Latest News for HOSP

Scientists at Washington University in St. Louis have developed the most sensitive blood test yet for Alzheimer’s. In studies, the test identified patients with amyloid deposits, using mass spectrometry, before brain scans did.

Of course, amyloid is a normal brain protein; most people with amyloid deposits will not develop dementia, but it’s a significant risk factor. When blood amyloid levels are low, it may indicate it is clumping in the brain.

Researchers used mass spectrometry to test volunteers’ stored blood for beta amyloid, then checked if the levels predicted the results of PET scans. Mass spectrometry identified asymptomatic people accumulating beta amyloid in their brains when PET scans were still negative. The scans only showed beta amyloid in the brain years later. The blood test predicted the presence of plaque even in mostly asymptomatic people with 94% accuracy.

The test will not be available for clinical use for years, but prior to that it will be helpful to scientists conducting trials of drugs to prevent Alzheimer’s, seeking participants in the earliest stages of the disease.
 

Reference

1. Kolata G. A Blood Test for Alzheimer’s? It’s Coming, Scientists Report. New York Times. Aug. 1, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/health/alzheimers-blood-test.html.

Scientists at Washington University in St. Louis have developed the most sensitive blood test yet for Alzheimer’s. In studies, the test identified patients with amyloid deposits, using mass spectrometry, before brain scans did.

Of course, amyloid is a normal brain protein; most people with amyloid deposits will not develop dementia, but it’s a significant risk factor. When blood amyloid levels are low, it may indicate it is clumping in the brain.

Researchers used mass spectrometry to test volunteers’ stored blood for beta amyloid, then checked if the levels predicted the results of PET scans. Mass spectrometry identified asymptomatic people accumulating beta amyloid in their brains when PET scans were still negative. The scans only showed beta amyloid in the brain years later. The blood test predicted the presence of plaque even in mostly asymptomatic people with 94% accuracy.

The test will not be available for clinical use for years, but prior to that it will be helpful to scientists conducting trials of drugs to prevent Alzheimer’s, seeking participants in the earliest stages of the disease.
 

Reference

1. Kolata G. A Blood Test for Alzheimer’s? It’s Coming, Scientists Report. New York Times. Aug. 1, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/health/alzheimers-blood-test.html.

Scientists at Washington University in St. Louis have developed the most sensitive blood test yet for Alzheimer’s. In studies, the test identified patients with amyloid deposits, using mass spectrometry, before brain scans did.

Of course, amyloid is a normal brain protein; most people with amyloid deposits will not develop dementia, but it’s a significant risk factor. When blood amyloid levels are low, it may indicate it is clumping in the brain.

Researchers used mass spectrometry to test volunteers’ stored blood for beta amyloid, then checked if the levels predicted the results of PET scans. Mass spectrometry identified asymptomatic people accumulating beta amyloid in their brains when PET scans were still negative. The scans only showed beta amyloid in the brain years later. The blood test predicted the presence of plaque even in mostly asymptomatic people with 94% accuracy.

The test will not be available for clinical use for years, but prior to that it will be helpful to scientists conducting trials of drugs to prevent Alzheimer’s, seeking participants in the earliest stages of the disease.
 

Reference

1. Kolata G. A Blood Test for Alzheimer’s? It’s Coming, Scientists Report. New York Times. Aug. 1, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/01/health/alzheimers-blood-test.html.

Background: Venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism are common after major trauma. Anticoagulant prophylaxis usually is not considered because of the increased risk of bleeding. Despite the limited data, many trauma centers use inferior vena cava (IVC) filters as a primary means to prevent pulmonary embolism.

Study design: Randomized, controlled, and multicenter trial.

Setting: Four tertiary hospitals in Australia.

Synopsis: 240 major trauma patients were randomly assigned to receive either IVC filter or no IVC filter within 72 hours after admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of 90-day mortality or symptomatic pulmonary embolism confirmed on imaging. There was no difference in the rate of composite outcome in those with IVC filter, compared with those with no IVC filter.

Bottom line: After major trauma, early prophylactic placement of IVC filter did not reduce the 90-day mortality or incidence of symptomatic pulmonary embolism.

Citation: Ho KM et al. A multicenter trial of vena cava filters in severely injured patients. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 25;381:328-37.

Dr. Hoque Sharmy is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism are common after major trauma. Anticoagulant prophylaxis usually is not considered because of the increased risk of bleeding. Despite the limited data, many trauma centers use inferior vena cava (IVC) filters as a primary means to prevent pulmonary embolism.

Study design: Randomized, controlled, and multicenter trial.

Setting: Four tertiary hospitals in Australia.

Synopsis: 240 major trauma patients were randomly assigned to receive either IVC filter or no IVC filter within 72 hours after admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of 90-day mortality or symptomatic pulmonary embolism confirmed on imaging. There was no difference in the rate of composite outcome in those with IVC filter, compared with those with no IVC filter.

Bottom line: After major trauma, early prophylactic placement of IVC filter did not reduce the 90-day mortality or incidence of symptomatic pulmonary embolism.

Citation: Ho KM et al. A multicenter trial of vena cava filters in severely injured patients. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 25;381:328-37.

Dr. Hoque Sharmy is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Venous thromboembolism and pulmonary embolism are common after major trauma. Anticoagulant prophylaxis usually is not considered because of the increased risk of bleeding. Despite the limited data, many trauma centers use inferior vena cava (IVC) filters as a primary means to prevent pulmonary embolism.

Study design: Randomized, controlled, and multicenter trial.

Setting: Four tertiary hospitals in Australia.

Synopsis: 240 major trauma patients were randomly assigned to receive either IVC filter or no IVC filter within 72 hours after admission. The primary endpoint was a composite of 90-day mortality or symptomatic pulmonary embolism confirmed on imaging. There was no difference in the rate of composite outcome in those with IVC filter, compared with those with no IVC filter.

Bottom line: After major trauma, early prophylactic placement of IVC filter did not reduce the 90-day mortality or incidence of symptomatic pulmonary embolism.

Citation: Ho KM et al. A multicenter trial of vena cava filters in severely injured patients. N Engl J Med. 2019 Jul 25;381:328-37.

Dr. Hoque Sharmy is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Past surveys of providers revealed a tendency to select longer durations of antibiotics to reduce disease recurrence, but recent studies have shown that shorter courses of antibiotics are safe and equally effective in treatment for pneumonia. In addition, there has been a renewed focus on reducing unnecessary use of antibiotics to decrease adverse effects.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 43 hospitals in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium.

Synopsis: A retrospective chart review of 6,481 patients hospitalized with pneumonia revealed that 67.8% of patients received excessive days of antibiotic treatment. On average, patients received 2 days of excessive treatment and 93.2% of the additional days came in the form of antibiotics prescribed at discharge.

Excessive treatment was defined as more than 5 days for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and more than 7 days for health care–associated pneumonia, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or gram-negative organisms. The authors adjusted for time to clinical stability when defining the expected duration of treatment.

After statistical adjustment, excess antibiotic days were not associated with increased rates of C. diff infection, emergency department visits, readmission, or 30-day mortality. Additional treatment was associated with increased patient-reported adverse effects including diarrhea, gastrointestinal distress, and mucosal candidiasis.

The impact of this study is limited by a few factors. The study was observational and relied on provider documentation and patient reporting of adverse events. Also, it was published prior to updates to the Infectious Diseases Society of America CAP guidelines, which may affect how it will be interpreted once those guidelines are released.

Bottom line: Adherence to the shortest effective duration of antibiotic treatment for pneumonia may lead to a reduction in the rates of patient reported adverse effects while not impacting treatment success.

Citation: Vaughn VM et al. Excess antibiotic treatment duration and adverse events in patients hospitalized with pneumonia: A multihospital cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 6;171(3):153-63.

Dr. Purdy is a hospitalist and assistant professor of internal medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Past surveys of providers revealed a tendency to select longer durations of antibiotics to reduce disease recurrence, but recent studies have shown that shorter courses of antibiotics are safe and equally effective in treatment for pneumonia. In addition, there has been a renewed focus on reducing unnecessary use of antibiotics to decrease adverse effects.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 43 hospitals in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium.

Synopsis: A retrospective chart review of 6,481 patients hospitalized with pneumonia revealed that 67.8% of patients received excessive days of antibiotic treatment. On average, patients received 2 days of excessive treatment and 93.2% of the additional days came in the form of antibiotics prescribed at discharge.

Excessive treatment was defined as more than 5 days for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and more than 7 days for health care–associated pneumonia, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or gram-negative organisms. The authors adjusted for time to clinical stability when defining the expected duration of treatment.

After statistical adjustment, excess antibiotic days were not associated with increased rates of C. diff infection, emergency department visits, readmission, or 30-day mortality. Additional treatment was associated with increased patient-reported adverse effects including diarrhea, gastrointestinal distress, and mucosal candidiasis.

The impact of this study is limited by a few factors. The study was observational and relied on provider documentation and patient reporting of adverse events. Also, it was published prior to updates to the Infectious Diseases Society of America CAP guidelines, which may affect how it will be interpreted once those guidelines are released.

Bottom line: Adherence to the shortest effective duration of antibiotic treatment for pneumonia may lead to a reduction in the rates of patient reported adverse effects while not impacting treatment success.

Citation: Vaughn VM et al. Excess antibiotic treatment duration and adverse events in patients hospitalized with pneumonia: A multihospital cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 6;171(3):153-63.

