User login
PCI and CABG for left main disease have equal outcomes at 5 years
Background: While PCI with drug-eluting stents has become more accepted as treatment for some patients with left main disease, long-term outcomes from randomized control trials comparing PCI with CABG have yet to be clearly established.
Study design: International, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial.
Setting: A total of 126 sites in 17 countries.
Synopsis: Patients with low or intermediate anatomical complexity with 70% visual stenosis of the left main coronary artery or 50%-70% stenosis by noninvasive testing were randomized to either PCI (948) or CABG (957). Dual-antiplatelet therapy was given to PCI patients and aspirin to CABG patients. At 5 years there was no significant difference in the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (22.0% with PCI vs. 19.2% with CABG; difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% CI, –0.9 to 6.5; P = .13). This was consistent across subgroups.
There were numerical differences in nonpowered secondary outcomes that may represent effects but should be interpreted cautiously: ischemia-driven revascularization (16.9% with PCI vs. 10% with CABG), transient ischemic attack plus stroke (3.3% with PCI vs. 5.2% with CABG), and death from any cause (3% with PCI vs. 9.9% with CABG). There was no significant difference in cardiovascular events, MI, or stroke.
One interesting limitation was that patients who had PCI were more commonly on dual-antiplatelet therapy and angiotensin converting–enzyme inhibitors, whereas CABG patients were more often on beta-blockers, diuretics, anticoagulants, and antiarrhythmics.
Bottom line: PCI and CABG treatments for left main disease have no significant difference in the composite outcome of death, stroke, or MI at 5 years.
Citation: Stone GW et al. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1820-30.
Dr. Horton is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: While PCI with drug-eluting stents has become more accepted as treatment for some patients with left main disease, long-term outcomes from randomized control trials comparing PCI with CABG have yet to be clearly established.
Study design: International, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial.
Setting: A total of 126 sites in 17 countries.
Synopsis: Patients with low or intermediate anatomical complexity with 70% visual stenosis of the left main coronary artery or 50%-70% stenosis by noninvasive testing were randomized to either PCI (948) or CABG (957). Dual-antiplatelet therapy was given to PCI patients and aspirin to CABG patients. At 5 years there was no significant difference in the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (22.0% with PCI vs. 19.2% with CABG; difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% CI, –0.9 to 6.5; P = .13). This was consistent across subgroups.
There were numerical differences in nonpowered secondary outcomes that may represent effects but should be interpreted cautiously: ischemia-driven revascularization (16.9% with PCI vs. 10% with CABG), transient ischemic attack plus stroke (3.3% with PCI vs. 5.2% with CABG), and death from any cause (3% with PCI vs. 9.9% with CABG). There was no significant difference in cardiovascular events, MI, or stroke.
One interesting limitation was that patients who had PCI were more commonly on dual-antiplatelet therapy and angiotensin converting–enzyme inhibitors, whereas CABG patients were more often on beta-blockers, diuretics, anticoagulants, and antiarrhythmics.
Bottom line: PCI and CABG treatments for left main disease have no significant difference in the composite outcome of death, stroke, or MI at 5 years.
Citation: Stone GW et al. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1820-30.
Dr. Horton is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: While PCI with drug-eluting stents has become more accepted as treatment for some patients with left main disease, long-term outcomes from randomized control trials comparing PCI with CABG have yet to be clearly established.
Study design: International, open-label, multicenter, randomized trial.
Setting: A total of 126 sites in 17 countries.
Synopsis: Patients with low or intermediate anatomical complexity with 70% visual stenosis of the left main coronary artery or 50%-70% stenosis by noninvasive testing were randomized to either PCI (948) or CABG (957). Dual-antiplatelet therapy was given to PCI patients and aspirin to CABG patients. At 5 years there was no significant difference in the rate of the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction (22.0% with PCI vs. 19.2% with CABG; difference, 2.8 percentage points; 95% CI, –0.9 to 6.5; P = .13). This was consistent across subgroups.
There were numerical differences in nonpowered secondary outcomes that may represent effects but should be interpreted cautiously: ischemia-driven revascularization (16.9% with PCI vs. 10% with CABG), transient ischemic attack plus stroke (3.3% with PCI vs. 5.2% with CABG), and death from any cause (3% with PCI vs. 9.9% with CABG). There was no significant difference in cardiovascular events, MI, or stroke.
One interesting limitation was that patients who had PCI were more commonly on dual-antiplatelet therapy and angiotensin converting–enzyme inhibitors, whereas CABG patients were more often on beta-blockers, diuretics, anticoagulants, and antiarrhythmics.
Bottom line: PCI and CABG treatments for left main disease have no significant difference in the composite outcome of death, stroke, or MI at 5 years.
Citation: Stone GW et al. Five-year outcomes after PCI or CABG for left main coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1820-30.
Dr. Horton is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
New guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of adults with CAP
Background: More than a decade has passed since the last CAP guidelines. Since then there have been new trials and epidemiological studies. There have also been changes to the process for guideline development. This guideline has moved away from the narrative style of guidelines to the GRADE format and PICO framework with hopes of answering specific questions by looking at the quality of evidence.
Study design: Multidisciplinary panel conducted pragmatic systemic reviews of high-quality studies.
Setting: The panel revised and built upon the 2007 guidelines, addressing 16 clinical questions to be used in immunocompetent patients with radiographic evidence of CAP in the United States with no recent foreign travel.
Synopsis: Changes from the 2007 guidelines are as follows: Sputum and blood cultures, previously recommended only in patients with severe CAP, are now also recommended for inpatients being empirically treated for Pseudomonas or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and for those who have received IV antibiotics in the previous 90 days; use of procalcitonin is not recommended to decide whether to withhold antibiotics; steroids are not recommended unless being used for shock; HCAP categorization should be abandoned and need for empiric coverage of MRSA and Pseudomonas should be based on local epidemiology and local validated risk factors; B-lactam/macrolide is favored over fluoroquinolone for severe CAP therapy; and routine follow-up chest x-ray is not recommended.
Other recommendations include not routinely testing for urine pneumococcal or legionella antigens in nonsevere CAP; using PSI over CURB-65, in addition to clinical judgment, to determine need for inpatient care; using severe CAP criteria and clinical judgment for determining ICU need; not adding anaerobic coverage for aspiration pneumonia; and treating most cases of CAP that are clinically stable and uncomplicated for 5-7 days.
Bottom line: Given new data, updated recommendations have been made to help optimize CAP therapy.
Citation: Metlay JP et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 1;200(7):e45-67.
Dr. Horton is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: More than a decade has passed since the last CAP guidelines. Since then there have been new trials and epidemiological studies. There have also been changes to the process for guideline development. This guideline has moved away from the narrative style of guidelines to the GRADE format and PICO framework with hopes of answering specific questions by looking at the quality of evidence.
Study design: Multidisciplinary panel conducted pragmatic systemic reviews of high-quality studies.
Setting: The panel revised and built upon the 2007 guidelines, addressing 16 clinical questions to be used in immunocompetent patients with radiographic evidence of CAP in the United States with no recent foreign travel.
