User login
When families participate in rounds, errors decrease
NASHVILLE, TENN. – When families are actively included in pediatric hospital rounds, preventable adverse events drop 38% and families report better hospital experiences, with no negative impact on rounds duration or teaching, according to a prospective investigation on inpatient pediatric units of seven North American hospitals.
“We always talk about how parents know their children better than anyone else; empowering the family to know what we are looking for can have downstream safety implications,” she said. In the study, families often caught problems before medical staff, such as IV infiltrations. They also reported delays in diagnoses and conflicting information, among other things, Dr. Khan explained at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.
There’s not much data on family-centered rounds in pediatric medicine, so Dr. Khan and her team decided to investigate. They modified the I-PASS resident handoff model (illness severity; patient summary; action list; situation awareness and contingency planning; and synthesis by receiver) to be more family friendly.
Families were given a short form before rounds that asked if their child was better, worse, or about the same as the day before, and what questions and items they wanted to address. There was also space for them to take notes during the presentation about what had changed overnight, what still needed to be done, and what to look out for.
Families were given the opportunity to speak first during rounds, and medical staff used plain language: “has a fever” instead of “febrile,” for instance. At the end of the presentation, families were asked to read back their take-aways.
The investigators compared baseline data from the 3 months before implementation with data for the 3 months afterward. The study included more than 1,500 patients and more than 300 rounds in both the pre- and postimplementation arms. The children were general inpatients; surgery and ICU patients were excluded.
Harmful errors/preventable AEs dropped from 20.7/1,000 patients days to 12.9/1,000 after implementation, a 38% reduction (P = .01). There was also a reduction in overall AEs from 34 to 18.5/1,000 patient-days (P = .002).
Compared with baseline data, after implementation, families were more likely to report that they understood the medical plan and what was said on rounds. They also were more likely to report that nurses had addressed their concerns and made them feel like an important member of the team.
Direct observation of pre- and postimplementation rounds showed that family and nursing engagement improved and families more often got written updates. There were no statistically significant differences in rounds duration or decreases in teaching.
“Congratulations. This is very impressive work, and also the right thing to do,” an audience member said after Dr. Khan’s presentation at the meeting, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
The work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Khan had no disclosures.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – When families are actively included in pediatric hospital rounds, preventable adverse events drop 38% and families report better hospital experiences, with no negative impact on rounds duration or teaching, according to a prospective investigation on inpatient pediatric units of seven North American hospitals.
“We always talk about how parents know their children better than anyone else; empowering the family to know what we are looking for can have downstream safety implications,” she said. In the study, families often caught problems before medical staff, such as IV infiltrations. They also reported delays in diagnoses and conflicting information, among other things, Dr. Khan explained at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.
There’s not much data on family-centered rounds in pediatric medicine, so Dr. Khan and her team decided to investigate. They modified the I-PASS resident handoff model (illness severity; patient summary; action list; situation awareness and contingency planning; and synthesis by receiver) to be more family friendly.
Families were given a short form before rounds that asked if their child was better, worse, or about the same as the day before, and what questions and items they wanted to address. There was also space for them to take notes during the presentation about what had changed overnight, what still needed to be done, and what to look out for.
Families were given the opportunity to speak first during rounds, and medical staff used plain language: “has a fever” instead of “febrile,” for instance. At the end of the presentation, families were asked to read back their take-aways.
The investigators compared baseline data from the 3 months before implementation with data for the 3 months afterward. The study included more than 1,500 patients and more than 300 rounds in both the pre- and postimplementation arms. The children were general inpatients; surgery and ICU patients were excluded.
Harmful errors/preventable AEs dropped from 20.7/1,000 patients days to 12.9/1,000 after implementation, a 38% reduction (P = .01). There was also a reduction in overall AEs from 34 to 18.5/1,000 patient-days (P = .002).
Compared with baseline data, after implementation, families were more likely to report that they understood the medical plan and what was said on rounds. They also were more likely to report that nurses had addressed their concerns and made them feel like an important member of the team.
Direct observation of pre- and postimplementation rounds showed that family and nursing engagement improved and families more often got written updates. There were no statistically significant differences in rounds duration or decreases in teaching.
“Congratulations. This is very impressive work, and also the right thing to do,” an audience member said after Dr. Khan’s presentation at the meeting, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
The work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Khan had no disclosures.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – When families are actively included in pediatric hospital rounds, preventable adverse events drop 38% and families report better hospital experiences, with no negative impact on rounds duration or teaching, according to a prospective investigation on inpatient pediatric units of seven North American hospitals.
“We always talk about how parents know their children better than anyone else; empowering the family to know what we are looking for can have downstream safety implications,” she said. In the study, families often caught problems before medical staff, such as IV infiltrations. They also reported delays in diagnoses and conflicting information, among other things, Dr. Khan explained at the Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting.
There’s not much data on family-centered rounds in pediatric medicine, so Dr. Khan and her team decided to investigate. They modified the I-PASS resident handoff model (illness severity; patient summary; action list; situation awareness and contingency planning; and synthesis by receiver) to be more family friendly.
Families were given a short form before rounds that asked if their child was better, worse, or about the same as the day before, and what questions and items they wanted to address. There was also space for them to take notes during the presentation about what had changed overnight, what still needed to be done, and what to look out for.
Families were given the opportunity to speak first during rounds, and medical staff used plain language: “has a fever” instead of “febrile,” for instance. At the end of the presentation, families were asked to read back their take-aways.
The investigators compared baseline data from the 3 months before implementation with data for the 3 months afterward. The study included more than 1,500 patients and more than 300 rounds in both the pre- and postimplementation arms. The children were general inpatients; surgery and ICU patients were excluded.
Harmful errors/preventable AEs dropped from 20.7/1,000 patients days to 12.9/1,000 after implementation, a 38% reduction (P = .01). There was also a reduction in overall AEs from 34 to 18.5/1,000 patient-days (P = .002).
Compared with baseline data, after implementation, families were more likely to report that they understood the medical plan and what was said on rounds. They also were more likely to report that nurses had addressed their concerns and made them feel like an important member of the team.
Direct observation of pre- and postimplementation rounds showed that family and nursing engagement improved and families more often got written updates. There were no statistically significant differences in rounds duration or decreases in teaching.
“Congratulations. This is very impressive work, and also the right thing to do,” an audience member said after Dr. Khan’s presentation at the meeting, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
The work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Dr. Khan had no disclosures.
AT PHM 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: Harmful errors/preventable AEs dropped from 20.7/1,000 patients days to 12.9 after implementation of a program to engage families in pediatric rounds, a 38% reduction (P = .01).
Data source: More than 600 pediatric inpatient rounds at seven North American hospitals.
Disclosures: The work was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The lead investigator had no disclosures.
New telehealth legislation would provide for testing, expansion
A bipartisan bill introduced in the U.S. Senate in late March 2017 would authorize the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to test expanded telehealth services provided to Medicare beneficiaries.
The Telehealth Innovation and Improvement Act (S.787), currently in the Senate Finance Committee, was introduced by Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.). A similar bill they introduced in 2015 was never enacted.
However, there are physicians hoping to see this bill or others like it granted consideration. Currently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimburses only for certain telemedicine services provided in rural or underserved geographic areas, but the new bill would apply in suburban and urban areas as well, based on pilot testing of models and evaluating them for cost, quality, and effectiveness. Successful models would be covered by Medicare.
“Medicare has made some provisions for specific rural sites and niche areas, but writ large, there’s no prescribed way for people to just open a telemedicine shop and begin to bill,” said Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM, a member of the SHM Public Policy Committee.
With the exception of telestroke and critical care, “evidence is needed for the type of setting and type of clinical problems addressed by telemedicine. It’s not been tested enough,” added Dr. Flansbaum, who holds a dual appointment in hospital medicine and population health at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Penn. “How does it work for routine inpatient problems and how do hospitalists use it? We haven’t seen data there and that’s where a pilot comes in.”
Dr. Mac believes it inconsistent that, in many circumstances, physicians providing services via telemedicine technology are not reimbursed by Medicare and other payers.
“The expansion and ability to provide care in more unique ways – more specialties and in more environments – has expanded more quickly than the systems of reimbursement for professional fees have and it really is a bit of a hodgepodge now,” he said. “We certainly are pleased that this is getting attention and that we have leaders pushing for this in Congress. We don’t know for sure how the final legislation (on this bill) may look but hopefully there will be some form of this that will come to fruition.”
Whether telemedicine can reduce costs while improving outcomes, or improve outcomes without increasing costs, remains unsettled. A study published in Health Affairs in March 2017 indicates that while telehealth can improve access to care, it results in greater utilization, thereby increasing costs.1
The study relied on claims data for more than 300,000 patients in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System during 2011-2013. It looked at utilization of direct-to-consumer telehealth and spending for acute respiratory illness, one of the most common reasons patients seek telehealth services. While, per episode, telehealth visits cost 50% less than did an outpatient visit and less than 5% of an emergency department visit, annual spending per individual for acute respiratory illness went up $45 because, as the authors estimated, 88% of direct-to-consumer telehealth visits represented new utilization.
Whether this would be the case for hospitalist patients remains to be tested.
“It gets back to whether or not you’re adding a necessary service or substituting a less expensive one for a more expensive one,” said Dr. Flansbaum. “Are physicians providing a needed service or adding unnecessary visits to the system?”
Jayne Lee, MD, has been a hospitalist with Eagle for nearly a decade. Before making the transition from an in-hospital physician to one treating patients from behind a robot – with assistance at the point of service from a nurse – she was working 10 shifts in a row at her home in the United States before traveling to her home in Paris. Dr. Mac offered her the opportunity to practice full time as a telehospitalist from overseas. Today, she is also the company’s chief medical officer and estimates she’s had more than 7,000 patient encounters using telemedicine technology.
Dr. Lee is licensed in multiple states – a barrier that plagues many would-be telehealth providers, but which Eagle has solved with its licensing and credentialing staff – and because she is often providing services at night to urban and rural areas, she sees a broad range of patients.
“We see things from coronary artery disease, COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] exacerbations, and diabetes-related conditions to drug overdoses and alcohol abuse,” she said. “I enjoy seeing the variety of patients I encounter every night.”
Dr. Lee has to navigate each health system’s electronic medical records and triage systems but, she says, patient care has remained the same. And she’s providing services for hospitals that may not have another hospitalist to assign.
“Our practices keep growing, a sign that hospitals are needing our services now more than ever, given that there is a physician shortage and given the financial constraints we’re seeing in the healthcare system.” she said.
References
1. Ashwood JS, Mehrota A, Cowling D, et al. Direct-to-consumer telehealth may increase access to care but does not decrease spending. Health Affairs. 2017; 36(3):485-491. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1130.
A bipartisan bill introduced in the U.S. Senate in late March 2017 would authorize the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to test expanded telehealth services provided to Medicare beneficiaries.
The Telehealth Innovation and Improvement Act (S.787), currently in the Senate Finance Committee, was introduced by Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.). A similar bill they introduced in 2015 was never enacted.
However, there are physicians hoping to see this bill or others like it granted consideration. Currently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimburses only for certain telemedicine services provided in rural or underserved geographic areas, but the new bill would apply in suburban and urban areas as well, based on pilot testing of models and evaluating them for cost, quality, and effectiveness. Successful models would be covered by Medicare.
“Medicare has made some provisions for specific rural sites and niche areas, but writ large, there’s no prescribed way for people to just open a telemedicine shop and begin to bill,” said Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM, a member of the SHM Public Policy Committee.
