All Content

[WpProQuiz 16]

---

[WpProQuiz_toplist 16]

[WpProQuiz 16]

---

[WpProQuiz_toplist 16]

[WpProQuiz 16]

---

[WpProQuiz_toplist 16]

Between 700,000 and 1 million people fall each year in U.S. hospitals, and about a third of those result in injuries that add an additional 6.3 days to hospital stays, according to a report from the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare. Some 11,000 falls are fatal. The Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare has now issued a report on the subject called “Preventing Patient Falls: A Systematic Approach from the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare Project.”1

“We try to pick those topics that healthcare organizations just haven’t been able to fully tackle even though they’ve put a lot of time and resources into trying to fix them,” says Kelly Barnes, MS, a center project lead in the Center for Transforming Healthcare at The Joint Commission.

The Joint Commission project involved seven hospitals that used Robust Process Improvement, which incorporates tools from Lean Six Sigma and change management methodologies, to reduce falls with injury on inpatient pilot units within their organizations.

During the project, each organization identified the specific factors that led to falls with injury in their environment and developed solutions targeted to those factors. The organizations identified 30 root causes and developed 21 targeted solutions. Because the contributing factors were different at each organization, solution sets were unique to each. Afterward, the organizations saw an aggregate 35% reduction in falls and a 62% reduction in falls with injury.

“One of the takeaways is that you really need support across an organization to have success,” Barnes says. “The more engaged the entire organization is from top down all the way to the bottom, the more successful people are in solving the problems.”

The study resulted in a Targeted Solutions Tool (TST), free to all Joint Commission–accredited customers, to help hospitals.

“You can put your data right into the tool,” Barnes says. “It tells you what your top contributing factors are, and it gives you the solutions that have worked for those contributing factors at other organizations.”

Reference

Health Research & Educational Trust. Preventing patient falls: a systematic approach from the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare project. Hospitals in Pursuit of Excellence website.

Between 700,000 and 1 million people fall each year in U.S. hospitals, and about a third of those result in injuries that add an additional 6.3 days to hospital stays, according to a report from the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare. Some 11,000 falls are fatal. The Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare has now issued a report on the subject called “Preventing Patient Falls: A Systematic Approach from the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare Project.”1

“We try to pick those topics that healthcare organizations just haven’t been able to fully tackle even though they’ve put a lot of time and resources into trying to fix them,” says Kelly Barnes, MS, a center project lead in the Center for Transforming Healthcare at The Joint Commission.

The Joint Commission project involved seven hospitals that used Robust Process Improvement, which incorporates tools from Lean Six Sigma and change management methodologies, to reduce falls with injury on inpatient pilot units within their organizations.

During the project, each organization identified the specific factors that led to falls with injury in their environment and developed solutions targeted to those factors. The organizations identified 30 root causes and developed 21 targeted solutions. Because the contributing factors were different at each organization, solution sets were unique to each. Afterward, the organizations saw an aggregate 35% reduction in falls and a 62% reduction in falls with injury.

“One of the takeaways is that you really need support across an organization to have success,” Barnes says. “The more engaged the entire organization is from top down all the way to the bottom, the more successful people are in solving the problems.”

The study resulted in a Targeted Solutions Tool (TST), free to all Joint Commission–accredited customers, to help hospitals.

“You can put your data right into the tool,” Barnes says. “It tells you what your top contributing factors are, and it gives you the solutions that have worked for those contributing factors at other organizations.”

Reference

Health Research & Educational Trust. Preventing patient falls: a systematic approach from the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare project. Hospitals in Pursuit of Excellence website.

Between 700,000 and 1 million people fall each year in U.S. hospitals, and about a third of those result in injuries that add an additional 6.3 days to hospital stays, according to a report from the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare. Some 11,000 falls are fatal. The Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare has now issued a report on the subject called “Preventing Patient Falls: A Systematic Approach from the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare Project.”1

“We try to pick those topics that healthcare organizations just haven’t been able to fully tackle even though they’ve put a lot of time and resources into trying to fix them,” says Kelly Barnes, MS, a center project lead in the Center for Transforming Healthcare at The Joint Commission.

The Joint Commission project involved seven hospitals that used Robust Process Improvement, which incorporates tools from Lean Six Sigma and change management methodologies, to reduce falls with injury on inpatient pilot units within their organizations.

During the project, each organization identified the specific factors that led to falls with injury in their environment and developed solutions targeted to those factors. The organizations identified 30 root causes and developed 21 targeted solutions. Because the contributing factors were different at each organization, solution sets were unique to each. Afterward, the organizations saw an aggregate 35% reduction in falls and a 62% reduction in falls with injury.

“One of the takeaways is that you really need support across an organization to have success,” Barnes says. “The more engaged the entire organization is from top down all the way to the bottom, the more successful people are in solving the problems.”

The study resulted in a Targeted Solutions Tool (TST), free to all Joint Commission–accredited customers, to help hospitals.

“You can put your data right into the tool,” Barnes says. “It tells you what your top contributing factors are, and it gives you the solutions that have worked for those contributing factors at other organizations.”

Reference

Health Research & Educational Trust. Preventing patient falls: a systematic approach from the Joint Commission Center for Transforming Healthcare project. Hospitals in Pursuit of Excellence website.

Inpatient hospitalization can be a key time for patients to quit smoking, according to an abstract called “No More Butts: An Automated System for Inpatient Smoking Cessation Team Consults.”1

“Tobacco smoking continues to be one of the most important public health threats that we face,” says lead author Sujatha Sankaran, MD, assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine and medical director of smoking cessation at the University of California, San Francisco. “Hospitalization is an extremely important moment and provides an excellent opportunity to counsel and provide cessation resources for people who are concerned about their health.”

Inpatients who receive smoking cessation counseling, nicotine replacement, and referral to outpatient resources have increased quit rates six weeks after hospital discharge, their research showed.

However, according to the abstract, in 2014:

• 34.5% of tobacco users admitted to one 600-bed academic hospital were documented as having received and accepted tobacco cessation counseling
• 45.7% of tobacco users received nicotine replacement therapy
• 1.35% of tobacco users received after-discharge consultations to outpatient smoking cessation resources

Researchers piloted a system in which a dedicated respiratory therapist–staffed smoking cessation consult service was trained to provide targeted tobacco cessation services to all inpatients who use tobacco. Of 1944 patients identified as using tobacco, 1545 received and accepted cessation counseling from a trained member of the Smoking Cessation Team, 1526 received nicotine replacement therapy, and 464 received an electronic referral to either a telephone or in-person quit line

“Hospitalists know firsthand the serious harm that tobacco use causes to patients but often are overwhelmed by the acute issues of patients and are unable to fully address tobacco use with hospitalized patients,” Dr. Sankaran says. “An automated cessation service can help lessen this burden by providing automatic cessation resources to all tobacco users.”

Reference

1. Sankaran S, Burke R, O’Keefe S. No more butts: an automated system for inpatient smoking cessation team consults [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(suppl 1). Accessed November 9, 2016.

Inpatient hospitalization can be a key time for patients to quit smoking, according to an abstract called “No More Butts: An Automated System for Inpatient Smoking Cessation Team Consults.”1

“Tobacco smoking continues to be one of the most important public health threats that we face,” says lead author Sujatha Sankaran, MD, assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine and medical director of smoking cessation at the University of California, San Francisco. “Hospitalization is an extremely important moment and provides an excellent opportunity to counsel and provide cessation resources for people who are concerned about their health.”

Inpatients who receive smoking cessation counseling, nicotine replacement, and referral to outpatient resources have increased quit rates six weeks after hospital discharge, their research showed.

However, according to the abstract, in 2014:

• 34.5% of tobacco users admitted to one 600-bed academic hospital were documented as having received and accepted tobacco cessation counseling
• 45.7% of tobacco users received nicotine replacement therapy
• 1.35% of tobacco users received after-discharge consultations to outpatient smoking cessation resources

Researchers piloted a system in which a dedicated respiratory therapist–staffed smoking cessation consult service was trained to provide targeted tobacco cessation services to all inpatients who use tobacco. Of 1944 patients identified as using tobacco, 1545 received and accepted cessation counseling from a trained member of the Smoking Cessation Team, 1526 received nicotine replacement therapy, and 464 received an electronic referral to either a telephone or in-person quit line

“Hospitalists know firsthand the serious harm that tobacco use causes to patients but often are overwhelmed by the acute issues of patients and are unable to fully address tobacco use with hospitalized patients,” Dr. Sankaran says. “An automated cessation service can help lessen this burden by providing automatic cessation resources to all tobacco users.”

Reference

1. Sankaran S, Burke R, O’Keefe S. No more butts: an automated system for inpatient smoking cessation team consults [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(suppl 1). Accessed November 9, 2016.

Inpatient hospitalization can be a key time for patients to quit smoking, according to an abstract called “No More Butts: An Automated System for Inpatient Smoking Cessation Team Consults.”1

“Tobacco smoking continues to be one of the most important public health threats that we face,” says lead author Sujatha Sankaran, MD, assistant clinical professor in the division of hospital medicine and medical director of smoking cessation at the University of California, San Francisco. “Hospitalization is an extremely important moment and provides an excellent opportunity to counsel and provide cessation resources for people who are concerned about their health.”

Inpatients who receive smoking cessation counseling, nicotine replacement, and referral to outpatient resources have increased quit rates six weeks after hospital discharge, their research showed.

However, according to the abstract, in 2014:

• 34.5% of tobacco users admitted to one 600-bed academic hospital were documented as having received and accepted tobacco cessation counseling
• 45.7% of tobacco users received nicotine replacement therapy
• 1.35% of tobacco users received after-discharge consultations to outpatient smoking cessation resources

Researchers piloted a system in which a dedicated respiratory therapist–staffed smoking cessation consult service was trained to provide targeted tobacco cessation services to all inpatients who use tobacco. Of 1944 patients identified as using tobacco, 1545 received and accepted cessation counseling from a trained member of the Smoking Cessation Team, 1526 received nicotine replacement therapy, and 464 received an electronic referral to either a telephone or in-person quit line

“Hospitalists know firsthand the serious harm that tobacco use causes to patients but often are overwhelmed by the acute issues of patients and are unable to fully address tobacco use with hospitalized patients,” Dr. Sankaran says. “An automated cessation service can help lessen this burden by providing automatic cessation resources to all tobacco users.”

Reference

1. Sankaran S, Burke R, O’Keefe S. No more butts: an automated system for inpatient smoking cessation team consults [abstract]. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(suppl 1). Accessed November 9, 2016.

Hospitalist Prabhbir Singh, MD, was the chief hospitalist with Sound Physicians at 62-bed Sutter Amador Hospital in Jackson, Calif., several years ago when in came a 55-year-old man with a serious problem: gangrenous cholecystitis, inflammation of the gallbladder in which the gallbladder tissue is starting to die.

 

Time was critical. He needed surgery right away to remove his gallbladder. But for that, he needed a surgeon.

 

“There was a surgeon on call, but the surgeon was not picking up the phone,” Dr. Singh says. “I’m scratching my head. Why is the surgeon not calling back? Where is the surgeon? Did the pager get lost? What if the patient has a bad outcome?”

 

Eventually, Dr. Singh had to give up on the on-call surgeon, and the patient was flown to a hospital 45 miles away in downtown Sacramento. His surgery had been delayed for almost 12 hours.

 

The man lived largely due to good luck, Dr. Singh says. The unresponsive surgeon had disciplinary proceedings started against his license but retired rather than face the consequences.

 

Today, hospitalists at Sutter Amador no longer have to anxiously wait for those responses to emergency pages. It’s one of many hospitals that have turned to a “surgicalist” model, with a surgeon always on hand at the hospital. Surgicalists perform both emergency procedures and procedures that are tied to a hospital admission, without which a patient can’t be discharged. Although it is growing in popularity, the model is still only seen in a small fraction of hospitals.

 

The model is widely supported by hospitalists because it brings several advantages, mainly a greater availability of the surgeon for consult.

 

“We don’t have to hunt them down, trying to call their office, trying to see if they’re available to call back,” says Dr. Singh, who is now also the chair of medical staff performance at Sutter Amador and adds that the change has helped with his job satisfaction.

 

A Clear Delineation

Arrangements between hospitalists and surgicalists vary depending on the hospital, but there typically are clearly delineated criteria on who cares for whom, with the more urgent surgical cases tending to fall under the surgicalists’ care and those with less urgent problems, even though surgery might be involved, tending to go to hospitalists.

 

When a surgery-related question or the need for actual surgery arises, the model calls for a quick response time from the surgicalist. Hospitalists and surgicalists collaborate on ways to reduce length of stay and prevent readmissions since they share the same institutional goals. Hospitalists are also more in tune with the needs of the surgeons, for instance, not feeding a patient who is going to need quick surgery and not administering blood thinners when a surgery is imminent unless there’s an overriding reason not to do so.

 

One advantage of this collaboration is that a hospitalist working alongside a surgicalist can get extra surgery-related guidance even when surgery probably isn’t needed, says John Nelson, MD, MHM, a hospitalist at Overlake Medical Center in Bellevue, Wash., a hospitalist management consultant, and a past president of SHM.

 

“Maybe the opinion of a general surgeon could be useful, but maybe I can get along without it because the general surgeons are busy. It’s going to be hard for them to find time to see this patient, and they’re not going to be very interested in it,” he says. “But if instead I have a surgical hospitalist who’s there all day, it’s much less of a bother for them to come by and take a look at my patient.”

