User login
Practice management skills more relevant than ever
LAS VEGAS – Babatunde Akinsete, MD, took a new job about 18 months ago as a lead hospitalist within Adventist Health System of Florida. The role has the expected leadership responsibilities, but those folks he’s now partly supervising are the same ones who used to be his peers.
The same people he spent time “in the trenches” with, complaining about the problems they saw – issues that are now partly his job to help fix.
“It’s tough,” Dr. Akinsete said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “How do you motivate people?”
Welcome to managing a practice, circa 2017. The day-to-day doings of an HM group – recruiting, retention, compensation, scheduling and more – are the backbone of the specialty. And SHM’s annual meeting makes the topics a principal point, from a dedicated precourse to dozens of presentations to networking opportunities introducing experienced leaders to nascent ones.
The subject is more relevant than ever these days as the maturing specialty now has three generations of hospitalists practicing side by side, including those who founded the society and laid the groundwork for the specialty some 20 years ago and those who will now infuse it with new blood for the next 20 years, said Jerome Siy, MD, SFHM, an HM17 faculty member and chair of SHM’s Practice Management Committee.
“We’re heading into a cycle of a lot of change,” he said. “Being able to manage change is going to be pretty key.”
The first step in building or bettering a “healthy practice” is building a “culture of ownership,” Dr. Siy said.
“You must have the right culture first if you’re going to tackle any of these issues, whether it’s things like schedules to finances to negotiations,” he added. “Second is this openness and innovation to think outside the box and to allow yourself to hear things that might not work for you. Be open to it because whether you hear something that doesn’t work or not, it may inspire you to figure out … what is the key element you were missing before.”
That’s what Liza Rodriguez Jimenez, MD, is taking away from the meeting. She is moving into a codirector position for her medical group at St. Luke’s in Boise, Idaho. A crash course in alternative-payment models, full-time equivalents (FTEs), relative value units (RVUs) and scheduling was an eye-opener for her.
But to Dr. Siy’s point, it wasn’t the specific examples of how other people do what they do that intrigued Dr. Rodriguez Jimenez. It was more so that people just did it differently.
“It’s just helpful to know that there are other choices,” Dr. Rodriguez Jimenez said. “In other words, why do we do 7 on, 7 off? I don’t know. We just do. If you don’t know that you don’t know, then how do you know to change it? You get exposed to so much stuff here now that you can theoretically go back and say, ‘why do we do 7 on, 7 off? … And then let the group say we want 5 on, 10 off, 4 on, 3 off. Whatever people decide.”
Nasim Afsar, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer of the department of medicine at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, said that idea of just framing the question differently is a big deal, and a leadership skill in and of itself. For example, say a hospital medicine group’s leaders are trying to discuss whether the practice should continue its comanagement focus.
“If you frame a decision as, ‘We are going to lose this comanagement,’ there’s just something, like a gut feeling, you don’t want to lose stuff,” she said. “As opposed to, if you say, ‘Gosh, think about the gains. That we will have all this free time that we now have where we can develop other aspects of our hospital medicine group.’ So when you frame the same exact thing in terms of loss, it becomes so much more difficult for us to actually let go of that.”
Leadership is more than just framing, of course. Dr. Afsar and former SHM president Eric Howell, MD, MHM, said that leadership traits include using standardized processes to make decisions, as well as getting group members involved in those decisions when necessary and using feedback and motivation properly.
But, at day’s end, practice management is managing the needs of your practice.
For Abdul-Hady Kheder, MD, of Hamilton Hospitalists LLC in Central New Jersey, the meeting opened his eyes to techniques he could use to deal with lower reimbursement figures and less patients.
“What can help my situation will be increasing the volume of the practice,” he said. “Right now, we admit 30%-40% of the patients admitted into the hospital. National average is 60%-90% of total hospital admissions. I think that most probably will balance my financial dilemma.”
For Rodney Hollis, practice administrator for Eskenazi Health of Indianapolis, the meeting was a way to glean tips on improving his practice. One nugget he’s excited about: pairing an experienced hospitalist with a new hire for a year. As a nonclinical administrator, Hollis said he views his role as helping clinicians work on the things they are best at, while he handle the rest.
“The more clinical time that the clinical directors can spend, that’s more advantageous to the group,” Hollis said. “Allowing the nonclinical activities to be done by an administrator helps. We want more responsibility and if there’s something that our clinical is doing that I can do, why not have me do it?”
For Dr. Rodriguez Jimenez, open-ended questions like that one are among the most “insightful” takeaways from the meeting.
“There is no right or wrong way, so maybe we’ve been doing it this way ‘just because,’ ” she said. “Now we need to look at it and say, ‘Can we do it a different way? Can we adapt it? Can we change it?’”
She’s starting to sound like a practice manager already.
LAS VEGAS – Babatunde Akinsete, MD, took a new job about 18 months ago as a lead hospitalist within Adventist Health System of Florida. The role has the expected leadership responsibilities, but those folks he’s now partly supervising are the same ones who used to be his peers.
The same people he spent time “in the trenches” with, complaining about the problems they saw – issues that are now partly his job to help fix.
“It’s tough,” Dr. Akinsete said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “How do you motivate people?”
Welcome to managing a practice, circa 2017. The day-to-day doings of an HM group – recruiting, retention, compensation, scheduling and more – are the backbone of the specialty. And SHM’s annual meeting makes the topics a principal point, from a dedicated precourse to dozens of presentations to networking opportunities introducing experienced leaders to nascent ones.
The subject is more relevant than ever these days as the maturing specialty now has three generations of hospitalists practicing side by side, including those who founded the society and laid the groundwork for the specialty some 20 years ago and those who will now infuse it with new blood for the next 20 years, said Jerome Siy, MD, SFHM, an HM17 faculty member and chair of SHM’s Practice Management Committee.
“We’re heading into a cycle of a lot of change,” he said. “Being able to manage change is going to be pretty key.”
The first step in building or bettering a “healthy practice” is building a “culture of ownership,” Dr. Siy said.
“You must have the right culture first if you’re going to tackle any of these issues, whether it’s things like schedules to finances to negotiations,” he added. “Second is this openness and innovation to think outside the box and to allow yourself to hear things that might not work for you. Be open to it because whether you hear something that doesn’t work or not, it may inspire you to figure out … what is the key element you were missing before.”
That’s what Liza Rodriguez Jimenez, MD, is taking away from the meeting. She is moving into a codirector position for her medical group at St. Luke’s in Boise, Idaho. A crash course in alternative-payment models, full-time equivalents (FTEs), relative value units (RVUs) and scheduling was an eye-opener for her.
But to Dr. Siy’s point, it wasn’t the specific examples of how other people do what they do that intrigued Dr. Rodriguez Jimenez. It was more so that people just did it differently.
“It’s just helpful to know that there are other choices,” Dr. Rodriguez Jimenez said. “In other words, why do we do 7 on, 7 off? I don’t know. We just do. If you don’t know that you don’t know, then how do you know to change it? You get exposed to so much stuff here now that you can theoretically go back and say, ‘why do we do 7 on, 7 off? … And then let the group say we want 5 on, 10 off, 4 on, 3 off. Whatever people decide.”
Nasim Afsar, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer of the department of medicine at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, said that idea of just framing the question differently is a big deal, and a leadership skill in and of itself. For example, say a hospital medicine group’s leaders are trying to discuss whether the practice should continue its comanagement focus.
“If you frame a decision as, ‘We are going to lose this comanagement,’ there’s just something, like a gut feeling, you don’t want to lose stuff,” she said. “As opposed to, if you say, ‘Gosh, think about the gains. That we will have all this free time that we now have where we can develop other aspects of our hospital medicine group.’ So when you frame the same exact thing in terms of loss, it becomes so much more difficult for us to actually let go of that.”
Leadership is more than just framing, of course. Dr. Afsar and former SHM president Eric Howell, MD, MHM, said that leadership traits include using standardized processes to make decisions, as well as getting group members involved in those decisions when necessary and using feedback and motivation properly.
But, at day’s end, practice management is managing the needs of your practice.
For Abdul-Hady Kheder, MD, of Hamilton Hospitalists LLC in Central New Jersey, the meeting opened his eyes to techniques he could use to deal with lower reimbursement figures and less patients.
“What can help my situation will be increasing the volume of the practice,” he said. “Right now, we admit 30%-40% of the patients admitted into the hospital. National average is 60%-90% of total hospital admissions. I think that most probably will balance my financial dilemma.”
For Rodney Hollis, practice administrator for Eskenazi Health of Indianapolis, the meeting was a way to glean tips on improving his practice. One nugget he’s excited about: pairing an experienced hospitalist with a new hire for a year. As a nonclinical administrator, Hollis said he views his role as helping clinicians work on the things they are best at, while he handle the rest.
“The more clinical time that the clinical directors can spend, that’s more advantageous to the group,” Hollis said. “Allowing the nonclinical activities to be done by an administrator helps. We want more responsibility and if there’s something that our clinical is doing that I can do, why not have me do it?”
For Dr. Rodriguez Jimenez, open-ended questions like that one are among the most “insightful” takeaways from the meeting.
“There is no right or wrong way, so maybe we’ve been doing it this way ‘just because,’ ” she said. “Now we need to look at it and say, ‘Can we do it a different way? Can we adapt it? Can we change it?’”
She’s starting to sound like a practice manager already.
LAS VEGAS – Babatunde Akinsete, MD, took a new job about 18 months ago as a lead hospitalist within Adventist Health System of Florida. The role has the expected leadership responsibilities, but those folks he’s now partly supervising are the same ones who used to be his peers.
The same people he spent time “in the trenches” with, complaining about the problems they saw – issues that are now partly his job to help fix.
“It’s tough,” Dr. Akinsete said at the annual meeting of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “How do you motivate people?”
Welcome to managing a practice, circa 2017. The day-to-day doings of an HM group – recruiting, retention, compensation, scheduling and more – are the backbone of the specialty. And SHM’s annual meeting makes the topics a principal point, from a dedicated precourse to dozens of presentations to networking opportunities introducing experienced leaders to nascent ones.
The subject is more relevant than ever these days as the maturing specialty now has three generations of hospitalists practicing side by side, including those who founded the society and laid the groundwork for the specialty some 20 years ago and those who will now infuse it with new blood for the next 20 years, said Jerome Siy, MD, SFHM, an HM17 faculty member and chair of SHM’s Practice Management Committee.
“We’re heading into a cycle of a lot of change,” he said. “Being able to manage change is going to be pretty key.”
The first step in building or bettering a “healthy practice” is building a “culture of ownership,” Dr. Siy said.
“You must have the right culture first if you’re going to tackle any of these issues, whether it’s things like schedules to finances to negotiations,” he added. “Second is this openness and innovation to think outside the box and to allow yourself to hear things that might not work for you. Be open to it because whether you hear something that doesn’t work or not, it may inspire you to figure out … what is the key element you were missing before.”
That’s what Liza Rodriguez Jimenez, MD, is taking away from the meeting. She is moving into a codirector position for her medical group at St. Luke’s in Boise, Idaho. A crash course in alternative-payment models, full-time equivalents (FTEs), relative value units (RVUs) and scheduling was an eye-opener for her.
But to Dr. Siy’s point, it wasn’t the specific examples of how other people do what they do that intrigued Dr. Rodriguez Jimenez. It was more so that people just did it differently.
“It’s just helpful to know that there are other choices,” Dr. Rodriguez Jimenez said. “In other words, why do we do 7 on, 7 off? I don’t know. We just do. If you don’t know that you don’t know, then how do you know to change it? You get exposed to so much stuff here now that you can theoretically go back and say, ‘why do we do 7 on, 7 off? … And then let the group say we want 5 on, 10 off, 4 on, 3 off. Whatever people decide.”
Nasim Afsar, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer of the department of medicine at UCLA Health in Los Angeles, said that idea of just framing the question differently is a big deal, and a leadership skill in and of itself. For example, say a hospital medicine group’s leaders are trying to discuss whether the practice should continue its comanagement focus.
“If you frame a decision as, ‘We are going to lose this comanagement,’ there’s just something, like a gut feeling, you don’t want to lose stuff,” she said. “As opposed to, if you say, ‘Gosh, think about the gains. That we will have all this free time that we now have where we can develop other aspects of our hospital medicine group.’ So when you frame the same exact thing in terms of loss, it becomes so much more difficult for us to actually let go of that.”