With the exception of telestroke and critical care, “evidence is needed for the type of setting and type of clinical problems addressed by telemedicine. It’s not been tested enough,” added Dr. Flansbaum, who holds a dual appointment in hospital medicine and population health at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Penn. “How does it work for routine inpatient problems and how do hospitalists use it? We haven’t seen data there and that’s where a pilot comes in.”
Dr. Mac believes it inconsistent that, in many circumstances, physicians providing services via telemedicine technology are not reimbursed by Medicare and other payers.
“The expansion and ability to provide care in more unique ways – more specialties and in more environments – has expanded more quickly than the systems of reimbursement for professional fees have and it really is a bit of a hodgepodge now,” he said. “We certainly are pleased that this is getting attention and that we have leaders pushing for this in Congress. We don’t know for sure how the final legislation (on this bill) may look but hopefully there will be some form of this that will come to fruition.”
Whether telemedicine can reduce costs while improving outcomes, or improve outcomes without increasing costs, remains unsettled. A study published in Health Affairs in March 2017 indicates that while telehealth can improve access to care, it results in greater utilization, thereby increasing costs.1
The study relied on claims data for more than 300,000 patients in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System during 2011-2013. It looked at utilization of direct-to-consumer telehealth and spending for acute respiratory illness, one of the most common reasons patients seek telehealth services. While, per episode, telehealth visits cost 50% less than did an outpatient visit and less than 5% of an emergency department visit, annual spending per individual for acute respiratory illness went up $45 because, as the authors estimated, 88% of direct-to-consumer telehealth visits represented new utilization.
Whether this would be the case for hospitalist patients remains to be tested.
“It gets back to whether or not you’re adding a necessary service or substituting a less expensive one for a more expensive one,” said Dr. Flansbaum. “Are physicians providing a needed service or adding unnecessary visits to the system?”
Jayne Lee, MD, has been a hospitalist with Eagle for nearly a decade. Before making the transition from an in-hospital physician to one treating patients from behind a robot – with assistance at the point of service from a nurse – she was working 10 shifts in a row at her home in the United States before traveling to her home in Paris. Dr. Mac offered her the opportunity to practice full time as a telehospitalist from overseas. Today, she is also the company’s chief medical officer and estimates she’s had more than 7,000 patient encounters using telemedicine technology.
Dr. Lee is licensed in multiple states – a barrier that plagues many would-be telehealth providers, but which Eagle has solved with its licensing and credentialing staff – and because she is often providing services at night to urban and rural areas, she sees a broad range of patients.
“We see things from coronary artery disease, COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] exacerbations, and diabetes-related conditions to drug overdoses and alcohol abuse,” she said. “I enjoy seeing the variety of patients I encounter every night.”
Dr. Lee has to navigate each health system’s electronic medical records and triage systems but, she says, patient care has remained the same. And she’s providing services for hospitals that may not have another hospitalist to assign.
“Our practices keep growing, a sign that hospitals are needing our services now more than ever, given that there is a physician shortage and given the financial constraints we’re seeing in the healthcare system.” she said.
References
1. Ashwood JS, Mehrota A, Cowling D, et al. Direct-to-consumer telehealth may increase access to care but does not decrease spending. Health Affairs. 2017; 36(3):485-491. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1130.
A bipartisan bill introduced in the U.S. Senate in late March 2017 would authorize the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) to test expanded telehealth services provided to Medicare beneficiaries.
The Telehealth Innovation and Improvement Act (S.787), currently in the Senate Finance Committee, was introduced by Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.). A similar bill they introduced in 2015 was never enacted.
However, there are physicians hoping to see this bill or others like it granted consideration. Currently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reimburses only for certain telemedicine services provided in rural or underserved geographic areas, but the new bill would apply in suburban and urban areas as well, based on pilot testing of models and evaluating them for cost, quality, and effectiveness. Successful models would be covered by Medicare.
“Medicare has made some provisions for specific rural sites and niche areas, but writ large, there’s no prescribed way for people to just open a telemedicine shop and begin to bill,” said Bradley Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM, a member of the SHM Public Policy Committee.
With the exception of telestroke and critical care, “evidence is needed for the type of setting and type of clinical problems addressed by telemedicine. It’s not been tested enough,” added Dr. Flansbaum, who holds a dual appointment in hospital medicine and population health at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, Penn. “How does it work for routine inpatient problems and how do hospitalists use it? We haven’t seen data there and that’s where a pilot comes in.”
Dr. Mac believes it inconsistent that, in many circumstances, physicians providing services via telemedicine technology are not reimbursed by Medicare and other payers.
“The expansion and ability to provide care in more unique ways – more specialties and in more environments – has expanded more quickly than the systems of reimbursement for professional fees have and it really is a bit of a hodgepodge now,” he said. “We certainly are pleased that this is getting attention and that we have leaders pushing for this in Congress. We don’t know for sure how the final legislation (on this bill) may look but hopefully there will be some form of this that will come to fruition.”
Whether telemedicine can reduce costs while improving outcomes, or improve outcomes without increasing costs, remains unsettled. A study published in Health Affairs in March 2017 indicates that while telehealth can improve access to care, it results in greater utilization, thereby increasing costs.1
The study relied on claims data for more than 300,000 patients in the California Public Employees’ Retirement System during 2011-2013. It looked at utilization of direct-to-consumer telehealth and spending for acute respiratory illness, one of the most common reasons patients seek telehealth services. While, per episode, telehealth visits cost 50% less than did an outpatient visit and less than 5% of an emergency department visit, annual spending per individual for acute respiratory illness went up $45 because, as the authors estimated, 88% of direct-to-consumer telehealth visits represented new utilization.
Whether this would be the case for hospitalist patients remains to be tested.
“It gets back to whether or not you’re adding a necessary service or substituting a less expensive one for a more expensive one,” said Dr. Flansbaum. “Are physicians providing a needed service or adding unnecessary visits to the system?”
Jayne Lee, MD, has been a hospitalist with Eagle for nearly a decade. Before making the transition from an in-hospital physician to one treating patients from behind a robot – with assistance at the point of service from a nurse – she was working 10 shifts in a row at her home in the United States before traveling to her home in Paris. Dr. Mac offered her the opportunity to practice full time as a telehospitalist from overseas. Today, she is also the company’s chief medical officer and estimates she’s had more than 7,000 patient encounters using telemedicine technology.
Dr. Lee is licensed in multiple states – a barrier that plagues many would-be telehealth providers, but which Eagle has solved with its licensing and credentialing staff – and because she is often providing services at night to urban and rural areas, she sees a broad range of patients.
“We see things from coronary artery disease, COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] exacerbations, and diabetes-related conditions to drug overdoses and alcohol abuse,” she said. “I enjoy seeing the variety of patients I encounter every night.”
Dr. Lee has to navigate each health system’s electronic medical records and triage systems but, she says, patient care has remained the same. And she’s providing services for hospitals that may not have another hospitalist to assign.
“Our practices keep growing, a sign that hospitals are needing our services now more than ever, given that there is a physician shortage and given the financial constraints we’re seeing in the healthcare system.” she said.
References
1. Ashwood JS, Mehrota A, Cowling D, et al. Direct-to-consumer telehealth may increase access to care but does not decrease spending. Health Affairs. 2017; 36(3):485-491. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1130.
Future Hospitalist: Top 10 tips for carrying out a successful quality improvement project
Editor’s Note: This column is a quarterly feature written by members of the Physicians in Training Committee. It aims to encourage and educate students, residents, and early career hospitalists.
One of the biggest challenges early career hospitalists, residents and medical students face in launching their first quality improvement (QI) project is knowing how and where to get started. QI can be highly rewarding, but it can also take valuable time and resources without guarantees of sustainable improvement. In this article, we outline 10 key factors to consider when starting a new project.
1. Frame your project so that it aligns with your hospital’s current goals
Choose a project with your hospital’s goals in mind. Securing resources such as health IT, financial, or staffing support will prove difficult unless you get buy-in from hospital leadership. If your project does not directly address hospital goals, frame the purpose to demonstrate that it still fits with leadership priorities. For example, though improving handoffs from daytime to nighttime providers may not be a specific goal, leadership should appreciate that this project is expected to improve patient safety.
2. Be SMART about goals
Many QI projects fail because the scope of the initial project is too large, unrealistic, or vague. Creating a clear and focused aim statement and keeping it “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) will bring structure to the project.1 “We will reduce Congestive Heart Failure readmissions on 5 medicine units at our hospital by 2.5% in 6 months” is an example of a SMART aim statement. 
3. Involve the right people from the start
QI project disasters often start with the wrong team. Select members based on who is needed and not who is available. It is critical to include representatives or “champions” from each area that will be affected. People will buy into a new methodology much more quickly if they were engaged in its development or know that respected members in their area were involved.
4. Use a simple, systematic approach to guide improvement work
Various QI models exist and each offers a systematic approach for assessing and improving care services. The Model for Improvement developed by the Associates in Process Improvement2 is a simple and powerful framework for quality improvement that asks three questions: (1) What are we trying to accomplish? (2) How will we know a change is an improvement? (3) What changes can we make that will result in improvement? The model incorporates Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to test changes on a small scale.
5. Good projects start with good background data
6. Choose interventions that are high impact, low effort
People will more easily change if the change itself is easy. So consider the question “does this intervention add significant work?” The best interventions change a process without causing undue burden to the clinicians and staff involved.
7. If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it
After implementation, collect enough data to know whether the changes made improved the process. Study outcome, process, and balancing measures. If possible, use data already being collected by your institution. While it is critical to have quantitative measures, qualitative data such as surveys and observations can also enrich understanding.
Example: Increasing early discharges in medical unit.
Outcome measure – This is the desired outcome that the project aims to improve. This may be the percentage of discharges before noon (DBN) or the average discharge time.
Process measure – This is a measure of a specific change made to improve the outcome metric. The discharge orders may need to be placed earlier in the electronic medical record to improve DBN. This average discharge order time is an example of a process measure.
Balance measure – This metric evaluates whether the intended outcome is leading to unintended consequences. For example, tracking the readmission rate is an important balance measure to assess whether improved DBN is associated with rushed discharges and possible unsafe transitions.
8. Communicate project goals and progress
9. Manage resistance to change
“People responsible for planning and implementing change often forget that while the first task of change management is to understand the destination and how to get there, the first task of transition management is to convince people to leave home.” – William Bridges
Inertia is powerful. We may consider our continuous performance improvement initiative as “the next big thing” but others may not share this enthusiasm. We therefore need to build a compelling reason for others to become engaged and accept major changes to work flow. Different strategies may be needed depending on your audience. Though for some, data and a rational analysis will be persuasive, for others the emotional argument will be the most motivating. Share personal anecdotes and use patient stories. In addition, let providers know “what’s in it for them.” Some may have a personal interest in your project or may need QI experience for career advancement; others might be motivated by the possibilities for scholarship arising from this work.
10. Make the work count twice
Consider QI as a scholarly initiative from the start to bring rigor to the project at all phases. Describe the project in an abstract or manuscript once improvements have been made. Publication is a great way to boost team morale and help make a business case for future improvement work. The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines provide an excellent framework for designing and writing up an improvement project.4 The guidelines focus on why the project was started, what was done, what was found, and what the findings mean.
Driving change is challenging, and it is tempting to jump ahead to “fixing the problem.” But implementing a successful QI project requires intelligent direction, strategic planning, and skillful execution. It is our hope that following the above tips will help you develop the best possible ideas and approach implementation in a systematic way, ultimately leading to meaningful change.
