Career

An increasing number of hospitalists are pursuing part-time schedules to cater to lifestyle demands and personal desires. According to a 2010 survey conducted by the American Medical Group Management Association and Cejka Search, 21% of physicians in the U.S. are working part time, compared with only 13% in 2005.

Among those part-time physicians, the fastest-growing segments are men approaching retirement and women in the early to middle stages of their careers. Senior physicians who are tired of the commitment that comes with full-time employment increasingly are opting for part-time employment as a transition into retirement. Physicians with young children are seeking part-time employment to be more active in child-rearing.

The medical community generally has welcomed the opportunity to incorporate part-time physicians into hospital settings as a way to maintain female physicians, senior physicians, and physicians in specialties experiencing shortages. Physicians who are retained on a part-time basis should be cognizant of the following areas of the physician’s employment or independent contractor agreement:

• Independent contractor or employee status;
• Compensation;
• Benefits;
• Professional liability (malpractice) insurance; and
• Restrictive covenants.

Independent Contractor vs. Employee

Oftentimes, physicians assume that just because he or she is working part time, he or she is an independent contractor. That is an inaccurate assumption. The amount of time a physician works is not the determining factor as to whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor of the practice or hospital. Whether a physician is an employee or an independent contractor is a distinction with real consequences for tax purposes and protections under federal and state labor and employment laws.

Generally, labor and employment laws provide protections for employees, but these protections do not extend to independent contractors. With regard to taxes, if a hospitalist is an employee, the employer is required to withhold income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to the hospitalist. Conversely, if a hospitalist is an independent contractor, the practice or hospital will not withhold or pay taxes on payments to the hospitalist; rather, the individual hospitalist will be responsible for making those payments to the IRS and state tax authorities. It is imperative that the contract clearly indicates whether the hospitalist is an employee or an independent contractor, as well as the corresponding responsibilities of the parties.

Compensation and Benefits

Partial compensation for part-time work is logical, but determining a fair and competitive compensation package is not always as straightforward when it comes to part-timers. There are two general models that practices and hospitals use to determine compensation for hospitalists working part time. First, the physician may be paid a percentage of a full-time physician’s salary, based on the number of hours worked. Second, the physician may receive a per diem rate or an hourly rate. As with full-time physicians, there are various ways to formulate a part-time physician’s compensation, and the method used should be explicitly outlined in the physician’s employment or independent contractor agreement.

Benefit plans and arrangements (such as health, dental, vision, retirement plan, pension plan, disability coverage, life insurance, etc.) frequently are provided to employees and infrequently provided to independent contractors. Whether a physician who is working part time will receive benefits will vary from employer to employer. A threshold issue, however, is whether a part-time worker is even eligible to receive certain benefits. Many health, dental, and vision plans require employees to work a minimum of 30 hours a week on a regular basis, thus excluding part-time employees who work fewer hours. For retirement and pension plans, employees typically must work a minimum of 1,000 hours per year to be eligible to participate. Even if a hospitalist’s employment agreement provides that the hospitalist may receive benefits from the employer, the agreement may also provide that such a provision is subject to the terms and conditions of the particular benefit plans or arrangements.

Professional Liability (Malpractice) Insurance

While some practices or hospitals pay for a part-time physician’s malpractice insurance premiums, many shift some or all of these costs to the physician. Many insurance providers offer malpractice plans for physicians practicing part time, with reduced premiums and reduced coverage.

When negotiating a compensation package, payment for malpractice insurance should be considered. A physician also must be aware of what is excluded from coverage. For example, if a physician works part time with Hospital A and part time with Hospital B, and Hospital A provides malpractice coverage for the physician, it cannot be assumed that such coverage will cover the physician’s work with Hospital B. In this case, the physician may need a separate policy for work performed through Hospital B.

Restrictive Covenants

Although a physician might only be employed on a part-time basis, the employer might nevertheless want to protect itself by including restrictive covenants (i.e. noncompetition and nonsolicitation clauses) in the physician’s employment agreement. A part-time physician must be careful that the restrictive covenants do not jeopardize their other career objectives. For example, in the example described above with the physician working part time for both Hospital A and Hospital B, a noncompetition clause in the physician’s employment agreement with Hospital A could prohibit the physician from working at another hospital, including Hospital B.

Retaining part-time hospitalists is an increasingly attractive option for physician practices and hospitals, and part-time work is an increasingly attractive option for physicians. The items described above are just a few of the provisions that are unique to the part-time physician relationship that should be reflected in the physician’s employment or independent contractor agreement.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at [email protected].

An increasing number of hospitalists are pursuing part-time schedules to cater to lifestyle demands and personal desires. According to a 2010 survey conducted by the American Medical Group Management Association and Cejka Search, 21% of physicians in the U.S. are working part time, compared with only 13% in 2005.

Among those part-time physicians, the fastest-growing segments are men approaching retirement and women in the early to middle stages of their careers. Senior physicians who are tired of the commitment that comes with full-time employment increasingly are opting for part-time employment as a transition into retirement. Physicians with young children are seeking part-time employment to be more active in child-rearing.

The medical community generally has welcomed the opportunity to incorporate part-time physicians into hospital settings as a way to maintain female physicians, senior physicians, and physicians in specialties experiencing shortages. Physicians who are retained on a part-time basis should be cognizant of the following areas of the physician’s employment or independent contractor agreement:

• Independent contractor or employee status;
• Compensation;
• Benefits;
• Professional liability (malpractice) insurance; and
• Restrictive covenants.

Independent Contractor vs. Employee

Oftentimes, physicians assume that just because he or she is working part time, he or she is an independent contractor. That is an inaccurate assumption. The amount of time a physician works is not the determining factor as to whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor of the practice or hospital. Whether a physician is an employee or an independent contractor is a distinction with real consequences for tax purposes and protections under federal and state labor and employment laws.

Generally, labor and employment laws provide protections for employees, but these protections do not extend to independent contractors. With regard to taxes, if a hospitalist is an employee, the employer is required to withhold income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to the hospitalist. Conversely, if a hospitalist is an independent contractor, the practice or hospital will not withhold or pay taxes on payments to the hospitalist; rather, the individual hospitalist will be responsible for making those payments to the IRS and state tax authorities. It is imperative that the contract clearly indicates whether the hospitalist is an employee or an independent contractor, as well as the corresponding responsibilities of the parties.

Compensation and Benefits

Partial compensation for part-time work is logical, but determining a fair and competitive compensation package is not always as straightforward when it comes to part-timers. There are two general models that practices and hospitals use to determine compensation for hospitalists working part time. First, the physician may be paid a percentage of a full-time physician’s salary, based on the number of hours worked. Second, the physician may receive a per diem rate or an hourly rate. As with full-time physicians, there are various ways to formulate a part-time physician’s compensation, and the method used should be explicitly outlined in the physician’s employment or independent contractor agreement.

Benefit plans and arrangements (such as health, dental, vision, retirement plan, pension plan, disability coverage, life insurance, etc.) frequently are provided to employees and infrequently provided to independent contractors. Whether a physician who is working part time will receive benefits will vary from employer to employer. A threshold issue, however, is whether a part-time worker is even eligible to receive certain benefits. Many health, dental, and vision plans require employees to work a minimum of 30 hours a week on a regular basis, thus excluding part-time employees who work fewer hours. For retirement and pension plans, employees typically must work a minimum of 1,000 hours per year to be eligible to participate. Even if a hospitalist’s employment agreement provides that the hospitalist may receive benefits from the employer, the agreement may also provide that such a provision is subject to the terms and conditions of the particular benefit plans or arrangements.

Professional Liability (Malpractice) Insurance

While some practices or hospitals pay for a part-time physician’s malpractice insurance premiums, many shift some or all of these costs to the physician. Many insurance providers offer malpractice plans for physicians practicing part time, with reduced premiums and reduced coverage.

When negotiating a compensation package, payment for malpractice insurance should be considered. A physician also must be aware of what is excluded from coverage. For example, if a physician works part time with Hospital A and part time with Hospital B, and Hospital A provides malpractice coverage for the physician, it cannot be assumed that such coverage will cover the physician’s work with Hospital B. In this case, the physician may need a separate policy for work performed through Hospital B.

Restrictive Covenants

Although a physician might only be employed on a part-time basis, the employer might nevertheless want to protect itself by including restrictive covenants (i.e. noncompetition and nonsolicitation clauses) in the physician’s employment agreement. A part-time physician must be careful that the restrictive covenants do not jeopardize their other career objectives. For example, in the example described above with the physician working part time for both Hospital A and Hospital B, a noncompetition clause in the physician’s employment agreement with Hospital A could prohibit the physician from working at another hospital, including Hospital B.

Retaining part-time hospitalists is an increasingly attractive option for physician practices and hospitals, and part-time work is an increasingly attractive option for physicians. The items described above are just a few of the provisions that are unique to the part-time physician relationship that should be reflected in the physician’s employment or independent contractor agreement.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at [email protected].

An increasing number of hospitalists are pursuing part-time schedules to cater to lifestyle demands and personal desires. According to a 2010 survey conducted by the American Medical Group Management Association and Cejka Search, 21% of physicians in the U.S. are working part time, compared with only 13% in 2005.

Among those part-time physicians, the fastest-growing segments are men approaching retirement and women in the early to middle stages of their careers. Senior physicians who are tired of the commitment that comes with full-time employment increasingly are opting for part-time employment as a transition into retirement. Physicians with young children are seeking part-time employment to be more active in child-rearing.

The medical community generally has welcomed the opportunity to incorporate part-time physicians into hospital settings as a way to maintain female physicians, senior physicians, and physicians in specialties experiencing shortages. Physicians who are retained on a part-time basis should be cognizant of the following areas of the physician’s employment or independent contractor agreement:

• Independent contractor or employee status;
• Compensation;
• Benefits;
• Professional liability (malpractice) insurance; and
• Restrictive covenants.

Independent Contractor vs. Employee

Oftentimes, physicians assume that just because he or she is working part time, he or she is an independent contractor. That is an inaccurate assumption. The amount of time a physician works is not the determining factor as to whether someone is an employee or an independent contractor of the practice or hospital. Whether a physician is an employee or an independent contractor is a distinction with real consequences for tax purposes and protections under federal and state labor and employment laws.

Generally, labor and employment laws provide protections for employees, but these protections do not extend to independent contractors. With regard to taxes, if a hospitalist is an employee, the employer is required to withhold income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes, and pay unemployment tax on wages paid to the hospitalist. Conversely, if a hospitalist is an independent contractor, the practice or hospital will not withhold or pay taxes on payments to the hospitalist; rather, the individual hospitalist will be responsible for making those payments to the IRS and state tax authorities. It is imperative that the contract clearly indicates whether the hospitalist is an employee or an independent contractor, as well as the corresponding responsibilities of the parties.

Compensation and Benefits

Partial compensation for part-time work is logical, but determining a fair and competitive compensation package is not always as straightforward when it comes to part-timers. There are two general models that practices and hospitals use to determine compensation for hospitalists working part time. First, the physician may be paid a percentage of a full-time physician’s salary, based on the number of hours worked. Second, the physician may receive a per diem rate or an hourly rate. As with full-time physicians, there are various ways to formulate a part-time physician’s compensation, and the method used should be explicitly outlined in the physician’s employment or independent contractor agreement.

Benefit plans and arrangements (such as health, dental, vision, retirement plan, pension plan, disability coverage, life insurance, etc.) frequently are provided to employees and infrequently provided to independent contractors. Whether a physician who is working part time will receive benefits will vary from employer to employer. A threshold issue, however, is whether a part-time worker is even eligible to receive certain benefits. Many health, dental, and vision plans require employees to work a minimum of 30 hours a week on a regular basis, thus excluding part-time employees who work fewer hours. For retirement and pension plans, employees typically must work a minimum of 1,000 hours per year to be eligible to participate. Even if a hospitalist’s employment agreement provides that the hospitalist may receive benefits from the employer, the agreement may also provide that such a provision is subject to the terms and conditions of the particular benefit plans or arrangements.

Professional Liability (Malpractice) Insurance

While some practices or hospitals pay for a part-time physician’s malpractice insurance premiums, many shift some or all of these costs to the physician. Many insurance providers offer malpractice plans for physicians practicing part time, with reduced premiums and reduced coverage.

When negotiating a compensation package, payment for malpractice insurance should be considered. A physician also must be aware of what is excluded from coverage. For example, if a physician works part time with Hospital A and part time with Hospital B, and Hospital A provides malpractice coverage for the physician, it cannot be assumed that such coverage will cover the physician’s work with Hospital B. In this case, the physician may need a separate policy for work performed through Hospital B.

Restrictive Covenants

Although a physician might only be employed on a part-time basis, the employer might nevertheless want to protect itself by including restrictive covenants (i.e. noncompetition and nonsolicitation clauses) in the physician’s employment agreement. A part-time physician must be careful that the restrictive covenants do not jeopardize their other career objectives. For example, in the example described above with the physician working part time for both Hospital A and Hospital B, a noncompetition clause in the physician’s employment agreement with Hospital A could prohibit the physician from working at another hospital, including Hospital B.

Retaining part-time hospitalists is an increasingly attractive option for physician practices and hospitals, and part-time work is an increasingly attractive option for physicians. The items described above are just a few of the provisions that are unique to the part-time physician relationship that should be reflected in the physician’s employment or independent contractor agreement.

Steven M. Harris, Esq., is a nationally recognized healthcare attorney and a member of the law firm McDonald Hopkins LLC in Chicago. Write to him at [email protected].

Edward Ma, MD, wasn’t sure what he wanted to be when he grew up. As a biology student at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, he says friends “peer-pressured” him to choose a career in medicine. Once the decision was made and he began his training, he found out he was pretty good at the doctor thing.

“I realized that I like this,” he says. “I told myself, ‘I’m going to go for it.’”

Dr. Ma also realized he had a liking for business, and where better to study business than at Penn’s Wharton School of Business? He hasn’t completed an MBA, but he’s taken post-grad courses focused on healthcare management. And now he’s combining that knowledge with his experiences as a hospitalist and medical director to develop a consulting business.

“That sort of evolved because I sort of have a big mouth. When I see something wrong, or something that could be done better, I tend to vocalize it,” says Dr. Ma, medical director of hospitalist services at 168-bed Brandywine Hospital in Coatesville, Pa. “The biggest opportunity is to really help a hospitalist group realize its potential and its value.”

Dr. Ma joined Team Hospitalist in April 2012. Although his side business is evolving via “word of mouth,” he still spends the majority of his time in the hospital directing a six-member HM group and caring for hospitalized patients.

Question: What do you like most about caring for patients?

Answer: I like the acuity of the care. The acuity of the illness is pretty high for our patients, and you can see very quickly the impact hospitalists can have. A lot of outpatient medicine is preventive care, so usually you don’t have an immediate problem that needs to be fixed, whereas in HM, the patients are acutely ill and there’s an ability to get these patients better—and see a change in their medical condition in a day or two. There’s more immediate gratification in terms of the effort that we put in caring for a patient.

Q: What do you like least?

A: The paperwork. At my hospital, a lot of it is computerized. But there are tons of checklists, tons of quality measures that need to be addressed, which is good. Still, it ends up bogging down our ability to take care of the patient. For example, a patient comes in for pneumonia and you have to make sure that some of their chronic issues (e.g. diabetes) are addressed. Have they had their hemoglobin A1C checked in the last 60 days? Does it really matter right now when we’re taking care of the patient’s pneumonia that we have to address this? Smoking cessation, yes, it’s very important, and we need to address this, but is it really necessary that we do this at this point when a patient is really ill? I think there’s a lot of these government regulations that they want us to take care of sometimes in the acute setting, which sometimes feels awkward or not necessarily time-appropriate.

Q: You say your training as an internist prepared you for a seamless transition to a hospitalist job, but you also think IM training is “doing a disservice to medicine.” How so?

A: Don’t get me wrong, I love hospital medicine. But I think what we really need is more primary-care doctors. This is not just my commentary on hospital medicine, but all subspecialties. I know specifically speaking that we need more outpatient internists, outpatient family physicians. If there are many internists, they’re not going to have as much need for cardiology or GI, or a lot of other subspecialties. There’s enough of a population of internists that would satisfy the need for internists and obviously the need for subspecialties.

Q: What’s the biggest change in HM you’ve witnessed since you started 10 years ago?

A: Our acceptance as a field by the medical community. Other physicians have now come to be very accepting of our role as the primary caretakers of their hospitalized patients.

Q: Do you consider yourself to have an entrepreneurial spirit or are you more of a solutions-oriented physician?

