All Content

Hospitalists know all too well that a significant source of medical errors is miscommunication during transitions: By interrupting the continuity of care, handoffs can increase the risk of adverse events.

Yet the transfer of patients from the ED to the hospitalist inpatient service has not been well studied, said Carmen Gonzalez, MD, lead author of a recent paper that examined the issue. “The scope of this study was to develop and test a handoff communication tool and a standardized process for transitioning patients from the ED to the hospitalist service at a comprehensive cancer center,” she explained.

In the study, the researchers found that the number of ICU transfers within 24 hours of admission and the number of rapid-response calls decreased after the implementation of a customized handoff tool. “The tool was named DE-PASS (DE-PASS: Decisive problem requiring admission, Evaluation time, Patient summary, Acute issues/action list, Situation unfinished/awareness, Signed out to), which was a modification of the I-PASS, and adapted to our workflow,” reported Dr. Gonzalez, who is based at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. DE-PASS stratifies patients as stable/urgent/emergent and establishes requirements for communications between providers.

Results from the 1-month pilot revealed that, within a 24-hour period, DE-PASS reduced the number of intensive care unit transfers by 58%, the number of rapid-response team calls by 39%, and time to inpatient order by 31%.

“The standardization of the language and format of the handoff process of admission from the ED to the hospitalist service reduced handoff variations, increased provider satisfaction, and improved patient safety,” she noted.

The hospitalists expressed satisfaction with the tool. “This handoff tool helps stratify newly admitted patients based on their illness acuity, hence, assists the busy admitting hospitalist in prioritizing which patient needs to be attended first,” said study coauthor Norman Brito-Dellan, MD, also of MD Anderson Cancer Center. “In this study, DE-PASS reduced admission-to-evaluation times for unstable patients. These patients tend to be evaluated earlier, improving safety.”
 

Reference

1. Gonzalez CE et al. Handoff tool enabling standardized transitions between the emergency department and the hospitalist inpatient service at a major cancer center. American Journal of Medical Quality. 2018 May 21. doi: 10.1177/1062860618776096.

Hospitalists know all too well that a significant source of medical errors is miscommunication during transitions: By interrupting the continuity of care, handoffs can increase the risk of adverse events.

Yet the transfer of patients from the ED to the hospitalist inpatient service has not been well studied, said Carmen Gonzalez, MD, lead author of a recent paper that examined the issue. “The scope of this study was to develop and test a handoff communication tool and a standardized process for transitioning patients from the ED to the hospitalist service at a comprehensive cancer center,” she explained.

In the study, the researchers found that the number of ICU transfers within 24 hours of admission and the number of rapid-response calls decreased after the implementation of a customized handoff tool. “The tool was named DE-PASS (DE-PASS: Decisive problem requiring admission, Evaluation time, Patient summary, Acute issues/action list, Situation unfinished/awareness, Signed out to), which was a modification of the I-PASS, and adapted to our workflow,” reported Dr. Gonzalez, who is based at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. DE-PASS stratifies patients as stable/urgent/emergent and establishes requirements for communications between providers.

Results from the 1-month pilot revealed that, within a 24-hour period, DE-PASS reduced the number of intensive care unit transfers by 58%, the number of rapid-response team calls by 39%, and time to inpatient order by 31%.

“The standardization of the language and format of the handoff process of admission from the ED to the hospitalist service reduced handoff variations, increased provider satisfaction, and improved patient safety,” she noted.

The hospitalists expressed satisfaction with the tool. “This handoff tool helps stratify newly admitted patients based on their illness acuity, hence, assists the busy admitting hospitalist in prioritizing which patient needs to be attended first,” said study coauthor Norman Brito-Dellan, MD, also of MD Anderson Cancer Center. “In this study, DE-PASS reduced admission-to-evaluation times for unstable patients. These patients tend to be evaluated earlier, improving safety.”
 

Reference

1. Gonzalez CE et al. Handoff tool enabling standardized transitions between the emergency department and the hospitalist inpatient service at a major cancer center. American Journal of Medical Quality. 2018 May 21. doi: 10.1177/1062860618776096.

Hospitalists know all too well that a significant source of medical errors is miscommunication during transitions: By interrupting the continuity of care, handoffs can increase the risk of adverse events.

Yet the transfer of patients from the ED to the hospitalist inpatient service has not been well studied, said Carmen Gonzalez, MD, lead author of a recent paper that examined the issue. “The scope of this study was to develop and test a handoff communication tool and a standardized process for transitioning patients from the ED to the hospitalist service at a comprehensive cancer center,” she explained.

In the study, the researchers found that the number of ICU transfers within 24 hours of admission and the number of rapid-response calls decreased after the implementation of a customized handoff tool. “The tool was named DE-PASS (DE-PASS: Decisive problem requiring admission, Evaluation time, Patient summary, Acute issues/action list, Situation unfinished/awareness, Signed out to), which was a modification of the I-PASS, and adapted to our workflow,” reported Dr. Gonzalez, who is based at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston. DE-PASS stratifies patients as stable/urgent/emergent and establishes requirements for communications between providers.

Results from the 1-month pilot revealed that, within a 24-hour period, DE-PASS reduced the number of intensive care unit transfers by 58%, the number of rapid-response team calls by 39%, and time to inpatient order by 31%.

“The standardization of the language and format of the handoff process of admission from the ED to the hospitalist service reduced handoff variations, increased provider satisfaction, and improved patient safety,” she noted.

The hospitalists expressed satisfaction with the tool. “This handoff tool helps stratify newly admitted patients based on their illness acuity, hence, assists the busy admitting hospitalist in prioritizing which patient needs to be attended first,” said study coauthor Norman Brito-Dellan, MD, also of MD Anderson Cancer Center. “In this study, DE-PASS reduced admission-to-evaluation times for unstable patients. These patients tend to be evaluated earlier, improving safety.”
 

Reference

1. Gonzalez CE et al. Handoff tool enabling standardized transitions between the emergency department and the hospitalist inpatient service at a major cancer center. American Journal of Medical Quality. 2018 May 21. doi: 10.1177/1062860618776096.

BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. — Specialized checklists and colleague support prove crucial to psychiatrists when one of their patients in treatment for substance use disorder dies from an overdose, an expert said at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

Much of the knowledge about how psychiatrists are affected by overdose deaths, and what can help them handle them better, is drawn from the literature on patient suicide – both types of death are sudden and unexpected, and both involve stigma and can isolate the patients’ families and providers, said Amy Yule, MD, medical director of the Addiction Recovery Management Service at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“To our knowledge, the provider’s experience after an overdose has not been studied, and [there are] no practice guidelines to guide providers after an overdose death,” she said.

The overdose death of a patient is a particularly difficult matter because psychiatrists struggle with the emotional toll at the same time that they are dealing with fairly urgent details, including some with important legal implications, Dr. Yule said.

“Literature on the provider experience after suicide death indicates that providers are highly impacted by a patient’s suicide,” she said.

A key question is whether to contact the patient’s family. And generally, the answer should be yes.

“It’s really important to offer the option to meet with family members since these families may feel very isolated stigma as they grieve,” Dr. Yule said. What’s more, when families are not contacted by the physician, they might turn to litigation to try to seek information to help them understand their loss, she said.

In a survey of therapists whose patients died by suicide, 73% said they made contact with patient families and, in most instances, the family was not critical and expressed gratitude.

She emphasized the importance of knowing whether a patient’s family knew of the treatment. Because privacy laws extend after a patient’s death, providers cannot disclose treatment to families who did not already know, she said.

Also, she said, “communication with families should be focused on addressing the family members’ feelings and not the clinical details of the case.”

Most states have “apology statutes” that prevent expressions of sympathy – such as, “I’m sorry for your loss” – to be used as admission of liability, but providers should check the laws in their own states, she said.

If you have a colleague whose patient has overdosed or lost their lives to suicide, certain approaches are better than others, Dr. Yule said.

“It’s helpful when colleagues share their own experience with the suicide of a patient or patient who has overdosed and died,” she said. “What’s not helpful is the premature reassurance that the clinician has done nothing wrong. We may feel in these instances that we want to provide that premature reassurance, but it’s important not to do that because it doesn’t help providers resolve their grief.”

For solo providers, it’s especially important to be part of a physician network because they might otherwise not have the same support that those in larger organizations have, she said.

Beyond the grieving process, logistical details also need tending to, she said. The malpractice insurance carrier should be notified, even when there was no sign of a contentious interaction with the family. And, in her organization, the staff run down a checklist that includes not only calling the family and sending a condolence card, notifying staff promptly, and documenting the death, but also easily overlooked details like canceling future appointments in the scheduling system.

“You really don’t want a phone call going to the patient’s family with an appointment reminder after the patient is deceased,” Dr. Yule said. “These are the little details that you may not remember when you’re acutely grieving a patient’s death. And that’s why we feel it’s important to have a list.”

Dr. Yule reported no relevant disclosures.

BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. — Specialized checklists and colleague support prove crucial to psychiatrists when one of their patients in treatment for substance use disorder dies from an overdose, an expert said at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

Much of the knowledge about how psychiatrists are affected by overdose deaths, and what can help them handle them better, is drawn from the literature on patient suicide – both types of death are sudden and unexpected, and both involve stigma and can isolate the patients’ families and providers, said Amy Yule, MD, medical director of the Addiction Recovery Management Service at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“To our knowledge, the provider’s experience after an overdose has not been studied, and [there are] no practice guidelines to guide providers after an overdose death,” she said.

The overdose death of a patient is a particularly difficult matter because psychiatrists struggle with the emotional toll at the same time that they are dealing with fairly urgent details, including some with important legal implications, Dr. Yule said.

“Literature on the provider experience after suicide death indicates that providers are highly impacted by a patient’s suicide,” she said.

A key question is whether to contact the patient’s family. And generally, the answer should be yes.

“It’s really important to offer the option to meet with family members since these families may feel very isolated stigma as they grieve,” Dr. Yule said. What’s more, when families are not contacted by the physician, they might turn to litigation to try to seek information to help them understand their loss, she said.

In a survey of therapists whose patients died by suicide, 73% said they made contact with patient families and, in most instances, the family was not critical and expressed gratitude.

She emphasized the importance of knowing whether a patient’s family knew of the treatment. Because privacy laws extend after a patient’s death, providers cannot disclose treatment to families who did not already know, she said.

Also, she said, “communication with families should be focused on addressing the family members’ feelings and not the clinical details of the case.”

Most states have “apology statutes” that prevent expressions of sympathy – such as, “I’m sorry for your loss” – to be used as admission of liability, but providers should check the laws in their own states, she said.

If you have a colleague whose patient has overdosed or lost their lives to suicide, certain approaches are better than others, Dr. Yule said.

“It’s helpful when colleagues share their own experience with the suicide of a patient or patient who has overdosed and died,” she said. “What’s not helpful is the premature reassurance that the clinician has done nothing wrong. We may feel in these instances that we want to provide that premature reassurance, but it’s important not to do that because it doesn’t help providers resolve their grief.”

For solo providers, it’s especially important to be part of a physician network because they might otherwise not have the same support that those in larger organizations have, she said.

Beyond the grieving process, logistical details also need tending to, she said. The malpractice insurance carrier should be notified, even when there was no sign of a contentious interaction with the family. And, in her organization, the staff run down a checklist that includes not only calling the family and sending a condolence card, notifying staff promptly, and documenting the death, but also easily overlooked details like canceling future appointments in the scheduling system.

“You really don’t want a phone call going to the patient’s family with an appointment reminder after the patient is deceased,” Dr. Yule said. “These are the little details that you may not remember when you’re acutely grieving a patient’s death. And that’s why we feel it’s important to have a list.”

Dr. Yule reported no relevant disclosures.

BONITA SPRINGS, FLA. — Specialized checklists and colleague support prove crucial to psychiatrists when one of their patients in treatment for substance use disorder dies from an overdose, an expert said at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry.

Much of the knowledge about how psychiatrists are affected by overdose deaths, and what can help them handle them better, is drawn from the literature on patient suicide – both types of death are sudden and unexpected, and both involve stigma and can isolate the patients’ families and providers, said Amy Yule, MD, medical director of the Addiction Recovery Management Service at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

“To our knowledge, the provider’s experience after an overdose has not been studied, and [there are] no practice guidelines to guide providers after an overdose death,” she said.

The overdose death of a patient is a particularly difficult matter because psychiatrists struggle with the emotional toll at the same time that they are dealing with fairly urgent details, including some with important legal implications, Dr. Yule said.

“Literature on the provider experience after suicide death indicates that providers are highly impacted by a patient’s suicide,” she said.

A key question is whether to contact the patient’s family. And generally, the answer should be yes.