Dr. Reyna is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine and unit medical director at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. She is a Certified Clinical Microsystems Coach. Dr. Burger is associate professor and associate program director, internal medicine residency, at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. He is on the faculty for the SGIM Annual Meeting Precourse on QI and is head of the high value care committee at the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. Dr. Cho is assistant professor and director of quality and safety in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai. He is a senior fellow at the Lown Institute.
References
1. MacLeod L. Making SMART goals smarter. Physician Exec. 2012 Mar-Apr;38(2):68-70, 72.
2. Langley GL, Moen R, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009.
3. Nelson EC, Batalden PB, Godfrey MM. Quality By Design: A Clinical Microsystems Approach. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass; 2007.
4. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D et.al. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Sep 14.
Editor’s Note: This column is a quarterly feature written by members of the Physicians in Training Committee. It aims to encourage and educate students, residents, and early career hospitalists.
One of the biggest challenges early career hospitalists, residents and medical students face in launching their first quality improvement (QI) project is knowing how and where to get started. QI can be highly rewarding, but it can also take valuable time and resources without guarantees of sustainable improvement. In this article, we outline 10 key factors to consider when starting a new project.
1. Frame your project so that it aligns with your hospital’s current goals
Choose a project with your hospital’s goals in mind. Securing resources such as health IT, financial, or staffing support will prove difficult unless you get buy-in from hospital leadership. If your project does not directly address hospital goals, frame the purpose to demonstrate that it still fits with leadership priorities. For example, though improving handoffs from daytime to nighttime providers may not be a specific goal, leadership should appreciate that this project is expected to improve patient safety.
2. Be SMART about goals
Many QI projects fail because the scope of the initial project is too large, unrealistic, or vague. Creating a clear and focused aim statement and keeping it “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) will bring structure to the project.1 “We will reduce Congestive Heart Failure readmissions on 5 medicine units at our hospital by 2.5% in 6 months” is an example of a SMART aim statement.
3. Involve the right people from the start
QI project disasters often start with the wrong team. Select members based on who is needed and not who is available. It is critical to include representatives or “champions” from each area that will be affected. People will buy into a new methodology much more quickly if they were engaged in its development or know that respected members in their area were involved.
4. Use a simple, systematic approach to guide improvement work
Various QI models exist and each offers a systematic approach for assessing and improving care services. The Model for Improvement developed by the Associates in Process Improvement2 is a simple and powerful framework for quality improvement that asks three questions: (1) What are we trying to accomplish? (2) How will we know a change is an improvement? (3) What changes can we make that will result in improvement? The model incorporates Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to test changes on a small scale.
5. Good projects start with good background data
6. Choose interventions that are high impact, low effort
People will more easily change if the change itself is easy. So consider the question “does this intervention add significant work?” The best interventions change a process without causing undue burden to the clinicians and staff involved.
7. If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it
After implementation, collect enough data to know whether the changes made improved the process. Study outcome, process, and balancing measures. If possible, use data already being collected by your institution. While it is critical to have quantitative measures, qualitative data such as surveys and observations can also enrich understanding.
Example: Increasing early discharges in medical unit.
Outcome measure – This is the desired outcome that the project aims to improve. This may be the percentage of discharges before noon (DBN) or the average discharge time.
Process measure – This is a measure of a specific change made to improve the outcome metric. The discharge orders may need to be placed earlier in the electronic medical record to improve DBN. This average discharge order time is an example of a process measure.
Balance measure – This metric evaluates whether the intended outcome is leading to unintended consequences. For example, tracking the readmission rate is an important balance measure to assess whether improved DBN is associated with rushed discharges and possible unsafe transitions.
8. Communicate project goals and progress
9. Manage resistance to change
“People responsible for planning and implementing change often forget that while the first task of change management is to understand the destination and how to get there, the first task of transition management is to convince people to leave home.” – William Bridges
Inertia is powerful. We may consider our continuous performance improvement initiative as “the next big thing” but others may not share this enthusiasm. We therefore need to build a compelling reason for others to become engaged and accept major changes to work flow. Different strategies may be needed depending on your audience. Though for some, data and a rational analysis will be persuasive, for others the emotional argument will be the most motivating. Share personal anecdotes and use patient stories. In addition, let providers know “what’s in it for them.” Some may have a personal interest in your project or may need QI experience for career advancement; others might be motivated by the possibilities for scholarship arising from this work.
10. Make the work count twice
Consider QI as a scholarly initiative from the start to bring rigor to the project at all phases. Describe the project in an abstract or manuscript once improvements have been made. Publication is a great way to boost team morale and help make a business case for future improvement work. The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines provide an excellent framework for designing and writing up an improvement project.4 The guidelines focus on why the project was started, what was done, what was found, and what the findings mean.
Driving change is challenging, and it is tempting to jump ahead to “fixing the problem.” But implementing a successful QI project requires intelligent direction, strategic planning, and skillful execution. It is our hope that following the above tips will help you develop the best possible ideas and approach implementation in a systematic way, ultimately leading to meaningful change.
Dr. Reyna is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine and unit medical director at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. She is a Certified Clinical Microsystems Coach. Dr. Burger is associate professor and associate program director, internal medicine residency, at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. He is on the faculty for the SGIM Annual Meeting Precourse on QI and is head of the high value care committee at the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. Dr. Cho is assistant professor and director of quality and safety in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai. He is a senior fellow at the Lown Institute.
References
1. MacLeod L. Making SMART goals smarter. Physician Exec. 2012 Mar-Apr;38(2):68-70, 72.
2. Langley GL, Moen R, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009.
3. Nelson EC, Batalden PB, Godfrey MM. Quality By Design: A Clinical Microsystems Approach. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass; 2007.
4. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D et.al. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Sep 14.
Editor’s Note: This column is a quarterly feature written by members of the Physicians in Training Committee. It aims to encourage and educate students, residents, and early career hospitalists.
One of the biggest challenges early career hospitalists, residents and medical students face in launching their first quality improvement (QI) project is knowing how and where to get started. QI can be highly rewarding, but it can also take valuable time and resources without guarantees of sustainable improvement. In this article, we outline 10 key factors to consider when starting a new project.
1. Frame your project so that it aligns with your hospital’s current goals
Choose a project with your hospital’s goals in mind. Securing resources such as health IT, financial, or staffing support will prove difficult unless you get buy-in from hospital leadership. If your project does not directly address hospital goals, frame the purpose to demonstrate that it still fits with leadership priorities. For example, though improving handoffs from daytime to nighttime providers may not be a specific goal, leadership should appreciate that this project is expected to improve patient safety.
2. Be SMART about goals
Many QI projects fail because the scope of the initial project is too large, unrealistic, or vague. Creating a clear and focused aim statement and keeping it “SMART” (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Timely) will bring structure to the project.1 “We will reduce Congestive Heart Failure readmissions on 5 medicine units at our hospital by 2.5% in 6 months” is an example of a SMART aim statement.
3. Involve the right people from the start
QI project disasters often start with the wrong team. Select members based on who is needed and not who is available. It is critical to include representatives or “champions” from each area that will be affected. People will buy into a new methodology much more quickly if they were engaged in its development or know that respected members in their area were involved.
4. Use a simple, systematic approach to guide improvement work
Various QI models exist and each offers a systematic approach for assessing and improving care services. The Model for Improvement developed by the Associates in Process Improvement2 is a simple and powerful framework for quality improvement that asks three questions: (1) What are we trying to accomplish? (2) How will we know a change is an improvement? (3) What changes can we make that will result in improvement? The model incorporates Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to test changes on a small scale.
5. Good projects start with good background data
6. Choose interventions that are high impact, low effort
People will more easily change if the change itself is easy. So consider the question “does this intervention add significant work?” The best interventions change a process without causing undue burden to the clinicians and staff involved.
7. If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it
After implementation, collect enough data to know whether the changes made improved the process. Study outcome, process, and balancing measures. If possible, use data already being collected by your institution. While it is critical to have quantitative measures, qualitative data such as surveys and observations can also enrich understanding.
Example: Increasing early discharges in medical unit.
Outcome measure – This is the desired outcome that the project aims to improve. This may be the percentage of discharges before noon (DBN) or the average discharge time.
Process measure – This is a measure of a specific change made to improve the outcome metric. The discharge orders may need to be placed earlier in the electronic medical record to improve DBN. This average discharge order time is an example of a process measure.
Balance measure – This metric evaluates whether the intended outcome is leading to unintended consequences. For example, tracking the readmission rate is an important balance measure to assess whether improved DBN is associated with rushed discharges and possible unsafe transitions.
8. Communicate project goals and progress
9. Manage resistance to change
“People responsible for planning and implementing change often forget that while the first task of change management is to understand the destination and how to get there, the first task of transition management is to convince people to leave home.” – William Bridges
Inertia is powerful. We may consider our continuous performance improvement initiative as “the next big thing” but others may not share this enthusiasm. We therefore need to build a compelling reason for others to become engaged and accept major changes to work flow. Different strategies may be needed depending on your audience. Though for some, data and a rational analysis will be persuasive, for others the emotional argument will be the most motivating. Share personal anecdotes and use patient stories. In addition, let providers know “what’s in it for them.” Some may have a personal interest in your project or may need QI experience for career advancement; others might be motivated by the possibilities for scholarship arising from this work.
10. Make the work count twice
Consider QI as a scholarly initiative from the start to bring rigor to the project at all phases. Describe the project in an abstract or manuscript once improvements have been made. Publication is a great way to boost team morale and help make a business case for future improvement work. The Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) guidelines provide an excellent framework for designing and writing up an improvement project.4 The guidelines focus on why the project was started, what was done, what was found, and what the findings mean.
Driving change is challenging, and it is tempting to jump ahead to “fixing the problem.” But implementing a successful QI project requires intelligent direction, strategic planning, and skillful execution. It is our hope that following the above tips will help you develop the best possible ideas and approach implementation in a systematic way, ultimately leading to meaningful change.
Dr. Reyna is assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine and unit medical director at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York City. She is a Certified Clinical Microsystems Coach. Dr. Burger is associate professor and associate program director, internal medicine residency, at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. He is on the faculty for the SGIM Annual Meeting Precourse on QI and is head of the high value care committee at the department of medicine at Mount Sinai Beth Israel. Dr. Cho is assistant professor and director of quality and safety in the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai. He is a senior fellow at the Lown Institute.
References
1. MacLeod L. Making SMART goals smarter. Physician Exec. 2012 Mar-Apr;38(2):68-70, 72.
2. Langley GL, Moen R, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational Performance (2nd edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 2009.
3. Nelson EC, Batalden PB, Godfrey MM. Quality By Design: A Clinical Microsystems Approach. San Francisco, California: Jossey-Bass; 2007.
4. Ogrinc G, Davies L, Goodman D et.al. SQUIRE 2.0 (Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence): revised publication guidelines from a detailed consensus process. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015 Sep 14.
Patrick Conway leaves CMS for Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Patrick Conway, MD deputy administrator for innovation and quality at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is departing his government post to take the reigns of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina (Blue Cross NC).
In an Aug. 8 statement, Blue Cross NC announced that Dr. Conway will start as the insurer’s new president and CEO on Oct. 1. Blue Cross NC’s role in transforming the health care system in North Carolina is both a model for other plans and a system that Dr. Conway is excited to further improve, he said in a statement.