 

 

Remaining Challenges

The model is not without its hurdles. When surgicalists are on a 24-hour shift, the patients will see a new one each day, sometimes prompting them to ask, “Who’s my doctor?” Also, complex cases can pose a challenge as they move from one surgicalist to another day to day.

 

John Maa, MD, who wrote a seminal paper on surgicalists in 2007 based on an early surgicalist model he started at San Mateo Medical Center in California,1 says he is now concerned that the principles he helped make popular—the absorption of surgeons into a system as they work hand in hand with other hospital staff all the time—might be eroding. Some small staffing companies are calling themselves surgicalists, promising fast response times, but are actually locum tenens surgeons under a surgicalist guise, he says.

 

Properly rolled out, surgicalist programs mean a much better working relationship between hospitalists and surgeons, says Lynette Scherer, MD, FACS, chief medical officer at Surgical Affiliates Management Group in Sacramento. The company, founded in 1996, employs about 200 surgeons, twice as many as three years ago, Dr. Scherer says, but the company declined to share what that amounts to in full-time equivalent positions.

 

“The hospitalists know all of our algorithms, and they know when to call us,” Dr. Scherer says. “We share the patients on the inpatient side as we need to. We keep the ones that are appropriate for us, and they keep the ones that are appropriate for them.”

 

The details depend on the hospital, she says.

 

“Whenever we go to a new site, we sit down with the hospitalist team and say, ‘What do you need here?’ And our admitting grids are different based on what the different needs of the hospitals are.”

 

To stay on top of complex cases with very sick patients, the medical director rounds with the team nearly every day to help guide that care, Dr. Scherer says.

 

At Sutter Amador, the arrival of the surgicalist model has helped shorten the length of stay by almost one day for surgery admissions, Dr. Singh says.

 

Reported outcomes, however, seem to be mixed.

 

In 2008, Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento switched from a nine-surgeon call panel to four surgeons who covered the acute-care surgery service in 24-hour shifts. Researchers looked at outcomes from 2007, before the new model was adopted, and from the four subsequent years. The results were published in 2014 in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.2

 

The total number of operations rose significantly, with 497 performed in 2007 and 640 in 2011. The percentage of cases with complications also fell significantly, from 21% in 2007 to 12% in 2011, with a low of 11% in 2010.

 

But the mortality rate rose significantly, from 1.4% in 2007 to 2.2% in 2011, with a high of 4.1% in 2008. The study authors note that the mortality rate ultimately fell back to levels not statistically significantly higher than the rate before the service. They suggested the spike could have been due to a greater willingness by the service to treat severely ill patients and due to the “immaturity” of the service in its earlier years. The percentage of cases with a readmission fell from 6.4% in 2007 to 4.7% in 2011, with a low of 3% in 2009, but that change wasn’t quite statistically significant.

 

“The data’s really bearing out that emergency patients are different in terms of the care they demand,” Dr. Scherer says. “So the patient with alcoholic cirrhosis who presents with a hole in his colon is very different than somebody who presents for an elective colon resection. And you can really reduce complications when you have a team of educated people taking care of these patients.”

 

 

Dr. Nelson says adopting the model “just means you’re a smoother operator and you can provide better service to people.” He adds that for any hospital that is getting poor surgical coverage and is paying for it, “it might make sense to consider it.”

 

 

---

 

Thomas R. Collins is a freelance medical writer based in Florida.

 

References

 

 

 

 

1. Maa J, Carter JT, Gosnell JE, Wachter R, Harris HW. The surgical hospitalist: a new model for emergency surgical care. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205(5):704-711.
2. O’Mara MS, Scherer L, Wisner D, Owens LJ. Sustainability and success of the acute care surgery model in the nontrauma setting. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(1):90-98.

 

Hospitalist Prabhbir Singh, MD, was the chief hospitalist with Sound Physicians at 62-bed Sutter Amador Hospital in Jackson, Calif., several years ago when in came a 55-year-old man with a serious problem: gangrenous cholecystitis, inflammation of the gallbladder in which the gallbladder tissue is starting to die.

 

Time was critical. He needed surgery right away to remove his gallbladder. But for that, he needed a surgeon.

 

“There was a surgeon on call, but the surgeon was not picking up the phone,” Dr. Singh says. “I’m scratching my head. Why is the surgeon not calling back? Where is the surgeon? Did the pager get lost? What if the patient has a bad outcome?”

 

Eventually, Dr. Singh had to give up on the on-call surgeon, and the patient was flown to a hospital 45 miles away in downtown Sacramento. His surgery had been delayed for almost 12 hours.

 

The man lived largely due to good luck, Dr. Singh says. The unresponsive surgeon had disciplinary proceedings started against his license but retired rather than face the consequences.

 

Today, hospitalists at Sutter Amador no longer have to anxiously wait for those responses to emergency pages. It’s one of many hospitals that have turned to a “surgicalist” model, with a surgeon always on hand at the hospital. Surgicalists perform both emergency procedures and procedures that are tied to a hospital admission, without which a patient can’t be discharged. Although it is growing in popularity, the model is still only seen in a small fraction of hospitals.

 

The model is widely supported by hospitalists because it brings several advantages, mainly a greater availability of the surgeon for consult.

 

“We don’t have to hunt them down, trying to call their office, trying to see if they’re available to call back,” says Dr. Singh, who is now also the chair of medical staff performance at Sutter Amador and adds that the change has helped with his job satisfaction.

 

A Clear Delineation

Arrangements between hospitalists and surgicalists vary depending on the hospital, but there typically are clearly delineated criteria on who cares for whom, with the more urgent surgical cases tending to fall under the surgicalists’ care and those with less urgent problems, even though surgery might be involved, tending to go to hospitalists.

 

When a surgery-related question or the need for actual surgery arises, the model calls for a quick response time from the surgicalist. Hospitalists and surgicalists collaborate on ways to reduce length of stay and prevent readmissions since they share the same institutional goals. Hospitalists are also more in tune with the needs of the surgeons, for instance, not feeding a patient who is going to need quick surgery and not administering blood thinners when a surgery is imminent unless there’s an overriding reason not to do so.

 

One advantage of this collaboration is that a hospitalist working alongside a surgicalist can get extra surgery-related guidance even when surgery probably isn’t needed, says John Nelson, MD, MHM, a hospitalist at Overlake Medical Center in Bellevue, Wash., a hospitalist management consultant, and a past president of SHM.

 

“Maybe the opinion of a general surgeon could be useful, but maybe I can get along without it because the general surgeons are busy. It’s going to be hard for them to find time to see this patient, and they’re not going to be very interested in it,” he says. “But if instead I have a surgical hospitalist who’s there all day, it’s much less of a bother for them to come by and take a look at my patient.”

 

 

Remaining Challenges

The model is not without its hurdles. When surgicalists are on a 24-hour shift, the patients will see a new one each day, sometimes prompting them to ask, “Who’s my doctor?” Also, complex cases can pose a challenge as they move from one surgicalist to another day to day.

 

John Maa, MD, who wrote a seminal paper on surgicalists in 2007 based on an early surgicalist model he started at San Mateo Medical Center in California,1 says he is now concerned that the principles he helped make popular—the absorption of surgeons into a system as they work hand in hand with other hospital staff all the time—might be eroding. Some small staffing companies are calling themselves surgicalists, promising fast response times, but are actually locum tenens surgeons under a surgicalist guise, he says.

 

Properly rolled out, surgicalist programs mean a much better working relationship between hospitalists and surgeons, says Lynette Scherer, MD, FACS, chief medical officer at Surgical Affiliates Management Group in Sacramento. The company, founded in 1996, employs about 200 surgeons, twice as many as three years ago, Dr. Scherer says, but the company declined to share what that amounts to in full-time equivalent positions.

 

“The hospitalists know all of our algorithms, and they know when to call us,” Dr. Scherer says. “We share the patients on the inpatient side as we need to. We keep the ones that are appropriate for us, and they keep the ones that are appropriate for them.”

 

The details depend on the hospital, she says.

 

“Whenever we go to a new site, we sit down with the hospitalist team and say, ‘What do you need here?’ And our admitting grids are different based on what the different needs of the hospitals are.”

 

To stay on top of complex cases with very sick patients, the medical director rounds with the team nearly every day to help guide that care, Dr. Scherer says.

 

At Sutter Amador, the arrival of the surgicalist model has helped shorten the length of stay by almost one day for surgery admissions, Dr. Singh says.

 

Reported outcomes, however, seem to be mixed.

 

In 2008, Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento switched from a nine-surgeon call panel to four surgeons who covered the acute-care surgery service in 24-hour shifts. Researchers looked at outcomes from 2007, before the new model was adopted, and from the four subsequent years. The results were published in 2014 in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.2

 

The total number of operations rose significantly, with 497 performed in 2007 and 640 in 2011. The percentage of cases with complications also fell significantly, from 21% in 2007 to 12% in 2011, with a low of 11% in 2010.

 

But the mortality rate rose significantly, from 1.4% in 2007 to 2.2% in 2011, with a high of 4.1% in 2008. The study authors note that the mortality rate ultimately fell back to levels not statistically significantly higher than the rate before the service. They suggested the spike could have been due to a greater willingness by the service to treat severely ill patients and due to the “immaturity” of the service in its earlier years. The percentage of cases with a readmission fell from 6.4% in 2007 to 4.7% in 2011, with a low of 3% in 2009, but that change wasn’t quite statistically significant.

 

“The data’s really bearing out that emergency patients are different in terms of the care they demand,” Dr. Scherer says. “So the patient with alcoholic cirrhosis who presents with a hole in his colon is very different than somebody who presents for an elective colon resection. And you can really reduce complications when you have a team of educated people taking care of these patients.”

 

 

Dr. Nelson says adopting the model “just means you’re a smoother operator and you can provide better service to people.” He adds that for any hospital that is getting poor surgical coverage and is paying for it, “it might make sense to consider it.”

 

 

---

 

Thomas R. Collins is a freelance medical writer based in Florida.

 

References

 

 

 

 

1. Maa J, Carter JT, Gosnell JE, Wachter R, Harris HW. The surgical hospitalist: a new model for emergency surgical care. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205(5):704-711.
2. O’Mara MS, Scherer L, Wisner D, Owens LJ. Sustainability and success of the acute care surgery model in the nontrauma setting. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(1):90-98.

 

Hospitalist Prabhbir Singh, MD, was the chief hospitalist with Sound Physicians at 62-bed Sutter Amador Hospital in Jackson, Calif., several years ago when in came a 55-year-old man with a serious problem: gangrenous cholecystitis, inflammation of the gallbladder in which the gallbladder tissue is starting to die.

 

Time was critical. He needed surgery right away to remove his gallbladder. But for that, he needed a surgeon.

 

“There was a surgeon on call, but the surgeon was not picking up the phone,” Dr. Singh says. “I’m scratching my head. Why is the surgeon not calling back? Where is the surgeon? Did the pager get lost? What if the patient has a bad outcome?”

 

Eventually, Dr. Singh had to give up on the on-call surgeon, and the patient was flown to a hospital 45 miles away in downtown Sacramento. His surgery had been delayed for almost 12 hours.

 

The man lived largely due to good luck, Dr. Singh says. The unresponsive surgeon had disciplinary proceedings started against his license but retired rather than face the consequences.

 

Today, hospitalists at Sutter Amador no longer have to anxiously wait for those responses to emergency pages. It’s one of many hospitals that have turned to a “surgicalist” model, with a surgeon always on hand at the hospital. Surgicalists perform both emergency procedures and procedures that are tied to a hospital admission, without which a patient can’t be discharged. Although it is growing in popularity, the model is still only seen in a small fraction of hospitals.

 

The model is widely supported by hospitalists because it brings several advantages, mainly a greater availability of the surgeon for consult.

 

“We don’t have to hunt them down, trying to call their office, trying to see if they’re available to call back,” says Dr. Singh, who is now also the chair of medical staff performance at Sutter Amador and adds that the change has helped with his job satisfaction.

 

A Clear Delineation

Arrangements between hospitalists and surgicalists vary depending on the hospital, but there typically are clearly delineated criteria on who cares for whom, with the more urgent surgical cases tending to fall under the surgicalists’ care and those with less urgent problems, even though surgery might be involved, tending to go to hospitalists.

 

When a surgery-related question or the need for actual surgery arises, the model calls for a quick response time from the surgicalist. Hospitalists and surgicalists collaborate on ways to reduce length of stay and prevent readmissions since they share the same institutional goals. Hospitalists are also more in tune with the needs of the surgeons, for instance, not feeding a patient who is going to need quick surgery and not administering blood thinners when a surgery is imminent unless there’s an overriding reason not to do so.

 

One advantage of this collaboration is that a hospitalist working alongside a surgicalist can get extra surgery-related guidance even when surgery probably isn’t needed, says John Nelson, MD, MHM, a hospitalist at Overlake Medical Center in Bellevue, Wash., a hospitalist management consultant, and a past president of SHM.

 

“Maybe the opinion of a general surgeon could be useful, but maybe I can get along without it because the general surgeons are busy. It’s going to be hard for them to find time to see this patient, and they’re not going to be very interested in it,” he says. “But if instead I have a surgical hospitalist who’s there all day, it’s much less of a bother for them to come by and take a look at my patient.”