“It’s really important to offer the option to meet with family members since these families may feel very isolated stigma as they grieve,” Dr. Yule said. What’s more, when families are not contacted by the physician, they might turn to litigation to try to seek information to help them understand their loss, she said.

In a survey of therapists whose patients died by suicide, 73% said they made contact with patient families and, in most instances, the family was not critical and expressed gratitude.

She emphasized the importance of knowing whether a patient’s family knew of the treatment. Because privacy laws extend after a patient’s death, providers cannot disclose treatment to families who did not already know, she said.

Also, she said, “communication with families should be focused on addressing the family members’ feelings and not the clinical details of the case.”

Most states have “apology statutes” that prevent expressions of sympathy – such as, “I’m sorry for your loss” – to be used as admission of liability, but providers should check the laws in their own states, she said.

If you have a colleague whose patient has overdosed or lost their lives to suicide, certain approaches are better than others, Dr. Yule said.

“It’s helpful when colleagues share their own experience with the suicide of a patient or patient who has overdosed and died,” she said. “What’s not helpful is the premature reassurance that the clinician has done nothing wrong. We may feel in these instances that we want to provide that premature reassurance, but it’s important not to do that because it doesn’t help providers resolve their grief.”

For solo providers, it’s especially important to be part of a physician network because they might otherwise not have the same support that those in larger organizations have, she said.

Beyond the grieving process, logistical details also need tending to, she said. The malpractice insurance carrier should be notified, even when there was no sign of a contentious interaction with the family. And, in her organization, the staff run down a checklist that includes not only calling the family and sending a condolence card, notifying staff promptly, and documenting the death, but also easily overlooked details like canceling future appointments in the scheduling system.

“You really don’t want a phone call going to the patient’s family with an appointment reminder after the patient is deceased,” Dr. Yule said. “These are the little details that you may not remember when you’re acutely grieving a patient’s death. And that’s why we feel it’s important to have a list.”

Dr. Yule reported no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – In critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) had no effect on the rates of lower-limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a new trial.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“I was surprised. My hypothesis was that it would work,” said lead author Yaseen M. Arabi, MD, chairman of the intensive care department at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Many physicians routinely carry out the practice on the assumption that IPC should lead to better blood flow and further cut DVT risk. The procedure carries few risks, aside from patient discomfort. “The main issue is that it’s not needed. It might be useful in patients who are not receiving heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin,” said Dr. Arabi, who presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin reduces the risk of DVT by about 50%, but about 5%-20% of critically ill patients will develop DVT in spite of treatment, and mechanical thromboprophylaxis reduces DVT risk, compared with no prophylaxis. Some researchers have attempted to address whether adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression could further reduce DVT risk, but their studies were marked by a lack of controls, unoptimized pharmacologic regimens, and other limitations.

The trial included 2,003 adults from 20 sites in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India, who were expected to have an intensive care unit stay of at least 72 hours. They were randomized to receive IPC combined with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (pneumatic compression group) or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control).

SOURCE: Arabi Y et al. CCC48, Abstract 142. N Engl J Med Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.

SAN DIEGO – In critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) had no effect on the rates of lower-limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a new trial.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“I was surprised. My hypothesis was that it would work,” said lead author Yaseen M. Arabi, MD, chairman of the intensive care department at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Many physicians routinely carry out the practice on the assumption that IPC should lead to better blood flow and further cut DVT risk. The procedure carries few risks, aside from patient discomfort. “The main issue is that it’s not needed. It might be useful in patients who are not receiving heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin,” said Dr. Arabi, who presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin reduces the risk of DVT by about 50%, but about 5%-20% of critically ill patients will develop DVT in spite of treatment, and mechanical thromboprophylaxis reduces DVT risk, compared with no prophylaxis. Some researchers have attempted to address whether adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression could further reduce DVT risk, but their studies were marked by a lack of controls, unoptimized pharmacologic regimens, and other limitations.

The trial included 2,003 adults from 20 sites in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India, who were expected to have an intensive care unit stay of at least 72 hours. They were randomized to receive IPC combined with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (pneumatic compression group) or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control).

SOURCE: Arabi Y et al. CCC48, Abstract 142. N Engl J Med Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.

SAN DIEGO – In critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) had no effect on the rates of lower-limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a new trial.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“I was surprised. My hypothesis was that it would work,” said lead author Yaseen M. Arabi, MD, chairman of the intensive care department at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Many physicians routinely carry out the practice on the assumption that IPC should lead to better blood flow and further cut DVT risk. The procedure carries few risks, aside from patient discomfort. “The main issue is that it’s not needed. It might be useful in patients who are not receiving heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin,” said Dr. Arabi, who presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin reduces the risk of DVT by about 50%, but about 5%-20% of critically ill patients will develop DVT in spite of treatment, and mechanical thromboprophylaxis reduces DVT risk, compared with no prophylaxis. Some researchers have attempted to address whether adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression could further reduce DVT risk, but their studies were marked by a lack of controls, unoptimized pharmacologic regimens, and other limitations.

The trial included 2,003 adults from 20 sites in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India, who were expected to have an intensive care unit stay of at least 72 hours. They were randomized to receive IPC combined with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (pneumatic compression group) or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control).

SOURCE: Arabi Y et al. CCC48, Abstract 142. N Engl J Med Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.

A cornerstone of hospital medicine is the delivery of high-quality inpatient care by improving the performance of the systems and facilities in which hospitalists work. By extension, hospitalists are often held accountable, in varying ways, for improving the performance of facility metrics, such as those in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP), Inpatient Quality Reporting, and Hospital Readmissions Reduction programs.

Despite the work hospitalists were already doing to improve both efficiency and quality within their institutions, the 2010 Affordable Care Act introduced penalties for clinicians who did not submit qualifying provider-level data via the Physician Quality Reporting System program. Initially only an incentive program, PQRS was ultimately incorporated into the Physician Value-Based Payment (VBP) Modifier to make performance-based payment adjustments to Medicare physician payment. At this point, many hospitalists were not only accountable for helping to improve the metrics of their facilities, but also required to report individually or within their groups on provider-level measures, many of which were irrelevant to hospital medicine practice.

With this dual burden becoming evident, the Society of Hospital Medicine approached the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services with a possible solution. Could hospitalists elect to use their facilities’ metrics as a stand-in for the provider level metrics? Not only would this reduce the burden of reporting irrelevant metrics, but it would also help alleviate some of the disadvantages hospitalists face within Physician VBP.

The CMS was initially very supportive of the concept, but informed the SHM such alignment was not possible under existing law. In brief, the law required Physician VBP to remain completely within the Physician Fee Schedule and its related metrics; facility level metrics from a different payment system could not be used.

Undeterred, the SHM sought opportunities to change the law. As Congress was developing the Medicare Access and Chip Reauthorization Act (MACRA), the SHM worked closely with lawmakers to include language that would permit measures in “other payment systems” to be used for physician performance assessment. This language was retained in the final version of MACRA that was signed into law on April 16, 2015.

The SHM continued its advocacy, working closely with the CMS and its new authority to shape an option to align Medicare’s facility metrics and scores with provider reporting. Today that idea is a reality. Beginning this year, the CMS will have a new Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) reporting option available for hospitalists: facility-based measurement.

Facility-based measurement enables clinicians to receive a score for the Quality and Cost categories of the MIPS, without the need to collect and report on measures separately. Eligible providers would receive the MIPS score in those categories associated with the same percentile as their hospital’s score in HVBP. No more administrative work necessary to collect, clean and report on data for quality measures in the MIPS. If you are eligible, the CMS will automatically calculate a Quality and Cost score and combine this with your score from Improvement Activities and Promoting Interoperability (if you are not exempt) to give you a final MIPS score. If you decide to report on quality measures through the traditional MIPS pathway as well, the CMS will give you the higher of the scores.

There are certainly trade-offs associated with the facility-based measurement option. You do not have the burden of reporting measures on your own, but you do not get to pick what measures and what facility’s score you receive. Facility-level measures may be more difficult to improve performance, particularly as an individual, but the automatic application of facility-based measurement to eligible clinicians and groups serves as a backstop for MIPS reporting.

Aligning facility and clinician performance should encourage collaboration and innovation to meet these shared goals. As such, facility-based measurement represents a massive philosophical and practical shift in CMS measure reporting. As we enter these uncharted waters together, we hope to continue learning from your experiences and perspectives and working to refine facility-based measurement in the future.

For more information about facility-based reporting and the MIPS in general, visit www.macraforhm.org.

Mr. Lapps is government relations senior manager and Mr. Boswell is government relations director at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Who is eligible for facility-based measurement?

• Individual providers who bill more than 75% of their Medicare Part B professional services in Place of Service 21 (Emergency Department), 22 (Hospital Outpatient), and 23 (Inpatient Hospital), billing at least one service in POS 21 or 23, and work in a hospital with an HVBP score.
• Groups who have at least 75% of their individual clinicians who meet the eligibility criteria.
• Nearly all hospitalists should qualify for facility-based measurement as individuals, while group eligibility depends on the demographics of their staff.

A cornerstone of hospital medicine is the delivery of high-quality inpatient care by improving the performance of the systems and facilities in which hospitalists work. By extension, hospitalists are often held accountable, in varying ways, for improving the performance of facility metrics, such as those in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP), Inpatient Quality Reporting, and Hospital Readmissions Reduction programs.

Despite the work hospitalists were already doing to improve both efficiency and quality within their institutions, the 2010 Affordable Care Act introduced penalties for clinicians who did not submit qualifying provider-level data via the Physician Quality Reporting System program. Initially only an incentive program, PQRS was ultimately incorporated into the Physician Value-Based Payment (VBP) Modifier to make performance-based payment adjustments to Medicare physician payment. At this point, many hospitalists were not only accountable for helping to improve the metrics of their facilities, but also required to report individually or within their groups on provider-level measures, many of which were irrelevant to hospital medicine practice.

With this dual burden becoming evident, the Society of Hospital Medicine approached the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services with a possible solution. Could hospitalists elect to use their facilities’ metrics as a stand-in for the provider level metrics? Not only would this reduce the burden of reporting irrelevant metrics, but it would also help alleviate some of the disadvantages hospitalists face within Physician VBP.

The CMS was initially very supportive of the concept, but informed the SHM such alignment was not possible under existing law. In brief, the law required Physician VBP to remain completely within the Physician Fee Schedule and its related metrics; facility level metrics from a different payment system could not be used.

Undeterred, the SHM sought opportunities to change the law. As Congress was developing the Medicare Access and Chip Reauthorization Act (MACRA), the SHM worked closely with lawmakers to include language that would permit measures in “other payment systems” to be used for physician performance assessment. This language was retained in the final version of MACRA that was signed into law on April 16, 2015.

The SHM continued its advocacy, working closely with the CMS and its new authority to shape an option to align Medicare’s facility metrics and scores with provider reporting. Today that idea is a reality. Beginning this year, the CMS will have a new Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) reporting option available for hospitalists: facility-based measurement.

Facility-based measurement enables clinicians to receive a score for the Quality and Cost categories of the MIPS, without the need to collect and report on measures separately. Eligible providers would receive the MIPS score in those categories associated with the same percentile as their hospital’s score in HVBP. No more administrative work necessary to collect, clean and report on data for quality measures in the MIPS. If you are eligible, the CMS will automatically calculate a Quality and Cost score and combine this with your score from Improvement Activities and Promoting Interoperability (if you are not exempt) to give you a final MIPS score. If you decide to report on quality measures through the traditional MIPS pathway as well, the CMS will give you the higher of the scores.

There are certainly trade-offs associated with the facility-based measurement option. You do not have the burden of reporting measures on your own, but you do not get to pick what measures and what facility’s score you receive. Facility-level measures may be more difficult to improve performance, particularly as an individual, but the automatic application of facility-based measurement to eligible clinicians and groups serves as a backstop for MIPS reporting.

Aligning facility and clinician performance should encourage collaboration and innovation to meet these shared goals. As such, facility-based measurement represents a massive philosophical and practical shift in CMS measure reporting. As we enter these uncharted waters together, we hope to continue learning from your experiences and perspectives and working to refine facility-based measurement in the future.

For more information about facility-based reporting and the MIPS in general, visit www.macraforhm.org.

Mr. Lapps is government relations senior manager and Mr. Boswell is government relations director at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Who is eligible for facility-based measurement?

• Individual providers who bill more than 75% of their Medicare Part B professional services in Place of Service 21 (Emergency Department), 22 (Hospital Outpatient), and 23 (Inpatient Hospital), billing at least one service in POS 21 or 23, and work in a hospital with an HVBP score.
• Groups who have at least 75% of their individual clinicians who meet the eligibility criteria.
• Nearly all hospitalists should qualify for facility-based measurement as individuals, while group eligibility depends on the demographics of their staff.