A: I have more of the entrepreneurial spirit. I’ve been talking to a lot of hospitalists, and what I encourage them to do is completely counter to the current healthcare environment. I’ve been encouraging them to say, “Let’s get a bunch of us together and set up our own hospitalist practice and do it in a way that we can have a certain level of autonomy, but also do it in a way that we can collaborate with the hospital, work intimately with them, and get certain guarantees from them. And do it privately, so that we can maintain our autonomy.” I think that’s important because I see the difference between the private practices and the practices that are owned by a health system. People just care so much more when it’s their own practice.

Q: What are the biggest challenges you face as medical director?

A: Getting everyone to work as a team. Everyone has a different schedule, differing values, and priorities. It’s very important that we work as a team because when one person does something, it impacts what somebody else does.

Q: What’s the most important thing to know when starting an HM group or fixing a broken group?

A: For fixing a group, you have to look at the values of the group of doctors. What are the values? What are the objectives? What are the professional goals? What I’ve encountered in HM is a lot of people are just coming in to get a paycheck. They come in, they do their job, and they like to take care of patients. Don’t get me wrong about that, but they like the freedom and the high competition that’s provided by hospital medicine. Oftentimes they come in, they do their jobs very well, they take care of their patients, and then they’re out the door. They don’t really have an interest in building up that practice or building up something for the hospital. We as doctors are all part of a medical community, we’re part of a medical staff, and it’s very important for us to get involved.

Q: Last year, you became president of SHM’s Philadelphia Tri-State Region chapter. What are your goals?

A: I’ve always been involved with the chapter, but I saw it as a good opportunity to network and talk with more hospitalists. I wanted to get their viewpoints on things and bounce ideas. I’m a very vocal person, so when I hear a good idea, I like to spread it amongst other people. And if I see something that someone said was bad and I hear it from enough people, I like to bring it up and discuss with everybody.

Q: What’s the best part of being an SHM member?

A: Getting to interact with a lot of my colleagues. To see what struggles they’re going through, to see that their struggles are very similar to the struggles that my group is going through, that we’re all in the same boat, and that we need to collaborate a little more to make things work. Instead of each practice trying to reinvent the wheel, we can try to work together and build off each other.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Edward Ma, MD, wasn’t sure what he wanted to be when he grew up. As a biology student at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, he says friends “peer-pressured” him to choose a career in medicine. Once the decision was made and he began his training, he found out he was pretty good at the doctor thing.

“I realized that I like this,” he says. “I told myself, ‘I’m going to go for it.’”

Dr. Ma also realized he had a liking for business, and where better to study business than at Penn’s Wharton School of Business? He hasn’t completed an MBA, but he’s taken post-grad courses focused on healthcare management. And now he’s combining that knowledge with his experiences as a hospitalist and medical director to develop a consulting business.

“That sort of evolved because I sort of have a big mouth. When I see something wrong, or something that could be done better, I tend to vocalize it,” says Dr. Ma, medical director of hospitalist services at 168-bed Brandywine Hospital in Coatesville, Pa. “The biggest opportunity is to really help a hospitalist group realize its potential and its value.”

Dr. Ma joined Team Hospitalist in April 2012. Although his side business is evolving via “word of mouth,” he still spends the majority of his time in the hospital directing a six-member HM group and caring for hospitalized patients.

Question: What do you like most about caring for patients?

Answer: I like the acuity of the care. The acuity of the illness is pretty high for our patients, and you can see very quickly the impact hospitalists can have. A lot of outpatient medicine is preventive care, so usually you don’t have an immediate problem that needs to be fixed, whereas in HM, the patients are acutely ill and there’s an ability to get these patients better—and see a change in their medical condition in a day or two. There’s more immediate gratification in terms of the effort that we put in caring for a patient.

Q: What do you like least?

A: The paperwork. At my hospital, a lot of it is computerized. But there are tons of checklists, tons of quality measures that need to be addressed, which is good. Still, it ends up bogging down our ability to take care of the patient. For example, a patient comes in for pneumonia and you have to make sure that some of their chronic issues (e.g. diabetes) are addressed. Have they had their hemoglobin A1C checked in the last 60 days? Does it really matter right now when we’re taking care of the patient’s pneumonia that we have to address this? Smoking cessation, yes, it’s very important, and we need to address this, but is it really necessary that we do this at this point when a patient is really ill? I think there’s a lot of these government regulations that they want us to take care of sometimes in the acute setting, which sometimes feels awkward or not necessarily time-appropriate.

Q: You say your training as an internist prepared you for a seamless transition to a hospitalist job, but you also think IM training is “doing a disservice to medicine.” How so?

A: Don’t get me wrong, I love hospital medicine. But I think what we really need is more primary-care doctors. This is not just my commentary on hospital medicine, but all subspecialties. I know specifically speaking that we need more outpatient internists, outpatient family physicians. If there are many internists, they’re not going to have as much need for cardiology or GI, or a lot of other subspecialties. There’s enough of a population of internists that would satisfy the need for internists and obviously the need for subspecialties.

Q: What’s the biggest change in HM you’ve witnessed since you started 10 years ago?

A: Our acceptance as a field by the medical community. Other physicians have now come to be very accepting of our role as the primary caretakers of their hospitalized patients.

Q: Do you consider yourself to have an entrepreneurial spirit or are you more of a solutions-oriented physician?

A: I have more of the entrepreneurial spirit. I’ve been talking to a lot of hospitalists, and what I encourage them to do is completely counter to the current healthcare environment. I’ve been encouraging them to say, “Let’s get a bunch of us together and set up our own hospitalist practice and do it in a way that we can have a certain level of autonomy, but also do it in a way that we can collaborate with the hospital, work intimately with them, and get certain guarantees from them. And do it privately, so that we can maintain our autonomy.” I think that’s important because I see the difference between the private practices and the practices that are owned by a health system. People just care so much more when it’s their own practice.

Q: What are the biggest challenges you face as medical director?

A: Getting everyone to work as a team. Everyone has a different schedule, differing values, and priorities. It’s very important that we work as a team because when one person does something, it impacts what somebody else does.

Q: What’s the most important thing to know when starting an HM group or fixing a broken group?

A: For fixing a group, you have to look at the values of the group of doctors. What are the values? What are the objectives? What are the professional goals? What I’ve encountered in HM is a lot of people are just coming in to get a paycheck. They come in, they do their job, and they like to take care of patients. Don’t get me wrong about that, but they like the freedom and the high competition that’s provided by hospital medicine. Oftentimes they come in, they do their jobs very well, they take care of their patients, and then they’re out the door. They don’t really have an interest in building up that practice or building up something for the hospital. We as doctors are all part of a medical community, we’re part of a medical staff, and it’s very important for us to get involved.

Q: Last year, you became president of SHM’s Philadelphia Tri-State Region chapter. What are your goals?

A: I’ve always been involved with the chapter, but I saw it as a good opportunity to network and talk with more hospitalists. I wanted to get their viewpoints on things and bounce ideas. I’m a very vocal person, so when I hear a good idea, I like to spread it amongst other people. And if I see something that someone said was bad and I hear it from enough people, I like to bring it up and discuss with everybody.

Q: What’s the best part of being an SHM member?

A: Getting to interact with a lot of my colleagues. To see what struggles they’re going through, to see that their struggles are very similar to the struggles that my group is going through, that we’re all in the same boat, and that we need to collaborate a little more to make things work. Instead of each practice trying to reinvent the wheel, we can try to work together and build off each other.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Edward Ma, MD, wasn’t sure what he wanted to be when he grew up. As a biology student at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, he says friends “peer-pressured” him to choose a career in medicine. Once the decision was made and he began his training, he found out he was pretty good at the doctor thing.

“I realized that I like this,” he says. “I told myself, ‘I’m going to go for it.’”

Dr. Ma also realized he had a liking for business, and where better to study business than at Penn’s Wharton School of Business? He hasn’t completed an MBA, but he’s taken post-grad courses focused on healthcare management. And now he’s combining that knowledge with his experiences as a hospitalist and medical director to develop a consulting business.

“That sort of evolved because I sort of have a big mouth. When I see something wrong, or something that could be done better, I tend to vocalize it,” says Dr. Ma, medical director of hospitalist services at 168-bed Brandywine Hospital in Coatesville, Pa. “The biggest opportunity is to really help a hospitalist group realize its potential and its value.”

Dr. Ma joined Team Hospitalist in April 2012. Although his side business is evolving via “word of mouth,” he still spends the majority of his time in the hospital directing a six-member HM group and caring for hospitalized patients.

Question: What do you like most about caring for patients?

Answer: I like the acuity of the care. The acuity of the illness is pretty high for our patients, and you can see very quickly the impact hospitalists can have. A lot of outpatient medicine is preventive care, so usually you don’t have an immediate problem that needs to be fixed, whereas in HM, the patients are acutely ill and there’s an ability to get these patients better—and see a change in their medical condition in a day or two. There’s more immediate gratification in terms of the effort that we put in caring for a patient.

Q: What do you like least?

A: The paperwork. At my hospital, a lot of it is computerized. But there are tons of checklists, tons of quality measures that need to be addressed, which is good. Still, it ends up bogging down our ability to take care of the patient. For example, a patient comes in for pneumonia and you have to make sure that some of their chronic issues (e.g. diabetes) are addressed. Have they had their hemoglobin A1C checked in the last 60 days? Does it really matter right now when we’re taking care of the patient’s pneumonia that we have to address this? Smoking cessation, yes, it’s very important, and we need to address this, but is it really necessary that we do this at this point when a patient is really ill? I think there’s a lot of these government regulations that they want us to take care of sometimes in the acute setting, which sometimes feels awkward or not necessarily time-appropriate.

Q: You say your training as an internist prepared you for a seamless transition to a hospitalist job, but you also think IM training is “doing a disservice to medicine.” How so?

A: Don’t get me wrong, I love hospital medicine. But I think what we really need is more primary-care doctors. This is not just my commentary on hospital medicine, but all subspecialties. I know specifically speaking that we need more outpatient internists, outpatient family physicians. If there are many internists, they’re not going to have as much need for cardiology or GI, or a lot of other subspecialties. There’s enough of a population of internists that would satisfy the need for internists and obviously the need for subspecialties.

Q: What’s the biggest change in HM you’ve witnessed since you started 10 years ago?

A: Our acceptance as a field by the medical community. Other physicians have now come to be very accepting of our role as the primary caretakers of their hospitalized patients.

Q: Do you consider yourself to have an entrepreneurial spirit or are you more of a solutions-oriented physician?

A: I have more of the entrepreneurial spirit. I’ve been talking to a lot of hospitalists, and what I encourage them to do is completely counter to the current healthcare environment. I’ve been encouraging them to say, “Let’s get a bunch of us together and set up our own hospitalist practice and do it in a way that we can have a certain level of autonomy, but also do it in a way that we can collaborate with the hospital, work intimately with them, and get certain guarantees from them. And do it privately, so that we can maintain our autonomy.” I think that’s important because I see the difference between the private practices and the practices that are owned by a health system. People just care so much more when it’s their own practice.

Q: What are the biggest challenges you face as medical director?

A: Getting everyone to work as a team. Everyone has a different schedule, differing values, and priorities. It’s very important that we work as a team because when one person does something, it impacts what somebody else does.

Q: What’s the most important thing to know when starting an HM group or fixing a broken group?

A: For fixing a group, you have to look at the values of the group of doctors. What are the values? What are the objectives? What are the professional goals? What I’ve encountered in HM is a lot of people are just coming in to get a paycheck. They come in, they do their job, and they like to take care of patients. Don’t get me wrong about that, but they like the freedom and the high competition that’s provided by hospital medicine. Oftentimes they come in, they do their jobs very well, they take care of their patients, and then they’re out the door. They don’t really have an interest in building up that practice or building up something for the hospital. We as doctors are all part of a medical community, we’re part of a medical staff, and it’s very important for us to get involved.

Q: Last year, you became president of SHM’s Philadelphia Tri-State Region chapter. What are your goals?

A: I’ve always been involved with the chapter, but I saw it as a good opportunity to network and talk with more hospitalists. I wanted to get their viewpoints on things and bounce ideas. I’m a very vocal person, so when I hear a good idea, I like to spread it amongst other people. And if I see something that someone said was bad and I hear it from enough people, I like to bring it up and discuss with everybody.

Q: What’s the best part of being an SHM member?

A: Getting to interact with a lot of my colleagues. To see what struggles they’re going through, to see that their struggles are very similar to the struggles that my group is going through, that we’re all in the same boat, and that we need to collaborate a little more to make things work. Instead of each practice trying to reinvent the wheel, we can try to work together and build off each other.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

University of Minnesota hospitalist Karyn Baum, MD, MSEd, directs one of six regional training centers for Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS), an evidence-based, multimedia curriculum, tool set, and system for healthcare organizations to improve their teamwork.

Using the TeamSTEPPS approach, Dr. Baum collaborated with hospitalist Albertine Beard, MD, and the charge nurse on a 28-bed medical unit at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center to present a half-day training session for all VA staff, including four hospitalists. The seminar mixed didactics, discussions, and simulations, similar to traditional role-playing techniques but using a high-fidelity manikin that talks and displays vital signs.

"Teamwork is a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that lead to the creation of a culture where it’s about us as a team, not about who is highest in the hierarchy," Dr. Baum says. Hospitalists want to be leaders, "but we have a responsibility to be intentional leaders, learning the skills and modeling them," she adds.

Improved teamwork benefits patients through more effective communication and reduction in medical errors, Dr. Baum says, "but it also helps to create a healthy environment in which to work, where we all have each other’s backs."

TeamSTEPPS, developed jointly by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Department of Defense, has reached 25% to 30% of U.S. hospitals by annually training about 700 masters. The masters then go back to their institutions and share the techniques.

Read more about why improving teamwork is good for your patients.

University of Minnesota hospitalist Karyn Baum, MD, MSEd, directs one of six regional training centers for Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS), an evidence-based, multimedia curriculum, tool set, and system for healthcare organizations to improve their teamwork.

Using the TeamSTEPPS approach, Dr. Baum collaborated with hospitalist Albertine Beard, MD, and the charge nurse on a 28-bed medical unit at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center to present a half-day training session for all VA staff, including four hospitalists. The seminar mixed didactics, discussions, and simulations, similar to traditional role-playing techniques but using a high-fidelity manikin that talks and displays vital signs.

"Teamwork is a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that lead to the creation of a culture where it’s about us as a team, not about who is highest in the hierarchy," Dr. Baum says. Hospitalists want to be leaders, "but we have a responsibility to be intentional leaders, learning the skills and modeling them," she adds.

Improved teamwork benefits patients through more effective communication and reduction in medical errors, Dr. Baum says, "but it also helps to create a healthy environment in which to work, where we all have each other’s backs."

TeamSTEPPS, developed jointly by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Department of Defense, has reached 25% to 30% of U.S. hospitals by annually training about 700 masters. The masters then go back to their institutions and share the techniques.

Read more about why improving teamwork is good for your patients.

University of Minnesota hospitalist Karyn Baum, MD, MSEd, directs one of six regional training centers for Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety (TeamSTEPPS), an evidence-based, multimedia curriculum, tool set, and system for healthcare organizations to improve their teamwork.

Using the TeamSTEPPS approach, Dr. Baum collaborated with hospitalist Albertine Beard, MD, and the charge nurse on a 28-bed medical unit at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center to present a half-day training session for all VA staff, including four hospitalists. The seminar mixed didactics, discussions, and simulations, similar to traditional role-playing techniques but using a high-fidelity manikin that talks and displays vital signs.

"Teamwork is a set of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that lead to the creation of a culture where it’s about us as a team, not about who is highest in the hierarchy," Dr. Baum says. Hospitalists want to be leaders, "but we have a responsibility to be intentional leaders, learning the skills and modeling them," she adds.

Improved teamwork benefits patients through more effective communication and reduction in medical errors, Dr. Baum says, "but it also helps to create a healthy environment in which to work, where we all have each other’s backs."

TeamSTEPPS, developed jointly by the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and the Department of Defense, has reached 25% to 30% of U.S. hospitals by annually training about 700 masters. The masters then go back to their institutions and share the techniques.

Read more about why improving teamwork is good for your patients.

Clinical question: What are the relative predictive values of the HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED risk-prediction schemes?

Background: The tools predict bleeding risk in patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation (afib), but it is unknown which is the best for predicting clinically relevant bleeding.

Study design: Post-hoc analysis.

Setting: Data previously collected for the AMADEUS trial (2,293 patients taking warfarin; 251 had at least one clinically relevant bleeding event) were used to test each of the three bleeding-risk-prediction schemes on the same data set.

Synopsis: Using three analysis methods (net reclassification improvement, receiver-operating characteristic [ROC], and decision-curve analysis), the researchers compared the three schemes’ performance. HAS-BLED performed best in all three of the analysis methods.

