Expert Commentary

Click here to listen to John Nelson, MD, MHM.

Click here to listen to Lakshmi Halasyamani, MD, SFHM.

Click here to listen to Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM.

Click here to listen to John Nelson, MD, MHM.

Click here to listen to Lakshmi Halasyamani, MD, SFHM.

Click here to listen to Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM.

Click here to listen to John Nelson, MD, MHM.

Click here to listen to Lakshmi Halasyamani, MD, SFHM.

Click here to listen to Win Whitcomb, MD, MHM.

Despite never advancing his musical tastes beyond the arena bands of the 1970s and ’80s (think Def Leppard), Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, has done a great job in securing informative and meaningful research and opinion for the journal. Did you see read the July/August 2010 issue of JHM? It is a great example of content uniquely relevant to hospitalists: several original research articles documenting how hospitalists spend their time. Anyone thinking about the best way to organize and operate a hospitalist practice should read through these studies, along with one published by Kevin O’Leary, MD, and colleagues in the March/April 2006 issue.¹ But as a service, I’ll provide a CliffsNotes version of them, along with some comments here.

Time-Motion Studies

What all the studies demonstrate is that academic hospitalists spend only about 15% to 20% of their time in direct patient care, generally defined as time spent taking a patient’s history and examination, meeting with families, etc. Indirect patient care, such as time spent reviewing records, documenting, and communicating with consultants and other patient care staff, consumes about 60% to 70% of their time. The remainder of time is spent in transit (around 7% of each day) and in personal activities.

Remember, all these studies reported on academic hospitalists in large academic medical centers. As noted in the discussion sections, the results in nonteaching community hospitals might be different. My guess is that community hospitalists spend about the same portion of time in the broad categories above, but the individual activities within each category might differ. So I’m willing to believe that these studies tell us something about the majority of hospitalists who practice outside of academia.

90 Minutes of Doctoring?

While the JHM studies assess hospitalist time in a number of different categories, I think it makes the most sense to divide our time into just two categories: “real doctoring” and other. We’ll probably never see a study that divides hospitalists’ time that way, as there would be endless debate about what is and isn’t real doctoring. But it is worth thinking about your work this way.

A lot of what the studies generally defined as indirect patient care is still “real doctoring.” Things like reviewing old records are critically important and typically can’t be done adequately by a nonclinician. But the 10 minutes you spent to get the CD of outside X-rays to show up on your computer, and rearranging the faxed pages so they’re all oriented the same way and in order, are not a good use of your time; a clerical person could do it.

I periodically have an experience that makes me think I spend too much time on patients’ social issues (e.g. long conversations about why Medicare won’t pay for a patient’s skilled nursing facility stay) and too little on “real doctoring.” One such experience is when I have a patient with an unusual pulmonary infiltrate and the radiologist is able to generate a much more comprehensive differential diagnosis than I can. This is embarrassing. Maybe the radiologist is just smarter than I am, but I think it could be because, compared to me, he spends more of his time every day thinking about “real medicine,” such as pulmonary diseases, and less time dealing with nonclinical issues.

Even though we’re paid for a full day’s work, I suspect many hospitalists might spend only about 90 minutes a day immersed in thought about “real medicine,” while doctors in most other specialties probably spend a lot more. If I’m right, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that after practicing for many years, the radiologist who spends several hours a day exercising his fund of medical knowledge probably has more command of some clinical things than a hospitalist who does so only 90 minutes a day. Actively practicing as a hospitalist might not be as effective a method of maintaining proficiency as it is in other specialties. More than many other specialties, we need to rely on self-study and continuing education courses to prevent erosion of our knowledge base.

I’ve just made up this 90-minute figure. I have no idea how accurate it might be, and, the JHM studies don’t offer a lot of insight either. Clearly, it varies a lot by individual doctor and practice setting. How much of your day do you think you spend on “real doctoring” vs. other activities?

What really matters is whether we’ve ended up with too much work that isn’t “real doctoring.” Sure, all of the work needs to be done, but the system isn’t served best when paying a doctor to do work a less expensive person could do.

Max “Doctoring” Time

I think most hospitalists, including me, are stuck spending too much time on activities that don’t add value. For example, while complete and informative documentation is essential, most of us probably spend too much time on it, in part because we’re trying to immunize against lawsuits and ensure our documentation matches the relevant coding regulations.

I think hospitalists have a communication burden that is higher than that of most other specialties. The JHM article by Tipping and colleagues notes that a time-motion study of ED doctors (Ann Emerg Med. 1998:31(1):87-91) found that they spent 13% of their time communicating with other providers and staff, compared with their finding that hospitalists spent 26% of their time communicating.² Only a portion of this communication is real doctoring. Discussing patient management with a surgeon is, but spending 20 minutes figuring out which surgeon is on call and how to reach her isn’t.

Tipping’s study also found that when patient census was above average, hospitalists spent less time communicating and documenting in the electronic record, even though the total time spent working on those days increased. Of course, it is possible that when the patient census is below average, we just work more slowly and let work fill the time available, and the reduced time spent documenting and communicating when busy simply reflects working more efficiently. But I suspect that when our patient census climbs above a certain point, or we’re made less efficient by things like implementing a new technology, we compensate in part by relying on consultants more to do the real doctoring we would otherwise be doing and communicating with them less.

All of us should be thinking about ways to make communication as efficient as possible so that we can spend less time doing it. I’m hopeful that we will figure out new ways to communicate (e-mail, text, IM, etc.) that are quicker and just as effective in certain situations.

Coda

I try to write most of my columns in a way that minimizes the editorializing and maximizes the practical advice. This month is an exception; it’s all editorializing. But I do have some advice for Dr. Williams: Investigate music options other than the arena bands of the 1980s. Try something like Alison Krauss’ live album or Puccini’s opera Gianni Schicchi, which has the beautiful aria O mio babbino caro.

Or do what I do: Ask former SHM board member Brad Flansbaum, MD, SFHM, for advice. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

References

1. O’Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Baker DW. How hospitalists spend their time: insights on efficiency and safety. J Hosp Med. 2006;1(2):88-93.
2. Tipping MD, Forth VE, O’Leary KJ, et al. Where did the day go? A time-motion study of hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):323-328.

Despite never advancing his musical tastes beyond the arena bands of the 1970s and ’80s (think Def Leppard), Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, has done a great job in securing informative and meaningful research and opinion for the journal. Did you see read the July/August 2010 issue of JHM? It is a great example of content uniquely relevant to hospitalists: several original research articles documenting how hospitalists spend their time. Anyone thinking about the best way to organize and operate a hospitalist practice should read through these studies, along with one published by Kevin O’Leary, MD, and colleagues in the March/April 2006 issue.¹ But as a service, I’ll provide a CliffsNotes version of them, along with some comments here.

Time-Motion Studies

What all the studies demonstrate is that academic hospitalists spend only about 15% to 20% of their time in direct patient care, generally defined as time spent taking a patient’s history and examination, meeting with families, etc. Indirect patient care, such as time spent reviewing records, documenting, and communicating with consultants and other patient care staff, consumes about 60% to 70% of their time. The remainder of time is spent in transit (around 7% of each day) and in personal activities.

Remember, all these studies reported on academic hospitalists in large academic medical centers. As noted in the discussion sections, the results in nonteaching community hospitals might be different. My guess is that community hospitalists spend about the same portion of time in the broad categories above, but the individual activities within each category might differ. So I’m willing to believe that these studies tell us something about the majority of hospitalists who practice outside of academia.

90 Minutes of Doctoring?

While the JHM studies assess hospitalist time in a number of different categories, I think it makes the most sense to divide our time into just two categories: “real doctoring” and other. We’ll probably never see a study that divides hospitalists’ time that way, as there would be endless debate about what is and isn’t real doctoring. But it is worth thinking about your work this way.

A lot of what the studies generally defined as indirect patient care is still “real doctoring.” Things like reviewing old records are critically important and typically can’t be done adequately by a nonclinician. But the 10 minutes you spent to get the CD of outside X-rays to show up on your computer, and rearranging the faxed pages so they’re all oriented the same way and in order, are not a good use of your time; a clerical person could do it.