Synopsis: Changes from the 2007 guidelines are as follows: Sputum and blood cultures, previously recommended only in patients with severe CAP, are now also recommended for inpatients being empirically treated for Pseudomonas or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and for those who have received IV antibiotics in the previous 90 days; use of procalcitonin is not recommended to decide whether to withhold antibiotics; steroids are not recommended unless being used for shock; HCAP categorization should be abandoned and need for empiric coverage of MRSA and Pseudomonas should be based on local epidemiology and local validated risk factors; B-lactam/macrolide is favored over fluoroquinolone for severe CAP therapy; and routine follow-up chest x-ray is not recommended.
Other recommendations include not routinely testing for urine pneumococcal or legionella antigens in nonsevere CAP; using PSI over CURB-65, in addition to clinical judgment, to determine need for inpatient care; using severe CAP criteria and clinical judgment for determining ICU need; not adding anaerobic coverage for aspiration pneumonia; and treating most cases of CAP that are clinically stable and uncomplicated for 5-7 days.
Bottom line: Given new data, updated recommendations have been made to help optimize CAP therapy.
Citation: Metlay JP et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 1;200(7):e45-67.
Dr. Horton is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: More than a decade has passed since the last CAP guidelines. Since then there have been new trials and epidemiological studies. There have also been changes to the process for guideline development. This guideline has moved away from the narrative style of guidelines to the GRADE format and PICO framework with hopes of answering specific questions by looking at the quality of evidence.
Study design: Multidisciplinary panel conducted pragmatic systemic reviews of high-quality studies.
Setting: The panel revised and built upon the 2007 guidelines, addressing 16 clinical questions to be used in immunocompetent patients with radiographic evidence of CAP in the United States with no recent foreign travel.
Synopsis: Changes from the 2007 guidelines are as follows: Sputum and blood cultures, previously recommended only in patients with severe CAP, are now also recommended for inpatients being empirically treated for Pseudomonas or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and for those who have received IV antibiotics in the previous 90 days; use of procalcitonin is not recommended to decide whether to withhold antibiotics; steroids are not recommended unless being used for shock; HCAP categorization should be abandoned and need for empiric coverage of MRSA and Pseudomonas should be based on local epidemiology and local validated risk factors; B-lactam/macrolide is favored over fluoroquinolone for severe CAP therapy; and routine follow-up chest x-ray is not recommended.
Other recommendations include not routinely testing for urine pneumococcal or legionella antigens in nonsevere CAP; using PSI over CURB-65, in addition to clinical judgment, to determine need for inpatient care; using severe CAP criteria and clinical judgment for determining ICU need; not adding anaerobic coverage for aspiration pneumonia; and treating most cases of CAP that are clinically stable and uncomplicated for 5-7 days.
Bottom line: Given new data, updated recommendations have been made to help optimize CAP therapy.
Citation: Metlay JP et al. Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia: An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct 1;200(7):e45-67.
Dr. Horton is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
In-hospital mobility impairment in older MI patients predicts postdischarge functional decline
Background: The ability to independently perform daily activities is highly valued by patients, yet it is commonly impaired in older adults after hospitalization for MI. Risk of functional decline in this population is not well understood, but may relate to reduced mobility while hospitalized.
Study design: Prospective cohort.
Setting: A total of 94 academic and community hospitals in the United States.
Synopsis: More than 3,000 adults aged 75 years and older who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction were enrolled in the prospective cohort SILVER-AMI; 2,587 patients within this cohort were evaluated for in-hospital mobility with the Timed “Up and Go” test. At 6-month follow-up, loss of independent performance of activities of daily living (ADL) and of the ability to walk 0.25 miles were both associated in a dose-dependent manner with in-hospital mobility. Severe in-hospital mobility impairment was associated with ADL decline with an adjusted odds ratio of 5.45 (95% confidence interval, 3.29-9.01).
While in-hospital mobility is predictive of future functional decline in this population, this observational study cannot establish whether attempts to improve mobility in hospitalized patients will prevent future functional decline.
Bottom line: Lower performance on the Timed “Up and Go” test of mobility among older patients hospitalized for MI is associated with functional decline 6 months after hospitalization.
Citation: Hajduk AM et al. Association between mobility measured during hospitalization and functional outcomes in older adults with acute myocardial infarction in the SILVER-AMI study. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4114.
Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: The ability to independently perform daily activities is highly valued by patients, yet it is commonly impaired in older adults after hospitalization for MI. Risk of functional decline in this population is not well understood, but may relate to reduced mobility while hospitalized.
Study design: Prospective cohort.
Setting: A total of 94 academic and community hospitals in the United States.
Synopsis: More than 3,000 adults aged 75 years and older who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction were enrolled in the prospective cohort SILVER-AMI; 2,587 patients within this cohort were evaluated for in-hospital mobility with the Timed “Up and Go” test. At 6-month follow-up, loss of independent performance of activities of daily living (ADL) and of the ability to walk 0.25 miles were both associated in a dose-dependent manner with in-hospital mobility. Severe in-hospital mobility impairment was associated with ADL decline with an adjusted odds ratio of 5.45 (95% confidence interval, 3.29-9.01).
While in-hospital mobility is predictive of future functional decline in this population, this observational study cannot establish whether attempts to improve mobility in hospitalized patients will prevent future functional decline.
Bottom line: Lower performance on the Timed “Up and Go” test of mobility among older patients hospitalized for MI is associated with functional decline 6 months after hospitalization.
Citation: Hajduk AM et al. Association between mobility measured during hospitalization and functional outcomes in older adults with acute myocardial infarction in the SILVER-AMI study. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4114.
Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: The ability to independently perform daily activities is highly valued by patients, yet it is commonly impaired in older adults after hospitalization for MI. Risk of functional decline in this population is not well understood, but may relate to reduced mobility while hospitalized.
Study design: Prospective cohort.
Setting: A total of 94 academic and community hospitals in the United States.
Synopsis: More than 3,000 adults aged 75 years and older who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction were enrolled in the prospective cohort SILVER-AMI; 2,587 patients within this cohort were evaluated for in-hospital mobility with the Timed “Up and Go” test. At 6-month follow-up, loss of independent performance of activities of daily living (ADL) and of the ability to walk 0.25 miles were both associated in a dose-dependent manner with in-hospital mobility. Severe in-hospital mobility impairment was associated with ADL decline with an adjusted odds ratio of 5.45 (95% confidence interval, 3.29-9.01).
While in-hospital mobility is predictive of future functional decline in this population, this observational study cannot establish whether attempts to improve mobility in hospitalized patients will prevent future functional decline.
Bottom line: Lower performance on the Timed “Up and Go” test of mobility among older patients hospitalized for MI is associated with functional decline 6 months after hospitalization.
Citation: Hajduk AM et al. Association between mobility measured during hospitalization and functional outcomes in older adults with acute myocardial infarction in the SILVER-AMI study. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 7. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4114.
Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Metoprolol increases severity, but not risk, of COPD exacerbations
Background: Beta-blockers are underutilized in patients with both COPD and established cardiovascular indications for beta-blocker therapy, despite evidence suggesting overall benefit. Prior observational studies have associated beta-blockers with improved outcomes in COPD in the absence of cardiovascular indications; however, this has not been previously evaluated in a randomized trial.
Study design: Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized trial.
Setting: A total of 26 centers in the United States.
