All Content

Clinical Question: Can an objective measurement of critical illness inform intensive care unit (ICU) transfer timeliness?

Background: Early intervention has shown mortality benefit in many critical illness syndromes, yet heterogeneity in timing of ICU transfer exists. Previous studies examining ICU transfer timeliness have mostly focused on subjective criteria.

Study Design: Retrospective observational cohort study.

Setting: Medical-surgical units at five hospitals including the University of Chicago and NorthShore University HealthSystem in Illinois.

Synopsis: All medical-surgical ward patients between November 2008 and January 2013 were scored using eCART, a previously validated objective scoring system, to decide when transfer was appropriate. Of those, 3,789 patients reached the predetermined threshold for critical illness. Transfers more than six hours after crossing the threshold were considered delayed. Patients with delayed transfer had a statistically significant increase in length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality (33.2% versus 24.5%; P < 0.001), and the mortality increase was linear, with a 3% increase in odds for each one hour of further transfer delay (P < 0.001). The rate of change of eCART score did influence time of transfer, and the authors suggest that rapid changes were more likely to be recognized. They postulate that routine implementation of eCART or similar objective scoring may lead to earlier recognition of necessary ICU transfer and thus improve mortality and LOS, and they suggest this as a topic for future trials.

Bottom Line: Delayed ICU transfer negatively affects LOS and in-hospital mortality. Objective criteria may identify more appropriate timing of transfer. Clinical trials to investigate this are warranted.

Citation: Churpek MM, Wendlandt B, Zadravecz FJ, Adhikari R, Winslow C, Edelson DP. Association between intensive care unit transfer delay and hospital mortality: a multicenter investigation [published online ahead of print June 28, 2016]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2630.

Short Take

Intranasal Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine Not Recommended

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends against use of the nasal spray live attenuated influenza vaccine. This is based on data showing poor effectiveness in prior years.

Citation: ACIP votes down use of LAIV for 2016-2017 flu season [press release]. CDC website.

Clinical Question: Can an objective measurement of critical illness inform intensive care unit (ICU) transfer timeliness?

Background: Early intervention has shown mortality benefit in many critical illness syndromes, yet heterogeneity in timing of ICU transfer exists. Previous studies examining ICU transfer timeliness have mostly focused on subjective criteria.

Study Design: Retrospective observational cohort study.

Setting: Medical-surgical units at five hospitals including the University of Chicago and NorthShore University HealthSystem in Illinois.

Synopsis: All medical-surgical ward patients between November 2008 and January 2013 were scored using eCART, a previously validated objective scoring system, to decide when transfer was appropriate. Of those, 3,789 patients reached the predetermined threshold for critical illness. Transfers more than six hours after crossing the threshold were considered delayed. Patients with delayed transfer had a statistically significant increase in length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality (33.2% versus 24.5%; P < 0.001), and the mortality increase was linear, with a 3% increase in odds for each one hour of further transfer delay (P < 0.001). The rate of change of eCART score did influence time of transfer, and the authors suggest that rapid changes were more likely to be recognized. They postulate that routine implementation of eCART or similar objective scoring may lead to earlier recognition of necessary ICU transfer and thus improve mortality and LOS, and they suggest this as a topic for future trials.

Bottom Line: Delayed ICU transfer negatively affects LOS and in-hospital mortality. Objective criteria may identify more appropriate timing of transfer. Clinical trials to investigate this are warranted.

Citation: Churpek MM, Wendlandt B, Zadravecz FJ, Adhikari R, Winslow C, Edelson DP. Association between intensive care unit transfer delay and hospital mortality: a multicenter investigation [published online ahead of print June 28, 2016]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2630.

Short Take

Intranasal Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine Not Recommended

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends against use of the nasal spray live attenuated influenza vaccine. This is based on data showing poor effectiveness in prior years.

Citation: ACIP votes down use of LAIV for 2016-2017 flu season [press release]. CDC website.

Clinical Question: Can an objective measurement of critical illness inform intensive care unit (ICU) transfer timeliness?

Background: Early intervention has shown mortality benefit in many critical illness syndromes, yet heterogeneity in timing of ICU transfer exists. Previous studies examining ICU transfer timeliness have mostly focused on subjective criteria.

Study Design: Retrospective observational cohort study.

Setting: Medical-surgical units at five hospitals including the University of Chicago and NorthShore University HealthSystem in Illinois.

Synopsis: All medical-surgical ward patients between November 2008 and January 2013 were scored using eCART, a previously validated objective scoring system, to decide when transfer was appropriate. Of those, 3,789 patients reached the predetermined threshold for critical illness. Transfers more than six hours after crossing the threshold were considered delayed. Patients with delayed transfer had a statistically significant increase in length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality (33.2% versus 24.5%; P < 0.001), and the mortality increase was linear, with a 3% increase in odds for each one hour of further transfer delay (P < 0.001). The rate of change of eCART score did influence time of transfer, and the authors suggest that rapid changes were more likely to be recognized. They postulate that routine implementation of eCART or similar objective scoring may lead to earlier recognition of necessary ICU transfer and thus improve mortality and LOS, and they suggest this as a topic for future trials.

Bottom Line: Delayed ICU transfer negatively affects LOS and in-hospital mortality. Objective criteria may identify more appropriate timing of transfer. Clinical trials to investigate this are warranted.

Citation: Churpek MM, Wendlandt B, Zadravecz FJ, Adhikari R, Winslow C, Edelson DP. Association between intensive care unit transfer delay and hospital mortality: a multicenter investigation [published online ahead of print June 28, 2016]. J Hosp Med. doi:10.1002/jhm.2630.

Short Take

Intranasal Live Attenuated Influenza Vaccine Not Recommended

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends against use of the nasal spray live attenuated influenza vaccine. This is based on data showing poor effectiveness in prior years.

Citation: ACIP votes down use of LAIV for 2016-2017 flu season [press release]. CDC website.

Clinical Question: Does increased fluid administration in patients with sepsis with intermediate lactate levels improve outcomes?

Background: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle, which improves ED mortality, targets patients with hypotension or lactate levels >4 mmol/L. No similar optimal treatment strategy exists for less severe sepsis patients even though such patients are more common in hospitalized populations.

Study Design: Retrospective study of a quality improvement bundle.

Setting: 21 community-based hospitals in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system.

Synopsis: This study evaluated implementation of a treatment bundle for 18,122 hemodynamically stable sepsis patients presenting to the ED with lactate levels between 2 and 4 mmol/L during the 12 months prior to and after bundle implementation. The bundle included antibiotic administration within three hours, repeated lactate levels within four hours, and 30 mL/kg or ≥2 L of intravenous fluids within three hours of initial lactate result. Patients with kidney disease and/or heart failure were separately evaluated because of the perceived risk of fluid administration.

Treatment after bundle implementation was associated with an adjusted hospital mortality odds ratio of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66–0.99; P = 0.04). Significant reductions in hospital mortality were observed in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease (P < 0.01) but not without (P > 0.4). This correlated with increased fluid administration in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease following bundle implementation. This is not a randomized controlled study, which invites biases and confounding.