Dr. Purdy is a hospitalist and assistant professor of internal medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Past surveys of providers revealed a tendency to select longer durations of antibiotics to reduce disease recurrence, but recent studies have shown that shorter courses of antibiotics are safe and equally effective in treatment for pneumonia. In addition, there has been a renewed focus on reducing unnecessary use of antibiotics to decrease adverse effects.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 43 hospitals in the Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium.

Synopsis: A retrospective chart review of 6,481 patients hospitalized with pneumonia revealed that 67.8% of patients received excessive days of antibiotic treatment. On average, patients received 2 days of excessive treatment and 93.2% of the additional days came in the form of antibiotics prescribed at discharge.

Excessive treatment was defined as more than 5 days for community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) and more than 7 days for health care–associated pneumonia, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or gram-negative organisms. The authors adjusted for time to clinical stability when defining the expected duration of treatment.

After statistical adjustment, excess antibiotic days were not associated with increased rates of C. diff infection, emergency department visits, readmission, or 30-day mortality. Additional treatment was associated with increased patient-reported adverse effects including diarrhea, gastrointestinal distress, and mucosal candidiasis.

The impact of this study is limited by a few factors. The study was observational and relied on provider documentation and patient reporting of adverse events. Also, it was published prior to updates to the Infectious Diseases Society of America CAP guidelines, which may affect how it will be interpreted once those guidelines are released.

Bottom line: Adherence to the shortest effective duration of antibiotic treatment for pneumonia may lead to a reduction in the rates of patient reported adverse effects while not impacting treatment success.

Citation: Vaughn VM et al. Excess antibiotic treatment duration and adverse events in patients hospitalized with pneumonia: A multihospital cohort study. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Aug 6;171(3):153-63.

Dr. Purdy is a hospitalist and assistant professor of internal medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

No matter how you spin it, hospitalists are key to making the world of the hospital go ‘round, making their daily work of paramount interest to both hospitals and health systems.

In an effort to drive quality, safety, and efficiency, hospitals most commonly measure hospitalist work and reward it through ties to compensation. There are several trends in performance incentive metrics highlighted by the SHM 2020 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report. As hospitals support the subsidy required for hospitalist salaries, there is an increasing ask for hospitalist groups to partner with hospital operations to achieve certain goals. The lever of compensation, when appropriately applied to meaningful metrics, is one way of promoting desired behaviors.

Hospitalists are the primary attending physicians for patients in the hospital while also bridging the patient and their needs to the services of other subspecialists, allied health professionals, and when needed, postacute services. In this way, patients are efficiently moved along the acute care experience with multiple process and outcome measures being recorded along the way.

Some of these common performance incentive measures are determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services while others may be of interest to third party payers. Often surrogate markers of process metrics (i.e. order set usage for certain diagnoses) are measured and incentivized as a way of directionally measuring small steps that each hospitalist can reliably control toward a presumably associated improvement in mortality or readmissions, for instance. Still other measures such as length of stay or timely completion of documentation have more to do with hospital operations, regulatory governance, and finance.

There are a variety of performance incentive metrics reported in the 2020 SoHM Report. Survey respondents could choose all measures that applied as compensation measures for their group in the past year. The most common metrics reported include patient satisfaction (48.7%), citizenship (45.8%), accuracy or timeliness of documentation (32.8%), and clinical process measures (30.7%).

DjelicS/Getty Images

It is important to acknowledge that most of these metrics are objective measurements and can be measured down to the individual physician. However, some of the objective measures, such as patient satisfaction data, must rely on agreed upon methods of attribution – which can include anything from attributing based on admitting physician, discharging attending, or the attending with the greatest number of days (i.e. daily charges) seeing the patient. Because of challenges with attribution, groups may opt for group measurement of metrics for some of the compensation metrics where attribution is most muddy.

For performance incentive metrics that may be more subjective, such as citizenship, it is important for hospitalist leaders to consider having a method of determining a person’s contribution with a rubric as well as some shared decision making among a committee of leaders or team members to promote fairness in compensation.

Hospital leaders must also recognize that what is measured will lead to “performance” in that area. The perfect example here is the “early morning discharge time/orders” which is a compensation metric in 27.6% of hospitalist groups. Most agree that having some early discharges, up to maybe 25%-30% of the total number of discharges before noon, can be helpful with hospital throughput. The trick here is that if a patient can be discharged that early, it is likely that some of those patients could have gone home the evening prior. It is important for hospitalist physician leaders and administrators to think about the behaviors that are incentivized in compensation metrics to ensure that the result is indeed helpful.

Other hospitalist compensation metrics such as readmissions are most effectively addressed if there are multiple physician teams working toward the same metric. Hospitalist work does effect readmissions within the first 7 days of discharge based on available evidence.¹ Preventing readmissions from days 8-30 following discharge are more amenable to outpatient and home-based interventions. Also, effective readmission work involves collaboration among the emergency physician team, surgeons, primary care, and subspecialty physicians. So while having this as a compensation metric will gain the attention of hospitalist physicians, the work will be most effective when it is shared with other teams.

Overall, performance incentive metrics for hospitalists can be effective in allowing hospitals and hospitalist groups to partner toward achieving important outcomes for patients. Easy and frequent sharing of data on meaningful metrics with hospitalists is important to effect change. Also, hospital leadership can facilitate collaboration among nursing and multiple physician groups to promote a team culture with hospitalists in achieving goals related to performance incentive metrics.

Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.
 

Reference

1. Graham, et al. Preventability of Early Versus Late Hospital Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jun 5;168(11):766-74.

No matter how you spin it, hospitalists are key to making the world of the hospital go ‘round, making their daily work of paramount interest to both hospitals and health systems.

In an effort to drive quality, safety, and efficiency, hospitals most commonly measure hospitalist work and reward it through ties to compensation. There are several trends in performance incentive metrics highlighted by the SHM 2020 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report. As hospitals support the subsidy required for hospitalist salaries, there is an increasing ask for hospitalist groups to partner with hospital operations to achieve certain goals. The lever of compensation, when appropriately applied to meaningful metrics, is one way of promoting desired behaviors.

Hospitalists are the primary attending physicians for patients in the hospital while also bridging the patient and their needs to the services of other subspecialists, allied health professionals, and when needed, postacute services. In this way, patients are efficiently moved along the acute care experience with multiple process and outcome measures being recorded along the way.

Some of these common performance incentive measures are determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services while others may be of interest to third party payers. Often surrogate markers of process metrics (i.e. order set usage for certain diagnoses) are measured and incentivized as a way of directionally measuring small steps that each hospitalist can reliably control toward a presumably associated improvement in mortality or readmissions, for instance. Still other measures such as length of stay or timely completion of documentation have more to do with hospital operations, regulatory governance, and finance.

There are a variety of performance incentive metrics reported in the 2020 SoHM Report. Survey respondents could choose all measures that applied as compensation measures for their group in the past year. The most common metrics reported include patient satisfaction (48.7%), citizenship (45.8%), accuracy or timeliness of documentation (32.8%), and clinical process measures (30.7%).

DjelicS/Getty Images

It is important to acknowledge that most of these metrics are objective measurements and can be measured down to the individual physician. However, some of the objective measures, such as patient satisfaction data, must rely on agreed upon methods of attribution – which can include anything from attributing based on admitting physician, discharging attending, or the attending with the greatest number of days (i.e. daily charges) seeing the patient. Because of challenges with attribution, groups may opt for group measurement of metrics for some of the compensation metrics where attribution is most muddy.

For performance incentive metrics that may be more subjective, such as citizenship, it is important for hospitalist leaders to consider having a method of determining a person’s contribution with a rubric as well as some shared decision making among a committee of leaders or team members to promote fairness in compensation.

Hospital leaders must also recognize that what is measured will lead to “performance” in that area. The perfect example here is the “early morning discharge time/orders” which is a compensation metric in 27.6% of hospitalist groups. Most agree that having some early discharges, up to maybe 25%-30% of the total number of discharges before noon, can be helpful with hospital throughput. The trick here is that if a patient can be discharged that early, it is likely that some of those patients could have gone home the evening prior. It is important for hospitalist physician leaders and administrators to think about the behaviors that are incentivized in compensation metrics to ensure that the result is indeed helpful.

Other hospitalist compensation metrics such as readmissions are most effectively addressed if there are multiple physician teams working toward the same metric. Hospitalist work does effect readmissions within the first 7 days of discharge based on available evidence.¹ Preventing readmissions from days 8-30 following discharge are more amenable to outpatient and home-based interventions. Also, effective readmission work involves collaboration among the emergency physician team, surgeons, primary care, and subspecialty physicians. So while having this as a compensation metric will gain the attention of hospitalist physicians, the work will be most effective when it is shared with other teams.

Overall, performance incentive metrics for hospitalists can be effective in allowing hospitals and hospitalist groups to partner toward achieving important outcomes for patients. Easy and frequent sharing of data on meaningful metrics with hospitalists is important to effect change. Also, hospital leadership can facilitate collaboration among nursing and multiple physician groups to promote a team culture with hospitalists in achieving goals related to performance incentive metrics.

Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.
 

Reference

1. Graham, et al. Preventability of Early Versus Late Hospital Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jun 5;168(11):766-74.

No matter how you spin it, hospitalists are key to making the world of the hospital go ‘round, making their daily work of paramount interest to both hospitals and health systems.