Synopsis: The BLOCK COPD trial randomized more than 500 patients with moderate to severe COPD and no established indication for beta-blocker therapy to extended-release metoprolol or placebo. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of time until first exacerbation. While there was no difference in the overall risk of exacerbations of COPD, the trial was terminated early because of increased risk of severe or very severe exacerbations of COPD in the metoprolol group (hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.83). These were defined as exacerbations requiring hospitalization and mechanical ventilation, respectively.
Importantly, this trial excluded patients with established indications for beta-blocker therapy, and study findings should not be applied to this population.
Bottom line: Metoprolol is not associated with increased risk of COPD exacerbations, but is associated with increased severity of COPD exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe COPD who have no established indications for beta-blockers.
Citation: Dransfield MT et al. Metoprolol for the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.
Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Beta-blockers are underutilized in patients with both COPD and established cardiovascular indications for beta-blocker therapy, despite evidence suggesting overall benefit. Prior observational studies have associated beta-blockers with improved outcomes in COPD in the absence of cardiovascular indications; however, this has not been previously evaluated in a randomized trial.
Study design: Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized trial.
Setting: A total of 26 centers in the United States.
Synopsis: The BLOCK COPD trial randomized more than 500 patients with moderate to severe COPD and no established indication for beta-blocker therapy to extended-release metoprolol or placebo. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of time until first exacerbation. While there was no difference in the overall risk of exacerbations of COPD, the trial was terminated early because of increased risk of severe or very severe exacerbations of COPD in the metoprolol group (hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.83). These were defined as exacerbations requiring hospitalization and mechanical ventilation, respectively.
Importantly, this trial excluded patients with established indications for beta-blocker therapy, and study findings should not be applied to this population.
Bottom line: Metoprolol is not associated with increased risk of COPD exacerbations, but is associated with increased severity of COPD exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe COPD who have no established indications for beta-blockers.
Citation: Dransfield MT et al. Metoprolol for the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.
Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Beta-blockers are underutilized in patients with both COPD and established cardiovascular indications for beta-blocker therapy, despite evidence suggesting overall benefit. Prior observational studies have associated beta-blockers with improved outcomes in COPD in the absence of cardiovascular indications; however, this has not been previously evaluated in a randomized trial.
Study design: Placebo-controlled, double-blind, prospective, randomized trial.
Setting: A total of 26 centers in the United States.
Synopsis: The BLOCK COPD trial randomized more than 500 patients with moderate to severe COPD and no established indication for beta-blocker therapy to extended-release metoprolol or placebo. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of time until first exacerbation. While there was no difference in the overall risk of exacerbations of COPD, the trial was terminated early because of increased risk of severe or very severe exacerbations of COPD in the metoprolol group (hazard ratio, 1.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.20-2.83). These were defined as exacerbations requiring hospitalization and mechanical ventilation, respectively.
Importantly, this trial excluded patients with established indications for beta-blocker therapy, and study findings should not be applied to this population.
Bottom line: Metoprolol is not associated with increased risk of COPD exacerbations, but is associated with increased severity of COPD exacerbations in patients with moderate to severe COPD who have no established indications for beta-blockers.
Citation: Dransfield MT et al. Metoprolol for the prevention of acute exacerbations of COPD. N Engl J Med. 2019 Oct 20. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1908142.
Dr. Gerstenberger is a hospitalist and clinical assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Dapagliflozin may cut risk of HF hospitalization in patients with type 2 diabetes
Background: Dapagliflozin is a selective inhibitor of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) in the kidney; the drug blocks glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule. It is taken once daily by mouth. An initial study sponsored by AstraZeneca was published January 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine – “Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.” Until recently there was not an FDA-approved indication for the drug.
Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Setting: 882 clinical sites in 33 countries.
Synopsis: The study randomized approximately 17,000 patients to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo in addition to any other diabetes treatments prescribed by their physician. This study demonstrated its primary safety outcome, which was that patients on dapagliflozin did not have any more major adverse cardiac events (MACE), compared with placebo. There were two primary efficacy outcomes. First, there was no change in MACE with dapagliflozin, compared with placebo. Second, and pertinent to this drug’s approval, was that dapagliflozin reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HF) from 5.8% to 4.9%, compared to placebo; this includes both HF with both preserved and reduced ejection fractions.
Bottom line: Dapagliflozin now has an FDA-approved indication to reduce hospitalizations for HF in patients with type 2 diabetes. Based on this study, the number needed to treat with dapagliflozin is 111 patients to prevent one hospitalization for HF.
Citation: Farxiga approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type-2 diabetes. AstraZeneca Press Release, 2019 Oct 21.
Dr. Como is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Dapagliflozin is a selective inhibitor of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) in the kidney; the drug blocks glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule. It is taken once daily by mouth. An initial study sponsored by AstraZeneca was published January 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine – “Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.” Until recently there was not an FDA-approved indication for the drug.
Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Setting: 882 clinical sites in 33 countries.
Synopsis: The study randomized approximately 17,000 patients to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo in addition to any other diabetes treatments prescribed by their physician. This study demonstrated its primary safety outcome, which was that patients on dapagliflozin did not have any more major adverse cardiac events (MACE), compared with placebo. There were two primary efficacy outcomes. First, there was no change in MACE with dapagliflozin, compared with placebo. Second, and pertinent to this drug’s approval, was that dapagliflozin reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HF) from 5.8% to 4.9%, compared to placebo; this includes both HF with both preserved and reduced ejection fractions.
Bottom line: Dapagliflozin now has an FDA-approved indication to reduce hospitalizations for HF in patients with type 2 diabetes. Based on this study, the number needed to treat with dapagliflozin is 111 patients to prevent one hospitalization for HF.
Citation: Farxiga approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type-2 diabetes. AstraZeneca Press Release, 2019 Oct 21.
Dr. Como is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Dapagliflozin is a selective inhibitor of sodium-glucose transporter 2 (SGLT2) in the kidney; the drug blocks glucose reabsorption in the proximal tubule. It is taken once daily by mouth. An initial study sponsored by AstraZeneca was published January 2019 in the New England Journal of Medicine – “Dapagliflozin and cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes.” Until recently there was not an FDA-approved indication for the drug.
Study design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Setting: 882 clinical sites in 33 countries.
Synopsis: The study randomized approximately 17,000 patients to receive either dapagliflozin or placebo in addition to any other diabetes treatments prescribed by their physician. This study demonstrated its primary safety outcome, which was that patients on dapagliflozin did not have any more major adverse cardiac events (MACE), compared with placebo. There were two primary efficacy outcomes. First, there was no change in MACE with dapagliflozin, compared with placebo. Second, and pertinent to this drug’s approval, was that dapagliflozin reduced risk of hospitalization for heart failure (HF) from 5.8% to 4.9%, compared to placebo; this includes both HF with both preserved and reduced ejection fractions.
Bottom line: Dapagliflozin now has an FDA-approved indication to reduce hospitalizations for HF in patients with type 2 diabetes. Based on this study, the number needed to treat with dapagliflozin is 111 patients to prevent one hospitalization for HF.
Citation: Farxiga approved in the US to reduce the risk of hospitalization for heart failure in patients with type-2 diabetes. AstraZeneca Press Release, 2019 Oct 21.