 

 

Remaining Challenges

The model is not without its hurdles. When surgicalists are on a 24-hour shift, the patients will see a new one each day, sometimes prompting them to ask, “Who’s my doctor?” Also, complex cases can pose a challenge as they move from one surgicalist to another day to day.

 

John Maa, MD, who wrote a seminal paper on surgicalists in 2007 based on an early surgicalist model he started at San Mateo Medical Center in California,1 says he is now concerned that the principles he helped make popular—the absorption of surgeons into a system as they work hand in hand with other hospital staff all the time—might be eroding. Some small staffing companies are calling themselves surgicalists, promising fast response times, but are actually locum tenens surgeons under a surgicalist guise, he says.

 

Properly rolled out, surgicalist programs mean a much better working relationship between hospitalists and surgeons, says Lynette Scherer, MD, FACS, chief medical officer at Surgical Affiliates Management Group in Sacramento. The company, founded in 1996, employs about 200 surgeons, twice as many as three years ago, Dr. Scherer says, but the company declined to share what that amounts to in full-time equivalent positions.

 

“The hospitalists know all of our algorithms, and they know when to call us,” Dr. Scherer says. “We share the patients on the inpatient side as we need to. We keep the ones that are appropriate for us, and they keep the ones that are appropriate for them.”

 

The details depend on the hospital, she says.

 

“Whenever we go to a new site, we sit down with the hospitalist team and say, ‘What do you need here?’ And our admitting grids are different based on what the different needs of the hospitals are.”

 

To stay on top of complex cases with very sick patients, the medical director rounds with the team nearly every day to help guide that care, Dr. Scherer says.

 

At Sutter Amador, the arrival of the surgicalist model has helped shorten the length of stay by almost one day for surgery admissions, Dr. Singh says.

 

Reported outcomes, however, seem to be mixed.

 

In 2008, Sutter Medical Center in Sacramento switched from a nine-surgeon call panel to four surgeons who covered the acute-care surgery service in 24-hour shifts. Researchers looked at outcomes from 2007, before the new model was adopted, and from the four subsequent years. The results were published in 2014 in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.2

 

The total number of operations rose significantly, with 497 performed in 2007 and 640 in 2011. The percentage of cases with complications also fell significantly, from 21% in 2007 to 12% in 2011, with a low of 11% in 2010.

 

But the mortality rate rose significantly, from 1.4% in 2007 to 2.2% in 2011, with a high of 4.1% in 2008. The study authors note that the mortality rate ultimately fell back to levels not statistically significantly higher than the rate before the service. They suggested the spike could have been due to a greater willingness by the service to treat severely ill patients and due to the “immaturity” of the service in its earlier years. The percentage of cases with a readmission fell from 6.4% in 2007 to 4.7% in 2011, with a low of 3% in 2009, but that change wasn’t quite statistically significant.

 

“The data’s really bearing out that emergency patients are different in terms of the care they demand,” Dr. Scherer says. “So the patient with alcoholic cirrhosis who presents with a hole in his colon is very different than somebody who presents for an elective colon resection. And you can really reduce complications when you have a team of educated people taking care of these patients.”

 

 

Dr. Nelson says adopting the model “just means you’re a smoother operator and you can provide better service to people.” He adds that for any hospital that is getting poor surgical coverage and is paying for it, “it might make sense to consider it.”

 

 

---

 

Thomas R. Collins is a freelance medical writer based in Florida.

 

References

 

 

 

 

1. Maa J, Carter JT, Gosnell JE, Wachter R, Harris HW. The surgical hospitalist: a new model for emergency surgical care. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205(5):704-711.
2. O’Mara MS, Scherer L, Wisner D, Owens LJ. Sustainability and success of the acute care surgery model in the nontrauma setting. J Am Coll Surg. 2014;219(1):90-98.

 

 

CORONADO, CALIF. – When elderly patients are appropriately triaged, they can be selectively admitted to non–intensive care wards with acceptable outcomes, results from a single-center study showed.

“Trauma centers across the United States are caring for elderly trauma patients with greater frequency,” researchers led by Marc D. Trust, MD, wrote in an abstract presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.

“Previous literature showed improved outcomes in this population from aggressive care and invasive monitoring. This may have led to an increased utilization of intensive care resources for these patients,” they noted.

copyright Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

In an effort to assess the safety of admitting this population of patients to non–intensive care units, Dr. Trust, a surgery resident at the University of Texas at Austin, and his associates retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 3,682 trauma patients aged 65 and older who were admitted from 2006 to 2015. They compared demographic data and outcomes between patients admitted to the ICU and those admitted to the surgical ward. The primary endpoint was mortality, while secondary endpoints were transfer to higher level of care and hospital length of stay. Patients admitted only for comfort care and those with injuries thought to be terminal and irreversible were excluded from the analysis.

The mean age of the 3,682 patients was 76 years and 1,838 (50%) were admitted to the ICU, while the remaining 1,844 (50%) were admitted to the surgical ward. When the researchers compared patients admitted to the ICU with those admitted to the surgical ward, they observed significant differences in mortality (7% vs. 0.82%, respectively; P less than .001), as well as systolic blood pressure on admission (146 vs. 149 mm Hg, respectively; P = .0002), pulse (85 vs. 81 beats per minute; P less than .0001), Glasgow Coma Scale (14 vs. 15; P less than .001), Injury Severity Score (16 vs. 8; P less than .001), and hospital stay (a mean of 8 vs. 4 days; P less than .0001). In addition, fewer than 1% of patients admitted to the surgical ward required transfer to a higher level of care (P less than .0001).

Next, Dr. Trust and his associates conducted a subgroup analysis of 300 patients admitted to the ICU (28%) and 766 (72%) admitted to the surgical ward who had all-system Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of less than 3, no hypotension on admission, and a Glasgow Coma Scale of 14 or greater. Compared with those admitted to the surgical ward, those admitted to the ICU were older (77 vs. 76 years old, respectively; P = .003), more likely to be male (54% vs. 45%; P = .007), more tachycardic (HR 84 vs. 81; P = .004), more severely injured (ISS score of 5 vs. 4; P less than .0001), and more likely to have a longer hospital stay (a mean of 6 vs. 4 days; P less than .0001). Two patients admitted to the surgical ward died (0.26%; P = .0009) and none required transfer to a higher level of care.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

 

CORONADO, CALIF. – When elderly patients are appropriately triaged, they can be selectively admitted to non–intensive care wards with acceptable outcomes, results from a single-center study showed.

“Trauma centers across the United States are caring for elderly trauma patients with greater frequency,” researchers led by Marc D. Trust, MD, wrote in an abstract presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.

“Previous literature showed improved outcomes in this population from aggressive care and invasive monitoring. This may have led to an increased utilization of intensive care resources for these patients,” they noted.

copyright Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

In an effort to assess the safety of admitting this population of patients to non–intensive care units, Dr. Trust, a surgery resident at the University of Texas at Austin, and his associates retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 3,682 trauma patients aged 65 and older who were admitted from 2006 to 2015. They compared demographic data and outcomes between patients admitted to the ICU and those admitted to the surgical ward. The primary endpoint was mortality, while secondary endpoints were transfer to higher level of care and hospital length of stay. Patients admitted only for comfort care and those with injuries thought to be terminal and irreversible were excluded from the analysis.

The mean age of the 3,682 patients was 76 years and 1,838 (50%) were admitted to the ICU, while the remaining 1,844 (50%) were admitted to the surgical ward. When the researchers compared patients admitted to the ICU with those admitted to the surgical ward, they observed significant differences in mortality (7% vs. 0.82%, respectively; P less than .001), as well as systolic blood pressure on admission (146 vs. 149 mm Hg, respectively; P = .0002), pulse (85 vs. 81 beats per minute; P less than .0001), Glasgow Coma Scale (14 vs. 15; P less than .001), Injury Severity Score (16 vs. 8; P less than .001), and hospital stay (a mean of 8 vs. 4 days; P less than .0001). In addition, fewer than 1% of patients admitted to the surgical ward required transfer to a higher level of care (P less than .0001).

Next, Dr. Trust and his associates conducted a subgroup analysis of 300 patients admitted to the ICU (28%) and 766 (72%) admitted to the surgical ward who had all-system Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of less than 3, no hypotension on admission, and a Glasgow Coma Scale of 14 or greater. Compared with those admitted to the surgical ward, those admitted to the ICU were older (77 vs. 76 years old, respectively; P = .003), more likely to be male (54% vs. 45%; P = .007), more tachycardic (HR 84 vs. 81; P = .004), more severely injured (ISS score of 5 vs. 4; P less than .0001), and more likely to have a longer hospital stay (a mean of 6 vs. 4 days; P less than .0001). Two patients admitted to the surgical ward died (0.26%; P = .0009) and none required transfer to a higher level of care.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

 

CORONADO, CALIF. – When elderly patients are appropriately triaged, they can be selectively admitted to non–intensive care wards with acceptable outcomes, results from a single-center study showed.

“Trauma centers across the United States are caring for elderly trauma patients with greater frequency,” researchers led by Marc D. Trust, MD, wrote in an abstract presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Western Surgical Association.

“Previous literature showed improved outcomes in this population from aggressive care and invasive monitoring. This may have led to an increased utilization of intensive care resources for these patients,” they noted.

copyright Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

In an effort to assess the safety of admitting this population of patients to non–intensive care units, Dr. Trust, a surgery resident at the University of Texas at Austin, and his associates retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 3,682 trauma patients aged 65 and older who were admitted from 2006 to 2015. They compared demographic data and outcomes between patients admitted to the ICU and those admitted to the surgical ward. The primary endpoint was mortality, while secondary endpoints were transfer to higher level of care and hospital length of stay. Patients admitted only for comfort care and those with injuries thought to be terminal and irreversible were excluded from the analysis.

The mean age of the 3,682 patients was 76 years and 1,838 (50%) were admitted to the ICU, while the remaining 1,844 (50%) were admitted to the surgical ward. When the researchers compared patients admitted to the ICU with those admitted to the surgical ward, they observed significant differences in mortality (7% vs. 0.82%, respectively; P less than .001), as well as systolic blood pressure on admission (146 vs. 149 mm Hg, respectively; P = .0002), pulse (85 vs. 81 beats per minute; P less than .0001), Glasgow Coma Scale (14 vs. 15; P less than .001), Injury Severity Score (16 vs. 8; P less than .001), and hospital stay (a mean of 8 vs. 4 days; P less than .0001). In addition, fewer than 1% of patients admitted to the surgical ward required transfer to a higher level of care (P less than .0001).

Next, Dr. Trust and his associates conducted a subgroup analysis of 300 patients admitted to the ICU (28%) and 766 (72%) admitted to the surgical ward who had all-system Abbreviated Injury Scale scores of less than 3, no hypotension on admission, and a Glasgow Coma Scale of 14 or greater. Compared with those admitted to the surgical ward, those admitted to the ICU were older (77 vs. 76 years old, respectively; P = .003), more likely to be male (54% vs. 45%; P = .007), more tachycardic (HR 84 vs. 81; P = .004), more severely injured (ISS score of 5 vs. 4; P less than .0001), and more likely to have a longer hospital stay (a mean of 6 vs. 4 days; P less than .0001). Two patients admitted to the surgical ward died (0.26%; P = .0009) and none required transfer to a higher level of care.

The researchers reported having no financial disclosures.

[email protected]

From celebrating the 20th anniversary of hospital medicine’s arrival to rapid reimbursement reform to sought-after clarity for observation rules, the past 12 months have been eventful. The Hospitalist asked more than a dozen industry leaders what they thought were the biggest highlights of 2016. Here is what they said:

1. Happy Birthday, HM

August 15 marked the 20th anniversary of “The Emerging Role of ‘Hospitalists’ in the American Health Care System,”1 a New England Journal of Medicine paper authored by Lee Goldman, MD, and Robert Wachter, MD, MHM.2 It was the first time anyone defined what a hospitalist was, putting a sobriquet to an inpatient care model that had organically and independently started happening nationwide.

The paper laid the groundwork for a specialty that spread like a proverbial wildfire over the next 20 years. The model overcame early opposition from residents fearful they’d lose the ability to learn and critical-care specialists who wanted to maintain the caseloads they’d fought to build. The field has now swelled to an estimated 52,000 practitioners.

“I reflect back … and think today about what the hospitalist model brings to us,” James Merlino, MD, president and chief medical officer of Press Ganey’s strategic consulting division, told The Hospitalist. “It is an amazing transformation on how the hospitalist model really delivers.”1

2. Its Own Specialty Code

Hospitalist medicine received federal approval for its first dedicated specialty code3 in a decision hailed by many. The code, approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), should allow hospitalist-specific billing in 2017.

SHM leaders have long pushed for the code, particularly as healthcare transitions from fee-for-service (FFS) to quality-based payment models. Public Policy Committee Chair Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, says that a dedicated code is necessary to ensure that hospitalists are properly reimbursed for their work.

Historically, hospitalists have used codes more in line with the workload of general internal medicine, family medicine, and other specialties. But those codes don’t account for the complexity of what hospitalists deal with on a daily basis.

“We as hospitalists face unique challenges and work with patients from all demographics, often with severe illnesses, making it nearly impossible to rely on benchmarks used for these other specialties,” Dr. Greeno said.3

SHM pushed for the change and has said it is committed to educating members about how best to use it. Scott Sears, MD, FHM, CPE, MBA, chief clinical officer for Sound Physicians of Tacoma, Wash., said the move is great for HM but that more needs to be done to tailor billing and coding to the specialty’s actual workflow.