Blue Cross NC Board of Trustees Chair Frank Holding Jr. called Dr. Conway a national and international leader in health system transformation, quality, and innovation who will further advance Blue Cross NC’s goals.
“His unique experiences as a health care provider and as a leader of the world’s largest health care payor will help Blue Cross NC fulfill its mission to improve the health and well-being of our customers and communities,” Mr. Holding said in the statement.
Dr. Conway joined CMS in 2011 as the agency’s chief medical officer and ultimately became the agency’s deputy administrator for innovation and quality and director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. Following President Obama’s departure from office, Dr. Conway took over as acting CMS administrator for then-CMS principal deputy administrator Andy Slavitt until new administrator Seema Verma assumed the position in March.
A longtime pediatric hospitalist, Dr. Conway was selected as a Master of Hospital Medicine by the Society of Hospital Medicine. He also was elected to the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2014. Prior to joining CMS, Dr. Conway oversaw clinical operations and research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center as director of hospital medicine, with a focus on improving patient outcomes across the health system.
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med
Patrick Conway, MD deputy administrator for innovation and quality at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is departing his government post to take the reigns of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina (Blue Cross NC).
In an Aug. 8 statement, Blue Cross NC announced that Dr. Conway will start as the insurer’s new president and CEO on Oct. 1. Blue Cross NC’s role in transforming the health care system in North Carolina is both a model for other plans and a system that Dr. Conway is excited to further improve, he said in a statement.
Blue Cross NC Board of Trustees Chair Frank Holding Jr. called Dr. Conway a national and international leader in health system transformation, quality, and innovation who will further advance Blue Cross NC’s goals.
“His unique experiences as a health care provider and as a leader of the world’s largest health care payor will help Blue Cross NC fulfill its mission to improve the health and well-being of our customers and communities,” Mr. Holding said in the statement.
Dr. Conway joined CMS in 2011 as the agency’s chief medical officer and ultimately became the agency’s deputy administrator for innovation and quality and director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. Following President Obama’s departure from office, Dr. Conway took over as acting CMS administrator for then-CMS principal deputy administrator Andy Slavitt until new administrator Seema Verma assumed the position in March.
A longtime pediatric hospitalist, Dr. Conway was selected as a Master of Hospital Medicine by the Society of Hospital Medicine. He also was elected to the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2014. Prior to joining CMS, Dr. Conway oversaw clinical operations and research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center as director of hospital medicine, with a focus on improving patient outcomes across the health system.
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med
Patrick Conway, MD deputy administrator for innovation and quality at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is departing his government post to take the reigns of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina (Blue Cross NC).
In an Aug. 8 statement, Blue Cross NC announced that Dr. Conway will start as the insurer’s new president and CEO on Oct. 1. Blue Cross NC’s role in transforming the health care system in North Carolina is both a model for other plans and a system that Dr. Conway is excited to further improve, he said in a statement.
Blue Cross NC Board of Trustees Chair Frank Holding Jr. called Dr. Conway a national and international leader in health system transformation, quality, and innovation who will further advance Blue Cross NC’s goals.
“His unique experiences as a health care provider and as a leader of the world’s largest health care payor will help Blue Cross NC fulfill its mission to improve the health and well-being of our customers and communities,” Mr. Holding said in the statement.
Dr. Conway joined CMS in 2011 as the agency’s chief medical officer and ultimately became the agency’s deputy administrator for innovation and quality and director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation. Following President Obama’s departure from office, Dr. Conway took over as acting CMS administrator for then-CMS principal deputy administrator Andy Slavitt until new administrator Seema Verma assumed the position in March.
A longtime pediatric hospitalist, Dr. Conway was selected as a Master of Hospital Medicine by the Society of Hospital Medicine. He also was elected to the Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2014. Prior to joining CMS, Dr. Conway oversaw clinical operations and research at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center as director of hospital medicine, with a focus on improving patient outcomes across the health system.
[email protected]
On Twitter @legal_med
FDA approves first spironolactone oral suspension
The Food and Drug Administration has approved CaroSpir, the first oral suspension form of spironolactone, the aldosterone antagonist that was first approved in 1960, according to an announcement from CMP Pharma.
CaroSpir is intended for the treatment of New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, usually in combination with other treatments. CaroSpir is also indicated as an add-on medication for the treatment of hypertension, and for the treatment of edema in cirrhotic patients who have not adequately responded to fluid and sodium restriction.
“CaroSpir provides a stable, ready to use, and consistent liquid treatment option for adult patients. Up until now, these patients have been prescribed a pharmacy-compounded liquid form of spironolactone. The dosing inconsistencies of compounded liquids have long been a persistent challenge for physicians,” Gerald Sakowski, CEO at CMP Pharma, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the CMP Pharma website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved CaroSpir, the first oral suspension form of spironolactone, the aldosterone antagonist that was first approved in 1960, according to an announcement from CMP Pharma.
CaroSpir is intended for the treatment of New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, usually in combination with other treatments. CaroSpir is also indicated as an add-on medication for the treatment of hypertension, and for the treatment of edema in cirrhotic patients who have not adequately responded to fluid and sodium restriction.
“CaroSpir provides a stable, ready to use, and consistent liquid treatment option for adult patients. Up until now, these patients have been prescribed a pharmacy-compounded liquid form of spironolactone. The dosing inconsistencies of compounded liquids have long been a persistent challenge for physicians,” Gerald Sakowski, CEO at CMP Pharma, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the CMP Pharma website.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved CaroSpir, the first oral suspension form of spironolactone, the aldosterone antagonist that was first approved in 1960, according to an announcement from CMP Pharma.
CaroSpir is intended for the treatment of New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, usually in combination with other treatments. CaroSpir is also indicated as an add-on medication for the treatment of hypertension, and for the treatment of edema in cirrhotic patients who have not adequately responded to fluid and sodium restriction.
“CaroSpir provides a stable, ready to use, and consistent liquid treatment option for adult patients. Up until now, these patients have been prescribed a pharmacy-compounded liquid form of spironolactone. The dosing inconsistencies of compounded liquids have long been a persistent challenge for physicians,” Gerald Sakowski, CEO at CMP Pharma, said in the press release.
Find the full press release on the CMP Pharma website.
Award for best hospital goes to … the Mayo Clinic
For the second consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic was named the top hospital in the country by U.S. News & World Report.
Also for the second consecutive year, the Cleveland Clinic is ranked second, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston finished third and fourth – switching their places from last year’s ranking – and UCSF Medical Center in San Francisco is fifth after ranking seventh last year, according to the 2017-2018 Best Hospitals ranking.
The Mayo Clinic is nationally ranked in 15 of the 16 specialties included in the overall process, which started with 4,658 community inpatient hospitals and finished with 152 ranking nationally in at least one specialty and 20 earning Honor Roll status with high rankings in multiple specialties. The specialties used in the ranking process include 12 that are data driven – cancer; cardiology and heart surgery; diabetes and endocrinology; otolaryngology; gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery; geriatrics; gynecology; nephrology; neurology and neurosurgery; orthopedics; pulmonology; and urology – and four rated by reputation only – ophthalmology; psychiatry; rehabilitation; and rheumatology.
The research organization RTI International conducted the physician survey and produced the Best Hospitals methodology and national rankings under contract with U.S. News. The launch of this year’s edition of Best Hospitals is sponsored by Fidelity Investments.
For the second consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic was named the top hospital in the country by U.S. News & World Report.
Also for the second consecutive year, the Cleveland Clinic is ranked second, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston finished third and fourth – switching their places from last year’s ranking – and UCSF Medical Center in San Francisco is fifth after ranking seventh last year, according to the 2017-2018 Best Hospitals ranking.
The Mayo Clinic is nationally ranked in 15 of the 16 specialties included in the overall process, which started with 4,658 community inpatient hospitals and finished with 152 ranking nationally in at least one specialty and 20 earning Honor Roll status with high rankings in multiple specialties. The specialties used in the ranking process include 12 that are data driven – cancer; cardiology and heart surgery; diabetes and endocrinology; otolaryngology; gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery; geriatrics; gynecology; nephrology; neurology and neurosurgery; orthopedics; pulmonology; and urology – and four rated by reputation only – ophthalmology; psychiatry; rehabilitation; and rheumatology.
The research organization RTI International conducted the physician survey and produced the Best Hospitals methodology and national rankings under contract with U.S. News. The launch of this year’s edition of Best Hospitals is sponsored by Fidelity Investments.
For the second consecutive year, the Mayo Clinic was named the top hospital in the country by U.S. News & World Report.
Also for the second consecutive year, the Cleveland Clinic is ranked second, while Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore and Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston finished third and fourth – switching their places from last year’s ranking – and UCSF Medical Center in San Francisco is fifth after ranking seventh last year, according to the 2017-2018 Best Hospitals ranking.
The Mayo Clinic is nationally ranked in 15 of the 16 specialties included in the overall process, which started with 4,658 community inpatient hospitals and finished with 152 ranking nationally in at least one specialty and 20 earning Honor Roll status with high rankings in multiple specialties. The specialties used in the ranking process include 12 that are data driven – cancer; cardiology and heart surgery; diabetes and endocrinology; otolaryngology; gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery; geriatrics; gynecology; nephrology; neurology and neurosurgery; orthopedics; pulmonology; and urology – and four rated by reputation only – ophthalmology; psychiatry; rehabilitation; and rheumatology.
The research organization RTI International conducted the physician survey and produced the Best Hospitals methodology and national rankings under contract with U.S. News. The launch of this year’s edition of Best Hospitals is sponsored by Fidelity Investments.
The Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine – 2017 revision
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” This famous quote from Mahatma Gandhi has inspired many to transform their work and personal space into an eternal quest for improvement. We hospitalists are now well-recognized agents of change in our work environment, improving the quality and safety of inpatient care, striving to create increased value, and promoting the delivery of cost-effective care.
Much has changed in the U.S. health care and hospital practice environment over the past decade. The 2017 revision of the Core Competencies seeks to maintain its relevance, value and more importantly, highlight areas for future growth and innovation.
What does the “Core Competencies” represent and who should use it?
It comprises a set of competency-based learning objectives that present a shared understanding of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected of physicians practicing hospital medicine in the United States.
A common misconception is that every hospitalist can be expected to demonstrate proficiency in all topics in the Core Competencies. While every item in the compendium is highly relevant to the field as a whole, its significance for individual hospitalists will vary depending on their practice pattern, leadership role, and local culture.
It also is noteworthy to indicate that it is not a set of practice guidelines that provide recommendations based on the latest scientific evidence, nor does it represent any legal standard of care. Rather, the Core Competencies offers an agenda for curricular training and to broadly influence the direction of the field. It also is important to realize that the Core Competencies is not an all-inclusive list that restricts a hospitalist’s scope of practice. Instead, hospitalists should use the Core Competencies as an educational and professional benchmark with the ultimate goal of providing safe, efficient, and high-value care using interdisciplinary collaboration when necessary.
As a core set of attributes, all hospitalists can use it to reflect on their knowledge, skills, and attitudes, as well as those of their group or practice collectively. The Core Competencies highlights areas within the field that are prime for further research and quality improvement initiatives on a national, regional, and local level. Thus, they also should be of interest to health care administrators and a variety of stakeholders looking to support and fund such efforts in enhancing health care value and quality for all.