A cornerstone of hospital medicine is the delivery of high-quality inpatient care by improving the performance of the systems and facilities in which hospitalists work. By extension, hospitalists are often held accountable, in varying ways, for improving the performance of facility metrics, such as those in the Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (HVBP), Inpatient Quality Reporting, and Hospital Readmissions Reduction programs.

Despite the work hospitalists were already doing to improve both efficiency and quality within their institutions, the 2010 Affordable Care Act introduced penalties for clinicians who did not submit qualifying provider-level data via the Physician Quality Reporting System program. Initially only an incentive program, PQRS was ultimately incorporated into the Physician Value-Based Payment (VBP) Modifier to make performance-based payment adjustments to Medicare physician payment. At this point, many hospitalists were not only accountable for helping to improve the metrics of their facilities, but also required to report individually or within their groups on provider-level measures, many of which were irrelevant to hospital medicine practice.

With this dual burden becoming evident, the Society of Hospital Medicine approached the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services with a possible solution. Could hospitalists elect to use their facilities’ metrics as a stand-in for the provider level metrics? Not only would this reduce the burden of reporting irrelevant metrics, but it would also help alleviate some of the disadvantages hospitalists face within Physician VBP.

The CMS was initially very supportive of the concept, but informed the SHM such alignment was not possible under existing law. In brief, the law required Physician VBP to remain completely within the Physician Fee Schedule and its related metrics; facility level metrics from a different payment system could not be used.

Undeterred, the SHM sought opportunities to change the law. As Congress was developing the Medicare Access and Chip Reauthorization Act (MACRA), the SHM worked closely with lawmakers to include language that would permit measures in “other payment systems” to be used for physician performance assessment. This language was retained in the final version of MACRA that was signed into law on April 16, 2015.

The SHM continued its advocacy, working closely with the CMS and its new authority to shape an option to align Medicare’s facility metrics and scores with provider reporting. Today that idea is a reality. Beginning this year, the CMS will have a new Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) reporting option available for hospitalists: facility-based measurement.

Facility-based measurement enables clinicians to receive a score for the Quality and Cost categories of the MIPS, without the need to collect and report on measures separately. Eligible providers would receive the MIPS score in those categories associated with the same percentile as their hospital’s score in HVBP. No more administrative work necessary to collect, clean and report on data for quality measures in the MIPS. If you are eligible, the CMS will automatically calculate a Quality and Cost score and combine this with your score from Improvement Activities and Promoting Interoperability (if you are not exempt) to give you a final MIPS score. If you decide to report on quality measures through the traditional MIPS pathway as well, the CMS will give you the higher of the scores.

There are certainly trade-offs associated with the facility-based measurement option. You do not have the burden of reporting measures on your own, but you do not get to pick what measures and what facility’s score you receive. Facility-level measures may be more difficult to improve performance, particularly as an individual, but the automatic application of facility-based measurement to eligible clinicians and groups serves as a backstop for MIPS reporting.

Aligning facility and clinician performance should encourage collaboration and innovation to meet these shared goals. As such, facility-based measurement represents a massive philosophical and practical shift in CMS measure reporting. As we enter these uncharted waters together, we hope to continue learning from your experiences and perspectives and working to refine facility-based measurement in the future.

For more information about facility-based reporting and the MIPS in general, visit www.macraforhm.org.

Mr. Lapps is government relations senior manager and Mr. Boswell is government relations director at the Society of Hospital Medicine.

Who is eligible for facility-based measurement?

• Individual providers who bill more than 75% of their Medicare Part B professional services in Place of Service 21 (Emergency Department), 22 (Hospital Outpatient), and 23 (Inpatient Hospital), billing at least one service in POS 21 or 23, and work in a hospital with an HVBP score.
• Groups who have at least 75% of their individual clinicians who meet the eligibility criteria.
• Nearly all hospitalists should qualify for facility-based measurement as individuals, while group eligibility depends on the demographics of their staff.

SAN DIEGO – One year after implementation, a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is making a significant difference in care of patients with submassive pulmonary embolism and evidence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction at the Christiana Medical Center in Delaware. An analysis of data collected showed reductions in ICU stays, early death, and overall hospital length of stay.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Such patients pose a challenge to clinicians because some will go on to develop more serious pulmonary embolism (PE), yet aggressive treatment options carry their own risk. Existing guidelines, such as those by the European Society of Cardiology, recommend conservative treatment of these patients, with more aggressive measures if conditions don’t quickly improve.

However, about 12% of patients on conservative therapy die, or about 100,000 per year. Those patients who go on to have bad outcomes “are obviously intermediate high risk or high risk. This is the patient population that we’re interested in [addressing through PERT]. These aren’t really sick patients. The blood pressure is normal, but they have the risk based on comorbidities or the clot burden to do poorly over the next day or two,” said Michael Benninghoff, DO, section chief of medical critical care and director of respiratory therapy at Christiana Medical Center, Wilmington, Del. Dr. Benninghoff presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The PERT concept was developed by physicians at Massachusetts General Hospital. It establishes clinical criteria that, if met, prompt a PERT alert, which in turn triggers a meeting between the initiating provider, a pulmonary intensivist, and a vascular and interventional radiology physician within 15 minutes to review the case and make rapid clinical decisions.

A PERT alert requires either a CT diagnosis of PE or a VQ scan showing a high probability of PE, combined with one of three additional criteria: elevated B-type (brain) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and troponin; echocardiographic evidence of right ventricular dysfunction; or clinical instability as indicated by heart rate over 110 beats per minute, systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, or oxygen saturation lower than 90%.

The PERT program caught Dr. Benninghoff’s attention because of institutional experience with patients deteriorating on conservative treatment, but also because the treatment of submassive PE with RV dysfunction is quite scattered. “We were seeing really conservative to really aggressive treatment. I don’t think we’ve had the data to support treating a patient whose blood pressure is normal but they have signs of right ventricular dysfunction, whether it’s echocardiographic, radiographic, or laboratory evidence of myocardial necrosis. I don’t think we have a group conscience as providers as far as how aggressive to be with those patients,” said Dr. Benninghoff.

To examine the efficacy of the PERT program after 1 year, Dr. Benninghoff’s team reviewed all PE cases from 2016 (pre-PERT, n = 717) and 2017 (post-PERT, n = 752). The mortality index declined 30%, from 1.13 to 0.79, while the percentage of early death declined 52%, from 2.51 to 1.20. The mean number of ICU days fell from 5.01 to 4.40.

When the team restricted the analysis to PE lysis patients (n = 27 in 2016; n = 33 in 2017), the mean length of ICU stay dropped from 66.1 hours to 58.8 hours, and fewer patients were transferred from a lower level of care to the ICU (6 vs. 3).

“We think we have shown that just by talking in real time, forcing physicians to communicate – it certainly doesn’t hurt, that it probably helps with ICU utilization and perhaps even mortality,” said Dr. Benninghoff. 

The results are far from definitive, and much more work needs to be done to determine how best to manage patients with submassive PEs and RV dysfunction. Dr. Benninghoff doesn’t have the answers, but he’s hopeful that the PERT program can eventually provide some. “Probably the most important thing is we’re giving back to the medical community by enrolling in the consortium, putting our data in the hands of the Boston research institute, and seeing what comes of it. Hopefully in 5 years we will have a standard of care based on the work we’re doing now,” he said.

The study was funded internally. Dr. Benninghoff declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benninghoff M. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 490.

SAN DIEGO – One year after implementation, a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is making a significant difference in care of patients with submassive pulmonary embolism and evidence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction at the Christiana Medical Center in Delaware. An analysis of data collected showed reductions in ICU stays, early death, and overall hospital length of stay.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Such patients pose a challenge to clinicians because some will go on to develop more serious pulmonary embolism (PE), yet aggressive treatment options carry their own risk. Existing guidelines, such as those by the European Society of Cardiology, recommend conservative treatment of these patients, with more aggressive measures if conditions don’t quickly improve.

However, about 12% of patients on conservative therapy die, or about 100,000 per year. Those patients who go on to have bad outcomes “are obviously intermediate high risk or high risk. This is the patient population that we’re interested in [addressing through PERT]. These aren’t really sick patients. The blood pressure is normal, but they have the risk based on comorbidities or the clot burden to do poorly over the next day or two,” said Michael Benninghoff, DO, section chief of medical critical care and director of respiratory therapy at Christiana Medical Center, Wilmington, Del. Dr. Benninghoff presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The PERT concept was developed by physicians at Massachusetts General Hospital. It establishes clinical criteria that, if met, prompt a PERT alert, which in turn triggers a meeting between the initiating provider, a pulmonary intensivist, and a vascular and interventional radiology physician within 15 minutes to review the case and make rapid clinical decisions.

A PERT alert requires either a CT diagnosis of PE or a VQ scan showing a high probability of PE, combined with one of three additional criteria: elevated B-type (brain) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and troponin; echocardiographic evidence of right ventricular dysfunction; or clinical instability as indicated by heart rate over 110 beats per minute, systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, or oxygen saturation lower than 90%.

The PERT program caught Dr. Benninghoff’s attention because of institutional experience with patients deteriorating on conservative treatment, but also because the treatment of submassive PE with RV dysfunction is quite scattered. “We were seeing really conservative to really aggressive treatment. I don’t think we’ve had the data to support treating a patient whose blood pressure is normal but they have signs of right ventricular dysfunction, whether it’s echocardiographic, radiographic, or laboratory evidence of myocardial necrosis. I don’t think we have a group conscience as providers as far as how aggressive to be with those patients,” said Dr. Benninghoff.

To examine the efficacy of the PERT program after 1 year, Dr. Benninghoff’s team reviewed all PE cases from 2016 (pre-PERT, n = 717) and 2017 (post-PERT, n = 752). The mortality index declined 30%, from 1.13 to 0.79, while the percentage of early death declined 52%, from 2.51 to 1.20. The mean number of ICU days fell from 5.01 to 4.40.

When the team restricted the analysis to PE lysis patients (n = 27 in 2016; n = 33 in 2017), the mean length of ICU stay dropped from 66.1 hours to 58.8 hours, and fewer patients were transferred from a lower level of care to the ICU (6 vs. 3).

“We think we have shown that just by talking in real time, forcing physicians to communicate – it certainly doesn’t hurt, that it probably helps with ICU utilization and perhaps even mortality,” said Dr. Benninghoff. 

The results are far from definitive, and much more work needs to be done to determine how best to manage patients with submassive PEs and RV dysfunction. Dr. Benninghoff doesn’t have the answers, but he’s hopeful that the PERT program can eventually provide some. “Probably the most important thing is we’re giving back to the medical community by enrolling in the consortium, putting our data in the hands of the Boston research institute, and seeing what comes of it. Hopefully in 5 years we will have a standard of care based on the work we’re doing now,” he said.

The study was funded internally. Dr. Benninghoff declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benninghoff M. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 490.

SAN DIEGO – One year after implementation, a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is making a significant difference in care of patients with submassive pulmonary embolism and evidence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction at the Christiana Medical Center in Delaware. An analysis of data collected showed reductions in ICU stays, early death, and overall hospital length of stay.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Such patients pose a challenge to clinicians because some will go on to develop more serious pulmonary embolism (PE), yet aggressive treatment options carry their own risk. Existing guidelines, such as those by the European Society of Cardiology, recommend conservative treatment of these patients, with more aggressive measures if conditions don’t quickly improve.

However, about 12% of patients on conservative therapy die, or about 100,000 per year. Those patients who go on to have bad outcomes “are obviously intermediate high risk or high risk. This is the patient population that we’re interested in [addressing through PERT]. These aren’t really sick patients. The blood pressure is normal, but they have the risk based on comorbidities or the clot burden to do poorly over the next day or two,” said Michael Benninghoff, DO, section chief of medical critical care and director of respiratory therapy at Christiana Medical Center, Wilmington, Del. Dr. Benninghoff presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The PERT concept was developed by physicians at Massachusetts General Hospital. It establishes clinical criteria that, if met, prompt a PERT alert, which in turn triggers a meeting between the initiating provider, a pulmonary intensivist, and a vascular and interventional radiology physician within 15 minutes to review the case and make rapid clinical decisions.

A PERT alert requires either a CT diagnosis of PE or a VQ scan showing a high probability of PE, combined with one of three additional criteria: elevated B-type (brain) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and troponin; echocardiographic evidence of right ventricular dysfunction; or clinical instability as indicated by heart rate over 110 beats per minute, systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, or oxygen saturation lower than 90%.