Leadership is more than just framing, of course. Dr. Afsar and former SHM president Eric Howell, MD, MHM, said that leadership traits include using standardized processes to make decisions, as well as getting group members involved in those decisions when necessary and using feedback and motivation properly.
But, at day’s end, practice management is managing the needs of your practice.
For Abdul-Hady Kheder, MD, of Hamilton Hospitalists LLC in Central New Jersey, the meeting opened his eyes to techniques he could use to deal with lower reimbursement figures and less patients.
“What can help my situation will be increasing the volume of the practice,” he said. “Right now, we admit 30%-40% of the patients admitted into the hospital. National average is 60%-90% of total hospital admissions. I think that most probably will balance my financial dilemma.”
For Rodney Hollis, practice administrator for Eskenazi Health of Indianapolis, the meeting was a way to glean tips on improving his practice. One nugget he’s excited about: pairing an experienced hospitalist with a new hire for a year. As a nonclinical administrator, Hollis said he views his role as helping clinicians work on the things they are best at, while he handle the rest.
“The more clinical time that the clinical directors can spend, that’s more advantageous to the group,” Hollis said. “Allowing the nonclinical activities to be done by an administrator helps. We want more responsibility and if there’s something that our clinical is doing that I can do, why not have me do it?”
For Dr. Rodriguez Jimenez, open-ended questions like that one are among the most “insightful” takeaways from the meeting.
“There is no right or wrong way, so maybe we’ve been doing it this way ‘just because,’ ” she said. “Now we need to look at it and say, ‘Can we do it a different way? Can we adapt it? Can we change it?’”
She’s starting to sound like a practice manager already.
HM17 session summary: The art of story in delivering memorable lectures
Presenter
Ethan Cumbler, MD, FACP, FHM
Session summary
This session was designed to give learners a different paradigm in thinking about the structure and organization of presentations, for a more dynamic and engaging lecture.
Memorable teaching points are tied to a narrative with emotional impact. One study of surgery residents immediately after finishing grand rounds found that learners only remember approximately 10% of the material embedded in a lecture. Therefore, the focus of the lecture should not necessarily be to include a comprehensive amount of information, but to make the major points as “sticky” as possible.
This will help anchor your presentation and will hopefully assist in creating an organizational framework. Most people are familiar with lectures that have a “standard” format: “I’m going to talk about disease/problem X. This is the scope of the problem, epidemiology, pathology, etiology, diagnosis, treatment, complications, and prognosis.” While this is an organizational structure, it doesn’t draw the audience in. Instead, what was suggested was to think about a real patient case to keep the audience engaged. Since everything may not be known in real time, you can add drama and suspense as the audience and the speaker work through the case together.
One should have a “hook” as an analogy to engage with the audience while reinforcing the central “take-home” message. One can think of it as a kind of leitmotif. Another example would be the “call-back” in stand-up comedy where a concept or joke is introduced early in the routine, is not addressed for a period of time, and then reintroduced and becomes more funny the second time around.
Many people are used to seeing PowerPoint presentations with 5-7 lines per slide, 5-7 words per line, with greater than 24 point font. Dr. Cumbler recommends thinking of one’s slide from a design perspective. For example, in TED talks, one will often see large images that act as a reference but there is often very little text on the slide. In order to provide more content while not burdening slides with more text, one should reconsider handouts. Instead of sheets of paper with 6 slides which are repeats of the PowerPoint, use the handout to provide information that one cannot show during the presentation.
It is incredibly difficult to stay engaged in a lecture delivered at the same pace and in a monotone. Timing is important in music, comedy, and presentations. One should vary the volume and tempo during the talk and allow for pauses when appropriate. An example to illustrate the point was dubstep music; it is set at a tempo of 140 beats per minute, but the song is not 140 beats per minute the entire time. It will sometimes slow down, and there is always a point where the “beat drops.”
Again, a good talk is not only the information itself, but a presenter’s presence, so one should think of body language and positioning. One should use hand gestures to emphasize points in the lecture and draw the learners in. Dr. Cumbler recommended making eye contact with individuals periodically instead of a distant, vacant stare into the great expanse. One should feel free to move across the stage or walk through the audience, so ask for a wireless microphone to liberate oneself from the podium.
Key takeaways for HM
- Consider the stand-up comedy concept of the “call-back.” Start with a concept, and then return to this concept in different forms through the presentation. One can return to another variation of this for a surprise at the end. One can make a key point memorable by using a theme with multiple variations.
- Think about structure in order to draw listeners into a talk and keep them invested (organizational framework centered around a patient); create a “hook”; think about slides visually, not from a content perspective (that’s what handouts are for); keep the tempo, timing, and volume dynamic; use body language and presence to engage the room.
- If one would like to learn more, consider reading the book Presentation Zen; watch TED talks; practice multiple times to hone various aspects of the talk; give the talk multiple times for iterative improvement; always ask for feedback and try to change at least one thing from one talk to another to continuously improve.
Dr. Kim is a hospitalist who works at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, and is an editorial board member of The Hospitalist.
Presenter
Ethan Cumbler, MD, FACP, FHM
Session summary
This session was designed to give learners a different paradigm in thinking about the structure and organization of presentations, for a more dynamic and engaging lecture.
Memorable teaching points are tied to a narrative with emotional impact. One study of surgery residents immediately after finishing grand rounds found that learners only remember approximately 10% of the material embedded in a lecture. Therefore, the focus of the lecture should not necessarily be to include a comprehensive amount of information, but to make the major points as “sticky” as possible.
This will help anchor your presentation and will hopefully assist in creating an organizational framework. Most people are familiar with lectures that have a “standard” format: “I’m going to talk about disease/problem X. This is the scope of the problem, epidemiology, pathology, etiology, diagnosis, treatment, complications, and prognosis.” While this is an organizational structure, it doesn’t draw the audience in. Instead, what was suggested was to think about a real patient case to keep the audience engaged. Since everything may not be known in real time, you can add drama and suspense as the audience and the speaker work through the case together.
One should have a “hook” as an analogy to engage with the audience while reinforcing the central “take-home” message. One can think of it as a kind of leitmotif. Another example would be the “call-back” in stand-up comedy where a concept or joke is introduced early in the routine, is not addressed for a period of time, and then reintroduced and becomes more funny the second time around.
Many people are used to seeing PowerPoint presentations with 5-7 lines per slide, 5-7 words per line, with greater than 24 point font. Dr. Cumbler recommends thinking of one’s slide from a design perspective. For example, in TED talks, one will often see large images that act as a reference but there is often very little text on the slide. In order to provide more content while not burdening slides with more text, one should reconsider handouts. Instead of sheets of paper with 6 slides which are repeats of the PowerPoint, use the handout to provide information that one cannot show during the presentation.
It is incredibly difficult to stay engaged in a lecture delivered at the same pace and in a monotone. Timing is important in music, comedy, and presentations. One should vary the volume and tempo during the talk and allow for pauses when appropriate. An example to illustrate the point was dubstep music; it is set at a tempo of 140 beats per minute, but the song is not 140 beats per minute the entire time. It will sometimes slow down, and there is always a point where the “beat drops.”
Again, a good talk is not only the information itself, but a presenter’s presence, so one should think of body language and positioning. One should use hand gestures to emphasize points in the lecture and draw the learners in. Dr. Cumbler recommended making eye contact with individuals periodically instead of a distant, vacant stare into the great expanse. One should feel free to move across the stage or walk through the audience, so ask for a wireless microphone to liberate oneself from the podium.
Key takeaways for HM
- Consider the stand-up comedy concept of the “call-back.” Start with a concept, and then return to this concept in different forms through the presentation. One can return to another variation of this for a surprise at the end. One can make a key point memorable by using a theme with multiple variations.
- Think about structure in order to draw listeners into a talk and keep them invested (organizational framework centered around a patient); create a “hook”; think about slides visually, not from a content perspective (that’s what handouts are for); keep the tempo, timing, and volume dynamic; use body language and presence to engage the room.
- If one would like to learn more, consider reading the book Presentation Zen; watch TED talks; practice multiple times to hone various aspects of the talk; give the talk multiple times for iterative improvement; always ask for feedback and try to change at least one thing from one talk to another to continuously improve.
Dr. Kim is a hospitalist who works at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, and is an editorial board member of The Hospitalist.
Presenter
Ethan Cumbler, MD, FACP, FHM
Session summary
This session was designed to give learners a different paradigm in thinking about the structure and organization of presentations, for a more dynamic and engaging lecture.
Memorable teaching points are tied to a narrative with emotional impact. One study of surgery residents immediately after finishing grand rounds found that learners only remember approximately 10% of the material embedded in a lecture. Therefore, the focus of the lecture should not necessarily be to include a comprehensive amount of information, but to make the major points as “sticky” as possible.
This will help anchor your presentation and will hopefully assist in creating an organizational framework. Most people are familiar with lectures that have a “standard” format: “I’m going to talk about disease/problem X. This is the scope of the problem, epidemiology, pathology, etiology, diagnosis, treatment, complications, and prognosis.” While this is an organizational structure, it doesn’t draw the audience in. Instead, what was suggested was to think about a real patient case to keep the audience engaged. Since everything may not be known in real time, you can add drama and suspense as the audience and the speaker work through the case together.
One should have a “hook” as an analogy to engage with the audience while reinforcing the central “take-home” message. One can think of it as a kind of leitmotif. Another example would be the “call-back” in stand-up comedy where a concept or joke is introduced early in the routine, is not addressed for a period of time, and then reintroduced and becomes more funny the second time around.
Many people are used to seeing PowerPoint presentations with 5-7 lines per slide, 5-7 words per line, with greater than 24 point font. Dr. Cumbler recommends thinking of one’s slide from a design perspective. For example, in TED talks, one will often see large images that act as a reference but there is often very little text on the slide. In order to provide more content while not burdening slides with more text, one should reconsider handouts. Instead of sheets of paper with 6 slides which are repeats of the PowerPoint, use the handout to provide information that one cannot show during the presentation.
It is incredibly difficult to stay engaged in a lecture delivered at the same pace and in a monotone. Timing is important in music, comedy, and presentations. One should vary the volume and tempo during the talk and allow for pauses when appropriate. An example to illustrate the point was dubstep music; it is set at a tempo of 140 beats per minute, but the song is not 140 beats per minute the entire time. It will sometimes slow down, and there is always a point where the “beat drops.”
Again, a good talk is not only the information itself, but a presenter’s presence, so one should think of body language and positioning. One should use hand gestures to emphasize points in the lecture and draw the learners in. Dr. Cumbler recommended making eye contact with individuals periodically instead of a distant, vacant stare into the great expanse. One should feel free to move across the stage or walk through the audience, so ask for a wireless microphone to liberate oneself from the podium.
Key takeaways for HM
- Consider the stand-up comedy concept of the “call-back.” Start with a concept, and then return to this concept in different forms through the presentation. One can return to another variation of this for a surprise at the end. One can make a key point memorable by using a theme with multiple variations.
- Think about structure in order to draw listeners into a talk and keep them invested (organizational framework centered around a patient); create a “hook”; think about slides visually, not from a content perspective (that’s what handouts are for); keep the tempo, timing, and volume dynamic; use body language and presence to engage the room.
- If one would like to learn more, consider reading the book Presentation Zen; watch TED talks; practice multiple times to hone various aspects of the talk; give the talk multiple times for iterative improvement; always ask for feedback and try to change at least one thing from one talk to another to continuously improve.
Dr. Kim is a hospitalist who works at Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, and is an editorial board member of The Hospitalist.
HM17 plenaries: Hospital medicine leading health care shift to value, quality
LAS VEGAS – The path to improved health care in the U.S. may never be straight – and it certainly won’t be easy – but the three plenary speakers at HM17 think its destination is pretty clear: a system that increasingly rewards quality care delivered at lower costs.
And the three experts agreed that there may be “no finer group” than hospitalists to continue leading the charge.
Hospitalists “have been at the center of change, not only in building a new field and showing us that medicine doesn’t have to be the way it always was,” said Karen DeSalvo, MD, MPH, MSc, former acting assistant secretary for health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “You have been at the forefront of seeing that we’re getting better value out of our health care system.”
Dr. DeSalvo believes HM’s scope of practice must evolve to include a focus on social determinants – such as economic stability, neighborhood and physical environment, education, and access to healthy options for food – because they have “direct relationships with mortality and morbidity and cost.”