The HAS-BLED score calculation requires the following patient information: history of hypertension, renal disease, liver disease, stroke, prior major bleeding event, and labile INR; age >65; and use of antiplatelet agents, aspirin, and alcohol.

Bottom line: HAS-BLED was the best of the three schemes, although all three had only modest ability to predict clinically relevant bleeding.

Citation: Apostolakis S, Lane DA, Guo Y, et al. Performance of the HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA and HAS-BLED bleeding risk-prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(9):861-867.

Visit our website for more physician reviews of recent HM-relevant literature.

Clinical question: What are the relative predictive values of the HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED risk-prediction schemes?

Background: The tools predict bleeding risk in patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation (afib), but it is unknown which is the best for predicting clinically relevant bleeding.

Study design: Post-hoc analysis.

Setting: Data previously collected for the AMADEUS trial (2,293 patients taking warfarin; 251 had at least one clinically relevant bleeding event) were used to test each of the three bleeding-risk-prediction schemes on the same data set.

Synopsis: Using three analysis methods (net reclassification improvement, receiver-operating characteristic [ROC], and decision-curve analysis), the researchers compared the three schemes’ performance. HAS-BLED performed best in all three of the analysis methods.

The HAS-BLED score calculation requires the following patient information: history of hypertension, renal disease, liver disease, stroke, prior major bleeding event, and labile INR; age >65; and use of antiplatelet agents, aspirin, and alcohol.

Bottom line: HAS-BLED was the best of the three schemes, although all three had only modest ability to predict clinically relevant bleeding.

Citation: Apostolakis S, Lane DA, Guo Y, et al. Performance of the HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA and HAS-BLED bleeding risk-prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(9):861-867.

Visit our website for more physician reviews of recent HM-relevant literature.

Clinical question: What are the relative predictive values of the HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED risk-prediction schemes?

Background: The tools predict bleeding risk in patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation (afib), but it is unknown which is the best for predicting clinically relevant bleeding.

Study design: Post-hoc analysis.

Setting: Data previously collected for the AMADEUS trial (2,293 patients taking warfarin; 251 had at least one clinically relevant bleeding event) were used to test each of the three bleeding-risk-prediction schemes on the same data set.

Synopsis: Using three analysis methods (net reclassification improvement, receiver-operating characteristic [ROC], and decision-curve analysis), the researchers compared the three schemes’ performance. HAS-BLED performed best in all three of the analysis methods.

The HAS-BLED score calculation requires the following patient information: history of hypertension, renal disease, liver disease, stroke, prior major bleeding event, and labile INR; age >65; and use of antiplatelet agents, aspirin, and alcohol.

Bottom line: HAS-BLED was the best of the three schemes, although all three had only modest ability to predict clinically relevant bleeding.

Citation: Apostolakis S, Lane DA, Guo Y, et al. Performance of the HEMORR2HAGES, ATRIA and HAS-BLED bleeding risk-prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(9):861-867.

Visit our website for more physician reviews of recent HM-relevant literature.

Listen to Robert Bessler, CEO of Sound Physicians, discuss the importance of locum agencies.

Listen to Brent Bormaster, of StaffCare, discuss expectations for filling an open hospitalist position and what to look for in a locum agency.

Listen to Robert Bessler, CEO of Sound Physicians, discuss the importance of locum agencies.

Listen to Brent Bormaster, of StaffCare, discuss expectations for filling an open hospitalist position and what to look for in a locum agency.

Listen to Robert Bessler, CEO of Sound Physicians, discuss the importance of locum agencies.

Listen to Brent Bormaster, of StaffCare, discuss expectations for filling an open hospitalist position and what to look for in a locum agency.

Staying up to date on the latest techniques for optimal coding can be daunting, but you don't have to do it alone. SHM's exclusive CODE-H program enables hospitalists (and others in their practice) to learn best practices in coding from national experts in the field. It also allows participants to ask questions of other hospitalists who may be experiencing similar coding challenges.

CODE-H works through SHM's new online collaboration space, HMX (www.hmxchange.org), and provides live webinar sessions with expert faculty, downloadable resources, and a discussion forum for participants to ask questions and provide answers.

Previous CODE-H participants can extend their CODE-H subscriptions. The extension is $300, and free for prior participants who refer an individual or group to CODE-H.

For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/codeh.

Staying up to date on the latest techniques for optimal coding can be daunting, but you don't have to do it alone. SHM's exclusive CODE-H program enables hospitalists (and others in their practice) to learn best practices in coding from national experts in the field. It also allows participants to ask questions of other hospitalists who may be experiencing similar coding challenges.

CODE-H works through SHM's new online collaboration space, HMX (www.hmxchange.org), and provides live webinar sessions with expert faculty, downloadable resources, and a discussion forum for participants to ask questions and provide answers.

Previous CODE-H participants can extend their CODE-H subscriptions. The extension is $300, and free for prior participants who refer an individual or group to CODE-H.

For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/codeh.

Staying up to date on the latest techniques for optimal coding can be daunting, but you don't have to do it alone. SHM's exclusive CODE-H program enables hospitalists (and others in their practice) to learn best practices in coding from national experts in the field. It also allows participants to ask questions of other hospitalists who may be experiencing similar coding challenges.

CODE-H works through SHM's new online collaboration space, HMX (www.hmxchange.org), and provides live webinar sessions with expert faculty, downloadable resources, and a discussion forum for participants to ask questions and provide answers.

Previous CODE-H participants can extend their CODE-H subscriptions. The extension is $300, and free for prior participants who refer an individual or group to CODE-H.

For more information, visit www.hospitalmedicine.org/codeh.

Born, raised, educated, and trained in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, Nick Fitterman, MD, FACP, SFHM, is as New York as New Yorkers get. After 14 years in private practice, he “saw the handwriting on the wall” and founded a hospitalist program in the community hospital down the street. He served six years as HM group director at Huntington (N.Y.) Hospital, immersing himself in patient care and the inner workings of the health system.

Six months ago, he moved into a new, full-time administrative position as medical director of group health management for North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, a 16-hospital system that includes 408-bed Huntington. The post is in a newly created department and focuses on “connecting parts of our healthcare system that will help serve us in the new landscape of healthcare reform as we move from individual health to population health, as we move from a model of illness to a model of wellness,” he says.

“Parts are already in our system, and my job is to link them together, help build up what needs to be built up, and to fill gaps where they exist,” he says.

Dr. Fitterman, who joined Team Hospitalist earlier this year, plans to continue working a few hospitalist shifts a month with his former group, but his new mission is clear: “Getting providers to recognize the need and the sense of urgency to redesign the way they practice medicine,” he says.

Question: What is the biggest difference between outpatient and inpatient care?

Answer: There are two significant differences. One would be the acuity of the patient. The outpatient is not as acutely ill as those in the hospital. That’s one of the things that drew me to hospital medicine. The other big difference is continuity; it is lost in the hospital. In outpatient medicine, I was able to take care of multiple generations of the same family over many years. In hospital medicine, I would only see an individual patient for three to five days.

Q: What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

A: I enjoy the challenge of taking care of the acutely ill. An illness may be compressed into a few days, and you need to figure out quickly, and take action that has meaningful impact swiftly. I find that challenging. The other thing that I found quite challenging is the opportunity for hospitalists to help create and execute policy in the hospital that will impact the care of the whole community. As a hospitalist, you can be involved in drafting and executing policy that will impact literally tens of thousands of lives in your community. In your office, you will be more limited to the average 2,500-patient panel that an internist has.

Q: Why have you dedicated yourself to committee work?

A: I encourage any early-career physician to get involved in committees. I entered into a lot of committees … and then I broadened my committee involvement to have a better idea of all the on-goings in the hospital. It also served as a teaching vehicle, to help me understand that people are working on things just like you want to. Committee work allows you to collaborate with people who have mutual interests, instead of feeling like you’re at the end of a process and being prescribed some policy.

Q: It sounds like you’re seeing patients less and doing more what you consider “population health.” How has your experience as a hospitalist helped you in your new position?

A: All of the committee work that I did set the tone for these changes in my career. And that committee work included committee work in my practice, committee work at the hospital, committee work in national organizations, such as SHM and the American College of Physicians.

Q: When you speak about population health, what types of problems and solutions are you looking at?

A: It’s important to recognize that healthcare is only a small part of population health. Now, understanding the other side of social issues that impact our patients, you can bring to them the best healthcare possible, but if we don’t address those other needs or at least recognize them and steer them to a place where they help them with those needs, our care will not be as meaningful as we hope.

Q: Can you give an example?

A: The asthmatic who’s in your ED four times a year and gets excellent care but gets discharged home with an inability to get their medicine or to take their medicines appropriately or to reduce an environmental exposure that keeps triggering the asthmatic exacerbations. These are all the things that population health must now consider. We cannot confine ourselves simply to what we do behind closed doors of the office or within the four walls of a hospital.

Q: How much of your new job is the offspring of regulations coming down the pipe from healthcare reform?

A: Not so much because of the regulations. The changes we are seeing are driven by the market, driven by employers, and by states. Yes, the Affordable Care Act has an impact, but hopefully only to accelerate changes that we already saw taking shape. Our hope is to create a system that will provide that help to the individual and help the population to do that or reduce per-capita cost, but also by enriching the lives of providers and, of course, doing this before the regulations tell us how before someone tells us how to do it.

Q: As a former chief resident, what advice do you have for trainees entering into a new paradigm of medicine?

A: They should consider the population and not just the individual. They should consider the model wellness and not just illness to focus on in an acute-care setting. They should be trained and well-prepared. This is what hospitalist medicine does quite well: to continuously look at quality improvement and PDSA [Plan-Do-Study-Act] cycles. It should be common that they are reviewing quality metrics and planning on how they can get better as a group or even as an individual in a practice and the concept of team medicine.

Q: What is the biggest challenge hospitalists face today?

A: We need to be better versed in the change equation, how to manage change. That’s the biggest challenge.

Q: Tell me about your work with SHM. What does the society mean to you?

A: The society has really helped me understand the process in managing change, in quality-improvement cycles. Having participated in one of the mentored implementation programs [Project BOOST], I was afforded an opportunity to be coached by experts in the field. The toolkits on the SHM website I found very helpful. It was a mini-fellowship, if you will. If I didn’t take the interest that I have in SHM, I don’t think I would have either known the opportunities I have or availed myself of all the opportunities SHM can provide.

Q: What has the senior fellowship in HM meant to you?

A: It was a proud moment standing up with the first class of Senior Fellows in Hospital Medicine. We all recognize the importance of embracing the movement, recognizing the need to help lead this movement, and how we can impact the lives of hospitalist patients in our community by bringing to bear the quality initiatives, the call for focus on quality in hospital medicine that this specialty has.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Born, raised, educated, and trained in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, Nick Fitterman, MD, FACP, SFHM, is as New York as New Yorkers get. After 14 years in private practice, he “saw the handwriting on the wall” and founded a hospitalist program in the community hospital down the street. He served six years as HM group director at Huntington (N.Y.) Hospital, immersing himself in patient care and the inner workings of the health system.

Six months ago, he moved into a new, full-time administrative position as medical director of group health management for North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, a 16-hospital system that includes 408-bed Huntington. The post is in a newly created department and focuses on “connecting parts of our healthcare system that will help serve us in the new landscape of healthcare reform as we move from individual health to population health, as we move from a model of illness to a model of wellness,” he says.

“Parts are already in our system, and my job is to link them together, help build up what needs to be built up, and to fill gaps where they exist,” he says.

Dr. Fitterman, who joined Team Hospitalist earlier this year, plans to continue working a few hospitalist shifts a month with his former group, but his new mission is clear: “Getting providers to recognize the need and the sense of urgency to redesign the way they practice medicine,” he says.

Question: What is the biggest difference between outpatient and inpatient care?

Answer: There are two significant differences. One would be the acuity of the patient. The outpatient is not as acutely ill as those in the hospital. That’s one of the things that drew me to hospital medicine. The other big difference is continuity; it is lost in the hospital. In outpatient medicine, I was able to take care of multiple generations of the same family over many years. In hospital medicine, I would only see an individual patient for three to five days.

Q: What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

A: I enjoy the challenge of taking care of the acutely ill. An illness may be compressed into a few days, and you need to figure out quickly, and take action that has meaningful impact swiftly. I find that challenging. The other thing that I found quite challenging is the opportunity for hospitalists to help create and execute policy in the hospital that will impact the care of the whole community. As a hospitalist, you can be involved in drafting and executing policy that will impact literally tens of thousands of lives in your community. In your office, you will be more limited to the average 2,500-patient panel that an internist has.

Q: Why have you dedicated yourself to committee work?

A: I encourage any early-career physician to get involved in committees. I entered into a lot of committees … and then I broadened my committee involvement to have a better idea of all the on-goings in the hospital. It also served as a teaching vehicle, to help me understand that people are working on things just like you want to. Committee work allows you to collaborate with people who have mutual interests, instead of feeling like you’re at the end of a process and being prescribed some policy.

Q: It sounds like you’re seeing patients less and doing more what you consider “population health.” How has your experience as a hospitalist helped you in your new position?

A: All of the committee work that I did set the tone for these changes in my career. And that committee work included committee work in my practice, committee work at the hospital, committee work in national organizations, such as SHM and the American College of Physicians.

Q: When you speak about population health, what types of problems and solutions are you looking at?

A: It’s important to recognize that healthcare is only a small part of population health. Now, understanding the other side of social issues that impact our patients, you can bring to them the best healthcare possible, but if we don’t address those other needs or at least recognize them and steer them to a place where they help them with those needs, our care will not be as meaningful as we hope.

Q: Can you give an example?

A: The asthmatic who’s in your ED four times a year and gets excellent care but gets discharged home with an inability to get their medicine or to take their medicines appropriately or to reduce an environmental exposure that keeps triggering the asthmatic exacerbations. These are all the things that population health must now consider. We cannot confine ourselves simply to what we do behind closed doors of the office or within the four walls of a hospital.

Q: How much of your new job is the offspring of regulations coming down the pipe from healthcare reform?

A: Not so much because of the regulations. The changes we are seeing are driven by the market, driven by employers, and by states. Yes, the Affordable Care Act has an impact, but hopefully only to accelerate changes that we already saw taking shape. Our hope is to create a system that will provide that help to the individual and help the population to do that or reduce per-capita cost, but also by enriching the lives of providers and, of course, doing this before the regulations tell us how before someone tells us how to do it.

Q: As a former chief resident, what advice do you have for trainees entering into a new paradigm of medicine?

A: They should consider the population and not just the individual. They should consider the model wellness and not just illness to focus on in an acute-care setting. They should be trained and well-prepared. This is what hospitalist medicine does quite well: to continuously look at quality improvement and PDSA [Plan-Do-Study-Act] cycles. It should be common that they are reviewing quality metrics and planning on how they can get better as a group or even as an individual in a practice and the concept of team medicine.

Q: What is the biggest challenge hospitalists face today?

A: We need to be better versed in the change equation, how to manage change. That’s the biggest challenge.

Q: Tell me about your work with SHM. What does the society mean to you?

A: The society has really helped me understand the process in managing change, in quality-improvement cycles. Having participated in one of the mentored implementation programs [Project BOOST], I was afforded an opportunity to be coached by experts in the field. The toolkits on the SHM website I found very helpful. It was a mini-fellowship, if you will. If I didn’t take the interest that I have in SHM, I don’t think I would have either known the opportunities I have or availed myself of all the opportunities SHM can provide.

Q: What has the senior fellowship in HM meant to you?

A: It was a proud moment standing up with the first class of Senior Fellows in Hospital Medicine. We all recognize the importance of embracing the movement, recognizing the need to help lead this movement, and how we can impact the lives of hospitalist patients in our community by bringing to bear the quality initiatives, the call for focus on quality in hospital medicine that this specialty has.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

Born, raised, educated, and trained in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, Nick Fitterman, MD, FACP, SFHM, is as New York as New Yorkers get. After 14 years in private practice, he “saw the handwriting on the wall” and founded a hospitalist program in the community hospital down the street. He served six years as HM group director at Huntington (N.Y.) Hospital, immersing himself in patient care and the inner workings of the health system.

Six months ago, he moved into a new, full-time administrative position as medical director of group health management for North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System, a 16-hospital system that includes 408-bed Huntington. The post is in a newly created department and focuses on “connecting parts of our healthcare system that will help serve us in the new landscape of healthcare reform as we move from individual health to population health, as we move from a model of illness to a model of wellness,” he says.

“Parts are already in our system, and my job is to link them together, help build up what needs to be built up, and to fill gaps where they exist,” he says.

Dr. Fitterman, who joined Team Hospitalist earlier this year, plans to continue working a few hospitalist shifts a month with his former group, but his new mission is clear: “Getting providers to recognize the need and the sense of urgency to redesign the way they practice medicine,” he says.