The PERT program caught Dr. Benninghoff’s attention because of institutional experience with patients deteriorating on conservative treatment, but also because the treatment of submassive PE with RV dysfunction is quite scattered. “We were seeing really conservative to really aggressive treatment. I don’t think we’ve had the data to support treating a patient whose blood pressure is normal but they have signs of right ventricular dysfunction, whether it’s echocardiographic, radiographic, or laboratory evidence of myocardial necrosis. I don’t think we have a group conscience as providers as far as how aggressive to be with those patients,” said Dr. Benninghoff.

To examine the efficacy of the PERT program after 1 year, Dr. Benninghoff’s team reviewed all PE cases from 2016 (pre-PERT, n = 717) and 2017 (post-PERT, n = 752). The mortality index declined 30%, from 1.13 to 0.79, while the percentage of early death declined 52%, from 2.51 to 1.20. The mean number of ICU days fell from 5.01 to 4.40.

When the team restricted the analysis to PE lysis patients (n = 27 in 2016; n = 33 in 2017), the mean length of ICU stay dropped from 66.1 hours to 58.8 hours, and fewer patients were transferred from a lower level of care to the ICU (6 vs. 3).

“We think we have shown that just by talking in real time, forcing physicians to communicate – it certainly doesn’t hurt, that it probably helps with ICU utilization and perhaps even mortality,” said Dr. Benninghoff. 

The results are far from definitive, and much more work needs to be done to determine how best to manage patients with submassive PEs and RV dysfunction. Dr. Benninghoff doesn’t have the answers, but he’s hopeful that the PERT program can eventually provide some. “Probably the most important thing is we’re giving back to the medical community by enrolling in the consortium, putting our data in the hands of the Boston research institute, and seeing what comes of it. Hopefully in 5 years we will have a standard of care based on the work we’re doing now,” he said.

The study was funded internally. Dr. Benninghoff declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benninghoff M. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 490.

SAN DIEGO – Hospitals pay a price for bad behavior by staff in the workplace, results of a large multicenter study suggest.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

A work culture in which disruptive behavior is tolerated can have consequences. Research on this topic has linked disruptive behavior by staff in the health care setting to increased frequency of medical errors and lower quality of care (Am J Med Qual. 2011 Sep-Oct;26(5):372-9; J Caring Sci. 2016 Sep 1;5(3):241-9). This new study, based on a workplace culture survey of 7,923 health care workers and 325 work settings at 16 hospitals in a large West Coast health care system, found higher rates of depression and burnout among staff where disruptive behavior is prevalent, researchers found. The paper was presented by study lead Allison Hadley, MD, of Duke Children’s Hospital, Durham, N.C., at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The investigators developed a novel survey scale for evaluating disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. The objective was to look at the associations between disruptive behavior, teamwork, safety culture, burnout, and depression. Disruptive behaviors included turning backs or hanging up the phone before a conversation is over, bullying or trying to publicly humiliate other staff, making inappropriate comments (with sexual, racial, religious, or ethnic slurs), and physical aggression (such as throwing, hitting, and pushing).

San Francisco internist Alan H. Rosenstein, MD, who studies disruptive behavior in medicine, said in an interview that the findings confirm anecdotal experience of medical staff. “One of the downsides of disruptive behavior is very unsatisfied and unhappy people,” he said

The investigators used a t-test analysis to study the strength of the association between disruptive behavior and work culture in health care work settings. They found a statistically significant association between less disruptive behavior and lower levels of burnout and depression among staff (t = 6.4 and t = 4.1, respectively, P less than .001) and higher levels of teamwork, safety culture, and work-life balance (t = 10.2, t = 9.5 and t = 5.8, respectively, P less than .001). Settings in which disruptive behaviors were more common were more likely to have poor teamwork culture (P less than .001) and safety climate (P less than .001), and higher rates of depression (P less than .001). Settings in which disruptive behaviors were more common were more likely to have poor teamwork culture (P less than .001) and safety climate (P less than .001), and higher rates of depression (P less than .001).

Bullying was reported at about 40% of workplaces with low teamwork levels, compared with nearly 20% in those with high teamwork levels.

Physical aggression was reported in nearly 20% of those workplaces with low teamwork levels, compared with 5% in workplaces with high teamwork levels (P less than .001).

Researchers also found that disruptive behaviors were least common during day shifts and more common among health care workers who care for both adults and children than among those who care for only adults. “Teamwork, safety culture, and work-life balance were highest in those [hospital] units with the least disruptive behaviors,” said Dr. Hadley.

Overall, the highest positive correlation was found between higher levels of teamwork and lower levels of disruptive behavior, Dr. Hadley said. If a hospital department is trying to address one issue to improve disruptive behavior, she’d suggest it “focus on teamwork first. I hope that would have the greatest impact.”

Dr. Rosenstein, who has conducted several studies on disruptive behavior, said the key to improving the workplace is to “build a culture based on the mission of providing patient care. It’s not to save a dollar, to make a dollar. The mission is patient care.”

What’s next? Dr. Hadley said her team is continuing to work on developing a scale to measure disruptive behavior in the workplace.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Hadley and Dr. Rosenstein reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hadley A et al. CCC48, Abstract 114.
 

SAN DIEGO – Hospitals pay a price for bad behavior by staff in the workplace, results of a large multicenter study suggest.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

A work culture in which disruptive behavior is tolerated can have consequences. Research on this topic has linked disruptive behavior by staff in the health care setting to increased frequency of medical errors and lower quality of care (Am J Med Qual. 2011 Sep-Oct;26(5):372-9; J Caring Sci. 2016 Sep 1;5(3):241-9). This new study, based on a workplace culture survey of 7,923 health care workers and 325 work settings at 16 hospitals in a large West Coast health care system, found higher rates of depression and burnout among staff where disruptive behavior is prevalent, researchers found. The paper was presented by study lead Allison Hadley, MD, of Duke Children’s Hospital, Durham, N.C., at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The investigators developed a novel survey scale for evaluating disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. The objective was to look at the associations between disruptive behavior, teamwork, safety culture, burnout, and depression. Disruptive behaviors included turning backs or hanging up the phone before a conversation is over, bullying or trying to publicly humiliate other staff, making inappropriate comments (with sexual, racial, religious, or ethnic slurs), and physical aggression (such as throwing, hitting, and pushing).

San Francisco internist Alan H. Rosenstein, MD, who studies disruptive behavior in medicine, said in an interview that the findings confirm anecdotal experience of medical staff. “One of the downsides of disruptive behavior is very unsatisfied and unhappy people,” he said

The investigators used a t-test analysis to study the strength of the association between disruptive behavior and work culture in health care work settings. They found a statistically significant association between less disruptive behavior and lower levels of burnout and depression among staff (t = 6.4 and t = 4.1, respectively, P less than .001) and higher levels of teamwork, safety culture, and work-life balance (t = 10.2, t = 9.5 and t = 5.8, respectively, P less than .001). Settings in which disruptive behaviors were more common were more likely to have poor teamwork culture (P less than .001) and safety climate (P less than .001), and higher rates of depression (P less than .001). Settings in which disruptive behaviors were more common were more likely to have poor teamwork culture (P less than .001) and safety climate (P less than .001), and higher rates of depression (P less than .001).

Bullying was reported at about 40% of workplaces with low teamwork levels, compared with nearly 20% in those with high teamwork levels.

Physical aggression was reported in nearly 20% of those workplaces with low teamwork levels, compared with 5% in workplaces with high teamwork levels (P less than .001).

Researchers also found that disruptive behaviors were least common during day shifts and more common among health care workers who care for both adults and children than among those who care for only adults. “Teamwork, safety culture, and work-life balance were highest in those [hospital] units with the least disruptive behaviors,” said Dr. Hadley.

Overall, the highest positive correlation was found between higher levels of teamwork and lower levels of disruptive behavior, Dr. Hadley said. If a hospital department is trying to address one issue to improve disruptive behavior, she’d suggest it “focus on teamwork first. I hope that would have the greatest impact.”

Dr. Rosenstein, who has conducted several studies on disruptive behavior, said the key to improving the workplace is to “build a culture based on the mission of providing patient care. It’s not to save a dollar, to make a dollar. The mission is patient care.”

What’s next? Dr. Hadley said her team is continuing to work on developing a scale to measure disruptive behavior in the workplace.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Hadley and Dr. Rosenstein reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hadley A et al. CCC48, Abstract 114.
 

SAN DIEGO – Hospitals pay a price for bad behavior by staff in the workplace, results of a large multicenter study suggest.

Randy Dotinga/MDedge News

A work culture in which disruptive behavior is tolerated can have consequences. Research on this topic has linked disruptive behavior by staff in the health care setting to increased frequency of medical errors and lower quality of care (Am J Med Qual. 2011 Sep-Oct;26(5):372-9; J Caring Sci. 2016 Sep 1;5(3):241-9). This new study, based on a workplace culture survey of 7,923 health care workers and 325 work settings at 16 hospitals in a large West Coast health care system, found higher rates of depression and burnout among staff where disruptive behavior is prevalent, researchers found. The paper was presented by study lead Allison Hadley, MD, of Duke Children’s Hospital, Durham, N.C., at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The investigators developed a novel survey scale for evaluating disruptive behaviors in the health care setting. The objective was to look at the associations between disruptive behavior, teamwork, safety culture, burnout, and depression. Disruptive behaviors included turning backs or hanging up the phone before a conversation is over, bullying or trying to publicly humiliate other staff, making inappropriate comments (with sexual, racial, religious, or ethnic slurs), and physical aggression (such as throwing, hitting, and pushing).

San Francisco internist Alan H. Rosenstein, MD, who studies disruptive behavior in medicine, said in an interview that the findings confirm anecdotal experience of medical staff. “One of the downsides of disruptive behavior is very unsatisfied and unhappy people,” he said

The investigators used a t-test analysis to study the strength of the association between disruptive behavior and work culture in health care work settings. They found a statistically significant association between less disruptive behavior and lower levels of burnout and depression among staff (t = 6.4 and t = 4.1, respectively, P less than .001) and higher levels of teamwork, safety culture, and work-life balance (t = 10.2, t = 9.5 and t = 5.8, respectively, P less than .001). Settings in which disruptive behaviors were more common were more likely to have poor teamwork culture (P less than .001) and safety climate (P less than .001), and higher rates of depression (P less than .001). Settings in which disruptive behaviors were more common were more likely to have poor teamwork culture (P less than .001) and safety climate (P less than .001), and higher rates of depression (P less than .001).

Bullying was reported at about 40% of workplaces with low teamwork levels, compared with nearly 20% in those with high teamwork levels.

Physical aggression was reported in nearly 20% of those workplaces with low teamwork levels, compared with 5% in workplaces with high teamwork levels (P less than .001).

Researchers also found that disruptive behaviors were least common during day shifts and more common among health care workers who care for both adults and children than among those who care for only adults. “Teamwork, safety culture, and work-life balance were highest in those [hospital] units with the least disruptive behaviors,” said Dr. Hadley.

Overall, the highest positive correlation was found between higher levels of teamwork and lower levels of disruptive behavior, Dr. Hadley said. If a hospital department is trying to address one issue to improve disruptive behavior, she’d suggest it “focus on teamwork first. I hope that would have the greatest impact.”

Dr. Rosenstein, who has conducted several studies on disruptive behavior, said the key to improving the workplace is to “build a culture based on the mission of providing patient care. It’s not to save a dollar, to make a dollar. The mission is patient care.”

What’s next? Dr. Hadley said her team is continuing to work on developing a scale to measure disruptive behavior in the workplace.

No study funding was reported. Dr. Hadley and Dr. Rosenstein reported no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: Hadley A et al. CCC48, Abstract 114.
 

HONOLULU – Covert strokes are relatively common in elderly patients who undergo noncardiac surgery, with a 7% incidence among a group of prospectively followed but generally unselected patients in a multicenter, international study.

By definition, these covert strokes were acutely asymptomatic, but showed evidence of clinical effects during the subsequent year. Twelve months after surgery, patients with acute, perioperative covert strokes found by systematic collection of postoperative MRI brain scans had a twofold increased rate of cognitive decline and a greater than twofold increased rate of delirium, compared with the patients who did not have evidence of a covert stroke, Marko Mrkobrada, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The message from these findings is that, when elderly patients exhibit confusion or delirium after noncardiac surgery, their physicians should have a high index of suspicion that a covert stroke may have occurred, Dr. Mrkobrada said in a video interview. It’s possible that typical stroke symptoms do not appear in many of the covert stroke patients because they are masked in the immediate postoperative period, he added.