It is also a framework for the development of curricula for both education and professional development purposes for use by hospitalists, hospital medicine programs, and health care institutions. Course Directors of Continuing Medical Education programs can use the Core Competencies to identify learning objectives that fulfill the goal of the educational program. Similarly, residency and fellowship program directors and medical school clerkship directors can use it to develop course syllabi targeted to the needs of their learner groups.
The structure and format of the Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine
The 53 chapters in the 2017 revision are divided into three sections – Clinical Conditions, Procedures, and Healthcare Systems, all integral to the practice of hospital medicine. Each chapter starts with an introductory paragraph that discusses the relevance and importance of the subject. Each competency-based learning objective describes a particular concept coupled with an action verb that specifies an expected level of proficiency.
For example, the action verb “explain” that requires a mere description of a subject denotes a lower competency level, compared with the verb “evaluate,” which implies not only an understanding of the matter but also the ability to assess its value for a particular purpose. These learning objectives are further categorized into knowledge, skills, and attitudes subsections to reflect the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains of learning.
Because hospitalists are the experts in complex hospital systems, the clinical and procedural sections have an additional subsection, “System Organization and Improvement.” The objectives in this paragraph emphasize the critical role that hospitalists can play as leaders of multidisciplinary teams to improve the quality of care of all patients with a similar condition or undergoing the same procedure.
Examples of everyday use of the Core Competencies for practicing hospitalists
A hospitalist looking to improve her performance of bedside thoracentesis reviews the chapter on Thoracentesis. She then decides to enhance her skills by attending an educational workshop on the use of point-of-care ultrasonography.
A hospital medicine group interested in improving the rate of common hospital-acquired infections reviews the Urinary Tract Infection, Hospital-Acquired and Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia, and Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance chapters to identify possible gaps in practice patterns. The group also goes through the chapters on Quality Improvement, Practice-based Learning and Improvement, and Hospitalist as Educator, to further reflect upon the characteristics of their practice environment. The group then adopts a separate strategy to address identified gaps by finding suitable evidence-based content in a format that best fits their need.
An attending physician leading a team of medical residents and students reviews the chapter on Syncope to identify the teaching objectives for each learner. He decides that the medical student should be able to “define syncope” and “explain the physiologic mechanisms that lead to reflex or neurally mediated syncope.” He determines that the intern on the team should be able to “differentiate syncope from other causes of loss of consciousness,” and the senior resident should be able to “formulate a logical diagnostic plan to determine the cause of syncope while avoiding rarely indicated diagnostic tests … ”
New chapters in the 2017 revision
SHM’s Core Competencies Task Force (CCTF) considered several topics as potential new chapters for the 2017 Revision. The SHM Education Committee judged each for its value as a “core” subject by its relevance, intersection with other specialties, and its scope as a stand-alone chapter.
There are two new clinical conditions – hyponatremia and syncope – mainly chosen because of their clinical importance, the risk of complications, and management inconsistencies that offer hospitalists great opportunities for quality improvement initiatives. The CCTF also identified the use of point-of-care ultrasonography as a notable advancement in the field. A separate task force is working to evaluate best practices and develop a practice guideline that hospitalists can use. The CCTF expects to add more chapters as the field of hospital medicine continues to advance and transform the delivery of health care globally.
The 2017 Revision of the Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine is located online at www.journalofhospitalmedicine.com or using the URL shortener bit.ly/corecomp17.
Dr. Nichani is assistant professor of medicine and director of education for the division of hospital medicine at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He serves as the chair of the SHM Education Committee.
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” This famous quote from Mahatma Gandhi has inspired many to transform their work and personal space into an eternal quest for improvement. We hospitalists are now well-recognized agents of change in our work environment, improving the quality and safety of inpatient care, striving to create increased value, and promoting the delivery of cost-effective care.
Much has changed in the U.S. health care and hospital practice environment over the past decade. The 2017 revision of the Core Competencies seeks to maintain its relevance, value and more importantly, highlight areas for future growth and innovation.
What does the “Core Competencies” represent and who should use it?
It comprises a set of competency-based learning objectives that present a shared understanding of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected of physicians practicing hospital medicine in the United States.
A common misconception is that every hospitalist can be expected to demonstrate proficiency in all topics in the Core Competencies. While every item in the compendium is highly relevant to the field as a whole, its significance for individual hospitalists will vary depending on their practice pattern, leadership role, and local culture.
It also is noteworthy to indicate that it is not a set of practice guidelines that provide recommendations based on the latest scientific evidence, nor does it represent any legal standard of care. Rather, the Core Competencies offers an agenda for curricular training and to broadly influence the direction of the field. It also is important to realize that the Core Competencies is not an all-inclusive list that restricts a hospitalist’s scope of practice. Instead, hospitalists should use the Core Competencies as an educational and professional benchmark with the ultimate goal of providing safe, efficient, and high-value care using interdisciplinary collaboration when necessary.
As a core set of attributes, all hospitalists can use it to reflect on their knowledge, skills, and attitudes, as well as those of their group or practice collectively. The Core Competencies highlights areas within the field that are prime for further research and quality improvement initiatives on a national, regional, and local level. Thus, they also should be of interest to health care administrators and a variety of stakeholders looking to support and fund such efforts in enhancing health care value and quality for all.
It is also a framework for the development of curricula for both education and professional development purposes for use by hospitalists, hospital medicine programs, and health care institutions. Course Directors of Continuing Medical Education programs can use the Core Competencies to identify learning objectives that fulfill the goal of the educational program. Similarly, residency and fellowship program directors and medical school clerkship directors can use it to develop course syllabi targeted to the needs of their learner groups.
The structure and format of the Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine
The 53 chapters in the 2017 revision are divided into three sections – Clinical Conditions, Procedures, and Healthcare Systems, all integral to the practice of hospital medicine. Each chapter starts with an introductory paragraph that discusses the relevance and importance of the subject. Each competency-based learning objective describes a particular concept coupled with an action verb that specifies an expected level of proficiency.
For example, the action verb “explain” that requires a mere description of a subject denotes a lower competency level, compared with the verb “evaluate,” which implies not only an understanding of the matter but also the ability to assess its value for a particular purpose. These learning objectives are further categorized into knowledge, skills, and attitudes subsections to reflect the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains of learning.
Because hospitalists are the experts in complex hospital systems, the clinical and procedural sections have an additional subsection, “System Organization and Improvement.” The objectives in this paragraph emphasize the critical role that hospitalists can play as leaders of multidisciplinary teams to improve the quality of care of all patients with a similar condition or undergoing the same procedure.
Examples of everyday use of the Core Competencies for practicing hospitalists
A hospitalist looking to improve her performance of bedside thoracentesis reviews the chapter on Thoracentesis. She then decides to enhance her skills by attending an educational workshop on the use of point-of-care ultrasonography.
A hospital medicine group interested in improving the rate of common hospital-acquired infections reviews the Urinary Tract Infection, Hospital-Acquired and Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia, and Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance chapters to identify possible gaps in practice patterns. The group also goes through the chapters on Quality Improvement, Practice-based Learning and Improvement, and Hospitalist as Educator, to further reflect upon the characteristics of their practice environment. The group then adopts a separate strategy to address identified gaps by finding suitable evidence-based content in a format that best fits their need.
An attending physician leading a team of medical residents and students reviews the chapter on Syncope to identify the teaching objectives for each learner. He decides that the medical student should be able to “define syncope” and “explain the physiologic mechanisms that lead to reflex or neurally mediated syncope.” He determines that the intern on the team should be able to “differentiate syncope from other causes of loss of consciousness,” and the senior resident should be able to “formulate a logical diagnostic plan to determine the cause of syncope while avoiding rarely indicated diagnostic tests … ”
New chapters in the 2017 revision
SHM’s Core Competencies Task Force (CCTF) considered several topics as potential new chapters for the 2017 Revision. The SHM Education Committee judged each for its value as a “core” subject by its relevance, intersection with other specialties, and its scope as a stand-alone chapter.
There are two new clinical conditions – hyponatremia and syncope – mainly chosen because of their clinical importance, the risk of complications, and management inconsistencies that offer hospitalists great opportunities for quality improvement initiatives. The CCTF also identified the use of point-of-care ultrasonography as a notable advancement in the field. A separate task force is working to evaluate best practices and develop a practice guideline that hospitalists can use. The CCTF expects to add more chapters as the field of hospital medicine continues to advance and transform the delivery of health care globally.
The 2017 Revision of the Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine is located online at www.journalofhospitalmedicine.com or using the URL shortener bit.ly/corecomp17.
Dr. Nichani is assistant professor of medicine and director of education for the division of hospital medicine at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He serves as the chair of the SHM Education Committee.
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” This famous quote from Mahatma Gandhi has inspired many to transform their work and personal space into an eternal quest for improvement. We hospitalists are now well-recognized agents of change in our work environment, improving the quality and safety of inpatient care, striving to create increased value, and promoting the delivery of cost-effective care.
Much has changed in the U.S. health care and hospital practice environment over the past decade. The 2017 revision of the Core Competencies seeks to maintain its relevance, value and more importantly, highlight areas for future growth and innovation.
What does the “Core Competencies” represent and who should use it?
It comprises a set of competency-based learning objectives that present a shared understanding of the knowledge, skills, and attitudes expected of physicians practicing hospital medicine in the United States.
A common misconception is that every hospitalist can be expected to demonstrate proficiency in all topics in the Core Competencies. While every item in the compendium is highly relevant to the field as a whole, its significance for individual hospitalists will vary depending on their practice pattern, leadership role, and local culture.
It also is noteworthy to indicate that it is not a set of practice guidelines that provide recommendations based on the latest scientific evidence, nor does it represent any legal standard of care. Rather, the Core Competencies offers an agenda for curricular training and to broadly influence the direction of the field. It also is important to realize that the Core Competencies is not an all-inclusive list that restricts a hospitalist’s scope of practice. Instead, hospitalists should use the Core Competencies as an educational and professional benchmark with the ultimate goal of providing safe, efficient, and high-value care using interdisciplinary collaboration when necessary.
As a core set of attributes, all hospitalists can use it to reflect on their knowledge, skills, and attitudes, as well as those of their group or practice collectively. The Core Competencies highlights areas within the field that are prime for further research and quality improvement initiatives on a national, regional, and local level. Thus, they also should be of interest to health care administrators and a variety of stakeholders looking to support and fund such efforts in enhancing health care value and quality for all.
It is also a framework for the development of curricula for both education and professional development purposes for use by hospitalists, hospital medicine programs, and health care institutions. Course Directors of Continuing Medical Education programs can use the Core Competencies to identify learning objectives that fulfill the goal of the educational program. Similarly, residency and fellowship program directors and medical school clerkship directors can use it to develop course syllabi targeted to the needs of their learner groups.
The structure and format of the Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine
The 53 chapters in the 2017 revision are divided into three sections – Clinical Conditions, Procedures, and Healthcare Systems, all integral to the practice of hospital medicine. Each chapter starts with an introductory paragraph that discusses the relevance and importance of the subject. Each competency-based learning objective describes a particular concept coupled with an action verb that specifies an expected level of proficiency.
For example, the action verb “explain” that requires a mere description of a subject denotes a lower competency level, compared with the verb “evaluate,” which implies not only an understanding of the matter but also the ability to assess its value for a particular purpose. These learning objectives are further categorized into knowledge, skills, and attitudes subsections to reflect the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective domains of learning.