I periodically have an experience that makes me think I spend too much time on patients’ social issues (e.g. long conversations about why Medicare won’t pay for a patient’s skilled nursing facility stay) and too little on “real doctoring.” One such experience is when I have a patient with an unusual pulmonary infiltrate and the radiologist is able to generate a much more comprehensive differential diagnosis than I can. This is embarrassing. Maybe the radiologist is just smarter than I am, but I think it could be because, compared to me, he spends more of his time every day thinking about “real medicine,” such as pulmonary diseases, and less time dealing with nonclinical issues.

Even though we’re paid for a full day’s work, I suspect many hospitalists might spend only about 90 minutes a day immersed in thought about “real medicine,” while doctors in most other specialties probably spend a lot more. If I’m right, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that after practicing for many years, the radiologist who spends several hours a day exercising his fund of medical knowledge probably has more command of some clinical things than a hospitalist who does so only 90 minutes a day. Actively practicing as a hospitalist might not be as effective a method of maintaining proficiency as it is in other specialties. More than many other specialties, we need to rely on self-study and continuing education courses to prevent erosion of our knowledge base.

I’ve just made up this 90-minute figure. I have no idea how accurate it might be, and, the JHM studies don’t offer a lot of insight either. Clearly, it varies a lot by individual doctor and practice setting. How much of your day do you think you spend on “real doctoring” vs. other activities?

What really matters is whether we’ve ended up with too much work that isn’t “real doctoring.” Sure, all of the work needs to be done, but the system isn’t served best when paying a doctor to do work a less expensive person could do.

Max “Doctoring” Time

I think most hospitalists, including me, are stuck spending too much time on activities that don’t add value. For example, while complete and informative documentation is essential, most of us probably spend too much time on it, in part because we’re trying to immunize against lawsuits and ensure our documentation matches the relevant coding regulations.

I think hospitalists have a communication burden that is higher than that of most other specialties. The JHM article by Tipping and colleagues notes that a time-motion study of ED doctors (Ann Emerg Med. 1998:31(1):87-91) found that they spent 13% of their time communicating with other providers and staff, compared with their finding that hospitalists spent 26% of their time communicating.² Only a portion of this communication is real doctoring. Discussing patient management with a surgeon is, but spending 20 minutes figuring out which surgeon is on call and how to reach her isn’t.

Tipping’s study also found that when patient census was above average, hospitalists spent less time communicating and documenting in the electronic record, even though the total time spent working on those days increased. Of course, it is possible that when the patient census is below average, we just work more slowly and let work fill the time available, and the reduced time spent documenting and communicating when busy simply reflects working more efficiently. But I suspect that when our patient census climbs above a certain point, or we’re made less efficient by things like implementing a new technology, we compensate in part by relying on consultants more to do the real doctoring we would otherwise be doing and communicating with them less.

All of us should be thinking about ways to make communication as efficient as possible so that we can spend less time doing it. I’m hopeful that we will figure out new ways to communicate (e-mail, text, IM, etc.) that are quicker and just as effective in certain situations.

Coda

I try to write most of my columns in a way that minimizes the editorializing and maximizes the practical advice. This month is an exception; it’s all editorializing. But I do have some advice for Dr. Williams: Investigate music options other than the arena bands of the 1980s. Try something like Alison Krauss’ live album or Puccini’s opera Gianni Schicchi, which has the beautiful aria O mio babbino caro.

Or do what I do: Ask former SHM board member Brad Flansbaum, MD, SFHM, for advice. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

References

1. O’Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Baker DW. How hospitalists spend their time: insights on efficiency and safety. J Hosp Med. 2006;1(2):88-93.
2. Tipping MD, Forth VE, O’Leary KJ, et al. Where did the day go? A time-motion study of hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):323-328.

Despite never advancing his musical tastes beyond the arena bands of the 1970s and ’80s (think Def Leppard), Mark Williams, MD, FACP, FHM, editor-in-chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine, has done a great job in securing informative and meaningful research and opinion for the journal. Did you see read the July/August 2010 issue of JHM? It is a great example of content uniquely relevant to hospitalists: several original research articles documenting how hospitalists spend their time. Anyone thinking about the best way to organize and operate a hospitalist practice should read through these studies, along with one published by Kevin O’Leary, MD, and colleagues in the March/April 2006 issue.¹ But as a service, I’ll provide a CliffsNotes version of them, along with some comments here.

Time-Motion Studies

What all the studies demonstrate is that academic hospitalists spend only about 15% to 20% of their time in direct patient care, generally defined as time spent taking a patient’s history and examination, meeting with families, etc. Indirect patient care, such as time spent reviewing records, documenting, and communicating with consultants and other patient care staff, consumes about 60% to 70% of their time. The remainder of time is spent in transit (around 7% of each day) and in personal activities.

Remember, all these studies reported on academic hospitalists in large academic medical centers. As noted in the discussion sections, the results in nonteaching community hospitals might be different. My guess is that community hospitalists spend about the same portion of time in the broad categories above, but the individual activities within each category might differ. So I’m willing to believe that these studies tell us something about the majority of hospitalists who practice outside of academia.

90 Minutes of Doctoring?

While the JHM studies assess hospitalist time in a number of different categories, I think it makes the most sense to divide our time into just two categories: “real doctoring” and other. We’ll probably never see a study that divides hospitalists’ time that way, as there would be endless debate about what is and isn’t real doctoring. But it is worth thinking about your work this way.

A lot of what the studies generally defined as indirect patient care is still “real doctoring.” Things like reviewing old records are critically important and typically can’t be done adequately by a nonclinician. But the 10 minutes you spent to get the CD of outside X-rays to show up on your computer, and rearranging the faxed pages so they’re all oriented the same way and in order, are not a good use of your time; a clerical person could do it.

I periodically have an experience that makes me think I spend too much time on patients’ social issues (e.g. long conversations about why Medicare won’t pay for a patient’s skilled nursing facility stay) and too little on “real doctoring.” One such experience is when I have a patient with an unusual pulmonary infiltrate and the radiologist is able to generate a much more comprehensive differential diagnosis than I can. This is embarrassing. Maybe the radiologist is just smarter than I am, but I think it could be because, compared to me, he spends more of his time every day thinking about “real medicine,” such as pulmonary diseases, and less time dealing with nonclinical issues.

Even though we’re paid for a full day’s work, I suspect many hospitalists might spend only about 90 minutes a day immersed in thought about “real medicine,” while doctors in most other specialties probably spend a lot more. If I’m right, then it shouldn’t be a surprise that after practicing for many years, the radiologist who spends several hours a day exercising his fund of medical knowledge probably has more command of some clinical things than a hospitalist who does so only 90 minutes a day. Actively practicing as a hospitalist might not be as effective a method of maintaining proficiency as it is in other specialties. More than many other specialties, we need to rely on self-study and continuing education courses to prevent erosion of our knowledge base.

I’ve just made up this 90-minute figure. I have no idea how accurate it might be, and, the JHM studies don’t offer a lot of insight either. Clearly, it varies a lot by individual doctor and practice setting. How much of your day do you think you spend on “real doctoring” vs. other activities?

What really matters is whether we’ve ended up with too much work that isn’t “real doctoring.” Sure, all of the work needs to be done, but the system isn’t served best when paying a doctor to do work a less expensive person could do.

Max “Doctoring” Time

I think most hospitalists, including me, are stuck spending too much time on activities that don’t add value. For example, while complete and informative documentation is essential, most of us probably spend too much time on it, in part because we’re trying to immunize against lawsuits and ensure our documentation matches the relevant coding regulations.

I think hospitalists have a communication burden that is higher than that of most other specialties. The JHM article by Tipping and colleagues notes that a time-motion study of ED doctors (Ann Emerg Med. 1998:31(1):87-91) found that they spent 13% of their time communicating with other providers and staff, compared with their finding that hospitalists spent 26% of their time communicating.² Only a portion of this communication is real doctoring. Discussing patient management with a surgeon is, but spending 20 minutes figuring out which surgeon is on call and how to reach her isn’t.