“A pediatric hospitalist may not want to be compared to an adult hospitalist. A critical-access hospitalist doesn’t want to be compared to a hospitalist in a tertiary academic medical center,” Dr. Sears said. “I don’t think it’s an end-all, be-all, but it’s a place to start.”3

3. Down with SGR, Long Live MACRA

While it’s unlikely hospitalists have that printed on bumper stickers, 2016 brought the end of the oft-maligned Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. This was the first year under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, better known as MACRA.4

MACRA changes the ways hospitalists and other physicians are reimbursed by Medicare by continuing the broader trend of moving from volume-based reimbursements toward a value-based payment (VBP) system. Its two tracks for physicians to change how they get paid are the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and the Alternative Payments Model (APM).

MIPS probably looks familiar because it is similar to the traditional FFS model. But to make value a more important factor in the reimbursement formula, MIPS will account for both volume and quality. APM allows physicians to opt out of MIPS by participating in other approved programs where providers take on “more than nominal” financial risk, report on their quality measures, and use certified electronic health record (EHR) technology.

 

4. The Surgeon General Is a Hospitalist

Any specialty’s annual meeting would be lucky to get the U.S. Surgeon General as a plenary speaker, but HM16 featured one of its own in hospitalist and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA.

Dr. Murthy kicked off the confab in San Diego, and some 4,000 hospitalists listened to one of their own talk about ascending the highest perch a physician can attain in the federal government.7 Dr. Murthy, previously a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, was confirmed as the 19th Surgeon General in December 2014.

In an address titled “Bringing Health to America,” Dr. Murthy inspired with tales of hope and encouraged hospitalists to make the pursuit of healthy appealing while improving the safety of our communities. In particular, he suggested hospitalists look to leverage their leadership to improve systems and to be a powerful force of change both inside the walls of their institution and in their communities.

“In the end, the world gets better when people choose to come together to make it better,” he said.8

5. Nurse Practitioner Joins SHM Board of Directors

At HM16, Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM, was the first nurse practitioner (NP) or physician assistant (PA) given voting privileges on the society’s oversight panel.

“I can’t describe to you how passionately I believe that [NPs and PAs] have a huge role moving forward,” Cardin said. “I think our representation, our visibility, has sort of been flabby and kind of under the wire for a long time. We can really impact the design of care models at the bedside in a way that’s innovative and more efficient and in a way that’s really huge. I think there’s a transformation that’s going to be coming, and we’re going to be a huge part of it.”9

With Cardin’s ascension, it has added the voice of another constituency to its board. She was previously chair of SHM’s Nurse Practitioner/Physician Assistant Committee and in 2015 received the society’s Award in Excellence in Hospital Medicine for NPs and PAs. She has been at the University of Chicago for about 10 years.

“It does send a message to the rest of our membership that SHM values those other constituencies and that this is not a physician membership organization but rather a membership organization comprised of people who are interested in improving healthcare for our hospitalized patients,” immediate past president Robert Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM said.10

6. The State of Hospital Medicine Is Strong

According to the biennial 2016 State of Hospital Medicine Report6 from SHM and partially populated by data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), median compensation for adult hospitalists rose 10% to $278,746 from 2013 to 2015. The double-digit increase continues the steady climb of hospitalist pay, which is up 30% since 2010. At the same time, productivity is flattening.

And nearly all HM groups (HMGs)—96%—are still getting financial support, mostly from their host hospitals, in addition to their professional fee revenue. However, that median support, $157,535 per full-time employee (FTE), increased just 1%.

The slowing growth in that contribution is a harbinger that the level of financial support can no longer grow unabated, said Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants and a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

“We’re pretty close to that breaking point,” she said. “When we go around the country and do consulting work, we are hearing many more hospital leaders telling us, ‘We’re concerned about how much money this program is costing us, and we are getting to the point where we can’t afford it.’”6

 

7. Pay Cut for ‘Two-Midnight’ Rule for Observations Is No More

CMS announced a proposed rule in April that would have Medicare stop imposing an inpatient payment cut to hospitals under the “two-midnight” rule, according to a report in Modern Healthcare.10 The final rule went into effect in October.

The rule, which continues to be a contentious issue for hospitalists even with the pay cut being eliminated, was put in place in October 2013 to define which Medicare beneficiary hospital stays are appropriate for Medicare Part A payment by stating that if the physician expected the patient to stay for fewer than two midnights, then the services should be billed as outpatient (Medicare Part B) and not inpatient.

For two years, the only exception to the pay withhold was for those diagnoses that CMS designated as “inpatient only.” An overhaul of the rule in October 2015 stated that exceptions could be determined by the physician (or other practitioner) on a “case-by-case basis.”

But a legal challenge and withering criticism from SHM and other professional organizations prompted CMS to undo the withheld payments associated rule.11–13 In fact, hospitals also will see a one-time increase of 0.6% in fiscal 2017, making up for the 0.2% reduction to the rates of the last three years. SHM has said it will continue to advocate for further changes to the rule.

8. Medicaid Expansion Takes Hold

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia, under the auspices of the Affordable Care Act, have expanded Medicaid. One 2014 study in states including Minnesota, Kentucky, and Arizona showed a dramatic decrease in uninsured hospital stays and a significant increase in Medicaid stays. Meanwhile, in six states that did not expand, including Florida, Georgia, and Missouri, there was no significant change in payor mix.14

“What a lot of these early studies are saying is that when you expand Medicaid, people get on Medicaid, and that’s exactly what you hope will happen when you do a major public coverage expansion,” said Sayeh Nikpay, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., and a lead author of the 2014 Health Affairs study. “Physicians are grappling with payment issues, and it should be quite a relief that people are coming in the door with some kind of insurance rather than uninsured.”15

While expansion from 2015 to 2016 was the main story for Medicaid, many observers are now watching to see what President-elect Donald Trump will do. As a candidate, he campaigned to repeal Obamacare, and that may have significant impacts on the expansion of Medicaid.

9. Antimicrobial Stewardship Rules Upgrade

In July, The Joint Commission announced a new Medication Management (MM) standard for hospitals, critical-access hospitals, and nursing care centers that goes into effect in 2017.16,17 Its stated purpose is to improve quality and patient safety. The Joint Commission move came a year after President Barack Obama made combatting antibiotic-resistant bacteria a national issue.

“If you review the scientific literature, it will indicate that we’re in crisis mode right now because of this,” said Kelly Podgorny, DNP, MS, CPHQ, RN, project director at The Joint Commission. 16

The standard encourages the prioritization of establishing antimicrobial stewardship programs. It suggests staff members at institutions receive training and education on dispensing, administering, and monitoring antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial stewardship practice. And, in turn, those staffers should look to educate patients and caregivers on appropriate use of antimicrobial medications.

Lastly, when possible, an antimicrobial team should take a multidisciplinary approach and include an infectious disease physician, a pharmacist, and a practitioner.

 

10. Febrile-Infant Care Draws a Crowd

One of the most well-attended sessions at 2016 Pediatric Hospital Medicine in Chicago was an update on the anticipated American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) guidelines for febrile infants.18

The guidelines, for infants 7–90 days old, are aimed at providing pediatric hospitalists and others evidence-based guidelines, not rules, from the most recent literature available. The PHM16 session, presented by Kenneth Roberts, MD, highlighted the need to separate individual components of serious bacterial infections such as urinary tract infections (UTIs), bacteremia, and meningitis. Dr. Roberts noted that the incidence and clinical course can vary greatly for the different diagnoses.

The new criteria would be for full-term infants (37–43 weeks’ gestation) who are well-appearing and present with a temperature of 38°C. Exclusion criteria would include perinatal/prenatal/neonatal maternal fever, infection, or antimicrobial treatment; the presence of any evident infection; being technology-dependent; and the presence of congenital anomalies.

In particular, the new guidelines will look to risk-stratify management by age groups of 7–28 days, 29–60 days, and 61–90 days. The criteria are expected to be released in the next year.

---

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Quinn R. HM turns 20: a look at the evolution of hospitalist medicine. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
2. Wachter M, Goldman L. The emerging role of “hospitalists” in the American health care system. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:514-517.
3. Tyrrell KA. New hospitalist billing code should benefit hospitalists, patients. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
4. Doctoroff L, Dutta S. MACRA provides new direction for U.S. healthcare. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
5. Quinn R. Everything you need to know about the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
6. Quinn R. The state of hospital medicine is strong. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
7. Scheurer D. U.S. surgeon general encourages hospitalists to remain hopeful, motivated. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
8. Collins TR. HM16 speakers focus on public health, leadership, future of hospital medicine. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
9. Quinn R. SHM seats its first non-physician board member. The Hospitalist website. Accessed at November 14, 2016.
10. Carris J. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) eliminates two-midnight rule’s inpatient payment cuts: report. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
11. Schencker L. Judge tells HHS to revisit two-midnight rule’s inpatient pay cut. Healh Affairs website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
12. Tyrrell KA. Physicians critical of proposed changes to Medicare’s two-midnight rule. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
13. Tyrrell KA. Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, FHM, outlines to lawmakers hospitalist concerns about two-midnight rule, Medicare policies. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
14. Nikpay S, Buchmueller T, Levy HG. Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion reduced uninsured hospital stays in 2014. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(1):106-110.
15. Tyrrell KA. Benefits of Medicaid expansion for hospitalists. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
16. Bopp S. New standard announced for antimicrobial stewardship. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
17. Prepublication standards – new antimicrobial stewardship standard. The Joint Commission website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
18. 18. DeZure C. PHM16: the new AAP clinical practice guideline on evaluating, managing febrile infants. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.

From celebrating the 20th anniversary of hospital medicine’s arrival to rapid reimbursement reform to sought-after clarity for observation rules, the past 12 months have been eventful. The Hospitalist asked more than a dozen industry leaders what they thought were the biggest highlights of 2016. Here is what they said:

1. Happy Birthday, HM

August 15 marked the 20th anniversary of “The Emerging Role of ‘Hospitalists’ in the American Health Care System,”1 a New England Journal of Medicine paper authored by Lee Goldman, MD, and Robert Wachter, MD, MHM.2 It was the first time anyone defined what a hospitalist was, putting a sobriquet to an inpatient care model that had organically and independently started happening nationwide.

The paper laid the groundwork for a specialty that spread like a proverbial wildfire over the next 20 years. The model overcame early opposition from residents fearful they’d lose the ability to learn and critical-care specialists who wanted to maintain the caseloads they’d fought to build. The field has now swelled to an estimated 52,000 practitioners.

“I reflect back … and think today about what the hospitalist model brings to us,” James Merlino, MD, president and chief medical officer of Press Ganey’s strategic consulting division, told The Hospitalist. “It is an amazing transformation on how the hospitalist model really delivers.”1

2. Its Own Specialty Code

Hospitalist medicine received federal approval for its first dedicated specialty code3 in a decision hailed by many. The code, approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), should allow hospitalist-specific billing in 2017.

SHM leaders have long pushed for the code, particularly as healthcare transitions from fee-for-service (FFS) to quality-based payment models. Public Policy Committee Chair Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, says that a dedicated code is necessary to ensure that hospitalists are properly reimbursed for their work.

Historically, hospitalists have used codes more in line with the workload of general internal medicine, family medicine, and other specialties. But those codes don’t account for the complexity of what hospitalists deal with on a daily basis.

“We as hospitalists face unique challenges and work with patients from all demographics, often with severe illnesses, making it nearly impossible to rely on benchmarks used for these other specialties,” Dr. Greeno said.3

SHM pushed for the change and has said it is committed to educating members about how best to use it. Scott Sears, MD, FHM, CPE, MBA, chief clinical officer for Sound Physicians of Tacoma, Wash., said the move is great for HM but that more needs to be done to tailor billing and coding to the specialty’s actual workflow.

“A pediatric hospitalist may not want to be compared to an adult hospitalist. A critical-access hospitalist doesn’t want to be compared to a hospitalist in a tertiary academic medical center,” Dr. Sears said. “I don’t think it’s an end-all, be-all, but it’s a place to start.”3

3. Down with SGR, Long Live MACRA

While it’s unlikely hospitalists have that printed on bumper stickers, 2016 brought the end of the oft-maligned Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. This was the first year under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, better known as MACRA.4

MACRA changes the ways hospitalists and other physicians are reimbursed by Medicare by continuing the broader trend of moving from volume-based reimbursements toward a value-based payment (VBP) system. Its two tracks for physicians to change how they get paid are the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and the Alternative Payments Model (APM).

MIPS probably looks familiar because it is similar to the traditional FFS model. But to make value a more important factor in the reimbursement formula, MIPS will account for both volume and quality. APM allows physicians to opt out of MIPS by participating in other approved programs where providers take on “more than nominal” financial risk, report on their quality measures, and use certified electronic health record (EHR) technology.

 

4. The Surgeon General Is a Hospitalist

Any specialty’s annual meeting would be lucky to get the U.S. Surgeon General as a plenary speaker, but HM16 featured one of its own in hospitalist and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA.

Dr. Murthy kicked off the confab in San Diego, and some 4,000 hospitalists listened to one of their own talk about ascending the highest perch a physician can attain in the federal government.7 Dr. Murthy, previously a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, was confirmed as the 19th Surgeon General in December 2014.