In an effort to drive quality, safety, and efficiency, hospitals most commonly measure hospitalist work and reward it through ties to compensation. There are several trends in performance incentive metrics highlighted by the SHM 2020 State of Hospital Medicine (SoHM) Report. As hospitals support the subsidy required for hospitalist salaries, there is an increasing ask for hospitalist groups to partner with hospital operations to achieve certain goals. The lever of compensation, when appropriately applied to meaningful metrics, is one way of promoting desired behaviors.

Hospitalists are the primary attending physicians for patients in the hospital while also bridging the patient and their needs to the services of other subspecialists, allied health professionals, and when needed, postacute services. In this way, patients are efficiently moved along the acute care experience with multiple process and outcome measures being recorded along the way.

Some of these common performance incentive measures are determined by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services while others may be of interest to third party payers. Often surrogate markers of process metrics (i.e. order set usage for certain diagnoses) are measured and incentivized as a way of directionally measuring small steps that each hospitalist can reliably control toward a presumably associated improvement in mortality or readmissions, for instance. Still other measures such as length of stay or timely completion of documentation have more to do with hospital operations, regulatory governance, and finance.

There are a variety of performance incentive metrics reported in the 2020 SoHM Report. Survey respondents could choose all measures that applied as compensation measures for their group in the past year. The most common metrics reported include patient satisfaction (48.7%), citizenship (45.8%), accuracy or timeliness of documentation (32.8%), and clinical process measures (30.7%).

DjelicS/Getty Images

It is important to acknowledge that most of these metrics are objective measurements and can be measured down to the individual physician. However, some of the objective measures, such as patient satisfaction data, must rely on agreed upon methods of attribution – which can include anything from attributing based on admitting physician, discharging attending, or the attending with the greatest number of days (i.e. daily charges) seeing the patient. Because of challenges with attribution, groups may opt for group measurement of metrics for some of the compensation metrics where attribution is most muddy.

For performance incentive metrics that may be more subjective, such as citizenship, it is important for hospitalist leaders to consider having a method of determining a person’s contribution with a rubric as well as some shared decision making among a committee of leaders or team members to promote fairness in compensation.

Hospital leaders must also recognize that what is measured will lead to “performance” in that area. The perfect example here is the “early morning discharge time/orders” which is a compensation metric in 27.6% of hospitalist groups. Most agree that having some early discharges, up to maybe 25%-30% of the total number of discharges before noon, can be helpful with hospital throughput. The trick here is that if a patient can be discharged that early, it is likely that some of those patients could have gone home the evening prior. It is important for hospitalist physician leaders and administrators to think about the behaviors that are incentivized in compensation metrics to ensure that the result is indeed helpful.

Other hospitalist compensation metrics such as readmissions are most effectively addressed if there are multiple physician teams working toward the same metric. Hospitalist work does effect readmissions within the first 7 days of discharge based on available evidence.¹ Preventing readmissions from days 8-30 following discharge are more amenable to outpatient and home-based interventions. Also, effective readmission work involves collaboration among the emergency physician team, surgeons, primary care, and subspecialty physicians. So while having this as a compensation metric will gain the attention of hospitalist physicians, the work will be most effective when it is shared with other teams.

Overall, performance incentive metrics for hospitalists can be effective in allowing hospitals and hospitalist groups to partner toward achieving important outcomes for patients. Easy and frequent sharing of data on meaningful metrics with hospitalists is important to effect change. Also, hospital leadership can facilitate collaboration among nursing and multiple physician groups to promote a team culture with hospitalists in achieving goals related to performance incentive metrics.

Dr. McNeal is the division director of inpatient medicine at Baylor Scott & White Medical Center in Temple, Tex.
 

Reference

1. Graham, et al. Preventability of Early Versus Late Hospital Readmissions in a National Cohort of General Medicine Patients. Ann Intern Med. 2018 Jun 5;168(11):766-74.

Clinical question: Is early glucocorticoid therapy associated with reduced mortality or need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection?

Background: Glucocorticoids have been used as adjunctive treatment in some infections with inflammatory responses, but their efficacy in COVID-19 infections had not been entirely clear. The RECOVERY trial found a subset of patients with COVID-19 who may benefit from treatment with glucocorticoids. The ideal role of steroids in this infection, and who the subset of patients might be for whom they would benefit, is so far unclear.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: Large academic health center in New York.

Synopsis: Researchers analyzed admissions of COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized between March 11, 2020 and April 13, 2020 who did not die or become mechanically ventilated within the first 48 hours of admission. Patients treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission were compared with patients who were not treated with glucocorticoids during this time frame. In total, 2,998 patients were examined, of whom 1,806 met inclusion criteria, and 140 (7.7%) were treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission. These treated patients were more likely to have an underlying pulmonary or rheumatologic comorbidity. Early use of glucocorticoids was not associated with in-hospital mortality or mechanical ventilation in either adjusted or unadjusted models. However, if the initial C-reactive protein (CRP) was >20mg/dL, this was associated with a reduced risk of mortality or mechanical ventilation in unadjusted (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.70) and adjusted analyses for clinical characteristics (adjusted OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.67). Conversely, treatment in patients with CRP <10mg/dL was associated with significantly increased risk of mortality or ventilation during analysis.

Bottom line: Glucocorticoids can benefit patients with significantly elevated CRP but may be harmful to those with lower CRPs.

Citation: Keller MJ et al. Effect of systemic glucocorticoids on mortality or mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19. J Hosp Med. 2020;8;489-493. Published online first. 2020 Jul 22. doi:10.12788/jhm.3497.
 

Dr. Halpern is a med-peds hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Clinical question: Is early glucocorticoid therapy associated with reduced mortality or need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection?

Background: Glucocorticoids have been used as adjunctive treatment in some infections with inflammatory responses, but their efficacy in COVID-19 infections had not been entirely clear. The RECOVERY trial found a subset of patients with COVID-19 who may benefit from treatment with glucocorticoids. The ideal role of steroids in this infection, and who the subset of patients might be for whom they would benefit, is so far unclear.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: Large academic health center in New York.

Synopsis: Researchers analyzed admissions of COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized between March 11, 2020 and April 13, 2020 who did not die or become mechanically ventilated within the first 48 hours of admission. Patients treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission were compared with patients who were not treated with glucocorticoids during this time frame. In total, 2,998 patients were examined, of whom 1,806 met inclusion criteria, and 140 (7.7%) were treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission. These treated patients were more likely to have an underlying pulmonary or rheumatologic comorbidity. Early use of glucocorticoids was not associated with in-hospital mortality or mechanical ventilation in either adjusted or unadjusted models. However, if the initial C-reactive protein (CRP) was >20mg/dL, this was associated with a reduced risk of mortality or mechanical ventilation in unadjusted (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.70) and adjusted analyses for clinical characteristics (adjusted OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.67). Conversely, treatment in patients with CRP <10mg/dL was associated with significantly increased risk of mortality or ventilation during analysis.

Bottom line: Glucocorticoids can benefit patients with significantly elevated CRP but may be harmful to those with lower CRPs.

Citation: Keller MJ et al. Effect of systemic glucocorticoids on mortality or mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19. J Hosp Med. 2020;8;489-493. Published online first. 2020 Jul 22. doi:10.12788/jhm.3497.
 

Dr. Halpern is a med-peds hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Clinical question: Is early glucocorticoid therapy associated with reduced mortality or need for mechanical ventilation in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection?

Background: Glucocorticoids have been used as adjunctive treatment in some infections with inflammatory responses, but their efficacy in COVID-19 infections had not been entirely clear. The RECOVERY trial found a subset of patients with COVID-19 who may benefit from treatment with glucocorticoids. The ideal role of steroids in this infection, and who the subset of patients might be for whom they would benefit, is so far unclear.

Study design: Retrospective cohort analysis.

Setting: Large academic health center in New York.

Synopsis: Researchers analyzed admissions of COVID-19 positive patients hospitalized between March 11, 2020 and April 13, 2020 who did not die or become mechanically ventilated within the first 48 hours of admission. Patients treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission were compared with patients who were not treated with glucocorticoids during this time frame. In total, 2,998 patients were examined, of whom 1,806 met inclusion criteria, and 140 (7.7%) were treated with glucocorticoids within 48 hours of admission. These treated patients were more likely to have an underlying pulmonary or rheumatologic comorbidity. Early use of glucocorticoids was not associated with in-hospital mortality or mechanical ventilation in either adjusted or unadjusted models. However, if the initial C-reactive protein (CRP) was >20mg/dL, this was associated with a reduced risk of mortality or mechanical ventilation in unadjusted (odds ratio, 0.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.70) and adjusted analyses for clinical characteristics (adjusted OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.06-0.67). Conversely, treatment in patients with CRP <10mg/dL was associated with significantly increased risk of mortality or ventilation during analysis.

Bottom line: Glucocorticoids can benefit patients with significantly elevated CRP but may be harmful to those with lower CRPs.

Citation: Keller MJ et al. Effect of systemic glucocorticoids on mortality or mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19. J Hosp Med. 2020;8;489-493. Published online first. 2020 Jul 22. doi:10.12788/jhm.3497.
 

Dr. Halpern is a med-peds hospitalist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

Background: Studies have assessed mortality effect from ED crowding on high-acuity patients, but limited evidence exists for how this affects lower-acuity patients who are discharged home.