Dr. Como is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Family-involved interventions reduce postoperative delirium
Background: Postoperative delirium is common in older patients undergoing surgery and often leads to complications including longer length of stay (LOS), increased mortality, functional decline, and dementia. The volunteer-based Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is one of the most widely implemented prevention tools to reduce POD; however, different cultures may not use volunteers in their hospital systems.
Study design: Randomized clinical trial.
Setting: West China Hospital in Chengdu.
Synopsis: This Chinese-based clinical trial evaluated 281 patients aged 70 years or older who underwent elective surgery and were randomized to either t-HELP units or usual-care units. t-HELP patients received three universal protocols that included family-driven interventions of orientation, therapeutic activities, and early mobilization protocols, as well as targeted protocols based on delirium risk factors, while control participants received usual nursing care. The incidence of POD was significantly reduced in the t-HELP group, compared with the control group (2.6% vs. 19.4%), which was also associated with a shorter LOS. Patients were also noted to have less cognitive and functional decline that was sustained after discharge.
Bottom line: For hospitals that do not use volunteers in delirium prevention, involving family appears to be effective in reducing POD and maintaining physical and cognitive function post operatively.
Citation: Wang YY et al. Effect of the Tailored, Family-Involved Hospital Elder Life Program on postoperative delirium and function in older adults: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4446.
Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Postoperative delirium is common in older patients undergoing surgery and often leads to complications including longer length of stay (LOS), increased mortality, functional decline, and dementia. The volunteer-based Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is one of the most widely implemented prevention tools to reduce POD; however, different cultures may not use volunteers in their hospital systems.
Study design: Randomized clinical trial.
Setting: West China Hospital in Chengdu.
Synopsis: This Chinese-based clinical trial evaluated 281 patients aged 70 years or older who underwent elective surgery and were randomized to either t-HELP units or usual-care units. t-HELP patients received three universal protocols that included family-driven interventions of orientation, therapeutic activities, and early mobilization protocols, as well as targeted protocols based on delirium risk factors, while control participants received usual nursing care. The incidence of POD was significantly reduced in the t-HELP group, compared with the control group (2.6% vs. 19.4%), which was also associated with a shorter LOS. Patients were also noted to have less cognitive and functional decline that was sustained after discharge.
Bottom line: For hospitals that do not use volunteers in delirium prevention, involving family appears to be effective in reducing POD and maintaining physical and cognitive function post operatively.
Citation: Wang YY et al. Effect of the Tailored, Family-Involved Hospital Elder Life Program on postoperative delirium and function in older adults: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4446.
Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Postoperative delirium is common in older patients undergoing surgery and often leads to complications including longer length of stay (LOS), increased mortality, functional decline, and dementia. The volunteer-based Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) is one of the most widely implemented prevention tools to reduce POD; however, different cultures may not use volunteers in their hospital systems.
Study design: Randomized clinical trial.
Setting: West China Hospital in Chengdu.
Synopsis: This Chinese-based clinical trial evaluated 281 patients aged 70 years or older who underwent elective surgery and were randomized to either t-HELP units or usual-care units. t-HELP patients received three universal protocols that included family-driven interventions of orientation, therapeutic activities, and early mobilization protocols, as well as targeted protocols based on delirium risk factors, while control participants received usual nursing care. The incidence of POD was significantly reduced in the t-HELP group, compared with the control group (2.6% vs. 19.4%), which was also associated with a shorter LOS. Patients were also noted to have less cognitive and functional decline that was sustained after discharge.
Bottom line: For hospitals that do not use volunteers in delirium prevention, involving family appears to be effective in reducing POD and maintaining physical and cognitive function post operatively.
Citation: Wang YY et al. Effect of the Tailored, Family-Involved Hospital Elder Life Program on postoperative delirium and function in older adults: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Oct 21. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.4446.
Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Depression screening after ACS does not change outcomes
Background: Depression after ACS is common and is associated with increased mortality. Professional societies have recommended routine depression screening in these patients; however, this has not been consistently implemented because there is a lack of data to support routine screening.
Study design: Multicenter randomized clinical trial.
Setting: Four geographically diverse health systems in the United States.
Synopsis: In the CODIACS-QoL trial, 1,500 patients were randomized to three groups within 12 months of documented ACS: depression screening with notification to primary care and treatment, screening and notification to primary care, and no screening. Only 7.7% of the patients in the screen, notify, and treat group and 6.6% of screen and notify group screened positive for depression. There were no differences for the primary outcome of quality-adjusted life-years or the secondary outcome of depression-free days between groups. Additionally, there was no difference in mortality or patient-reported harms of screening between groups. The study excluded patients who already had a history of depression, psychiatric history, or other severe life-threatening medical conditions, which may have affected the outcomes.
Depression remains a substantial factor in coronary disease and quality of life; however, systematic depression screening appears to have limited population-level benefits.
Bottom line: Systematic depression screening with or without treatment offerings did not alter quality of life, depression-free days, or mortality in patients with ACS.
Citation: Kronish IM et al. Effect of depression screening after acute coronary syndrome on quality of life. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(1):45-53.
Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Depression after ACS is common and is associated with increased mortality. Professional societies have recommended routine depression screening in these patients; however, this has not been consistently implemented because there is a lack of data to support routine screening.
Study design: Multicenter randomized clinical trial.
Setting: Four geographically diverse health systems in the United States.
Synopsis: In the CODIACS-QoL trial, 1,500 patients were randomized to three groups within 12 months of documented ACS: depression screening with notification to primary care and treatment, screening and notification to primary care, and no screening. Only 7.7% of the patients in the screen, notify, and treat group and 6.6% of screen and notify group screened positive for depression. There were no differences for the primary outcome of quality-adjusted life-years or the secondary outcome of depression-free days between groups. Additionally, there was no difference in mortality or patient-reported harms of screening between groups. The study excluded patients who already had a history of depression, psychiatric history, or other severe life-threatening medical conditions, which may have affected the outcomes.
Depression remains a substantial factor in coronary disease and quality of life; however, systematic depression screening appears to have limited population-level benefits.
Bottom line: Systematic depression screening with or without treatment offerings did not alter quality of life, depression-free days, or mortality in patients with ACS.
Citation: Kronish IM et al. Effect of depression screening after acute coronary syndrome on quality of life. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(1):45-53.
Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Depression after ACS is common and is associated with increased mortality. Professional societies have recommended routine depression screening in these patients; however, this has not been consistently implemented because there is a lack of data to support routine screening.
Study design: Multicenter randomized clinical trial.
Setting: Four geographically diverse health systems in the United States.
Synopsis: In the CODIACS-QoL trial, 1,500 patients were randomized to three groups within 12 months of documented ACS: depression screening with notification to primary care and treatment, screening and notification to primary care, and no screening. Only 7.7% of the patients in the screen, notify, and treat group and 6.6% of screen and notify group screened positive for depression. There were no differences for the primary outcome of quality-adjusted life-years or the secondary outcome of depression-free days between groups. Additionally, there was no difference in mortality or patient-reported harms of screening between groups. The study excluded patients who already had a history of depression, psychiatric history, or other severe life-threatening medical conditions, which may have affected the outcomes.
Depression remains a substantial factor in coronary disease and quality of life; however, systematic depression screening appears to have limited population-level benefits.
Bottom line: Systematic depression screening with or without treatment offerings did not alter quality of life, depression-free days, or mortality in patients with ACS.