In an address titled “Bringing Health to America,” Dr. Murthy inspired with tales of hope and encouraged hospitalists to make the pursuit of healthy appealing while improving the safety of our communities. In particular, he suggested hospitalists look to leverage their leadership to improve systems and to be a powerful force of change both inside the walls of their institution and in their communities.

“In the end, the world gets better when people choose to come together to make it better,” he said.8

5. Nurse Practitioner Joins SHM Board of Directors

At HM16, Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM, was the first nurse practitioner (NP) or physician assistant (PA) given voting privileges on the society’s oversight panel.

“I can’t describe to you how passionately I believe that [NPs and PAs] have a huge role moving forward,” Cardin said. “I think our representation, our visibility, has sort of been flabby and kind of under the wire for a long time. We can really impact the design of care models at the bedside in a way that’s innovative and more efficient and in a way that’s really huge. I think there’s a transformation that’s going to be coming, and we’re going to be a huge part of it.”9

With Cardin’s ascension, it has added the voice of another constituency to its board. She was previously chair of SHM’s Nurse Practitioner/Physician Assistant Committee and in 2015 received the society’s Award in Excellence in Hospital Medicine for NPs and PAs. She has been at the University of Chicago for about 10 years.

“It does send a message to the rest of our membership that SHM values those other constituencies and that this is not a physician membership organization but rather a membership organization comprised of people who are interested in improving healthcare for our hospitalized patients,” immediate past president Robert Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM said.10

6. The State of Hospital Medicine Is Strong

According to the biennial 2016 State of Hospital Medicine Report6 from SHM and partially populated by data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), median compensation for adult hospitalists rose 10% to $278,746 from 2013 to 2015. The double-digit increase continues the steady climb of hospitalist pay, which is up 30% since 2010. At the same time, productivity is flattening.

And nearly all HM groups (HMGs)—96%—are still getting financial support, mostly from their host hospitals, in addition to their professional fee revenue. However, that median support, $157,535 per full-time employee (FTE), increased just 1%.

The slowing growth in that contribution is a harbinger that the level of financial support can no longer grow unabated, said Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants and a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

“We’re pretty close to that breaking point,” she said. “When we go around the country and do consulting work, we are hearing many more hospital leaders telling us, ‘We’re concerned about how much money this program is costing us, and we are getting to the point where we can’t afford it.’”6

 

7. Pay Cut for ‘Two-Midnight’ Rule for Observations Is No More

CMS announced a proposed rule in April that would have Medicare stop imposing an inpatient payment cut to hospitals under the “two-midnight” rule, according to a report in Modern Healthcare.10 The final rule went into effect in October.

The rule, which continues to be a contentious issue for hospitalists even with the pay cut being eliminated, was put in place in October 2013 to define which Medicare beneficiary hospital stays are appropriate for Medicare Part A payment by stating that if the physician expected the patient to stay for fewer than two midnights, then the services should be billed as outpatient (Medicare Part B) and not inpatient.

For two years, the only exception to the pay withhold was for those diagnoses that CMS designated as “inpatient only.” An overhaul of the rule in October 2015 stated that exceptions could be determined by the physician (or other practitioner) on a “case-by-case basis.”

But a legal challenge and withering criticism from SHM and other professional organizations prompted CMS to undo the withheld payments associated rule.11–13 In fact, hospitals also will see a one-time increase of 0.6% in fiscal 2017, making up for the 0.2% reduction to the rates of the last three years. SHM has said it will continue to advocate for further changes to the rule.

8. Medicaid Expansion Takes Hold

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia, under the auspices of the Affordable Care Act, have expanded Medicaid. One 2014 study in states including Minnesota, Kentucky, and Arizona showed a dramatic decrease in uninsured hospital stays and a significant increase in Medicaid stays. Meanwhile, in six states that did not expand, including Florida, Georgia, and Missouri, there was no significant change in payor mix.14

“What a lot of these early studies are saying is that when you expand Medicaid, people get on Medicaid, and that’s exactly what you hope will happen when you do a major public coverage expansion,” said Sayeh Nikpay, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., and a lead author of the 2014 Health Affairs study. “Physicians are grappling with payment issues, and it should be quite a relief that people are coming in the door with some kind of insurance rather than uninsured.”15

While expansion from 2015 to 2016 was the main story for Medicaid, many observers are now watching to see what President-elect Donald Trump will do. As a candidate, he campaigned to repeal Obamacare, and that may have significant impacts on the expansion of Medicaid.

9. Antimicrobial Stewardship Rules Upgrade

In July, The Joint Commission announced a new Medication Management (MM) standard for hospitals, critical-access hospitals, and nursing care centers that goes into effect in 2017.16,17 Its stated purpose is to improve quality and patient safety. The Joint Commission move came a year after President Barack Obama made combatting antibiotic-resistant bacteria a national issue.

“If you review the scientific literature, it will indicate that we’re in crisis mode right now because of this,” said Kelly Podgorny, DNP, MS, CPHQ, RN, project director at The Joint Commission. 16

The standard encourages the prioritization of establishing antimicrobial stewardship programs. It suggests staff members at institutions receive training and education on dispensing, administering, and monitoring antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial stewardship practice. And, in turn, those staffers should look to educate patients and caregivers on appropriate use of antimicrobial medications.

Lastly, when possible, an antimicrobial team should take a multidisciplinary approach and include an infectious disease physician, a pharmacist, and a practitioner.

 

10. Febrile-Infant Care Draws a Crowd

One of the most well-attended sessions at 2016 Pediatric Hospital Medicine in Chicago was an update on the anticipated American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) guidelines for febrile infants.18

The guidelines, for infants 7–90 days old, are aimed at providing pediatric hospitalists and others evidence-based guidelines, not rules, from the most recent literature available. The PHM16 session, presented by Kenneth Roberts, MD, highlighted the need to separate individual components of serious bacterial infections such as urinary tract infections (UTIs), bacteremia, and meningitis. Dr. Roberts noted that the incidence and clinical course can vary greatly for the different diagnoses.

The new criteria would be for full-term infants (37–43 weeks’ gestation) who are well-appearing and present with a temperature of 38°C. Exclusion criteria would include perinatal/prenatal/neonatal maternal fever, infection, or antimicrobial treatment; the presence of any evident infection; being technology-dependent; and the presence of congenital anomalies.

In particular, the new guidelines will look to risk-stratify management by age groups of 7–28 days, 29–60 days, and 61–90 days. The criteria are expected to be released in the next year.

---

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Quinn R. HM turns 20: a look at the evolution of hospitalist medicine. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
2. Wachter M, Goldman L. The emerging role of “hospitalists” in the American health care system. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:514-517.
3. Tyrrell KA. New hospitalist billing code should benefit hospitalists, patients. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
4. Doctoroff L, Dutta S. MACRA provides new direction for U.S. healthcare. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
5. Quinn R. Everything you need to know about the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
6. Quinn R. The state of hospital medicine is strong. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
7. Scheurer D. U.S. surgeon general encourages hospitalists to remain hopeful, motivated. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
8. Collins TR. HM16 speakers focus on public health, leadership, future of hospital medicine. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
9. Quinn R. SHM seats its first non-physician board member. The Hospitalist website. Accessed at November 14, 2016.
10. Carris J. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) eliminates two-midnight rule’s inpatient payment cuts: report. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
11. Schencker L. Judge tells HHS to revisit two-midnight rule’s inpatient pay cut. Healh Affairs website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
12. Tyrrell KA. Physicians critical of proposed changes to Medicare’s two-midnight rule. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
13. Tyrrell KA. Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, FHM, outlines to lawmakers hospitalist concerns about two-midnight rule, Medicare policies. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
14. Nikpay S, Buchmueller T, Levy HG. Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion reduced uninsured hospital stays in 2014. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(1):106-110.
15. Tyrrell KA. Benefits of Medicaid expansion for hospitalists. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
16. Bopp S. New standard announced for antimicrobial stewardship. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
17. Prepublication standards – new antimicrobial stewardship standard. The Joint Commission website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
18. 18. DeZure C. PHM16: the new AAP clinical practice guideline on evaluating, managing febrile infants. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.

From celebrating the 20th anniversary of hospital medicine’s arrival to rapid reimbursement reform to sought-after clarity for observation rules, the past 12 months have been eventful. The Hospitalist asked more than a dozen industry leaders what they thought were the biggest highlights of 2016. Here is what they said:

1. Happy Birthday, HM

August 15 marked the 20th anniversary of “The Emerging Role of ‘Hospitalists’ in the American Health Care System,”1 a New England Journal of Medicine paper authored by Lee Goldman, MD, and Robert Wachter, MD, MHM.2 It was the first time anyone defined what a hospitalist was, putting a sobriquet to an inpatient care model that had organically and independently started happening nationwide.

The paper laid the groundwork for a specialty that spread like a proverbial wildfire over the next 20 years. The model overcame early opposition from residents fearful they’d lose the ability to learn and critical-care specialists who wanted to maintain the caseloads they’d fought to build. The field has now swelled to an estimated 52,000 practitioners.

“I reflect back … and think today about what the hospitalist model brings to us,” James Merlino, MD, president and chief medical officer of Press Ganey’s strategic consulting division, told The Hospitalist. “It is an amazing transformation on how the hospitalist model really delivers.”1

2. Its Own Specialty Code

Hospitalist medicine received federal approval for its first dedicated specialty code3 in a decision hailed by many. The code, approved by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), should allow hospitalist-specific billing in 2017.

SHM leaders have long pushed for the code, particularly as healthcare transitions from fee-for-service (FFS) to quality-based payment models. Public Policy Committee Chair Ron Greeno, MD, MHM, says that a dedicated code is necessary to ensure that hospitalists are properly reimbursed for their work.

Historically, hospitalists have used codes more in line with the workload of general internal medicine, family medicine, and other specialties. But those codes don’t account for the complexity of what hospitalists deal with on a daily basis.

“We as hospitalists face unique challenges and work with patients from all demographics, often with severe illnesses, making it nearly impossible to rely on benchmarks used for these other specialties,” Dr. Greeno said.3

SHM pushed for the change and has said it is committed to educating members about how best to use it. Scott Sears, MD, FHM, CPE, MBA, chief clinical officer for Sound Physicians of Tacoma, Wash., said the move is great for HM but that more needs to be done to tailor billing and coding to the specialty’s actual workflow.

“A pediatric hospitalist may not want to be compared to an adult hospitalist. A critical-access hospitalist doesn’t want to be compared to a hospitalist in a tertiary academic medical center,” Dr. Sears said. “I don’t think it’s an end-all, be-all, but it’s a place to start.”3

3. Down with SGR, Long Live MACRA

While it’s unlikely hospitalists have that printed on bumper stickers, 2016 brought the end of the oft-maligned Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula. This was the first year under the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015, better known as MACRA.4

MACRA changes the ways hospitalists and other physicians are reimbursed by Medicare by continuing the broader trend of moving from volume-based reimbursements toward a value-based payment (VBP) system. Its two tracks for physicians to change how they get paid are the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) and the Alternative Payments Model (APM).

MIPS probably looks familiar because it is similar to the traditional FFS model. But to make value a more important factor in the reimbursement formula, MIPS will account for both volume and quality. APM allows physicians to opt out of MIPS by participating in other approved programs where providers take on “more than nominal” financial risk, report on their quality measures, and use certified electronic health record (EHR) technology.

 

4. The Surgeon General Is a Hospitalist

Any specialty’s annual meeting would be lucky to get the U.S. Surgeon General as a plenary speaker, but HM16 featured one of its own in hospitalist and U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, MD, MBA.

Dr. Murthy kicked off the confab in San Diego, and some 4,000 hospitalists listened to one of their own talk about ascending the highest perch a physician can attain in the federal government.7 Dr. Murthy, previously a hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, was confirmed as the 19th Surgeon General in December 2014.

In an address titled “Bringing Health to America,” Dr. Murthy inspired with tales of hope and encouraged hospitalists to make the pursuit of healthy appealing while improving the safety of our communities. In particular, he suggested hospitalists look to leverage their leadership to improve systems and to be a powerful force of change both inside the walls of their institution and in their communities.

“In the end, the world gets better when people choose to come together to make it better,” he said.8

5. Nurse Practitioner Joins SHM Board of Directors

At HM16, Tracy Cardin, ACNP-BC, SFHM, was the first nurse practitioner (NP) or physician assistant (PA) given voting privileges on the society’s oversight panel.

“I can’t describe to you how passionately I believe that [NPs and PAs] have a huge role moving forward,” Cardin said. “I think our representation, our visibility, has sort of been flabby and kind of under the wire for a long time. We can really impact the design of care models at the bedside in a way that’s innovative and more efficient and in a way that’s really huge. I think there’s a transformation that’s going to be coming, and we’re going to be a huge part of it.”9

With Cardin’s ascension, it has added the voice of another constituency to its board. She was previously chair of SHM’s Nurse Practitioner/Physician Assistant Committee and in 2015 received the society’s Award in Excellence in Hospital Medicine for NPs and PAs. She has been at the University of Chicago for about 10 years.

“It does send a message to the rest of our membership that SHM values those other constituencies and that this is not a physician membership organization but rather a membership organization comprised of people who are interested in improving healthcare for our hospitalized patients,” immediate past president Robert Harrington Jr., MD, SFHM said.10

6. The State of Hospital Medicine Is Strong

According to the biennial 2016 State of Hospital Medicine Report6 from SHM and partially populated by data from the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA), median compensation for adult hospitalists rose 10% to $278,746 from 2013 to 2015. The double-digit increase continues the steady climb of hospitalist pay, which is up 30% since 2010. At the same time, productivity is flattening.