In other words, Dr. DeSalvo wondered aloud, what good is treating a grandmother’s heart failure over and over if she’s always going to return to the hospital because her home, her neighborhood, or her finances mean she is unable to prevent recurring issues?
“If you listen to the hoof-beats that are coming, there is definitely a financial imprimatur to do this,” Dr. DeSalvo said. “There is going to be an expectation from public and private payers... that we are going to be taking into account and addressing social factors. Just look at the data from the people of this country – they are shouting loudly to you that they need help.”
“I can tell you our system still does not have a highly reliable, whole health system for those children and their families,” he said. “Every weekend, I have a family that I can’t discharge because they don’t have the social and home-based supports for them to go home. So they literally sit in the hospital until Monday. That makes no sense for our overall health system.”
Dr. Conway assured attendees that health system transformation is a bipartisan ideal and that for all the tumult in Washington, the progress of testing new payment- and service-delivery models will move forward.
The work “on value, the work on accountability, the work on bundled payments... will continue and will continue to be important to you and the patients you serve,” he said.
Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, concluded the meeting – as is tradition – by telling hospitalists the field remains positioned to take the lead for hospital transformation. And technology, despite its myriad frustrations, is still the tool that will get the field there.
“Digital is really important here, because it becomes an enabler for those stakeholders who care about what we do to measure what we do, and our ability to change what we do in a far more robust way than we could ever do before, if we get our acts together,” Dr. Wachter said. “We’re well past the time where you can nibble around the edges here, you can get this done with little mini projects. You really have to remake your whole delivery system, the way you do your work in order to succeed in this environment.”
Dr. Wachter agreed that social determinants must be addressed. He said HM might do better to partner with folks handling those issues, rather than tackling them head on. Instead, HM needs to be “focusing on the right things” amid mounting pressures from digitization, consolidation of everything from health systems to insurance companies to HM companies, and the gravitation toward population health.
“We have successfully positioned ourselves as the people who are leaders in this work,” Dr. Wachter said, “and it is increasingly important that we continue to do that as we go forward.”
LAS VEGAS – The path to improved health care in the U.S. may never be straight – and it certainly won’t be easy – but the three plenary speakers at HM17 think its destination is pretty clear: a system that increasingly rewards quality care delivered at lower costs.
And the three experts agreed that there may be “no finer group” than hospitalists to continue leading the charge.
Hospitalists “have been at the center of change, not only in building a new field and showing us that medicine doesn’t have to be the way it always was,” said Karen DeSalvo, MD, MPH, MSc, former acting assistant secretary for health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “You have been at the forefront of seeing that we’re getting better value out of our health care system.”
Dr. DeSalvo believes HM’s scope of practice must evolve to include a focus on social determinants – such as economic stability, neighborhood and physical environment, education, and access to healthy options for food – because they have “direct relationships with mortality and morbidity and cost.”
In other words, Dr. DeSalvo wondered aloud, what good is treating a grandmother’s heart failure over and over if she’s always going to return to the hospital because her home, her neighborhood, or her finances mean she is unable to prevent recurring issues?
“If you listen to the hoof-beats that are coming, there is definitely a financial imprimatur to do this,” Dr. DeSalvo said. “There is going to be an expectation from public and private payers... that we are going to be taking into account and addressing social factors. Just look at the data from the people of this country – they are shouting loudly to you that they need help.”
“I can tell you our system still does not have a highly reliable, whole health system for those children and their families,” he said. “Every weekend, I have a family that I can’t discharge because they don’t have the social and home-based supports for them to go home. So they literally sit in the hospital until Monday. That makes no sense for our overall health system.”
Dr. Conway assured attendees that health system transformation is a bipartisan ideal and that for all the tumult in Washington, the progress of testing new payment- and service-delivery models will move forward.
The work “on value, the work on accountability, the work on bundled payments... will continue and will continue to be important to you and the patients you serve,” he said.
Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, concluded the meeting – as is tradition – by telling hospitalists the field remains positioned to take the lead for hospital transformation. And technology, despite its myriad frustrations, is still the tool that will get the field there.
“Digital is really important here, because it becomes an enabler for those stakeholders who care about what we do to measure what we do, and our ability to change what we do in a far more robust way than we could ever do before, if we get our acts together,” Dr. Wachter said. “We’re well past the time where you can nibble around the edges here, you can get this done with little mini projects. You really have to remake your whole delivery system, the way you do your work in order to succeed in this environment.”
Dr. Wachter agreed that social determinants must be addressed. He said HM might do better to partner with folks handling those issues, rather than tackling them head on. Instead, HM needs to be “focusing on the right things” amid mounting pressures from digitization, consolidation of everything from health systems to insurance companies to HM companies, and the gravitation toward population health.
“We have successfully positioned ourselves as the people who are leaders in this work,” Dr. Wachter said, “and it is increasingly important that we continue to do that as we go forward.”
LAS VEGAS – The path to improved health care in the U.S. may never be straight – and it certainly won’t be easy – but the three plenary speakers at HM17 think its destination is pretty clear: a system that increasingly rewards quality care delivered at lower costs.
And the three experts agreed that there may be “no finer group” than hospitalists to continue leading the charge.
Hospitalists “have been at the center of change, not only in building a new field and showing us that medicine doesn’t have to be the way it always was,” said Karen DeSalvo, MD, MPH, MSc, former acting assistant secretary for health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “You have been at the forefront of seeing that we’re getting better value out of our health care system.”
Dr. DeSalvo believes HM’s scope of practice must evolve to include a focus on social determinants – such as economic stability, neighborhood and physical environment, education, and access to healthy options for food – because they have “direct relationships with mortality and morbidity and cost.”
In other words, Dr. DeSalvo wondered aloud, what good is treating a grandmother’s heart failure over and over if she’s always going to return to the hospital because her home, her neighborhood, or her finances mean she is unable to prevent recurring issues?
“If you listen to the hoof-beats that are coming, there is definitely a financial imprimatur to do this,” Dr. DeSalvo said. “There is going to be an expectation from public and private payers... that we are going to be taking into account and addressing social factors. Just look at the data from the people of this country – they are shouting loudly to you that they need help.”
“I can tell you our system still does not have a highly reliable, whole health system for those children and their families,” he said. “Every weekend, I have a family that I can’t discharge because they don’t have the social and home-based supports for them to go home. So they literally sit in the hospital until Monday. That makes no sense for our overall health system.”
Dr. Conway assured attendees that health system transformation is a bipartisan ideal and that for all the tumult in Washington, the progress of testing new payment- and service-delivery models will move forward.
The work “on value, the work on accountability, the work on bundled payments... will continue and will continue to be important to you and the patients you serve,” he said.
Robert Wachter, MD, MHM, concluded the meeting – as is tradition – by telling hospitalists the field remains positioned to take the lead for hospital transformation. And technology, despite its myriad frustrations, is still the tool that will get the field there.
“Digital is really important here, because it becomes an enabler for those stakeholders who care about what we do to measure what we do, and our ability to change what we do in a far more robust way than we could ever do before, if we get our acts together,” Dr. Wachter said. “We’re well past the time where you can nibble around the edges here, you can get this done with little mini projects. You really have to remake your whole delivery system, the way you do your work in order to succeed in this environment.”
Dr. Wachter agreed that social determinants must be addressed. He said HM might do better to partner with folks handling those issues, rather than tackling them head on. Instead, HM needs to be “focusing on the right things” amid mounting pressures from digitization, consolidation of everything from health systems to insurance companies to HM companies, and the gravitation toward population health.
“We have successfully positioned ourselves as the people who are leaders in this work,” Dr. Wachter said, “and it is increasingly important that we continue to do that as we go forward.”
HM17 session summary: Building a practice that people want to be part of
Presenters
Roberta Himebaugh MBA, SHM; John Nelson, MD, FACP, MHM; Jerome Siy, MD, SFHM
Session summary
Creating a “culture of ownership” by recruiting the right people, promoting physician leadership, and improving structural elements such as compensation model and schedule were topics discussed in this practice management precourse at HM17.
The presenters said leaders must reduce hierarchy and promote shared decision making among the group, while instilling a “thank you culture” that recognizes motivations such as autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
Leaders must also consider current changes in health care payment models, such as MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System), bundled payments, and Hospital Value-based Purchasing. Hospitalist groups must be prepared for these changes by learning about them and looking for potential cost reduction opportunities (e.g., reducing the number of patients going to skilled nursing facilities after joint replacement by sending patients home whenever possible).
Promoting a culture of engagement might include the development of interpersonal support strategies (e.g., meditation and mindfulness), innovative staffing (is 7 on/7 off right for everyone?), and comprehensive support for career and leadership development.
Finally, hospitalists should give special attention to the value formula by focusing on improving patient outcomes and experience, but also reducing direct and indirect costs. This is crucial for the sustainability of any hospitalist group.
Key takeaways for HM
• Create a culture of ownership to promote engagement and job satisfaction.
• Make adjustments to schedule and workflow to improve efficiency.
• Prepare for evolving pay-for-performance programs.
• Demonstrate the value of the group by setting expectations with key stakeholders, developing a practice score, and providing effective feedback to providers.
Dr. Villagra is a chief hospitalist in Batesville, Ark., and an editorial board member of The Hospitalist.
Presenters
Roberta Himebaugh MBA, SHM; John Nelson, MD, FACP, MHM; Jerome Siy, MD, SFHM
Session summary
Creating a “culture of ownership” by recruiting the right people, promoting physician leadership, and improving structural elements such as compensation model and schedule were topics discussed in this practice management precourse at HM17.
The presenters said leaders must reduce hierarchy and promote shared decision making among the group, while instilling a “thank you culture” that recognizes motivations such as autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
Leaders must also consider current changes in health care payment models, such as MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System), bundled payments, and Hospital Value-based Purchasing. Hospitalist groups must be prepared for these changes by learning about them and looking for potential cost reduction opportunities (e.g., reducing the number of patients going to skilled nursing facilities after joint replacement by sending patients home whenever possible).
Promoting a culture of engagement might include the development of interpersonal support strategies (e.g., meditation and mindfulness), innovative staffing (is 7 on/7 off right for everyone?), and comprehensive support for career and leadership development.
Finally, hospitalists should give special attention to the value formula by focusing on improving patient outcomes and experience, but also reducing direct and indirect costs. This is crucial for the sustainability of any hospitalist group.
Key takeaways for HM
• Create a culture of ownership to promote engagement and job satisfaction.
• Make adjustments to schedule and workflow to improve efficiency.
• Prepare for evolving pay-for-performance programs.
• Demonstrate the value of the group by setting expectations with key stakeholders, developing a practice score, and providing effective feedback to providers.
Dr. Villagra is a chief hospitalist in Batesville, Ark., and an editorial board member of The Hospitalist.
Presenters
Roberta Himebaugh MBA, SHM; John Nelson, MD, FACP, MHM; Jerome Siy, MD, SFHM
Session summary
Creating a “culture of ownership” by recruiting the right people, promoting physician leadership, and improving structural elements such as compensation model and schedule were topics discussed in this practice management precourse at HM17.
The presenters said leaders must reduce hierarchy and promote shared decision making among the group, while instilling a “thank you culture” that recognizes motivations such as autonomy, mastery, and purpose.
Leaders must also consider current changes in health care payment models, such as MIPS (Merit-based Incentive Payment System), bundled payments, and Hospital Value-based Purchasing. Hospitalist groups must be prepared for these changes by learning about them and looking for potential cost reduction opportunities (e.g., reducing the number of patients going to skilled nursing facilities after joint replacement by sending patients home whenever possible).
Promoting a culture of engagement might include the development of interpersonal support strategies (e.g., meditation and mindfulness), innovative staffing (is 7 on/7 off right for everyone?), and comprehensive support for career and leadership development.
Finally, hospitalists should give special attention to the value formula by focusing on improving patient outcomes and experience, but also reducing direct and indirect costs. This is crucial for the sustainability of any hospitalist group.
Key takeaways for HM
• Create a culture of ownership to promote engagement and job satisfaction.
• Make adjustments to schedule and workflow to improve efficiency.
• Prepare for evolving pay-for-performance programs.
• Demonstrate the value of the group by setting expectations with key stakeholders, developing a practice score, and providing effective feedback to providers.
Dr. Villagra is a chief hospitalist in Batesville, Ark., and an editorial board member of The Hospitalist.