Bottom Line: Increased fluid administration improved mortality in patients with kidney disease and heart failure presenting with sepsis.

Reference: Liu V, Morehouse JW, Marelich GP, et al. Multicenter implementation of a treatment bundle for patients with sepsis and intermediate lactate values. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(11):1264-1270.

Short Take

New Framework for Learners’ Clinical Reasoning

A qualitative study involving 37 emergency medicine residents found that clinical reasoning through individual cases progresses from case framing (phase 1) to pattern recognition (phase 2), then self-monitoring (phase 3).

Citation: Adams E, Goyder C, Heneghan C, Brand L, Ajjawi R. Clinical reasoning of junior doctors in emergency medicine: a grounded theory study [published online ahead of print June 23, 2016]. Emerg Med J. doi:10.1136/emermed-2015-205650.

Clinical Question: Does increased fluid administration in patients with sepsis with intermediate lactate levels improve outcomes?

Background: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle, which improves ED mortality, targets patients with hypotension or lactate levels >4 mmol/L. No similar optimal treatment strategy exists for less severe sepsis patients even though such patients are more common in hospitalized populations.

Study Design: Retrospective study of a quality improvement bundle.

Setting: 21 community-based hospitals in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system.

Synopsis: This study evaluated implementation of a treatment bundle for 18,122 hemodynamically stable sepsis patients presenting to the ED with lactate levels between 2 and 4 mmol/L during the 12 months prior to and after bundle implementation. The bundle included antibiotic administration within three hours, repeated lactate levels within four hours, and 30 mL/kg or ≥2 L of intravenous fluids within three hours of initial lactate result. Patients with kidney disease and/or heart failure were separately evaluated because of the perceived risk of fluid administration.

Treatment after bundle implementation was associated with an adjusted hospital mortality odds ratio of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66–0.99; P = 0.04). Significant reductions in hospital mortality were observed in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease (P < 0.01) but not without (P > 0.4). This correlated with increased fluid administration in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease following bundle implementation. This is not a randomized controlled study, which invites biases and confounding.

Bottom Line: Increased fluid administration improved mortality in patients with kidney disease and heart failure presenting with sepsis.

Reference: Liu V, Morehouse JW, Marelich GP, et al. Multicenter implementation of a treatment bundle for patients with sepsis and intermediate lactate values. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(11):1264-1270.

Short Take

New Framework for Learners’ Clinical Reasoning

A qualitative study involving 37 emergency medicine residents found that clinical reasoning through individual cases progresses from case framing (phase 1) to pattern recognition (phase 2), then self-monitoring (phase 3).

Citation: Adams E, Goyder C, Heneghan C, Brand L, Ajjawi R. Clinical reasoning of junior doctors in emergency medicine: a grounded theory study [published online ahead of print June 23, 2016]. Emerg Med J. doi:10.1136/emermed-2015-205650.

Clinical Question: Does increased fluid administration in patients with sepsis with intermediate lactate levels improve outcomes?

Background: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle, which improves ED mortality, targets patients with hypotension or lactate levels >4 mmol/L. No similar optimal treatment strategy exists for less severe sepsis patients even though such patients are more common in hospitalized populations.

Study Design: Retrospective study of a quality improvement bundle.

Setting: 21 community-based hospitals in the Kaiser Permanente Northern California system.

Synopsis: This study evaluated implementation of a treatment bundle for 18,122 hemodynamically stable sepsis patients presenting to the ED with lactate levels between 2 and 4 mmol/L during the 12 months prior to and after bundle implementation. The bundle included antibiotic administration within three hours, repeated lactate levels within four hours, and 30 mL/kg or ≥2 L of intravenous fluids within three hours of initial lactate result. Patients with kidney disease and/or heart failure were separately evaluated because of the perceived risk of fluid administration.

Treatment after bundle implementation was associated with an adjusted hospital mortality odds ratio of 0.81 (95% CI, 0.66–0.99; P = 0.04). Significant reductions in hospital mortality were observed in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease (P < 0.01) but not without (P > 0.4). This correlated with increased fluid administration in patients with heart failure and/or kidney disease following bundle implementation. This is not a randomized controlled study, which invites biases and confounding.

Bottom Line: Increased fluid administration improved mortality in patients with kidney disease and heart failure presenting with sepsis.

Reference: Liu V, Morehouse JW, Marelich GP, et al. Multicenter implementation of a treatment bundle for patients with sepsis and intermediate lactate values. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(11):1264-1270.

Short Take

New Framework for Learners’ Clinical Reasoning

A qualitative study involving 37 emergency medicine residents found that clinical reasoning through individual cases progresses from case framing (phase 1) to pattern recognition (phase 2), then self-monitoring (phase 3).

Citation: Adams E, Goyder C, Heneghan C, Brand L, Ajjawi R. Clinical reasoning of junior doctors in emergency medicine: a grounded theory study [published online ahead of print June 23, 2016]. Emerg Med J. doi:10.1136/emermed-2015-205650.

October 16–22 is the National Association for Healthcare Quality’s “Healthcare Quality Week,” and SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement provides a variety of resources, tools, and programs to help address quality and patient safety issues at your institution. Find out how SHM can help you improve patient safety and outcomes through our Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement at www.hospialmedicine.org/QI.

October 16–22 is the National Association for Healthcare Quality’s “Healthcare Quality Week,” and SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement provides a variety of resources, tools, and programs to help address quality and patient safety issues at your institution. Find out how SHM can help you improve patient safety and outcomes through our Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement at www.hospialmedicine.org/QI.

October 16–22 is the National Association for Healthcare Quality’s “Healthcare Quality Week,” and SHM’s Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement provides a variety of resources, tools, and programs to help address quality and patient safety issues at your institution. Find out how SHM can help you improve patient safety and outcomes through our Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement at www.hospialmedicine.org/QI.

• Model 1: Mentors/Mentees. Less experienced administrators will be paired with seasoned professionals to gain more experience or exposure.
• Model 2: Buddy System. Administrators at any level of expertise or experience will be paired with a peer so they both can learn from each other.

Interested in being a mentor or mentee for the 2017 program? Complete the online form at www.hospitalmedicine.org/pamentor used to match you up to other individuals who have similar needs for improvement.

• Model 1: Mentors/Mentees. Less experienced administrators will be paired with seasoned professionals to gain more experience or exposure.
• Model 2: Buddy System. Administrators at any level of expertise or experience will be paired with a peer so they both can learn from each other.

Interested in being a mentor or mentee for the 2017 program? Complete the online form at www.hospitalmedicine.org/pamentor used to match you up to other individuals who have similar needs for improvement.

• Model 1: Mentors/Mentees. Less experienced administrators will be paired with seasoned professionals to gain more experience or exposure.
• Model 2: Buddy System. Administrators at any level of expertise or experience will be paired with a peer so they both can learn from each other.