And nearly all HM groups (HMGs)—96%—are still getting financial support, mostly from their host hospitals, in addition to their professional fee revenue. However, that median support, $157,535 per full-time employee (FTE), increased just 1%.

The slowing growth in that contribution is a harbinger that the level of financial support can no longer grow unabated, said Leslie Flores, MHA, a partner in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants and a member of SHM’s Practice Analysis Committee.

“We’re pretty close to that breaking point,” she said. “When we go around the country and do consulting work, we are hearing many more hospital leaders telling us, ‘We’re concerned about how much money this program is costing us, and we are getting to the point where we can’t afford it.’”6

 

7. Pay Cut for ‘Two-Midnight’ Rule for Observations Is No More

CMS announced a proposed rule in April that would have Medicare stop imposing an inpatient payment cut to hospitals under the “two-midnight” rule, according to a report in Modern Healthcare.10 The final rule went into effect in October.

The rule, which continues to be a contentious issue for hospitalists even with the pay cut being eliminated, was put in place in October 2013 to define which Medicare beneficiary hospital stays are appropriate for Medicare Part A payment by stating that if the physician expected the patient to stay for fewer than two midnights, then the services should be billed as outpatient (Medicare Part B) and not inpatient.

For two years, the only exception to the pay withhold was for those diagnoses that CMS designated as “inpatient only.” An overhaul of the rule in October 2015 stated that exceptions could be determined by the physician (or other practitioner) on a “case-by-case basis.”

But a legal challenge and withering criticism from SHM and other professional organizations prompted CMS to undo the withheld payments associated rule.11–13 In fact, hospitals also will see a one-time increase of 0.6% in fiscal 2017, making up for the 0.2% reduction to the rates of the last three years. SHM has said it will continue to advocate for further changes to the rule.

8. Medicaid Expansion Takes Hold

Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia, under the auspices of the Affordable Care Act, have expanded Medicaid. One 2014 study in states including Minnesota, Kentucky, and Arizona showed a dramatic decrease in uninsured hospital stays and a significant increase in Medicaid stays. Meanwhile, in six states that did not expand, including Florida, Georgia, and Missouri, there was no significant change in payor mix.14

“What a lot of these early studies are saying is that when you expand Medicaid, people get on Medicaid, and that’s exactly what you hope will happen when you do a major public coverage expansion,” said Sayeh Nikpay, PhD, MPH, assistant professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Nashville, Tenn., and a lead author of the 2014 Health Affairs study. “Physicians are grappling with payment issues, and it should be quite a relief that people are coming in the door with some kind of insurance rather than uninsured.”15

While expansion from 2015 to 2016 was the main story for Medicaid, many observers are now watching to see what President-elect Donald Trump will do. As a candidate, he campaigned to repeal Obamacare, and that may have significant impacts on the expansion of Medicaid.

9. Antimicrobial Stewardship Rules Upgrade

In July, The Joint Commission announced a new Medication Management (MM) standard for hospitals, critical-access hospitals, and nursing care centers that goes into effect in 2017.16,17 Its stated purpose is to improve quality and patient safety. The Joint Commission move came a year after President Barack Obama made combatting antibiotic-resistant bacteria a national issue.

“If you review the scientific literature, it will indicate that we’re in crisis mode right now because of this,” said Kelly Podgorny, DNP, MS, CPHQ, RN, project director at The Joint Commission. 16

The standard encourages the prioritization of establishing antimicrobial stewardship programs. It suggests staff members at institutions receive training and education on dispensing, administering, and monitoring antimicrobial resistance and antimicrobial stewardship practice. And, in turn, those staffers should look to educate patients and caregivers on appropriate use of antimicrobial medications.

Lastly, when possible, an antimicrobial team should take a multidisciplinary approach and include an infectious disease physician, a pharmacist, and a practitioner.

 

10. Febrile-Infant Care Draws a Crowd

One of the most well-attended sessions at 2016 Pediatric Hospital Medicine in Chicago was an update on the anticipated American Academy of Pediatricians (AAP) guidelines for febrile infants.18

The guidelines, for infants 7–90 days old, are aimed at providing pediatric hospitalists and others evidence-based guidelines, not rules, from the most recent literature available. The PHM16 session, presented by Kenneth Roberts, MD, highlighted the need to separate individual components of serious bacterial infections such as urinary tract infections (UTIs), bacteremia, and meningitis. Dr. Roberts noted that the incidence and clinical course can vary greatly for the different diagnoses.

The new criteria would be for full-term infants (37–43 weeks’ gestation) who are well-appearing and present with a temperature of 38°C. Exclusion criteria would include perinatal/prenatal/neonatal maternal fever, infection, or antimicrobial treatment; the presence of any evident infection; being technology-dependent; and the presence of congenital anomalies.

In particular, the new guidelines will look to risk-stratify management by age groups of 7–28 days, 29–60 days, and 61–90 days. The criteria are expected to be released in the next year.

---

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

References

1. Quinn R. HM turns 20: a look at the evolution of hospitalist medicine. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
2. Wachter M, Goldman L. The emerging role of “hospitalists” in the American health care system. N Engl J Med. 1996;335:514-517.
3. Tyrrell KA. New hospitalist billing code should benefit hospitalists, patients. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
4. Doctoroff L, Dutta S. MACRA provides new direction for U.S. healthcare. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
5. Quinn R. Everything you need to know about the Bundled Payments for Care Improvement Initiative. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
6. Quinn R. The state of hospital medicine is strong. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
7. Scheurer D. U.S. surgeon general encourages hospitalists to remain hopeful, motivated. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
8. Collins TR. HM16 speakers focus on public health, leadership, future of hospital medicine. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
9. Quinn R. SHM seats its first non-physician board member. The Hospitalist website. Accessed at November 14, 2016.
10. Carris J. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) eliminates two-midnight rule’s inpatient payment cuts: report. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
11. Schencker L. Judge tells HHS to revisit two-midnight rule’s inpatient pay cut. Healh Affairs website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
12. Tyrrell KA. Physicians critical of proposed changes to Medicare’s two-midnight rule. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
13. Tyrrell KA. Ann Sheehy, MD, MS, FHM, outlines to lawmakers hospitalist concerns about two-midnight rule, Medicare policies. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
14. Nikpay S, Buchmueller T, Levy HG. Affordable Care Act Medicaid expansion reduced uninsured hospital stays in 2014. Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(1):106-110.
15. Tyrrell KA. Benefits of Medicaid expansion for hospitalists. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
16. Bopp S. New standard announced for antimicrobial stewardship. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
17. Prepublication standards – new antimicrobial stewardship standard. The Joint Commission website. Accessed November 14, 2016.
18. 18. DeZure C. PHM16: the new AAP clinical practice guideline on evaluating, managing febrile infants. The Hospitalist website. Accessed November 14, 2016.

 

 

While in medical school, I learned about what was then called GRID (gay-related immune deficiency) and we now know as HIV/AIDS. I thought this condition would become so central to practice in nearly any specialty that I decided to try to keep up with all of the literature on it. It wasn’t yet in textbooks, so I thought it would be very important to keep up with all the new research studies and review articles about it.

 

I kept in my apartment a growing file of articles photocopied and torn out of journals. But I had badly misjudged the enormity of the task, and within a few years, there were far too many articles for me to read or keep up with in any fashion. Before long, HIV medicine became its own specialty, and while it has always been something I, like any hospitalist, need to know something about, I’ve left it to others to be the real HIV experts.

 

I was naive to have embarked on the quest. What seemed manageable at first became overwhelming very quickly. The same could be said for trying to keep up with new payment models.

 

New Professional Fee Reimbursement Models

For decades, most physicians could understand the general concept of how their professional activities generated revenue. But it’s gotten a lot more complicated lately.

 

The growing prevalence of capitation and other managed-care reimbursement models in the ’80s and ’90s might have been when reimbursement complexity began to increase significantly. But while nearly every doctor in the country heard about managed care, for many, it was something happening elsewhere that never made its way to them.

 

But for hospitalists, I think the arrival of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS, originally Physician Quality Reporting Initiative, or PQRI) marks the swerve in reimbursement complexity. Some years ago I wrote in these pages about the importance of hospitalists understanding PQRS and described key features of the program.

 

Like HIV/AIDS medicine literature, the breadth and complexity of reimbursement programs from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (and other payors) seem to have grown logarithmically since PQRS. The still relatively new bundled payment and MACRA-related models are far more complicated than PQRS. And they change often. Calendar milestones come and go with changes in relevant metrics and performance thresholds, etc. Even the terminology changes frequently. Did you know, for example, that under MIPSi “Advancing Care Information” is essentially a new name for EHR Meaningful Use?

 

Bundled payments and MACRA are only a small portion of new models implemented over the last few years. There are many others, and dedicated effort is required just to keep track of whether each model influences only physicians (and other providers), only hospitals, or both.

 

Clinicians’ Responsibility for Keeping Up

My thinking about most hospitalists, or doctors in any specialty, keeping up with all of these models has evolved the same way it did with HIV/AIDS. I think it’s pretty clear that it’s folly to expect most clinicians to know more than the broad outlines of these programs.

 

Payment models are important. Someone needs to know them in detail, but clinicians should reserve brain cells for clinical knowledge base and focus only on the big picture of payment models. Think how well you’ve done learning and keeping up with CPT coding, observation versus inpatient status determinations, and clinical documentation. You probably still aren’t an expert at these things, so is it wise to set about becoming an expert in new payment models?

 

Instead, most hospitalists should rely on others to keep up with the precise details of these programs. Most commonly that will mean our employer will appoint or hire one or more people, or engage an outside party, to do this.

 

 

Don’t Feel Guilty

It’s common to leave a presentation or doctor’s lounge conversation on payment models feeling like you need to study up on the details of this or that payment model since good performance under that model will be important for your paycheck and to remain a viable “player.” And speakers sometimes intentionally or unintentionally enhance your anxiety about this. Maybe they love to show off what they know, and it’s easy for them to think only about their topic and not keep in mind all of the other stuff you need to know.

 

It’s terrific if someone in your practice is particularly interested in payment models and chooses to stay on top of them. Just make sure that doesn’t come at the expense of keeping up with changes in clinical practice. Most groups won’t have such a person and should rely on others, including SHM, without feeling the smallest bit of guilt.

 

SHM is advocating on behalf of hospitalists and working diligently to distill the impact MACRA and its various alternative payment frameworks will have on hospital medicine. With webinars, Q&As, and additional online and print resources, SHM will continue to provide digestible updates for hospitalists and their practices.

 

The End of Small-Group Physician Practice?

While the intent of these programs is to encourage and reward improvements in clinical practice, keeping up with and managing them is a tax that takes resources away from clinical practice. This is an especially difficult burden for small private practices and may prove to be a significant factor in nearly extinguishing them. There are relatively few small private hospitalist groups,ii but all of them should carefully consider how they will keep up with new reimbursement models.

 

 

While in medical school, I learned about what was then called GRID (gay-related immune deficiency) and we now know as HIV/AIDS. I thought this condition would become so central to practice in nearly any specialty that I decided to try to keep up with all of the literature on it. It wasn’t yet in textbooks, so I thought it would be very important to keep up with all the new research studies and review articles about it.

 

I kept in my apartment a growing file of articles photocopied and torn out of journals. But I had badly misjudged the enormity of the task, and within a few years, there were far too many articles for me to read or keep up with in any fashion. Before long, HIV medicine became its own specialty, and while it has always been something I, like any hospitalist, need to know something about, I’ve left it to others to be the real HIV experts.

 

I was naive to have embarked on the quest. What seemed manageable at first became overwhelming very quickly. The same could be said for trying to keep up with new payment models.

 

New Professional Fee Reimbursement Models

For decades, most physicians could understand the general concept of how their professional activities generated revenue. But it’s gotten a lot more complicated lately.

 

The growing prevalence of capitation and other managed-care reimbursement models in the ’80s and ’90s might have been when reimbursement complexity began to increase significantly. But while nearly every doctor in the country heard about managed care, for many, it was something happening elsewhere that never made its way to them.

 

But for hospitalists, I think the arrival of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS, originally Physician Quality Reporting Initiative, or PQRI) marks the swerve in reimbursement complexity. Some years ago I wrote in these pages about the importance of hospitalists understanding PQRS and described key features of the program.

 

Like HIV/AIDS medicine literature, the breadth and complexity of reimbursement programs from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (and other payors) seem to have grown logarithmically since PQRS. The still relatively new bundled payment and MACRA-related models are far more complicated than PQRS. And they change often. Calendar milestones come and go with changes in relevant metrics and performance thresholds, etc. Even the terminology changes frequently. Did you know, for example, that under MIPSi “Advancing Care Information” is essentially a new name for EHR Meaningful Use?

 

Bundled payments and MACRA are only a small portion of new models implemented over the last few years. There are many others, and dedicated effort is required just to keep track of whether each model influences only physicians (and other providers), only hospitals, or both.

 

Clinicians’ Responsibility for Keeping Up

My thinking about most hospitalists, or doctors in any specialty, keeping up with all of these models has evolved the same way it did with HIV/AIDS. I think it’s pretty clear that it’s folly to expect most clinicians to know more than the broad outlines of these programs.