The study demonstrated an increased 10-day mortality for mean ED length of stay of 8 hours or more vs. less than 2 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 5.86; 95% CI, 2.15-15.94). It also found an increased mortality rate for occupancy ratio quartiles with an aOR for quartiles 2, 3, and 4 vs. quartile 1 of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.14-1.92), 1.63 (95% CI, 1.24-2.14), and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.15-2.03), respectively.

While this suggests increased 10-day mortality in this patient population, additional studies should be conducted to determine if this risk is caused by ED crowding and length of stay or by current limitations in triage scoring.

Bottom line: There is an increased 10-day mortality rate for lower-acuity triaged patients who were discharged from the ED without hospitalization experiencing increased ED length of stay and during times of ED crowding.

Citation: Berg L et al. Associations between crowding and 10-day mortality among patients allocated lower triage acuity levels without need of acute hospital care on departure from the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Sep;74(3):345-56.

Dr. Merando is a hospitalist and assistant professor of internal medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Studies have assessed mortality effect from ED crowding on high-acuity patients, but limited evidence exists for how this affects lower-acuity patients who are discharged home.

The study demonstrated an increased 10-day mortality for mean ED length of stay of 8 hours or more vs. less than 2 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 5.86; 95% CI, 2.15-15.94). It also found an increased mortality rate for occupancy ratio quartiles with an aOR for quartiles 2, 3, and 4 vs. quartile 1 of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.14-1.92), 1.63 (95% CI, 1.24-2.14), and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.15-2.03), respectively.

While this suggests increased 10-day mortality in this patient population, additional studies should be conducted to determine if this risk is caused by ED crowding and length of stay or by current limitations in triage scoring.

Bottom line: There is an increased 10-day mortality rate for lower-acuity triaged patients who were discharged from the ED without hospitalization experiencing increased ED length of stay and during times of ED crowding.

Citation: Berg L et al. Associations between crowding and 10-day mortality among patients allocated lower triage acuity levels without need of acute hospital care on departure from the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Sep;74(3):345-56.

Dr. Merando is a hospitalist and assistant professor of internal medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: Studies have assessed mortality effect from ED crowding on high-acuity patients, but limited evidence exists for how this affects lower-acuity patients who are discharged home.

The study demonstrated an increased 10-day mortality for mean ED length of stay of 8 hours or more vs. less than 2 hours (adjusted odds ratio, 5.86; 95% CI, 2.15-15.94). It also found an increased mortality rate for occupancy ratio quartiles with an aOR for quartiles 2, 3, and 4 vs. quartile 1 of 1.48 (95% CI, 1.14-1.92), 1.63 (95% CI, 1.24-2.14), and 1.53 (95% CI, 1.15-2.03), respectively.

While this suggests increased 10-day mortality in this patient population, additional studies should be conducted to determine if this risk is caused by ED crowding and length of stay or by current limitations in triage scoring.

Bottom line: There is an increased 10-day mortality rate for lower-acuity triaged patients who were discharged from the ED without hospitalization experiencing increased ED length of stay and during times of ED crowding.

Citation: Berg L et al. Associations between crowding and 10-day mortality among patients allocated lower triage acuity levels without need of acute hospital care on departure from the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Sep;74(3):345-56.

Dr. Merando is a hospitalist and assistant professor of internal medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

Background: New-onset POAF occurs with 10% of noncardiac surgery and 15%-42% of cardiac surgery. POAF is believed to be self-limiting and most patients revert to sinus rhythm before hospital discharge. Previous studies on this topic are both limited and conflicting, but several suggest there is an association of stroke and mortality with POAF.

New-onset POAF was associated with increased risk of early stroke (OR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.47-1.80) and early mortality (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.11-1.88). POAF also was associated with risk for long-term stroke (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.07-1.77) and long-term mortality (HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.27-1.49). The risk of long-term stroke from new-onset POAF was highest among patients who received noncardiac surgery.

Despite identifying high-quality studies with thoughtful analysis, some data had the potential for publication bias. The representative sample did not report paroxysmal vs. persistent atrial fibrillation separately. Furthermore, the study had the potential to be confounded by detection bias of preexisting atrial fibrillation.

Bottom line: New-onset POAF is associated with early and long-term risk of stroke and mortality. Subsequent strategies to reduce this risk have yet to be determined.

Citation: Lin MH et al. Perioperative/postoperative atrial fibrillation and risk of subsequent stroke and/or mortality. Stroke. 2019 May;50:1364-71.

Dr. Mayer is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at St. Louis University School of Medicine.

On Dec. 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which finalized proposed changes to Medicare reimbursement rates, including a significant negative budget neutrality adjustment. For hospitalists, the Society of Hospital Medicine estimates that the adjustment will amount to an estimated 8% reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates, which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021.

“These cuts are coming at the exact wrong time. During the chaos of 2020, when hospitalists have been essential to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, they should not be met with a significant pay reduction in 2021,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “While we at SHM support increasing pay for outpatient primary care, which is driving these cuts, we do not believe now is the right time to make significant adjustments to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. We now call on Congress to do the right thing for hospitalists and other frontline providers who have otherwise been lauded as heroes.”

SHM will continue to fight for hospitalists and to advocate to reverse these cuts. To send a message of support to your representatives, visit SHM’s Legislative Action Center and click on “Support the Holding Providers Harmless from Medicare Cuts During COVID-19 Act of 2020.” To learn more about and become involved with SHM’s advocacy efforts, visit hospitalmedicine.org/advocacy.

On Dec. 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which finalized proposed changes to Medicare reimbursement rates, including a significant negative budget neutrality adjustment. For hospitalists, the Society of Hospital Medicine estimates that the adjustment will amount to an estimated 8% reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates, which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021.

“These cuts are coming at the exact wrong time. During the chaos of 2020, when hospitalists have been essential to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, they should not be met with a significant pay reduction in 2021,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “While we at SHM support increasing pay for outpatient primary care, which is driving these cuts, we do not believe now is the right time to make significant adjustments to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. We now call on Congress to do the right thing for hospitalists and other frontline providers who have otherwise been lauded as heroes.”

SHM will continue to fight for hospitalists and to advocate to reverse these cuts. To send a message of support to your representatives, visit SHM’s Legislative Action Center and click on “Support the Holding Providers Harmless from Medicare Cuts During COVID-19 Act of 2020.” To learn more about and become involved with SHM’s advocacy efforts, visit hospitalmedicine.org/advocacy.

On Dec. 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released the 2021 Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which finalized proposed changes to Medicare reimbursement rates, including a significant negative budget neutrality adjustment. For hospitalists, the Society of Hospital Medicine estimates that the adjustment will amount to an estimated 8% reduction in Medicare reimbursement rates, which will go into effect on Jan. 1, 2021.

“These cuts are coming at the exact wrong time. During the chaos of 2020, when hospitalists have been essential to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, they should not be met with a significant pay reduction in 2021,” said Eric E. Howell, MD, MHM, chief executive officer of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “While we at SHM support increasing pay for outpatient primary care, which is driving these cuts, we do not believe now is the right time to make significant adjustments to the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. We now call on Congress to do the right thing for hospitalists and other frontline providers who have otherwise been lauded as heroes.”

SHM will continue to fight for hospitalists and to advocate to reverse these cuts. To send a message of support to your representatives, visit SHM’s Legislative Action Center and click on “Support the Holding Providers Harmless from Medicare Cuts During COVID-19 Act of 2020.” To learn more about and become involved with SHM’s advocacy efforts, visit hospitalmedicine.org/advocacy.

As I write this, we are entering the third surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, with new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths from COVID-19 skyrocketing around the country. Worst of all, this surge has been most severely affecting areas of the nation least prepared to handle it (rural) and populations already marginalized by the health care system (Latinx and Black). Despite the onslaught of COVID-19, “pandemic fatigue” has begun to set in amongst colleagues, friends, and family, leading to challenges in adhering to social distancing and other infection-control measures, both at work and home.

Royal Geographic Society, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In the face of the pandemic’s onslaught, hospitalists – who have faced the brunt of caring for patients with COVID-19, despite the absence of reporting about the subspecialty’s role – are faced with mustering the grit to respond with resolve, coordinated action, and empathy. Luckily, hospitalists are equipped with the very characteristics needed to lead teams, groups, and hospitals through the crisis of this pandemic. Ask yourself, why did you become a hospitalist? If you wanted steady predictability and control, there were many office-based specialties you could have chosen. You chose to become a hospitalist because you seek the challenges of clinical variety, problem-solving, systems improvement, and you are a natural team leader, whether you have been designated as such or not. In the words of John Quincy Adams, “if your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader.”

As a leader, how can you lead your team through the series of trials and tribulations that this year has thrown at you? From COVID-19 to racism directed against Black and Latinx people to the behavioral health crisis, 2020 has likely made you feel as if you’re stuck in a ghoulish carnival fun house without an exit.

Yet this is where some leaders hit their stride, in what Bennis and Thomas describe as the “crucible of leadership.”¹ There are many types of “crucibles of leadership,” according to Bennis and Thomas, and this year has thrown most of these at us: prejudice/bias, physical fatigue and illness, sudden elevation of responsibility to lead new processes, not to mention family stressors. Leaders who succeed in guiding their colleagues through these challenges have manifested critical skills: engaging others in shared meaning, having a distinctive and compelling voice, displaying integrity, and having adaptive capacity.