Interested in being a mentor or mentee for the 2017 program? Complete the online form at www.hospitalmedicine.org/pamentor used to match you up to other individuals who have similar needs for improvement.

The application is open through November 30, with a decision on or before December 31, 2016. Apply now and learn how you can join other hospitalists who have earned this exclusive designation and recognition at www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.

The application is open through November 30, with a decision on or before December 31, 2016. Apply now and learn how you can join other hospitalists who have earned this exclusive designation and recognition at www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.

The application is open through November 30, with a decision on or before December 31, 2016. Apply now and learn how you can join other hospitalists who have earned this exclusive designation and recognition at www.hospitalmedicine.org/fellows.

Kevin Conrad, MD, MBA, could always picture being a doctor, given that he enjoyed the sciences and wanted a job where he could work with people. He has more trouble figuring out how people don’t enjoy the detective work that comes with medicine.

“I have a hard time imagining what people do besides people in the sciences,” he says. “In sciences, you deal with facts, you deal with numbers, you deal with data, and you put it together and you come to conclusions. And to me, that seemed like a career pathway as opposed to, say, a field like law or writing or whatnot. I could never wrap my head around what they actually do in a given day.”

Dr. Conrad’s passion for the sciences hasn’t waned yet. He serves as the medical director of community affairs and healthy policy at Ochsner Health Systems of New Orleans, where he focuses on systems improvement. He published his first book this year, Absolute Hospital Medicine Review: An Intensive Question and Answer Guide, and is working on his second tome.

And this year, he was named one of the eight new members of Team Hospitalist, the volunteer editorial advisory board of The Hospitalist.

Question: What led you to a more hands-on medical field as opposed to being a basic or translational scientist?

Answer: I had some early exposure to lab work in high school and college and saw what they did and saw how they were sort of confined to labs for long periods of time and said, “No, I think that I would rather be kind of out there, combining science as well as interacting with people in the field.”

Q: When you started residency, was it clear to you that hospital medicine was where you wanted to go, or were you looking at a few different options?

A: Hospital medicine combined my interests in internal medicine, which is sort of a broad overview of all aspects of medicine and healthcare as well as being a little bit more intensive, a little bit more action-oriented. The patients tend to be a little bit more ill, require a little bit more acute attention, and that appealed to me as opposed to my training in internal medicine.

Q: What about the intensity of hospital medicine appeals to you?

A: As opposed to sitting down with a patient in an office setting, I think, in hospital medicine, I like the idea that you’re called from one semi-emergency to another and that you have to think quickly on your feet and move on to the new task. And the new tasks come in rapid sequence: You have one problem that you fix and then you’re called to do another one, and each and every day, it will tend to be sort of a different set of problems.

Q: What was the motivation to write the book and now working on the second?

A: I wanted to share my experience, and I felt I was in a position where I could not only share my personal practice experience as well as sort of collate the other material that has been written and published in hospital medicine. I also think there is a need right now to continue to define what hospital medicine is and show what we’re experts at as well as show our value to the system. We have an ambiguous practice, and people still aren’t quite sure what we do and what we’re expert at. So I think it’s our task to showcase this is what we do well, this is what we do better than other people, and this is our value to the system.

Q: So what is hospitalists’ value, and what are they experts in?

A: We’re experts at systems, hospital systems. … We understand better than anyone what goes on in the hospital, the physicians’ practice, the nursing practice, the administrative practice. … I mean, we’re there. We’re on the floors. No one has a better insight into the function of the hospital than the hospitalists. I think the other unique role we have is we see trends that other specialties don’t. We don’t really own our patients. Our patients come and go, but we tend to have a unique view of the practice of medicine that we see trends maybe before other specialists. … We see some of the failures of other systems.

Q: What is your least favorite part of being a hospitalist?

A: The clerical work. I think I probably speak for most people in that the clerical work is needed. It has become an increasing part of our practice in that now we spend a great deal of our time obviously in front of computers as opposed to at the bedside. The electronic medical record, which is good, which has served us well, becomes a greater and bigger part of our day, and so we find that it is too much a part of my day. I’m not saying it’s not needed because I think it has improved the quality of care we deliver, but it’s not something that you imagine that you should be doing as a physician. You are spending most of your day in front of a computer as opposed to most of the day with patients.

Q: What’s your favorite part of the job?

A: It has changed over my career. I think it probably started out in education. I enjoyed teaching medical students and residents, and certainly, that’s still a part of it, but then I think it has evolved into a little bit more of an academic interest. I just published my first book this past year and am working on my second book, and that has become sort of my bigger focus now. TH

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Kevin Conrad, MD, MBA, could always picture being a doctor, given that he enjoyed the sciences and wanted a job where he could work with people. He has more trouble figuring out how people don’t enjoy the detective work that comes with medicine.

“I have a hard time imagining what people do besides people in the sciences,” he says. “In sciences, you deal with facts, you deal with numbers, you deal with data, and you put it together and you come to conclusions. And to me, that seemed like a career pathway as opposed to, say, a field like law or writing or whatnot. I could never wrap my head around what they actually do in a given day.”

Dr. Conrad’s passion for the sciences hasn’t waned yet. He serves as the medical director of community affairs and healthy policy at Ochsner Health Systems of New Orleans, where he focuses on systems improvement. He published his first book this year, Absolute Hospital Medicine Review: An Intensive Question and Answer Guide, and is working on his second tome.

And this year, he was named one of the eight new members of Team Hospitalist, the volunteer editorial advisory board of The Hospitalist.

Question: What led you to a more hands-on medical field as opposed to being a basic or translational scientist?

Answer: I had some early exposure to lab work in high school and college and saw what they did and saw how they were sort of confined to labs for long periods of time and said, “No, I think that I would rather be kind of out there, combining science as well as interacting with people in the field.”

Q: When you started residency, was it clear to you that hospital medicine was where you wanted to go, or were you looking at a few different options?

A: Hospital medicine combined my interests in internal medicine, which is sort of a broad overview of all aspects of medicine and healthcare as well as being a little bit more intensive, a little bit more action-oriented. The patients tend to be a little bit more ill, require a little bit more acute attention, and that appealed to me as opposed to my training in internal medicine.

Q: What about the intensity of hospital medicine appeals to you?

A: As opposed to sitting down with a patient in an office setting, I think, in hospital medicine, I like the idea that you’re called from one semi-emergency to another and that you have to think quickly on your feet and move on to the new task. And the new tasks come in rapid sequence: You have one problem that you fix and then you’re called to do another one, and each and every day, it will tend to be sort of a different set of problems.

Q: What was the motivation to write the book and now working on the second?

A: I wanted to share my experience, and I felt I was in a position where I could not only share my personal practice experience as well as sort of collate the other material that has been written and published in hospital medicine. I also think there is a need right now to continue to define what hospital medicine is and show what we’re experts at as well as show our value to the system. We have an ambiguous practice, and people still aren’t quite sure what we do and what we’re expert at. So I think it’s our task to showcase this is what we do well, this is what we do better than other people, and this is our value to the system.

Q: So what is hospitalists’ value, and what are they experts in?