Consider switch to clopidogrel for DAPT early post ACS
PARIS – A strategy of switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome is superior to the guideline-recommended full 12 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy with either of the newer P2Y12 inhibitors, according to Thomas Cuisset, MD.
In the randomized TOPIC (Timing of Platelet Inhibition After Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial, this switch strategy resulted in a marked reduction in bleeding without an increased risk of ischemic events, compared with a full 12 months of standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) using prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta).
He added that the cost savings of this switch strategy would be enormous, since generic clopidogrel is vastly less expensive than prasugrel or ticagrelor.
Twelve months of DAPT with aspirin plus either prasugrel or ticagrelor is the guideline-recommended DAPT regimen following PCI for ACS on the strength of the TRITON and PLATO trials, respectively, which showed that those agents were more effective than clopidogrel for the prevention of thrombotic events. But Dr. Cuisset and his coinvestigators noted that the risk of ischemic events was highest in the first month or so following ACS, while the risk of DAPT-related serious bleeding increased after the first month and continued for the duration.
“We need to use the new drugs, and we need to go for 1 year with DAPT. But does that mean we need to go for 1 year with the new drugs?” he asked.
This question was the impetus for TOPIC, an open-label, single-center randomized trial that included 646 ACS patients who were free of major adverse cardiovascular events during their first month on DAPT with prasugrel or ticagrelor. At that point they were randomized to remain on their standard regimen or switch to aspirin at 75 mg/day plus clopidogrel at 75 mg/day for months 2-12. The switch strategy is similar to the way pulmonary embolism is managed: an early phase of high-intensity therapy followed by a backing off to a less intensive regimen, said Dr. Cuisset, a cardiologist at Aix-Marseille University, Provence, France.
The primary endpoint in TOPIC was the cumulative 1-year rate of a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, urgent revascularization, or clinically significant bleeding as reflected in a Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 2 or greater bleeding. The primary endpoint occurred in 13.4% of the switch group, a 52% relative risk reduction, compared with the 26.3% cumulative incidence with standard DAPT.
This difference wasn’t due to any between-group disparity in ischemic events, but rather to a 70% reduction in the risk of BARC grade 2 or greater bleeding in the switch group: 4.0% vs. 14.9%.
Some physicians have already been switching to clopidogrel for DAPT after ACS, either because of safety or cost concerns. Now their practice is evidence based, Dr. Cuisset noted.
Asked why TOPIC didn’t use the more stringent bleeding endpoint of BARC grade 3-5 bleeding, the cardiologist replied that it would have required a larger trial to show a significant difference. Besides, he added, BARC grade 2 bleeding is clinically important because it has a negative impact on quality of life and can cause patients to discontinue DAPT, thereby increasing their risk of thrombosis.
The TOPIC protocol didn’t utilize a loading dose of clopidogrel when making the switch. Investigators started clopidogrel the day after stopping prasugrel and at least 12 hours after the final dose of ticagrelor.
Ideally, the novel TOPIC findings should be confirmed in a much larger, randomized, double-blind clinical trial capable of detecting any small differences in stent thrombosis or MI rates before physicians adopt a change in practice, but discussant Chaim Lotan, MD, director of the Heart Institute at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, dismissed that prospect as unlikely.
“I tried myself to do a similar study and found I got a lot of opposition from the pharma companies as well as from physicians who said, ‘How can you go against the guidelines?’ ” he said.
“I want to congratulate your team because I think this is a groundbreaking study that is going to dictate a changing of the guidelines,” he told Dr. Cuisset.
Dr. Cuisset reported having no financial conflicts regarding this investigator-driven study funded without commercial support.
Simultaneous with his presentation in Paris, the TOPIC findings were published online (Eur Heart J. 2017 May 16. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx175).
Dr. Cuisset reported no financial conflicts regarding this investigator-driven study funded without commercial support.
[email protected]
PARIS – A strategy of switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome is superior to the guideline-recommended full 12 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy with either of the newer P2Y12 inhibitors, according to Thomas Cuisset, MD.
In the randomized TOPIC (Timing of Platelet Inhibition After Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial, this switch strategy resulted in a marked reduction in bleeding without an increased risk of ischemic events, compared with a full 12 months of standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) using prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta).
He added that the cost savings of this switch strategy would be enormous, since generic clopidogrel is vastly less expensive than prasugrel or ticagrelor.
Twelve months of DAPT with aspirin plus either prasugrel or ticagrelor is the guideline-recommended DAPT regimen following PCI for ACS on the strength of the TRITON and PLATO trials, respectively, which showed that those agents were more effective than clopidogrel for the prevention of thrombotic events. But Dr. Cuisset and his coinvestigators noted that the risk of ischemic events was highest in the first month or so following ACS, while the risk of DAPT-related serious bleeding increased after the first month and continued for the duration.
“We need to use the new drugs, and we need to go for 1 year with DAPT. But does that mean we need to go for 1 year with the new drugs?” he asked.
This question was the impetus for TOPIC, an open-label, single-center randomized trial that included 646 ACS patients who were free of major adverse cardiovascular events during their first month on DAPT with prasugrel or ticagrelor. At that point they were randomized to remain on their standard regimen or switch to aspirin at 75 mg/day plus clopidogrel at 75 mg/day for months 2-12. The switch strategy is similar to the way pulmonary embolism is managed: an early phase of high-intensity therapy followed by a backing off to a less intensive regimen, said Dr. Cuisset, a cardiologist at Aix-Marseille University, Provence, France.
The primary endpoint in TOPIC was the cumulative 1-year rate of a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, urgent revascularization, or clinically significant bleeding as reflected in a Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 2 or greater bleeding. The primary endpoint occurred in 13.4% of the switch group, a 52% relative risk reduction, compared with the 26.3% cumulative incidence with standard DAPT.
This difference wasn’t due to any between-group disparity in ischemic events, but rather to a 70% reduction in the risk of BARC grade 2 or greater bleeding in the switch group: 4.0% vs. 14.9%.
Some physicians have already been switching to clopidogrel for DAPT after ACS, either because of safety or cost concerns. Now their practice is evidence based, Dr. Cuisset noted.
Asked why TOPIC didn’t use the more stringent bleeding endpoint of BARC grade 3-5 bleeding, the cardiologist replied that it would have required a larger trial to show a significant difference. Besides, he added, BARC grade 2 bleeding is clinically important because it has a negative impact on quality of life and can cause patients to discontinue DAPT, thereby increasing their risk of thrombosis.
The TOPIC protocol didn’t utilize a loading dose of clopidogrel when making the switch. Investigators started clopidogrel the day after stopping prasugrel and at least 12 hours after the final dose of ticagrelor.
Ideally, the novel TOPIC findings should be confirmed in a much larger, randomized, double-blind clinical trial capable of detecting any small differences in stent thrombosis or MI rates before physicians adopt a change in practice, but discussant Chaim Lotan, MD, director of the Heart Institute at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, dismissed that prospect as unlikely.
“I tried myself to do a similar study and found I got a lot of opposition from the pharma companies as well as from physicians who said, ‘How can you go against the guidelines?’ ” he said.
“I want to congratulate your team because I think this is a groundbreaking study that is going to dictate a changing of the guidelines,” he told Dr. Cuisset.
Dr. Cuisset reported having no financial conflicts regarding this investigator-driven study funded without commercial support.
Simultaneous with his presentation in Paris, the TOPIC findings were published online (Eur Heart J. 2017 May 16. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx175).
Dr. Cuisset reported no financial conflicts regarding this investigator-driven study funded without commercial support.
[email protected]
PARIS – A strategy of switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel 1 month after percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome is superior to the guideline-recommended full 12 months of dual-antiplatelet therapy with either of the newer P2Y12 inhibitors, according to Thomas Cuisset, MD.
In the randomized TOPIC (Timing of Platelet Inhibition After Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial, this switch strategy resulted in a marked reduction in bleeding without an increased risk of ischemic events, compared with a full 12 months of standard dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) using prasugrel (Effient) or ticagrelor (Brilinta).
He added that the cost savings of this switch strategy would be enormous, since generic clopidogrel is vastly less expensive than prasugrel or ticagrelor.
Twelve months of DAPT with aspirin plus either prasugrel or ticagrelor is the guideline-recommended DAPT regimen following PCI for ACS on the strength of the TRITON and PLATO trials, respectively, which showed that those agents were more effective than clopidogrel for the prevention of thrombotic events. But Dr. Cuisset and his coinvestigators noted that the risk of ischemic events was highest in the first month or so following ACS, while the risk of DAPT-related serious bleeding increased after the first month and continued for the duration.
“We need to use the new drugs, and we need to go for 1 year with DAPT. But does that mean we need to go for 1 year with the new drugs?” he asked.
This question was the impetus for TOPIC, an open-label, single-center randomized trial that included 646 ACS patients who were free of major adverse cardiovascular events during their first month on DAPT with prasugrel or ticagrelor. At that point they were randomized to remain on their standard regimen or switch to aspirin at 75 mg/day plus clopidogrel at 75 mg/day for months 2-12. The switch strategy is similar to the way pulmonary embolism is managed: an early phase of high-intensity therapy followed by a backing off to a less intensive regimen, said Dr. Cuisset, a cardiologist at Aix-Marseille University, Provence, France.
The primary endpoint in TOPIC was the cumulative 1-year rate of a composite of all-cause mortality, stroke, urgent revascularization, or clinically significant bleeding as reflected in a Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) grade 2 or greater bleeding. The primary endpoint occurred in 13.4% of the switch group, a 52% relative risk reduction, compared with the 26.3% cumulative incidence with standard DAPT.
This difference wasn’t due to any between-group disparity in ischemic events, but rather to a 70% reduction in the risk of BARC grade 2 or greater bleeding in the switch group: 4.0% vs. 14.9%.
Some physicians have already been switching to clopidogrel for DAPT after ACS, either because of safety or cost concerns. Now their practice is evidence based, Dr. Cuisset noted.
Asked why TOPIC didn’t use the more stringent bleeding endpoint of BARC grade 3-5 bleeding, the cardiologist replied that it would have required a larger trial to show a significant difference. Besides, he added, BARC grade 2 bleeding is clinically important because it has a negative impact on quality of life and can cause patients to discontinue DAPT, thereby increasing their risk of thrombosis.
The TOPIC protocol didn’t utilize a loading dose of clopidogrel when making the switch. Investigators started clopidogrel the day after stopping prasugrel and at least 12 hours after the final dose of ticagrelor.
Ideally, the novel TOPIC findings should be confirmed in a much larger, randomized, double-blind clinical trial capable of detecting any small differences in stent thrombosis or MI rates before physicians adopt a change in practice, but discussant Chaim Lotan, MD, director of the Heart Institute at Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, dismissed that prospect as unlikely.
“I tried myself to do a similar study and found I got a lot of opposition from the pharma companies as well as from physicians who said, ‘How can you go against the guidelines?’ ” he said.
“I want to congratulate your team because I think this is a groundbreaking study that is going to dictate a changing of the guidelines,” he told Dr. Cuisset.
Dr. Cuisset reported having no financial conflicts regarding this investigator-driven study funded without commercial support.
Simultaneous with his presentation in Paris, the TOPIC findings were published online (Eur Heart J. 2017 May 16. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx175).
Dr. Cuisset reported no financial conflicts regarding this investigator-driven study funded without commercial support.
[email protected]
AT EuroPCR
Key clinical point:
Major finding: The cumulative 1-year incidence of all-cause mortality, stroke, urgent revascularization, or clinically significant bleeding was 13.4% in acute coronary syndrome patients who switched to clopidogrel after 1 month on prasugrel or ticagrelor for dual-antiplatelet therapy, compared with 26.3% in those who didn’t switch.
Data source: An open-label, single-center, randomized trial including 646 ACS patients.
Disclosures: The presenter reported no financial conflicts regarding this investigator-driven study funded without commercial support.
HM17 session summary: Focus on POCUS – Introduction to Point-of-Care Ultrasound for pediatric hospitalists
Presenters
Nilam Soni, MD, FHM; Thomas Conlon, MD; Ria Dancel, MD, FAAP, FHM; Daniel Schnobrich, MD
Summary
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly gaining acceptance in the medical community as a goal-directed examination that answers a specific diagnostic question or guides a bedside invasive procedure. Adoption by pediatric hospitalists is increasing, aided by multiple training pathways, opportunities for scholarship, and organization development.