Because hospitalists are the experts in complex hospital systems, the clinical and procedural sections have an additional subsection, “System Organization and Improvement.” The objectives in this paragraph emphasize the critical role that hospitalists can play as leaders of multidisciplinary teams to improve the quality of care of all patients with a similar condition or undergoing the same procedure.
Examples of everyday use of the Core Competencies for practicing hospitalists
A hospitalist looking to improve her performance of bedside thoracentesis reviews the chapter on Thoracentesis. She then decides to enhance her skills by attending an educational workshop on the use of point-of-care ultrasonography.
A hospital medicine group interested in improving the rate of common hospital-acquired infections reviews the Urinary Tract Infection, Hospital-Acquired and Healthcare-Associated Pneumonia, and Prevention of Healthcare-Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance chapters to identify possible gaps in practice patterns. The group also goes through the chapters on Quality Improvement, Practice-based Learning and Improvement, and Hospitalist as Educator, to further reflect upon the characteristics of their practice environment. The group then adopts a separate strategy to address identified gaps by finding suitable evidence-based content in a format that best fits their need.
An attending physician leading a team of medical residents and students reviews the chapter on Syncope to identify the teaching objectives for each learner. He decides that the medical student should be able to “define syncope” and “explain the physiologic mechanisms that lead to reflex or neurally mediated syncope.” He determines that the intern on the team should be able to “differentiate syncope from other causes of loss of consciousness,” and the senior resident should be able to “formulate a logical diagnostic plan to determine the cause of syncope while avoiding rarely indicated diagnostic tests … ”
New chapters in the 2017 revision
SHM’s Core Competencies Task Force (CCTF) considered several topics as potential new chapters for the 2017 Revision. The SHM Education Committee judged each for its value as a “core” subject by its relevance, intersection with other specialties, and its scope as a stand-alone chapter.
There are two new clinical conditions – hyponatremia and syncope – mainly chosen because of their clinical importance, the risk of complications, and management inconsistencies that offer hospitalists great opportunities for quality improvement initiatives. The CCTF also identified the use of point-of-care ultrasonography as a notable advancement in the field. A separate task force is working to evaluate best practices and develop a practice guideline that hospitalists can use. The CCTF expects to add more chapters as the field of hospital medicine continues to advance and transform the delivery of health care globally.
The 2017 Revision of the Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine is located online at www.journalofhospitalmedicine.com or using the URL shortener bit.ly/corecomp17.
Dr. Nichani is assistant professor of medicine and director of education for the division of hospital medicine at Michigan Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. He serves as the chair of the SHM Education Committee.
Focused on value-based care: Harry Cho, MD
Education and service have always been important for Harry Cho, MD, who recently joined the editorial advisory board of The Hospitalist.
From joining AmeriCorps as a fresh faced college graduate, to his ongoing work as assistant professor of medicine and director of quality, safety, and value for the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and as senior fellow at the Lown Institute, Dr. Cho has found a passion in helping others learn.
When not teaching or working with patients, Dr. Cho is committed to improving value-based medicine, a path that has lead him to create the High Value Chair Initiatives, a program dedicated to offering clinicians resources on how to reduce wasteful testing and harmful practices.
Dr. Cho said he is excited to contribute as one of eight new members of The Hospitalist editorial advisory board in 2017 and took time to tell us more about himself in a recent interview.
Q: Why did you choose medicine as a career?
A: Right after I finished undergrad at Cornell, I spent the summer and the following year doing AmeriCorps, which is service learning work, and I worked in the inner city of Philadelphia. I worked on after-school programs and weekend programs for inner city youth and I loved it. I was organizing and developing these programs, and I thought it was fantastic. The one thing that I thought was lacking, and I think what really drove me to get into medicine, was that at the end of the day, although I felt really connected with all the kids, I felt like I was a role model, like I was a mentor, and we had a really good connection, but I wanted something a little bit more concrete on improving outcomes. I knew we made connections, but I really wanted to know more – such as, did we reduce the dropout rate in high school for these students? I think that’s why medicine was really interesting.
Q: How did you end up in hospital medicine?
A: I think it’s a lot of things. I love the acuity, I love playing the quarterback in a place where a lot of things are going back and forth and you have to coordinate with others. You have to make sure you see the patient from top to bottom, the whole picture, and I love that part. I also love the action and the communication and the teamwork aspect of it.
Q: What part of being a hospitalist do you like the most?
A: I love the education on a daily basis: the morning rounds where you walk around for an hour or two with your team, and you teach them at the bedside, and these little pearls come up along the way. My career is positioned more within quality, value improvement, and safety, so I think that participating in the education process is really helpful. I think hospital medicine has taken over that spirit in the hospital setting, and I love that.
Q: Which part do you like the least?
A: I think we’re in a unique time right now. Burnout is getting a little tougher to beat. People are getting a bit more tired, and I don’t think we have a good solution to solve this. With quality improvement and the electronic medical record system, a lot of us are expected to do more. I still get queries from clinical documentation saying, “I need you to document this for billing purposes” or “I need you to document this for increasing the expected length of stay,” and doctors are not quite at the point where they can balance these requirements in an effective way. There tends to be an emphasis on “one more click,” one more thing to document, just one more thing to do on the checklist. It’s getting more complex.
Q: What is the most rewarding part of your work?
A: Larger scale accomplishments. When you give a talk, or teach a group of residents during morning rounds, and they look at you with wonder because you have this teaching pearl they’ve never heard before, and they think you’re a great attending – that’s very instant gratification, but there's more to be done beyond that. I’ve been co-directing in the Right Care educator program, and we have a High Value Care curriculum that we’ve been implementing across the country, and we’ve just finished our second year. There are around 60 programs involved, and it’s a great feeling. You’re not seeing actual people face to face after they’ve been taught, and you’re not getting that instant gratification. But just knowing what one of those chief residents who has implemented the program is feeling, and extrapolating across the number of programs this year alone, that makes me feel good.
Q: Outside of hospital work, what else are you interested in?
A: High-value care is my central aim right now. I want to expand it, and I want to do things on a national scale. We formed a High Value Care committee and I’m hoping to create new guidelines to reduce overuse, overtesting, and Choosing Wisely. Outside of medicine, I like photography. Nothing professional, but I love taking pictures, especially nature and travel. Back in the day, I used to do a lot of running and martial arts too.
Q: Where do you see yourself in 10 years?
A: I’m not sure if I will go the chief medical officer or chief quality officer route. That’s probably where I see myself. I definitely want to continue making bigger changes on a national scale, like implementing the overuse educator program across the country.
Q: What do you see as the future of hospital medicine?
A: Value-based health care is always going to get bigger as the cost of health care and the cost of overuse rises, and we start to see a lot of harms outlined in research. We’re going to be on top of it much more, because the hospital setting is complex and continues to change.
Education and service have always been important for Harry Cho, MD, who recently joined the editorial advisory board of The Hospitalist.
From joining AmeriCorps as a fresh faced college graduate, to his ongoing work as assistant professor of medicine and director of quality, safety, and value for the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and as senior fellow at the Lown Institute, Dr. Cho has found a passion in helping others learn.
When not teaching or working with patients, Dr. Cho is committed to improving value-based medicine, a path that has lead him to create the High Value Chair Initiatives, a program dedicated to offering clinicians resources on how to reduce wasteful testing and harmful practices.
Dr. Cho said he is excited to contribute as one of eight new members of The Hospitalist editorial advisory board in 2017 and took time to tell us more about himself in a recent interview.
Q: Why did you choose medicine as a career?
A: Right after I finished undergrad at Cornell, I spent the summer and the following year doing AmeriCorps, which is service learning work, and I worked in the inner city of Philadelphia. I worked on after-school programs and weekend programs for inner city youth and I loved it. I was organizing and developing these programs, and I thought it was fantastic. The one thing that I thought was lacking, and I think what really drove me to get into medicine, was that at the end of the day, although I felt really connected with all the kids, I felt like I was a role model, like I was a mentor, and we had a really good connection, but I wanted something a little bit more concrete on improving outcomes. I knew we made connections, but I really wanted to know more – such as, did we reduce the dropout rate in high school for these students? I think that’s why medicine was really interesting.
Q: How did you end up in hospital medicine?
A: I think it’s a lot of things. I love the acuity, I love playing the quarterback in a place where a lot of things are going back and forth and you have to coordinate with others. You have to make sure you see the patient from top to bottom, the whole picture, and I love that part. I also love the action and the communication and the teamwork aspect of it.
Q: What part of being a hospitalist do you like the most?
A: I love the education on a daily basis: the morning rounds where you walk around for an hour or two with your team, and you teach them at the bedside, and these little pearls come up along the way. My career is positioned more within quality, value improvement, and safety, so I think that participating in the education process is really helpful. I think hospital medicine has taken over that spirit in the hospital setting, and I love that.
Q: Which part do you like the least?
A: I think we’re in a unique time right now. Burnout is getting a little tougher to beat. People are getting a bit more tired, and I don’t think we have a good solution to solve this. With quality improvement and the electronic medical record system, a lot of us are expected to do more. I still get queries from clinical documentation saying, “I need you to document this for billing purposes” or “I need you to document this for increasing the expected length of stay,” and doctors are not quite at the point where they can balance these requirements in an effective way. There tends to be an emphasis on “one more click,” one more thing to document, just one more thing to do on the checklist. It’s getting more complex.
Q: What is the most rewarding part of your work?
A: Larger scale accomplishments. When you give a talk, or teach a group of residents during morning rounds, and they look at you with wonder because you have this teaching pearl they’ve never heard before, and they think you’re a great attending – that’s very instant gratification, but there's more to be done beyond that. I’ve been co-directing in the Right Care educator program, and we have a High Value Care curriculum that we’ve been implementing across the country, and we’ve just finished our second year. There are around 60 programs involved, and it’s a great feeling. You’re not seeing actual people face to face after they’ve been taught, and you’re not getting that instant gratification. But just knowing what one of those chief residents who has implemented the program is feeling, and extrapolating across the number of programs this year alone, that makes me feel good.
Q: Outside of hospital work, what else are you interested in?
A: High-value care is my central aim right now. I want to expand it, and I want to do things on a national scale. We formed a High Value Care committee and I’m hoping to create new guidelines to reduce overuse, overtesting, and Choosing Wisely. Outside of medicine, I like photography. Nothing professional, but I love taking pictures, especially nature and travel. Back in the day, I used to do a lot of running and martial arts too.
Q: Where do you see yourself in 10 years?
A: I’m not sure if I will go the chief medical officer or chief quality officer route. That’s probably where I see myself. I definitely want to continue making bigger changes on a national scale, like implementing the overuse educator program across the country.
Q: What do you see as the future of hospital medicine?
A: Value-based health care is always going to get bigger as the cost of health care and the cost of overuse rises, and we start to see a lot of harms outlined in research. We’re going to be on top of it much more, because the hospital setting is complex and continues to change.
Education and service have always been important for Harry Cho, MD, who recently joined the editorial advisory board of The Hospitalist.
From joining AmeriCorps as a fresh faced college graduate, to his ongoing work as assistant professor of medicine and director of quality, safety, and value for the division of hospital medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, and as senior fellow at the Lown Institute, Dr. Cho has found a passion in helping others learn.
When not teaching or working with patients, Dr. Cho is committed to improving value-based medicine, a path that has lead him to create the High Value Chair Initiatives, a program dedicated to offering clinicians resources on how to reduce wasteful testing and harmful practices.
Dr. Cho said he is excited to contribute as one of eight new members of The Hospitalist editorial advisory board in 2017 and took time to tell us more about himself in a recent interview.
