford Medicine WebMD Center, AMA, and the Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-Being. No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Melnick E et al. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2019 Nov 14. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.09.024.

While plenty of anecdotal and other evidence exists to connect the use of electronic health records to physician burnout, new research puts a more standard, quantifiable measure to it in an effort to help measure progress in improving the usability of EHRs.

Leah-Anne Thompson/Thinkstock

Researchers used the System Usability Scale (SUS), “favored as an industry standard as a short, simple, and reliable measurement of technology usability with solid benchmarks to easily interpret its results, as the measure in this research, Edward Melnick, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

“The previous studies have definitely hinted at [the link between EHRs and burnout], but never really quantified it,” Dr. Melnick said in an interview.

Among the 870 physicians evaluating their EHRs’ usability, the mean score on a scale of 0-100 (higher being more usable) was 45.9. As a point of comparison, Microsoft Excel has an SUS score of 57, digital video recorders score 74, Amazon scores 82, microwave ovens score 87, and Google search scores 93.

“A score of 45.9 is in the bottom 9% of usability scores across studies in other industries and is categorized as in the ‘not acceptable’ range with a grade of F,” the authors wrote. “In aggregate, 733 of 870 (84.2%) of respondents rated their EHR less than 68 on the SUS, the average score across industries.”

In tying the SUS results to burnout, which was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the authors noted that the scores “were strongly and independently associated with physician burnout in a dose-response relationship. The odds of burnout were lower for each 1 point more favorable SUS score, a finding that persisted after adjusting for an extensive array of other personal and professional characteristics. The relationship between SUS score and burnout also persisted when emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were treated as continuous variables.”

The authors did note that, despite the strong relationship, they could not determine a causation given the cross-sectional nature of the data.

“I’m hoping that this paper will spark conversation and drive change and be a way of tracking improvements,” Dr. Melnick said. “So, if you bring in something new and say this is going to be better, how do you know it is going to be better? Well maybe you measure it using the System Usability Scale” to give it a quantifiable measure of improvement. He said it is an advantage “of having a metric that has been standardized and used in other industries,” allowing EHR stakeholders to measure improvement. “Once you can measure it, you can manage it and make improvements faster.”

The findings “will not come as a surprise to anyone who practices medicine,” Patrice Harris, MD, president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement. “It is a national imperative to overhaul the design and use of EHRs and reframe the technology to focus primarily on its most critical function: helping physicians care for patients. Significantly enhancing EHR usability is key and the AMA is working to ensure a new generation of EHRs are designed to prioritize time with patients, rather than overload physicians with type-and-click tasks.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stanford Medicine WebMD Center, AMA, and the Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-Being. No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Melnick E et al. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2019 Nov 14. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.09.024.

While plenty of anecdotal and other evidence exists to connect the use of electronic health records to physician burnout, new research puts a more standard, quantifiable measure to it in an effort to help measure progress in improving the usability of EHRs.

Leah-Anne Thompson/Thinkstock

Researchers used the System Usability Scale (SUS), “favored as an industry standard as a short, simple, and reliable measurement of technology usability with solid benchmarks to easily interpret its results, as the measure in this research, Edward Melnick, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and colleagues wrote in Mayo Clinic Proceedings.

“The previous studies have definitely hinted at [the link between EHRs and burnout], but never really quantified it,” Dr. Melnick said in an interview.

Among the 870 physicians evaluating their EHRs’ usability, the mean score on a scale of 0-100 (higher being more usable) was 45.9. As a point of comparison, Microsoft Excel has an SUS score of 57, digital video recorders score 74, Amazon scores 82, microwave ovens score 87, and Google search scores 93.

“A score of 45.9 is in the bottom 9% of usability scores across studies in other industries and is categorized as in the ‘not acceptable’ range with a grade of F,” the authors wrote. “In aggregate, 733 of 870 (84.2%) of respondents rated their EHR less than 68 on the SUS, the average score across industries.”

In tying the SUS results to burnout, which was measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the authors noted that the scores “were strongly and independently associated with physician burnout in a dose-response relationship. The odds of burnout were lower for each 1 point more favorable SUS score, a finding that persisted after adjusting for an extensive array of other personal and professional characteristics. The relationship between SUS score and burnout also persisted when emotional exhaustion and depersonalization were treated as continuous variables.”