A: We’re experts at systems, hospital systems. … We understand better than anyone what goes on in the hospital, the physicians’ practice, the nursing practice, the administrative practice. … I mean, we’re there. We’re on the floors. No one has a better insight into the function of the hospital than the hospitalists. I think the other unique role we have is we see trends that other specialties don’t. We don’t really own our patients. Our patients come and go, but we tend to have a unique view of the practice of medicine that we see trends maybe before other specialists. … We see some of the failures of other systems.

Q: What is your least favorite part of being a hospitalist?

A: The clerical work. I think I probably speak for most people in that the clerical work is needed. It has become an increasing part of our practice in that now we spend a great deal of our time obviously in front of computers as opposed to at the bedside. The electronic medical record, which is good, which has served us well, becomes a greater and bigger part of our day, and so we find that it is too much a part of my day. I’m not saying it’s not needed because I think it has improved the quality of care we deliver, but it’s not something that you imagine that you should be doing as a physician. You are spending most of your day in front of a computer as opposed to most of the day with patients.

Q: What’s your favorite part of the job?

A: It has changed over my career. I think it probably started out in education. I enjoyed teaching medical students and residents, and certainly, that’s still a part of it, but then I think it has evolved into a little bit more of an academic interest. I just published my first book this past year and am working on my second book, and that has become sort of my bigger focus now. TH

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Kevin Conrad, MD, MBA, could always picture being a doctor, given that he enjoyed the sciences and wanted a job where he could work with people. He has more trouble figuring out how people don’t enjoy the detective work that comes with medicine.

“I have a hard time imagining what people do besides people in the sciences,” he says. “In sciences, you deal with facts, you deal with numbers, you deal with data, and you put it together and you come to conclusions. And to me, that seemed like a career pathway as opposed to, say, a field like law or writing or whatnot. I could never wrap my head around what they actually do in a given day.”

Dr. Conrad’s passion for the sciences hasn’t waned yet. He serves as the medical director of community affairs and healthy policy at Ochsner Health Systems of New Orleans, where he focuses on systems improvement. He published his first book this year, Absolute Hospital Medicine Review: An Intensive Question and Answer Guide, and is working on his second tome.

And this year, he was named one of the eight new members of Team Hospitalist, the volunteer editorial advisory board of The Hospitalist.

Question: What led you to a more hands-on medical field as opposed to being a basic or translational scientist?

Answer: I had some early exposure to lab work in high school and college and saw what they did and saw how they were sort of confined to labs for long periods of time and said, “No, I think that I would rather be kind of out there, combining science as well as interacting with people in the field.”

Q: When you started residency, was it clear to you that hospital medicine was where you wanted to go, or were you looking at a few different options?

A: Hospital medicine combined my interests in internal medicine, which is sort of a broad overview of all aspects of medicine and healthcare as well as being a little bit more intensive, a little bit more action-oriented. The patients tend to be a little bit more ill, require a little bit more acute attention, and that appealed to me as opposed to my training in internal medicine.

Q: What about the intensity of hospital medicine appeals to you?

A: As opposed to sitting down with a patient in an office setting, I think, in hospital medicine, I like the idea that you’re called from one semi-emergency to another and that you have to think quickly on your feet and move on to the new task. And the new tasks come in rapid sequence: You have one problem that you fix and then you’re called to do another one, and each and every day, it will tend to be sort of a different set of problems.

Q: What was the motivation to write the book and now working on the second?

A: I wanted to share my experience, and I felt I was in a position where I could not only share my personal practice experience as well as sort of collate the other material that has been written and published in hospital medicine. I also think there is a need right now to continue to define what hospital medicine is and show what we’re experts at as well as show our value to the system. We have an ambiguous practice, and people still aren’t quite sure what we do and what we’re expert at. So I think it’s our task to showcase this is what we do well, this is what we do better than other people, and this is our value to the system.

Q: So what is hospitalists’ value, and what are they experts in?

A: We’re experts at systems, hospital systems. … We understand better than anyone what goes on in the hospital, the physicians’ practice, the nursing practice, the administrative practice. … I mean, we’re there. We’re on the floors. No one has a better insight into the function of the hospital than the hospitalists. I think the other unique role we have is we see trends that other specialties don’t. We don’t really own our patients. Our patients come and go, but we tend to have a unique view of the practice of medicine that we see trends maybe before other specialists. … We see some of the failures of other systems.

Q: What is your least favorite part of being a hospitalist?

A: The clerical work. I think I probably speak for most people in that the clerical work is needed. It has become an increasing part of our practice in that now we spend a great deal of our time obviously in front of computers as opposed to at the bedside. The electronic medical record, which is good, which has served us well, becomes a greater and bigger part of our day, and so we find that it is too much a part of my day. I’m not saying it’s not needed because I think it has improved the quality of care we deliver, but it’s not something that you imagine that you should be doing as a physician. You are spending most of your day in front of a computer as opposed to most of the day with patients.

Q: What’s your favorite part of the job?

A: It has changed over my career. I think it probably started out in education. I enjoyed teaching medical students and residents, and certainly, that’s still a part of it, but then I think it has evolved into a little bit more of an academic interest. I just published my first book this past year and am working on my second book, and that has become sort of my bigger focus now. TH

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Clinical Question: Can a collaborative quality improvement project improve the quality and efficiency of pediatric hospital discharges?

Background: Transitions of care, including at the time of hospital discharge, are a potential source of risk and can be associated with adverse events including medication errors and preventable readmissions. Some studies have shown that 10–20% of patients had an adverse event after discharge, and half of those were preventable; one adult study found nearly half of the discharged patients had at least one medication error.1,2 Although multiple projects to improve the discharge process have been published in adult literature, few have focused on the pediatric population. In this study, the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA) formed a pediatric quality improvement collaborative across multiple facilities to examine whether shared improvement strategies would affect failures of discharge-related care, parent-reported readiness for discharge, and readmission rates.

Study Design: Multicenter quality improvement collaborative.

Setting: 11 freestanding tertiary-care children’s hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: Each of the 11 participating sites chose a specific target population, such as patients with sickle cell disease, asthma, or all discharged pediatric patients. Populations were selected at the discretion of the sites. A multidisciplinary expert advisory panel reviewed literature and developed a change package that included being proactive about discharge planning during hospitalization; improving throughput; arranging post-discharge treatment and support; and communicating post-discharge plan with patients, families, and providers. Each site selected elements of the change package to implement based on individual needs and preferences and incorporated via plan-do-study-act cycles during three action periods. Elements that were implemented by most or all sites included family education on diagnosis and discharge plans, use of discharge checklists, improvement of written discharge instructions, post-discharge follow-up phone calls to reinforce discharge instructions, and identifying and obtaining medications. Virtual learning conferences and monthly Web conferences were held for participants in the collaborative, and experienced improvement coaches guided teams through implementation.