The use of POCUS is increasing among nonradiologist physicians due to the expectation for perfection, desire for improved patient experience, and increased availability of ultrasound machines. POCUS is rapid and safe, and can be used serially to monitor, provide procedural guidance, and lead to initiation of appropriate therapies.
Training in POCUS in limited applications is possible in short periods of time. One recent study showed that approximately 40% of POCUS cases led to new findings or alteration of treatment. However, POCUS requires training, monitoring for competence, transparency of training/competence, and a QA process that supports the training. One solution at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia was to use American College of Emergency Physician guidelines for POCUS training.
Pediatric applications include guidance of bladder catheterization, identifying occult abscesses, diagnosis of pneumonia and associated parapneumonic effusion, and IV placement. More advanced applications include diagnosis of appendicitis, intussusception, and increased intracranial pressure. Novel applications conceived by nonradiologist physicians have included sinus ultrasound.
Initial training can be provided by “in-house experts,” such as pediatric ED physicians and PICU physicians. Alternatively, an on-site commercial course can be arranged for larger groups. Consideration should be given to mentorship, with comparison to formal imaging and/or clinical progression. Relationships with traditional imagers should be cultivated, as POCUS can potentially be misunderstood. In fact, formal US utilization has been found to increase once clinicals begin to use POCUS.
Key takeaways for HM
- Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly being adopted by pediatric hospitalists.
- Pediatric applications are still being developed, but include guidance of bladder catheterization, identifying occult abscesses, diagnosis of pneumonia/associated effusions, and IV placement.
- Initial training can be provided by pediatric ED physicians/PICU physicians or an on-site commercial course can be arranged for larger groups.
- Relationships with radiologists should be established at the outset to avoid misunderstanding of POCUS.
Dr. Chang is a pediatric hospitalist at Baystate Children’s Hospital and is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.
Presenters
Nilam Soni, MD, FHM; Thomas Conlon, MD; Ria Dancel, MD, FAAP, FHM; Daniel Schnobrich, MD
Summary
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly gaining acceptance in the medical community as a goal-directed examination that answers a specific diagnostic question or guides a bedside invasive procedure. Adoption by pediatric hospitalists is increasing, aided by multiple training pathways, opportunities for scholarship, and organization development.
The use of POCUS is increasing among nonradiologist physicians due to the expectation for perfection, desire for improved patient experience, and increased availability of ultrasound machines. POCUS is rapid and safe, and can be used serially to monitor, provide procedural guidance, and lead to initiation of appropriate therapies.
Training in POCUS in limited applications is possible in short periods of time. One recent study showed that approximately 40% of POCUS cases led to new findings or alteration of treatment. However, POCUS requires training, monitoring for competence, transparency of training/competence, and a QA process that supports the training. One solution at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia was to use American College of Emergency Physician guidelines for POCUS training.
Pediatric applications include guidance of bladder catheterization, identifying occult abscesses, diagnosis of pneumonia and associated parapneumonic effusion, and IV placement. More advanced applications include diagnosis of appendicitis, intussusception, and increased intracranial pressure. Novel applications conceived by nonradiologist physicians have included sinus ultrasound.
Initial training can be provided by “in-house experts,” such as pediatric ED physicians and PICU physicians. Alternatively, an on-site commercial course can be arranged for larger groups. Consideration should be given to mentorship, with comparison to formal imaging and/or clinical progression. Relationships with traditional imagers should be cultivated, as POCUS can potentially be misunderstood. In fact, formal US utilization has been found to increase once clinicals begin to use POCUS.
Key takeaways for HM
- Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly being adopted by pediatric hospitalists.
- Pediatric applications are still being developed, but include guidance of bladder catheterization, identifying occult abscesses, diagnosis of pneumonia/associated effusions, and IV placement.
- Initial training can be provided by pediatric ED physicians/PICU physicians or an on-site commercial course can be arranged for larger groups.
- Relationships with radiologists should be established at the outset to avoid misunderstanding of POCUS.
Dr. Chang is a pediatric hospitalist at Baystate Children’s Hospital and is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.
Presenters
Nilam Soni, MD, FHM; Thomas Conlon, MD; Ria Dancel, MD, FAAP, FHM; Daniel Schnobrich, MD
Summary
Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly gaining acceptance in the medical community as a goal-directed examination that answers a specific diagnostic question or guides a bedside invasive procedure. Adoption by pediatric hospitalists is increasing, aided by multiple training pathways, opportunities for scholarship, and organization development.
The use of POCUS is increasing among nonradiologist physicians due to the expectation for perfection, desire for improved patient experience, and increased availability of ultrasound machines. POCUS is rapid and safe, and can be used serially to monitor, provide procedural guidance, and lead to initiation of appropriate therapies.
Training in POCUS in limited applications is possible in short periods of time. One recent study showed that approximately 40% of POCUS cases led to new findings or alteration of treatment. However, POCUS requires training, monitoring for competence, transparency of training/competence, and a QA process that supports the training. One solution at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia was to use American College of Emergency Physician guidelines for POCUS training.
Pediatric applications include guidance of bladder catheterization, identifying occult abscesses, diagnosis of pneumonia and associated parapneumonic effusion, and IV placement. More advanced applications include diagnosis of appendicitis, intussusception, and increased intracranial pressure. Novel applications conceived by nonradiologist physicians have included sinus ultrasound.
Initial training can be provided by “in-house experts,” such as pediatric ED physicians and PICU physicians. Alternatively, an on-site commercial course can be arranged for larger groups. Consideration should be given to mentorship, with comparison to formal imaging and/or clinical progression. Relationships with traditional imagers should be cultivated, as POCUS can potentially be misunderstood. In fact, formal US utilization has been found to increase once clinicals begin to use POCUS.
Key takeaways for HM
- Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is rapidly being adopted by pediatric hospitalists.
- Pediatric applications are still being developed, but include guidance of bladder catheterization, identifying occult abscesses, diagnosis of pneumonia/associated effusions, and IV placement.
- Initial training can be provided by pediatric ED physicians/PICU physicians or an on-site commercial course can be arranged for larger groups.
- Relationships with radiologists should be established at the outset to avoid misunderstanding of POCUS.
Dr. Chang is a pediatric hospitalist at Baystate Children’s Hospital and is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.
Improve your glycemic control efforts with SHM’s GC eQUIPS program
Inpatient hyperglycemia is a very common condition, affecting approximately 38% of patients in the non–intensive care unit setting.
Enhance the efficiency and reliability of your quality improvement efforts to close the gap between best practices and methods for caring for inpatients with hyperglycemia with SHM’s Glycemic Control (GC) Electronic Quality Improvement Program (eQUIPS). The GC eQUIPS program supports the development and implementation of GC programs at hospitals nationwide.
- Gaining understanding in the principles of glycemic control
- Improving glycemic control data collection/analysis/and reporting
- Building and obtaining approval for protocols/policies for glycemic control
- Creating a culture for change and change management
When you enroll in the Glycemic Control eQUIPS, you’ll receive:
- Data center for performance tracking. Helps track performance on project milestones and outcomes, and benchmark performance against comparison groups at your institution and other participating facilities.
- Implementation toolkit. Provides stepwise instruction for improving glycemic control, preventing hypoglycemia and optimizing care of the inpatient with hyperglycemia and diabetes.
- Online glycemic control toolkit. Includes clinical tools and interventions, research materials and literature review, informational papers and case studies, teaching slide sets, and more.
- Online community and collaborative:
– Glycemic Control Library of site-created tools and documents allows you to view sample order sets and protocols, awareness campaigns, patient education materials, and various articles.
– National Discussion Forum lets you share professional questions and discuss topics related to the planning, implementation and evaluation of glycemic control interventions.
– Access to on-demand webinar, facilitated by national experts, topics include IV Insulin Management Strategies, Change Management and Introduction to Glycemic Control.
Join the webinar on June 28 from 1–2 p.m., ET, to receive additional information about SHM’s GC programs. Visit hospitalmedicine.org/gc to register or learn more. If you have questions on the program, please email Sara Platt at [email protected].
Brett Radler is communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Inpatient hyperglycemia is a very common condition, affecting approximately 38% of patients in the non–intensive care unit setting.
Enhance the efficiency and reliability of your quality improvement efforts to close the gap between best practices and methods for caring for inpatients with hyperglycemia with SHM’s Glycemic Control (GC) Electronic Quality Improvement Program (eQUIPS). The GC eQUIPS program supports the development and implementation of GC programs at hospitals nationwide.
- Gaining understanding in the principles of glycemic control
- Improving glycemic control data collection/analysis/and reporting
- Building and obtaining approval for protocols/policies for glycemic control
- Creating a culture for change and change management
When you enroll in the Glycemic Control eQUIPS, you’ll receive:
- Data center for performance tracking. Helps track performance on project milestones and outcomes, and benchmark performance against comparison groups at your institution and other participating facilities.
- Implementation toolkit. Provides stepwise instruction for improving glycemic control, preventing hypoglycemia and optimizing care of the inpatient with hyperglycemia and diabetes.
- Online glycemic control toolkit. Includes clinical tools and interventions, research materials and literature review, informational papers and case studies, teaching slide sets, and more.
- Online community and collaborative:
– Glycemic Control Library of site-created tools and documents allows you to view sample order sets and protocols, awareness campaigns, patient education materials, and various articles.
– National Discussion Forum lets you share professional questions and discuss topics related to the planning, implementation and evaluation of glycemic control interventions.
– Access to on-demand webinar, facilitated by national experts, topics include IV Insulin Management Strategies, Change Management and Introduction to Glycemic Control.
Join the webinar on June 28 from 1–2 p.m., ET, to receive additional information about SHM’s GC programs. Visit hospitalmedicine.org/gc to register or learn more. If you have questions on the program, please email Sara Platt at [email protected].
Brett Radler is communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.
Inpatient hyperglycemia is a very common condition, affecting approximately 38% of patients in the non–intensive care unit setting.
Enhance the efficiency and reliability of your quality improvement efforts to close the gap between best practices and methods for caring for inpatients with hyperglycemia with SHM’s Glycemic Control (GC) Electronic Quality Improvement Program (eQUIPS). The GC eQUIPS program supports the development and implementation of GC programs at hospitals nationwide.
- Gaining understanding in the principles of glycemic control
- Improving glycemic control data collection/analysis/and reporting
- Building and obtaining approval for protocols/policies for glycemic control
- Creating a culture for change and change management
When you enroll in the Glycemic Control eQUIPS, you’ll receive:
- Data center for performance tracking. Helps track performance on project milestones and outcomes, and benchmark performance against comparison groups at your institution and other participating facilities.
- Implementation toolkit. Provides stepwise instruction for improving glycemic control, preventing hypoglycemia and optimizing care of the inpatient with hyperglycemia and diabetes.
- Online glycemic control toolkit. Includes clinical tools and interventions, research materials and literature review, informational papers and case studies, teaching slide sets, and more.
- Online community and collaborative:
– Glycemic Control Library of site-created tools and documents allows you to view sample order sets and protocols, awareness campaigns, patient education materials, and various articles.
– National Discussion Forum lets you share professional questions and discuss topics related to the planning, implementation and evaluation of glycemic control interventions.
– Access to on-demand webinar, facilitated by national experts, topics include IV Insulin Management Strategies, Change Management and Introduction to Glycemic Control.
Join the webinar on June 28 from 1–2 p.m., ET, to receive additional information about SHM’s GC programs. Visit hospitalmedicine.org/gc to register or learn more. If you have questions on the program, please email Sara Platt at [email protected].
Brett Radler is communications specialist at the Society of Hospital Medicine.
New heart failure guidelines prioritize prevention
The latest update to U.S. guidelines for heart failure management, released at the end of April , puts unprecedented emphasis on heart failure prevention and also shines a brighter light on patients at risk for developing heart failure – people with hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease.
“We have embraced the fact that heart failure can be prevented and that the progression of heart failure can be interrupted, and we articulated how we can use biomarkers to screen patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction,” said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, chair of the writing group that issued the 2017 focused update to the heart failure management guidelines on behalf of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America. (Circulation. 2017 Apr 28. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000509).
This means that, for the first time, these guidelines focus on stage A heart failure patients, those without symptoms or detectable left ventricular dysfunction but at risk for heart failure, a heart failure subgroup that was ignored in the past. Prevention is most immediate for stage A patients. The new guidelines cite the stage A definition from the 2009 guidelines: patients with “risk factors that clearly predispose toward the development of heart failure. For example, patients with coronary artery disease, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus who do not yet demonstrate impaired left ventricular function.”