The authors did note that, despite the strong relationship, they could not determine a causation given the cross-sectional nature of the data.

“I’m hoping that this paper will spark conversation and drive change and be a way of tracking improvements,” Dr. Melnick said. “So, if you bring in something new and say this is going to be better, how do you know it is going to be better? Well maybe you measure it using the System Usability Scale” to give it a quantifiable measure of improvement. He said it is an advantage “of having a metric that has been standardized and used in other industries,” allowing EHR stakeholders to measure improvement. “Once you can measure it, you can manage it and make improvements faster.”

The findings “will not come as a surprise to anyone who practices medicine,” Patrice Harris, MD, president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement. “It is a national imperative to overhaul the design and use of EHRs and reframe the technology to focus primarily on its most critical function: helping physicians care for patients. Significantly enhancing EHR usability is key and the AMA is working to ensure a new generation of EHRs are designed to prioritize time with patients, rather than overload physicians with type-and-click tasks.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stanford Medicine WebMD Center, AMA, and the Mayo Clinic Department of Medicine Program on Physician Well-Being. No conflicts of interest were reported by the authors.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Melnick E et al. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 2019 Nov 14. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2019.09.024.

There is at least one aspect of “Obamacare” that my mother-in-law and I can firmly agree on: Hospitals should not get paid for frequent readmissions.

The Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2012 with the goal of penalizing hospitals for excessive readmissions, has great face validity – and noble intentions. Does it also have a potentially disastrous downside?

On one side of the coin, the HRRP has been a remarkable success. It moved the national needle significantly on readmission rates. Yes, there are some caveats about increases in observation status patients and other shifts that could account for some of the difference, but it is fairly uncontroversial that overall, there are fewer 30-day readmissions across the country following initiation of HRRP. That is perhaps encouraging evidence of the potential positive impact that policy can make to drive changes for specific targets.

However, there is also a murkier – and more controversial – side. There have been a number of studies that have suggested reductions in readmission rates may have been associated with an increase in mortality in some patient groups. You discharge a patient and hope they won’t return to the hospital, but perhaps you should be more careful what you actually wish for.

Overall, the evidence of an association between readmissions and mortality has been complicated and conflicting. Headlines have alternately raised alarm about increased deaths and then reassured that there has been no change or perhaps even some concordant improvements in mortality. Not necessarily surprising, considering that these studies are all unavoidably of observational design and use different criteria, datasets and analytic models, which then drive their seemingly conflicting results.

An article published recently in the Journal of Hospital Medicine enters into this fray. The researchers examined the potential association between changes in rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) readmissions and 30-day mortality following HRRP introduction. While the initial HRRP program and subsequent analyses included patients with heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, the program was extended in 2014 to include patients with COPD. So, what happened in this patient group?

Through a number of statistical gymnastics, which as a nonstatistician I am having difficulty truly wrapping my head around, the researchers seem to have found a number of important insights:

• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate declined from 2010 to 2017.
• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate increased from 2010 to 2017, and the rate of increase in mortality appears to be accelerating.
• Hospitals with higher readmission rates prior to COPD readmission penalties had a lower rate of increase in mortalities.
• Hospitals that had a larger decrease in readmission rates had a larger rate of increase in mortality.

These researchers could not evaluate data at the patient level and could not adjust for changes in disease severity. However, taken together, these findings suggest that something bad may be truly happening here.

The authors of this study also point out that the associations with increased mortality have largely been seen in patients with heart failure – and now in patients with COPD – which are both chronic diseases characterized by exacerbations, as opposed to acute MI and pneumonia, which are episodic and treatable. Perhaps in those types of disease, efforts to avoid readmissions may be more universally helpful. Maybe.

Even if it is challenging for me to adjudicate the complicated methods and results of this study, I find it concerning that there is “biological plausibility” for this association. Hospitalists know exactly how this might have happened. Have you heard of the pop-up alerts that fire in the emergency department to let the physicians know that this patient was discharged within the past 30 days? You know that alert is not meant to tell you what to do, but you just might want to consider trying to discharge them or at least place them in observation – use your clinical judgment, if you know what I mean.

Within the past decade, observation units quickly cropped up all over the country, often not staffed by hospitalists nor cardiologists, where patients with decompensated heart failure, chest pain, and/or COPD, can be given Lasix and/or nebulizer treatments – at least just enough to let them walk on back out that door without a hospital admission.