Right now, the only way to screen for a covert stroke is with a brain MR, a test that generally costs several hundred dollars, which is too expensive for routine screening. Dr. Mrkobrada said that his team hopes further study will identify a biomarker that can flag patients with a covert stroke at a lower cost. For example, colleagues of Dr. Mrkobrada have successfully used high-sensitivity troponin T, a biomarker of myocardial injury, to identify patients who have myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS; JAMA. 2017 April 25;371[16]:1642-51). Study results also established that treating MINS patients with dabigatran improved their long-term clinical outcomes (Lancet. 2018 June 9;391[10137]:2325-34).

Covert stroke after noncardiac surgery “is the same concept” as MINS, said Dr. Mrkobrada, a researcher at the London Health Sciences Centre in Canada. “We find strokes that do not get picked up after noncardiac surgery just like MIs that are not picked up,” he said. It’s also possible that certain interventions may improve outcomes in patients with covert strokes, just as they have helped MINS patients, he suggested. Potentially helpful interventions could include aspirin, a statin, and improved blood pressure control. A major goal for his research group is finding a biomarker that makes diagnosing covert stroke as easy as using high sensitivity troponin T to diagnose MINS.

The NeuroVISION (Detection and Neurological Impact of Cerebrovascular Events In Noncardiac Surgery Patients: A Cohort EvaluatioN) study enrolled and tested 1,114 people aged 65 years or older scheduled for elective noncardiac surgery anticipated to keep them hospitalized for at least 2 days at any of 12 participating centers in nine countries. Patients underwent cognitive function testing before surgery and had a brain MR scan 2-9 days after surgery, and they were excluded if they developed an overt stroke prior to the scan. Patients underwent a second round of cognitive testing a year after surgery. Patients averaged 73 years old.

The screening MR scans identified covert strokes in 78 of the study subjects (7%). The 1-year cognitive tests showed measurable drops in cognitive function in 42% of those who had experience covert strokes and in 29% of everyone else. Those rates translated to a doubled odds ratio for cognitive decline after covert stroke, compared with people without covert stroke after adjustment for baseline between-group differences, a highly statistically significant between-group difference for the study’s primary endpoint. Delirium occurred 2.2-fold more often in the covert stroke patients after adjustment, and overt strokes during 1-year follow-up were 4.1-fold more common patients who’d experienced a covert stroke, compared with everyone else, after adjustment, Dr. Mrkobrada reported. NeuroVISION is the first large-scale study to assess the incidence and associations of covert strokes after noncardiac surgery, he noted.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mrkobrada M. ISC 2019, Late-Breaking Abstract LB18.

HONOLULU – Covert strokes are relatively common in elderly patients who undergo noncardiac surgery, with a 7% incidence among a group of prospectively followed but generally unselected patients in a multicenter, international study.

By definition, these covert strokes were acutely asymptomatic, but showed evidence of clinical effects during the subsequent year. Twelve months after surgery, patients with acute, perioperative covert strokes found by systematic collection of postoperative MRI brain scans had a twofold increased rate of cognitive decline and a greater than twofold increased rate of delirium, compared with the patients who did not have evidence of a covert stroke, Marko Mrkobrada, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The message from these findings is that, when elderly patients exhibit confusion or delirium after noncardiac surgery, their physicians should have a high index of suspicion that a covert stroke may have occurred, Dr. Mrkobrada said in a video interview. It’s possible that typical stroke symptoms do not appear in many of the covert stroke patients because they are masked in the immediate postoperative period, he added.

Right now, the only way to screen for a covert stroke is with a brain MR, a test that generally costs several hundred dollars, which is too expensive for routine screening. Dr. Mrkobrada said that his team hopes further study will identify a biomarker that can flag patients with a covert stroke at a lower cost. For example, colleagues of Dr. Mrkobrada have successfully used high-sensitivity troponin T, a biomarker of myocardial injury, to identify patients who have myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS; JAMA. 2017 April 25;371[16]:1642-51). Study results also established that treating MINS patients with dabigatran improved their long-term clinical outcomes (Lancet. 2018 June 9;391[10137]:2325-34).

Covert stroke after noncardiac surgery “is the same concept” as MINS, said Dr. Mrkobrada, a researcher at the London Health Sciences Centre in Canada. “We find strokes that do not get picked up after noncardiac surgery just like MIs that are not picked up,” he said. It’s also possible that certain interventions may improve outcomes in patients with covert strokes, just as they have helped MINS patients, he suggested. Potentially helpful interventions could include aspirin, a statin, and improved blood pressure control. A major goal for his research group is finding a biomarker that makes diagnosing covert stroke as easy as using high sensitivity troponin T to diagnose MINS.

The NeuroVISION (Detection and Neurological Impact of Cerebrovascular Events In Noncardiac Surgery Patients: A Cohort EvaluatioN) study enrolled and tested 1,114 people aged 65 years or older scheduled for elective noncardiac surgery anticipated to keep them hospitalized for at least 2 days at any of 12 participating centers in nine countries. Patients underwent cognitive function testing before surgery and had a brain MR scan 2-9 days after surgery, and they were excluded if they developed an overt stroke prior to the scan. Patients underwent a second round of cognitive testing a year after surgery. Patients averaged 73 years old.

The screening MR scans identified covert strokes in 78 of the study subjects (7%). The 1-year cognitive tests showed measurable drops in cognitive function in 42% of those who had experience covert strokes and in 29% of everyone else. Those rates translated to a doubled odds ratio for cognitive decline after covert stroke, compared with people without covert stroke after adjustment for baseline between-group differences, a highly statistically significant between-group difference for the study’s primary endpoint. Delirium occurred 2.2-fold more often in the covert stroke patients after adjustment, and overt strokes during 1-year follow-up were 4.1-fold more common patients who’d experienced a covert stroke, compared with everyone else, after adjustment, Dr. Mrkobrada reported. NeuroVISION is the first large-scale study to assess the incidence and associations of covert strokes after noncardiac surgery, he noted.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mrkobrada M. ISC 2019, Late-Breaking Abstract LB18.

HONOLULU – Covert strokes are relatively common in elderly patients who undergo noncardiac surgery, with a 7% incidence among a group of prospectively followed but generally unselected patients in a multicenter, international study.

By definition, these covert strokes were acutely asymptomatic, but showed evidence of clinical effects during the subsequent year. Twelve months after surgery, patients with acute, perioperative covert strokes found by systematic collection of postoperative MRI brain scans had a twofold increased rate of cognitive decline and a greater than twofold increased rate of delirium, compared with the patients who did not have evidence of a covert stroke, Marko Mrkobrada, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference sponsored by the American Heart Association.

The message from these findings is that, when elderly patients exhibit confusion or delirium after noncardiac surgery, their physicians should have a high index of suspicion that a covert stroke may have occurred, Dr. Mrkobrada said in a video interview. It’s possible that typical stroke symptoms do not appear in many of the covert stroke patients because they are masked in the immediate postoperative period, he added.

Right now, the only way to screen for a covert stroke is with a brain MR, a test that generally costs several hundred dollars, which is too expensive for routine screening. Dr. Mrkobrada said that his team hopes further study will identify a biomarker that can flag patients with a covert stroke at a lower cost. For example, colleagues of Dr. Mrkobrada have successfully used high-sensitivity troponin T, a biomarker of myocardial injury, to identify patients who have myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS; JAMA. 2017 April 25;371[16]:1642-51). Study results also established that treating MINS patients with dabigatran improved their long-term clinical outcomes (Lancet. 2018 June 9;391[10137]:2325-34).

Covert stroke after noncardiac surgery “is the same concept” as MINS, said Dr. Mrkobrada, a researcher at the London Health Sciences Centre in Canada. “We find strokes that do not get picked up after noncardiac surgery just like MIs that are not picked up,” he said. It’s also possible that certain interventions may improve outcomes in patients with covert strokes, just as they have helped MINS patients, he suggested. Potentially helpful interventions could include aspirin, a statin, and improved blood pressure control. A major goal for his research group is finding a biomarker that makes diagnosing covert stroke as easy as using high sensitivity troponin T to diagnose MINS.

The NeuroVISION (Detection and Neurological Impact of Cerebrovascular Events In Noncardiac Surgery Patients: A Cohort EvaluatioN) study enrolled and tested 1,114 people aged 65 years or older scheduled for elective noncardiac surgery anticipated to keep them hospitalized for at least 2 days at any of 12 participating centers in nine countries. Patients underwent cognitive function testing before surgery and had a brain MR scan 2-9 days after surgery, and they were excluded if they developed an overt stroke prior to the scan. Patients underwent a second round of cognitive testing a year after surgery. Patients averaged 73 years old.

The screening MR scans identified covert strokes in 78 of the study subjects (7%). The 1-year cognitive tests showed measurable drops in cognitive function in 42% of those who had experience covert strokes and in 29% of everyone else. Those rates translated to a doubled odds ratio for cognitive decline after covert stroke, compared with people without covert stroke after adjustment for baseline between-group differences, a highly statistically significant between-group difference for the study’s primary endpoint. Delirium occurred 2.2-fold more often in the covert stroke patients after adjustment, and overt strokes during 1-year follow-up were 4.1-fold more common patients who’d experienced a covert stroke, compared with everyone else, after adjustment, Dr. Mrkobrada reported. NeuroVISION is the first large-scale study to assess the incidence and associations of covert strokes after noncardiac surgery, he noted.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Mrkobrada M. ISC 2019, Late-Breaking Abstract LB18.

Therese Franco, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, is the current president of SHM’s Pacific Northwest chapter. 
The Hospitalist recently sat down with her to learn about her background and discuss some of the initiatives that the Pacific Northwest chapter has been working on.

Can you tell us about your education and training on the way to becoming a hospitalist?
My undergraduate degree is in engineering from Michigan State University. I then went to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and did one degree at the School of Public Health in environmental and industrial health, and another degree in the College of Engineering in industrial and operations engineering. In my work with the safety department at an automotive  company, I found I was spending a lot of time looking at data, and not talking to people. I got into a conversation with one of the occupational medicine physicians there, and he said, “You ought to try this.” I spoke with a good friend, who was a medical student, and she agreed.
So then I went to medical school thinking that I would practice occupational medicine. I went to medical school at Wayne State University in Detroit and did a couple of rotations in occupational medicine. I wasn’t sure that was the right fit, so I then went off to residency in internal medicine at the University of Connecticut and really enjoyed my wards experience. I liked the pace, I liked the variety, and just really liked all of hospital medicine. So that’s what I decided to do.

What are your areas of research interest?
This year I’m doing a research fellowship through the Center for Healthcare Improvement Science, at Virginia Mason. Through SHM’s mentored implementation program, I have done a lot of work on diabetes and glycemic control but never really published much of it. I think it is so important to share what you learn, so I’m working on publishing some of our results from the diabetes work. 
Another area of interest is advanced-practice providers in hospital medicine, which I think is very important, given all the issues that health care is facing. I think that medicine has gotten more complex and that we’re going to have to look at working in a collaborative, inter-professional, multidisciplinary way. I think that advanced practice can really improve the care of hospitalized patients, if we practice appropriate skill-task alignment, develop a culture of mutual respect, and find the best ways to deploy our advanced-practice providers and our physicians. 
That can be challenging. Some people, I think, are worried about losing their jobs, and some people feel like they want to “own” all of the patient, because it’s such a part of the culture of medicine. So it’s a really complicated issue, and I think that doctors are going to have to get used to delegating tasks that they used to perform.

So a collaborative practice requires both a professional and a cultural shift?
I think so. I was our inaugural program director for an advanced-practice fellowship in hospital medicine, and in that role, I attended conferences and learning events for program development. I think that many institutions are facing some of the same challenges. For the most part, I’m optimistic about things. I think we’re on the right track, and help is on the way – we just have to figure out how to use it.

Has your institution made any changes along these lines?
We’re primarily using the fellowship as a tool to recruit and retain some of the brightest and best. We’ve got three fellows that matriculated from our program and are currently working in the section of hospital medicine. Everyone’s been really flexible and open to the idea that the job description is emerging. I think my colleagues are very appreciative of our advanced-practice providers. We’ve got two nurse practitioners and one physician assistant who is also a PhD-trained pharmacist. They’ve been great additions to our team.

What are some of the other issues that the Pacific Northwest chapter members are concerned about?
One of our most successful meetings was around telemedicine. There’s a lot of interest in that, and it’s very financially and technically complex. Some hospitals in the area are really doing novel things. One of the most interesting things is an addiction medicine teleconsult.
That’s out of Swedish Medical Center, Seattle. Of course there’s telestroke, which I think is picking up in  popularity. We had speakers from Virginia Mason who presented on telestroke. Some institutions are even doing admissions this way. The University of Washington is doing some good antimicrobial stewardship work. They present cases and they teleconference and have an  infectious disease consultant. It’s not a program directed at revenue generation, but is focused instead on sharing and spreading expertise.
Our chapter also hosted a presentation on burnout that was pretty well attended. And then, unfortunately, we did lose a hospitalist to suicide over the summer. That was the inspiration for offering the screening of the movie, “Do No Harm: Exposing the Hippocratic Hoax.” 