Citation: Kronish IM et al. Effect of depression screening after acute coronary syndrome on quality of life. JAMA Intern Med. 2020;180(1):45-53.
Dr. Ciarkowski is a hospitalist and clinical instructor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Emergent ERCP in acute cholangitis linked with better outcomes
Background: Acute cholangitis (AC) in its most severe form is associated with a high mortality rate. Most patients respond to medical management involving intravenous hydration and antibiotics, though a sizable portion require biliary drainage. Current guidelines advocate for urgent drainage depending on the severity of AC, though do not specify optimal timing. Existing literature is conflicting on when ERCP should ideally be done for AC.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: Literature search involving PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases.
Synopsis: Nine studies with 7,534 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. Emergent ERCP was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (IHM; odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.98) and shorter length of stay (LOS; mean difference, –2.87 days; 95% CI, –1.55 to –4.18), compared to urgent ERCP. The IHM mortality difference was true for both patients with severe AC (as defined by evidence of end-organ dysfunction) and mild-moderate AC. There was a trend toward lower 30-day mortality in patients who underwent emergent ERCP, though it did not reach statistical significance.
The studies included in the analysis were observational studies, so no causal relationship can be established. Only two of the nine studies reported outcome differences stratified by severity of presentation. Etiology of the AC was inconsistently reported amongst studies.
Bottom line: Emergent ERCP appears to be associated with reduced mortality and LOS in patients presenting with AC, though larger randomized controlled trials are needed to better delineate the optimal timing for biliary drainage in these patients.
Citation: Iqbal U et al. Emergent versus urgent ERCP in acute cholangitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointes Endosc. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.040.
Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Acute cholangitis (AC) in its most severe form is associated with a high mortality rate. Most patients respond to medical management involving intravenous hydration and antibiotics, though a sizable portion require biliary drainage. Current guidelines advocate for urgent drainage depending on the severity of AC, though do not specify optimal timing. Existing literature is conflicting on when ERCP should ideally be done for AC.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: Literature search involving PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases.
Synopsis: Nine studies with 7,534 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. Emergent ERCP was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (IHM; odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.98) and shorter length of stay (LOS; mean difference, –2.87 days; 95% CI, –1.55 to –4.18), compared to urgent ERCP. The IHM mortality difference was true for both patients with severe AC (as defined by evidence of end-organ dysfunction) and mild-moderate AC. There was a trend toward lower 30-day mortality in patients who underwent emergent ERCP, though it did not reach statistical significance.
The studies included in the analysis were observational studies, so no causal relationship can be established. Only two of the nine studies reported outcome differences stratified by severity of presentation. Etiology of the AC was inconsistently reported amongst studies.
Bottom line: Emergent ERCP appears to be associated with reduced mortality and LOS in patients presenting with AC, though larger randomized controlled trials are needed to better delineate the optimal timing for biliary drainage in these patients.
Citation: Iqbal U et al. Emergent versus urgent ERCP in acute cholangitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointes Endosc. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.040.
Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: Acute cholangitis (AC) in its most severe form is associated with a high mortality rate. Most patients respond to medical management involving intravenous hydration and antibiotics, though a sizable portion require biliary drainage. Current guidelines advocate for urgent drainage depending on the severity of AC, though do not specify optimal timing. Existing literature is conflicting on when ERCP should ideally be done for AC.
Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
Setting: Literature search involving PubMed, Medline, and Embase databases.
Synopsis: Nine studies with 7,534 patients were included in the final meta-analysis. Emergent ERCP was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality (IHM; odds ratio, 0.52; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.98) and shorter length of stay (LOS; mean difference, –2.87 days; 95% CI, –1.55 to –4.18), compared to urgent ERCP. The IHM mortality difference was true for both patients with severe AC (as defined by evidence of end-organ dysfunction) and mild-moderate AC. There was a trend toward lower 30-day mortality in patients who underwent emergent ERCP, though it did not reach statistical significance.
The studies included in the analysis were observational studies, so no causal relationship can be established. Only two of the nine studies reported outcome differences stratified by severity of presentation. Etiology of the AC was inconsistently reported amongst studies.
Bottom line: Emergent ERCP appears to be associated with reduced mortality and LOS in patients presenting with AC, though larger randomized controlled trials are needed to better delineate the optimal timing for biliary drainage in these patients.
Citation: Iqbal U et al. Emergent versus urgent ERCP in acute cholangitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointes Endosc. 2019 Oct 16. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.09.040.
Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Cardiac rehab after cardiac valve surgery associated with reduced mortality
Background: National guidelines recommend CR after CVS. However, neither enrollment in CR nor its benefits have been well described in this population.
Study design: Observational cohort study.
Setting: Enrolled Medicare beneficiaries residing in the United States in 2014.
Synopsis: There were 41,369 Medicare patients who underwent CVS and met the study requirements; of these, 43.2% enrolled in CR programs. Those who had concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery or who resided in the Midwest region of the United States were more likely to enroll in CR. Asian, black, and Hispanic patients were less likely to enroll in CR. Enrollment in CR after CVS was associated with a decreased risk of 1-year hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.69). CR utilization was also associated with a decrease in 1-year mortality after CVS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.35-0.44).
Enrollment rates in CR after CVS were lower than that of heart transplant patients, but higher than that for patients with systolic heart failure or after CABG. Major study limitations were the lack of generalizability to younger patients because all patients examined were older than 64 years.
Bottom line: Racial and geographic factors influence the rate of enrollment in CR for patients undergoing CVS. All patients should be encouraged to participate in CR after CVS because it is associated with reduced 1-year mortality and risk of hospitalization.
Citation: Patel DK et. al. Association of cardiac rehabilitation with decreased hospitalization and mortality risk after cardiac valve surgery. JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4032.
Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: National guidelines recommend CR after CVS. However, neither enrollment in CR nor its benefits have been well described in this population.
Study design: Observational cohort study.
Setting: Enrolled Medicare beneficiaries residing in the United States in 2014.
Synopsis: There were 41,369 Medicare patients who underwent CVS and met the study requirements; of these, 43.2% enrolled in CR programs. Those who had concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery or who resided in the Midwest region of the United States were more likely to enroll in CR. Asian, black, and Hispanic patients were less likely to enroll in CR. Enrollment in CR after CVS was associated with a decreased risk of 1-year hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.69). CR utilization was also associated with a decrease in 1-year mortality after CVS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.35-0.44).
Enrollment rates in CR after CVS were lower than that of heart transplant patients, but higher than that for patients with systolic heart failure or after CABG. Major study limitations were the lack of generalizability to younger patients because all patients examined were older than 64 years.
Bottom line: Racial and geographic factors influence the rate of enrollment in CR for patients undergoing CVS. All patients should be encouraged to participate in CR after CVS because it is associated with reduced 1-year mortality and risk of hospitalization.
Citation: Patel DK et. al. Association of cardiac rehabilitation with decreased hospitalization and mortality risk after cardiac valve surgery. JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4032.
Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Background: National guidelines recommend CR after CVS. However, neither enrollment in CR nor its benefits have been well described in this population.
Study design: Observational cohort study.
Setting: Enrolled Medicare beneficiaries residing in the United States in 2014.