What exactly is adaptive capacity, the most important of these, in my opinion? Adaptive capacity requires understanding the new context of a crisis and how it has shifted team members’ needs and perceptions. It also requires what Bennis and Thomas call hardiness and what I call grit – the ability to face adversity, get knocked down, get up, and do it again.

There is probably no better example of a crisis leader with extraordinary adaptive capacity than Anglo-Irish explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton. Bitten by the bug of exploration, Shackleton failed at reaching the South Pole (1908-1909) but subsequently attempted to cross the Antarctic, departing South Georgia Island on Dec. 5, 1914. Depressingly for Shackleton, his ship, the Endurance, became stuck in sea ice on Jan. 19, 1915 before even reaching the continent. Drifting with the ice floe, his crew had set up a winter station hoping to be released from the ice later, but the Endurance was crushed by the pressure of sea ice and sank on Nov. 21, 1915. From there, Shackleton hoped to drift north to Paulet Island, 250 miles away, but eventually was forced to take his crew on lifeboats to the nearest land, Elephant Island, 346 miles from where the Endurance sank. He then took five of his men on an open boat, 828-mile journey to South Georgia Island. Encountering hurricane-force winds, the team landed on South Georgia Island 15 days later, only to face a climb of 32 miles over mountainous terrain to reach a whaling station. Shackleton eventually organized his men’s rescue on Elephant Island, reaching them on Aug. 30, 1916, 4½ months after he had set out for South Georgia Island. His entire crew survived, only to have two of them killed later in World War I.

You might consider Shackleton a failure for not even coming close to his original goal, but his success in saving his crew is regarded as the epitome of crisis leadership. As Harvard Business School professor Nancy F. Koehn, PhD, whose case study of Shackleton is one of the most popular at HBS, stated, “He thought he was going to be an entrepreneur of exploration, but he became an entrepreneur of survival.”² Upon realizing the futility of his original mission, he pivoted immediately to the survival of his crew. “A man must shape himself to a new mark directly the old one goes to ground,” wrote Shackleton in his diary.³

Realizing that preserving his crew’s morale was critical, he maintained the crew’s everyday activities, despite the prospect of dying on the ice. He realized that he needed to keep up his own courage and confidence as well as that of his crew. Despite his ability to share the strategic focus of getting to safety with his men, he didn’t lose sight of day-to-day needs, such as keeping the crew entertained. When he encountered crew members who seemed problematic to his mission goals, he assigned them to his own tent.

Despite the extreme cold, his decision-making did not freeze – he acted decisively. He took risks when he thought appropriate, twice needing to abandon his efforts to drag a lifeboat full of supplies with his men toward the sea. “You can’t be afraid to make smart mistakes,” says Dr. Koehn. “That’s something we have no training in.”⁴ Most importantly, Shackleton took ultimate responsibility for his men’s survival, never resting until they had all been rescued. And he modeled a culture of shared responsibility for one another⁵ – he had once offered his only biscuit of the day on a prior expedition to his fellow explorer Frank Wild.

As winter arrives in 2020 and deepens into 2021, we will all be faced with leading our teams across the ice and to the safety of spring, and hopefully a vaccine. Whether we can get there with our entire crew depends on effective crisis leadership. But we can draw on the lessons provided by Shackleton and other crisis leaders in the past to guide us in the present.

Author disclosure: I studied the HBS case study “Leadership in Crisis: Ernest Shackleton and the Epic Voyage of the Endurance” as part of a 12-month certificate course in Safety, Quality, Informatics, and Leadership (SQIL) offered by Harvard Medical School.
 

Dr. Chang is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts, also in Springfield.

References

1. HBR’s 10 must reads on leadership. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2011.

2. Lagace M. Shackleton: An entrepreneur of survival. Harvard Business School. Working Knowledge website. Published 2003. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

3. Koehn N. Leadership lessons from the Shackleton Expedition. The New York Times. 2011 Dec 25.

4. Potier B. Shackleton in business school. Harvard Public Affairs and Communications. The Harvard Gazette website. Published 2004. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

5. Perkins D. 4 Lessons in crisis leadership from Shackleton’s expedition. In Leadership Essentials by HarpersCollins Leadership. Vol 2020. New York: HarpersCollins, 2020.

As I write this, we are entering the third surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, with new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths from COVID-19 skyrocketing around the country. Worst of all, this surge has been most severely affecting areas of the nation least prepared to handle it (rural) and populations already marginalized by the health care system (Latinx and Black). Despite the onslaught of COVID-19, “pandemic fatigue” has begun to set in amongst colleagues, friends, and family, leading to challenges in adhering to social distancing and other infection-control measures, both at work and home.

Royal Geographic Society, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In the face of the pandemic’s onslaught, hospitalists – who have faced the brunt of caring for patients with COVID-19, despite the absence of reporting about the subspecialty’s role – are faced with mustering the grit to respond with resolve, coordinated action, and empathy. Luckily, hospitalists are equipped with the very characteristics needed to lead teams, groups, and hospitals through the crisis of this pandemic. Ask yourself, why did you become a hospitalist? If you wanted steady predictability and control, there were many office-based specialties you could have chosen. You chose to become a hospitalist because you seek the challenges of clinical variety, problem-solving, systems improvement, and you are a natural team leader, whether you have been designated as such or not. In the words of John Quincy Adams, “if your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader.”

As a leader, how can you lead your team through the series of trials and tribulations that this year has thrown at you? From COVID-19 to racism directed against Black and Latinx people to the behavioral health crisis, 2020 has likely made you feel as if you’re stuck in a ghoulish carnival fun house without an exit.

Yet this is where some leaders hit their stride, in what Bennis and Thomas describe as the “crucible of leadership.”¹ There are many types of “crucibles of leadership,” according to Bennis and Thomas, and this year has thrown most of these at us: prejudice/bias, physical fatigue and illness, sudden elevation of responsibility to lead new processes, not to mention family stressors. Leaders who succeed in guiding their colleagues through these challenges have manifested critical skills: engaging others in shared meaning, having a distinctive and compelling voice, displaying integrity, and having adaptive capacity.

What exactly is adaptive capacity, the most important of these, in my opinion? Adaptive capacity requires understanding the new context of a crisis and how it has shifted team members’ needs and perceptions. It also requires what Bennis and Thomas call hardiness and what I call grit – the ability to face adversity, get knocked down, get up, and do it again.

There is probably no better example of a crisis leader with extraordinary adaptive capacity than Anglo-Irish explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton. Bitten by the bug of exploration, Shackleton failed at reaching the South Pole (1908-1909) but subsequently attempted to cross the Antarctic, departing South Georgia Island on Dec. 5, 1914. Depressingly for Shackleton, his ship, the Endurance, became stuck in sea ice on Jan. 19, 1915 before even reaching the continent. Drifting with the ice floe, his crew had set up a winter station hoping to be released from the ice later, but the Endurance was crushed by the pressure of sea ice and sank on Nov. 21, 1915. From there, Shackleton hoped to drift north to Paulet Island, 250 miles away, but eventually was forced to take his crew on lifeboats to the nearest land, Elephant Island, 346 miles from where the Endurance sank. He then took five of his men on an open boat, 828-mile journey to South Georgia Island. Encountering hurricane-force winds, the team landed on South Georgia Island 15 days later, only to face a climb of 32 miles over mountainous terrain to reach a whaling station. Shackleton eventually organized his men’s rescue on Elephant Island, reaching them on Aug. 30, 1916, 4½ months after he had set out for South Georgia Island. His entire crew survived, only to have two of them killed later in World War I.

You might consider Shackleton a failure for not even coming close to his original goal, but his success in saving his crew is regarded as the epitome of crisis leadership. As Harvard Business School professor Nancy F. Koehn, PhD, whose case study of Shackleton is one of the most popular at HBS, stated, “He thought he was going to be an entrepreneur of exploration, but he became an entrepreneur of survival.”² Upon realizing the futility of his original mission, he pivoted immediately to the survival of his crew. “A man must shape himself to a new mark directly the old one goes to ground,” wrote Shackleton in his diary.³

Realizing that preserving his crew’s morale was critical, he maintained the crew’s everyday activities, despite the prospect of dying on the ice. He realized that he needed to keep up his own courage and confidence as well as that of his crew. Despite his ability to share the strategic focus of getting to safety with his men, he didn’t lose sight of day-to-day needs, such as keeping the crew entertained. When he encountered crew members who seemed problematic to his mission goals, he assigned them to his own tent.

Despite the extreme cold, his decision-making did not freeze – he acted decisively. He took risks when he thought appropriate, twice needing to abandon his efforts to drag a lifeboat full of supplies with his men toward the sea. “You can’t be afraid to make smart mistakes,” says Dr. Koehn. “That’s something we have no training in.”⁴ Most importantly, Shackleton took ultimate responsibility for his men’s survival, never resting until they had all been rescued. And he modeled a culture of shared responsibility for one another⁵ – he had once offered his only biscuit of the day on a prior expedition to his fellow explorer Frank Wild.

As winter arrives in 2020 and deepens into 2021, we will all be faced with leading our teams across the ice and to the safety of spring, and hopefully a vaccine. Whether we can get there with our entire crew depends on effective crisis leadership. But we can draw on the lessons provided by Shackleton and other crisis leaders in the past to guide us in the present.