Tipping’s study also found that when patient census was above average, hospitalists spent less time communicating and documenting in the electronic record, even though the total time spent working on those days increased. Of course, it is possible that when the patient census is below average, we just work more slowly and let work fill the time available, and the reduced time spent documenting and communicating when busy simply reflects working more efficiently. But I suspect that when our patient census climbs above a certain point, or we’re made less efficient by things like implementing a new technology, we compensate in part by relying on consultants more to do the real doctoring we would otherwise be doing and communicating with them less.

All of us should be thinking about ways to make communication as efficient as possible so that we can spend less time doing it. I’m hopeful that we will figure out new ways to communicate (e-mail, text, IM, etc.) that are quicker and just as effective in certain situations.

Coda

I try to write most of my columns in a way that minimizes the editorializing and maximizes the practical advice. This month is an exception; it’s all editorializing. But I do have some advice for Dr. Williams: Investigate music options other than the arena bands of the 1980s. Try something like Alison Krauss’ live album or Puccini’s opera Gianni Schicchi, which has the beautiful aria O mio babbino caro.

Or do what I do: Ask former SHM board member Brad Flansbaum, MD, SFHM, for advice. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

References

1. O’Leary KJ, Liebovitz DM, Baker DW. How hospitalists spend their time: insights on efficiency and safety. J Hosp Med. 2006;1(2):88-93.
2. Tipping MD, Forth VE, O’Leary KJ, et al. Where did the day go? A time-motion study of hospitalists. J Hosp Med. 2010;5(6):323-328.

The providers in every hospitalist practice should be a good fit for the practice’s culture. They should have reasonable relationships with their colleagues in the practice, patients and families, and other staff at the hospital.

I can’t imagine anyone arguing with this point of view. But in my work with hundreds of hospitalist practices over the past 15 years, I’ve found that many practices seem to have a hard time ensuring their providers meet that standard. I can think of lots of reasons for this. The first that comes to mind is the difficult HM recruiting environment. Almost all hospitalist practices needed to grow quickly, and many lowered the bar in the qualifications and the fit of the candidates they hired to make sure they filled all of their positions.

Even if it later becomes clear a provider isn’t a good fit for the group culture, or worse still lacks the knowledge base and judgment to perform well, many practices are reluctant to replace the hospitalist because it might be difficult to find a replacement—and there is no guarantee the new person will perform any better. Because of this, a number of practices have ended up with providers who in many cases have a negative influence on others in the practice, and both the practice and the problem provider would be better off if the provider went elsewhere.

The Problem Physician

To their credit, most practices do act when a provider simply lacks the skill and judgment to perform adequately. This can mean close proctoring/mentoring for an extended period, or requiring specific CME course work to correct a skill that is lacking. But it also means reassigning the person to a different job, or termination.

But in the case of someone with a toxic personality, practices often are more reluctant to act. I’ll often hear the leadership of a practice say something like, “We knew Alice wasn’t a good fit for our practice within a few weeks of her start date.” The start date was several years ago and nothing has been done about this. Not surprisingly, Alice still performs poorly.

I’m not talking about someone who has occasional problems. I’m talking about people who cause problems almost every time they show up to work. Here are some real anecdotes, with fictitious names to ensure anonymity for the person and institution:

• Dr. Lee routinely disappears for several hours, during which he doesn’t answer pages. This even happens when he is the only doctor covering the practice.
• Dr. Lifeson, while generally getting along well with his fellow hospitalists and the nursing staff, can be counted on to complain bitterly about all levels of the hospital administration and leadership. He never misses an opportunity to try to convince other hospitalists that the leadership is not only inept, but also clearly has a malicious intent toward hospitalists.
• Dr. Peart complains incessantly about even tiny inequities in the work schedule or patient load. Others in the group have found that it is easier to ensure he always has the best schedule and lightest patient load, hoping they won’t have to hear his constant complaining. But even that hasn’t stemmed the steady downpour of negativity from him.

In all three of these cases, it seemed clear that the doctor should be terminated. And while the practice leadership agreed with me, they offered several excuses for why they hadn’t taken this step.

• “Who knows if we can find a replacement who will be any better?”
• “But he’s actually a decent doctor and doesn’t get a lot of complaints from patients.”
• “He’s such an angry guy, we worry about litigation if we fire him.”

I can’t offer any clear rule about when a practice should stop trying to improve a provider’s behavior and recognize that it is time to terminate the provider. But it is worth remembering that waiting too long has many costs, including the satisfaction of others in the group. Everyone will think less of the practice they are part of if poor behavior is tolerated.

Assess the Situation, Then Take Action

Most doctors who serve as the lead physician for their group have little or no experience dealing with problem behavior, let alone experience ensuring that necessary steps are followed prior to disciplining or terminating someone. But every hospital has someone who is very knowledgeable about these things; they should be engaged for advice, and, in the case of hospital-employed groups, should participate in the process of counseling and/or termination. It is important to take advantage of the expertise that is available.

Of course, the best approach is to prevent such problems from coming up. The best way to do this is to be very careful when hiring new providers. Checking references carefully is probably the best way to get an idea about whether someone might have behavior or personality problems. There are “job fit” survey instruments that you can use, but I’m not sure how effective they are, or how much value they add for a hospitalist practice beyond other means of assessing the candidate. And in the process of hiring someone, be sure to set behavior expectations very clearly. A new candidate should know that you will not tolerate not living up to behavioral expectations.

When dealing with bad behavior, make sure that you follow a careful and well-documented process. If someone still makes it through the hiring process only to be revealed as a troublemaker soon after their start date, don’t wait to sit that person down for very clear counseling; insist that their behavior change. Take notes of each meeting, and consider having the problem doctor sign and date the notes. While it might be easier to just wait and see if the first instance of bad behavior was an anomaly, that usually is a bad idea.

You should consider bringing the problem provider into the tent. The root of some bad behavior (i.e. criticism of leadership) is a person’s insecurity and lack of a feeling of ownership or control of their role in the practice. In that case, it might be reasonable to invite such a person into a role of greater responsibility in the practice so that they feel more in control. For example, a doctor who constantly complains about the work schedule might be invited to join the group’s executive committee or take on some other formal leadership role in the practice. This could backfire, so it should be tried only in carefully selected cases, and with the problem doctor’s clear understanding that they are being given a chance to have a bigger role in the practice but must improve their behavior or face serious consequences that could include termination.

I have seen this work beautifully in some cases, curing the problem behavior and turning the doctor into a valuable asset. I only wish there were a reliable way to know when to try this strategy. Sadly, it just requires judgment and intuition. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

The providers in every hospitalist practice should be a good fit for the practice’s culture. They should have reasonable relationships with their colleagues in the practice, patients and families, and other staff at the hospital.

I can’t imagine anyone arguing with this point of view. But in my work with hundreds of hospitalist practices over the past 15 years, I’ve found that many practices seem to have a hard time ensuring their providers meet that standard. I can think of lots of reasons for this. The first that comes to mind is the difficult HM recruiting environment. Almost all hospitalist practices needed to grow quickly, and many lowered the bar in the qualifications and the fit of the candidates they hired to make sure they filled all of their positions.

Even if it later becomes clear a provider isn’t a good fit for the group culture, or worse still lacks the knowledge base and judgment to perform well, many practices are reluctant to replace the hospitalist because it might be difficult to find a replacement—and there is no guarantee the new person will perform any better. Because of this, a number of practices have ended up with providers who in many cases have a negative influence on others in the practice, and both the practice and the problem provider would be better off if the provider went elsewhere.

The Problem Physician

To their credit, most practices do act when a provider simply lacks the skill and judgment to perform adequately. This can mean close proctoring/mentoring for an extended period, or requiring specific CME course work to correct a skill that is lacking. But it also means reassigning the person to a different job, or termination.

But in the case of someone with a toxic personality, practices often are more reluctant to act. I’ll often hear the leadership of a practice say something like, “We knew Alice wasn’t a good fit for our practice within a few weeks of her start date.” The start date was several years ago and nothing has been done about this. Not surprisingly, Alice still performs poorly.