Synopsis: There were 41,369 Medicare patients who underwent CVS and met the study requirements; of these, 43.2% enrolled in CR programs. Those who had concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery or who resided in the Midwest region of the United States were more likely to enroll in CR. Asian, black, and Hispanic patients were less likely to enroll in CR. Enrollment in CR after CVS was associated with a decreased risk of 1-year hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.69). CR utilization was also associated with a decrease in 1-year mortality after CVS (HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.35-0.44).
Enrollment rates in CR after CVS were lower than that of heart transplant patients, but higher than that for patients with systolic heart failure or after CABG. Major study limitations were the lack of generalizability to younger patients because all patients examined were older than 64 years.
Bottom line: Racial and geographic factors influence the rate of enrollment in CR for patients undergoing CVS. All patients should be encouraged to participate in CR after CVS because it is associated with reduced 1-year mortality and risk of hospitalization.
Citation: Patel DK et. al. Association of cardiac rehabilitation with decreased hospitalization and mortality risk after cardiac valve surgery. JAMA Cardiol. 2019 Oct 23. doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.4032.
Dr. Babbel is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.
Do you want to become a hospitalist leader?
Learn how or even whether you should
Have you ever thought you could be a leader, in your hospitalist group, in hospital administration, or at another institution? The reasons to seek a leadership role as a hospitalist are many, but there are also many drawbacks. According to hospitalists who have reached high rungs on the leadership ladder, you will need a blend of desire, enthusiasm, education, and experience if you want to succeed in leadership.
The right reasons
“People who make good leaders have a sense of purpose and want to make a difference,” said Eric Howell, MD, MHM, CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and former chief of medical units at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore. “I think most hospitalists have that sense of wanting to help patients and society, so that’s a strong mission in itself. Just by training and the very design of our health care system, hospitalists are often natural leaders, and in leadership roles, because they run teams of clinicians and train medical students.”
Danielle Scheurer, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, and current president of SHM, said some hospitalists end up in leadership roles almost by accident – because there is a leadership “void” in the health system where they work, and no one else wants to step up. Others disconnect from the leadership track and are happy to simply be part of a team.
“If you are yearning to make a difference and that’s your motivation then you will find leadership is more fulfilling than difficult,” she said. “But if you take a leadership role to fill a void or think you just want to take some nonclinical time, it’s probably not a good idea. Some people think administrative leadership is easier than being a hospitalist, but it is not. Leadership should not be about getting away from something else. It should be a thoughtful career move, and if it is, being a leader can be meaningful and fulfilling.”
Nancy Spector, MD, the vice dean for faculty and executive director of the Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine program at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, said a willingness to fail is vital for a leader. “You have to be open to successes, yes, but also to making mistakes,” she said. “It’s about honing the skills that leadership requires and be open to development and change.”
Kierstin Cates Kennedy, MD, SFHM, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that a hospitalist fresh out of residency will gain insight into whether leadership is the right path by acquiring a deeper understanding of how health care institutions work.
“When you are new to the hospital, you see how things work, how people interact with each other, and learn the politics,” she said. “One of the easiest ways to do it is get involved in a committee and be a part of meetings. You can have some input and get exposure to other leaders and they can learn more about you. Once you get an organizational understanding under your belt, then you can start taking on projects to gain even more understanding.”
Still up for it?
If you think you have the commitment and desire for leadership as an early career hospitalist, how would you continue down the leadership path?
“A great way is to find a person you want to be like, who could be a mentor. Find a successful leader that you admire, and one who is willing to guide you,” Dr. Howell said. “Books are helpful as well, and I still find I’m learning today – I have a list that includes Drive by Daniel Pink and Good to Great by Jim Collins. There are Malcolm Gladwell books that also have terrific knowledge to impart.”
Mark W. Shen, MD, SFHM, associate professor at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin and former president of St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said potential hospitalist leaders must be aware of their fellow clinicians.
“Pay attention to the needs of the hospitalist group as they are articulated by the lead hospitalist, the administration, and the patients,” he said. “There are so many activities that come up on a day-in, day-out basis. You should jump in and volunteer to take the lead on some of those activities. Leading your peers is often one of the most challenging parts of leadership. I think taking on even just a small activity like, say, working on a clinical pathway for the group, will result in a lot of preparation for future leadership roles.”
An example of an early career activity that Dr. Shen felt was valuable to future leaders was helping in the development of a hospitalist core curriculum. “We would use the core curriculum to educate students and residents coming through our rotation and have some degree of commonality or standardization,” he said. “So even though I wasn’t an explicit leader of the hospitalist group at the time, I’d say that helping develop the core curriculum aided me in understanding what leadership was all about.”
Getting started in a leadership role, Dr. Spector said, can be helped by embracing a knowledge of the business of medicine. “Business and finance are a reality you shouldn’t avoid,” she said. “Another way to learn is to partner with your local administrators or whoever is running your division or your department. There are business managers and business partners in every institution, and you can learn a great deal from them. It’s important to network and get to know people because we’re a people business, and opportunity comes when people know who you are.”
Dr. Howell noted that advocating for yourself is sometimes hard, and it can be a red flag in some circumstances, but you should tell your bosses where you want to go professionally.
“You can say that you want to grow professionally, and let’s face it, there are naturally-inclined leaders. We all need to be transparent in goal paths,” he said. “But if you want a leadership role for power, money, and prestige then you’re not applying the right thinking. If you want to help others and you have a mission you believe in, then communicate that to your bosses.”
Dr. Scheurer believes choosing between clinical and administrative leadership is not so clear cut, because in the health care setting they tend to morph into each other. “Many times clinicians will end up taking on a leadership role that has a significant administrative component to it,” she said. “I do think if clinicians make a career move and get the right training then they can be exemplary leaders in health care, but I do worry a little about clinicians going into leadership roles without any formal training. They are usually well-intentioned but that’s not enough. It’s not any different than medical training. If you want to be a good leader you need training to develop your skills, and a lot of those skills do not come naturally or easily. We thrust good clinicians into leadership roles because they are good clinicians, but if they don’t have the right skills, being a leader can be a problem.”
How do leaders improve?
If you have made it to a leadership position, and have been in that role for a while, you might start to feel you are stuck in your growth trajectory. If so, how do you continue to improve?
According to Dr. Kennedy, whether you are looking to get into leadership or want to improve, focusing on emotional intelligence is important. “A book like Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Travis Bradbury is a great introduction,” she said. “With my leadership team, we did a book club where we read Primal Leadership, which is focused on emotional intelligence and on aspects like setting a culture.”
Dr. Howell said that to grow as a leader, be careful what you say no to. “I used to talk about having a tag line that was ‘just say yes,’” he said. “At least try to say yes most of the time because it opens up opportunities and shows you are looking to do more, not less.”
Also, Dr. Howell recommends that leaders look for tools that minimize blind spots and get information from staff through survey assessments. “Get the input of others on your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Nurses, doctors, and sometimes patients can give you good information that will help you grow as a leader. Don’t be afraid of feedback.”
Never stop learning
Dr. Scheurer said it is important to recognize that you are never finished learning when you are a leader.