The number of patients with coronary artery disease, hypertension, or diabetes is pretty large. The new heart failure guidelines apply to many people.
“The mindset [on heart failure] has been on treatment, not prevention. There is far more focus [in the new guidelines] on prevention than ever before,” commented Javed Butler, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and a member of the guideline writing panel.
“One reason why heart failure prevention has not been a focus was because people thought that, if you prevented coronary artery disease, you prevented heart failure. What we’ve learned is that a lot of heart failure is not ischemic and not from overt coronary disease, especially age-related HFpEF [heart failure with preserved ejection fraction]. Hopefully, these guidelines will spur more interest in prevention and risk factor control,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
It starts with blood pressure
The guidelines contain an entirely new section devoted to blood pressure, and, while part of the section deals with a target blood pressure for symptomatic (stage C) heart failure patients (a goal systolic pressure of less than 130 mm Hg for patients with either a preserved or reduced ejection fraction), the first entry is a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg for all stage A heart failure patients.
Because stage A is defined to include any adult with hypertension, the new heart failure guidelines set a new blood pressure treatment goal for all U.S. adults with hypertension at a time when the long-awaited revision to U.S. hypertension management guidelines from the ACC and AHA are still pending. Until the new hypertension guidelines come out – they’re expected later this year – the blood pressure target set in the heart failure guidelines will have to suffice.
Indeed, the less than 130/80-mm Hg target for on-treatment blood pressure set for heart failure prevention in the new guidelines was picked to “harmonize” with the guidelines that the ACC and AHA hypertension panel will soon release, Dr. Jessup said in an interview.
The main evidence for this target, lower than in most prior U.S. hypertension guidelines, comes from SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2103-16). In that trial, the goal blood pressure that linked with the best outcomes was less than 120/80 mm Hg, although the average achieved systolic blood pressure was above that goal with a mean systolic pressure of 121.5 mm Hg. One reason for setting a higher goal systolic pressure for practice was that analyses have shown that blood pressure measurement in SPRINT did not perform like conventional measurements in routine practice. SPRINT patients appeared to have lower measured pressures than they would have recorded had they been measured by more conventional means (Hypertension. 2017 January;69[1]:15-9).
“The way that blood pressures were measured in SPRINT, a pressure of 120/80 mm Hg in the trial was akin to a pressure of 130/80 mm Hg in an office,” Dr. Yancy, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “To avoid dangerous hypotension and to approximate SPRINT, an office pressure of less than 130 mm Hg is a reasonable number.”
New role for BNP screening
Stage A patients are more than just the target for more aggressive hypertension control. They are now also potential candidates for screening for an elevated blood level of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal (NT)–proBNP. The guidelines panel makes this a level IIa recommendation, saying that a screening BNP test in patients at risk for developing heart failure can be useful if followed by team-based care and optimized guideline directed medical therapy.
This guideline follows the lead of two successful controlled trials that focused more aggressive preventive treatments on stage A patients with an elevated level of BNP or NT-proBNP – the STOP-HF (JAMA. 2013 July 3;310[1]:66-74) and PONTIAC (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct;62[15]:1365-72) trials. The target population for some type of BNP screening are patients with cardiovascular disease, vascular disease, diabetes, obesity, or hypertension, Dr. Yancy said. “It was evident in STOP-HF that, if you screened and intervened, you could make a difference” in the development of heart failure.
The STOP-HF intervention included “optimal risk factor management” and “coaching by a specialist nurse who emphasized individual risk status and the importance of adherence to medication and healthy lifestyle behaviors.”
The guidelines aren’t clear on which patients at risk for developing heart failure, stage A patients, should get screened with BNP or NT-proBNP. Dr. Jessup said that it’s for patients in whom a positive result would trigger more aggressive management.
Getting a BNP on a suspect patient can raise a red flag to the patient, as well as to the physician, that more intervention is needed. “It’s easy for a physician to ignore a high-risk patient who looks okay and feels okay.” A BNP or NT-proBNP test can pick out the patients who shouldn’t be ignored, Dr. Januzzi said.
HFpEF treatment now possible
Another groundbreaking change in the guidelines is inclusion, for the first time, of a medical treatment specific for HFpEF. The aldosterone receptor antagonists (ARAs) spironolactone and eplerenone received a class IIb recommendation: An ARA might be considered to decrease hospitalizations in patients with HFpEF with an ejection fraction of at least 45%, an elevated BNP or recent hospitalization, and good renal function and potassium level.
The “might be considered” recommendation is guarded but understandable given that the evidence comes from the somewhat controversial, post-hoc analysis of data from the pivotal TOPCAT trial (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370[15]:1383-92) that focused on just the roughly half of patients seen at centers in North or South America (Circulation. 2015 Jan 6;131[1]:34-42).
“It would be irresponsible to overlook the potential that [ARAs] may help patients who looks like the ones enrolled in TOPCAT in the Americas,” said Dr. Yancy. “We blended evidence and pragmatism and said that the field needs this” treatment. He said that an ARA was a reasonable option for HFpEF patients with symptoms of heart failure and a positive biomarker test result.
Dr. Butler largely agreed. ARA treatment is for HFpEF patients with symptomatic heart failure and either a history of hospitalization or a high BNP level, he said.
“I was surprised by how strongly the committee felt there was a reasonable signal of help from ARAs in HFpEF,” said Dr. Jessup. “I believe in them too,” she added.
Dr. Jessup suggested targeting an ARA to a HFpEF patient with some hypertension, some volume problem, some peripheral edema, and a lot of breathlessness but with no underlying ischemia. “I use an ARA on these patients pretty quickly,” Dr. Jessup said. It’s best to start with a low dosage and see how the patient responds. “The best responders have a really stiff heart” and are usually not the more elderly HFpEF patients. ARA treatment also provides more steady volume control, superior to furosemide, she said.
Yet more additions
The revised guidelines contain even more changes. “We say that checking for anemia is important and how iron is an intervention that might make a difference,” said Dr. Jessup. Also, primary care physicians and cardiologists “should look for obstructive sleep apnea” in heart failure patients for whom “intervention with weight loss might help,” she said.
Another feature is the focus on tailored treatment, with many treatment elements that need customizing to each different type of heart failure patient. “Not every drug needs to be given to every patient,” Dr. Yancy warned.
The specifics of how to orchestrate all the guidelines into a coherent management plan may become clearer later this year, when the ACC/AHA group will release a follow-up “Heart Failure Pathways” document, aimed at bridging the gap between guidelines and actual clinical practice, Dr. Yancy said. “We want more value from writing the guidelines. The biggest obstacle is how to implement them,” and that’s what the pathways follow-up will address.
“The biggest challenge the societies have is how to motivate physicians and nurses to more aggressively treat heart failure,” said Dr. Butler.
Dr. Yancy and Dr. Jessup had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to 11 companies. Dr. Januzzi has been a consultant to Critical Diagnostics, Novartis, Phillips, Roche Diagnostics, and Sphingotec, and he has received research support from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Prevencio.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
The latest update to U.S. guidelines for heart failure management, released at the end of April , puts unprecedented emphasis on heart failure prevention and also shines a brighter light on patients at risk for developing heart failure – people with hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease.
“We have embraced the fact that heart failure can be prevented and that the progression of heart failure can be interrupted, and we articulated how we can use biomarkers to screen patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction,” said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, chair of the writing group that issued the 2017 focused update to the heart failure management guidelines on behalf of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America. (Circulation. 2017 Apr 28. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000509).
This means that, for the first time, these guidelines focus on stage A heart failure patients, those without symptoms or detectable left ventricular dysfunction but at risk for heart failure, a heart failure subgroup that was ignored in the past. Prevention is most immediate for stage A patients. The new guidelines cite the stage A definition from the 2009 guidelines: patients with “risk factors that clearly predispose toward the development of heart failure. For example, patients with coronary artery disease, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus who do not yet demonstrate impaired left ventricular function.”
The number of patients with coronary artery disease, hypertension, or diabetes is pretty large. The new heart failure guidelines apply to many people.
“The mindset [on heart failure] has been on treatment, not prevention. There is far more focus [in the new guidelines] on prevention than ever before,” commented Javed Butler, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and a member of the guideline writing panel.
“One reason why heart failure prevention has not been a focus was because people thought that, if you prevented coronary artery disease, you prevented heart failure. What we’ve learned is that a lot of heart failure is not ischemic and not from overt coronary disease, especially age-related HFpEF [heart failure with preserved ejection fraction]. Hopefully, these guidelines will spur more interest in prevention and risk factor control,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
It starts with blood pressure
The guidelines contain an entirely new section devoted to blood pressure, and, while part of the section deals with a target blood pressure for symptomatic (stage C) heart failure patients (a goal systolic pressure of less than 130 mm Hg for patients with either a preserved or reduced ejection fraction), the first entry is a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg for all stage A heart failure patients.
Because stage A is defined to include any adult with hypertension, the new heart failure guidelines set a new blood pressure treatment goal for all U.S. adults with hypertension at a time when the long-awaited revision to U.S. hypertension management guidelines from the ACC and AHA are still pending. Until the new hypertension guidelines come out – they’re expected later this year – the blood pressure target set in the heart failure guidelines will have to suffice.
Indeed, the less than 130/80-mm Hg target for on-treatment blood pressure set for heart failure prevention in the new guidelines was picked to “harmonize” with the guidelines that the ACC and AHA hypertension panel will soon release, Dr. Jessup said in an interview.
The main evidence for this target, lower than in most prior U.S. hypertension guidelines, comes from SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2103-16). In that trial, the goal blood pressure that linked with the best outcomes was less than 120/80 mm Hg, although the average achieved systolic blood pressure was above that goal with a mean systolic pressure of 121.5 mm Hg. One reason for setting a higher goal systolic pressure for practice was that analyses have shown that blood pressure measurement in SPRINT did not perform like conventional measurements in routine practice. SPRINT patients appeared to have lower measured pressures than they would have recorded had they been measured by more conventional means (Hypertension. 2017 January;69[1]:15-9).
“The way that blood pressures were measured in SPRINT, a pressure of 120/80 mm Hg in the trial was akin to a pressure of 130/80 mm Hg in an office,” Dr. Yancy, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “To avoid dangerous hypotension and to approximate SPRINT, an office pressure of less than 130 mm Hg is a reasonable number.”
New role for BNP screening
Stage A patients are more than just the target for more aggressive hypertension control. They are now also potential candidates for screening for an elevated blood level of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal (NT)–proBNP. The guidelines panel makes this a level IIa recommendation, saying that a screening BNP test in patients at risk for developing heart failure can be useful if followed by team-based care and optimized guideline directed medical therapy.
This guideline follows the lead of two successful controlled trials that focused more aggressive preventive treatments on stage A patients with an elevated level of BNP or NT-proBNP – the STOP-HF (JAMA. 2013 July 3;310[1]:66-74) and PONTIAC (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct;62[15]:1365-72) trials. The target population for some type of BNP screening are patients with cardiovascular disease, vascular disease, diabetes, obesity, or hypertension, Dr. Yancy said. “It was evident in STOP-HF that, if you screened and intervened, you could make a difference” in the development of heart failure.
The STOP-HF intervention included “optimal risk factor management” and “coaching by a specialist nurse who emphasized individual risk status and the importance of adherence to medication and healthy lifestyle behaviors.”
The guidelines aren’t clear on which patients at risk for developing heart failure, stage A patients, should get screened with BNP or NT-proBNP. Dr. Jessup said that it’s for patients in whom a positive result would trigger more aggressive management.
Getting a BNP on a suspect patient can raise a red flag to the patient, as well as to the physician, that more intervention is needed. “It’s easy for a physician to ignore a high-risk patient who looks okay and feels okay.” A BNP or NT-proBNP test can pick out the patients who shouldn’t be ignored, Dr. Januzzi said.
HFpEF treatment now possible
Another groundbreaking change in the guidelines is inclusion, for the first time, of a medical treatment specific for HFpEF. The aldosterone receptor antagonists (ARAs) spironolactone and eplerenone received a class IIb recommendation: An ARA might be considered to decrease hospitalizations in patients with HFpEF with an ejection fraction of at least 45%, an elevated BNP or recent hospitalization, and good renal function and potassium level.