The primary aim of the study was to reduce discharge-related care failures by 50% in 12 months. Failures were measured by phone calls to families two to seven days following discharge, and if any problem related to discharge occurred, the discharge was considered a failure (all-or-none measure). Components of this measure included understanding the diagnosis, receiving discharge instructions and education, complying with instructions, receiving necessary equipment, planning for follow-up pending tests, receiving help with appointments, and not requiring a related unplanned medical visit. Other measures evaluated in this study included patient/family readiness for discharge and unplanned readmission rates (72 hours and 30 days).

Overall, the rate of failures of discharge care was 34% at baseline, which decreased to 21% at the end of the collaborative, for a reduction of 40%. Some individual hospitals exceeded this mark as well. Among the hospitals reporting data on family readiness for discharge, there was a statistically significant improvement, with 85% of families at baseline rating readiness in the highest category and 91% in the last quarter of the study. There was no improvement in rates of unplanned readmission, with 72-hour readmission rates steady across the project (0.7% at onset, 1.1% at end of study; P = 0.29) and slight worsening of the 30-day rate (4.5% to 6.3%; P = 0.05).

Potential explanations for the findings related to readmission rates include seasonal variability in readmissions as well as high variability in patients included in the study. For example, one site focused on patients with sickle cell disease, another on patients with asthma, and others included all diagnoses. Overall, unplanned readmission rates were low (around 1% for 72-hour, 5% for 30-day), which is consistent with other pediatric studies.

Bottom Line: In this study, institutions using a collaborative approach improved the quality of inpatient discharges by using an intervention bundle in pediatric hospital settings. There was no improvement noted in readmission rates, although these rates were low.

Citation: Wu S, Tyler A, Logsdon T, et al. A quality improvement collaborative to improve the discharge process for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pii:e20143604.

References:

1. Moore C, Wisnivesky J, Williams S, McGinn T. Medical errors related to discontinuity of care from an inpatient to an outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(8):646-651.
2. Forster AJ, Clark HD, Menard A, et al. Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital. CMAJ. 2004;170(3):345-349.

Clinical Question: Can a collaborative quality improvement project improve the quality and efficiency of pediatric hospital discharges?

Background: Transitions of care, including at the time of hospital discharge, are a potential source of risk and can be associated with adverse events including medication errors and preventable readmissions. Some studies have shown that 10–20% of patients had an adverse event after discharge, and half of those were preventable; one adult study found nearly half of the discharged patients had at least one medication error.1,2 Although multiple projects to improve the discharge process have been published in adult literature, few have focused on the pediatric population. In this study, the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA) formed a pediatric quality improvement collaborative across multiple facilities to examine whether shared improvement strategies would affect failures of discharge-related care, parent-reported readiness for discharge, and readmission rates.

Study Design: Multicenter quality improvement collaborative.

Setting: 11 freestanding tertiary-care children’s hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: Each of the 11 participating sites chose a specific target population, such as patients with sickle cell disease, asthma, or all discharged pediatric patients. Populations were selected at the discretion of the sites. A multidisciplinary expert advisory panel reviewed literature and developed a change package that included being proactive about discharge planning during hospitalization; improving throughput; arranging post-discharge treatment and support; and communicating post-discharge plan with patients, families, and providers. Each site selected elements of the change package to implement based on individual needs and preferences and incorporated via plan-do-study-act cycles during three action periods. Elements that were implemented by most or all sites included family education on diagnosis and discharge plans, use of discharge checklists, improvement of written discharge instructions, post-discharge follow-up phone calls to reinforce discharge instructions, and identifying and obtaining medications. Virtual learning conferences and monthly Web conferences were held for participants in the collaborative, and experienced improvement coaches guided teams through implementation.

The primary aim of the study was to reduce discharge-related care failures by 50% in 12 months. Failures were measured by phone calls to families two to seven days following discharge, and if any problem related to discharge occurred, the discharge was considered a failure (all-or-none measure). Components of this measure included understanding the diagnosis, receiving discharge instructions and education, complying with instructions, receiving necessary equipment, planning for follow-up pending tests, receiving help with appointments, and not requiring a related unplanned medical visit. Other measures evaluated in this study included patient/family readiness for discharge and unplanned readmission rates (72 hours and 30 days).

Overall, the rate of failures of discharge care was 34% at baseline, which decreased to 21% at the end of the collaborative, for a reduction of 40%. Some individual hospitals exceeded this mark as well. Among the hospitals reporting data on family readiness for discharge, there was a statistically significant improvement, with 85% of families at baseline rating readiness in the highest category and 91% in the last quarter of the study. There was no improvement in rates of unplanned readmission, with 72-hour readmission rates steady across the project (0.7% at onset, 1.1% at end of study; P = 0.29) and slight worsening of the 30-day rate (4.5% to 6.3%; P = 0.05).

Potential explanations for the findings related to readmission rates include seasonal variability in readmissions as well as high variability in patients included in the study. For example, one site focused on patients with sickle cell disease, another on patients with asthma, and others included all diagnoses. Overall, unplanned readmission rates were low (around 1% for 72-hour, 5% for 30-day), which is consistent with other pediatric studies.

Bottom Line: In this study, institutions using a collaborative approach improved the quality of inpatient discharges by using an intervention bundle in pediatric hospital settings. There was no improvement noted in readmission rates, although these rates were low.

Citation: Wu S, Tyler A, Logsdon T, et al. A quality improvement collaborative to improve the discharge process for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pii:e20143604.

References:

1. Moore C, Wisnivesky J, Williams S, McGinn T. Medical errors related to discontinuity of care from an inpatient to an outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(8):646-651.
2. Forster AJ, Clark HD, Menard A, et al. Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital. CMAJ. 2004;170(3):345-349.

Clinical Question: Can a collaborative quality improvement project improve the quality and efficiency of pediatric hospital discharges?

Background: Transitions of care, including at the time of hospital discharge, are a potential source of risk and can be associated with adverse events including medication errors and preventable readmissions. Some studies have shown that 10–20% of patients had an adverse event after discharge, and half of those were preventable; one adult study found nearly half of the discharged patients had at least one medication error.1,2 Although multiple projects to improve the discharge process have been published in adult literature, few have focused on the pediatric population. In this study, the Children’s Hospital Association (CHA) formed a pediatric quality improvement collaborative across multiple facilities to examine whether shared improvement strategies would affect failures of discharge-related care, parent-reported readiness for discharge, and readmission rates.

Study Design: Multicenter quality improvement collaborative.

Setting: 11 freestanding tertiary-care children’s hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: Each of the 11 participating sites chose a specific target population, such as patients with sickle cell disease, asthma, or all discharged pediatric patients. Populations were selected at the discretion of the sites. A multidisciplinary expert advisory panel reviewed literature and developed a change package that included being proactive about discharge planning during hospitalization; improving throughput; arranging post-discharge treatment and support; and communicating post-discharge plan with patients, families, and providers. Each site selected elements of the change package to implement based on individual needs and preferences and incorporated via plan-do-study-act cycles during three action periods. Elements that were implemented by most or all sites included family education on diagnosis and discharge plans, use of discharge checklists, improvement of written discharge instructions, post-discharge follow-up phone calls to reinforce discharge instructions, and identifying and obtaining medications. Virtual learning conferences and monthly Web conferences were held for participants in the collaborative, and experienced improvement coaches guided teams through implementation.