“See leadership as a continuous learning journey. You can never be too good of a leader in medicine,” she said. “Never stop learning, because the field keeps changing and you have to constantly learn and find pleasure in that learning. You should look at leadership the same way. A lot of leadership theories change with the times and you should always try to get good advice. You don’t take every piece of advice – just like in medicine when you read an article and you try to apply it to patients in your practice. Take some advice, leave some advice, and develop a leadership style that is genuine and authentic.”
Dr. Kennedy believes that a hospitalist’s leadership potential may be limited if you see continued learning as a chore, rather than an opportunity.
“If you resent it learning about leadership, then is it really for you?” she asked. “I find myself reading on the topic or talking about it, and it’s fun. How do you make an environment work better, how do you inspire people, how do you help them grow? These are some of the most important questions leaders face. Isn’t it fun if you can find some answers?”
Learn how or even whether you should
Learn how or even whether you should
Have you ever thought you could be a leader, in your hospitalist group, in hospital administration, or at another institution? The reasons to seek a leadership role as a hospitalist are many, but there are also many drawbacks. According to hospitalists who have reached high rungs on the leadership ladder, you will need a blend of desire, enthusiasm, education, and experience if you want to succeed in leadership.
The right reasons
“People who make good leaders have a sense of purpose and want to make a difference,” said Eric Howell, MD, MHM, CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and former chief of medical units at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore. “I think most hospitalists have that sense of wanting to help patients and society, so that’s a strong mission in itself. Just by training and the very design of our health care system, hospitalists are often natural leaders, and in leadership roles, because they run teams of clinicians and train medical students.”
Danielle Scheurer, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, and current president of SHM, said some hospitalists end up in leadership roles almost by accident – because there is a leadership “void” in the health system where they work, and no one else wants to step up. Others disconnect from the leadership track and are happy to simply be part of a team.
“If you are yearning to make a difference and that’s your motivation then you will find leadership is more fulfilling than difficult,” she said. “But if you take a leadership role to fill a void or think you just want to take some nonclinical time, it’s probably not a good idea. Some people think administrative leadership is easier than being a hospitalist, but it is not. Leadership should not be about getting away from something else. It should be a thoughtful career move, and if it is, being a leader can be meaningful and fulfilling.”
Nancy Spector, MD, the vice dean for faculty and executive director of the Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine program at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, said a willingness to fail is vital for a leader. “You have to be open to successes, yes, but also to making mistakes,” she said. “It’s about honing the skills that leadership requires and be open to development and change.”
Kierstin Cates Kennedy, MD, SFHM, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that a hospitalist fresh out of residency will gain insight into whether leadership is the right path by acquiring a deeper understanding of how health care institutions work.
“When you are new to the hospital, you see how things work, how people interact with each other, and learn the politics,” she said. “One of the easiest ways to do it is get involved in a committee and be a part of meetings. You can have some input and get exposure to other leaders and they can learn more about you. Once you get an organizational understanding under your belt, then you can start taking on projects to gain even more understanding.”
Still up for it?
If you think you have the commitment and desire for leadership as an early career hospitalist, how would you continue down the leadership path?
“A great way is to find a person you want to be like, who could be a mentor. Find a successful leader that you admire, and one who is willing to guide you,” Dr. Howell said. “Books are helpful as well, and I still find I’m learning today – I have a list that includes Drive by Daniel Pink and Good to Great by Jim Collins. There are Malcolm Gladwell books that also have terrific knowledge to impart.”
Mark W. Shen, MD, SFHM, associate professor at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin and former president of St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said potential hospitalist leaders must be aware of their fellow clinicians.
“Pay attention to the needs of the hospitalist group as they are articulated by the lead hospitalist, the administration, and the patients,” he said. “There are so many activities that come up on a day-in, day-out basis. You should jump in and volunteer to take the lead on some of those activities. Leading your peers is often one of the most challenging parts of leadership. I think taking on even just a small activity like, say, working on a clinical pathway for the group, will result in a lot of preparation for future leadership roles.”
An example of an early career activity that Dr. Shen felt was valuable to future leaders was helping in the development of a hospitalist core curriculum. “We would use the core curriculum to educate students and residents coming through our rotation and have some degree of commonality or standardization,” he said. “So even though I wasn’t an explicit leader of the hospitalist group at the time, I’d say that helping develop the core curriculum aided me in understanding what leadership was all about.”
Getting started in a leadership role, Dr. Spector said, can be helped by embracing a knowledge of the business of medicine. “Business and finance are a reality you shouldn’t avoid,” she said. “Another way to learn is to partner with your local administrators or whoever is running your division or your department. There are business managers and business partners in every institution, and you can learn a great deal from them. It’s important to network and get to know people because we’re a people business, and opportunity comes when people know who you are.”
Dr. Howell noted that advocating for yourself is sometimes hard, and it can be a red flag in some circumstances, but you should tell your bosses where you want to go professionally.
“You can say that you want to grow professionally, and let’s face it, there are naturally-inclined leaders. We all need to be transparent in goal paths,” he said. “But if you want a leadership role for power, money, and prestige then you’re not applying the right thinking. If you want to help others and you have a mission you believe in, then communicate that to your bosses.”
Dr. Scheurer believes choosing between clinical and administrative leadership is not so clear cut, because in the health care setting they tend to morph into each other. “Many times clinicians will end up taking on a leadership role that has a significant administrative component to it,” she said. “I do think if clinicians make a career move and get the right training then they can be exemplary leaders in health care, but I do worry a little about clinicians going into leadership roles without any formal training. They are usually well-intentioned but that’s not enough. It’s not any different than medical training. If you want to be a good leader you need training to develop your skills, and a lot of those skills do not come naturally or easily. We thrust good clinicians into leadership roles because they are good clinicians, but if they don’t have the right skills, being a leader can be a problem.”
How do leaders improve?
If you have made it to a leadership position, and have been in that role for a while, you might start to feel you are stuck in your growth trajectory. If so, how do you continue to improve?
According to Dr. Kennedy, whether you are looking to get into leadership or want to improve, focusing on emotional intelligence is important. “A book like Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Travis Bradbury is a great introduction,” she said. “With my leadership team, we did a book club where we read Primal Leadership, which is focused on emotional intelligence and on aspects like setting a culture.”
Dr. Howell said that to grow as a leader, be careful what you say no to. “I used to talk about having a tag line that was ‘just say yes,’” he said. “At least try to say yes most of the time because it opens up opportunities and shows you are looking to do more, not less.”
Also, Dr. Howell recommends that leaders look for tools that minimize blind spots and get information from staff through survey assessments. “Get the input of others on your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Nurses, doctors, and sometimes patients can give you good information that will help you grow as a leader. Don’t be afraid of feedback.”
Never stop learning
Dr. Scheurer said it is important to recognize that you are never finished learning when you are a leader.
“See leadership as a continuous learning journey. You can never be too good of a leader in medicine,” she said. “Never stop learning, because the field keeps changing and you have to constantly learn and find pleasure in that learning. You should look at leadership the same way. A lot of leadership theories change with the times and you should always try to get good advice. You don’t take every piece of advice – just like in medicine when you read an article and you try to apply it to patients in your practice. Take some advice, leave some advice, and develop a leadership style that is genuine and authentic.”
Dr. Kennedy believes that a hospitalist’s leadership potential may be limited if you see continued learning as a chore, rather than an opportunity.