What was the program that you put together around the screening? 
We had the filmmaker come for the screening, and we organized a panel discussion with a wellness officer from a local clinic and a psychiatrist who used to be on the board of the Physician Health Program. John Nelson, MD, MHM, one of SHM’s cofounders and a local hospitalist here, also participated as a  panelist. 
Overall, the event was well received. There were some things that I didn’t really expect. I’m not sure that the film resonated with too many people in the room. It is very much directed at the educational process – med students and residents – and at times the dialogue is a little inflammatory.
I learned a few important things from the film. I did not realize that the tragedy of physician suicide is not unique to the United States – it’s an international issue. And we sometimes use the term “pimping” to talk about questioning interns or residents on rounds. Apparently, that stands for “put in my place,” which is very condescending and unacceptable. I will not use the term again. 
I think future conversations need to come from thoughtful, rational, respectful leaders who are willing to work with regulatory agencies, hospitals, and administrators. If we want to move forward, physicians, administrators, and the public need to come together in the best interest of the patient and of public health. And I don’t know who leads that conversation.
 
Will your chapter have another event around that subject?
We will do what our membership wants and needs. We meet quarterly, and once a year we hold a people’s choice meeting and I solicit topics. If members want to keep the conversation moving, I’m going to do what I can to support them.

What are some other issues that stand out as important to your chapter? 
One key topic is the financial side of hospitalist practice, and dealing with issues that seem to create inefficiencies – regulatory issues, documentation issues, things that are important because we want to tell the story of what we’re doing. We certainly want to be reimbursed for the value-added work that we’re doing, but a lot of value-added work creates inefficiencies of practice, and I hear a lot of dissatisfaction around documentation, coding, billing, and other issues related to reimbursement. While people are concerned about these problems, nobody wants to talk about them. They just want somebody to fix it. So I’m not sure what to do with that, because I think if I had a meeting about coding and billing, I would have three attendees. 
But our annual poster meeting is always well attended. We always do it at the end of the year, to kick off the holiday season. It’s a nice opportunity to connect socially with colleagues because you mix and you mingle and look at the posters. We had some really great posters, and our top three prize winners were medical students, which is inspirational. They make you feel good about the future. 
Our chapter is trying to diversify geographically and clinically. We were fortunate to receive a development funds grant to use technology to do streaming meetings. Our hope is that we can host streaming meetings and eventually transition hosting to rotate around the state. Once there’s large enough attendance, the different delegates can develop their own leadership teams and, eventually, their own chapter. We’re hoping to grow the organization that way.
 
What else is on the horizon for hospitalists in the Pacific Northwest? 
I’d like to see more frequent meetings and a greater variety of meetings. I think there’s interest in adding some kind of service element to the chapter. Maybe we can do a blood pressure screening at a sporting event. 
I think we’ll also be focusing on students and residents and trying to create support for them. We held a student event around financial planning, and that was very well attended. I think we would like to do something around mentorship. Of course it’s hard to find mentors, because everybody is so busy. 
Our chapter really needs to leverage our technology if we want to have the reach that I’m talking about. I’m looking forward to piloting the streaming meeting concept, and I hope to do some live polling of our meeting attendees to get them engaged. I hope we continue to grow and keep the dialogue going about what matters in hospital medicine, and do our part to shape the future in the way we want it.

Therese Franco, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, is the current president of SHM’s Pacific Northwest chapter. 
The Hospitalist recently sat down with her to learn about her background and discuss some of the initiatives that the Pacific Northwest chapter has been working on.

Can you tell us about your education and training on the way to becoming a hospitalist?
My undergraduate degree is in engineering from Michigan State University. I then went to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and did one degree at the School of Public Health in environmental and industrial health, and another degree in the College of Engineering in industrial and operations engineering. In my work with the safety department at an automotive  company, I found I was spending a lot of time looking at data, and not talking to people. I got into a conversation with one of the occupational medicine physicians there, and he said, “You ought to try this.” I spoke with a good friend, who was a medical student, and she agreed.
So then I went to medical school thinking that I would practice occupational medicine. I went to medical school at Wayne State University in Detroit and did a couple of rotations in occupational medicine. I wasn’t sure that was the right fit, so I then went off to residency in internal medicine at the University of Connecticut and really enjoyed my wards experience. I liked the pace, I liked the variety, and just really liked all of hospital medicine. So that’s what I decided to do.

What are your areas of research interest?
This year I’m doing a research fellowship through the Center for Healthcare Improvement Science, at Virginia Mason. Through SHM’s mentored implementation program, I have done a lot of work on diabetes and glycemic control but never really published much of it. I think it is so important to share what you learn, so I’m working on publishing some of our results from the diabetes work. 
Another area of interest is advanced-practice providers in hospital medicine, which I think is very important, given all the issues that health care is facing. I think that medicine has gotten more complex and that we’re going to have to look at working in a collaborative, inter-professional, multidisciplinary way. I think that advanced practice can really improve the care of hospitalized patients, if we practice appropriate skill-task alignment, develop a culture of mutual respect, and find the best ways to deploy our advanced-practice providers and our physicians. 
That can be challenging. Some people, I think, are worried about losing their jobs, and some people feel like they want to “own” all of the patient, because it’s such a part of the culture of medicine. So it’s a really complicated issue, and I think that doctors are going to have to get used to delegating tasks that they used to perform.

So a collaborative practice requires both a professional and a cultural shift?
I think so. I was our inaugural program director for an advanced-practice fellowship in hospital medicine, and in that role, I attended conferences and learning events for program development. I think that many institutions are facing some of the same challenges. For the most part, I’m optimistic about things. I think we’re on the right track, and help is on the way – we just have to figure out how to use it.

Has your institution made any changes along these lines?
We’re primarily using the fellowship as a tool to recruit and retain some of the brightest and best. We’ve got three fellows that matriculated from our program and are currently working in the section of hospital medicine. Everyone’s been really flexible and open to the idea that the job description is emerging. I think my colleagues are very appreciative of our advanced-practice providers. We’ve got two nurse practitioners and one physician assistant who is also a PhD-trained pharmacist. They’ve been great additions to our team.

What are some of the other issues that the Pacific Northwest chapter members are concerned about?
One of our most successful meetings was around telemedicine. There’s a lot of interest in that, and it’s very financially and technically complex. Some hospitals in the area are really doing novel things. One of the most interesting things is an addiction medicine teleconsult.
That’s out of Swedish Medical Center, Seattle. Of course there’s telestroke, which I think is picking up in  popularity. We had speakers from Virginia Mason who presented on telestroke. Some institutions are even doing admissions this way. The University of Washington is doing some good antimicrobial stewardship work. They present cases and they teleconference and have an  infectious disease consultant. It’s not a program directed at revenue generation, but is focused instead on sharing and spreading expertise.
Our chapter also hosted a presentation on burnout that was pretty well attended. And then, unfortunately, we did lose a hospitalist to suicide over the summer. That was the inspiration for offering the screening of the movie, “Do No Harm: Exposing the Hippocratic Hoax.” 

What was the program that you put together around the screening? 
We had the filmmaker come for the screening, and we organized a panel discussion with a wellness officer from a local clinic and a psychiatrist who used to be on the board of the Physician Health Program. John Nelson, MD, MHM, one of SHM’s cofounders and a local hospitalist here, also participated as a  panelist. 
Overall, the event was well received. There were some things that I didn’t really expect. I’m not sure that the film resonated with too many people in the room. It is very much directed at the educational process – med students and residents – and at times the dialogue is a little inflammatory.
I learned a few important things from the film. I did not realize that the tragedy of physician suicide is not unique to the United States – it’s an international issue. And we sometimes use the term “pimping” to talk about questioning interns or residents on rounds. Apparently, that stands for “put in my place,” which is very condescending and unacceptable. I will not use the term again. 
I think future conversations need to come from thoughtful, rational, respectful leaders who are willing to work with regulatory agencies, hospitals, and administrators. If we want to move forward, physicians, administrators, and the public need to come together in the best interest of the patient and of public health. And I don’t know who leads that conversation.
 
Will your chapter have another event around that subject?
We will do what our membership wants and needs. We meet quarterly, and once a year we hold a people’s choice meeting and I solicit topics. If members want to keep the conversation moving, I’m going to do what I can to support them.

What are some other issues that stand out as important to your chapter? 
One key topic is the financial side of hospitalist practice, and dealing with issues that seem to create inefficiencies – regulatory issues, documentation issues, things that are important because we want to tell the story of what we’re doing. We certainly want to be reimbursed for the value-added work that we’re doing, but a lot of value-added work creates inefficiencies of practice, and I hear a lot of dissatisfaction around documentation, coding, billing, and other issues related to reimbursement. While people are concerned about these problems, nobody wants to talk about them. They just want somebody to fix it. So I’m not sure what to do with that, because I think if I had a meeting about coding and billing, I would have three attendees. 
But our annual poster meeting is always well attended. We always do it at the end of the year, to kick off the holiday season. It’s a nice opportunity to connect socially with colleagues because you mix and you mingle and look at the posters. We had some really great posters, and our top three prize winners were medical students, which is inspirational. They make you feel good about the future. 
Our chapter is trying to diversify geographically and clinically. We were fortunate to receive a development funds grant to use technology to do streaming meetings. Our hope is that we can host streaming meetings and eventually transition hosting to rotate around the state. Once there’s large enough attendance, the different delegates can develop their own leadership teams and, eventually, their own chapter. We’re hoping to grow the organization that way.
 
What else is on the horizon for hospitalists in the Pacific Northwest? 
I’d like to see more frequent meetings and a greater variety of meetings. I think there’s interest in adding some kind of service element to the chapter. Maybe we can do a blood pressure screening at a sporting event. 
I think we’ll also be focusing on students and residents and trying to create support for them. We held a student event around financial planning, and that was very well attended. I think we would like to do something around mentorship. Of course it’s hard to find mentors, because everybody is so busy. 
Our chapter really needs to leverage our technology if we want to have the reach that I’m talking about. I’m looking forward to piloting the streaming meeting concept, and I hope to do some live polling of our meeting attendees to get them engaged. I hope we continue to grow and keep the dialogue going about what matters in hospital medicine, and do our part to shape the future in the way we want it.

Therese Franco, MD, SFHM, a hospitalist at the Virginia Mason Medical Center in Seattle, is the current president of SHM’s Pacific Northwest chapter. 
The Hospitalist recently sat down with her to learn about her background and discuss some of the initiatives that the Pacific Northwest chapter has been working on.

Can you tell us about your education and training on the way to becoming a hospitalist?
My undergraduate degree is in engineering from Michigan State University. I then went to the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor and did one degree at the School of Public Health in environmental and industrial health, and another degree in the College of Engineering in industrial and operations engineering. In my work with the safety department at an automotive  company, I found I was spending a lot of time looking at data, and not talking to people. I got into a conversation with one of the occupational medicine physicians there, and he said, “You ought to try this.” I spoke with a good friend, who was a medical student, and she agreed.
So then I went to medical school thinking that I would practice occupational medicine. I went to medical school at Wayne State University in Detroit and did a couple of rotations in occupational medicine. I wasn’t sure that was the right fit, so I then went off to residency in internal medicine at the University of Connecticut and really enjoyed my wards experience. I liked the pace, I liked the variety, and just really liked all of hospital medicine. So that’s what I decided to do.

What are your areas of research interest?
This year I’m doing a research fellowship through the Center for Healthcare Improvement Science, at Virginia Mason. Through SHM’s mentored implementation program, I have done a lot of work on diabetes and glycemic control but never really published much of it. I think it is so important to share what you learn, so I’m working on publishing some of our results from the diabetes work. 
Another area of interest is advanced-practice providers in hospital medicine, which I think is very important, given all the issues that health care is facing. I think that medicine has gotten more complex and that we’re going to have to look at working in a collaborative, inter-professional, multidisciplinary way. I think that advanced practice can really improve the care of hospitalized patients, if we practice appropriate skill-task alignment, develop a culture of mutual respect, and find the best ways to deploy our advanced-practice providers and our physicians. 
That can be challenging. Some people, I think, are worried about losing their jobs, and some people feel like they want to “own” all of the patient, because it’s such a part of the culture of medicine. So it’s a really complicated issue, and I think that doctors are going to have to get used to delegating tasks that they used to perform.

So a collaborative practice requires both a professional and a cultural shift?
I think so. I was our inaugural program director for an advanced-practice fellowship in hospital medicine, and in that role, I attended conferences and learning events for program development. I think that many institutions are facing some of the same challenges. For the most part, I’m optimistic about things. I think we’re on the right track, and help is on the way – we just have to figure out how to use it.