Author disclosure: I studied the HBS case study “Leadership in Crisis: Ernest Shackleton and the Epic Voyage of the Endurance” as part of a 12-month certificate course in Safety, Quality, Informatics, and Leadership (SQIL) offered by Harvard Medical School.
 

Dr. Chang is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts, also in Springfield.

References

1. HBR’s 10 must reads on leadership. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2011.

2. Lagace M. Shackleton: An entrepreneur of survival. Harvard Business School. Working Knowledge website. Published 2003. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

3. Koehn N. Leadership lessons from the Shackleton Expedition. The New York Times. 2011 Dec 25.

4. Potier B. Shackleton in business school. Harvard Public Affairs and Communications. The Harvard Gazette website. Published 2004. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

5. Perkins D. 4 Lessons in crisis leadership from Shackleton’s expedition. In Leadership Essentials by HarpersCollins Leadership. Vol 2020. New York: HarpersCollins, 2020.

As I write this, we are entering the third surge of the COVID-19 pandemic, with new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths from COVID-19 skyrocketing around the country. Worst of all, this surge has been most severely affecting areas of the nation least prepared to handle it (rural) and populations already marginalized by the health care system (Latinx and Black). Despite the onslaught of COVID-19, “pandemic fatigue” has begun to set in amongst colleagues, friends, and family, leading to challenges in adhering to social distancing and other infection-control measures, both at work and home.

Royal Geographic Society, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

In the face of the pandemic’s onslaught, hospitalists – who have faced the brunt of caring for patients with COVID-19, despite the absence of reporting about the subspecialty’s role – are faced with mustering the grit to respond with resolve, coordinated action, and empathy. Luckily, hospitalists are equipped with the very characteristics needed to lead teams, groups, and hospitals through the crisis of this pandemic. Ask yourself, why did you become a hospitalist? If you wanted steady predictability and control, there were many office-based specialties you could have chosen. You chose to become a hospitalist because you seek the challenges of clinical variety, problem-solving, systems improvement, and you are a natural team leader, whether you have been designated as such or not. In the words of John Quincy Adams, “if your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader.”

As a leader, how can you lead your team through the series of trials and tribulations that this year has thrown at you? From COVID-19 to racism directed against Black and Latinx people to the behavioral health crisis, 2020 has likely made you feel as if you’re stuck in a ghoulish carnival fun house without an exit.

Yet this is where some leaders hit their stride, in what Bennis and Thomas describe as the “crucible of leadership.”¹ There are many types of “crucibles of leadership,” according to Bennis and Thomas, and this year has thrown most of these at us: prejudice/bias, physical fatigue and illness, sudden elevation of responsibility to lead new processes, not to mention family stressors. Leaders who succeed in guiding their colleagues through these challenges have manifested critical skills: engaging others in shared meaning, having a distinctive and compelling voice, displaying integrity, and having adaptive capacity.

What exactly is adaptive capacity, the most important of these, in my opinion? Adaptive capacity requires understanding the new context of a crisis and how it has shifted team members’ needs and perceptions. It also requires what Bennis and Thomas call hardiness and what I call grit – the ability to face adversity, get knocked down, get up, and do it again.

There is probably no better example of a crisis leader with extraordinary adaptive capacity than Anglo-Irish explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton. Bitten by the bug of exploration, Shackleton failed at reaching the South Pole (1908-1909) but subsequently attempted to cross the Antarctic, departing South Georgia Island on Dec. 5, 1914. Depressingly for Shackleton, his ship, the Endurance, became stuck in sea ice on Jan. 19, 1915 before even reaching the continent. Drifting with the ice floe, his crew had set up a winter station hoping to be released from the ice later, but the Endurance was crushed by the pressure of sea ice and sank on Nov. 21, 1915. From there, Shackleton hoped to drift north to Paulet Island, 250 miles away, but eventually was forced to take his crew on lifeboats to the nearest land, Elephant Island, 346 miles from where the Endurance sank. He then took five of his men on an open boat, 828-mile journey to South Georgia Island. Encountering hurricane-force winds, the team landed on South Georgia Island 15 days later, only to face a climb of 32 miles over mountainous terrain to reach a whaling station. Shackleton eventually organized his men’s rescue on Elephant Island, reaching them on Aug. 30, 1916, 4½ months after he had set out for South Georgia Island. His entire crew survived, only to have two of them killed later in World War I.

You might consider Shackleton a failure for not even coming close to his original goal, but his success in saving his crew is regarded as the epitome of crisis leadership. As Harvard Business School professor Nancy F. Koehn, PhD, whose case study of Shackleton is one of the most popular at HBS, stated, “He thought he was going to be an entrepreneur of exploration, but he became an entrepreneur of survival.”² Upon realizing the futility of his original mission, he pivoted immediately to the survival of his crew. “A man must shape himself to a new mark directly the old one goes to ground,” wrote Shackleton in his diary.³

Realizing that preserving his crew’s morale was critical, he maintained the crew’s everyday activities, despite the prospect of dying on the ice. He realized that he needed to keep up his own courage and confidence as well as that of his crew. Despite his ability to share the strategic focus of getting to safety with his men, he didn’t lose sight of day-to-day needs, such as keeping the crew entertained. When he encountered crew members who seemed problematic to his mission goals, he assigned them to his own tent.

Despite the extreme cold, his decision-making did not freeze – he acted decisively. He took risks when he thought appropriate, twice needing to abandon his efforts to drag a lifeboat full of supplies with his men toward the sea. “You can’t be afraid to make smart mistakes,” says Dr. Koehn. “That’s something we have no training in.”⁴ Most importantly, Shackleton took ultimate responsibility for his men’s survival, never resting until they had all been rescued. And he modeled a culture of shared responsibility for one another⁵ – he had once offered his only biscuit of the day on a prior expedition to his fellow explorer Frank Wild.

As winter arrives in 2020 and deepens into 2021, we will all be faced with leading our teams across the ice and to the safety of spring, and hopefully a vaccine. Whether we can get there with our entire crew depends on effective crisis leadership. But we can draw on the lessons provided by Shackleton and other crisis leaders in the past to guide us in the present.

Author disclosure: I studied the HBS case study “Leadership in Crisis: Ernest Shackleton and the Epic Voyage of the Endurance” as part of a 12-month certificate course in Safety, Quality, Informatics, and Leadership (SQIL) offered by Harvard Medical School.
 

Dr. Chang is chief of pediatric hospital medicine at Baystate Children’s Hospital in Springfield, Mass., and associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Massachusetts, also in Springfield.

References

1. HBR’s 10 must reads on leadership. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press, 2011.

2. Lagace M. Shackleton: An entrepreneur of survival. Harvard Business School. Working Knowledge website. Published 2003. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

3. Koehn N. Leadership lessons from the Shackleton Expedition. The New York Times. 2011 Dec 25.

4. Potier B. Shackleton in business school. Harvard Public Affairs and Communications. The Harvard Gazette website. Published 2004. Accessed 2020 Nov 19.

5. Perkins D. 4 Lessons in crisis leadership from Shackleton’s expedition. In Leadership Essentials by HarpersCollins Leadership. Vol 2020. New York: HarpersCollins, 2020.

The coronavirus pandemic has impacted all facets of the education and training of this country’s future hospitalists, including their medical school coursework, elective rotations, clerkships, and residency training – although with variations between settings and localities.

The COVID-19 crisis demanded immediate changes in traditional approaches to medical education. Training programs responded quickly to institute those changes. As hospitals geared up for potential surges in COVID cases starting in mid-March, many onsite training activities for medical students were shut down in order to reserve personal protective equipment for essential personnel and not put learners at risk of catching the virus. A variety of events related to their education were canceled. Didactic presentations and meetings were converted to virtual gatherings on internet platforms such as Zoom. Many of these changes were adopted even in settings with few actual COVID cases.

Medical students on clinical rotations were provided with virtual didactics when in-person clinical experiences were put on hold. In some cases, academic years ended early and fourth-year students graduated early so they might potentially join the hospital work force. Residents’ assignments were also changed, perhaps seeing patients on non–COVID-19 units only or taking different shifts, assignments, or rotations. Public health or research projects replaced elective placements. New electives were created, along with journal clubs, online care conferences, and technology-facilitated, self-directed learning.

But every advancing medical student needs to rotate through an experience of taking care of real patients, said Amy Guiot, MD, MEd, a hospitalist and associate director of medical student education in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “The Liaison Committee of Medical Education, jointly sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association, will not let you graduate a medical student without actual hands-on encounters with patients,” she explained.

For future doctors, especially those pursuing internal medicine – many of whom will practice as hospitalists – their training can’t duplicate “in the hospital” experiences except in the hospital, said Dr. Guiot, who is involved in pediatric training for medical students from the University of Cincinnati and residents.

For third- and fourth-year medical students, getting that personal contact with patients has been the hardest part, she added. But from March to May 2020, that experience was completely shut down at CCHMC, as at many medical schools, because of precautions aimed at preventing exposure to the novel coronavirus for both students and patients. That meant hospitals had to get creative, reshuffling schedules and the order of learning experiences; converting everything possible to virtual encounters on platforms such as Zoom; and reducing the length of rotations, the total number of in-person encounters, and the number of learners participating in an activity.

“We needed to use shift work for medical students, which hadn’t been done before,” Dr. Guiot said. Having students on different shifts, including nights, created more opportunities to fit clinical experiences into the schedule. The use of standardized patients – actors following a script who are examined by a student as part of learning how to do a physical exam – was also put on hold.