The primary aim of the study was to reduce discharge-related care failures by 50% in 12 months. Failures were measured by phone calls to families two to seven days following discharge, and if any problem related to discharge occurred, the discharge was considered a failure (all-or-none measure). Components of this measure included understanding the diagnosis, receiving discharge instructions and education, complying with instructions, receiving necessary equipment, planning for follow-up pending tests, receiving help with appointments, and not requiring a related unplanned medical visit. Other measures evaluated in this study included patient/family readiness for discharge and unplanned readmission rates (72 hours and 30 days).

Overall, the rate of failures of discharge care was 34% at baseline, which decreased to 21% at the end of the collaborative, for a reduction of 40%. Some individual hospitals exceeded this mark as well. Among the hospitals reporting data on family readiness for discharge, there was a statistically significant improvement, with 85% of families at baseline rating readiness in the highest category and 91% in the last quarter of the study. There was no improvement in rates of unplanned readmission, with 72-hour readmission rates steady across the project (0.7% at onset, 1.1% at end of study; P = 0.29) and slight worsening of the 30-day rate (4.5% to 6.3%; P = 0.05).

Potential explanations for the findings related to readmission rates include seasonal variability in readmissions as well as high variability in patients included in the study. For example, one site focused on patients with sickle cell disease, another on patients with asthma, and others included all diagnoses. Overall, unplanned readmission rates were low (around 1% for 72-hour, 5% for 30-day), which is consistent with other pediatric studies.

Bottom Line: In this study, institutions using a collaborative approach improved the quality of inpatient discharges by using an intervention bundle in pediatric hospital settings. There was no improvement noted in readmission rates, although these rates were low.

Citation: Wu S, Tyler A, Logsdon T, et al. A quality improvement collaborative to improve the discharge process for hospitalized children. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pii:e20143604.

References:

1. Moore C, Wisnivesky J, Williams S, McGinn T. Medical errors related to discontinuity of care from an inpatient to an outpatient setting. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(8):646-651.
2. Forster AJ, Clark HD, Menard A, et al. Adverse events among medical patients after discharge from hospital. CMAJ. 2004;170(3):345-349.

Clinical Question: What is the performance of the Step-by-Step approach to evaluate febrile infants, and how does it compare to other existing criteria?

Background: Multiple studies have been performed to find the best set of criteria to identify febrile infants at low risk for bacterial infection in order to manage them in a less invasive manner. Common criteria used in the United States include Rochester, Philadelphia, and Boston criteria, initially published in the early 1990s. Since that time, management has evolved with the introduction of newer biomarkers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT), and epidemiology has changed with immunizations and improvement in intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.

A new algorithm, Step-by-Step, has been developed by a group of European pediatric emergency physicians and has been shown retrospectively to accurately identify groups of patients according to risk of noninvasive or invasive bacterial infection (IBI). This algorithm uses a sequential approach, evaluating the general appearance, age of the patient, urinalysis, and then other lab findings including CRP, PCT, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC). In this study, the authors sought to validate this algorithm prospectively in a larger multicenter population.

Study Design: Multicenter prospective study.

Setting: 11 European pediatric emergency departments in Spain, Italy, and Switzerland.

Synopsis: This study included infants ≤90 days of age presenting to the pediatric emergency department (PED) between September 2012 and August 2014 with fever without source (defined as temperature ≥38°C measured by thermometer at home or in the PED, with normal physical examination and no respiratory signs or symptoms or diarrheal process). Labs obtained for each patient included urinalysis, urine culture (obtained by bladder catheterization or suprapubic aspiration), white blood cell count, PCT, CRP, and blood culture. Further testing and management were determined by the treating physician and management protocols of each center.

Exclusion criteria included:

• Clear source of fever by history or physical examination.
• No fever in the PED and fever assessed only subjectively by parents prior to presentation without the use of a thermometer.
• Absence of one or more of the above lab tests.
• Refusal of parents to participate.

The study included 2,185 infants. Of these, 504 were diagnosed with bacterial infection, including 87 (3.9%) with IBI (defined as positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid culture) and 417 (19.1%) with non-IBI (409 of which were urinary tract infections). Following the first part of the Step-by-Step approach, which uses general appearance (well-appearing versus ill-appearing), age (older or younger than 21 days), and leukocyturia, identified 79.3% of patients with IBI and 98.5% of non-IBI. Adding the next steps in the approach, with PCT, CRP, and ANC, identified 991 low-risk patients (45.3% of the studied population). In this low-risk group, seven patients were subsequently identified as having IBI (0.7% of this group). Using the Step-by-Step approach led to a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.3 for identifying IBI, with a negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.17.

In evaluation of the seven low-risk patients with IBI, three of these were noted to present to the PED within one hour of onset of fever, and three more patients had fever first detected on arrival in the PED. This short duration of fever, and the lack of time for a rise in biomarkers, is likely why these patients were missed in the initial assessment.

When the Rochester criteria were used for this group of 2,185 patients, 949 patients were identified as low risk, with 1.6% of the low-risk patients found to have IBI, leading to an NPV of 98.3 and negative LR of 0.41. The authors chose to compare their approach to the Rochester criteria because the other commonly used approaches (Boston, Philadelphia) recommend lumbar puncture in all febrile infants while Rochester does not, and more recent literature suggests an individualized approach rather than recommending the test systematically.

Limitations included:

• Prevalence of bacterial infection was similar to other European publications but higher than in many studies in the United States, primarily due to an increased rate of UTI. (In this study, the authors used a definition of leukocyturia and culture with ≥10,000 cfu/mL.)
• Band count, although part of the Rochester criteria, was not available in some of the centers and not included in analysis. Inclusion of this lab study could have changed the performance of the Rochester criteria.
• The Step-by-Step approach was not compared to other existing criteria.

Bottom Line: In this study, the Step-by-Step approach was very accurate in identifying febrile infants at low risk for invasive bacterial infection, performing better than the Rochester criteria, and may be helpful in evaluation of infants with fever in the emergency department. A cautious approach is warranted for patients with very short fever duration, as they may be missed by ancillary test results.

Citation: Gomez B, Mintegi S, Bressan S, et al. Validation of the “step-by-step” approach in the management of young febrile infants. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pic:e20154381.

Carl Galloway, MD, is a hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D.

Clinical Question: What is the performance of the Step-by-Step approach to evaluate febrile infants, and how does it compare to other existing criteria?

Background: Multiple studies have been performed to find the best set of criteria to identify febrile infants at low risk for bacterial infection in order to manage them in a less invasive manner. Common criteria used in the United States include Rochester, Philadelphia, and Boston criteria, initially published in the early 1990s. Since that time, management has evolved with the introduction of newer biomarkers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT), and epidemiology has changed with immunizations and improvement in intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.