At the end of the day, whether mortality rates have truly increased in the real world, this well-intentioned program seems to have serious issues. As Ashish Jha, MD, wrote in 2018, “Right now, a high-readmission, low-mortality hospital will be penalized at 6-10 times the rate of a low-readmission, high-mortality hospital. The signal from policy makers is clear – readmissions matter a lot more than mortality – and this signal needs to stop.”

Dr. Moriates is a hospitalist, the assistant dean for health care value, and an associate professor of internal medicine at Dell Medical School at University of Texas, Austin. He is also director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. This article first appeared on the Hospital Leader, SHM’s official blog, at hospitalleader.org.

There is at least one aspect of “Obamacare” that my mother-in-law and I can firmly agree on: Hospitals should not get paid for frequent readmissions.

The Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2012 with the goal of penalizing hospitals for excessive readmissions, has great face validity – and noble intentions. Does it also have a potentially disastrous downside?

On one side of the coin, the HRRP has been a remarkable success. It moved the national needle significantly on readmission rates. Yes, there are some caveats about increases in observation status patients and other shifts that could account for some of the difference, but it is fairly uncontroversial that overall, there are fewer 30-day readmissions across the country following initiation of HRRP. That is perhaps encouraging evidence of the potential positive impact that policy can make to drive changes for specific targets.

However, there is also a murkier – and more controversial – side. There have been a number of studies that have suggested reductions in readmission rates may have been associated with an increase in mortality in some patient groups. You discharge a patient and hope they won’t return to the hospital, but perhaps you should be more careful what you actually wish for.

Overall, the evidence of an association between readmissions and mortality has been complicated and conflicting. Headlines have alternately raised alarm about increased deaths and then reassured that there has been no change or perhaps even some concordant improvements in mortality. Not necessarily surprising, considering that these studies are all unavoidably of observational design and use different criteria, datasets and analytic models, which then drive their seemingly conflicting results.

An article published recently in the Journal of Hospital Medicine enters into this fray. The researchers examined the potential association between changes in rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) readmissions and 30-day mortality following HRRP introduction. While the initial HRRP program and subsequent analyses included patients with heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, the program was extended in 2014 to include patients with COPD. So, what happened in this patient group?

Through a number of statistical gymnastics, which as a nonstatistician I am having difficulty truly wrapping my head around, the researchers seem to have found a number of important insights:

• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate declined from 2010 to 2017.
• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate increased from 2010 to 2017, and the rate of increase in mortality appears to be accelerating.
• Hospitals with higher readmission rates prior to COPD readmission penalties had a lower rate of increase in mortalities.
• Hospitals that had a larger decrease in readmission rates had a larger rate of increase in mortality.

These researchers could not evaluate data at the patient level and could not adjust for changes in disease severity. However, taken together, these findings suggest that something bad may be truly happening here.

The authors of this study also point out that the associations with increased mortality have largely been seen in patients with heart failure – and now in patients with COPD – which are both chronic diseases characterized by exacerbations, as opposed to acute MI and pneumonia, which are episodic and treatable. Perhaps in those types of disease, efforts to avoid readmissions may be more universally helpful. Maybe.

Even if it is challenging for me to adjudicate the complicated methods and results of this study, I find it concerning that there is “biological plausibility” for this association. Hospitalists know exactly how this might have happened. Have you heard of the pop-up alerts that fire in the emergency department to let the physicians know that this patient was discharged within the past 30 days? You know that alert is not meant to tell you what to do, but you just might want to consider trying to discharge them or at least place them in observation – use your clinical judgment, if you know what I mean.

Within the past decade, observation units quickly cropped up all over the country, often not staffed by hospitalists nor cardiologists, where patients with decompensated heart failure, chest pain, and/or COPD, can be given Lasix and/or nebulizer treatments – at least just enough to let them walk on back out that door without a hospital admission.

At the end of the day, whether mortality rates have truly increased in the real world, this well-intentioned program seems to have serious issues. As Ashish Jha, MD, wrote in 2018, “Right now, a high-readmission, low-mortality hospital will be penalized at 6-10 times the rate of a low-readmission, high-mortality hospital. The signal from policy makers is clear – readmissions matter a lot more than mortality – and this signal needs to stop.”