“Now we’re starting to get it back, but maybe not as often,” she said. “The actor wears a mask. The student wears a mask and shield. But it’s been harder for us to find actors – who tend to be older adults who may fear coming to the medical center – to perform their role, teaching medical students the art of examining a patient.”

Back to basics

The COVID-19 pandemic forced medical schools to get back to basics, figuring out the key competencies students needed to learn, said Alison Whelan, MD, AAMC’s chief medical education officer. Both medical schools and residency programs needed to respond quickly and in new ways, including with course content that would teach students about the virus and its management and treatment.

Schools have faced crises before, responding in real time to SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), Ebola, HIV, and natural disasters, Dr. Whelan said. “But there was a nimbleness and rapidity of adapting to COVID – with a lot of sharing of curriculums among medical colleges.” Back in late March, AAMC put out guidelines that recommended removing students from direct patient contact – not just for the student’s protection but for the community’s. A subsequent guidance, released Aug. 14, emphasized the need for medical schools to continue medical education – with appropriate attention to safety and local conditions while working closely with clinical partners.

Dr. Guiot, with her colleague Leslie Farrell, MD, and four very creative medical students, developed an online fourth-year elective course for University of Cincinnati medical students, offered asynchronously. It aimed to transmit a comprehensive understanding of COVID-19, its virology, transmission, clinical prevention, diagnosis and treatment, as well as examining national and international responses to the pandemic and their consequences and related issues of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and health disparities. “We used several articles from the Journal of Hospital Medicine for students to read and discuss,” Dr. Guiot said.

Yale School of Medicine/Anthony DeCarlo

Christopher Sankey, MD, SFHM, associate program director of the traditional internal medicine residency program and associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., oversees the inpatient educational experience for internal medicine residents at Yale. “As with most programs, there was a lot of trepidation as we made the transition from in-person to virtual education,” he said.

The two principal, non–ward-based educational opportunities for the Yale residents are morning report, which involves a case-based discussion of various medical issues, usually led by a chief resident, and noon conference, which is more didactic and content based. Both made the transition to virtual meetings for residents.

“We wondered, could these still be well-attended, well-liked, and successful learning experiences if offered virtually? What I found when I surveyed our residents was that the virtual conferences were not only well received, but actually preferred,” Dr. Sankey said. “We have a large campus with lots of internal medicine services, so it’s hard to assemble everyone for meetings. There were also situations in which there were so many residents that they couldn’t all fit into the same room.” Zoom, the virtual platform of choice, has actually increased attendance.

Marc Miller, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at the Cleveland Clinic, helped his team develop a virtual curriculum in pediatrics presented to third-year medical students during the month of May, when medical students were being taken off the wards. “Some third-year students still needed to get their pediatric clerkships done. We had to balance clinical exposure with a lot of other things,” he explained.

The curriculum included a focus on interprofessional aspects of interdisciplinary, family-centered bedside rounds; a COVID literature review; and a lot of case-based scenarios. “Most challenging was how to remake family rounds. We tried to incorporate students into table rounds, but that didn’t feel as valuable,” Dr. Miller said. “Because pediatrics is so family centered, talking to patients and families at the bedside is highly valued. So we had virtual sessions talking about how to do that, with videos to illustrate it put out by Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.”

The most interactive sessions got the best feedback, but all the sessions went over very well, Dr. Miller said. “Larger lessons from COVID include things we already knew, but now with extra importance, such as the need to encourage interactivity to get students to buy in and take part in these conversations – whatever the structure.”

Vineet Arora, MD, MHM, an academic hospitalist and chief medical officer for the clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, said that the changes wrought by COVID have also produced unexpected gains for medical education. “We’ve also had to think differently and more creatively about how to get the same information across in this new environment,” she explained. “In some cases, we saw that it was easier for learners to attend conferences and meetings online, with increased attendance for our events.” That includes participation on quality improvement committees, and attending online medical conferences presented locally and regionally.

“Another question: How do we teach interdisciplinary rounds and how to work with other members of the team without having face-to-face interactions?” Dr. Arora said. “Our old interdisciplinary rounding model had to change. It forced us to rethink how to create that kind of learning. We can’t have as many people in the patient’s room at one time. Can there be a physically distanced ‘touch-base’ with the nurse outside the patient’s room after a doctor has gone in to meet the patient?”

Transformational change

In a recent JAMA Viewpoint column, Catherine R. Lucey, MD, and S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD,¹ called the impact of COVID-19 “transformational,” in line with changes in medical curriculums recommended by the 2010 Global Independent Commission on Education of Health Professionals for the 21st Century,² which asserted that the purpose of professional education is to improve the health of communities.

The authors stated that COVID-19 brought clarity and urgency to this purpose, and will someday be viewed as a catalyst for the needed transformation of medical education as medical schools embarked on curriculum redesign to embrace new competencies for current health challenges.

They suggested that medical students not only continued to learn during the COVID crisis “but in many circumstances, accelerated their attainment of the types of competencies that 21^st century physicians must master.” Emerging competencies identified by Dr. Lucey and Dr. Johnston include:

• Being able to address population and public health issues
• Designing and continuously improving of the health care system
• Incorporating data and technology in service to patient care, research, and education
• Eliminating health care disparities and discrimination in medicine
• Adapting the curriculum to current issues in real-time
• Engaging in crisis communication and active change leadership

How is the curriculum changing? It’s still a work in progress. “After the disruptions of the spring and summer, schools are now trying to figure which of the changes should stay,” said Dr. Whelan. “The virus has also highlighted other crises, with social determinants of health and racial disparities becoming more front and center. In terms of content, medical educators are rethinking a lot of things – in a good way.”

Another important trend cast in sharper relief by the pandemic is a gradual evolution toward competency-based education and how to assess when someone is ready to be a doctor, Dr. Whelan said. “There’s been an accelerated consideration of how to be sure each student is competent to practice medicine.”³

Many practicing physicians and students were redeployed in the crisis, she said. Pediatric physicians were asked to take care of adult patients, and internists were drafted to work in the ICU. Hospitals quickly developed refresher courses and competency-based assessments to facilitate these redeployments. What can be learned from such on-the-fly assessments? What was needed to make a pediatrician, under the supervision of an internist, able to take good care of adult patients?

And does competency-based assessment point toward some kind of time-variable graduate medical education of the future – with graduation when the competencies are achieved, rather than just tethered to time- and case volume–based requirements? It seems Canada is moving in this direction, and COVID might catalyze a similar transformation in the United States.³

Changing the curriculum

Does the content of the curriculum for preparing future hospitalists need to change significantly? “My honest answer is yes and no,” Dr. Sankey said. “One thing we found in our training program is that it’s possible to become consumed by this pandemic. We need to educate residents about it, but future doctors still need to learn a lot of other things. Heart failure has not gone away.

“It’s okay to stick to the general curriculum, but with a wider variety of learning opportunities. Adding content sessions on population health, social determinants of health, race and bias, and equity is a start, but it’s by no means sufficient to give these topics the importance they deserve. We need to interpolate these subjects into sessions we’re already doing,” he said. “It is not enough to do a couple of lectures on diversity. We need to weave these concepts into the education we provide for residents every day.

“I think the pandemic has posed an opportunity to critically consider what’s the ideal teaching and learning environment. How can we make it better? Societal events around race have demonstrated essential areas for curricular development, and the pandemic had us primed and already thinking about how we educate future doctors – both in terms of medium and content,” he said.

Some medical schools started their new academic year in July; others put it off until September. Patient care at CCHMC is nearly back to where it used to be before COVID-19 began, Dr. Guiot said in a September interview, “but in masks and goggles.” As a result, hospitals are having to get creative all over again to accommodate medical students.

“I am amazed at the camaraderie of hospitals and medical schools, trying to support our learners in the midst of the pandemic,” she said. “I learned that we can be more adaptive than I ever imagined. We were all nervous about the risks, but we learned how to support each other and still provide excellent care in the midst of the pandemic. We’re forever changed. We also learned how to present didactics on Zoom, but that was the easy part.”
 

References

1. Lucey CR, Johnston SC. The transformational effects of COVID-19 on medical education. JAMA. 2020;324(11):1033-4.

2. Bhutta ZA et al. Education of health professionals for the 21st century: A global independent Commission. Lancet. 2010 Apr 3;375(9721):1137-8.

3. Goldhamer MEJ et al. Can COVID catalyze an educational transformation? Competency-based advancement in a crisis. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1003-5.

The coronavirus pandemic has impacted all facets of the education and training of this country’s future hospitalists, including their medical school coursework, elective rotations, clerkships, and residency training – although with variations between settings and localities.

The COVID-19 crisis demanded immediate changes in traditional approaches to medical education. Training programs responded quickly to institute those changes. As hospitals geared up for potential surges in COVID cases starting in mid-March, many onsite training activities for medical students were shut down in order to reserve personal protective equipment for essential personnel and not put learners at risk of catching the virus. A variety of events related to their education were canceled. Didactic presentations and meetings were converted to virtual gatherings on internet platforms such as Zoom. Many of these changes were adopted even in settings with few actual COVID cases.