A new algorithm, Step-by-Step, has been developed by a group of European pediatric emergency physicians and has been shown retrospectively to accurately identify groups of patients according to risk of noninvasive or invasive bacterial infection (IBI). This algorithm uses a sequential approach, evaluating the general appearance, age of the patient, urinalysis, and then other lab findings including CRP, PCT, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC). In this study, the authors sought to validate this algorithm prospectively in a larger multicenter population.

Study Design: Multicenter prospective study.

Setting: 11 European pediatric emergency departments in Spain, Italy, and Switzerland.

Synopsis: This study included infants ≤90 days of age presenting to the pediatric emergency department (PED) between September 2012 and August 2014 with fever without source (defined as temperature ≥38°C measured by thermometer at home or in the PED, with normal physical examination and no respiratory signs or symptoms or diarrheal process). Labs obtained for each patient included urinalysis, urine culture (obtained by bladder catheterization or suprapubic aspiration), white blood cell count, PCT, CRP, and blood culture. Further testing and management were determined by the treating physician and management protocols of each center.

Exclusion criteria included:

• Clear source of fever by history or physical examination.
• No fever in the PED and fever assessed only subjectively by parents prior to presentation without the use of a thermometer.
• Absence of one or more of the above lab tests.
• Refusal of parents to participate.

The study included 2,185 infants. Of these, 504 were diagnosed with bacterial infection, including 87 (3.9%) with IBI (defined as positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid culture) and 417 (19.1%) with non-IBI (409 of which were urinary tract infections). Following the first part of the Step-by-Step approach, which uses general appearance (well-appearing versus ill-appearing), age (older or younger than 21 days), and leukocyturia, identified 79.3% of patients with IBI and 98.5% of non-IBI. Adding the next steps in the approach, with PCT, CRP, and ANC, identified 991 low-risk patients (45.3% of the studied population). In this low-risk group, seven patients were subsequently identified as having IBI (0.7% of this group). Using the Step-by-Step approach led to a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.3 for identifying IBI, with a negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.17.

In evaluation of the seven low-risk patients with IBI, three of these were noted to present to the PED within one hour of onset of fever, and three more patients had fever first detected on arrival in the PED. This short duration of fever, and the lack of time for a rise in biomarkers, is likely why these patients were missed in the initial assessment.

When the Rochester criteria were used for this group of 2,185 patients, 949 patients were identified as low risk, with 1.6% of the low-risk patients found to have IBI, leading to an NPV of 98.3 and negative LR of 0.41. The authors chose to compare their approach to the Rochester criteria because the other commonly used approaches (Boston, Philadelphia) recommend lumbar puncture in all febrile infants while Rochester does not, and more recent literature suggests an individualized approach rather than recommending the test systematically.

Limitations included:

• Prevalence of bacterial infection was similar to other European publications but higher than in many studies in the United States, primarily due to an increased rate of UTI. (In this study, the authors used a definition of leukocyturia and culture with ≥10,000 cfu/mL.)
• Band count, although part of the Rochester criteria, was not available in some of the centers and not included in analysis. Inclusion of this lab study could have changed the performance of the Rochester criteria.
• The Step-by-Step approach was not compared to other existing criteria.

Bottom Line: In this study, the Step-by-Step approach was very accurate in identifying febrile infants at low risk for invasive bacterial infection, performing better than the Rochester criteria, and may be helpful in evaluation of infants with fever in the emergency department. A cautious approach is warranted for patients with very short fever duration, as they may be missed by ancillary test results.

Citation: Gomez B, Mintegi S, Bressan S, et al. Validation of the “step-by-step” approach in the management of young febrile infants. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pic:e20154381.

Carl Galloway, MD, is a hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D.

Clinical Question: What is the performance of the Step-by-Step approach to evaluate febrile infants, and how does it compare to other existing criteria?

Background: Multiple studies have been performed to find the best set of criteria to identify febrile infants at low risk for bacterial infection in order to manage them in a less invasive manner. Common criteria used in the United States include Rochester, Philadelphia, and Boston criteria, initially published in the early 1990s. Since that time, management has evolved with the introduction of newer biomarkers such as C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT), and epidemiology has changed with immunizations and improvement in intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis.

A new algorithm, Step-by-Step, has been developed by a group of European pediatric emergency physicians and has been shown retrospectively to accurately identify groups of patients according to risk of noninvasive or invasive bacterial infection (IBI). This algorithm uses a sequential approach, evaluating the general appearance, age of the patient, urinalysis, and then other lab findings including CRP, PCT, and absolute neutrophil count (ANC). In this study, the authors sought to validate this algorithm prospectively in a larger multicenter population.

Study Design: Multicenter prospective study.

Setting: 11 European pediatric emergency departments in Spain, Italy, and Switzerland.

Synopsis: This study included infants ≤90 days of age presenting to the pediatric emergency department (PED) between September 2012 and August 2014 with fever without source (defined as temperature ≥38°C measured by thermometer at home or in the PED, with normal physical examination and no respiratory signs or symptoms or diarrheal process). Labs obtained for each patient included urinalysis, urine culture (obtained by bladder catheterization or suprapubic aspiration), white blood cell count, PCT, CRP, and blood culture. Further testing and management were determined by the treating physician and management protocols of each center.

Exclusion criteria included:

• Clear source of fever by history or physical examination.
• No fever in the PED and fever assessed only subjectively by parents prior to presentation without the use of a thermometer.
• Absence of one or more of the above lab tests.
• Refusal of parents to participate.

The study included 2,185 infants. Of these, 504 were diagnosed with bacterial infection, including 87 (3.9%) with IBI (defined as positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid culture) and 417 (19.1%) with non-IBI (409 of which were urinary tract infections). Following the first part of the Step-by-Step approach, which uses general appearance (well-appearing versus ill-appearing), age (older or younger than 21 days), and leukocyturia, identified 79.3% of patients with IBI and 98.5% of non-IBI. Adding the next steps in the approach, with PCT, CRP, and ANC, identified 991 low-risk patients (45.3% of the studied population). In this low-risk group, seven patients were subsequently identified as having IBI (0.7% of this group). Using the Step-by-Step approach led to a negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.3 for identifying IBI, with a negative likelihood ratio (LR) of 0.17.

In evaluation of the seven low-risk patients with IBI, three of these were noted to present to the PED within one hour of onset of fever, and three more patients had fever first detected on arrival in the PED. This short duration of fever, and the lack of time for a rise in biomarkers, is likely why these patients were missed in the initial assessment.

When the Rochester criteria were used for this group of 2,185 patients, 949 patients were identified as low risk, with 1.6% of the low-risk patients found to have IBI, leading to an NPV of 98.3 and negative LR of 0.41. The authors chose to compare their approach to the Rochester criteria because the other commonly used approaches (Boston, Philadelphia) recommend lumbar puncture in all febrile infants while Rochester does not, and more recent literature suggests an individualized approach rather than recommending the test systematically.