Question: What is the biggest difference between outpatient and inpatient care?

Answer: There are two significant differences. One would be the acuity of the patient. The outpatient is not as acutely ill as those in the hospital. That’s one of the things that drew me to hospital medicine. The other big difference is continuity; it is lost in the hospital. In outpatient medicine, I was able to take care of multiple generations of the same family over many years. In hospital medicine, I would only see an individual patient for three to five days.

Q: What do you like most about working as a hospitalist?

A: I enjoy the challenge of taking care of the acutely ill. An illness may be compressed into a few days, and you need to figure out quickly, and take action that has meaningful impact swiftly. I find that challenging. The other thing that I found quite challenging is the opportunity for hospitalists to help create and execute policy in the hospital that will impact the care of the whole community. As a hospitalist, you can be involved in drafting and executing policy that will impact literally tens of thousands of lives in your community. In your office, you will be more limited to the average 2,500-patient panel that an internist has.

Q: Why have you dedicated yourself to committee work?

A: I encourage any early-career physician to get involved in committees. I entered into a lot of committees … and then I broadened my committee involvement to have a better idea of all the on-goings in the hospital. It also served as a teaching vehicle, to help me understand that people are working on things just like you want to. Committee work allows you to collaborate with people who have mutual interests, instead of feeling like you’re at the end of a process and being prescribed some policy.

Q: It sounds like you’re seeing patients less and doing more what you consider “population health.” How has your experience as a hospitalist helped you in your new position?

A: All of the committee work that I did set the tone for these changes in my career. And that committee work included committee work in my practice, committee work at the hospital, committee work in national organizations, such as SHM and the American College of Physicians.

Q: When you speak about population health, what types of problems and solutions are you looking at?

A: It’s important to recognize that healthcare is only a small part of population health. Now, understanding the other side of social issues that impact our patients, you can bring to them the best healthcare possible, but if we don’t address those other needs or at least recognize them and steer them to a place where they help them with those needs, our care will not be as meaningful as we hope.

Q: Can you give an example?

A: The asthmatic who’s in your ED four times a year and gets excellent care but gets discharged home with an inability to get their medicine or to take their medicines appropriately or to reduce an environmental exposure that keeps triggering the asthmatic exacerbations. These are all the things that population health must now consider. We cannot confine ourselves simply to what we do behind closed doors of the office or within the four walls of a hospital.

Q: How much of your new job is the offspring of regulations coming down the pipe from healthcare reform?

A: Not so much because of the regulations. The changes we are seeing are driven by the market, driven by employers, and by states. Yes, the Affordable Care Act has an impact, but hopefully only to accelerate changes that we already saw taking shape. Our hope is to create a system that will provide that help to the individual and help the population to do that or reduce per-capita cost, but also by enriching the lives of providers and, of course, doing this before the regulations tell us how before someone tells us how to do it.

Q: As a former chief resident, what advice do you have for trainees entering into a new paradigm of medicine?

A: They should consider the population and not just the individual. They should consider the model wellness and not just illness to focus on in an acute-care setting. They should be trained and well-prepared. This is what hospitalist medicine does quite well: to continuously look at quality improvement and PDSA [Plan-Do-Study-Act] cycles. It should be common that they are reviewing quality metrics and planning on how they can get better as a group or even as an individual in a practice and the concept of team medicine.

Q: What is the biggest challenge hospitalists face today?

A: We need to be better versed in the change equation, how to manage change. That’s the biggest challenge.

Q: Tell me about your work with SHM. What does the society mean to you?

A: The society has really helped me understand the process in managing change, in quality-improvement cycles. Having participated in one of the mentored implementation programs [Project BOOST], I was afforded an opportunity to be coached by experts in the field. The toolkits on the SHM website I found very helpful. It was a mini-fellowship, if you will. If I didn’t take the interest that I have in SHM, I don’t think I would have either known the opportunities I have or availed myself of all the opportunities SHM can provide.

Q: What has the senior fellowship in HM meant to you?

A: It was a proud moment standing up with the first class of Senior Fellows in Hospital Medicine. We all recognize the importance of embracing the movement, recognizing the need to help lead this movement, and how we can impact the lives of hospitalist patients in our community by bringing to bear the quality initiatives, the call for focus on quality in hospital medicine that this specialty has.

Richard Quinn is a freelance writer in New Jersey.

An abstract poster presented at HM12 in San Diego called the “Hospitalist Morale Assessment” a validated tool for identifying HM groups’ strengths and weaknesses by quantifying their members’ morale. Morale involves more than just job satisfaction, says Shalini Chandra, MD, MS, a hospitalist at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore and lead author of both the abstract and the assessment instrument.

“We’ve been measuring morale here since 2006. We’ve tried to drill down to what drives hospitalists’ morale. We’ve learned that it is not one-size-fits-all,” Dr. Chandra says.

The tool has gradually been refined to quantify both importance of and contentment with 36 domains of hospitalist morale.

Five hospitals and 93 physicians participated in the 2011 survey. Each hospital received a “morale report” that broke out its results. Overall, survey respondents ranked “family time” as the most important morale factor. “Supportive and effective leadership” was rated as next important.

At Johns Hopkins Bayview, results from the annual surveys have led to the opening of a lactation room to accommodate physicians who are new mothers and to the elimination of mandatory double shifts when staffing is short.

Morale is a critical issue in staff retention and in the prevention of costly and time-consuming recruitment searches to address turnover.

“You can’t expect to have happy patients if you don’t have happy providers who exude an air that suggests to patients, ‘I’m happy to be here and you’re my No. 1 priority,’” Dr. Chandra says. “From my perspective, it is important to address morale as an issue if we’re going to keep growing as hospitalist groups and as a specialty.”

For more information or to join future morale surveys, contact Dr. Chandra at [email protected].

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

An abstract poster presented at HM12 in San Diego called the “Hospitalist Morale Assessment” a validated tool for identifying HM groups’ strengths and weaknesses by quantifying their members’ morale. Morale involves more than just job satisfaction, says Shalini Chandra, MD, MS, a hospitalist at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore and lead author of both the abstract and the assessment instrument.

“We’ve been measuring morale here since 2006. We’ve tried to drill down to what drives hospitalists’ morale. We’ve learned that it is not one-size-fits-all,” Dr. Chandra says.

The tool has gradually been refined to quantify both importance of and contentment with 36 domains of hospitalist morale.

Five hospitals and 93 physicians participated in the 2011 survey. Each hospital received a “morale report” that broke out its results. Overall, survey respondents ranked “family time” as the most important morale factor. “Supportive and effective leadership” was rated as next important.

At Johns Hopkins Bayview, results from the annual surveys have led to the opening of a lactation room to accommodate physicians who are new mothers and to the elimination of mandatory double shifts when staffing is short.

Morale is a critical issue in staff retention and in the prevention of costly and time-consuming recruitment searches to address turnover.

“You can’t expect to have happy patients if you don’t have happy providers who exude an air that suggests to patients, ‘I’m happy to be here and you’re my No. 1 priority,’” Dr. Chandra says. “From my perspective, it is important to address morale as an issue if we’re going to keep growing as hospitalist groups and as a specialty.”

For more information or to join future morale surveys, contact Dr. Chandra at [email protected].

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

An abstract poster presented at HM12 in San Diego called the “Hospitalist Morale Assessment” a validated tool for identifying HM groups’ strengths and weaknesses by quantifying their members’ morale. Morale involves more than just job satisfaction, says Shalini Chandra, MD, MS, a hospitalist at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center in Baltimore and lead author of both the abstract and the assessment instrument.

“We’ve been measuring morale here since 2006. We’ve tried to drill down to what drives hospitalists’ morale. We’ve learned that it is not one-size-fits-all,” Dr. Chandra says.

The tool has gradually been refined to quantify both importance of and contentment with 36 domains of hospitalist morale.

Five hospitals and 93 physicians participated in the 2011 survey. Each hospital received a “morale report” that broke out its results. Overall, survey respondents ranked “family time” as the most important morale factor. “Supportive and effective leadership” was rated as next important.

At Johns Hopkins Bayview, results from the annual surveys have led to the opening of a lactation room to accommodate physicians who are new mothers and to the elimination of mandatory double shifts when staffing is short.

Morale is a critical issue in staff retention and in the prevention of costly and time-consuming recruitment searches to address turnover.

“You can’t expect to have happy patients if you don’t have happy providers who exude an air that suggests to patients, ‘I’m happy to be here and you’re my No. 1 priority,’” Dr. Chandra says. “From my perspective, it is important to address morale as an issue if we’re going to keep growing as hospitalist groups and as a specialty.”

For more information or to join future morale surveys, contact Dr. Chandra at [email protected].

Larry Beresford is a freelance writer in Oakland, Calif.

One number alone should be enough for hospitalists to want to know everything they can about kidney disease: 26 million. It’s the number of Americans that the National Kidney Foundation estimates to have chronic kidney disease (CKD). That’s about the same number as the American Diabetes Association’s estimate for Americans battling diabetes.

And a lot of people who have CKD don’t even know they have it, kidney specialists warn, making it that much more important to be a knowledgeable watchdog looking out for people admitted to the hospital.

The Hospitalist talked to a half-dozen experts on kidney disease, requesting their words of wisdom for hospitalists. The following are 12 things the experts believe hospitalists should keep in mind as they care for patients with kidney disease.

1) Coordination is key, especially with regard to medications and dialysis after discharge.

A goal should be to develop a “tacit understanding of who does what and just trying to see each day that everyone’s working toward the same goal, so I’m not stopping fluids and then you’re starting fluids, or vice versa,” says Ted Shaikewitz, MD, attending nephrologist at Durham (N.C.) Regional Medical Center and a nephrologist at Durham Nephrology Associates.

A key component of hospitalist-nephrologist collaboration is examining and reconciling medications.

“If it looks like they’re on too many medications, then call the specialist, as opposed to each of you expecting the other one to do it,” he says. “Just pare things down and get rid of things that are unnecessary.”

Often, Dr. Shaikewitz says, the hospitalist and the nephrologist both are reluctant to stop or tweak a medication because someone else started the patient on it. He stresses that the more a medication regimen can be simplified, the better.

Coordination is especially important for dialysis patients who are being sent home, says Ruben Velez, MD, president of the Renal Physicians Association (RPA) and president of Dallas Nephrology Associates. If a nephrologist hasn’t been contacted at discharge, the nephrologist hasn’t contacted the patient’s dialysis center to arrange treatment after the hospitalization. And that treatment likely needs to be altered from what it was before the hospitalization, Dr. Velez explains.

The dialysis center needs to get a small discharge summary, so it’s important to get that ball rolling right away, he adds.

“It’s not uncommon for a nephrologist to round in the morning and suddenly realize that the patient was sent home last night,” he says. “We go, ‘Oops. Did somebody call the dialysis center?’ and we don’t know.”

Informing the nephrologist about discharge helps them do their jobs better, he says.

“My job and my clinical responsibility is, I need to contact the treating nephrologist. I need to contact the dialysis clinic,” he says. “I need to tell them, ‘Change your medications.’ I need to tell them there’s been added antibiotics or other things. I need to tell them what they came in with and what was done. And I need to tell them if there has been a change in their weight....The dialysis clinic has difficulty in dialyzing that patient unless they get this information.”

2) Acknowledge the significance of small, early changes.

A jump in serum creatinine levels at the lower end of the range is far more serious than jumps when the creatinine already is at higher levels, says Lynda Szczech, MD, president of the National Kidney Foundation and medical director at Pharmaceutical Product Development.

“The amount of kidney function that’s described by a [serum creatinine] change of 0.1 when that 0.1” is between 1 and 2, “meaning going from 1.1 to 1.2 or 1.3 to 1.4, is huge compared to the amount of kidney function that is described by a change of 0.1 when you’re higher, when you’re going from 3.0 to 3.1,” Dr. Szczech says. “That’s important, because the earlier changes of going from 0.9 to 1.1 might not trigger a cause for concern, but they actually should be the biggest concern. When you go from a creatinine of 1 to 2, you’ve lost 50 percent of your kidney function. When you go from a creatinine of 3 to 4, you’ve probably lost about 10 percent.”

Hospitalists need to understand both the significance of the change and know “how to jump on something,” Dr. Szczech says. “That is probably the most important thing.”

3) Avoid NSAIDs in patients with advanced CKD and transplant patients.

“The nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can make your renal function much worse,” Dr. Velez says. “Those can finish your kidneys off, and you end up on dialysis.”

That concept is so simple that it’s commonly forgotten, he adds. Patients come to the hospital and are put on an NSAID and the kidneys are damaged.

“It’s horrible,” Dr. Velez says. “That’s one of the worst, and we want to avoid more damage to their kidney function.”

It’s such a common occurrence that the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) included it on their short list of suggestions for the American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM) Choosing Wisely campaign, which aims to arm patients and providers with better information, promote evidence-based care, and reduce unnecessary testing and cost.

4) Don’t place PICC lines in advanced CKD and ESRD patients.

Placement of peripheral intravenous central catheter (PICC) lines in advanced CKD and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is something hospitalists should “avoid as much as possible,” Dr. Velez says, “or forever.”

“PICC lines will destroy veins that we will need to use to create fistulas” needed for dialysis or potential dialysis, he explains.

This item also appears on the Choosing Wisely list.

5) Take basic steps in cases of acute kidney injury (AKI), but be careful about ordering too many tests.

Dr. Shaikewitz says there is little point in hospitalists “ordering everything they can” before the nephrologist is even consulted. That said, certain basic steps—ultrasound, urinalysis, stopping NSAIDs, stopping angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and hydration—should be taken very early, he says.

But hydrating the patient really means achieving a “euvolemic state,” he explains.

“You don’t want to drown the patient,” Dr. Shaikewitz says. Once patients “clearly have enough fluid on board, then you can stop.”

Plus, while it might sound basic, looking back at old creatinine levels is crucial.

“Oftentimes, a lot of what is going on with a patient will become obvious, and the differential will become obvious, when you have more data,” he says.

He also says it’s important to keep in mind that “patients who are in flux with kidney issues often times can tolerate higher blood pressures,” and the goal should be to get it going in the right direction, not necessarily hitting a specific number.

6) Don’t wait for AKI to progress to needing dialysis before consulting the nephrologist.

As Michael Shapiro, MD, MBA, FACP, CPE, president of Denver Nephrology, puts it, “it doesn’t have to be a catastrophe or an emergency for us to be there within a very quick period of time.”

Nephrologists would rather help out earlier than later.

“What we hate to do is have [hospitalists] spend most of the day trying to manage a problem and then calling us late in the day or in the evening, especially if a procedure like dialysis would be needed at that point in time,” he says. “It’s a lot harder to manage those troops, so to speak, once we let the day go. It’s a little bit more of a crash as opposed to a nice plan.”

Hospitalists should adopt the “earlier is better” mantra for cases of electrolyte problems, such as hypokalemia, hyperkalemia, and significant hyponatremia, or low salt levels, he notes.

“We don’t mind being curb-sided,” Dr. Shapiro says. If the specialist gets a simple heads-up about a patient on the fourth floor—even if it doesn’t require immediate action—he can then pop in and check on the status of that patient when he’s there on his rounds, he says.

Dr. Shaikewitz admits that some kidney specialists prefer not to be called in very early; therefore, it’s important for hospitalists to develop relationships and understand individual preferences. But in his case, an early referral is favorable.

“When in doubt, refer a little bit on the early side,” he says. “It’s actually kind of a fun teamwork with the hospitalists, trying to manage the patient and doing everything as a group.”

7) Always call a nephrologist when a kidney transplant patient is admitted.

Robert Kossmann, MD, president-elect of the RPA, and other experts agree that it’s a good idea to at least call and inform a nephrologist that a transplant patient has been admitted. The call can go something like, “I have this patient coming in to the hospital, their kidney transplant function is fine, but they’re here with X, Y, or Z,” he says. “Is there something that we should be paying particular attention to or do you need to come see that patient?”

Dr. Kossmann says hospitalists don’t need to automatically consult a nephrologist every time, but “it’s probably a good idea to call and talk to the nephrologist every time.”

Dr. Velez says he’s seen a lot of unnecessary mistakes around transplant patients.

“There’s a lot of drug interactions with immunosuppressive drugs that these patients take that could have been prevented or avoided,” he says. “Even on patients that have fantastic renal function up to transplant … these patients can turn sour on a dime.”

8) Don’t forget the power of a simple urinalysis.

You can get a lot of diagnostic information from the urinalysis—“from a simple dipstick,” Dr. Szczech says. She points out the value of the specific gravity reading.

“A specific gravity of 1.010 in the setting of a rising creatinine [level] probably means you’ve got injury to the tubule,” she says.