 

Payment models are important. Someone needs to know them in detail, but clinicians should reserve brain cells for clinical knowledge base and focus only on the big picture of payment models. Think how well you’ve done learning and keeping up with CPT coding, observation versus inpatient status determinations, and clinical documentation. You probably still aren’t an expert at these things, so is it wise to set about becoming an expert in new payment models?

 

Instead, most hospitalists should rely on others to keep up with the precise details of these programs. Most commonly that will mean our employer will appoint or hire one or more people, or engage an outside party, to do this.

 

 

Don’t Feel Guilty

It’s common to leave a presentation or doctor’s lounge conversation on payment models feeling like you need to study up on the details of this or that payment model since good performance under that model will be important for your paycheck and to remain a viable “player.” And speakers sometimes intentionally or unintentionally enhance your anxiety about this. Maybe they love to show off what they know, and it’s easy for them to think only about their topic and not keep in mind all of the other stuff you need to know.

 

It’s terrific if someone in your practice is particularly interested in payment models and chooses to stay on top of them. Just make sure that doesn’t come at the expense of keeping up with changes in clinical practice. Most groups won’t have such a person and should rely on others, including SHM, without feeling the smallest bit of guilt.

 

SHM is advocating on behalf of hospitalists and working diligently to distill the impact MACRA and its various alternative payment frameworks will have on hospital medicine. With webinars, Q&As, and additional online and print resources, SHM will continue to provide digestible updates for hospitalists and their practices.

 

The End of Small-Group Physician Practice?

While the intent of these programs is to encourage and reward improvements in clinical practice, keeping up with and managing them is a tax that takes resources away from clinical practice. This is an especially difficult burden for small private practices and may prove to be a significant factor in nearly extinguishing them. There are relatively few small private hospitalist groups,ii but all of them should carefully consider how they will keep up with new reimbursement models.

 

 

While in medical school, I learned about what was then called GRID (gay-related immune deficiency) and we now know as HIV/AIDS. I thought this condition would become so central to practice in nearly any specialty that I decided to try to keep up with all of the literature on it. It wasn’t yet in textbooks, so I thought it would be very important to keep up with all the new research studies and review articles about it.

 

I kept in my apartment a growing file of articles photocopied and torn out of journals. But I had badly misjudged the enormity of the task, and within a few years, there were far too many articles for me to read or keep up with in any fashion. Before long, HIV medicine became its own specialty, and while it has always been something I, like any hospitalist, need to know something about, I’ve left it to others to be the real HIV experts.

 

I was naive to have embarked on the quest. What seemed manageable at first became overwhelming very quickly. The same could be said for trying to keep up with new payment models.

 

New Professional Fee Reimbursement Models

For decades, most physicians could understand the general concept of how their professional activities generated revenue. But it’s gotten a lot more complicated lately.

 

The growing prevalence of capitation and other managed-care reimbursement models in the ’80s and ’90s might have been when reimbursement complexity began to increase significantly. But while nearly every doctor in the country heard about managed care, for many, it was something happening elsewhere that never made its way to them.

 

But for hospitalists, I think the arrival of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS, originally Physician Quality Reporting Initiative, or PQRI) marks the swerve in reimbursement complexity. Some years ago I wrote in these pages about the importance of hospitalists understanding PQRS and described key features of the program.

 

Like HIV/AIDS medicine literature, the breadth and complexity of reimbursement programs from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (and other payors) seem to have grown logarithmically since PQRS. The still relatively new bundled payment and MACRA-related models are far more complicated than PQRS. And they change often. Calendar milestones come and go with changes in relevant metrics and performance thresholds, etc. Even the terminology changes frequently. Did you know, for example, that under MIPSi “Advancing Care Information” is essentially a new name for EHR Meaningful Use?

 

Bundled payments and MACRA are only a small portion of new models implemented over the last few years. There are many others, and dedicated effort is required just to keep track of whether each model influences only physicians (and other providers), only hospitals, or both.

 

Clinicians’ Responsibility for Keeping Up

My thinking about most hospitalists, or doctors in any specialty, keeping up with all of these models has evolved the same way it did with HIV/AIDS. I think it’s pretty clear that it’s folly to expect most clinicians to know more than the broad outlines of these programs.

 

Payment models are important. Someone needs to know them in detail, but clinicians should reserve brain cells for clinical knowledge base and focus only on the big picture of payment models. Think how well you’ve done learning and keeping up with CPT coding, observation versus inpatient status determinations, and clinical documentation. You probably still aren’t an expert at these things, so is it wise to set about becoming an expert in new payment models?

 

Instead, most hospitalists should rely on others to keep up with the precise details of these programs. Most commonly that will mean our employer will appoint or hire one or more people, or engage an outside party, to do this.

 

 

Don’t Feel Guilty

It’s common to leave a presentation or doctor’s lounge conversation on payment models feeling like you need to study up on the details of this or that payment model since good performance under that model will be important for your paycheck and to remain a viable “player.” And speakers sometimes intentionally or unintentionally enhance your anxiety about this. Maybe they love to show off what they know, and it’s easy for them to think only about their topic and not keep in mind all of the other stuff you need to know.

 

It’s terrific if someone in your practice is particularly interested in payment models and chooses to stay on top of them. Just make sure that doesn’t come at the expense of keeping up with changes in clinical practice. Most groups won’t have such a person and should rely on others, including SHM, without feeling the smallest bit of guilt.

 

SHM is advocating on behalf of hospitalists and working diligently to distill the impact MACRA and its various alternative payment frameworks will have on hospital medicine. With webinars, Q&As, and additional online and print resources, SHM will continue to provide digestible updates for hospitalists and their practices.

 

The End of Small-Group Physician Practice?

While the intent of these programs is to encourage and reward improvements in clinical practice, keeping up with and managing them is a tax that takes resources away from clinical practice. This is an especially difficult burden for small private practices and may prove to be a significant factor in nearly extinguishing them. There are relatively few small private hospitalist groups,ii but all of them should carefully consider how they will keep up with new reimbursement models.

SAN DIEGO – Rising rates of pediatric venous thromboembolism in the United States underscore the need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of placing central lines, Julie Jaffray, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are especially likely to lead to deep vein thrombosis in children, said Dr. Jaffray of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California. Children and adolescents who received PICCs had about fourfold the rate of this outcome in the next 6 months as did those who received tunneled lines, based on interim results from her first-in-kind, prospective multicenter observational study.

Amy Karon

However, tunneled lines were significantly more likely than were PICCs to lead to central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), Dr. Jaffray noted. She and her associates continue to accrue patients and are planning multivariate analyses to eliminate potential confounders and pinpoint which characteristics of central lines and patient care are leading to thrombosis and infection, she said.

Earlier research has shown that the placement of PICCs approximately doubled at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles between 2005 and 2012, while the use of tunneled lines remained constant at a much-lower rate, Dr. Jaffray noted.

To better understand how central lines contribute to pediatric thrombotic events, she and her associates at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston are studying patients aged 6 months to 18 years who had these devices placed at their centers starting in 2013. To parse out risk factors, the investigators are analyzing numerous relevant keywords from nursing notes and other parts of electronic health records.

As of October 2016, the study included 1,096 patients who received a total of 1,233 central lines related to the treatment of cancer, infection, and other serious conditions. Among 827 PICC recipients, the 6-month cumulative rate of venous thromboembolism was 7.5%. In contrast, only 406 patients received tunneled lines, and only 2% developed venous thromboembolism (P = .004).

But tunneled lines had their own risks. About 16% of recipients developed CLABSI within 6 months, compared with 9% of children who received PICCs (P = .005). The overall rate of CLABSI was 12%, Dr. Jaffray noted.

Thromboses were identified a median of 15 days after PICC placement and 40 days after tunneled line placement, she said. Children with leukemia, other cancers, and congenital heart disease were at significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism, as were children who received multilumen catheters, she noted.

Ongoing analyses should lead to new guidelines on pediatric catheter selection, insertion techniques, and the prophylactic use of anticoagulation or antiseptics, Dr. Jaffray said. She also is planning a separate study of children younger than 6 months, to examine their unique coagulation systems, she added.

The conclusion at this point is that two-thirds of this cohort received PICCs instead of tunneled lines, and 85% of venous thromboembolism episodes occurred in PICC recipients, Dr. Jaffray emphasized. “Due to their ease of insertion, PICCs are being placed at increasing rates in some pediatric centers, [and] this may be the leading factor for the increasing incidence of pediatric venous thromboembolism,” she commented. “A lot of us pediatric treaters aren’t necessarily giving anticoagulation for an incidental clot, but I think this is something we certainly need to look at. And maybe if we can choose the patients who are at highest risk of VTE, we can consider prophylactic anticoagulation in those kids.”

Dr. Jaffray did not report funding sources and had no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Rising rates of pediatric venous thromboembolism in the United States underscore the need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of placing central lines, Julie Jaffray, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are especially likely to lead to deep vein thrombosis in children, said Dr. Jaffray of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California. Children and adolescents who received PICCs had about fourfold the rate of this outcome in the next 6 months as did those who received tunneled lines, based on interim results from her first-in-kind, prospective multicenter observational study.

Amy Karon

However, tunneled lines were significantly more likely than were PICCs to lead to central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), Dr. Jaffray noted. She and her associates continue to accrue patients and are planning multivariate analyses to eliminate potential confounders and pinpoint which characteristics of central lines and patient care are leading to thrombosis and infection, she said.

Earlier research has shown that the placement of PICCs approximately doubled at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles between 2005 and 2012, while the use of tunneled lines remained constant at a much-lower rate, Dr. Jaffray noted.

To better understand how central lines contribute to pediatric thrombotic events, she and her associates at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston are studying patients aged 6 months to 18 years who had these devices placed at their centers starting in 2013. To parse out risk factors, the investigators are analyzing numerous relevant keywords from nursing notes and other parts of electronic health records.

As of October 2016, the study included 1,096 patients who received a total of 1,233 central lines related to the treatment of cancer, infection, and other serious conditions. Among 827 PICC recipients, the 6-month cumulative rate of venous thromboembolism was 7.5%. In contrast, only 406 patients received tunneled lines, and only 2% developed venous thromboembolism (P = .004).

But tunneled lines had their own risks. About 16% of recipients developed CLABSI within 6 months, compared with 9% of children who received PICCs (P = .005). The overall rate of CLABSI was 12%, Dr. Jaffray noted.

Thromboses were identified a median of 15 days after PICC placement and 40 days after tunneled line placement, she said. Children with leukemia, other cancers, and congenital heart disease were at significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism, as were children who received multilumen catheters, she noted.

Ongoing analyses should lead to new guidelines on pediatric catheter selection, insertion techniques, and the prophylactic use of anticoagulation or antiseptics, Dr. Jaffray said. She also is planning a separate study of children younger than 6 months, to examine their unique coagulation systems, she added.

The conclusion at this point is that two-thirds of this cohort received PICCs instead of tunneled lines, and 85% of venous thromboembolism episodes occurred in PICC recipients, Dr. Jaffray emphasized. “Due to their ease of insertion, PICCs are being placed at increasing rates in some pediatric centers, [and] this may be the leading factor for the increasing incidence of pediatric venous thromboembolism,” she commented. “A lot of us pediatric treaters aren’t necessarily giving anticoagulation for an incidental clot, but I think this is something we certainly need to look at. And maybe if we can choose the patients who are at highest risk of VTE, we can consider prophylactic anticoagulation in those kids.”

Dr. Jaffray did not report funding sources and had no relevant financial disclosures.

SAN DIEGO – Rising rates of pediatric venous thromboembolism in the United States underscore the need to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of placing central lines, Julie Jaffray, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology.

Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are especially likely to lead to deep vein thrombosis in children, said Dr. Jaffray of Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, University of Southern California. Children and adolescents who received PICCs had about fourfold the rate of this outcome in the next 6 months as did those who received tunneled lines, based on interim results from her first-in-kind, prospective multicenter observational study.

Amy Karon

However, tunneled lines were significantly more likely than were PICCs to lead to central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI), Dr. Jaffray noted. She and her associates continue to accrue patients and are planning multivariate analyses to eliminate potential confounders and pinpoint which characteristics of central lines and patient care are leading to thrombosis and infection, she said.

Earlier research has shown that the placement of PICCs approximately doubled at Children’s Hospital Los Angeles between 2005 and 2012, while the use of tunneled lines remained constant at a much-lower rate, Dr. Jaffray noted.

To better understand how central lines contribute to pediatric thrombotic events, she and her associates at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston are studying patients aged 6 months to 18 years who had these devices placed at their centers starting in 2013. To parse out risk factors, the investigators are analyzing numerous relevant keywords from nursing notes and other parts of electronic health records.

As of October 2016, the study included 1,096 patients who received a total of 1,233 central lines related to the treatment of cancer, infection, and other serious conditions. Among 827 PICC recipients, the 6-month cumulative rate of venous thromboembolism was 7.5%. In contrast, only 406 patients received tunneled lines, and only 2% developed venous thromboembolism (P = .004).

But tunneled lines had their own risks. About 16% of recipients developed CLABSI within 6 months, compared with 9% of children who received PICCs (P = .005). The overall rate of CLABSI was 12%, Dr. Jaffray noted.