I’m not talking about someone who has occasional problems. I’m talking about people who cause problems almost every time they show up to work. Here are some real anecdotes, with fictitious names to ensure anonymity for the person and institution:

• Dr. Lee routinely disappears for several hours, during which he doesn’t answer pages. This even happens when he is the only doctor covering the practice.
• Dr. Lifeson, while generally getting along well with his fellow hospitalists and the nursing staff, can be counted on to complain bitterly about all levels of the hospital administration and leadership. He never misses an opportunity to try to convince other hospitalists that the leadership is not only inept, but also clearly has a malicious intent toward hospitalists.
• Dr. Peart complains incessantly about even tiny inequities in the work schedule or patient load. Others in the group have found that it is easier to ensure he always has the best schedule and lightest patient load, hoping they won’t have to hear his constant complaining. But even that hasn’t stemmed the steady downpour of negativity from him.

In all three of these cases, it seemed clear that the doctor should be terminated. And while the practice leadership agreed with me, they offered several excuses for why they hadn’t taken this step.

• “Who knows if we can find a replacement who will be any better?”
• “But he’s actually a decent doctor and doesn’t get a lot of complaints from patients.”
• “He’s such an angry guy, we worry about litigation if we fire him.”

I can’t offer any clear rule about when a practice should stop trying to improve a provider’s behavior and recognize that it is time to terminate the provider. But it is worth remembering that waiting too long has many costs, including the satisfaction of others in the group. Everyone will think less of the practice they are part of if poor behavior is tolerated.

Assess the Situation, Then Take Action

Most doctors who serve as the lead physician for their group have little or no experience dealing with problem behavior, let alone experience ensuring that necessary steps are followed prior to disciplining or terminating someone. But every hospital has someone who is very knowledgeable about these things; they should be engaged for advice, and, in the case of hospital-employed groups, should participate in the process of counseling and/or termination. It is important to take advantage of the expertise that is available.

Of course, the best approach is to prevent such problems from coming up. The best way to do this is to be very careful when hiring new providers. Checking references carefully is probably the best way to get an idea about whether someone might have behavior or personality problems. There are “job fit” survey instruments that you can use, but I’m not sure how effective they are, or how much value they add for a hospitalist practice beyond other means of assessing the candidate. And in the process of hiring someone, be sure to set behavior expectations very clearly. A new candidate should know that you will not tolerate not living up to behavioral expectations.

When dealing with bad behavior, make sure that you follow a careful and well-documented process. If someone still makes it through the hiring process only to be revealed as a troublemaker soon after their start date, don’t wait to sit that person down for very clear counseling; insist that their behavior change. Take notes of each meeting, and consider having the problem doctor sign and date the notes. While it might be easier to just wait and see if the first instance of bad behavior was an anomaly, that usually is a bad idea.

You should consider bringing the problem provider into the tent. The root of some bad behavior (i.e. criticism of leadership) is a person’s insecurity and lack of a feeling of ownership or control of their role in the practice. In that case, it might be reasonable to invite such a person into a role of greater responsibility in the practice so that they feel more in control. For example, a doctor who constantly complains about the work schedule might be invited to join the group’s executive committee or take on some other formal leadership role in the practice. This could backfire, so it should be tried only in carefully selected cases, and with the problem doctor’s clear understanding that they are being given a chance to have a bigger role in the practice but must improve their behavior or face serious consequences that could include termination.

I have seen this work beautifully in some cases, curing the problem behavior and turning the doctor into a valuable asset. I only wish there were a reliable way to know when to try this strategy. Sadly, it just requires judgment and intuition. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

The providers in every hospitalist practice should be a good fit for the practice’s culture. They should have reasonable relationships with their colleagues in the practice, patients and families, and other staff at the hospital.

I can’t imagine anyone arguing with this point of view. But in my work with hundreds of hospitalist practices over the past 15 years, I’ve found that many practices seem to have a hard time ensuring their providers meet that standard. I can think of lots of reasons for this. The first that comes to mind is the difficult HM recruiting environment. Almost all hospitalist practices needed to grow quickly, and many lowered the bar in the qualifications and the fit of the candidates they hired to make sure they filled all of their positions.

Even if it later becomes clear a provider isn’t a good fit for the group culture, or worse still lacks the knowledge base and judgment to perform well, many practices are reluctant to replace the hospitalist because it might be difficult to find a replacement—and there is no guarantee the new person will perform any better. Because of this, a number of practices have ended up with providers who in many cases have a negative influence on others in the practice, and both the practice and the problem provider would be better off if the provider went elsewhere.

The Problem Physician

To their credit, most practices do act when a provider simply lacks the skill and judgment to perform adequately. This can mean close proctoring/mentoring for an extended period, or requiring specific CME course work to correct a skill that is lacking. But it also means reassigning the person to a different job, or termination.

But in the case of someone with a toxic personality, practices often are more reluctant to act. I’ll often hear the leadership of a practice say something like, “We knew Alice wasn’t a good fit for our practice within a few weeks of her start date.” The start date was several years ago and nothing has been done about this. Not surprisingly, Alice still performs poorly.

I’m not talking about someone who has occasional problems. I’m talking about people who cause problems almost every time they show up to work. Here are some real anecdotes, with fictitious names to ensure anonymity for the person and institution:

• Dr. Lee routinely disappears for several hours, during which he doesn’t answer pages. This even happens when he is the only doctor covering the practice.
• Dr. Lifeson, while generally getting along well with his fellow hospitalists and the nursing staff, can be counted on to complain bitterly about all levels of the hospital administration and leadership. He never misses an opportunity to try to convince other hospitalists that the leadership is not only inept, but also clearly has a malicious intent toward hospitalists.
• Dr. Peart complains incessantly about even tiny inequities in the work schedule or patient load. Others in the group have found that it is easier to ensure he always has the best schedule and lightest patient load, hoping they won’t have to hear his constant complaining. But even that hasn’t stemmed the steady downpour of negativity from him.

In all three of these cases, it seemed clear that the doctor should be terminated. And while the practice leadership agreed with me, they offered several excuses for why they hadn’t taken this step.

• “Who knows if we can find a replacement who will be any better?”
• “But he’s actually a decent doctor and doesn’t get a lot of complaints from patients.”
• “He’s such an angry guy, we worry about litigation if we fire him.”

I can’t offer any clear rule about when a practice should stop trying to improve a provider’s behavior and recognize that it is time to terminate the provider. But it is worth remembering that waiting too long has many costs, including the satisfaction of others in the group. Everyone will think less of the practice they are part of if poor behavior is tolerated.

Assess the Situation, Then Take Action

Most doctors who serve as the lead physician for their group have little or no experience dealing with problem behavior, let alone experience ensuring that necessary steps are followed prior to disciplining or terminating someone. But every hospital has someone who is very knowledgeable about these things; they should be engaged for advice, and, in the case of hospital-employed groups, should participate in the process of counseling and/or termination. It is important to take advantage of the expertise that is available.

Of course, the best approach is to prevent such problems from coming up. The best way to do this is to be very careful when hiring new providers. Checking references carefully is probably the best way to get an idea about whether someone might have behavior or personality problems. There are “job fit” survey instruments that you can use, but I’m not sure how effective they are, or how much value they add for a hospitalist practice beyond other means of assessing the candidate. And in the process of hiring someone, be sure to set behavior expectations very clearly. A new candidate should know that you will not tolerate not living up to behavioral expectations.

When dealing with bad behavior, make sure that you follow a careful and well-documented process. If someone still makes it through the hiring process only to be revealed as a troublemaker soon after their start date, don’t wait to sit that person down for very clear counseling; insist that their behavior change. Take notes of each meeting, and consider having the problem doctor sign and date the notes. While it might be easier to just wait and see if the first instance of bad behavior was an anomaly, that usually is a bad idea.

You should consider bringing the problem provider into the tent. The root of some bad behavior (i.e. criticism of leadership) is a person’s insecurity and lack of a feeling of ownership or control of their role in the practice. In that case, it might be reasonable to invite such a person into a role of greater responsibility in the practice so that they feel more in control. For example, a doctor who constantly complains about the work schedule might be invited to join the group’s executive committee or take on some other formal leadership role in the practice. This could backfire, so it should be tried only in carefully selected cases, and with the problem doctor’s clear understanding that they are being given a chance to have a bigger role in the practice but must improve their behavior or face serious consequences that could include termination.