Has your institution made any changes along these lines?
We’re primarily using the fellowship as a tool to recruit and retain some of the brightest and best. We’ve got three fellows that matriculated from our program and are currently working in the section of hospital medicine. Everyone’s been really flexible and open to the idea that the job description is emerging. I think my colleagues are very appreciative of our advanced-practice providers. We’ve got two nurse practitioners and one physician assistant who is also a PhD-trained pharmacist. They’ve been great additions to our team.

What are some of the other issues that the Pacific Northwest chapter members are concerned about?
One of our most successful meetings was around telemedicine. There’s a lot of interest in that, and it’s very financially and technically complex. Some hospitals in the area are really doing novel things. One of the most interesting things is an addiction medicine teleconsult.
That’s out of Swedish Medical Center, Seattle. Of course there’s telestroke, which I think is picking up in  popularity. We had speakers from Virginia Mason who presented on telestroke. Some institutions are even doing admissions this way. The University of Washington is doing some good antimicrobial stewardship work. They present cases and they teleconference and have an  infectious disease consultant. It’s not a program directed at revenue generation, but is focused instead on sharing and spreading expertise.
Our chapter also hosted a presentation on burnout that was pretty well attended. And then, unfortunately, we did lose a hospitalist to suicide over the summer. That was the inspiration for offering the screening of the movie, “Do No Harm: Exposing the Hippocratic Hoax.” 

What was the program that you put together around the screening? 
We had the filmmaker come for the screening, and we organized a panel discussion with a wellness officer from a local clinic and a psychiatrist who used to be on the board of the Physician Health Program. John Nelson, MD, MHM, one of SHM’s cofounders and a local hospitalist here, also participated as a  panelist. 
Overall, the event was well received. There were some things that I didn’t really expect. I’m not sure that the film resonated with too many people in the room. It is very much directed at the educational process – med students and residents – and at times the dialogue is a little inflammatory.
I learned a few important things from the film. I did not realize that the tragedy of physician suicide is not unique to the United States – it’s an international issue. And we sometimes use the term “pimping” to talk about questioning interns or residents on rounds. Apparently, that stands for “put in my place,” which is very condescending and unacceptable. I will not use the term again. 
I think future conversations need to come from thoughtful, rational, respectful leaders who are willing to work with regulatory agencies, hospitals, and administrators. If we want to move forward, physicians, administrators, and the public need to come together in the best interest of the patient and of public health. And I don’t know who leads that conversation.
 
Will your chapter have another event around that subject?
We will do what our membership wants and needs. We meet quarterly, and once a year we hold a people’s choice meeting and I solicit topics. If members want to keep the conversation moving, I’m going to do what I can to support them.

What are some other issues that stand out as important to your chapter? 
One key topic is the financial side of hospitalist practice, and dealing with issues that seem to create inefficiencies – regulatory issues, documentation issues, things that are important because we want to tell the story of what we’re doing. We certainly want to be reimbursed for the value-added work that we’re doing, but a lot of value-added work creates inefficiencies of practice, and I hear a lot of dissatisfaction around documentation, coding, billing, and other issues related to reimbursement. While people are concerned about these problems, nobody wants to talk about them. They just want somebody to fix it. So I’m not sure what to do with that, because I think if I had a meeting about coding and billing, I would have three attendees. 
But our annual poster meeting is always well attended. We always do it at the end of the year, to kick off the holiday season. It’s a nice opportunity to connect socially with colleagues because you mix and you mingle and look at the posters. We had some really great posters, and our top three prize winners were medical students, which is inspirational. They make you feel good about the future. 
Our chapter is trying to diversify geographically and clinically. We were fortunate to receive a development funds grant to use technology to do streaming meetings. Our hope is that we can host streaming meetings and eventually transition hosting to rotate around the state. Once there’s large enough attendance, the different delegates can develop their own leadership teams and, eventually, their own chapter. We’re hoping to grow the organization that way.
 
What else is on the horizon for hospitalists in the Pacific Northwest? 
I’d like to see more frequent meetings and a greater variety of meetings. I think there’s interest in adding some kind of service element to the chapter. Maybe we can do a blood pressure screening at a sporting event. 
I think we’ll also be focusing on students and residents and trying to create support for them. We held a student event around financial planning, and that was very well attended. I think we would like to do something around mentorship. Of course it’s hard to find mentors, because everybody is so busy. 
Our chapter really needs to leverage our technology if we want to have the reach that I’m talking about. I’m looking forward to piloting the streaming meeting concept, and I hope to do some live polling of our meeting attendees to get them engaged. I hope we continue to grow and keep the dialogue going about what matters in hospital medicine, and do our part to shape the future in the way we want it.

Bag-mask ventilation during tracheal intubation may significantly improve oxygen saturation and reduce the risk of severe hypoxemia, according to data presented at the Critical Care Congress, sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

ivan68/Getty Images

A multicenter study, published simultaneously in the Feb. 18 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, randomized 401 critically-ill patients in the ICU who were undergoing tracheal intubation to receive either ventilation with a bag-mask device during induction for intubation or no ventilation.

The median lowest oxygen saturation between induction and 2 minutes after intubation was 96% in the bag-mask ventilated patients and 93% in the no-ventilation group, representing a 4.7% difference after adjusting for prespecified covariates (P = .01).

In a post-hoc analysis that adjusted for other factors such as the provision of preoxygenation, the preoxygenation device, pneumonia, and gastrointestinal bleeding, there was a 5.2% difference between the two groups in median lowest oxygen saturation, favoring the bag-mask group.

Bag-mask ventilation was also associated with almost a halving in the incidence of severe hypoxemia – defined as an oxygen saturation below 80% – compared with no-ventilation (10.9% vs. 22.8%; relative risk = 0.48). There was also a lower incidence of patients with an oxygen saturation below 90% and below 70% in the bag-mask ventilation group, compared with the no-ventilation group.

Overall, the median decrease in oxygen saturation from induction to the lowest point was 1% in the bag-mask group, and 5% in the no-ventilation group.

The study saw no effects of factors such as body-mass index, operator experience, or Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score. The patients had a median age of 60 years, about half had sepsis or septic shock, and close to 60% had hypoxemic respiratory failure as an indication for tracheal intubation.

SOURCE: Casey J et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812405

Bag-mask ventilation during tracheal intubation may significantly improve oxygen saturation and reduce the risk of severe hypoxemia, according to data presented at the Critical Care Congress, sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

ivan68/Getty Images

A multicenter study, published simultaneously in the Feb. 18 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, randomized 401 critically-ill patients in the ICU who were undergoing tracheal intubation to receive either ventilation with a bag-mask device during induction for intubation or no ventilation.

The median lowest oxygen saturation between induction and 2 minutes after intubation was 96% in the bag-mask ventilated patients and 93% in the no-ventilation group, representing a 4.7% difference after adjusting for prespecified covariates (P = .01).

In a post-hoc analysis that adjusted for other factors such as the provision of preoxygenation, the preoxygenation device, pneumonia, and gastrointestinal bleeding, there was a 5.2% difference between the two groups in median lowest oxygen saturation, favoring the bag-mask group.

Bag-mask ventilation was also associated with almost a halving in the incidence of severe hypoxemia – defined as an oxygen saturation below 80% – compared with no-ventilation (10.9% vs. 22.8%; relative risk = 0.48). There was also a lower incidence of patients with an oxygen saturation below 90% and below 70% in the bag-mask ventilation group, compared with the no-ventilation group.

Overall, the median decrease in oxygen saturation from induction to the lowest point was 1% in the bag-mask group, and 5% in the no-ventilation group.

The study saw no effects of factors such as body-mass index, operator experience, or Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score. The patients had a median age of 60 years, about half had sepsis or septic shock, and close to 60% had hypoxemic respiratory failure as an indication for tracheal intubation.

SOURCE: Casey J et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812405

Bag-mask ventilation during tracheal intubation may significantly improve oxygen saturation and reduce the risk of severe hypoxemia, according to data presented at the Critical Care Congress, sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

ivan68/Getty Images

A multicenter study, published simultaneously in the Feb. 18 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, randomized 401 critically-ill patients in the ICU who were undergoing tracheal intubation to receive either ventilation with a bag-mask device during induction for intubation or no ventilation.

The median lowest oxygen saturation between induction and 2 minutes after intubation was 96% in the bag-mask ventilated patients and 93% in the no-ventilation group, representing a 4.7% difference after adjusting for prespecified covariates (P = .01).

In a post-hoc analysis that adjusted for other factors such as the provision of preoxygenation, the preoxygenation device, pneumonia, and gastrointestinal bleeding, there was a 5.2% difference between the two groups in median lowest oxygen saturation, favoring the bag-mask group.

Bag-mask ventilation was also associated with almost a halving in the incidence of severe hypoxemia – defined as an oxygen saturation below 80% – compared with no-ventilation (10.9% vs. 22.8%; relative risk = 0.48). There was also a lower incidence of patients with an oxygen saturation below 90% and below 70% in the bag-mask ventilation group, compared with the no-ventilation group.

Overall, the median decrease in oxygen saturation from induction to the lowest point was 1% in the bag-mask group, and 5% in the no-ventilation group.

The study saw no effects of factors such as body-mass index, operator experience, or Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score. The patients had a median age of 60 years, about half had sepsis or septic shock, and close to 60% had hypoxemic respiratory failure as an indication for tracheal intubation.

SOURCE: Casey J et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1812405

LONDON – A concerted effort is needed by everyone to address gender inequality in science and medicine, a group of prominent female physicians and thought-leaders said at a recent event hosted by The Lancet.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Gender equality is everyone’s business,” Sarah Hawkes, MBBS, PhD, a professor of global public health at University College London (England), said at the event.

“We’re not talking about women taking over the shop, but women being given an equal opportunity to run the shop. It doesn’t matter where we place ourselves on the gender spectrum as far as advancing equality in science is concerned. What matters is that we all, irrespective of gender, call ourselves feminists.”

For years, women have been “underrepresented in positions of power and leadership, undervalued, and experience discrimination and gender-based violence in scientific and health disciplines across the world,” according to an editorial in the British-based journal (Lancet. 2019;393:493). Such inequalities are compounded and hard to separate from other inequalities, including ethnicity, disability, class, geography, and sexuality.

Despite efforts to readdress the predominantly male culture of medicine, the problem of gender inequality remains “stubbornly persistent,” the editorial said.

“We have spent years being told that the problem lies with us as individuals and that we just need to be better, stronger, more vocal, as women,” Dr. Hawkes observed. “But what really needs to happen is for change to happen in places that hold power.” She further argued: “We don’t need any more individual change; we need organizational and institutional norm change.”

Gender inequality has a long history, and not just in medicine, said British journalist Caroline Criado-Perez OBE, who gave a keynote speech. Ms. Criado-Perez, who is a well-respected feminist campaigner, noted that the world was largely “modeled to fit men.” From architecture to transport, and even crash-test dummies, everything was largely modeled on, or to accommodate, the male rather than the female body.

“I don’t need to tell you that women are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed following a heart attack” than men. There is no more urgent need to challenge gender inequality than in medicine, Women are dying because of the gender data gap in medicine,” she asserted. “In medical research, in medical education, in medical practice, it needs to be closed as a matter of urgency.”

Original data published in the Advancing Women in Science, Medicine and Global Health special edition of The Lancet found that only 31% of biomedical research papers published in 2016 reported outcomes for both men and women (Lancet. 2019;393:550-9). Reporting of sex differences was somewhat better in clinical or public health-related research papers, at 67% and 69%, respectively. Sex-differences were more likely to be reported if a woman was one of the key authors, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, PhD, associate professor of informatics at Indiana University in Bloomington, and associates, observed in their paper.

That said, women often have to fight to be included as an author on a paper, even when they have done the majority of the work, the event participants highlighted. Women were still less likely than men to be named as the first or last author on a paper, as well as be less likely to receive research funding to enable them to do the work in the first place (Lancet. 2018;393:531-40).

“Was it really you?” was a question sometimes asked of a woman named as a lead or first author, noted Sonia Gandhi, MD, PhD, group leader of the Neurodegeneration Biology Laboratory at the Francis Crick Institute in Cambridge (England). Women network differently to men, Dr. Gandhi observed, and not necessarily in networks that forward careers. Women were also often questioned about their productivity, and regardless of any training on unconscious bias, women were still at a disadvantage if they took a career break to have children.