Thromboses were identified a median of 15 days after PICC placement and 40 days after tunneled line placement, she said. Children with leukemia, other cancers, and congenital heart disease were at significantly increased risk of venous thromboembolism, as were children who received multilumen catheters, she noted.

Ongoing analyses should lead to new guidelines on pediatric catheter selection, insertion techniques, and the prophylactic use of anticoagulation or antiseptics, Dr. Jaffray said. She also is planning a separate study of children younger than 6 months, to examine their unique coagulation systems, she added.

The conclusion at this point is that two-thirds of this cohort received PICCs instead of tunneled lines, and 85% of venous thromboembolism episodes occurred in PICC recipients, Dr. Jaffray emphasized. “Due to their ease of insertion, PICCs are being placed at increasing rates in some pediatric centers, [and] this may be the leading factor for the increasing incidence of pediatric venous thromboembolism,” she commented. “A lot of us pediatric treaters aren’t necessarily giving anticoagulation for an incidental clot, but I think this is something we certainly need to look at. And maybe if we can choose the patients who are at highest risk of VTE, we can consider prophylactic anticoagulation in those kids.”

Dr. Jaffray did not report funding sources and had no relevant financial disclosures.

 

NEW ORLEANS – The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy providing financial incentives for hospitals to readmit patients for heart failure for an observational stay rather than as an inpatient is antithetical to the patients’ best interests, according to data presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“We showed that if you get admitted under observation, the risk of you coming back is much higher than if you’re under an inpatient stay,” said Ahmad Masri, MBBS, of the University of Pittsburgh.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

CMS doesn’t impose financial penalties on hospitals for readmission of heart failure patients under observational status, and such stays don’t count as inpatient readmissions. Savvy administrators therefore encourage gaming the system through liberal use of the observational stay.

“Since CMS instituted this rule in 2013, there has been a surge in utilization of observational status versus inpatient status,” Dr. Masri noted.

That might make sense if the patients selected for in-hospital observation were less ill at the time than the heart failure patients admitted as inpatients, but that wasn’t the case in his large, retrospective study.

Dr. Masri reported on 21,339 patients with a total of 52,493 admissions for a primary diagnosis of heart failure during 2008-2015 in an 18-hospital health care system. After excluding admissions which involved cardiac surgery or in-hospital mortality, the total was 50,654 admissions.

Of these admissions, 5% were for in-hospital observation; 17% were inpatient admissions with discharge in less than 2 days. The two groups were similar in terms of age, comorbid conditions, and use of guideline-directed medications, although 36% of patients admitted under observation had a left ventricular ejection fraction below 40%, compared with 30% of those with an inpatient admission for less than 2 days.

The majority of patients in both groups were readmitted for heart failure within 1 year; however, the readmission rate was 23% lower in the group with an inpatient stay of less than 2 days, in an analysis adjusted for age, sex, ejection fraction, hypertension, diabetes, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, liver disease, and renal failure.

Similarly, the group with an inpatient stay of less than 2 days’ duration was 24% less likely to have a cardiac readmission within 1 year than the group admitted for a penalty-free observational stay. The short inpatient stay group’s 1-year all-cause readmission rate was also 24% lower. All of these differences were statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

Yet 1-year all-cause mortality in the two groups was no different.

“This suggests that the difference between these two groups is more of an administrative distinction than a reflection of patient status at time of admission. It looks like it’s just random,” according to Dr. Masri. “There is a real need for a patient-centered, streamlined approach in evaluating and treating patients with heart failure, with a revised treatment-based algorithm and admission rules that guide physicians and shape health care policy.”

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding this study.

[email protected]
 

 

NEW ORLEANS – The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy providing financial incentives for hospitals to readmit patients for heart failure for an observational stay rather than as an inpatient is antithetical to the patients’ best interests, according to data presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“We showed that if you get admitted under observation, the risk of you coming back is much higher than if you’re under an inpatient stay,” said Ahmad Masri, MBBS, of the University of Pittsburgh.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

CMS doesn’t impose financial penalties on hospitals for readmission of heart failure patients under observational status, and such stays don’t count as inpatient readmissions. Savvy administrators therefore encourage gaming the system through liberal use of the observational stay.

“Since CMS instituted this rule in 2013, there has been a surge in utilization of observational status versus inpatient status,” Dr. Masri noted.

That might make sense if the patients selected for in-hospital observation were less ill at the time than the heart failure patients admitted as inpatients, but that wasn’t the case in his large, retrospective study.

Dr. Masri reported on 21,339 patients with a total of 52,493 admissions for a primary diagnosis of heart failure during 2008-2015 in an 18-hospital health care system. After excluding admissions which involved cardiac surgery or in-hospital mortality, the total was 50,654 admissions.

Of these admissions, 5% were for in-hospital observation; 17% were inpatient admissions with discharge in less than 2 days. The two groups were similar in terms of age, comorbid conditions, and use of guideline-directed medications, although 36% of patients admitted under observation had a left ventricular ejection fraction below 40%, compared with 30% of those with an inpatient admission for less than 2 days.

The majority of patients in both groups were readmitted for heart failure within 1 year; however, the readmission rate was 23% lower in the group with an inpatient stay of less than 2 days, in an analysis adjusted for age, sex, ejection fraction, hypertension, diabetes, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, liver disease, and renal failure.

Similarly, the group with an inpatient stay of less than 2 days’ duration was 24% less likely to have a cardiac readmission within 1 year than the group admitted for a penalty-free observational stay. The short inpatient stay group’s 1-year all-cause readmission rate was also 24% lower. All of these differences were statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

Yet 1-year all-cause mortality in the two groups was no different.

“This suggests that the difference between these two groups is more of an administrative distinction than a reflection of patient status at time of admission. It looks like it’s just random,” according to Dr. Masri. “There is a real need for a patient-centered, streamlined approach in evaluating and treating patients with heart failure, with a revised treatment-based algorithm and admission rules that guide physicians and shape health care policy.”

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding this study.

[email protected]
 

 

NEW ORLEANS – The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services policy providing financial incentives for hospitals to readmit patients for heart failure for an observational stay rather than as an inpatient is antithetical to the patients’ best interests, according to data presented at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

“We showed that if you get admitted under observation, the risk of you coming back is much higher than if you’re under an inpatient stay,” said Ahmad Masri, MBBS, of the University of Pittsburgh.

Bruce Jancin/Frontline Medical News

CMS doesn’t impose financial penalties on hospitals for readmission of heart failure patients under observational status, and such stays don’t count as inpatient readmissions. Savvy administrators therefore encourage gaming the system through liberal use of the observational stay.

“Since CMS instituted this rule in 2013, there has been a surge in utilization of observational status versus inpatient status,” Dr. Masri noted.

That might make sense if the patients selected for in-hospital observation were less ill at the time than the heart failure patients admitted as inpatients, but that wasn’t the case in his large, retrospective study.

Dr. Masri reported on 21,339 patients with a total of 52,493 admissions for a primary diagnosis of heart failure during 2008-2015 in an 18-hospital health care system. After excluding admissions which involved cardiac surgery or in-hospital mortality, the total was 50,654 admissions.

Of these admissions, 5% were for in-hospital observation; 17% were inpatient admissions with discharge in less than 2 days. The two groups were similar in terms of age, comorbid conditions, and use of guideline-directed medications, although 36% of patients admitted under observation had a left ventricular ejection fraction below 40%, compared with 30% of those with an inpatient admission for less than 2 days.

The majority of patients in both groups were readmitted for heart failure within 1 year; however, the readmission rate was 23% lower in the group with an inpatient stay of less than 2 days, in an analysis adjusted for age, sex, ejection fraction, hypertension, diabetes, pneumonia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, liver disease, and renal failure.

Similarly, the group with an inpatient stay of less than 2 days’ duration was 24% less likely to have a cardiac readmission within 1 year than the group admitted for a penalty-free observational stay. The short inpatient stay group’s 1-year all-cause readmission rate was also 24% lower. All of these differences were statistically significant and clinically meaningful.

Yet 1-year all-cause mortality in the two groups was no different.

“This suggests that the difference between these two groups is more of an administrative distinction than a reflection of patient status at time of admission. It looks like it’s just random,” according to Dr. Masri. “There is a real need for a patient-centered, streamlined approach in evaluating and treating patients with heart failure, with a revised treatment-based algorithm and admission rules that guide physicians and shape health care policy.”

He reported having no financial conflicts of interest regarding this study.

[email protected]
 

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one or more of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.”

View a chart outlining key communication tactics

What I Say and Do

At every opportunity, I position and endorse my colleagues who are or will be participating in my patient’s care by describing their roles and expressing my confidence in their abilities.

Why I Do It

It is vital that our patients feel assured they are being cared for by a high-functioning team of experts. During any given hospital stay, our patients will meet consulting physicians, nurses, therapists, case managers … The list goes on and on. Each person plays a vital part in patients’ care. But it can be difficult for patients to understand every person’s role and to feel assured that each person is highly skilled and aligned with the care plan.

As hospitalists, we are in a unique position to provide a foundation of assuredness and confidence that is a cornerstone of patient experience before our teammates meet patients. When we miss this opportunity, our patients perceive us as a sea of white coats passing in and out of their rooms rather than a cohesive team with their best interests at heart.

How I Do It

Let’s take the example of an elderly patient admitted for a hip fracture after a fall. Alongside the hospitalist will be the orthopedic surgeon, nurse, physical therapist, and case manager, all working toward an optimal outcome. In each case, the hospitalist can choose to provide no information about these team members or to position them for a positive first impression.

Here are the steps to take when positioning colleagues with patients:

1. Identify team members and explain their roles.
2. Endorse colleagues by expressing honest confidence in their expertise and ability.
3. Describe how communication between you and your team members will work.
4. Assure the patient that during handoff, your colleagues will be up-to-date and aligned with the plan.
5. Tell your patients they are part of a team dedicated to a safe and effective hospitalization.

---

Mark Shapiro, MD, is medical director for hospital medicine at St. Joseph Health Medical Group in Santa Rosa, Calif., and producer and host of Explore the Space podcast (explorethespaceshow.com).

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one or more of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.”

View a chart outlining key communication tactics

What I Say and Do

At every opportunity, I position and endorse my colleagues who are or will be participating in my patient’s care by describing their roles and expressing my confidence in their abilities.

Why I Do It

It is vital that our patients feel assured they are being cared for by a high-functioning team of experts. During any given hospital stay, our patients will meet consulting physicians, nurses, therapists, case managers … The list goes on and on. Each person plays a vital part in patients’ care. But it can be difficult for patients to understand every person’s role and to feel assured that each person is highly skilled and aligned with the care plan.

As hospitalists, we are in a unique position to provide a foundation of assuredness and confidence that is a cornerstone of patient experience before our teammates meet patients. When we miss this opportunity, our patients perceive us as a sea of white coats passing in and out of their rooms rather than a cohesive team with their best interests at heart.

How I Do It

Let’s take the example of an elderly patient admitted for a hip fracture after a fall. Alongside the hospitalist will be the orthopedic surgeon, nurse, physical therapist, and case manager, all working toward an optimal outcome. In each case, the hospitalist can choose to provide no information about these team members or to position them for a positive first impression.

Here are the steps to take when positioning colleagues with patients:

1. Identify team members and explain their roles.
2. Endorse colleagues by expressing honest confidence in their expertise and ability.
3. Describe how communication between you and your team members will work.
4. Assure the patient that during handoff, your colleagues will be up-to-date and aligned with the plan.
5. Tell your patients they are part of a team dedicated to a safe and effective hospitalization.

---

Mark Shapiro, MD, is medical director for hospital medicine at St. Joseph Health Medical Group in Santa Rosa, Calif., and producer and host of Explore the Space podcast (explorethespaceshow.com).

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one or more of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings, and well-being.”

View a chart outlining key communication tactics

What I Say and Do

At every opportunity, I position and endorse my colleagues who are or will be participating in my patient’s care by describing their roles and expressing my confidence in their abilities.

Why I Do It

It is vital that our patients feel assured they are being cared for by a high-functioning team of experts. During any given hospital stay, our patients will meet consulting physicians, nurses, therapists, case managers … The list goes on and on. Each person plays a vital part in patients’ care. But it can be difficult for patients to understand every person’s role and to feel assured that each person is highly skilled and aligned with the care plan.

As hospitalists, we are in a unique position to provide a foundation of assuredness and confidence that is a cornerstone of patient experience before our teammates meet patients. When we miss this opportunity, our patients perceive us as a sea of white coats passing in and out of their rooms rather than a cohesive team with their best interests at heart.

How I Do It

Let’s take the example of an elderly patient admitted for a hip fracture after a fall. Alongside the hospitalist will be the orthopedic surgeon, nurse, physical therapist, and case manager, all working toward an optimal outcome. In each case, the hospitalist can choose to provide no information about these team members or to position them for a positive first impression.

Here are the steps to take when positioning colleagues with patients:

1. Identify team members and explain their roles.
2. Endorse colleagues by expressing honest confidence in their expertise and ability.
3. Describe how communication between you and your team members will work.
4. Assure the patient that during handoff, your colleagues will be up-to-date and aligned with the plan.
5. Tell your patients they are part of a team dedicated to a safe and effective hospitalization.

---

Mark Shapiro, MD, is medical director for hospital medicine at St. Joseph Health Medical Group in Santa Rosa, Calif., and producer and host of Explore the Space podcast (explorethespaceshow.com).