The power of this simple tool can sometimes be overlooked, she says, as clinicians seek to understand how to use the newer biomarkers.

“In nephrology, we can make things quite complicated,” she adds. “We can’t forget about the low-tech stuff that we just take for granted.”

9) Simply looking at serum creatinine level is not enough.

It’s extremely important to calculate the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), says Katherine Tuttle, MD, clinical professor of medicine in the University of Washington’s division of nephrology. Some hospital labs will do this, but hospitalists need to “make sure they review the GFR values, not just the serum creatinine,” she says.

And those readings have important ripple effects.

“Everything from need for adjustment of drugs for low GFR to drug interactions to caution about, for example, using iodinated contrasts because of risk of acute kidney injury, increased risk of infection, increased risk of cardiovascular complications,” she says. “So it’s a very important part of the clinical assessment.”

10) Know the potential benefits of isolated ultrafiltration.

This dialysis-like procedure is becoming more widely recognized as helpful for patients with congestive heart failure who have recurrent readmissions.

“This is a very small group, but a very complicated group,” Dr. Kossmann says. “You can’t keep them out of the hospital.”

Isolated ultrafiltration can help “pull off quite a lot of fluid while they’re in the hospital or in a setting where you can do that,” he adds. “That’s something that I think hospitalists may be seeing more of as this unfolds into the future. It’s a small group of people, but there’s so much heart disease in this country that it winds up being a significant increase in number.”

11) Avoid using low-molecular-weight heparins, especially Lovenox, in advanced kidney disease and dialysis patients.

Don’t just follow the protocols for preventing thromboembolic events, says Dr. Velez, who adds it’s done “very frequently.”

“In this day and age of preventing thromboembolic [events], they have protocols where they just put them on it and they don’t realize they have advanced kidney disease or end-stage renal disease,” he says. “Heparin is fine. Lovenox should be avoided.”

Such mistakes are, in part, a product of operating within a protocol-driven environment.

“Dealing with a lot of protocols and algorithms and pressure from the hospital and you name it—and we’re all busy—we want to do the right thing,” Dr. Velez says. “But we don’t apply it to individual patients, and that’s a concern of having too many protocols and trying to treat everybody the same.”

Dr. Tuttle says the risk of “over-reliance” on protocols and guidelines is real.

“The problem with guidelines is people extrapolate them too far and they overinterpret them,” she says. “That happens in the hospital all the time.”

12) Take a moment and ask: Am I really comfortable handling this patient?

“It’s worth pausing at some point with yourself and sort of taking a self-assessment and saying—whether it’s nephrology, cardiology, or something else—‘Where do I feel confident and strong?’” Dr. Kossmann says. “Although it sounds overly basic, that’s an important starting point.”

He says he’s witnessed hospitalists with a wide range of comfort levels handle cases involving kidney dysfunction.

“There’s no one-size-fits-all,” he says. “Sometimes the question I get asked is, ‘Rob, what’s the general rule? When should a nephrologist be called for a consult?’ And that’s a terrible question, because it depends on the doctor who’s seeing the patient.”

Thomas Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

One number alone should be enough for hospitalists to want to know everything they can about kidney disease: 26 million. It’s the number of Americans that the National Kidney Foundation estimates to have chronic kidney disease (CKD). That’s about the same number as the American Diabetes Association’s estimate for Americans battling diabetes.

And a lot of people who have CKD don’t even know they have it, kidney specialists warn, making it that much more important to be a knowledgeable watchdog looking out for people admitted to the hospital.

The Hospitalist talked to a half-dozen experts on kidney disease, requesting their words of wisdom for hospitalists. The following are 12 things the experts believe hospitalists should keep in mind as they care for patients with kidney disease.

1) Coordination is key, especially with regard to medications and dialysis after discharge.

A goal should be to develop a “tacit understanding of who does what and just trying to see each day that everyone’s working toward the same goal, so I’m not stopping fluids and then you’re starting fluids, or vice versa,” says Ted Shaikewitz, MD, attending nephrologist at Durham (N.C.) Regional Medical Center and a nephrologist at Durham Nephrology Associates.

A key component of hospitalist-nephrologist collaboration is examining and reconciling medications.

“If it looks like they’re on too many medications, then call the specialist, as opposed to each of you expecting the other one to do it,” he says. “Just pare things down and get rid of things that are unnecessary.”

Often, Dr. Shaikewitz says, the hospitalist and the nephrologist both are reluctant to stop or tweak a medication because someone else started the patient on it. He stresses that the more a medication regimen can be simplified, the better.

Coordination is especially important for dialysis patients who are being sent home, says Ruben Velez, MD, president of the Renal Physicians Association (RPA) and president of Dallas Nephrology Associates. If a nephrologist hasn’t been contacted at discharge, the nephrologist hasn’t contacted the patient’s dialysis center to arrange treatment after the hospitalization. And that treatment likely needs to be altered from what it was before the hospitalization, Dr. Velez explains.

The dialysis center needs to get a small discharge summary, so it’s important to get that ball rolling right away, he adds.

“It’s not uncommon for a nephrologist to round in the morning and suddenly realize that the patient was sent home last night,” he says. “We go, ‘Oops. Did somebody call the dialysis center?’ and we don’t know.”

Informing the nephrologist about discharge helps them do their jobs better, he says.

“My job and my clinical responsibility is, I need to contact the treating nephrologist. I need to contact the dialysis clinic,” he says. “I need to tell them, ‘Change your medications.’ I need to tell them there’s been added antibiotics or other things. I need to tell them what they came in with and what was done. And I need to tell them if there has been a change in their weight....The dialysis clinic has difficulty in dialyzing that patient unless they get this information.”

2) Acknowledge the significance of small, early changes.

A jump in serum creatinine levels at the lower end of the range is far more serious than jumps when the creatinine already is at higher levels, says Lynda Szczech, MD, president of the National Kidney Foundation and medical director at Pharmaceutical Product Development.

“The amount of kidney function that’s described by a [serum creatinine] change of 0.1 when that 0.1” is between 1 and 2, “meaning going from 1.1 to 1.2 or 1.3 to 1.4, is huge compared to the amount of kidney function that is described by a change of 0.1 when you’re higher, when you’re going from 3.0 to 3.1,” Dr. Szczech says. “That’s important, because the earlier changes of going from 0.9 to 1.1 might not trigger a cause for concern, but they actually should be the biggest concern. When you go from a creatinine of 1 to 2, you’ve lost 50 percent of your kidney function. When you go from a creatinine of 3 to 4, you’ve probably lost about 10 percent.”

Hospitalists need to understand both the significance of the change and know “how to jump on something,” Dr. Szczech says. “That is probably the most important thing.”

3) Avoid NSAIDs in patients with advanced CKD and transplant patients.

“The nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can make your renal function much worse,” Dr. Velez says. “Those can finish your kidneys off, and you end up on dialysis.”

That concept is so simple that it’s commonly forgotten, he adds. Patients come to the hospital and are put on an NSAID and the kidneys are damaged.

“It’s horrible,” Dr. Velez says. “That’s one of the worst, and we want to avoid more damage to their kidney function.”

It’s such a common occurrence that the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) included it on their short list of suggestions for the American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM) Choosing Wisely campaign, which aims to arm patients and providers with better information, promote evidence-based care, and reduce unnecessary testing and cost.

4) Don’t place PICC lines in advanced CKD and ESRD patients.

Placement of peripheral intravenous central catheter (PICC) lines in advanced CKD and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is something hospitalists should “avoid as much as possible,” Dr. Velez says, “or forever.”

“PICC lines will destroy veins that we will need to use to create fistulas” needed for dialysis or potential dialysis, he explains.

This item also appears on the Choosing Wisely list.

5) Take basic steps in cases of acute kidney injury (AKI), but be careful about ordering too many tests.

Dr. Shaikewitz says there is little point in hospitalists “ordering everything they can” before the nephrologist is even consulted. That said, certain basic steps—ultrasound, urinalysis, stopping NSAIDs, stopping angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and hydration—should be taken very early, he says.

But hydrating the patient really means achieving a “euvolemic state,” he explains.

“You don’t want to drown the patient,” Dr. Shaikewitz says. Once patients “clearly have enough fluid on board, then you can stop.”

Plus, while it might sound basic, looking back at old creatinine levels is crucial.

“Oftentimes, a lot of what is going on with a patient will become obvious, and the differential will become obvious, when you have more data,” he says.

He also says it’s important to keep in mind that “patients who are in flux with kidney issues often times can tolerate higher blood pressures,” and the goal should be to get it going in the right direction, not necessarily hitting a specific number.

6) Don’t wait for AKI to progress to needing dialysis before consulting the nephrologist.

As Michael Shapiro, MD, MBA, FACP, CPE, president of Denver Nephrology, puts it, “it doesn’t have to be a catastrophe or an emergency for us to be there within a very quick period of time.”

Nephrologists would rather help out earlier than later.

“What we hate to do is have [hospitalists] spend most of the day trying to manage a problem and then calling us late in the day or in the evening, especially if a procedure like dialysis would be needed at that point in time,” he says. “It’s a lot harder to manage those troops, so to speak, once we let the day go. It’s a little bit more of a crash as opposed to a nice plan.”

Hospitalists should adopt the “earlier is better” mantra for cases of electrolyte problems, such as hypokalemia, hyperkalemia, and significant hyponatremia, or low salt levels, he notes.

“We don’t mind being curb-sided,” Dr. Shapiro says. If the specialist gets a simple heads-up about a patient on the fourth floor—even if it doesn’t require immediate action—he can then pop in and check on the status of that patient when he’s there on his rounds, he says.

Dr. Shaikewitz admits that some kidney specialists prefer not to be called in very early; therefore, it’s important for hospitalists to develop relationships and understand individual preferences. But in his case, an early referral is favorable.

“When in doubt, refer a little bit on the early side,” he says. “It’s actually kind of a fun teamwork with the hospitalists, trying to manage the patient and doing everything as a group.”

7) Always call a nephrologist when a kidney transplant patient is admitted.

Robert Kossmann, MD, president-elect of the RPA, and other experts agree that it’s a good idea to at least call and inform a nephrologist that a transplant patient has been admitted. The call can go something like, “I have this patient coming in to the hospital, their kidney transplant function is fine, but they’re here with X, Y, or Z,” he says. “Is there something that we should be paying particular attention to or do you need to come see that patient?”

Dr. Kossmann says hospitalists don’t need to automatically consult a nephrologist every time, but “it’s probably a good idea to call and talk to the nephrologist every time.”

Dr. Velez says he’s seen a lot of unnecessary mistakes around transplant patients.

“There’s a lot of drug interactions with immunosuppressive drugs that these patients take that could have been prevented or avoided,” he says. “Even on patients that have fantastic renal function up to transplant … these patients can turn sour on a dime.”

8) Don’t forget the power of a simple urinalysis.

You can get a lot of diagnostic information from the urinalysis—“from a simple dipstick,” Dr. Szczech says. She points out the value of the specific gravity reading.

“A specific gravity of 1.010 in the setting of a rising creatinine [level] probably means you’ve got injury to the tubule,” she says.

The power of this simple tool can sometimes be overlooked, she says, as clinicians seek to understand how to use the newer biomarkers.

“In nephrology, we can make things quite complicated,” she adds. “We can’t forget about the low-tech stuff that we just take for granted.”

9) Simply looking at serum creatinine level is not enough.

It’s extremely important to calculate the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), says Katherine Tuttle, MD, clinical professor of medicine in the University of Washington’s division of nephrology. Some hospital labs will do this, but hospitalists need to “make sure they review the GFR values, not just the serum creatinine,” she says.

And those readings have important ripple effects.

“Everything from need for adjustment of drugs for low GFR to drug interactions to caution about, for example, using iodinated contrasts because of risk of acute kidney injury, increased risk of infection, increased risk of cardiovascular complications,” she says. “So it’s a very important part of the clinical assessment.”

10) Know the potential benefits of isolated ultrafiltration.

This dialysis-like procedure is becoming more widely recognized as helpful for patients with congestive heart failure who have recurrent readmissions.

“This is a very small group, but a very complicated group,” Dr. Kossmann says. “You can’t keep them out of the hospital.”

Isolated ultrafiltration can help “pull off quite a lot of fluid while they’re in the hospital or in a setting where you can do that,” he adds. “That’s something that I think hospitalists may be seeing more of as this unfolds into the future. It’s a small group of people, but there’s so much heart disease in this country that it winds up being a significant increase in number.”

11) Avoid using low-molecular-weight heparins, especially Lovenox, in advanced kidney disease and dialysis patients.

Don’t just follow the protocols for preventing thromboembolic events, says Dr. Velez, who adds it’s done “very frequently.”

“In this day and age of preventing thromboembolic [events], they have protocols where they just put them on it and they don’t realize they have advanced kidney disease or end-stage renal disease,” he says. “Heparin is fine. Lovenox should be avoided.”

Such mistakes are, in part, a product of operating within a protocol-driven environment.

“Dealing with a lot of protocols and algorithms and pressure from the hospital and you name it—and we’re all busy—we want to do the right thing,” Dr. Velez says. “But we don’t apply it to individual patients, and that’s a concern of having too many protocols and trying to treat everybody the same.”

Dr. Tuttle says the risk of “over-reliance” on protocols and guidelines is real.

“The problem with guidelines is people extrapolate them too far and they overinterpret them,” she says. “That happens in the hospital all the time.”

12) Take a moment and ask: Am I really comfortable handling this patient?

“It’s worth pausing at some point with yourself and sort of taking a self-assessment and saying—whether it’s nephrology, cardiology, or something else—‘Where do I feel confident and strong?’” Dr. Kossmann says. “Although it sounds overly basic, that’s an important starting point.”

He says he’s witnessed hospitalists with a wide range of comfort levels handle cases involving kidney dysfunction.

“There’s no one-size-fits-all,” he says. “Sometimes the question I get asked is, ‘Rob, what’s the general rule? When should a nephrologist be called for a consult?’ And that’s a terrible question, because it depends on the doctor who’s seeing the patient.”

Thomas Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

One number alone should be enough for hospitalists to want to know everything they can about kidney disease: 26 million. It’s the number of Americans that the National Kidney Foundation estimates to have chronic kidney disease (CKD). That’s about the same number as the American Diabetes Association’s estimate for Americans battling diabetes.

And a lot of people who have CKD don’t even know they have it, kidney specialists warn, making it that much more important to be a knowledgeable watchdog looking out for people admitted to the hospital.

The Hospitalist talked to a half-dozen experts on kidney disease, requesting their words of wisdom for hospitalists. The following are 12 things the experts believe hospitalists should keep in mind as they care for patients with kidney disease.

1) Coordination is key, especially with regard to medications and dialysis after discharge.

A goal should be to develop a “tacit understanding of who does what and just trying to see each day that everyone’s working toward the same goal, so I’m not stopping fluids and then you’re starting fluids, or vice versa,” says Ted Shaikewitz, MD, attending nephrologist at Durham (N.C.) Regional Medical Center and a nephrologist at Durham Nephrology Associates.

A key component of hospitalist-nephrologist collaboration is examining and reconciling medications.

“If it looks like they’re on too many medications, then call the specialist, as opposed to each of you expecting the other one to do it,” he says. “Just pare things down and get rid of things that are unnecessary.”

Often, Dr. Shaikewitz says, the hospitalist and the nephrologist both are reluctant to stop or tweak a medication because someone else started the patient on it. He stresses that the more a medication regimen can be simplified, the better.

Coordination is especially important for dialysis patients who are being sent home, says Ruben Velez, MD, president of the Renal Physicians Association (RPA) and president of Dallas Nephrology Associates. If a nephrologist hasn’t been contacted at discharge, the nephrologist hasn’t contacted the patient’s dialysis center to arrange treatment after the hospitalization. And that treatment likely needs to be altered from what it was before the hospitalization, Dr. Velez explains.

The dialysis center needs to get a small discharge summary, so it’s important to get that ball rolling right away, he adds.

“It’s not uncommon for a nephrologist to round in the morning and suddenly realize that the patient was sent home last night,” he says. “We go, ‘Oops. Did somebody call the dialysis center?’ and we don’t know.”

Informing the nephrologist about discharge helps them do their jobs better, he says.

“My job and my clinical responsibility is, I need to contact the treating nephrologist. I need to contact the dialysis clinic,” he says. “I need to tell them, ‘Change your medications.’ I need to tell them there’s been added antibiotics or other things. I need to tell them what they came in with and what was done. And I need to tell them if there has been a change in their weight....The dialysis clinic has difficulty in dialyzing that patient unless they get this information.”

2) Acknowledge the significance of small, early changes.