Q: Why did you choose medicine as a career?
A: Right after I finished undergrad at Cornell, I spent the summer and the following year doing AmeriCorps, which is service learning work, and I worked in the inner city of Philadelphia. I worked on after-school programs and weekend programs for inner city youth and I loved it. I was organizing and developing these programs, and I thought it was fantastic. The one thing that I thought was lacking, and I think what really drove me to get into medicine, was that at the end of the day, although I felt really connected with all the kids, I felt like I was a role model, like I was a mentor, and we had a really good connection, but I wanted something a little bit more concrete on improving outcomes. I knew we made connections, but I really wanted to know more – such as, did we reduce the dropout rate in high school for these students? I think that’s why medicine was really interesting.
Q: How did you end up in hospital medicine?
A: I think it’s a lot of things. I love the acuity, I love playing the quarterback in a place where a lot of things are going back and forth and you have to coordinate with others. You have to make sure you see the patient from top to bottom, the whole picture, and I love that part. I also love the action and the communication and the teamwork aspect of it.
Q: What part of being a hospitalist do you like the most?
A: I love the education on a daily basis: the morning rounds where you walk around for an hour or two with your team, and you teach them at the bedside, and these little pearls come up along the way. My career is positioned more within quality, value improvement, and safety, so I think that participating in the education process is really helpful. I think hospital medicine has taken over that spirit in the hospital setting, and I love that.
Q: Which part do you like the least?
A: I think we’re in a unique time right now. Burnout is getting a little tougher to beat. People are getting a bit more tired, and I don’t think we have a good solution to solve this. With quality improvement and the electronic medical record system, a lot of us are expected to do more. I still get queries from clinical documentation saying, “I need you to document this for billing purposes” or “I need you to document this for increasing the expected length of stay,” and doctors are not quite at the point where they can balance these requirements in an effective way. There tends to be an emphasis on “one more click,” one more thing to document, just one more thing to do on the checklist. It’s getting more complex.
Q: What is the most rewarding part of your work?
A: Larger scale accomplishments. When you give a talk, or teach a group of residents during morning rounds, and they look at you with wonder because you have this teaching pearl they’ve never heard before, and they think you’re a great attending – that’s very instant gratification, but there's more to be done beyond that. I’ve been co-directing in the Right Care educator program, and we have a High Value Care curriculum that we’ve been implementing across the country, and we’ve just finished our second year. There are around 60 programs involved, and it’s a great feeling. You’re not seeing actual people face to face after they’ve been taught, and you’re not getting that instant gratification. But just knowing what one of those chief residents who has implemented the program is feeling, and extrapolating across the number of programs this year alone, that makes me feel good.
Q: Outside of hospital work, what else are you interested in?
A: High-value care is my central aim right now. I want to expand it, and I want to do things on a national scale. We formed a High Value Care committee and I’m hoping to create new guidelines to reduce overuse, overtesting, and Choosing Wisely. Outside of medicine, I like photography. Nothing professional, but I love taking pictures, especially nature and travel. Back in the day, I used to do a lot of running and martial arts too.
Q: Where do you see yourself in 10 years?
A: I’m not sure if I will go the chief medical officer or chief quality officer route. That’s probably where I see myself. I definitely want to continue making bigger changes on a national scale, like implementing the overuse educator program across the country.
Q: What do you see as the future of hospital medicine?
A: Value-based health care is always going to get bigger as the cost of health care and the cost of overuse rises, and we start to see a lot of harms outlined in research. We’re going to be on top of it much more, because the hospital setting is complex and continues to change.
Pediatric version of SOFA effective
An age-adjusted version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for sepsis has been found to be at least as good, if not better than, other pediatric organ dysfunction scores at predicting in-hospital mortality.
Writing in the Aug. 7 online edition of JAMA Pediatrics, researchers reported the outcome of a retrospective observational cohort study in 6,303 critically ill patients aged 21 years or younger, which was used to adapt and validate a pediatric version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.
“One of the major limitations of the SOFA score is that it was developed for adult patients and contains measures that vary significantly with age, which makes it unsuitable for children,” wrote Travis J. Matics, DO, and L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
Several pediatric organ dysfunction scores exist, but their range, scale, and coverage are different from those of the SOFA score, which makes them difficult to use concurrently (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.2352).
“Fundamentally, having different definitions of sepsis for patients above or below the pediatric-adult threshold has no known physiologic justification and should therefore be avoided,” the authors wrote.
In this study, they modified the age-dependent cardiovascular and renal variables of the adult SOFA score by using validated cut-offs from the updated Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD-2) scoring system. They also expanded the respiratory subscore to incorporate the SpO2:FiO2 ratio as an alternative surrogate of lung injury.
The neurologic subscore, based on the Glasgow Coma Scale, was changed to a pediatric version of the scale. The coagulation and hepatic criteria remained the same as the adult version of the score.
Validating the pediatric version of the SOFA score (pSOFA) score in 8,711 hospital encounters, researchers found that nonsurvivors had a significantly higher median maximum pSOFA score, compared with survivors (13 vs. 2, P less than .001). The area under the curve (AUC) for discriminating in-hospital mortality was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.95) and remained stable across sex, age groups, and admission types.
The maximum pSOFA score was as good as the PELOD and PELOD-2 scales at discriminating in-hospital mortality and better than the Pediatric Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score. It also showed “excellent” discrimination of in-hospital mortality among the 48.4% of patients who had a confirmed or suspected infection in the pediatric intensive care unit (AUC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), Dr. Matics and Dr. Sanchez-Pinto reported.
Researchers also looked at the clinical utility of pSOFA on the day of admission, compared with the Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) III score, and found the two were similar, while the pSOFA outperformed other organ dysfunction scores in this setting.
Overall, 14.1% of the pediatric intensive care population met the sepsis criteria according to the adapted definitions and pSOFA scores, and this group had a mortality of 12.1%. Four percent of the population met the criteria for septic shock, with a mortality of 32.3%.
The SOFA score incorporates respiratory, coagulation, renal, hepatic, cardiovascular, and neurologic variables. The authors, however, argued that it does not account for age-related variability, in particular in renal criteria and the detrimental effects of kidney dysfunction in younger patients.
“In addition, the respiratory subscore criteria – based on the ratio of PaO2 to the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) – have not been modified in previous adaptations of the SOFA score even though the decreased use of arterial blood gases in children is a known limitation,” they wrote.
“Having a harmonized definition of sepsis across age groups while recognizing the importance of the age-based variation of its measures can have many benefits, including better design of clinical trials, improved accuracy of reported outcomes, and better translation of the research and clinical strategies in the management of sepsis,” Dr. Matics and Dr. Sanchez-Pinto said.
They acknowledged, however, that their findings were limited because they were generated using retrospective data and needed to be validated in a large multicenter sample of critically ill children. They also pointed out that they did not evaluate the performance of pSOFA as a longitudinal biomarker and suggested that such studies would improve understanding of pSOFA’s clinical utility.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
An age-adjusted version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for sepsis has been found to be at least as good, if not better than, other pediatric organ dysfunction scores at predicting in-hospital mortality.
Writing in the Aug. 7 online edition of JAMA Pediatrics, researchers reported the outcome of a retrospective observational cohort study in 6,303 critically ill patients aged 21 years or younger, which was used to adapt and validate a pediatric version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.
“One of the major limitations of the SOFA score is that it was developed for adult patients and contains measures that vary significantly with age, which makes it unsuitable for children,” wrote Travis J. Matics, DO, and L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
Several pediatric organ dysfunction scores exist, but their range, scale, and coverage are different from those of the SOFA score, which makes them difficult to use concurrently (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.2352).
“Fundamentally, having different definitions of sepsis for patients above or below the pediatric-adult threshold has no known physiologic justification and should therefore be avoided,” the authors wrote.
In this study, they modified the age-dependent cardiovascular and renal variables of the adult SOFA score by using validated cut-offs from the updated Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD-2) scoring system. They also expanded the respiratory subscore to incorporate the SpO2:FiO2 ratio as an alternative surrogate of lung injury.
The neurologic subscore, based on the Glasgow Coma Scale, was changed to a pediatric version of the scale. The coagulation and hepatic criteria remained the same as the adult version of the score.
Validating the pediatric version of the SOFA score (pSOFA) score in 8,711 hospital encounters, researchers found that nonsurvivors had a significantly higher median maximum pSOFA score, compared with survivors (13 vs. 2, P less than .001). The area under the curve (AUC) for discriminating in-hospital mortality was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.95) and remained stable across sex, age groups, and admission types.
The maximum pSOFA score was as good as the PELOD and PELOD-2 scales at discriminating in-hospital mortality and better than the Pediatric Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score. It also showed “excellent” discrimination of in-hospital mortality among the 48.4% of patients who had a confirmed or suspected infection in the pediatric intensive care unit (AUC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), Dr. Matics and Dr. Sanchez-Pinto reported.
Researchers also looked at the clinical utility of pSOFA on the day of admission, compared with the Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) III score, and found the two were similar, while the pSOFA outperformed other organ dysfunction scores in this setting.
Overall, 14.1% of the pediatric intensive care population met the sepsis criteria according to the adapted definitions and pSOFA scores, and this group had a mortality of 12.1%. Four percent of the population met the criteria for septic shock, with a mortality of 32.3%.
The SOFA score incorporates respiratory, coagulation, renal, hepatic, cardiovascular, and neurologic variables. The authors, however, argued that it does not account for age-related variability, in particular in renal criteria and the detrimental effects of kidney dysfunction in younger patients.
“In addition, the respiratory subscore criteria – based on the ratio of PaO2 to the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) – have not been modified in previous adaptations of the SOFA score even though the decreased use of arterial blood gases in children is a known limitation,” they wrote.
“Having a harmonized definition of sepsis across age groups while recognizing the importance of the age-based variation of its measures can have many benefits, including better design of clinical trials, improved accuracy of reported outcomes, and better translation of the research and clinical strategies in the management of sepsis,” Dr. Matics and Dr. Sanchez-Pinto said.
They acknowledged, however, that their findings were limited because they were generated using retrospective data and needed to be validated in a large multicenter sample of critically ill children. They also pointed out that they did not evaluate the performance of pSOFA as a longitudinal biomarker and suggested that such studies would improve understanding of pSOFA’s clinical utility.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
An age-adjusted version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for sepsis has been found to be at least as good, if not better than, other pediatric organ dysfunction scores at predicting in-hospital mortality.
Writing in the Aug. 7 online edition of JAMA Pediatrics, researchers reported the outcome of a retrospective observational cohort study in 6,303 critically ill patients aged 21 years or younger, which was used to adapt and validate a pediatric version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score.
“One of the major limitations of the SOFA score is that it was developed for adult patients and contains measures that vary significantly with age, which makes it unsuitable for children,” wrote Travis J. Matics, DO, and L. Nelson Sanchez-Pinto, MD, of the department of pediatrics at the University of Chicago.
Several pediatric organ dysfunction scores exist, but their range, scale, and coverage are different from those of the SOFA score, which makes them difficult to use concurrently (JAMA Pediatr. 2017 Aug 7. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2017.2352).
“Fundamentally, having different definitions of sepsis for patients above or below the pediatric-adult threshold has no known physiologic justification and should therefore be avoided,” the authors wrote.
In this study, they modified the age-dependent cardiovascular and renal variables of the adult SOFA score by using validated cut-offs from the updated Pediatric Logistic Organ Dysfunction (PELOD-2) scoring system. They also expanded the respiratory subscore to incorporate the SpO2:FiO2 ratio as an alternative surrogate of lung injury.