Female representation is so important, said F. Gigi Osler, MD, head of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery at St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg. Dr. Osler is the 2018-2019 president of the Canadian Medical Association, the eighth woman to hold this prestigious position in the organization’s 151 years of operation. She also happens to be the first female surgeon and the first woman of color in the role. “When I stepped into the presidency last August, I thought very long and very hard about how I was going to use my voice and this platform,” Dr. Osler said. “It became very clear to me after I started how important representation was. I can’t tell you how many women, young women, and women of color...have come up to me to say, ‘I’m so excited to have you in this position. I’ve never seen someone who looks like me in that type of leadership position,’ ” she observed.

“As leaders, I think we can advocate for structures and processes,” Dr. Osler added, “I think we set the culture.” Leaders have the responsibility for creating and nurturing and fostering a professional, respectful, and inclusive environment, she said.

“We need more strong leaders, we need more diversity in leadership.” Dr. Osler was keen to point out that greater diversity does not mean only women, but other groups as well. “Look around the room. Who is not here? How can I make it easier for them to get here?”

Another strong female role model at the event was Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer for England, a hematologist by training. Not only is she the first female in that role, she will also become the first female Master of Trinity College Cambridge starting in October 2019, a role dominated by men for more than 500 years.

All people, women and men, need to be given fair opportunity, Dame Sally said. Addressing structural issues can help, she said. “We need role models, mentors, and champions,” she said, noting that there were differences between the three. “Mentors give you advice, they get to know you, and they help you think through your issue. Champions may not have time for that, but they know you are good,” and they are putting you forward for opportunities.

“If the system isn’t right, or we are treated badly, we need to call it out,” Dame Sally said. “I do think that we often let things pass that we shouldn’t.” A classic situation is where a woman may suggest something at a meeting and it is ignored, but when a man says the same thing it is taken on board. That kind of behavior needs to stop and be addressed when it happens, by everyone at the table, she said.

Dr. Hawkes observed in her summing up of the day: “Throughout the history of health, change comes about not just through action at the top, but also from action from the bottom up.” She added: “The question is how do we make that change happen?” That’s where the next phase of research needs to take place, she suggested, “we need to actually see, in a very evidence-informed way, what actually works to make and sustain change.”

No financial disclosures were reported by any of the speakers quoted.

SOURCE: Lancet. 2019;393:493–610, e6-e28

LONDON – A concerted effort is needed by everyone to address gender inequality in science and medicine, a group of prominent female physicians and thought-leaders said at a recent event hosted by The Lancet.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Gender equality is everyone’s business,” Sarah Hawkes, MBBS, PhD, a professor of global public health at University College London (England), said at the event.

“We’re not talking about women taking over the shop, but women being given an equal opportunity to run the shop. It doesn’t matter where we place ourselves on the gender spectrum as far as advancing equality in science is concerned. What matters is that we all, irrespective of gender, call ourselves feminists.”

For years, women have been “underrepresented in positions of power and leadership, undervalued, and experience discrimination and gender-based violence in scientific and health disciplines across the world,” according to an editorial in the British-based journal (Lancet. 2019;393:493). Such inequalities are compounded and hard to separate from other inequalities, including ethnicity, disability, class, geography, and sexuality.

Despite efforts to readdress the predominantly male culture of medicine, the problem of gender inequality remains “stubbornly persistent,” the editorial said.

“We have spent years being told that the problem lies with us as individuals and that we just need to be better, stronger, more vocal, as women,” Dr. Hawkes observed. “But what really needs to happen is for change to happen in places that hold power.” She further argued: “We don’t need any more individual change; we need organizational and institutional norm change.”

Gender inequality has a long history, and not just in medicine, said British journalist Caroline Criado-Perez OBE, who gave a keynote speech. Ms. Criado-Perez, who is a well-respected feminist campaigner, noted that the world was largely “modeled to fit men.” From architecture to transport, and even crash-test dummies, everything was largely modeled on, or to accommodate, the male rather than the female body.

“I don’t need to tell you that women are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed following a heart attack” than men. There is no more urgent need to challenge gender inequality than in medicine, Women are dying because of the gender data gap in medicine,” she asserted. “In medical research, in medical education, in medical practice, it needs to be closed as a matter of urgency.”

Original data published in the Advancing Women in Science, Medicine and Global Health special edition of The Lancet found that only 31% of biomedical research papers published in 2016 reported outcomes for both men and women (Lancet. 2019;393:550-9). Reporting of sex differences was somewhat better in clinical or public health-related research papers, at 67% and 69%, respectively. Sex-differences were more likely to be reported if a woman was one of the key authors, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, PhD, associate professor of informatics at Indiana University in Bloomington, and associates, observed in their paper.

That said, women often have to fight to be included as an author on a paper, even when they have done the majority of the work, the event participants highlighted. Women were still less likely than men to be named as the first or last author on a paper, as well as be less likely to receive research funding to enable them to do the work in the first place (Lancet. 2018;393:531-40).

“Was it really you?” was a question sometimes asked of a woman named as a lead or first author, noted Sonia Gandhi, MD, PhD, group leader of the Neurodegeneration Biology Laboratory at the Francis Crick Institute in Cambridge (England). Women network differently to men, Dr. Gandhi observed, and not necessarily in networks that forward careers. Women were also often questioned about their productivity, and regardless of any training on unconscious bias, women were still at a disadvantage if they took a career break to have children.

Female representation is so important, said F. Gigi Osler, MD, head of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery at St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg. Dr. Osler is the 2018-2019 president of the Canadian Medical Association, the eighth woman to hold this prestigious position in the organization’s 151 years of operation. She also happens to be the first female surgeon and the first woman of color in the role. “When I stepped into the presidency last August, I thought very long and very hard about how I was going to use my voice and this platform,” Dr. Osler said. “It became very clear to me after I started how important representation was. I can’t tell you how many women, young women, and women of color...have come up to me to say, ‘I’m so excited to have you in this position. I’ve never seen someone who looks like me in that type of leadership position,’ ” she observed.

“As leaders, I think we can advocate for structures and processes,” Dr. Osler added, “I think we set the culture.” Leaders have the responsibility for creating and nurturing and fostering a professional, respectful, and inclusive environment, she said.

“We need more strong leaders, we need more diversity in leadership.” Dr. Osler was keen to point out that greater diversity does not mean only women, but other groups as well. “Look around the room. Who is not here? How can I make it easier for them to get here?”

Another strong female role model at the event was Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer for England, a hematologist by training. Not only is she the first female in that role, she will also become the first female Master of Trinity College Cambridge starting in October 2019, a role dominated by men for more than 500 years.

All people, women and men, need to be given fair opportunity, Dame Sally said. Addressing structural issues can help, she said. “We need role models, mentors, and champions,” she said, noting that there were differences between the three. “Mentors give you advice, they get to know you, and they help you think through your issue. Champions may not have time for that, but they know you are good,” and they are putting you forward for opportunities.

“If the system isn’t right, or we are treated badly, we need to call it out,” Dame Sally said. “I do think that we often let things pass that we shouldn’t.” A classic situation is where a woman may suggest something at a meeting and it is ignored, but when a man says the same thing it is taken on board. That kind of behavior needs to stop and be addressed when it happens, by everyone at the table, she said.

Dr. Hawkes observed in her summing up of the day: “Throughout the history of health, change comes about not just through action at the top, but also from action from the bottom up.” She added: “The question is how do we make that change happen?” That’s where the next phase of research needs to take place, she suggested, “we need to actually see, in a very evidence-informed way, what actually works to make and sustain change.”

No financial disclosures were reported by any of the speakers quoted.

SOURCE: Lancet. 2019;393:493–610, e6-e28

LONDON – A concerted effort is needed by everyone to address gender inequality in science and medicine, a group of prominent female physicians and thought-leaders said at a recent event hosted by The Lancet.

Sara Freeman/MDedge News

“Gender equality is everyone’s business,” Sarah Hawkes, MBBS, PhD, a professor of global public health at University College London (England), said at the event.

“We’re not talking about women taking over the shop, but women being given an equal opportunity to run the shop. It doesn’t matter where we place ourselves on the gender spectrum as far as advancing equality in science is concerned. What matters is that we all, irrespective of gender, call ourselves feminists.”

For years, women have been “underrepresented in positions of power and leadership, undervalued, and experience discrimination and gender-based violence in scientific and health disciplines across the world,” according to an editorial in the British-based journal (Lancet. 2019;393:493). Such inequalities are compounded and hard to separate from other inequalities, including ethnicity, disability, class, geography, and sexuality.

Despite efforts to readdress the predominantly male culture of medicine, the problem of gender inequality remains “stubbornly persistent,” the editorial said.

“We have spent years being told that the problem lies with us as individuals and that we just need to be better, stronger, more vocal, as women,” Dr. Hawkes observed. “But what really needs to happen is for change to happen in places that hold power.” She further argued: “We don’t need any more individual change; we need organizational and institutional norm change.”

Gender inequality has a long history, and not just in medicine, said British journalist Caroline Criado-Perez OBE, who gave a keynote speech. Ms. Criado-Perez, who is a well-respected feminist campaigner, noted that the world was largely “modeled to fit men.” From architecture to transport, and even crash-test dummies, everything was largely modeled on, or to accommodate, the male rather than the female body.

“I don’t need to tell you that women are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed following a heart attack” than men. There is no more urgent need to challenge gender inequality than in medicine, Women are dying because of the gender data gap in medicine,” she asserted. “In medical research, in medical education, in medical practice, it needs to be closed as a matter of urgency.”

Original data published in the Advancing Women in Science, Medicine and Global Health special edition of The Lancet found that only 31% of biomedical research papers published in 2016 reported outcomes for both men and women (Lancet. 2019;393:550-9). Reporting of sex differences was somewhat better in clinical or public health-related research papers, at 67% and 69%, respectively. Sex-differences were more likely to be reported if a woman was one of the key authors, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, PhD, associate professor of informatics at Indiana University in Bloomington, and associates, observed in their paper.

That said, women often have to fight to be included as an author on a paper, even when they have done the majority of the work, the event participants highlighted. Women were still less likely than men to be named as the first or last author on a paper, as well as be less likely to receive research funding to enable them to do the work in the first place (Lancet. 2018;393:531-40).

“Was it really you?” was a question sometimes asked of a woman named as a lead or first author, noted Sonia Gandhi, MD, PhD, group leader of the Neurodegeneration Biology Laboratory at the Francis Crick Institute in Cambridge (England). Women network differently to men, Dr. Gandhi observed, and not necessarily in networks that forward careers. Women were also often questioned about their productivity, and regardless of any training on unconscious bias, women were still at a disadvantage if they took a career break to have children.

Female representation is so important, said F. Gigi Osler, MD, head of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery at St. Boniface Hospital in Winnipeg. Dr. Osler is the 2018-2019 president of the Canadian Medical Association, the eighth woman to hold this prestigious position in the organization’s 151 years of operation. She also happens to be the first female surgeon and the first woman of color in the role. “When I stepped into the presidency last August, I thought very long and very hard about how I was going to use my voice and this platform,” Dr. Osler said. “It became very clear to me after I started how important representation was. I can’t tell you how many women, young women, and women of color...have come up to me to say, ‘I’m so excited to have you in this position. I’ve never seen someone who looks like me in that type of leadership position,’ ” she observed.

“As leaders, I think we can advocate for structures and processes,” Dr. Osler added, “I think we set the culture.” Leaders have the responsibility for creating and nurturing and fostering a professional, respectful, and inclusive environment, she said.

“We need more strong leaders, we need more diversity in leadership.” Dr. Osler was keen to point out that greater diversity does not mean only women, but other groups as well. “Look around the room. Who is not here? How can I make it easier for them to get here?”

Another strong female role model at the event was Dame Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer for England, a hematologist by training. Not only is she the first female in that role, she will also become the first female Master of Trinity College Cambridge starting in October 2019, a role dominated by men for more than 500 years.

All people, women and men, need to be given fair opportunity, Dame Sally said. Addressing structural issues can help, she said. “We need role models, mentors, and champions,” she said, noting that there were differences between the three. “Mentors give you advice, they get to know you, and they help you think through your issue. Champions may not have time for that, but they know you are good,” and they are putting you forward for opportunities.

“If the system isn’t right, or we are treated badly, we need to call it out,” Dame Sally said. “I do think that we often let things pass that we shouldn’t.” A classic situation is where a woman may suggest something at a meeting and it is ignored, but when a man says the same thing it is taken on board. That kind of behavior needs to stop and be addressed when it happens, by everyone at the table, she said.

Dr. Hawkes observed in her summing up of the day: “Throughout the history of health, change comes about not just through action at the top, but also from action from the bottom up.” She added: “The question is how do we make that change happen?” That’s where the next phase of research needs to take place, she suggested, “we need to actually see, in a very evidence-informed way, what actually works to make and sustain change.”

No financial disclosures were reported by any of the speakers quoted.

SOURCE: Lancet. 2019;393:493–610, e6-e28