A jump in serum creatinine levels at the lower end of the range is far more serious than jumps when the creatinine already is at higher levels, says Lynda Szczech, MD, president of the National Kidney Foundation and medical director at Pharmaceutical Product Development.

“The amount of kidney function that’s described by a [serum creatinine] change of 0.1 when that 0.1” is between 1 and 2, “meaning going from 1.1 to 1.2 or 1.3 to 1.4, is huge compared to the amount of kidney function that is described by a change of 0.1 when you’re higher, when you’re going from 3.0 to 3.1,” Dr. Szczech says. “That’s important, because the earlier changes of going from 0.9 to 1.1 might not trigger a cause for concern, but they actually should be the biggest concern. When you go from a creatinine of 1 to 2, you’ve lost 50 percent of your kidney function. When you go from a creatinine of 3 to 4, you’ve probably lost about 10 percent.”

Hospitalists need to understand both the significance of the change and know “how to jump on something,” Dr. Szczech says. “That is probably the most important thing.”

3) Avoid NSAIDs in patients with advanced CKD and transplant patients.

“The nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs can make your renal function much worse,” Dr. Velez says. “Those can finish your kidneys off, and you end up on dialysis.”

That concept is so simple that it’s commonly forgotten, he adds. Patients come to the hospital and are put on an NSAID and the kidneys are damaged.

“It’s horrible,” Dr. Velez says. “That’s one of the worst, and we want to avoid more damage to their kidney function.”

It’s such a common occurrence that the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) included it on their short list of suggestions for the American Board of Internal Medicine’s (ABIM) Choosing Wisely campaign, which aims to arm patients and providers with better information, promote evidence-based care, and reduce unnecessary testing and cost.

4) Don’t place PICC lines in advanced CKD and ESRD patients.

Placement of peripheral intravenous central catheter (PICC) lines in advanced CKD and end-stage renal disease (ESRD) patients is something hospitalists should “avoid as much as possible,” Dr. Velez says, “or forever.”

“PICC lines will destroy veins that we will need to use to create fistulas” needed for dialysis or potential dialysis, he explains.

This item also appears on the Choosing Wisely list.

5) Take basic steps in cases of acute kidney injury (AKI), but be careful about ordering too many tests.

Dr. Shaikewitz says there is little point in hospitalists “ordering everything they can” before the nephrologist is even consulted. That said, certain basic steps—ultrasound, urinalysis, stopping NSAIDs, stopping angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and hydration—should be taken very early, he says.

But hydrating the patient really means achieving a “euvolemic state,” he explains.

“You don’t want to drown the patient,” Dr. Shaikewitz says. Once patients “clearly have enough fluid on board, then you can stop.”

Plus, while it might sound basic, looking back at old creatinine levels is crucial.

“Oftentimes, a lot of what is going on with a patient will become obvious, and the differential will become obvious, when you have more data,” he says.

He also says it’s important to keep in mind that “patients who are in flux with kidney issues often times can tolerate higher blood pressures,” and the goal should be to get it going in the right direction, not necessarily hitting a specific number.

6) Don’t wait for AKI to progress to needing dialysis before consulting the nephrologist.

As Michael Shapiro, MD, MBA, FACP, CPE, president of Denver Nephrology, puts it, “it doesn’t have to be a catastrophe or an emergency for us to be there within a very quick period of time.”

Nephrologists would rather help out earlier than later.

“What we hate to do is have [hospitalists] spend most of the day trying to manage a problem and then calling us late in the day or in the evening, especially if a procedure like dialysis would be needed at that point in time,” he says. “It’s a lot harder to manage those troops, so to speak, once we let the day go. It’s a little bit more of a crash as opposed to a nice plan.”

Hospitalists should adopt the “earlier is better” mantra for cases of electrolyte problems, such as hypokalemia, hyperkalemia, and significant hyponatremia, or low salt levels, he notes.

“We don’t mind being curb-sided,” Dr. Shapiro says. If the specialist gets a simple heads-up about a patient on the fourth floor—even if it doesn’t require immediate action—he can then pop in and check on the status of that patient when he’s there on his rounds, he says.

Dr. Shaikewitz admits that some kidney specialists prefer not to be called in very early; therefore, it’s important for hospitalists to develop relationships and understand individual preferences. But in his case, an early referral is favorable.

“When in doubt, refer a little bit on the early side,” he says. “It’s actually kind of a fun teamwork with the hospitalists, trying to manage the patient and doing everything as a group.”

7) Always call a nephrologist when a kidney transplant patient is admitted.

Robert Kossmann, MD, president-elect of the RPA, and other experts agree that it’s a good idea to at least call and inform a nephrologist that a transplant patient has been admitted. The call can go something like, “I have this patient coming in to the hospital, their kidney transplant function is fine, but they’re here with X, Y, or Z,” he says. “Is there something that we should be paying particular attention to or do you need to come see that patient?”

Dr. Kossmann says hospitalists don’t need to automatically consult a nephrologist every time, but “it’s probably a good idea to call and talk to the nephrologist every time.”

Dr. Velez says he’s seen a lot of unnecessary mistakes around transplant patients.

“There’s a lot of drug interactions with immunosuppressive drugs that these patients take that could have been prevented or avoided,” he says. “Even on patients that have fantastic renal function up to transplant … these patients can turn sour on a dime.”

8) Don’t forget the power of a simple urinalysis.

You can get a lot of diagnostic information from the urinalysis—“from a simple dipstick,” Dr. Szczech says. She points out the value of the specific gravity reading.

“A specific gravity of 1.010 in the setting of a rising creatinine [level] probably means you’ve got injury to the tubule,” she says.

The power of this simple tool can sometimes be overlooked, she says, as clinicians seek to understand how to use the newer biomarkers.

“In nephrology, we can make things quite complicated,” she adds. “We can’t forget about the low-tech stuff that we just take for granted.”

9) Simply looking at serum creatinine level is not enough.

It’s extremely important to calculate the glomerular filtration rate (GFR), says Katherine Tuttle, MD, clinical professor of medicine in the University of Washington’s division of nephrology. Some hospital labs will do this, but hospitalists need to “make sure they review the GFR values, not just the serum creatinine,” she says.

And those readings have important ripple effects.

“Everything from need for adjustment of drugs for low GFR to drug interactions to caution about, for example, using iodinated contrasts because of risk of acute kidney injury, increased risk of infection, increased risk of cardiovascular complications,” she says. “So it’s a very important part of the clinical assessment.”

10) Know the potential benefits of isolated ultrafiltration.

This dialysis-like procedure is becoming more widely recognized as helpful for patients with congestive heart failure who have recurrent readmissions.

“This is a very small group, but a very complicated group,” Dr. Kossmann says. “You can’t keep them out of the hospital.”

Isolated ultrafiltration can help “pull off quite a lot of fluid while they’re in the hospital or in a setting where you can do that,” he adds. “That’s something that I think hospitalists may be seeing more of as this unfolds into the future. It’s a small group of people, but there’s so much heart disease in this country that it winds up being a significant increase in number.”

11) Avoid using low-molecular-weight heparins, especially Lovenox, in advanced kidney disease and dialysis patients.

Don’t just follow the protocols for preventing thromboembolic events, says Dr. Velez, who adds it’s done “very frequently.”

“In this day and age of preventing thromboembolic [events], they have protocols where they just put them on it and they don’t realize they have advanced kidney disease or end-stage renal disease,” he says. “Heparin is fine. Lovenox should be avoided.”

Such mistakes are, in part, a product of operating within a protocol-driven environment.

“Dealing with a lot of protocols and algorithms and pressure from the hospital and you name it—and we’re all busy—we want to do the right thing,” Dr. Velez says. “But we don’t apply it to individual patients, and that’s a concern of having too many protocols and trying to treat everybody the same.”

Dr. Tuttle says the risk of “over-reliance” on protocols and guidelines is real.

“The problem with guidelines is people extrapolate them too far and they overinterpret them,” she says. “That happens in the hospital all the time.”

12) Take a moment and ask: Am I really comfortable handling this patient?

“It’s worth pausing at some point with yourself and sort of taking a self-assessment and saying—whether it’s nephrology, cardiology, or something else—‘Where do I feel confident and strong?’” Dr. Kossmann says. “Although it sounds overly basic, that’s an important starting point.”

He says he’s witnessed hospitalists with a wide range of comfort levels handle cases involving kidney dysfunction.

“There’s no one-size-fits-all,” he says. “Sometimes the question I get asked is, ‘Rob, what’s the general rule? When should a nephrologist be called for a consult?’ And that’s a terrible question, because it depends on the doctor who’s seeing the patient.”

Thomas Collins is a freelance writer in South Florida.

In This Edition

Literature At A Glance

A guide to this month’s studies

1. Burnout among physicians and the general workforce
2. Effects of clopidogrel added to aspirin in patients with recent lacunar stroke
3. Performance of the HEMORR2AGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED bleeding risk prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation
4. Probiotics for secondary prevention of hepatic encephalopathy
5. Capsule endoscopy for acute obscure GI bleeding
6. Perceptions of readmitted patients transitioning from hospital to home
7. Thirty-day readmissions after acute myocardial infarction
8. One-hour rule-out or rule-in for AMI patients in chest pain
9. Aspirin increases bleed risk without reducing risk of stroke in CKD and NVAF patients

Burnout among Physicians and the General Workforce

Clinical question: What is the degree and distribution of burnout within the physician workforce, and how does that compare to the general U.S. workforce?

Background: Professional burnout, work satisfaction, and work-life balance are critical elements to understand in the physician workforce. It is well documented that physicians are at high risk for burnout; however, few extensive studies have looked at rates and the identification of high-risk subpopulations.

Study design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: U.S. workforce.

Synopsis: This study included 7,288 physicians (26.7% response rate) and 5,930 controls from the general U.S. population. Validated survey instruments were employed to assess the degree and presence of burnout, depression, and satisfaction with work-life balance.

In aggregate, using a validated, two-item burnout measure, 35.2% of physicians were characterized as having burnout, compared with 27.6% of the general population (P<0.001). Within the physician community, the specialties with the highest risk of burnout included emergency medicine, general internal medicine, family medicine, and neurology.

Important limitations of this study include that the physician and general population surveys were performed at different times (six months apart), that the groups were not ideally matched (age and sex, for example), and the overall response rate of the physician survey was low.

This study sheds light on an important topic for hospitalists. Future studies should continue to probe the problem of burnout and look for creative solutions to mitigate risks that might threaten professional longevity.

Bottom line: Burnout is prevalent among physicians, especially when compared to the general workforce. Physician specialties in front-line patient care are at highest risk.

Citation: Shanafelt TD, Boone S, Tan L, et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among US physicians relative to the general US population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;20 [Epub ahead of print].

Effects of Clopidogrel Added to Aspirin in Patients with Recent Lacunar Stroke

Clinical question: Does the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin reduce the risk of any type of recurrent stroke, or affect the risk of bleeding or death, in patients who recently suffered a lacunar stroke?

Background: There are no prior randomized, multicenter trials on secondary prevention of lacunar stroke; aspirin is the standard antiplatelet therapy in this setting.

Study design: Double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial.

Setting: Eighty-two clinical centers in North America, Latin America, and Spain.

Synopsis: Researchers enrolled 3,020 patients from 2003 to 2011; criteria included age >30 years old and symptomatic lacunar stroke (proven by MRI) in the preceding 180 days.

Results showed no significant difference between recurrent strokes (any type) in the aspirin-only group (2.7% per year) versus the aspirin-plus-clopidogrel group (2.5% per year). Major hemorrhage risk was much higher in the aspirin-plus-clopidogrel group (2.1% per year) versus aspirin-only group (1.1% per year). All-cause mortality also was much higher in the aspirin-plus-clopidogrel group (N=113) versus the aspirin-only group (N=77).

Bottom line: The addition of clopidogrel to aspirin for secondary prevention does not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke, but it does significantly increase the risk of bleeding and death.

Citation: Benavente OR, Hart RG, McClure LA, et al. Effects of clopidogrel added to aspirin in patients with recent lacunar stroke. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:817-825.

Bleeding Risk Prediction Scores in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Anticoagulation

Clinical question: What are the relative predictive values of the HEMORR2AGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED risk-prediction schemes?

Background: The tools predict bleeding risk in patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation (afib), but it is unknown which is the best to predict clinically relevant bleeding.

Study design: Post-hoc analysis.

Setting: Data previously collected for the AMADEUS trial (2,293 patients taking warfarin; 251 had at least one clinically relevant bleeding event) were used to test each of the three bleeding risk-prediction schemes on the same data set.

Synopsis: Using three analysis methods (net reclassification improvement, receiver-operating characteristic [ROC], and decision-curve analysis), the researchers compared the three schemes’ performance. HAS-BLED performed best in all three of the analysis methods.

The HAS-BLED score calculation requires the following patient information: history of hypertension, renal disease, liver disease, stroke, prior major bleeding event, and labile INR; age >65; and use of antiplatelet agents, aspirin, and alcohol.

Bottom line: HAS-BLED was the best of the three schemes, although all three had only modest ability to predict clinically relevant bleeding.

Citation: Apostolakis S, Lane DA, Guo Y, et al. Performance of the HEMORRAGES, ATRIA and HAS-BLED bleeding risk-prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(9):861-867

Probiotics for Secondary Prevention of Hepatic Encephalopathy

Clinical question: Are probiotics as effective as lactulose for secondary prevention of hepatic encephalopathy (HE)?

Background: Probiotics alter the gut flora, resulting in decreased ammonia production and absorption. Probiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence of low-grade HE. However, studies on probiotics usage for secondary prevention of HE are lacking.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, single-center study.

Setting: Tertiary-care center, New Delhi.

Synopsis: Three hundred sixty patients who had recovered from HE from October 2008 to December 2009 were screened; 235 met the inclusion criteria. They were randomized to receive either lactulose (Gp-L), probiotics (Gp-P), or no therapy (Gp-N). The Gp-L group received 30 to 60 ml of lactulose in two to three divided doses; the Gp-P group received three capsules per day containing lactobacillus, bifidobacterium, and Streptococcus salivarius strains.

The primary endpoints were the development of overt HE (assessed by the West Haven Criteria) or a follow-up of 12 months. Lactulose therapy was significantly more effective in secondary prophylaxis than no therapy (26.2% vs. 56.9%, P=0.001), as was probiotics therapy compared with no therapy (34.4% vs. 56.9%, P=0.02), but no significant difference was found between lactulose and probiotics therapy (26.2% vs. 34.4%, P=0.349).

The major limitation of the study was its open-label design. The study also used a high concentration of probiotics, and the results could be strain-specific and hence require validation with other probiotics combinations. The Gp-N group continued the previous therapy (excluding lactulose), with an unknown number on rifaximin.

Bottom line: Lactulose and probiotics are equally effective in secondary prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy.

Citation: Agrawal A, Sharma BC, Sharma P, Sarin SK. Secondary prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhosis: an open-label, randomized controlled trial of lactulose, probiotics and no therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1043-1050.

Capsule Endoscopy for Acute Obscure GI Bleeding

Clinical question: What testing modality is most appropriate for acute obscure GI bleeding: capsule endoscopy (CE) or angiography?

Background: Acute obscure GI bleeding (OGIB): remains a diagnostic challenge, accounting for 7% to 8% of patients presenting with GI bleeding. CE enables direct visualization of small bowel mucosa but lacks the ability for therapeutic intervention. Angiography is frequently chosen for massive bleeding; however, it is invasive and does not enable visualization of the bowel.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled, blinded, single-center study.

Setting: Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong.

Synopsis: Ninety-one patients with active OGIB from June 2005 to November 2007 were assessed for eligibility; 60 met the criteria and were randomized to either CE or angiography. Overt OGIB was defined as patients who had nondiagnostic upper endoscopy and colonoscopy.

The primary outcome was diagnostic yield of CE or mesenteric angiography in identifying the bleeding source. Secondary outcomes were long-term rebleeding rates, readmissions for bleeding or anemia, blood transfusions, and death.

CE was positive in 16 patients (53.3%) and angiography was positive in six patients (20%). The diagnostic yield of CE was significantly higher than angiography (difference=33.3%, 95% CI 8.9-52.8%, P=0.016). The mean follow-up period was 48.5 months. The cumulative risk of rebleeding was higher in the angiography group, but this was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in rates of subsequent hospitalization, death, or transfusions between the two groups.

The study based the sample-size estimation on the diagnostic yield rather than clinical outcomes and, hence, was underpowered to detect any significant differences in clinical outcomes.

Bottom line: CE has a higher diagnostic yield than angiography in patients with active overt OGIB.

Citation: Leung WK, Ho S, Suen B, et al. Capsule endoscopy of angiography in patients with acute overt gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective randomized study with long term follow up. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1370-1376.