The neurologic subscore, based on the Glasgow Coma Scale, was changed to a pediatric version of the scale. The coagulation and hepatic criteria remained the same as the adult version of the score.
Validating the pediatric version of the SOFA score (pSOFA) score in 8,711 hospital encounters, researchers found that nonsurvivors had a significantly higher median maximum pSOFA score, compared with survivors (13 vs. 2, P less than .001). The area under the curve (AUC) for discriminating in-hospital mortality was 0.94 (95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.95) and remained stable across sex, age groups, and admission types.
The maximum pSOFA score was as good as the PELOD and PELOD-2 scales at discriminating in-hospital mortality and better than the Pediatric Multiple Organ Dysfunction Score. It also showed “excellent” discrimination of in-hospital mortality among the 48.4% of patients who had a confirmed or suspected infection in the pediatric intensive care unit (AUC, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.91-0.94), Dr. Matics and Dr. Sanchez-Pinto reported.
Researchers also looked at the clinical utility of pSOFA on the day of admission, compared with the Pediatric Risk of Mortality (PRISM) III score, and found the two were similar, while the pSOFA outperformed other organ dysfunction scores in this setting.
Overall, 14.1% of the pediatric intensive care population met the sepsis criteria according to the adapted definitions and pSOFA scores, and this group had a mortality of 12.1%. Four percent of the population met the criteria for septic shock, with a mortality of 32.3%.
The SOFA score incorporates respiratory, coagulation, renal, hepatic, cardiovascular, and neurologic variables. The authors, however, argued that it does not account for age-related variability, in particular in renal criteria and the detrimental effects of kidney dysfunction in younger patients.
“In addition, the respiratory subscore criteria – based on the ratio of PaO2 to the fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) – have not been modified in previous adaptations of the SOFA score even though the decreased use of arterial blood gases in children is a known limitation,” they wrote.
“Having a harmonized definition of sepsis across age groups while recognizing the importance of the age-based variation of its measures can have many benefits, including better design of clinical trials, improved accuracy of reported outcomes, and better translation of the research and clinical strategies in the management of sepsis,” Dr. Matics and Dr. Sanchez-Pinto said.
They acknowledged, however, that their findings were limited because they were generated using retrospective data and needed to be validated in a large multicenter sample of critically ill children. They also pointed out that they did not evaluate the performance of pSOFA as a longitudinal biomarker and suggested that such studies would improve understanding of pSOFA’s clinical utility.
No conflicts of interest were reported.
FROM JAMA PEDIATRICS
Key clinical point: A pediatric version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score for sepsis can discriminate in-hospital mortality in critically ill children.
Major finding: An age-adjusted version of the SOFA score for sepsis has found to be at least as good, if not better than, other pediatric organ dysfunction scores at predicting in-hospital mortality.
Data source: A retrospective observational cohort study in 6,303 critically ill patients aged 21 years or younger.
Disclosures: No conflicts of interest were declared.
High-flow nasal cannula safe outside of pediatric ICU, but may up length of stay
NASHVILLE, TENN. – Young children with acute bronchiolitis do not need to be admitted to the pediatric ICU for high-flow nasal cannula treatment of up to 6 L/min and 50% oxygen; it is safe to administer it on the floor, according to a review of 6,804 acute bronchiolitis cases in children younger than 2 years treated at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Use of high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC) has increased dramatically in recent years at UT Southwestern and elsewhere. It soothes children and can rapidly improve breathing without the nasal edema and nose bleeds common with cooler, drier, 100% oxygen. At Southwestern, HFNC use on the pediatric wards increased from 5% of acute bronchiolitis cases in the September 2010 to April 2011 season to 60% in the 2015-2016 season. Use for bronchiolitis in the PICU increased from 82% to 98% over the same period.
The increase correlated with a drop in intubation for acute bronchiolitis from 14% of children in 2010-2011 to just 2% in 2015-2016. The only HFNC adverse events were minor air leaks in two children.
As HFNC became more common, however, the Dallas team found that length of stay for acute bronchiolitis increased from 1.8 days in 2011-2012 to 2.4 days in 2015-2016, perhaps because the use of HFNC gives providers the impression that children are sicker than they actually are.
To counter the problem, lead investigator Vineeta Mittal, MD, associate professor of pediatrics, and her colleagues created an HFNC weaning protocol that gradually steps down treatment based on blood oxygen saturation levels and breathing effort, leading ultimately to a room-air challenge. It helped; the mean length of stay as of November 2016 was 1.7 days.
There’s been pushback in some places about giving HFNC on the floor: Intensivists sometimes consider it a form of ventilation that should be administered in the PICU. At levels up to 6 L/min and 50% oxygen, though, HFNC is “safe to give on the floor, because there’s no pneumothorax risk,” Dr. Mittal explained. HFNC “is not a ventilator; it’s an effective form of noninvasive respiratory support in children with moderate to severe respiratory distress from bronchiolitis.”
At Southwestern, “we are managing 80% of cases on the floor” with the help of HFNC, Dr. Mittal said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.
At least for now, children at Southwestern go to the PICU if they need higher flow rates, but Dr. Mittal said it’s not clear if that’s necessary. “We said [6 L/min] is safe,” but maybe “we could even use 8 L/min or even 12 L/min” – the maximum delivered in the PICU over the study period – “because we know it’s safe,” she said. In addition, keeping kids on the floor also saves money, she noted at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
Dr. Mittal is concerned HFNC might be overused. “We have gotten so used to this machine that the moment we see distress, we put the kid on high flow,” rather than observing them for a bit to see if they recover on their own. More data are needed to determine when HFNC should be initiated, and when to pull the plug on HFNC and intubate, she said.
Dr. Mittal had no disclosures.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – Young children with acute bronchiolitis do not need to be admitted to the pediatric ICU for high-flow nasal cannula treatment of up to 6 L/min and 50% oxygen; it is safe to administer it on the floor, according to a review of 6,804 acute bronchiolitis cases in children younger than 2 years treated at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Use of high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC) has increased dramatically in recent years at UT Southwestern and elsewhere. It soothes children and can rapidly improve breathing without the nasal edema and nose bleeds common with cooler, drier, 100% oxygen. At Southwestern, HFNC use on the pediatric wards increased from 5% of acute bronchiolitis cases in the September 2010 to April 2011 season to 60% in the 2015-2016 season. Use for bronchiolitis in the PICU increased from 82% to 98% over the same period.
The increase correlated with a drop in intubation for acute bronchiolitis from 14% of children in 2010-2011 to just 2% in 2015-2016. The only HFNC adverse events were minor air leaks in two children.
As HFNC became more common, however, the Dallas team found that length of stay for acute bronchiolitis increased from 1.8 days in 2011-2012 to 2.4 days in 2015-2016, perhaps because the use of HFNC gives providers the impression that children are sicker than they actually are.
To counter the problem, lead investigator Vineeta Mittal, MD, associate professor of pediatrics, and her colleagues created an HFNC weaning protocol that gradually steps down treatment based on blood oxygen saturation levels and breathing effort, leading ultimately to a room-air challenge. It helped; the mean length of stay as of November 2016 was 1.7 days.
There’s been pushback in some places about giving HFNC on the floor: Intensivists sometimes consider it a form of ventilation that should be administered in the PICU. At levels up to 6 L/min and 50% oxygen, though, HFNC is “safe to give on the floor, because there’s no pneumothorax risk,” Dr. Mittal explained. HFNC “is not a ventilator; it’s an effective form of noninvasive respiratory support in children with moderate to severe respiratory distress from bronchiolitis.”
At Southwestern, “we are managing 80% of cases on the floor” with the help of HFNC, Dr. Mittal said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.
At least for now, children at Southwestern go to the PICU if they need higher flow rates, but Dr. Mittal said it’s not clear if that’s necessary. “We said [6 L/min] is safe,” but maybe “we could even use 8 L/min or even 12 L/min” – the maximum delivered in the PICU over the study period – “because we know it’s safe,” she said. In addition, keeping kids on the floor also saves money, she noted at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
Dr. Mittal is concerned HFNC might be overused. “We have gotten so used to this machine that the moment we see distress, we put the kid on high flow,” rather than observing them for a bit to see if they recover on their own. More data are needed to determine when HFNC should be initiated, and when to pull the plug on HFNC and intubate, she said.
Dr. Mittal had no disclosures.
NASHVILLE, TENN. – Young children with acute bronchiolitis do not need to be admitted to the pediatric ICU for high-flow nasal cannula treatment of up to 6 L/min and 50% oxygen; it is safe to administer it on the floor, according to a review of 6,804 acute bronchiolitis cases in children younger than 2 years treated at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas.
Use of high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC) has increased dramatically in recent years at UT Southwestern and elsewhere. It soothes children and can rapidly improve breathing without the nasal edema and nose bleeds common with cooler, drier, 100% oxygen. At Southwestern, HFNC use on the pediatric wards increased from 5% of acute bronchiolitis cases in the September 2010 to April 2011 season to 60% in the 2015-2016 season. Use for bronchiolitis in the PICU increased from 82% to 98% over the same period.
The increase correlated with a drop in intubation for acute bronchiolitis from 14% of children in 2010-2011 to just 2% in 2015-2016. The only HFNC adverse events were minor air leaks in two children.
As HFNC became more common, however, the Dallas team found that length of stay for acute bronchiolitis increased from 1.8 days in 2011-2012 to 2.4 days in 2015-2016, perhaps because the use of HFNC gives providers the impression that children are sicker than they actually are.
To counter the problem, lead investigator Vineeta Mittal, MD, associate professor of pediatrics, and her colleagues created an HFNC weaning protocol that gradually steps down treatment based on blood oxygen saturation levels and breathing effort, leading ultimately to a room-air challenge. It helped; the mean length of stay as of November 2016 was 1.7 days.
There’s been pushback in some places about giving HFNC on the floor: Intensivists sometimes consider it a form of ventilation that should be administered in the PICU. At levels up to 6 L/min and 50% oxygen, though, HFNC is “safe to give on the floor, because there’s no pneumothorax risk,” Dr. Mittal explained. HFNC “is not a ventilator; it’s an effective form of noninvasive respiratory support in children with moderate to severe respiratory distress from bronchiolitis.”
At Southwestern, “we are managing 80% of cases on the floor” with the help of HFNC, Dr. Mittal said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.
At least for now, children at Southwestern go to the PICU if they need higher flow rates, but Dr. Mittal said it’s not clear if that’s necessary. “We said [6 L/min] is safe,” but maybe “we could even use 8 L/min or even 12 L/min” – the maximum delivered in the PICU over the study period – “because we know it’s safe,” she said. In addition, keeping kids on the floor also saves money, she noted at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
Dr. Mittal is concerned HFNC might be overused. “We have gotten so used to this machine that the moment we see distress, we put the kid on high flow,” rather than observing them for a bit to see if they recover on their own. More data are needed to determine when HFNC should be initiated, and when to pull the plug on HFNC and intubate, she said.
Dr. Mittal had no disclosures.
AT PHM 2017
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The increased use of HFNC corresponded with an increase in length of stay for acute bronchiolitis, from 1.8 days in the 2011-2012 season to 2.4 days in the 2015-2016 season.
Data source: A single-center review of almost 7,000 acute bronchiolitis cases.
Disclosures: The lead investigator had no disclosures.