The “might be considered” recommendation is guarded but understandable given that the evidence comes from the somewhat controversial, post-hoc analysis of data from the pivotal TOPCAT trial (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370[15]:1383-92) that focused on just the roughly half of patients seen at centers in North or South America (Circulation. 2015 Jan 6;131[1]:34-42).
“It would be irresponsible to overlook the potential that [ARAs] may help patients who looks like the ones enrolled in TOPCAT in the Americas,” said Dr. Yancy. “We blended evidence and pragmatism and said that the field needs this” treatment. He said that an ARA was a reasonable option for HFpEF patients with symptoms of heart failure and a positive biomarker test result.
Dr. Butler largely agreed. ARA treatment is for HFpEF patients with symptomatic heart failure and either a history of hospitalization or a high BNP level, he said.
“I was surprised by how strongly the committee felt there was a reasonable signal of help from ARAs in HFpEF,” said Dr. Jessup. “I believe in them too,” she added.
Dr. Jessup suggested targeting an ARA to a HFpEF patient with some hypertension, some volume problem, some peripheral edema, and a lot of breathlessness but with no underlying ischemia. “I use an ARA on these patients pretty quickly,” Dr. Jessup said. It’s best to start with a low dosage and see how the patient responds. “The best responders have a really stiff heart” and are usually not the more elderly HFpEF patients. ARA treatment also provides more steady volume control, superior to furosemide, she said.
Yet more additions
The revised guidelines contain even more changes. “We say that checking for anemia is important and how iron is an intervention that might make a difference,” said Dr. Jessup. Also, primary care physicians and cardiologists “should look for obstructive sleep apnea” in heart failure patients for whom “intervention with weight loss might help,” she said.
Another feature is the focus on tailored treatment, with many treatment elements that need customizing to each different type of heart failure patient. “Not every drug needs to be given to every patient,” Dr. Yancy warned.
The specifics of how to orchestrate all the guidelines into a coherent management plan may become clearer later this year, when the ACC/AHA group will release a follow-up “Heart Failure Pathways” document, aimed at bridging the gap between guidelines and actual clinical practice, Dr. Yancy said. “We want more value from writing the guidelines. The biggest obstacle is how to implement them,” and that’s what the pathways follow-up will address.
“The biggest challenge the societies have is how to motivate physicians and nurses to more aggressively treat heart failure,” said Dr. Butler.
Dr. Yancy and Dr. Jessup had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to 11 companies. Dr. Januzzi has been a consultant to Critical Diagnostics, Novartis, Phillips, Roche Diagnostics, and Sphingotec, and he has received research support from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Prevencio.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
The latest update to U.S. guidelines for heart failure management, released at the end of April , puts unprecedented emphasis on heart failure prevention and also shines a brighter light on patients at risk for developing heart failure – people with hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease.
“We have embraced the fact that heart failure can be prevented and that the progression of heart failure can be interrupted, and we articulated how we can use biomarkers to screen patients with asymptomatic left ventricular dysfunction,” said Clyde W. Yancy, MD, chair of the writing group that issued the 2017 focused update to the heart failure management guidelines on behalf of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Heart Failure Society of America. (Circulation. 2017 Apr 28. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000509).
This means that, for the first time, these guidelines focus on stage A heart failure patients, those without symptoms or detectable left ventricular dysfunction but at risk for heart failure, a heart failure subgroup that was ignored in the past. Prevention is most immediate for stage A patients. The new guidelines cite the stage A definition from the 2009 guidelines: patients with “risk factors that clearly predispose toward the development of heart failure. For example, patients with coronary artery disease, hypertension, or diabetes mellitus who do not yet demonstrate impaired left ventricular function.”
The number of patients with coronary artery disease, hypertension, or diabetes is pretty large. The new heart failure guidelines apply to many people.
“The mindset [on heart failure] has been on treatment, not prevention. There is far more focus [in the new guidelines] on prevention than ever before,” commented Javed Butler, MD, professor and chief of cardiology at Stony Brook (N.Y.) University and a member of the guideline writing panel.
“One reason why heart failure prevention has not been a focus was because people thought that, if you prevented coronary artery disease, you prevented heart failure. What we’ve learned is that a lot of heart failure is not ischemic and not from overt coronary disease, especially age-related HFpEF [heart failure with preserved ejection fraction]. Hopefully, these guidelines will spur more interest in prevention and risk factor control,” Dr. Butler said in an interview.
It starts with blood pressure
The guidelines contain an entirely new section devoted to blood pressure, and, while part of the section deals with a target blood pressure for symptomatic (stage C) heart failure patients (a goal systolic pressure of less than 130 mm Hg for patients with either a preserved or reduced ejection fraction), the first entry is a target blood pressure of less than 130/80 mm Hg for all stage A heart failure patients.
Because stage A is defined to include any adult with hypertension, the new heart failure guidelines set a new blood pressure treatment goal for all U.S. adults with hypertension at a time when the long-awaited revision to U.S. hypertension management guidelines from the ACC and AHA are still pending. Until the new hypertension guidelines come out – they’re expected later this year – the blood pressure target set in the heart failure guidelines will have to suffice.
Indeed, the less than 130/80-mm Hg target for on-treatment blood pressure set for heart failure prevention in the new guidelines was picked to “harmonize” with the guidelines that the ACC and AHA hypertension panel will soon release, Dr. Jessup said in an interview.
The main evidence for this target, lower than in most prior U.S. hypertension guidelines, comes from SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) (N Engl J Med. 2015 Nov 26;373[22]:2103-16). In that trial, the goal blood pressure that linked with the best outcomes was less than 120/80 mm Hg, although the average achieved systolic blood pressure was above that goal with a mean systolic pressure of 121.5 mm Hg. One reason for setting a higher goal systolic pressure for practice was that analyses have shown that blood pressure measurement in SPRINT did not perform like conventional measurements in routine practice. SPRINT patients appeared to have lower measured pressures than they would have recorded had they been measured by more conventional means (Hypertension. 2017 January;69[1]:15-9).
“The way that blood pressures were measured in SPRINT, a pressure of 120/80 mm Hg in the trial was akin to a pressure of 130/80 mm Hg in an office,” Dr. Yancy, chief of cardiology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview. “To avoid dangerous hypotension and to approximate SPRINT, an office pressure of less than 130 mm Hg is a reasonable number.”
New role for BNP screening
Stage A patients are more than just the target for more aggressive hypertension control. They are now also potential candidates for screening for an elevated blood level of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) or N-terminal (NT)–proBNP. The guidelines panel makes this a level IIa recommendation, saying that a screening BNP test in patients at risk for developing heart failure can be useful if followed by team-based care and optimized guideline directed medical therapy.
This guideline follows the lead of two successful controlled trials that focused more aggressive preventive treatments on stage A patients with an elevated level of BNP or NT-proBNP – the STOP-HF (JAMA. 2013 July 3;310[1]:66-74) and PONTIAC (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Oct;62[15]:1365-72) trials. The target population for some type of BNP screening are patients with cardiovascular disease, vascular disease, diabetes, obesity, or hypertension, Dr. Yancy said. “It was evident in STOP-HF that, if you screened and intervened, you could make a difference” in the development of heart failure.
The STOP-HF intervention included “optimal risk factor management” and “coaching by a specialist nurse who emphasized individual risk status and the importance of adherence to medication and healthy lifestyle behaviors.”
The guidelines aren’t clear on which patients at risk for developing heart failure, stage A patients, should get screened with BNP or NT-proBNP. Dr. Jessup said that it’s for patients in whom a positive result would trigger more aggressive management.
Getting a BNP on a suspect patient can raise a red flag to the patient, as well as to the physician, that more intervention is needed. “It’s easy for a physician to ignore a high-risk patient who looks okay and feels okay.” A BNP or NT-proBNP test can pick out the patients who shouldn’t be ignored, Dr. Januzzi said.
HFpEF treatment now possible
Another groundbreaking change in the guidelines is inclusion, for the first time, of a medical treatment specific for HFpEF. The aldosterone receptor antagonists (ARAs) spironolactone and eplerenone received a class IIb recommendation: An ARA might be considered to decrease hospitalizations in patients with HFpEF with an ejection fraction of at least 45%, an elevated BNP or recent hospitalization, and good renal function and potassium level.
The “might be considered” recommendation is guarded but understandable given that the evidence comes from the somewhat controversial, post-hoc analysis of data from the pivotal TOPCAT trial (N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 10;370[15]:1383-92) that focused on just the roughly half of patients seen at centers in North or South America (Circulation. 2015 Jan 6;131[1]:34-42).
“It would be irresponsible to overlook the potential that [ARAs] may help patients who looks like the ones enrolled in TOPCAT in the Americas,” said Dr. Yancy. “We blended evidence and pragmatism and said that the field needs this” treatment. He said that an ARA was a reasonable option for HFpEF patients with symptoms of heart failure and a positive biomarker test result.
Dr. Butler largely agreed. ARA treatment is for HFpEF patients with symptomatic heart failure and either a history of hospitalization or a high BNP level, he said.
“I was surprised by how strongly the committee felt there was a reasonable signal of help from ARAs in HFpEF,” said Dr. Jessup. “I believe in them too,” she added.
Dr. Jessup suggested targeting an ARA to a HFpEF patient with some hypertension, some volume problem, some peripheral edema, and a lot of breathlessness but with no underlying ischemia. “I use an ARA on these patients pretty quickly,” Dr. Jessup said. It’s best to start with a low dosage and see how the patient responds. “The best responders have a really stiff heart” and are usually not the more elderly HFpEF patients. ARA treatment also provides more steady volume control, superior to furosemide, she said.
Yet more additions
The revised guidelines contain even more changes. “We say that checking for anemia is important and how iron is an intervention that might make a difference,” said Dr. Jessup. Also, primary care physicians and cardiologists “should look for obstructive sleep apnea” in heart failure patients for whom “intervention with weight loss might help,” she said.
Another feature is the focus on tailored treatment, with many treatment elements that need customizing to each different type of heart failure patient. “Not every drug needs to be given to every patient,” Dr. Yancy warned.
The specifics of how to orchestrate all the guidelines into a coherent management plan may become clearer later this year, when the ACC/AHA group will release a follow-up “Heart Failure Pathways” document, aimed at bridging the gap between guidelines and actual clinical practice, Dr. Yancy said. “We want more value from writing the guidelines. The biggest obstacle is how to implement them,” and that’s what the pathways follow-up will address.
“The biggest challenge the societies have is how to motivate physicians and nurses to more aggressively treat heart failure,” said Dr. Butler.
Dr. Yancy and Dr. Jessup had no disclosures. Dr. Butler has been a consultant to 11 companies. Dr. Januzzi has been a consultant to Critical Diagnostics, Novartis, Phillips, Roche Diagnostics, and Sphingotec, and he has received research support from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, and Prevencio.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
Hospitalists need critical care training pathway
Dear Editor,
It is with great interest that we read the article “Hospitalists trained in family medicine seek critical care training pathway” by Claudia Stahl.1 We would like to thank the authors for the article and at the same time emphasize the relevance and necessity of critical care knowledge for hospitalists taking care of critically ill patients.
It is a well-known fact that hospitalists provide an ICU level of services, especially in community hospitals. There are step-down or intermediate-care units across large hospitals, which also are staffed mostly by hospitalists. So we strongly support the family medicine track having a critical care training pathway, and at the same time encourage internal medicine graduates to pursue a critical care certification program. It not only is helpful, but at times also proven to be beneficial for hospitalists who care for critically ill patients to have critical care knowledge.
There was lot of excitement in 2012 when SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) issued a joint position paper proposing an expedited, 1-year, critical care fellowship for hospitalists with at least 3 years of clinical job experience, instead of the 2-year fellowship.2 However, there was a quick backlash from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), who criticized the “inadequacy” of 1 year of fellowship training for HM physicians3, and so the excitement abated.
It may not be possible for hospitalists to take 2- to 3-year breaks from their career to pursue a critical care fellowship. There are certain courses, like Fundamental Critical Care Support (FCCS) and critical care updates for hospitalists; however, the duration of these courses is not enough to give the exhaustive training that we need. Many hospitalists work week-on/week-off schedules, and we are willing to invest some of our off time to pursue a year-long course. We believe a year-long course, if structurally sound, might be able to teach the skill sets to provide quality care to our critically ill patients.