Perceptions of Readmitted Patients Transitioning from Hospital to Home

Clinical question: What are patient-reported reasons for readmission to the hospital after discharge?

Background: Reducing readmissions is a critical component to improving the value of healthcare. While readmission reduction is a goal of all hospitals, there is much to be gleaned from evaluating patients’ view of the problem. This study used a survey to assess the patient’s viewpoint.

Study design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia.

Synopsis: A survey of 36 questions was posed to 1,084 patients who were readmitted within 30 days of discharge from November 2010 to July 2011 (32% of eligible patients). The data were subdivided based on socioeconomic status and medical versus surgical patients.

Some issues patients raised regarding discharge planning included difficulty with paying for medications, challenges with travel to pharmacies, and concern over medication side effects.

Patients with low socioeconomic status had more difficulty taking medications and following instructions, had more depression, and had less social support.

Bottom line: Readmission rates are affected by a patient’s social situation. A team approach to discharge planning might mitigate some of these factors.

Citation: Kangovi S, Grande D, Meehan P, Mitra N, Shannon R, Long JA. Perceptions of readmitted patients on the transition from hospital to home. J Hosp Med. 2012 [Epub ahead of print].

30-Day Readmissions after Acute Myocardial Infarction

Clinical question: What are potential predictors of 30-day readmissions after acute myocardial infarction (MI)?

Background: Much attention has been given to evaluate the causes of readmissions of heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia. This study looked at 30-day readmissions after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Olmstead County Hospital, Rochester, Minn.

Synopsis: A chart review of AMI based on ICD-9 codes from 1987 to 2010 identified 3,010 patients. Patients were verified using symptoms, cardiac enzymes, and EKG changes at the time of event. Interventions evaluated included fibrinolytic therapy, CABG, or primary PCI.

Survival increased to 96% from 89% during the period from 1987 to 2010. Researchers also noted more comorbid conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, COPD, and hypertension, noted over time. Of the patients evaluated, 643 readmissions occurred for 561 patients (18.6%). Of these, the most frequent causes were ischemic heart disease, respiratory symptoms, and heart failure. Comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, COPD, anemia, higher killip class on initial admission, duration of prior hospitalization, and procedural complications, independently increased the risk of readmission.

Bottom line: In addition to factors unrelated to an AMI, a patient’s comorbid conditions, post-procedure complications, and duration of hospitalization influence the risk of readmission.

Citation: Dunlay SM, Weston SA, Killian JM, et al. Thirty-day rehospitalizations after acute myocardial infarction: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):11-18.

One-Hour Rule-Out or Rule-In for AMI in Chest Pain

Clinical question: How can we use the newly developed high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) to shorten the time to rule in and rule out AMI?

Background: The hs-cTnT assays available appear to improve the early diagnosis of AMI when compared to the regular cardiac troponins, but no clear guidelines are available as how to best use them in clinical practice.

Study design: Prospective, multicenter study.

Setting: Switzerland hospitals.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 872 unselected patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain. Hs-cTnT level was measured in a blinded fashion at presentation and after one hour. Two independent cardiologists using all available medical records adjudicated the final AMI diagnosis. Optimal thresholds for rule-out were selected to allow for 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value. Rule-out criteria were defined as baseline hs-cTnT level <12 ng/L and an absolute change within the first hour of <3 ng/L. Rule-in criteria was defined as baseline hs-cTnT >52 ng/L or an absolute increase within the first hour of >5 ng/L.

AMI was the final diagnosis in 17% of patients; AMI was ruled out in 60%; and the remaining 23% were placed in observation.

Primary prognostic endpoint was 30-day mortality rate, which was 0.2% in the rule-out group, validating the suitability of these patients for early discharge.

Study limitations were that it was an observational study not used for clinical decision-making, no dialysis patients were included, and only one specific hs-cTnT assay was tested.

Bottom line: Using hs-cTnT levels at presentation and absolute changes within the first hour, a safe rule-out or rule-in of AMI can be performed in 77% of patients presenting with chest pain.

Citation: Reichlin T, Schindler C, Drexler B, et al. One-hour rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(16):1-8.

Aspirin Increases Bleed Risk without Reducing Risk of Stroke in CKD and NVAF Patients

Clinical question: Is there a difference between aspirin and warfarin in preventing thromboembolic complications and risk of bleeding in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and nonvalvular afib (NVAF)?

Background: Data are lacking on risks and benefits of aspirin and warfarin in CKD, as this group of patients largely has been excluded from anticoagulation therapy trials for NVAF. This study examined the risks and benefits of aspirin and warfarin in patients with CKD with NVAF.

Study design: Retrospective, observational cohort study.

Setting: Danish National Registries.

Synopsis: Of 132,372 patients with NVAF, 2.7% had CKD and 0.7% had end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Compared to patients with no CKD, there was increased risk of stroke or systemic thromboembolism in patients with ESRD (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.57-2.14) and with non-end-stage CKD (HR 1.49; 95% CI 1.38-1.59).

In patients with CKD, warfarin significantly reduced stroke risk (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91) and significantly increased bleeding risk (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16-1.53); aspirin significantly increased bleeding risk (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.34) with no reduction in stroke risk.

Bottom line: CKD was associated with an increased risk of stroke among NVAF patients. While both aspirin and warfarin were associated with increased risk of bleeding, there was a reduction in the risk of stroke with warfarin, but not with aspirin.

Citation: Olesen JB, Lip GY, Kamper AL, et al. Stroke and bleeding in atrial fibrillation with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(7):625-635.

In This Edition

Literature At A Glance

A guide to this month’s studies

1. Burnout among physicians and the general workforce
2. Effects of clopidogrel added to aspirin in patients with recent lacunar stroke
3. Performance of the HEMORR2AGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED bleeding risk prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation
4. Probiotics for secondary prevention of hepatic encephalopathy
5. Capsule endoscopy for acute obscure GI bleeding
6. Perceptions of readmitted patients transitioning from hospital to home
7. Thirty-day readmissions after acute myocardial infarction
8. One-hour rule-out or rule-in for AMI patients in chest pain
9. Aspirin increases bleed risk without reducing risk of stroke in CKD and NVAF patients

Burnout among Physicians and the General Workforce

Clinical question: What is the degree and distribution of burnout within the physician workforce, and how does that compare to the general U.S. workforce?

Background: Professional burnout, work satisfaction, and work-life balance are critical elements to understand in the physician workforce. It is well documented that physicians are at high risk for burnout; however, few extensive studies have looked at rates and the identification of high-risk subpopulations.

Study design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: U.S. workforce.

Synopsis: This study included 7,288 physicians (26.7% response rate) and 5,930 controls from the general U.S. population. Validated survey instruments were employed to assess the degree and presence of burnout, depression, and satisfaction with work-life balance.

In aggregate, using a validated, two-item burnout measure, 35.2% of physicians were characterized as having burnout, compared with 27.6% of the general population (P<0.001). Within the physician community, the specialties with the highest risk of burnout included emergency medicine, general internal medicine, family medicine, and neurology.

Important limitations of this study include that the physician and general population surveys were performed at different times (six months apart), that the groups were not ideally matched (age and sex, for example), and the overall response rate of the physician survey was low.

This study sheds light on an important topic for hospitalists. Future studies should continue to probe the problem of burnout and look for creative solutions to mitigate risks that might threaten professional longevity.

Bottom line: Burnout is prevalent among physicians, especially when compared to the general workforce. Physician specialties in front-line patient care are at highest risk.

Citation: Shanafelt TD, Boone S, Tan L, et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among US physicians relative to the general US population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;20 [Epub ahead of print].

Effects of Clopidogrel Added to Aspirin in Patients with Recent Lacunar Stroke

Clinical question: Does the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin reduce the risk of any type of recurrent stroke, or affect the risk of bleeding or death, in patients who recently suffered a lacunar stroke?

Background: There are no prior randomized, multicenter trials on secondary prevention of lacunar stroke; aspirin is the standard antiplatelet therapy in this setting.

Study design: Double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial.

Setting: Eighty-two clinical centers in North America, Latin America, and Spain.

Synopsis: Researchers enrolled 3,020 patients from 2003 to 2011; criteria included age >30 years old and symptomatic lacunar stroke (proven by MRI) in the preceding 180 days.

Results showed no significant difference between recurrent strokes (any type) in the aspirin-only group (2.7% per year) versus the aspirin-plus-clopidogrel group (2.5% per year). Major hemorrhage risk was much higher in the aspirin-plus-clopidogrel group (2.1% per year) versus aspirin-only group (1.1% per year). All-cause mortality also was much higher in the aspirin-plus-clopidogrel group (N=113) versus the aspirin-only group (N=77).

Bottom line: The addition of clopidogrel to aspirin for secondary prevention does not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke, but it does significantly increase the risk of bleeding and death.

Citation: Benavente OR, Hart RG, McClure LA, et al. Effects of clopidogrel added to aspirin in patients with recent lacunar stroke. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:817-825.

Bleeding Risk Prediction Scores in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Anticoagulation

Clinical question: What are the relative predictive values of the HEMORR2AGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED risk-prediction schemes?

Background: The tools predict bleeding risk in patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation (afib), but it is unknown which is the best to predict clinically relevant bleeding.

Study design: Post-hoc analysis.

Setting: Data previously collected for the AMADEUS trial (2,293 patients taking warfarin; 251 had at least one clinically relevant bleeding event) were used to test each of the three bleeding risk-prediction schemes on the same data set.

Synopsis: Using three analysis methods (net reclassification improvement, receiver-operating characteristic [ROC], and decision-curve analysis), the researchers compared the three schemes’ performance. HAS-BLED performed best in all three of the analysis methods.

The HAS-BLED score calculation requires the following patient information: history of hypertension, renal disease, liver disease, stroke, prior major bleeding event, and labile INR; age >65; and use of antiplatelet agents, aspirin, and alcohol.

Bottom line: HAS-BLED was the best of the three schemes, although all three had only modest ability to predict clinically relevant bleeding.

Citation: Apostolakis S, Lane DA, Guo Y, et al. Performance of the HEMORRAGES, ATRIA and HAS-BLED bleeding risk-prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(9):861-867

Probiotics for Secondary Prevention of Hepatic Encephalopathy

Clinical question: Are probiotics as effective as lactulose for secondary prevention of hepatic encephalopathy (HE)?

Background: Probiotics alter the gut flora, resulting in decreased ammonia production and absorption. Probiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence of low-grade HE. However, studies on probiotics usage for secondary prevention of HE are lacking.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, single-center study.

Setting: Tertiary-care center, New Delhi.

Synopsis: Three hundred sixty patients who had recovered from HE from October 2008 to December 2009 were screened; 235 met the inclusion criteria. They were randomized to receive either lactulose (Gp-L), probiotics (Gp-P), or no therapy (Gp-N). The Gp-L group received 30 to 60 ml of lactulose in two to three divided doses; the Gp-P group received three capsules per day containing lactobacillus, bifidobacterium, and Streptococcus salivarius strains.

The primary endpoints were the development of overt HE (assessed by the West Haven Criteria) or a follow-up of 12 months. Lactulose therapy was significantly more effective in secondary prophylaxis than no therapy (26.2% vs. 56.9%, P=0.001), as was probiotics therapy compared with no therapy (34.4% vs. 56.9%, P=0.02), but no significant difference was found between lactulose and probiotics therapy (26.2% vs. 34.4%, P=0.349).

The major limitation of the study was its open-label design. The study also used a high concentration of probiotics, and the results could be strain-specific and hence require validation with other probiotics combinations. The Gp-N group continued the previous therapy (excluding lactulose), with an unknown number on rifaximin.

Bottom line: Lactulose and probiotics are equally effective in secondary prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy.

Citation: Agrawal A, Sharma BC, Sharma P, Sarin SK. Secondary prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhosis: an open-label, randomized controlled trial of lactulose, probiotics and no therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1043-1050.

Capsule Endoscopy for Acute Obscure GI Bleeding

Clinical question: What testing modality is most appropriate for acute obscure GI bleeding: capsule endoscopy (CE) or angiography?

Background: Acute obscure GI bleeding (OGIB): remains a diagnostic challenge, accounting for 7% to 8% of patients presenting with GI bleeding. CE enables direct visualization of small bowel mucosa but lacks the ability for therapeutic intervention. Angiography is frequently chosen for massive bleeding; however, it is invasive and does not enable visualization of the bowel.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled, blinded, single-center study.

Setting: Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong.

Synopsis: Ninety-one patients with active OGIB from June 2005 to November 2007 were assessed for eligibility; 60 met the criteria and were randomized to either CE or angiography. Overt OGIB was defined as patients who had nondiagnostic upper endoscopy and colonoscopy.

The primary outcome was diagnostic yield of CE or mesenteric angiography in identifying the bleeding source. Secondary outcomes were long-term rebleeding rates, readmissions for bleeding or anemia, blood transfusions, and death.

CE was positive in 16 patients (53.3%) and angiography was positive in six patients (20%). The diagnostic yield of CE was significantly higher than angiography (difference=33.3%, 95% CI 8.9-52.8%, P=0.016). The mean follow-up period was 48.5 months. The cumulative risk of rebleeding was higher in the angiography group, but this was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in rates of subsequent hospitalization, death, or transfusions between the two groups.

The study based the sample-size estimation on the diagnostic yield rather than clinical outcomes and, hence, was underpowered to detect any significant differences in clinical outcomes.

Bottom line: CE has a higher diagnostic yield than angiography in patients with active overt OGIB.

Citation: Leung WK, Ho S, Suen B, et al. Capsule endoscopy of angiography in patients with acute overt gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective randomized study with long term follow up. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1370-1376.

Perceptions of Readmitted Patients Transitioning from Hospital to Home

Clinical question: What are patient-reported reasons for readmission to the hospital after discharge?

Background: Reducing readmissions is a critical component to improving the value of healthcare. While readmission reduction is a goal of all hospitals, there is much to be gleaned from evaluating patients’ view of the problem. This study used a survey to assess the patient’s viewpoint.

Study design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia.

Synopsis: A survey of 36 questions was posed to 1,084 patients who were readmitted within 30 days of discharge from November 2010 to July 2011 (32% of eligible patients). The data were subdivided based on socioeconomic status and medical versus surgical patients.

Some issues patients raised regarding discharge planning included difficulty with paying for medications, challenges with travel to pharmacies, and concern over medication side effects.

Patients with low socioeconomic status had more difficulty taking medications and following instructions, had more depression, and had less social support.

Bottom line: Readmission rates are affected by a patient’s social situation. A team approach to discharge planning might mitigate some of these factors.

Citation: Kangovi S, Grande D, Meehan P, Mitra N, Shannon R, Long JA. Perceptions of readmitted patients on the transition from hospital to home. J Hosp Med. 2012 [Epub ahead of print].

30-Day Readmissions after Acute Myocardial Infarction

Clinical question: What are potential predictors of 30-day readmissions after acute myocardial infarction (MI)?

Background: Much attention has been given to evaluate the causes of readmissions of heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia. This study looked at 30-day readmissions after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Olmstead County Hospital, Rochester, Minn.

Synopsis: A chart review of AMI based on ICD-9 codes from 1987 to 2010 identified 3,010 patients. Patients were verified using symptoms, cardiac enzymes, and EKG changes at the time of event. Interventions evaluated included fibrinolytic therapy, CABG, or primary PCI.

Survival increased to 96% from 89% during the period from 1987 to 2010. Researchers also noted more comorbid conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, COPD, and hypertension, noted over time. Of the patients evaluated, 643 readmissions occurred for 561 patients (18.6%). Of these, the most frequent causes were ischemic heart disease, respiratory symptoms, and heart failure. Comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, COPD, anemia, higher killip class on initial admission, duration of prior hospitalization, and procedural complications, independently increased the risk of readmission.

Bottom line: In addition to factors unrelated to an AMI, a patient’s comorbid conditions, post-procedure complications, and duration of hospitalization influence the risk of readmission.

Citation: Dunlay SM, Weston SA, Killian JM, et al. Thirty-day rehospitalizations after acute myocardial infarction: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):11-18.

One-Hour Rule-Out or Rule-In for AMI in Chest Pain

Clinical question: How can we use the newly developed high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) to shorten the time to rule in and rule out AMI?

Background: The hs-cTnT assays available appear to improve the early diagnosis of AMI when compared to the regular cardiac troponins, but no clear guidelines are available as how to best use them in clinical practice.

Study design: Prospective, multicenter study.

Setting: Switzerland hospitals.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 872 unselected patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain. Hs-cTnT level was measured in a blinded fashion at presentation and after one hour. Two independent cardiologists using all available medical records adjudicated the final AMI diagnosis. Optimal thresholds for rule-out were selected to allow for 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value. Rule-out criteria were defined as baseline hs-cTnT level <12 ng/L and an absolute change within the first hour of <3 ng/L. Rule-in criteria was defined as baseline hs-cTnT >52 ng/L or an absolute increase within the first hour of >5 ng/L.