Dr. Moriates is a hospitalist, the assistant dean for health care value, and an associate professor of internal medicine at Dell Medical School at University of Texas, Austin. He is also director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. This article first appeared on the Hospital Leader, SHM’s official blog, at hospitalleader.org.

There is at least one aspect of “Obamacare” that my mother-in-law and I can firmly agree on: Hospitals should not get paid for frequent readmissions.

The Hospital Readmission Reduction Program (HRRP), enacted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services in 2012 with the goal of penalizing hospitals for excessive readmissions, has great face validity – and noble intentions. Does it also have a potentially disastrous downside?

On one side of the coin, the HRRP has been a remarkable success. It moved the national needle significantly on readmission rates. Yes, there are some caveats about increases in observation status patients and other shifts that could account for some of the difference, but it is fairly uncontroversial that overall, there are fewer 30-day readmissions across the country following initiation of HRRP. That is perhaps encouraging evidence of the potential positive impact that policy can make to drive changes for specific targets.

However, there is also a murkier – and more controversial – side. There have been a number of studies that have suggested reductions in readmission rates may have been associated with an increase in mortality in some patient groups. You discharge a patient and hope they won’t return to the hospital, but perhaps you should be more careful what you actually wish for.

Overall, the evidence of an association between readmissions and mortality has been complicated and conflicting. Headlines have alternately raised alarm about increased deaths and then reassured that there has been no change or perhaps even some concordant improvements in mortality. Not necessarily surprising, considering that these studies are all unavoidably of observational design and use different criteria, datasets and analytic models, which then drive their seemingly conflicting results.

An article published recently in the Journal of Hospital Medicine enters into this fray. The researchers examined the potential association between changes in rates of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) readmissions and 30-day mortality following HRRP introduction. While the initial HRRP program and subsequent analyses included patients with heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia, the program was extended in 2014 to include patients with COPD. So, what happened in this patient group?

Through a number of statistical gymnastics, which as a nonstatistician I am having difficulty truly wrapping my head around, the researchers seem to have found a number of important insights:

• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized readmission rate declined from 2010 to 2017.
• The all-cause 30-day risk-standardized mortality rate increased from 2010 to 2017, and the rate of increase in mortality appears to be accelerating.
• Hospitals with higher readmission rates prior to COPD readmission penalties had a lower rate of increase in mortalities.
• Hospitals that had a larger decrease in readmission rates had a larger rate of increase in mortality.

These researchers could not evaluate data at the patient level and could not adjust for changes in disease severity. However, taken together, these findings suggest that something bad may be truly happening here.

The authors of this study also point out that the associations with increased mortality have largely been seen in patients with heart failure – and now in patients with COPD – which are both chronic diseases characterized by exacerbations, as opposed to acute MI and pneumonia, which are episodic and treatable. Perhaps in those types of disease, efforts to avoid readmissions may be more universally helpful. Maybe.

Even if it is challenging for me to adjudicate the complicated methods and results of this study, I find it concerning that there is “biological plausibility” for this association. Hospitalists know exactly how this might have happened. Have you heard of the pop-up alerts that fire in the emergency department to let the physicians know that this patient was discharged within the past 30 days? You know that alert is not meant to tell you what to do, but you just might want to consider trying to discharge them or at least place them in observation – use your clinical judgment, if you know what I mean.

Within the past decade, observation units quickly cropped up all over the country, often not staffed by hospitalists nor cardiologists, where patients with decompensated heart failure, chest pain, and/or COPD, can be given Lasix and/or nebulizer treatments – at least just enough to let them walk on back out that door without a hospital admission.

At the end of the day, whether mortality rates have truly increased in the real world, this well-intentioned program seems to have serious issues. As Ashish Jha, MD, wrote in 2018, “Right now, a high-readmission, low-mortality hospital will be penalized at 6-10 times the rate of a low-readmission, high-mortality hospital. The signal from policy makers is clear – readmissions matter a lot more than mortality – and this signal needs to stop.”

Dr. Moriates is a hospitalist, the assistant dean for health care value, and an associate professor of internal medicine at Dell Medical School at University of Texas, Austin. He is also director of implementation initiatives at Costs of Care. This article first appeared on the Hospital Leader, SHM’s official blog, at hospitalleader.org.