Considering the paucity of available critical care training, we believe there is a strong necessity to develop long-term critical care training targeted at hospitalists caring for critically ill patients. Whether you are a family medicine graduate, an internal medicine graduate, or an advanced practitioner, once you are a hospitalist you are a hospitalist for life – irrespective of your future practice – as you continuously strive for quality of patient care and patient safety and satisfaction.
Primary author
Venkatrao Medarametla, MBBS
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School
Medical Director, Intermediate Care Unit, Baystate Medical Center
Hospital Medicine, Baystate Medical Center
[email protected]
Secondary authors
Prasanth Prabhakaran, MD
Sureshkumar Chirumamilla, MD
Hospital Medicine, Baystate Medical Center
References
1. http://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/133078/hospitalists-trained-family-medicine-seek-critical-care-training-pathway
2. Siegal EM, Dressler DD, Dichter JR, Gorman MJ, Lipsett PA. Training a hospitalist workforce to address the intensivist shortage in American hospitals: a position paper from the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364.
3. Baumann MH, Simpson SQ, Stahl M, et al. First, do no harm: less training ≠ quality care. Chest. 2012;142:5-7.
Dear Editor,
It is with great interest that we read the article “Hospitalists trained in family medicine seek critical care training pathway” by Claudia Stahl.1 We would like to thank the authors for the article and at the same time emphasize the relevance and necessity of critical care knowledge for hospitalists taking care of critically ill patients.
It is a well-known fact that hospitalists provide an ICU level of services, especially in community hospitals. There are step-down or intermediate-care units across large hospitals, which also are staffed mostly by hospitalists. So we strongly support the family medicine track having a critical care training pathway, and at the same time encourage internal medicine graduates to pursue a critical care certification program. It not only is helpful, but at times also proven to be beneficial for hospitalists who care for critically ill patients to have critical care knowledge.
There was lot of excitement in 2012 when SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) issued a joint position paper proposing an expedited, 1-year, critical care fellowship for hospitalists with at least 3 years of clinical job experience, instead of the 2-year fellowship.2 However, there was a quick backlash from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), who criticized the “inadequacy” of 1 year of fellowship training for HM physicians3, and so the excitement abated.
It may not be possible for hospitalists to take 2- to 3-year breaks from their career to pursue a critical care fellowship. There are certain courses, like Fundamental Critical Care Support (FCCS) and critical care updates for hospitalists; however, the duration of these courses is not enough to give the exhaustive training that we need. Many hospitalists work week-on/week-off schedules, and we are willing to invest some of our off time to pursue a year-long course. We believe a year-long course, if structurally sound, might be able to teach the skill sets to provide quality care to our critically ill patients.
Considering the paucity of available critical care training, we believe there is a strong necessity to develop long-term critical care training targeted at hospitalists caring for critically ill patients. Whether you are a family medicine graduate, an internal medicine graduate, or an advanced practitioner, once you are a hospitalist you are a hospitalist for life – irrespective of your future practice – as you continuously strive for quality of patient care and patient safety and satisfaction.
Primary author
Venkatrao Medarametla, MBBS
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School
Medical Director, Intermediate Care Unit, Baystate Medical Center
Hospital Medicine, Baystate Medical Center
[email protected]
Secondary authors
Prasanth Prabhakaran, MD
Sureshkumar Chirumamilla, MD
Hospital Medicine, Baystate Medical Center
References
1. http://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/133078/hospitalists-trained-family-medicine-seek-critical-care-training-pathway
2. Siegal EM, Dressler DD, Dichter JR, Gorman MJ, Lipsett PA. Training a hospitalist workforce to address the intensivist shortage in American hospitals: a position paper from the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364.
3. Baumann MH, Simpson SQ, Stahl M, et al. First, do no harm: less training ≠ quality care. Chest. 2012;142:5-7.
Dear Editor,
It is with great interest that we read the article “Hospitalists trained in family medicine seek critical care training pathway” by Claudia Stahl.1 We would like to thank the authors for the article and at the same time emphasize the relevance and necessity of critical care knowledge for hospitalists taking care of critically ill patients.
It is a well-known fact that hospitalists provide an ICU level of services, especially in community hospitals. There are step-down or intermediate-care units across large hospitals, which also are staffed mostly by hospitalists. So we strongly support the family medicine track having a critical care training pathway, and at the same time encourage internal medicine graduates to pursue a critical care certification program. It not only is helpful, but at times also proven to be beneficial for hospitalists who care for critically ill patients to have critical care knowledge.
There was lot of excitement in 2012 when SHM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) issued a joint position paper proposing an expedited, 1-year, critical care fellowship for hospitalists with at least 3 years of clinical job experience, instead of the 2-year fellowship.2 However, there was a quick backlash from the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), who criticized the “inadequacy” of 1 year of fellowship training for HM physicians3, and so the excitement abated.
It may not be possible for hospitalists to take 2- to 3-year breaks from their career to pursue a critical care fellowship. There are certain courses, like Fundamental Critical Care Support (FCCS) and critical care updates for hospitalists; however, the duration of these courses is not enough to give the exhaustive training that we need. Many hospitalists work week-on/week-off schedules, and we are willing to invest some of our off time to pursue a year-long course. We believe a year-long course, if structurally sound, might be able to teach the skill sets to provide quality care to our critically ill patients.
Considering the paucity of available critical care training, we believe there is a strong necessity to develop long-term critical care training targeted at hospitalists caring for critically ill patients. Whether you are a family medicine graduate, an internal medicine graduate, or an advanced practitioner, once you are a hospitalist you are a hospitalist for life – irrespective of your future practice – as you continuously strive for quality of patient care and patient safety and satisfaction.
Primary author
Venkatrao Medarametla, MBBS
Assistant Professor of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School
Medical Director, Intermediate Care Unit, Baystate Medical Center
Hospital Medicine, Baystate Medical Center
[email protected]
Secondary authors
Prasanth Prabhakaran, MD
Sureshkumar Chirumamilla, MD
Hospital Medicine, Baystate Medical Center
References
1. http://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/133078/hospitalists-trained-family-medicine-seek-critical-care-training-pathway
2. Siegal EM, Dressler DD, Dichter JR, Gorman MJ, Lipsett PA. Training a hospitalist workforce to address the intensivist shortage in American hospitals: a position paper from the Society of Hospital Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine. J Hosp Med. 2012;7:359-364.
3. Baumann MH, Simpson SQ, Stahl M, et al. First, do no harm: less training ≠ quality care. Chest. 2012;142:5-7.
Sneak Peek: The Hospital Leader Blog
We go to the altar together.
Last month, I wrote about onboarding and the important responsibility that everyone associated with a hospitalist program has to ensure that each new provider quickly comes to believe he or she made a terrific choice to join the group.
Upon reflection, it seems important to address the other side of this equation. I’m talking about the responsibilities that each candidate has when deciding whether to apply for a job, to interview, and to accept or reject a group’s offer.
The relationship between a hospitalist and the group he or she is part of is a lot like a marriage. Both parties go to the altar together, and the relationship is most likely to be successful when both enter it with their eyes open, having done their due diligence, and with an intention to align their interests and support each other. Here are some things every hospitalist should be thinking about as they assess potential job opportunities:
1. Be clear about your own needs, goals, and priorities. Before you embark on the job-hunting process, take time to do some careful introspection. My partner John Nelson is fond of saying that one of the key reasons many doctors choose to become hospitalists is that they prefer to “date” their practice rather than “marry” it. Which do you want? Are you willing to accept both the benefits and the costs of your preference? What are your short- and long-term career goals? In what part of the country do you want to live, and are you looking for an urban, suburban, or small-town environment? Is it important to be in a teaching setting? Are there specific pieces of work, such as ICU care or procedures, that you want to either pursue or avoid? What personal considerations, such as the needs of your spouse or kids, might limit your options? What structural aspects of the job are most important to you? Schedule? Daily workload? Compensation? I encourage you to think through these and other similar questions so that you are clear in your own mind about your personal job selection criteria. This will enable you to honestly articulate these things to others and to assess potential job opportunities in light of them.
Read the full text of this blog post at hospitalleader.org.
Leslie Flores is a founding partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a consulting practice that has specialized in helping clients enhance the effectiveness and value of hospital medicine programs.
Also on The Hospital Leader …
Don’t Compare HM Group Part B Costs Hospital to Hospital by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM
Overcoming a Continued Physician Shortage by Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM
Is Patient-Centered Care Bad for Resident Education? by Vineet Arora, MD, MPP, MHM
We go to the altar together.
Last month, I wrote about onboarding and the important responsibility that everyone associated with a hospitalist program has to ensure that each new provider quickly comes to believe he or she made a terrific choice to join the group.
Upon reflection, it seems important to address the other side of this equation. I’m talking about the responsibilities that each candidate has when deciding whether to apply for a job, to interview, and to accept or reject a group’s offer.
The relationship between a hospitalist and the group he or she is part of is a lot like a marriage. Both parties go to the altar together, and the relationship is most likely to be successful when both enter it with their eyes open, having done their due diligence, and with an intention to align their interests and support each other. Here are some things every hospitalist should be thinking about as they assess potential job opportunities:
1. Be clear about your own needs, goals, and priorities. Before you embark on the job-hunting process, take time to do some careful introspection. My partner John Nelson is fond of saying that one of the key reasons many doctors choose to become hospitalists is that they prefer to “date” their practice rather than “marry” it. Which do you want? Are you willing to accept both the benefits and the costs of your preference? What are your short- and long-term career goals? In what part of the country do you want to live, and are you looking for an urban, suburban, or small-town environment? Is it important to be in a teaching setting? Are there specific pieces of work, such as ICU care or procedures, that you want to either pursue or avoid? What personal considerations, such as the needs of your spouse or kids, might limit your options? What structural aspects of the job are most important to you? Schedule? Daily workload? Compensation? I encourage you to think through these and other similar questions so that you are clear in your own mind about your personal job selection criteria. This will enable you to honestly articulate these things to others and to assess potential job opportunities in light of them.
Read the full text of this blog post at hospitalleader.org.
Leslie Flores is a founding partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a consulting practice that has specialized in helping clients enhance the effectiveness and value of hospital medicine programs.
Also on The Hospital Leader …
Don’t Compare HM Group Part B Costs Hospital to Hospital by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM
Overcoming a Continued Physician Shortage by Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM
Is Patient-Centered Care Bad for Resident Education? by Vineet Arora, MD, MPP, MHM
We go to the altar together.
Last month, I wrote about onboarding and the important responsibility that everyone associated with a hospitalist program has to ensure that each new provider quickly comes to believe he or she made a terrific choice to join the group.
Upon reflection, it seems important to address the other side of this equation. I’m talking about the responsibilities that each candidate has when deciding whether to apply for a job, to interview, and to accept or reject a group’s offer.
The relationship between a hospitalist and the group he or she is part of is a lot like a marriage. Both parties go to the altar together, and the relationship is most likely to be successful when both enter it with their eyes open, having done their due diligence, and with an intention to align their interests and support each other. Here are some things every hospitalist should be thinking about as they assess potential job opportunities:
1. Be clear about your own needs, goals, and priorities. Before you embark on the job-hunting process, take time to do some careful introspection. My partner John Nelson is fond of saying that one of the key reasons many doctors choose to become hospitalists is that they prefer to “date” their practice rather than “marry” it. Which do you want? Are you willing to accept both the benefits and the costs of your preference? What are your short- and long-term career goals? In what part of the country do you want to live, and are you looking for an urban, suburban, or small-town environment? Is it important to be in a teaching setting? Are there specific pieces of work, such as ICU care or procedures, that you want to either pursue or avoid? What personal considerations, such as the needs of your spouse or kids, might limit your options? What structural aspects of the job are most important to you? Schedule? Daily workload? Compensation? I encourage you to think through these and other similar questions so that you are clear in your own mind about your personal job selection criteria. This will enable you to honestly articulate these things to others and to assess potential job opportunities in light of them.
Read the full text of this blog post at hospitalleader.org.
Leslie Flores is a founding partner at Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a consulting practice that has specialized in helping clients enhance the effectiveness and value of hospital medicine programs.
Also on The Hospital Leader …
Don’t Compare HM Group Part B Costs Hospital to Hospital by Brad Flansbaum, DO, MPH, MHM
Overcoming a Continued Physician Shortage by Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM
Is Patient-Centered Care Bad for Resident Education? by Vineet Arora, MD, MPP, MHM