AMI was the final diagnosis in 17% of patients; AMI was ruled out in 60%; and the remaining 23% were placed in observation.

Primary prognostic endpoint was 30-day mortality rate, which was 0.2% in the rule-out group, validating the suitability of these patients for early discharge.

Study limitations were that it was an observational study not used for clinical decision-making, no dialysis patients were included, and only one specific hs-cTnT assay was tested.

Bottom line: Using hs-cTnT levels at presentation and absolute changes within the first hour, a safe rule-out or rule-in of AMI can be performed in 77% of patients presenting with chest pain.

Citation: Reichlin T, Schindler C, Drexler B, et al. One-hour rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(16):1-8.

Aspirin Increases Bleed Risk without Reducing Risk of Stroke in CKD and NVAF Patients

Clinical question: Is there a difference between aspirin and warfarin in preventing thromboembolic complications and risk of bleeding in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and nonvalvular afib (NVAF)?

Background: Data are lacking on risks and benefits of aspirin and warfarin in CKD, as this group of patients largely has been excluded from anticoagulation therapy trials for NVAF. This study examined the risks and benefits of aspirin and warfarin in patients with CKD with NVAF.

Study design: Retrospective, observational cohort study.

Setting: Danish National Registries.

Synopsis: Of 132,372 patients with NVAF, 2.7% had CKD and 0.7% had end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Compared to patients with no CKD, there was increased risk of stroke or systemic thromboembolism in patients with ESRD (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.57-2.14) and with non-end-stage CKD (HR 1.49; 95% CI 1.38-1.59).

In patients with CKD, warfarin significantly reduced stroke risk (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91) and significantly increased bleeding risk (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16-1.53); aspirin significantly increased bleeding risk (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.34) with no reduction in stroke risk.

Bottom line: CKD was associated with an increased risk of stroke among NVAF patients. While both aspirin and warfarin were associated with increased risk of bleeding, there was a reduction in the risk of stroke with warfarin, but not with aspirin.

Citation: Olesen JB, Lip GY, Kamper AL, et al. Stroke and bleeding in atrial fibrillation with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(7):625-635.

In This Edition

Literature At A Glance

A guide to this month’s studies

1. Burnout among physicians and the general workforce
2. Effects of clopidogrel added to aspirin in patients with recent lacunar stroke
3. Performance of the HEMORR2AGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED bleeding risk prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation
4. Probiotics for secondary prevention of hepatic encephalopathy
5. Capsule endoscopy for acute obscure GI bleeding
6. Perceptions of readmitted patients transitioning from hospital to home
7. Thirty-day readmissions after acute myocardial infarction
8. One-hour rule-out or rule-in for AMI patients in chest pain
9. Aspirin increases bleed risk without reducing risk of stroke in CKD and NVAF patients

Burnout among Physicians and the General Workforce

Clinical question: What is the degree and distribution of burnout within the physician workforce, and how does that compare to the general U.S. workforce?

Background: Professional burnout, work satisfaction, and work-life balance are critical elements to understand in the physician workforce. It is well documented that physicians are at high risk for burnout; however, few extensive studies have looked at rates and the identification of high-risk subpopulations.

Study design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: U.S. workforce.

Synopsis: This study included 7,288 physicians (26.7% response rate) and 5,930 controls from the general U.S. population. Validated survey instruments were employed to assess the degree and presence of burnout, depression, and satisfaction with work-life balance.

In aggregate, using a validated, two-item burnout measure, 35.2% of physicians were characterized as having burnout, compared with 27.6% of the general population (P<0.001). Within the physician community, the specialties with the highest risk of burnout included emergency medicine, general internal medicine, family medicine, and neurology.

Important limitations of this study include that the physician and general population surveys were performed at different times (six months apart), that the groups were not ideally matched (age and sex, for example), and the overall response rate of the physician survey was low.

This study sheds light on an important topic for hospitalists. Future studies should continue to probe the problem of burnout and look for creative solutions to mitigate risks that might threaten professional longevity.

Bottom line: Burnout is prevalent among physicians, especially when compared to the general workforce. Physician specialties in front-line patient care are at highest risk.

Citation: Shanafelt TD, Boone S, Tan L, et al. Burnout and satisfaction with work-life balance among US physicians relative to the general US population. Arch Intern Med. 2012;20 [Epub ahead of print].

Effects of Clopidogrel Added to Aspirin in Patients with Recent Lacunar Stroke

Clinical question: Does the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin reduce the risk of any type of recurrent stroke, or affect the risk of bleeding or death, in patients who recently suffered a lacunar stroke?

Background: There are no prior randomized, multicenter trials on secondary prevention of lacunar stroke; aspirin is the standard antiplatelet therapy in this setting.

Study design: Double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial.

Setting: Eighty-two clinical centers in North America, Latin America, and Spain.

Synopsis: Researchers enrolled 3,020 patients from 2003 to 2011; criteria included age >30 years old and symptomatic lacunar stroke (proven by MRI) in the preceding 180 days.

Results showed no significant difference between recurrent strokes (any type) in the aspirin-only group (2.7% per year) versus the aspirin-plus-clopidogrel group (2.5% per year). Major hemorrhage risk was much higher in the aspirin-plus-clopidogrel group (2.1% per year) versus aspirin-only group (1.1% per year). All-cause mortality also was much higher in the aspirin-plus-clopidogrel group (N=113) versus the aspirin-only group (N=77).

Bottom line: The addition of clopidogrel to aspirin for secondary prevention does not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke, but it does significantly increase the risk of bleeding and death.

Citation: Benavente OR, Hart RG, McClure LA, et al. Effects of clopidogrel added to aspirin in patients with recent lacunar stroke. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:817-825.

Bleeding Risk Prediction Scores in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Anticoagulation

Clinical question: What are the relative predictive values of the HEMORR2AGES, ATRIA, and HAS-BLED risk-prediction schemes?

Background: The tools predict bleeding risk in patients anticoagulated for atrial fibrillation (afib), but it is unknown which is the best to predict clinically relevant bleeding.

Study design: Post-hoc analysis.

Setting: Data previously collected for the AMADEUS trial (2,293 patients taking warfarin; 251 had at least one clinically relevant bleeding event) were used to test each of the three bleeding risk-prediction schemes on the same data set.

Synopsis: Using three analysis methods (net reclassification improvement, receiver-operating characteristic [ROC], and decision-curve analysis), the researchers compared the three schemes’ performance. HAS-BLED performed best in all three of the analysis methods.

The HAS-BLED score calculation requires the following patient information: history of hypertension, renal disease, liver disease, stroke, prior major bleeding event, and labile INR; age >65; and use of antiplatelet agents, aspirin, and alcohol.

Bottom line: HAS-BLED was the best of the three schemes, although all three had only modest ability to predict clinically relevant bleeding.

Citation: Apostolakis S, Lane DA, Guo Y, et al. Performance of the HEMORRAGES, ATRIA and HAS-BLED bleeding risk-prediction scores in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing anticoagulation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60(9):861-867

Probiotics for Secondary Prevention of Hepatic Encephalopathy

Clinical question: Are probiotics as effective as lactulose for secondary prevention of hepatic encephalopathy (HE)?

Background: Probiotics alter the gut flora, resulting in decreased ammonia production and absorption. Probiotics have been shown to reduce the incidence of low-grade HE. However, studies on probiotics usage for secondary prevention of HE are lacking.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled, nonblinded, single-center study.

Setting: Tertiary-care center, New Delhi.

Synopsis: Three hundred sixty patients who had recovered from HE from October 2008 to December 2009 were screened; 235 met the inclusion criteria. They were randomized to receive either lactulose (Gp-L), probiotics (Gp-P), or no therapy (Gp-N). The Gp-L group received 30 to 60 ml of lactulose in two to three divided doses; the Gp-P group received three capsules per day containing lactobacillus, bifidobacterium, and Streptococcus salivarius strains.

The primary endpoints were the development of overt HE (assessed by the West Haven Criteria) or a follow-up of 12 months. Lactulose therapy was significantly more effective in secondary prophylaxis than no therapy (26.2% vs. 56.9%, P=0.001), as was probiotics therapy compared with no therapy (34.4% vs. 56.9%, P=0.02), but no significant difference was found between lactulose and probiotics therapy (26.2% vs. 34.4%, P=0.349).

The major limitation of the study was its open-label design. The study also used a high concentration of probiotics, and the results could be strain-specific and hence require validation with other probiotics combinations. The Gp-N group continued the previous therapy (excluding lactulose), with an unknown number on rifaximin.

Bottom line: Lactulose and probiotics are equally effective in secondary prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy.

Citation: Agrawal A, Sharma BC, Sharma P, Sarin SK. Secondary prophylaxis of hepatic encephalopathy in cirrhosis: an open-label, randomized controlled trial of lactulose, probiotics and no therapy. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1043-1050.

Capsule Endoscopy for Acute Obscure GI Bleeding

Clinical question: What testing modality is most appropriate for acute obscure GI bleeding: capsule endoscopy (CE) or angiography?

Background: Acute obscure GI bleeding (OGIB): remains a diagnostic challenge, accounting for 7% to 8% of patients presenting with GI bleeding. CE enables direct visualization of small bowel mucosa but lacks the ability for therapeutic intervention. Angiography is frequently chosen for massive bleeding; however, it is invasive and does not enable visualization of the bowel.

Study design: Prospective, randomized, controlled, blinded, single-center study.

Setting: Prince of Wales Hospital, Hong Kong.

Synopsis: Ninety-one patients with active OGIB from June 2005 to November 2007 were assessed for eligibility; 60 met the criteria and were randomized to either CE or angiography. Overt OGIB was defined as patients who had nondiagnostic upper endoscopy and colonoscopy.

The primary outcome was diagnostic yield of CE or mesenteric angiography in identifying the bleeding source. Secondary outcomes were long-term rebleeding rates, readmissions for bleeding or anemia, blood transfusions, and death.

CE was positive in 16 patients (53.3%) and angiography was positive in six patients (20%). The diagnostic yield of CE was significantly higher than angiography (difference=33.3%, 95% CI 8.9-52.8%, P=0.016). The mean follow-up period was 48.5 months. The cumulative risk of rebleeding was higher in the angiography group, but this was not statistically significant. There was no significant difference in rates of subsequent hospitalization, death, or transfusions between the two groups.

The study based the sample-size estimation on the diagnostic yield rather than clinical outcomes and, hence, was underpowered to detect any significant differences in clinical outcomes.

Bottom line: CE has a higher diagnostic yield than angiography in patients with active overt OGIB.

Citation: Leung WK, Ho S, Suen B, et al. Capsule endoscopy of angiography in patients with acute overt gastrointestinal bleeding: a prospective randomized study with long term follow up. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107:1370-1376.

Perceptions of Readmitted Patients Transitioning from Hospital to Home

Clinical question: What are patient-reported reasons for readmission to the hospital after discharge?

Background: Reducing readmissions is a critical component to improving the value of healthcare. While readmission reduction is a goal of all hospitals, there is much to be gleaned from evaluating patients’ view of the problem. This study used a survey to assess the patient’s viewpoint.

Study design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: The Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania and Penn Presbyterian Medical Center, Philadelphia.

Synopsis: A survey of 36 questions was posed to 1,084 patients who were readmitted within 30 days of discharge from November 2010 to July 2011 (32% of eligible patients). The data were subdivided based on socioeconomic status and medical versus surgical patients.

Some issues patients raised regarding discharge planning included difficulty with paying for medications, challenges with travel to pharmacies, and concern over medication side effects.

Patients with low socioeconomic status had more difficulty taking medications and following instructions, had more depression, and had less social support.

Bottom line: Readmission rates are affected by a patient’s social situation. A team approach to discharge planning might mitigate some of these factors.

Citation: Kangovi S, Grande D, Meehan P, Mitra N, Shannon R, Long JA. Perceptions of readmitted patients on the transition from hospital to home. J Hosp Med. 2012 [Epub ahead of print].

30-Day Readmissions after Acute Myocardial Infarction

Clinical question: What are potential predictors of 30-day readmissions after acute myocardial infarction (MI)?

Background: Much attention has been given to evaluate the causes of readmissions of heart failure, acute MI, and pneumonia. This study looked at 30-day readmissions after an acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Olmstead County Hospital, Rochester, Minn.

Synopsis: A chart review of AMI based on ICD-9 codes from 1987 to 2010 identified 3,010 patients. Patients were verified using symptoms, cardiac enzymes, and EKG changes at the time of event. Interventions evaluated included fibrinolytic therapy, CABG, or primary PCI.

Survival increased to 96% from 89% during the period from 1987 to 2010. Researchers also noted more comorbid conditions, such as diabetes mellitus, COPD, and hypertension, noted over time. Of the patients evaluated, 643 readmissions occurred for 561 patients (18.6%). Of these, the most frequent causes were ischemic heart disease, respiratory symptoms, and heart failure. Comorbid conditions, such as diabetes, COPD, anemia, higher killip class on initial admission, duration of prior hospitalization, and procedural complications, independently increased the risk of readmission.

Bottom line: In addition to factors unrelated to an AMI, a patient’s comorbid conditions, post-procedure complications, and duration of hospitalization influence the risk of readmission.

Citation: Dunlay SM, Weston SA, Killian JM, et al. Thirty-day rehospitalizations after acute myocardial infarction: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2012;157(1):11-18.

One-Hour Rule-Out or Rule-In for AMI in Chest Pain

Clinical question: How can we use the newly developed high-sensitivity cardiac troponin (hs-cTnT) to shorten the time to rule in and rule out AMI?

Background: The hs-cTnT assays available appear to improve the early diagnosis of AMI when compared to the regular cardiac troponins, but no clear guidelines are available as how to best use them in clinical practice.

Study design: Prospective, multicenter study.

Setting: Switzerland hospitals.

Synopsis: The study enrolled 872 unselected patients presenting to the ED with acute chest pain. Hs-cTnT level was measured in a blinded fashion at presentation and after one hour. Two independent cardiologists using all available medical records adjudicated the final AMI diagnosis. Optimal thresholds for rule-out were selected to allow for 100% sensitivity and negative predictive value. Rule-out criteria were defined as baseline hs-cTnT level <12 ng/L and an absolute change within the first hour of <3 ng/L. Rule-in criteria was defined as baseline hs-cTnT >52 ng/L or an absolute increase within the first hour of >5 ng/L.

AMI was the final diagnosis in 17% of patients; AMI was ruled out in 60%; and the remaining 23% were placed in observation.

Primary prognostic endpoint was 30-day mortality rate, which was 0.2% in the rule-out group, validating the suitability of these patients for early discharge.

Study limitations were that it was an observational study not used for clinical decision-making, no dialysis patients were included, and only one specific hs-cTnT assay was tested.

Bottom line: Using hs-cTnT levels at presentation and absolute changes within the first hour, a safe rule-out or rule-in of AMI can be performed in 77% of patients presenting with chest pain.

Citation: Reichlin T, Schindler C, Drexler B, et al. One-hour rule-out and rule-in of acute myocardial infarction using high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(16):1-8.

Aspirin Increases Bleed Risk without Reducing Risk of Stroke in CKD and NVAF Patients

Clinical question: Is there a difference between aspirin and warfarin in preventing thromboembolic complications and risk of bleeding in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and nonvalvular afib (NVAF)?

Background: Data are lacking on risks and benefits of aspirin and warfarin in CKD, as this group of patients largely has been excluded from anticoagulation therapy trials for NVAF. This study examined the risks and benefits of aspirin and warfarin in patients with CKD with NVAF.

Study design: Retrospective, observational cohort study.

Setting: Danish National Registries.

Synopsis: Of 132,372 patients with NVAF, 2.7% had CKD and 0.7% had end-stage renal disease (ESRD). Compared to patients with no CKD, there was increased risk of stroke or systemic thromboembolism in patients with ESRD (HR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.57-2.14) and with non-end-stage CKD (HR 1.49; 95% CI 1.38-1.59).

In patients with CKD, warfarin significantly reduced stroke risk (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91) and significantly increased bleeding risk (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16-1.53); aspirin significantly increased bleeding risk (HR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.02-1.34) with no reduction in stroke risk.

Bottom line: CKD was associated with an increased risk of stroke among NVAF patients. While both aspirin and warfarin were associated with increased risk of bleeding, there was a reduction in the risk of stroke with warfarin, but not with aspirin.

Citation: Olesen JB, Lip GY, Kamper AL, et al. Stroke and bleeding in atrial fibrillation with chronic kidney disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(7):625-635.