I have seen this work beautifully in some cases, curing the problem behavior and turning the doctor into a valuable asset. I only wish there were a reliable way to know when to try this strategy. Sadly, it just requires judgment and intuition. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelsonflores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program.” This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Last month I began looking at ways hospitalist practices can manage unpredictable increases in patient volume, also known as surge staffing. I provided my view of a “jeopardy” system and a patient volume cap for hospitalists. While both are potentially very effective, they have a high cost and in my view are imperfect solutions. This month I’ll examine some less common strategies to provide surge staffing. Although less popular, I think these options are more valuable.

Schedule More Providers

I’ve worked with a lot of practices and am struck by how patient volume for nearly all of them falls within a reasonably predictable range. While no one can predict with certainty which days will be unusually busy or slow, nearly all practices have a range of daily encounters that is roughly half to 1 1/2 of the mean. For example, if a practice has a mean of 60 billable encounters per day, it probably ranges from about 30 to 90 encounters on any given day. (The larger the practice, the more likely they are to conform to this range. Small practices, with average daily encounters fewer than 20, have a much wider range of daily volumes as a percent of the mean.)

Despite knowing that volumes will vary unpredictably, most practices provide the same fixed “dose” of provider staffing every day—that is, the single most common model for staffing and scheduling is to provide a fixed number of day-shift doctors (“rounders”) who work a fixed number of hours. For example, with an average of 60 billable encounters a day, a hospitalist group might decide to staff with four day-shift rounders working 12-hour shifts. This equates to a fixed 48 hours of daytime staffing. This is reasonable until the busy days arrive. Those four doctors will be much busier than average when there are 90 patients to see in a day, and will probably have a hard time seeing 22 or 23 patients each during their 12-hour shift. If such a busy day occurs more than a couple of times annually, then the practice should probably make some changes.

One approach to solving this type of staffing predicament is to add a fifth day-shift rounder. In other words, when making staffing decisions, consider giving more weight to the busiest days than the average day. This sounds fine until thinking about the practice budget. It will be pretty expensive to add doctors every day just so there are enough on duty when things get really busy. But if the hospitalists are willing to accept reduced compensation, then it might be financially reasonable to go ahead and add staff. This is easiest to do when the hospitalists are paid a significant (e.g. ≥50%) portion of their income based on their productivity, which will enable the hospitalists themselves to have a lot of say about when it is time to add staff. (Being paid on a nearly fixed annual salary means that it is the finance person who usually has the say about when it is time to add staff. And you can bet he’ll be making staffing decisions based on the average daily encounters, rather than the busy days.)

My own preference would be to do just that: Accept a reduction in compensation in return for protection against really busy and stressful days. I’m not suggesting others should agree with me, and in my experience, most don’t. (My own practice partners don’t agree with me on this one.) So I’m not really recommending it as a best practice, but I want to ensure that you don’t forget it is an option. And keep in mind you could adjust staffing by degrees; some settings might add a half-time physician or a nonphysician provider to try to find the sweet spot between having enough staff on duty every day to handle surges in volume and the cost of that staffing to the employer—or the hospitalists themselves.

Of course, if I were willing to reduce my compensation and average daily workload, then I would expect to be freed from the expectation that all rounding doctors work 12-hour shifts. Let’s turn our attention to the interplay between fixed day-shift durations and surge staffing.

Fixed-Shift Schedules Inhibit Surge Capacity

I think it usually is best to avoid fixed durations for day shifts. It might be necessary to require at least one daytime rounder to stay at least until a specified time (e.g. the arrival of the night-shift doctor), but in most cases it is reasonable for some rounders to leave when their work is done. They might need to continue responding to pages until the start of the night shift, but it usually isn’t necessary to have all rounders in the hospital until a predetermined end of the shift.

The problem is that when shifts have a fixed duration, the providers will focus on the start and stop time of their shift and might be unwilling to work beyond it. If instead there are no clearly fixed start and stop times for each day shift, then the hospitalists are likely to be willing to simply work longer on busy days, as long as they can work shorter on slow days. This is probably the most effective method of surge capacity, and it fits well with staffing each day with more providers than are required for the average patient volume.

Simply having the rounding doctors work longer on busy days must be done within reason. And there is a really wide range of opinion about what is reasonable. I think it is reasonable if a hospitalist works two or three hours longer than usual for three or four consecutive busy days, as long as the hospitalist is allowed to work less on days that are not very busy. But just what is a reasonable maximum daily amount of work for even one day is a topic that can lead to passionate debate. You’ll have to decide the details of what is and isn’t acceptable in your group.

Unit-Based Assignments

Aside from fixed-duration day shifts, unit-based assignment of hospitalists is the most common practice inhibiting surge capacity. Not long ago I worked with a practice that followed very strict unit-based assignments, which significantly inhibited “load-leveling,” and thus surge capacity. On any given day the patient volume for the whole practice might be very reasonable, but because it was never distributed evenly among the rounders, there was a very good chance that at least one doctor was drowning in work. And because of the strict approach, the other doctors didn’t come to the rescue.

I think the only reasonable approach is to deviate from such a strict unit-based assignment, at least a little. One rounder could be a utility doctor who doesn’t have her own unit and instead roams throughout the hospital, having been assigned patients based on the workload of each of her unit-based colleagues. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is cofounder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants (www.nelsonflores.com) and codirector and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Last month I began looking at ways hospitalist practices can manage unpredictable increases in patient volume, also known as surge staffing. I provided my view of a “jeopardy” system and a patient volume cap for hospitalists. While both are potentially very effective, they have a high cost and in my view are imperfect solutions. This month I’ll examine some less common strategies to provide surge staffing. Although less popular, I think these options are more valuable.

Schedule More Providers

I’ve worked with a lot of practices and am struck by how patient volume for nearly all of them falls within a reasonably predictable range. While no one can predict with certainty which days will be unusually busy or slow, nearly all practices have a range of daily encounters that is roughly half to 1 1/2 of the mean. For example, if a practice has a mean of 60 billable encounters per day, it probably ranges from about 30 to 90 encounters on any given day. (The larger the practice, the more likely they are to conform to this range. Small practices, with average daily encounters fewer than 20, have a much wider range of daily volumes as a percent of the mean.)

Despite knowing that volumes will vary unpredictably, most practices provide the same fixed “dose” of provider staffing every day—that is, the single most common model for staffing and scheduling is to provide a fixed number of day-shift doctors (“rounders”) who work a fixed number of hours. For example, with an average of 60 billable encounters a day, a hospitalist group might decide to staff with four day-shift rounders working 12-hour shifts. This equates to a fixed 48 hours of daytime staffing. This is reasonable until the busy days arrive. Those four doctors will be much busier than average when there are 90 patients to see in a day, and will probably have a hard time seeing 22 or 23 patients each during their 12-hour shift. If such a busy day occurs more than a couple of times annually, then the practice should probably make some changes.

One approach to solving this type of staffing predicament is to add a fifth day-shift rounder. In other words, when making staffing decisions, consider giving more weight to the busiest days than the average day. This sounds fine until thinking about the practice budget. It will be pretty expensive to add doctors every day just so there are enough on duty when things get really busy. But if the hospitalists are willing to accept reduced compensation, then it might be financially reasonable to go ahead and add staff. This is easiest to do when the hospitalists are paid a significant (e.g. ≥50%) portion of their income based on their productivity, which will enable the hospitalists themselves to have a lot of say about when it is time to add staff. (Being paid on a nearly fixed annual salary means that it is the finance person who usually has the say about when it is time to add staff. And you can bet he’ll be making staffing decisions based on the average daily encounters, rather than the busy days.)

My own preference would be to do just that: Accept a reduction in compensation in return for protection against really busy and stressful days. I’m not suggesting others should agree with me, and in my experience, most don’t. (My own practice partners don’t agree with me on this one.) So I’m not really recommending it as a best practice, but I want to ensure that you don’t forget it is an option. And keep in mind you could adjust staffing by degrees; some settings might add a half-time physician or a nonphysician provider to try to find the sweet spot between having enough staff on duty every day to handle surges in volume and the cost of that staffing to the employer—or the hospitalists themselves.

Of course, if I were willing to reduce my compensation and average daily workload, then I would expect to be freed from the expectation that all rounding doctors work 12-hour shifts. Let’s turn our attention to the interplay between fixed day-shift durations and surge staffing.