Limitations included:

• Prevalence of bacterial infection was similar to other European publications but higher than in many studies in the United States, primarily due to an increased rate of UTI. (In this study, the authors used a definition of leukocyturia and culture with ≥10,000 cfu/mL.)
• Band count, although part of the Rochester criteria, was not available in some of the centers and not included in analysis. Inclusion of this lab study could have changed the performance of the Rochester criteria.
• The Step-by-Step approach was not compared to other existing criteria.

Bottom Line: In this study, the Step-by-Step approach was very accurate in identifying febrile infants at low risk for invasive bacterial infection, performing better than the Rochester criteria, and may be helpful in evaluation of infants with fever in the emergency department. A cautious approach is warranted for patients with very short fever duration, as they may be missed by ancillary test results.

Citation: Gomez B, Mintegi S, Bressan S, et al. Validation of the “step-by-step” approach in the management of young febrile infants. Pediatrics. 2016;138(2). pic:e20154381.

Carl Galloway, MD, is a hospitalist at Sanford Children’s Hospital in Sioux Falls, S.D.

The business of hospital medicine is an important factor in individual clinicians' careers and for the specialty as a whole. Dr. Jasen Gundersen of TeamHealth and James Levy of Indigo Health Partners talk about the importance of recognizing the personal, and the system-wide, impacts and opportunities of the business side of HM.

The business of hospital medicine is an important factor in individual clinicians' careers and for the specialty as a whole. Dr. Jasen Gundersen of TeamHealth and James Levy of Indigo Health Partners talk about the importance of recognizing the personal, and the system-wide, impacts and opportunities of the business side of HM.

The business of hospital medicine is an important factor in individual clinicians' careers and for the specialty as a whole. Dr. Jasen Gundersen of TeamHealth and James Levy of Indigo Health Partners talk about the importance of recognizing the personal, and the system-wide, impacts and opportunities of the business side of HM.

Congratulations to the recipients of the 2016 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Awards, who were recently recognized at the 2016 Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting in Chicago. The awards are presented to pediatric hospitalists who make exemplary contributions to hospital medicine, quality improvement, and patient care.

The awards are presented in four categories:

Safety and Quality Improvement

Recipient: Kavita Parikh, MD, Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Parikh is a member of the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics Network and has worked with the group to improve the care of community-acquired pneumonia. The group has enrolled more than 50 hospitals around the country and one international site to standardize care so that all children hospitalized with pneumonia can receive the same high-quality care, including the use of narrow-spectrum antibiotics.

Educational Achievement and Innovation

Recipient: H. Barrett Fromme, MD, University of Chicago

Dr. Fromme is well known as a leader in pediatric medical education and was instrumental in establishing the Pediatric National Nighttime Curriculum, which includes approximately 75 percent of all residency programs across the U.S. She also led the Advancing Pediatric Educator Excellence Teaching Program for hospitalists, which helps develop their teaching skills. Dr. Fromme has also been named a Master Educator at the University of Chicago Academy of Distinguished Medical Educators.

Research Excellence

Recipient: Derek Williams, MD, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville

Dr. Williams is a pediatric hospitalist whose research activities have focused on respiratory infections in hospitalized children. He has received multiple grants and awards from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and has served as the lead investigator at his institution for the CDC-sponsored study entitled Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community (EPIC), which has generated several publications, including in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Lifetime Achievement

Recipient: Ken Roberts, MD, chairman emeritus, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

While he is now retired, Dr. Roberts has served as a mentor to many pediatric hospitalists throughout his storied career and has more than 200 publications, including one in Pediatrics called “A Hospitalist Movement? Where to?”

Congratulations to the recipients of the 2016 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Awards, who were recently recognized at the 2016 Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting in Chicago. The awards are presented to pediatric hospitalists who make exemplary contributions to hospital medicine, quality improvement, and patient care.

The awards are presented in four categories:

Safety and Quality Improvement

Recipient: Kavita Parikh, MD, Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Parikh is a member of the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics Network and has worked with the group to improve the care of community-acquired pneumonia. The group has enrolled more than 50 hospitals around the country and one international site to standardize care so that all children hospitalized with pneumonia can receive the same high-quality care, including the use of narrow-spectrum antibiotics.

Educational Achievement and Innovation

Recipient: H. Barrett Fromme, MD, University of Chicago

Dr. Fromme is well known as a leader in pediatric medical education and was instrumental in establishing the Pediatric National Nighttime Curriculum, which includes approximately 75 percent of all residency programs across the U.S. She also led the Advancing Pediatric Educator Excellence Teaching Program for hospitalists, which helps develop their teaching skills. Dr. Fromme has also been named a Master Educator at the University of Chicago Academy of Distinguished Medical Educators.

Research Excellence

Recipient: Derek Williams, MD, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville

Dr. Williams is a pediatric hospitalist whose research activities have focused on respiratory infections in hospitalized children. He has received multiple grants and awards from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and has served as the lead investigator at his institution for the CDC-sponsored study entitled Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community (EPIC), which has generated several publications, including in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Lifetime Achievement

Recipient: Ken Roberts, MD, chairman emeritus, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

While he is now retired, Dr. Roberts has served as a mentor to many pediatric hospitalists throughout his storied career and has more than 200 publications, including one in Pediatrics called “A Hospitalist Movement? Where to?”

Congratulations to the recipients of the 2016 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Awards, who were recently recognized at the 2016 Pediatric Hospital Medicine meeting in Chicago. The awards are presented to pediatric hospitalists who make exemplary contributions to hospital medicine, quality improvement, and patient care.

The awards are presented in four categories:

Safety and Quality Improvement

Recipient: Kavita Parikh, MD, Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, D.C.

Dr. Parikh is a member of the Value in Inpatient Pediatrics Network and has worked with the group to improve the care of community-acquired pneumonia. The group has enrolled more than 50 hospitals around the country and one international site to standardize care so that all children hospitalized with pneumonia can receive the same high-quality care, including the use of narrow-spectrum antibiotics.

Educational Achievement and Innovation

Recipient: H. Barrett Fromme, MD, University of Chicago

Dr. Fromme is well known as a leader in pediatric medical education and was instrumental in establishing the Pediatric National Nighttime Curriculum, which includes approximately 75 percent of all residency programs across the U.S. She also led the Advancing Pediatric Educator Excellence Teaching Program for hospitalists, which helps develop their teaching skills. Dr. Fromme has also been named a Master Educator at the University of Chicago Academy of Distinguished Medical Educators.

Research Excellence

Recipient: Derek Williams, MD, Monroe Carell Jr. Children’s Hospital at Vanderbilt, Nashville

Dr. Williams is a pediatric hospitalist whose research activities have focused on respiratory infections in hospitalized children. He has received multiple grants and awards from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes of Health, and Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and has served as the lead investigator at his institution for the CDC-sponsored study entitled Etiology of Pneumonia in the Community (EPIC), which has generated several publications, including in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Lifetime Achievement

Recipient: Ken Roberts, MD, chairman emeritus, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

While he is now retired, Dr. Roberts has served as a mentor to many pediatric hospitalists throughout his storied career and has more than 200 publications, including one in Pediatrics called “A Hospitalist Movement? Where to?”