“If you resent it learning about leadership, then is it really for you?” she asked. “I find myself reading on the topic or talking about it, and it’s fun. How do you make an environment work better, how do you inspire people, how do you help them grow? These are some of the most important questions leaders face. Isn’t it fun if you can find some answers?”
Have you ever thought you could be a leader, in your hospitalist group, in hospital administration, or at another institution? The reasons to seek a leadership role as a hospitalist are many, but there are also many drawbacks. According to hospitalists who have reached high rungs on the leadership ladder, you will need a blend of desire, enthusiasm, education, and experience if you want to succeed in leadership.
The right reasons
“People who make good leaders have a sense of purpose and want to make a difference,” said Eric Howell, MD, MHM, CEO of the Society of Hospital Medicine, and former chief of medical units at Johns Hopkins Bayview in Baltimore. “I think most hospitalists have that sense of wanting to help patients and society, so that’s a strong mission in itself. Just by training and the very design of our health care system, hospitalists are often natural leaders, and in leadership roles, because they run teams of clinicians and train medical students.”
Danielle Scheurer, MD, SFHM, chief quality officer and professor of medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, and current president of SHM, said some hospitalists end up in leadership roles almost by accident – because there is a leadership “void” in the health system where they work, and no one else wants to step up. Others disconnect from the leadership track and are happy to simply be part of a team.
“If you are yearning to make a difference and that’s your motivation then you will find leadership is more fulfilling than difficult,” she said. “But if you take a leadership role to fill a void or think you just want to take some nonclinical time, it’s probably not a good idea. Some people think administrative leadership is easier than being a hospitalist, but it is not. Leadership should not be about getting away from something else. It should be a thoughtful career move, and if it is, being a leader can be meaningful and fulfilling.”
Nancy Spector, MD, the vice dean for faculty and executive director of the Executive Leadership in Academic Medicine program at Drexel University College of Medicine in Philadelphia, said a willingness to fail is vital for a leader. “You have to be open to successes, yes, but also to making mistakes,” she said. “It’s about honing the skills that leadership requires and be open to development and change.”
Kierstin Cates Kennedy, MD, SFHM, chief of hospital medicine at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said that a hospitalist fresh out of residency will gain insight into whether leadership is the right path by acquiring a deeper understanding of how health care institutions work.
“When you are new to the hospital, you see how things work, how people interact with each other, and learn the politics,” she said. “One of the easiest ways to do it is get involved in a committee and be a part of meetings. You can have some input and get exposure to other leaders and they can learn more about you. Once you get an organizational understanding under your belt, then you can start taking on projects to gain even more understanding.”
Still up for it?
If you think you have the commitment and desire for leadership as an early career hospitalist, how would you continue down the leadership path?
“A great way is to find a person you want to be like, who could be a mentor. Find a successful leader that you admire, and one who is willing to guide you,” Dr. Howell said. “Books are helpful as well, and I still find I’m learning today – I have a list that includes Drive by Daniel Pink and Good to Great by Jim Collins. There are Malcolm Gladwell books that also have terrific knowledge to impart.”
Mark W. Shen, MD, SFHM, associate professor at Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin and former president of St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said potential hospitalist leaders must be aware of their fellow clinicians.
“Pay attention to the needs of the hospitalist group as they are articulated by the lead hospitalist, the administration, and the patients,” he said. “There are so many activities that come up on a day-in, day-out basis. You should jump in and volunteer to take the lead on some of those activities. Leading your peers is often one of the most challenging parts of leadership. I think taking on even just a small activity like, say, working on a clinical pathway for the group, will result in a lot of preparation for future leadership roles.”
An example of an early career activity that Dr. Shen felt was valuable to future leaders was helping in the development of a hospitalist core curriculum. “We would use the core curriculum to educate students and residents coming through our rotation and have some degree of commonality or standardization,” he said. “So even though I wasn’t an explicit leader of the hospitalist group at the time, I’d say that helping develop the core curriculum aided me in understanding what leadership was all about.”
Getting started in a leadership role, Dr. Spector said, can be helped by embracing a knowledge of the business of medicine. “Business and finance are a reality you shouldn’t avoid,” she said. “Another way to learn is to partner with your local administrators or whoever is running your division or your department. There are business managers and business partners in every institution, and you can learn a great deal from them. It’s important to network and get to know people because we’re a people business, and opportunity comes when people know who you are.”
Dr. Howell noted that advocating for yourself is sometimes hard, and it can be a red flag in some circumstances, but you should tell your bosses where you want to go professionally.
“You can say that you want to grow professionally, and let’s face it, there are naturally-inclined leaders. We all need to be transparent in goal paths,” he said. “But if you want a leadership role for power, money, and prestige then you’re not applying the right thinking. If you want to help others and you have a mission you believe in, then communicate that to your bosses.”
Dr. Scheurer believes choosing between clinical and administrative leadership is not so clear cut, because in the health care setting they tend to morph into each other. “Many times clinicians will end up taking on a leadership role that has a significant administrative component to it,” she said. “I do think if clinicians make a career move and get the right training then they can be exemplary leaders in health care, but I do worry a little about clinicians going into leadership roles without any formal training. They are usually well-intentioned but that’s not enough. It’s not any different than medical training. If you want to be a good leader you need training to develop your skills, and a lot of those skills do not come naturally or easily. We thrust good clinicians into leadership roles because they are good clinicians, but if they don’t have the right skills, being a leader can be a problem.”
How do leaders improve?
If you have made it to a leadership position, and have been in that role for a while, you might start to feel you are stuck in your growth trajectory. If so, how do you continue to improve?
According to Dr. Kennedy, whether you are looking to get into leadership or want to improve, focusing on emotional intelligence is important. “A book like Emotional Intelligence 2.0 by Travis Bradbury is a great introduction,” she said. “With my leadership team, we did a book club where we read Primal Leadership, which is focused on emotional intelligence and on aspects like setting a culture.”
Dr. Howell said that to grow as a leader, be careful what you say no to. “I used to talk about having a tag line that was ‘just say yes,’” he said. “At least try to say yes most of the time because it opens up opportunities and shows you are looking to do more, not less.”
Also, Dr. Howell recommends that leaders look for tools that minimize blind spots and get information from staff through survey assessments. “Get the input of others on your strengths and weaknesses,” he said. “Nurses, doctors, and sometimes patients can give you good information that will help you grow as a leader. Don’t be afraid of feedback.”
Never stop learning
Dr. Scheurer said it is important to recognize that you are never finished learning when you are a leader.
“See leadership as a continuous learning journey. You can never be too good of a leader in medicine,” she said. “Never stop learning, because the field keeps changing and you have to constantly learn and find pleasure in that learning. You should look at leadership the same way. A lot of leadership theories change with the times and you should always try to get good advice. You don’t take every piece of advice – just like in medicine when you read an article and you try to apply it to patients in your practice. Take some advice, leave some advice, and develop a leadership style that is genuine and authentic.”
Dr. Kennedy believes that a hospitalist’s leadership potential may be limited if you see continued learning as a chore, rather than an opportunity.
“If you resent it learning about leadership, then is it really for you?” she asked. “I find myself reading on the topic or talking about it, and it’s fun. How do you make an environment work better, how do you inspire people, how do you help them grow? These are some of the most important questions leaders face. Isn’t it fun if you can find some answers?”