Fixed-Shift Schedules Inhibit Surge Capacity

I think it usually is best to avoid fixed durations for day shifts. It might be necessary to require at least one daytime rounder to stay at least until a specified time (e.g. the arrival of the night-shift doctor), but in most cases it is reasonable for some rounders to leave when their work is done. They might need to continue responding to pages until the start of the night shift, but it usually isn’t necessary to have all rounders in the hospital until a predetermined end of the shift.

The problem is that when shifts have a fixed duration, the providers will focus on the start and stop time of their shift and might be unwilling to work beyond it. If instead there are no clearly fixed start and stop times for each day shift, then the hospitalists are likely to be willing to simply work longer on busy days, as long as they can work shorter on slow days. This is probably the most effective method of surge capacity, and it fits well with staffing each day with more providers than are required for the average patient volume.

Simply having the rounding doctors work longer on busy days must be done within reason. And there is a really wide range of opinion about what is reasonable. I think it is reasonable if a hospitalist works two or three hours longer than usual for three or four consecutive busy days, as long as the hospitalist is allowed to work less on days that are not very busy. But just what is a reasonable maximum daily amount of work for even one day is a topic that can lead to passionate debate. You’ll have to decide the details of what is and isn’t acceptable in your group.

Unit-Based Assignments

Aside from fixed-duration day shifts, unit-based assignment of hospitalists is the most common practice inhibiting surge capacity. Not long ago I worked with a practice that followed very strict unit-based assignments, which significantly inhibited “load-leveling,” and thus surge capacity. On any given day the patient volume for the whole practice might be very reasonable, but because it was never distributed evenly among the rounders, there was a very good chance that at least one doctor was drowning in work. And because of the strict approach, the other doctors didn’t come to the rescue.

I think the only reasonable approach is to deviate from such a strict unit-based assignment, at least a little. One rounder could be a utility doctor who doesn’t have her own unit and instead roams throughout the hospital, having been assigned patients based on the workload of each of her unit-based colleagues. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is cofounder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants (www.nelsonflores.com) and codirector and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Last month I began looking at ways hospitalist practices can manage unpredictable increases in patient volume, also known as surge staffing. I provided my view of a “jeopardy” system and a patient volume cap for hospitalists. While both are potentially very effective, they have a high cost and in my view are imperfect solutions. This month I’ll examine some less common strategies to provide surge staffing. Although less popular, I think these options are more valuable.

Schedule More Providers

I’ve worked with a lot of practices and am struck by how patient volume for nearly all of them falls within a reasonably predictable range. While no one can predict with certainty which days will be unusually busy or slow, nearly all practices have a range of daily encounters that is roughly half to 1 1/2 of the mean. For example, if a practice has a mean of 60 billable encounters per day, it probably ranges from about 30 to 90 encounters on any given day. (The larger the practice, the more likely they are to conform to this range. Small practices, with average daily encounters fewer than 20, have a much wider range of daily volumes as a percent of the mean.)

Despite knowing that volumes will vary unpredictably, most practices provide the same fixed “dose” of provider staffing every day—that is, the single most common model for staffing and scheduling is to provide a fixed number of day-shift doctors (“rounders”) who work a fixed number of hours. For example, with an average of 60 billable encounters a day, a hospitalist group might decide to staff with four day-shift rounders working 12-hour shifts. This equates to a fixed 48 hours of daytime staffing. This is reasonable until the busy days arrive. Those four doctors will be much busier than average when there are 90 patients to see in a day, and will probably have a hard time seeing 22 or 23 patients each during their 12-hour shift. If such a busy day occurs more than a couple of times annually, then the practice should probably make some changes.

One approach to solving this type of staffing predicament is to add a fifth day-shift rounder. In other words, when making staffing decisions, consider giving more weight to the busiest days than the average day. This sounds fine until thinking about the practice budget. It will be pretty expensive to add doctors every day just so there are enough on duty when things get really busy. But if the hospitalists are willing to accept reduced compensation, then it might be financially reasonable to go ahead and add staff. This is easiest to do when the hospitalists are paid a significant (e.g. ≥50%) portion of their income based on their productivity, which will enable the hospitalists themselves to have a lot of say about when it is time to add staff. (Being paid on a nearly fixed annual salary means that it is the finance person who usually has the say about when it is time to add staff. And you can bet he’ll be making staffing decisions based on the average daily encounters, rather than the busy days.)

My own preference would be to do just that: Accept a reduction in compensation in return for protection against really busy and stressful days. I’m not suggesting others should agree with me, and in my experience, most don’t. (My own practice partners don’t agree with me on this one.) So I’m not really recommending it as a best practice, but I want to ensure that you don’t forget it is an option. And keep in mind you could adjust staffing by degrees; some settings might add a half-time physician or a nonphysician provider to try to find the sweet spot between having enough staff on duty every day to handle surges in volume and the cost of that staffing to the employer—or the hospitalists themselves.

Of course, if I were willing to reduce my compensation and average daily workload, then I would expect to be freed from the expectation that all rounding doctors work 12-hour shifts. Let’s turn our attention to the interplay between fixed day-shift durations and surge staffing.

Fixed-Shift Schedules Inhibit Surge Capacity

I think it usually is best to avoid fixed durations for day shifts. It might be necessary to require at least one daytime rounder to stay at least until a specified time (e.g. the arrival of the night-shift doctor), but in most cases it is reasonable for some rounders to leave when their work is done. They might need to continue responding to pages until the start of the night shift, but it usually isn’t necessary to have all rounders in the hospital until a predetermined end of the shift.

The problem is that when shifts have a fixed duration, the providers will focus on the start and stop time of their shift and might be unwilling to work beyond it. If instead there are no clearly fixed start and stop times for each day shift, then the hospitalists are likely to be willing to simply work longer on busy days, as long as they can work shorter on slow days. This is probably the most effective method of surge capacity, and it fits well with staffing each day with more providers than are required for the average patient volume.

Simply having the rounding doctors work longer on busy days must be done within reason. And there is a really wide range of opinion about what is reasonable. I think it is reasonable if a hospitalist works two or three hours longer than usual for three or four consecutive busy days, as long as the hospitalist is allowed to work less on days that are not very busy. But just what is a reasonable maximum daily amount of work for even one day is a topic that can lead to passionate debate. You’ll have to decide the details of what is and isn’t acceptable in your group.

Unit-Based Assignments

Aside from fixed-duration day shifts, unit-based assignment of hospitalists is the most common practice inhibiting surge capacity. Not long ago I worked with a practice that followed very strict unit-based assignments, which significantly inhibited “load-leveling,” and thus surge capacity. On any given day the patient volume for the whole practice might be very reasonable, but because it was never distributed evenly among the rounders, there was a very good chance that at least one doctor was drowning in work. And because of the strict approach, the other doctors didn’t come to the rescue.

I think the only reasonable approach is to deviate from such a strict unit-based assignment, at least a little. One rounder could be a utility doctor who doesn’t have her own unit and instead roams throughout the hospital, having been assigned patients based on the workload of each of her unit-based colleagues. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is cofounder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants (www.nelsonflores.com) and codirector and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Unpredictable workloads and frequent interruptions are the things I regard as the most stressful components of work as a hospitalist. Your list might be very different, but I bet unpredictable workloads ranks at least in the top five of every hospitalist’s list.

I’ve discussed interruptions previously (see “Really, It’s Switch-Tasking,” p. 68, November 2008; “Technological Advance or Workplace Setback?” p. 69, December 2008), but this month and next will turn to unpredictable workloads. In other words, what are the strategies available to a hospitalist practice to provide surge capacity in response to such unpredictable increases in patient volume as an uptick in census or daily admissions 50% to 100% above normal? I’ll leave to others the topic of how hospitals respond to such disasters as terrorist attacks, earthquakes, etc.

The Bottom Line

Sadly, there is no magic bullet for the “surge” problem, and no way to protect on-duty hospitalists from the need to work harder when it gets busy. But we needn’t feel too sorry for ourselves; doctors in most other specialties who practice in the hospital face the same problem and tend to rely heavily on simply working harder and longer when it is unusually busy. Sometimes they couple the “work harder” mantra with other strategies, such as calling another doctor in to help.

Hospitalists have a duty to ensure high patient volume doesn’t lead to deterioration in the quality of patient care, but occasionally working longer days than average probably poses a low risk, and might be less risky than the additional handoffs usually associated with having a doctor on “jeopardy” to be called in when it’s busy. Routinely or frequently working unreasonably long days is another story.

The trick for HM programs is to build some surge capacity into the routine daily staffing 1) without exceeding a reasonable budget, while 2) ensuring that the hospitalists don’t simply become accustomed to light workloads as the only reasonable norm, which could lead to them becoming unwilling to accept higher, but still reasonable, workloads when needed. (More on these issues later.) First, I’ll go through what I see as the pros and cons of several approaches to addressing surges in patient volume. All are in use with variable frequency around the country.

“Jeopardy” System

In its most common form, a jeopardy system has an unscheduled doctor each day who must remain available on short notice by pager. When patient volume surges, the unscheduled doctor is paged to come in and help. In most cases, this doctor focuses primarily—or exclusively—on admitting patients for a few hours. So it is most common for this doctor to be called in late in the afternoon or early in the evening. The jeopardy doctor usually turns over all admitted patients to another hospitalist in the group for all subsequent care. In addition to providing surge capacity, the jeopardy doctor almost always is used to cover unexpected absences of scheduled doctors, including illness-related absences.

Sometimes this doctor is paid extra for each day or week spent being “available” on jeopardy duty (not to be confused with jury duty, though it can be equally difficult to get exempted from). Then again, it is not uncommon to have jeopardy duty included in base compensation. However, once a jeopardy doctor is actually called in to work, most practices pay additional compensation, often based on an hourly rate that usually is higher than the average compensation generated per hour for nonjeopardy work.

There are a number of reasonable ways to compensate the jeopardy doctor. You probably can get some good ideas by talking with others in your hospital who function in a similar capacity, such as cath-lab technicians who get called in on nights and weekends.

No definitive data are available to show how common the jeopardy system is, but my experience is that 30% to 50% of HM groups use some form of it. Its popularity is proof that it is a reasonable system, but I’m not convinced. I think it is in use by a lot of groups not because it is an optimal way to ensure surge capacity, but because it is easy to conceptualize and put in place, and because many hospitalists came from residency programs in which the system was standard.

The gaps between theoretical and realized benefits become evident once a practice implements a jeopardy system. For example, it might be really busy today, but Dr. Stravinsky doesn’t call in Dr. Copeland, who is on jeopardy, because next week their roles will be reversed and Dr. Stravinsky sure hopes he won’t be called in. No one wants to be the weak doctor who calls in the jeopardy doctor and spoils what was otherwise a day off.

I’ve worked with a lot of practices who say they have a jeopardy system in place, but when I ask for the last time the jeopardy doctor was called in, they say it has been more than a year, or in some cases never. So even if the policy manual says they have a jeopardy system, the doctors never activate it, so it provides no benefit.

Practices that do utilize the jeopardy doctor have their own problems, such as assigning that doctor’s admissions the next day. The jeopardy doctor might provide some relief today, but they essentially just delay the work of having to get to know all of those new patients until the morning, when everyone is very busy with rounds. So while there might be significant benefit in activating the jeopardy system today, it could just delay the problem of high workload until the next morning, which isn’t much of a net benefit for the practice.

A small number of practices call in the jeopardy doctor frequently, and sometimes have that doctor continue to round on admitted patients for the next few days. This usage might get the most value out of the system, but the practice should consider if it is more cost-effective, and less stressful for the doctors, if the system were reversed. For example, instead of having the doctor on jeopardy and called in as necessary, the doctor would report to work and be given the day off or let go early when it isn’t busy.

Despite my reservations, if you are convinced the jeopardy system is valuable and cost-effective, keep it in place. However, if your group is thinking about options to handle surge capacity, don’t be too quick to adopt a jeopardy system. It usually falls far short of a perfect solution.

Patient Volume Cap

Another way to address the problem of unpredictable increases in patient volume is to establish a patient volume (e.g., total census) cap for the whole hospitalist practice. Like the jeopardy system, this is an appealingly uncomplicated idea, and hospitalists who have finished residency within the last few years all worked with a cap.

Except for the rarest of exceptions, this is a poor idea and should be avoided if at all possible. I’ll leave for another time a discussion of all the political and financial costs of a cap system, but trust me on this one. It is best to avoid a cap.

Stay Tuned …

Next month, I’ll examine other strategies to provide surge capacity. I think they’re more valuable than the two I’ve mentioned here, but I need to warn you that they aren’t perfect and are more complicated to operationalize. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelson flores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Unpredictable workloads and frequent interruptions are the things I regard as the most stressful components of work as a hospitalist. Your list might be very different, but I bet unpredictable workloads ranks at least in the top five of every hospitalist’s list.

I’ve discussed interruptions previously (see “Really, It’s Switch-Tasking,” p. 68, November 2008; “Technological Advance or Workplace Setback?” p. 69, December 2008), but this month and next will turn to unpredictable workloads. In other words, what are the strategies available to a hospitalist practice to provide surge capacity in response to such unpredictable increases in patient volume as an uptick in census or daily admissions 50% to 100% above normal? I’ll leave to others the topic of how hospitals respond to such disasters as terrorist attacks, earthquakes, etc.

The Bottom Line

Sadly, there is no magic bullet for the “surge” problem, and no way to protect on-duty hospitalists from the need to work harder when it gets busy. But we needn’t feel too sorry for ourselves; doctors in most other specialties who practice in the hospital face the same problem and tend to rely heavily on simply working harder and longer when it is unusually busy. Sometimes they couple the “work harder” mantra with other strategies, such as calling another doctor in to help.

Hospitalists have a duty to ensure high patient volume doesn’t lead to deterioration in the quality of patient care, but occasionally working longer days than average probably poses a low risk, and might be less risky than the additional handoffs usually associated with having a doctor on “jeopardy” to be called in when it’s busy. Routinely or frequently working unreasonably long days is another story.

The trick for HM programs is to build some surge capacity into the routine daily staffing 1) without exceeding a reasonable budget, while 2) ensuring that the hospitalists don’t simply become accustomed to light workloads as the only reasonable norm, which could lead to them becoming unwilling to accept higher, but still reasonable, workloads when needed. (More on these issues later.) First, I’ll go through what I see as the pros and cons of several approaches to addressing surges in patient volume. All are in use with variable frequency around the country.

“Jeopardy” System

In its most common form, a jeopardy system has an unscheduled doctor each day who must remain available on short notice by pager. When patient volume surges, the unscheduled doctor is paged to come in and help. In most cases, this doctor focuses primarily—or exclusively—on admitting patients for a few hours. So it is most common for this doctor to be called in late in the afternoon or early in the evening. The jeopardy doctor usually turns over all admitted patients to another hospitalist in the group for all subsequent care. In addition to providing surge capacity, the jeopardy doctor almost always is used to cover unexpected absences of scheduled doctors, including illness-related absences.

Sometimes this doctor is paid extra for each day or week spent being “available” on jeopardy duty (not to be confused with jury duty, though it can be equally difficult to get exempted from). Then again, it is not uncommon to have jeopardy duty included in base compensation. However, once a jeopardy doctor is actually called in to work, most practices pay additional compensation, often based on an hourly rate that usually is higher than the average compensation generated per hour for nonjeopardy work.

There are a number of reasonable ways to compensate the jeopardy doctor. You probably can get some good ideas by talking with others in your hospital who function in a similar capacity, such as cath-lab technicians who get called in on nights and weekends.

No definitive data are available to show how common the jeopardy system is, but my experience is that 30% to 50% of HM groups use some form of it. Its popularity is proof that it is a reasonable system, but I’m not convinced. I think it is in use by a lot of groups not because it is an optimal way to ensure surge capacity, but because it is easy to conceptualize and put in place, and because many hospitalists came from residency programs in which the system was standard.

The gaps between theoretical and realized benefits become evident once a practice implements a jeopardy system. For example, it might be really busy today, but Dr. Stravinsky doesn’t call in Dr. Copeland, who is on jeopardy, because next week their roles will be reversed and Dr. Stravinsky sure hopes he won’t be called in. No one wants to be the weak doctor who calls in the jeopardy doctor and spoils what was otherwise a day off.

I’ve worked with a lot of practices who say they have a jeopardy system in place, but when I ask for the last time the jeopardy doctor was called in, they say it has been more than a year, or in some cases never. So even if the policy manual says they have a jeopardy system, the doctors never activate it, so it provides no benefit.

Practices that do utilize the jeopardy doctor have their own problems, such as assigning that doctor’s admissions the next day. The jeopardy doctor might provide some relief today, but they essentially just delay the work of having to get to know all of those new patients until the morning, when everyone is very busy with rounds. So while there might be significant benefit in activating the jeopardy system today, it could just delay the problem of high workload until the next morning, which isn’t much of a net benefit for the practice.

A small number of practices call in the jeopardy doctor frequently, and sometimes have that doctor continue to round on admitted patients for the next few days. This usage might get the most value out of the system, but the practice should consider if it is more cost-effective, and less stressful for the doctors, if the system were reversed. For example, instead of having the doctor on jeopardy and called in as necessary, the doctor would report to work and be given the day off or let go early when it isn’t busy.

Despite my reservations, if you are convinced the jeopardy system is valuable and cost-effective, keep it in place. However, if your group is thinking about options to handle surge capacity, don’t be too quick to adopt a jeopardy system. It usually falls far short of a perfect solution.

Patient Volume Cap

Another way to address the problem of unpredictable increases in patient volume is to establish a patient volume (e.g., total census) cap for the whole hospitalist practice. Like the jeopardy system, this is an appealingly uncomplicated idea, and hospitalists who have finished residency within the last few years all worked with a cap.

Except for the rarest of exceptions, this is a poor idea and should be avoided if at all possible. I’ll leave for another time a discussion of all the political and financial costs of a cap system, but trust me on this one. It is best to avoid a cap.

Stay Tuned …

Next month, I’ll examine other strategies to provide surge capacity. I think they’re more valuable than the two I’ve mentioned here, but I need to warn you that they aren’t perfect and are more complicated to operationalize. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelson flores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.

Unpredictable workloads and frequent interruptions are the things I regard as the most stressful components of work as a hospitalist. Your list might be very different, but I bet unpredictable workloads ranks at least in the top five of every hospitalist’s list.

I’ve discussed interruptions previously (see “Really, It’s Switch-Tasking,” p. 68, November 2008; “Technological Advance or Workplace Setback?” p. 69, December 2008), but this month and next will turn to unpredictable workloads. In other words, what are the strategies available to a hospitalist practice to provide surge capacity in response to such unpredictable increases in patient volume as an uptick in census or daily admissions 50% to 100% above normal? I’ll leave to others the topic of how hospitals respond to such disasters as terrorist attacks, earthquakes, etc.

The Bottom Line

Sadly, there is no magic bullet for the “surge” problem, and no way to protect on-duty hospitalists from the need to work harder when it gets busy. But we needn’t feel too sorry for ourselves; doctors in most other specialties who practice in the hospital face the same problem and tend to rely heavily on simply working harder and longer when it is unusually busy. Sometimes they couple the “work harder” mantra with other strategies, such as calling another doctor in to help.

Hospitalists have a duty to ensure high patient volume doesn’t lead to deterioration in the quality of patient care, but occasionally working longer days than average probably poses a low risk, and might be less risky than the additional handoffs usually associated with having a doctor on “jeopardy” to be called in when it’s busy. Routinely or frequently working unreasonably long days is another story.

The trick for HM programs is to build some surge capacity into the routine daily staffing 1) without exceeding a reasonable budget, while 2) ensuring that the hospitalists don’t simply become accustomed to light workloads as the only reasonable norm, which could lead to them becoming unwilling to accept higher, but still reasonable, workloads when needed. (More on these issues later.) First, I’ll go through what I see as the pros and cons of several approaches to addressing surges in patient volume. All are in use with variable frequency around the country.

“Jeopardy” System

In its most common form, a jeopardy system has an unscheduled doctor each day who must remain available on short notice by pager. When patient volume surges, the unscheduled doctor is paged to come in and help. In most cases, this doctor focuses primarily—or exclusively—on admitting patients for a few hours. So it is most common for this doctor to be called in late in the afternoon or early in the evening. The jeopardy doctor usually turns over all admitted patients to another hospitalist in the group for all subsequent care. In addition to providing surge capacity, the jeopardy doctor almost always is used to cover unexpected absences of scheduled doctors, including illness-related absences.

Sometimes this doctor is paid extra for each day or week spent being “available” on jeopardy duty (not to be confused with jury duty, though it can be equally difficult to get exempted from). Then again, it is not uncommon to have jeopardy duty included in base compensation. However, once a jeopardy doctor is actually called in to work, most practices pay additional compensation, often based on an hourly rate that usually is higher than the average compensation generated per hour for nonjeopardy work.

There are a number of reasonable ways to compensate the jeopardy doctor. You probably can get some good ideas by talking with others in your hospital who function in a similar capacity, such as cath-lab technicians who get called in on nights and weekends.

No definitive data are available to show how common the jeopardy system is, but my experience is that 30% to 50% of HM groups use some form of it. Its popularity is proof that it is a reasonable system, but I’m not convinced. I think it is in use by a lot of groups not because it is an optimal way to ensure surge capacity, but because it is easy to conceptualize and put in place, and because many hospitalists came from residency programs in which the system was standard.

The gaps between theoretical and realized benefits become evident once a practice implements a jeopardy system. For example, it might be really busy today, but Dr. Stravinsky doesn’t call in Dr. Copeland, who is on jeopardy, because next week their roles will be reversed and Dr. Stravinsky sure hopes he won’t be called in. No one wants to be the weak doctor who calls in the jeopardy doctor and spoils what was otherwise a day off.

I’ve worked with a lot of practices who say they have a jeopardy system in place, but when I ask for the last time the jeopardy doctor was called in, they say it has been more than a year, or in some cases never. So even if the policy manual says they have a jeopardy system, the doctors never activate it, so it provides no benefit.

Practices that do utilize the jeopardy doctor have their own problems, such as assigning that doctor’s admissions the next day. The jeopardy doctor might provide some relief today, but they essentially just delay the work of having to get to know all of those new patients until the morning, when everyone is very busy with rounds. So while there might be significant benefit in activating the jeopardy system today, it could just delay the problem of high workload until the next morning, which isn’t much of a net benefit for the practice.

A small number of practices call in the jeopardy doctor frequently, and sometimes have that doctor continue to round on admitted patients for the next few days. This usage might get the most value out of the system, but the practice should consider if it is more cost-effective, and less stressful for the doctors, if the system were reversed. For example, instead of having the doctor on jeopardy and called in as necessary, the doctor would report to work and be given the day off or let go early when it isn’t busy.

Despite my reservations, if you are convinced the jeopardy system is valuable and cost-effective, keep it in place. However, if your group is thinking about options to handle surge capacity, don’t be too quick to adopt a jeopardy system. It usually falls far short of a perfect solution.

Patient Volume Cap

Another way to address the problem of unpredictable increases in patient volume is to establish a patient volume (e.g., total census) cap for the whole hospitalist practice. Like the jeopardy system, this is an appealingly uncomplicated idea, and hospitalists who have finished residency within the last few years all worked with a cap.

Except for the rarest of exceptions, this is a poor idea and should be avoided if at all possible. I’ll leave for another time a discussion of all the political and financial costs of a cap system, but trust me on this one. It is best to avoid a cap.

Stay Tuned …

Next month, I’ll examine other strategies to provide surge capacity. I think they’re more valuable than the two I’ve mentioned here, but I need to warn you that they aren’t perfect and are more complicated to operationalize. TH

Dr. Nelson has been a practicing hospitalist since 1988 and is co-founder and past president of SHM. He is a principal in Nelson Flores Hospital Medicine Consultants, a national hospitalist practice management consulting firm (www.nelson flores.com). He is course co-director and faculty for SHM’s “Best Practices in Managing a Hospital Medicine Program” course. This column represents his views and is not intended to reflect an official position of SHM.