Medical students on clinical rotations were provided with virtual didactics when in-person clinical experiences were put on hold. In some cases, academic years ended early and fourth-year students graduated early so they might potentially join the hospital work force. Residents’ assignments were also changed, perhaps seeing patients on non–COVID-19 units only or taking different shifts, assignments, or rotations. Public health or research projects replaced elective placements. New electives were created, along with journal clubs, online care conferences, and technology-facilitated, self-directed learning.

But every advancing medical student needs to rotate through an experience of taking care of real patients, said Amy Guiot, MD, MEd, a hospitalist and associate director of medical student education in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “The Liaison Committee of Medical Education, jointly sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association, will not let you graduate a medical student without actual hands-on encounters with patients,” she explained.

For future doctors, especially those pursuing internal medicine – many of whom will practice as hospitalists – their training can’t duplicate “in the hospital” experiences except in the hospital, said Dr. Guiot, who is involved in pediatric training for medical students from the University of Cincinnati and residents.

For third- and fourth-year medical students, getting that personal contact with patients has been the hardest part, she added. But from March to May 2020, that experience was completely shut down at CCHMC, as at many medical schools, because of precautions aimed at preventing exposure to the novel coronavirus for both students and patients. That meant hospitals had to get creative, reshuffling schedules and the order of learning experiences; converting everything possible to virtual encounters on platforms such as Zoom; and reducing the length of rotations, the total number of in-person encounters, and the number of learners participating in an activity.

“We needed to use shift work for medical students, which hadn’t been done before,” Dr. Guiot said. Having students on different shifts, including nights, created more opportunities to fit clinical experiences into the schedule. The use of standardized patients – actors following a script who are examined by a student as part of learning how to do a physical exam – was also put on hold.

“Now we’re starting to get it back, but maybe not as often,” she said. “The actor wears a mask. The student wears a mask and shield. But it’s been harder for us to find actors – who tend to be older adults who may fear coming to the medical center – to perform their role, teaching medical students the art of examining a patient.”

Back to basics

The COVID-19 pandemic forced medical schools to get back to basics, figuring out the key competencies students needed to learn, said Alison Whelan, MD, AAMC’s chief medical education officer. Both medical schools and residency programs needed to respond quickly and in new ways, including with course content that would teach students about the virus and its management and treatment.

Schools have faced crises before, responding in real time to SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), Ebola, HIV, and natural disasters, Dr. Whelan said. “But there was a nimbleness and rapidity of adapting to COVID – with a lot of sharing of curriculums among medical colleges.” Back in late March, AAMC put out guidelines that recommended removing students from direct patient contact – not just for the student’s protection but for the community’s. A subsequent guidance, released Aug. 14, emphasized the need for medical schools to continue medical education – with appropriate attention to safety and local conditions while working closely with clinical partners.

Dr. Guiot, with her colleague Leslie Farrell, MD, and four very creative medical students, developed an online fourth-year elective course for University of Cincinnati medical students, offered asynchronously. It aimed to transmit a comprehensive understanding of COVID-19, its virology, transmission, clinical prevention, diagnosis and treatment, as well as examining national and international responses to the pandemic and their consequences and related issues of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and health disparities. “We used several articles from the Journal of Hospital Medicine for students to read and discuss,” Dr. Guiot said.

Yale School of Medicine/Anthony DeCarlo

Christopher Sankey, MD, SFHM, associate program director of the traditional internal medicine residency program and associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., oversees the inpatient educational experience for internal medicine residents at Yale. “As with most programs, there was a lot of trepidation as we made the transition from in-person to virtual education,” he said.

The two principal, non–ward-based educational opportunities for the Yale residents are morning report, which involves a case-based discussion of various medical issues, usually led by a chief resident, and noon conference, which is more didactic and content based. Both made the transition to virtual meetings for residents.

“We wondered, could these still be well-attended, well-liked, and successful learning experiences if offered virtually? What I found when I surveyed our residents was that the virtual conferences were not only well received, but actually preferred,” Dr. Sankey said. “We have a large campus with lots of internal medicine services, so it’s hard to assemble everyone for meetings. There were also situations in which there were so many residents that they couldn’t all fit into the same room.” Zoom, the virtual platform of choice, has actually increased attendance.

Marc Miller, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at the Cleveland Clinic, helped his team develop a virtual curriculum in pediatrics presented to third-year medical students during the month of May, when medical students were being taken off the wards. “Some third-year students still needed to get their pediatric clerkships done. We had to balance clinical exposure with a lot of other things,” he explained.

The curriculum included a focus on interprofessional aspects of interdisciplinary, family-centered bedside rounds; a COVID literature review; and a lot of case-based scenarios. “Most challenging was how to remake family rounds. We tried to incorporate students into table rounds, but that didn’t feel as valuable,” Dr. Miller said. “Because pediatrics is so family centered, talking to patients and families at the bedside is highly valued. So we had virtual sessions talking about how to do that, with videos to illustrate it put out by Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.”

The most interactive sessions got the best feedback, but all the sessions went over very well, Dr. Miller said. “Larger lessons from COVID include things we already knew, but now with extra importance, such as the need to encourage interactivity to get students to buy in and take part in these conversations – whatever the structure.”

Vineet Arora, MD, MHM, an academic hospitalist and chief medical officer for the clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, said that the changes wrought by COVID have also produced unexpected gains for medical education. “We’ve also had to think differently and more creatively about how to get the same information across in this new environment,” she explained. “In some cases, we saw that it was easier for learners to attend conferences and meetings online, with increased attendance for our events.” That includes participation on quality improvement committees, and attending online medical conferences presented locally and regionally.

“Another question: How do we teach interdisciplinary rounds and how to work with other members of the team without having face-to-face interactions?” Dr. Arora said. “Our old interdisciplinary rounding model had to change. It forced us to rethink how to create that kind of learning. We can’t have as many people in the patient’s room at one time. Can there be a physically distanced ‘touch-base’ with the nurse outside the patient’s room after a doctor has gone in to meet the patient?”

Transformational change

In a recent JAMA Viewpoint column, Catherine R. Lucey, MD, and S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD,¹ called the impact of COVID-19 “transformational,” in line with changes in medical curriculums recommended by the 2010 Global Independent Commission on Education of Health Professionals for the 21st Century,² which asserted that the purpose of professional education is to improve the health of communities.

The authors stated that COVID-19 brought clarity and urgency to this purpose, and will someday be viewed as a catalyst for the needed transformation of medical education as medical schools embarked on curriculum redesign to embrace new competencies for current health challenges.

They suggested that medical students not only continued to learn during the COVID crisis “but in many circumstances, accelerated their attainment of the types of competencies that 21^st century physicians must master.” Emerging competencies identified by Dr. Lucey and Dr. Johnston include:

• Being able to address population and public health issues
• Designing and continuously improving of the health care system
• Incorporating data and technology in service to patient care, research, and education
• Eliminating health care disparities and discrimination in medicine
• Adapting the curriculum to current issues in real-time
• Engaging in crisis communication and active change leadership

How is the curriculum changing? It’s still a work in progress. “After the disruptions of the spring and summer, schools are now trying to figure which of the changes should stay,” said Dr. Whelan. “The virus has also highlighted other crises, with social determinants of health and racial disparities becoming more front and center. In terms of content, medical educators are rethinking a lot of things – in a good way.”

Another important trend cast in sharper relief by the pandemic is a gradual evolution toward competency-based education and how to assess when someone is ready to be a doctor, Dr. Whelan said. “There’s been an accelerated consideration of how to be sure each student is competent to practice medicine.”³

Many practicing physicians and students were redeployed in the crisis, she said. Pediatric physicians were asked to take care of adult patients, and internists were drafted to work in the ICU. Hospitals quickly developed refresher courses and competency-based assessments to facilitate these redeployments. What can be learned from such on-the-fly assessments? What was needed to make a pediatrician, under the supervision of an internist, able to take good care of adult patients?

And does competency-based assessment point toward some kind of time-variable graduate medical education of the future – with graduation when the competencies are achieved, rather than just tethered to time- and case volume–based requirements? It seems Canada is moving in this direction, and COVID might catalyze a similar transformation in the United States.³

Changing the curriculum

Does the content of the curriculum for preparing future hospitalists need to change significantly? “My honest answer is yes and no,” Dr. Sankey said. “One thing we found in our training program is that it’s possible to become consumed by this pandemic. We need to educate residents about it, but future doctors still need to learn a lot of other things. Heart failure has not gone away.

“It’s okay to stick to the general curriculum, but with a wider variety of learning opportunities. Adding content sessions on population health, social determinants of health, race and bias, and equity is a start, but it’s by no means sufficient to give these topics the importance they deserve. We need to interpolate these subjects into sessions we’re already doing,” he said. “It is not enough to do a couple of lectures on diversity. We need to weave these concepts into the education we provide for residents every day.

“I think the pandemic has posed an opportunity to critically consider what’s the ideal teaching and learning environment. How can we make it better? Societal events around race have demonstrated essential areas for curricular development, and the pandemic had us primed and already thinking about how we educate future doctors – both in terms of medium and content,” he said.

Some medical schools started their new academic year in July; others put it off until September. Patient care at CCHMC is nearly back to where it used to be before COVID-19 began, Dr. Guiot said in a September interview, “but in masks and goggles.” As a result, hospitals are having to get creative all over again to accommodate medical students.

“I am amazed at the camaraderie of hospitals and medical schools, trying to support our learners in the midst of the pandemic,” she said. “I learned that we can be more adaptive than I ever imagined. We were all nervous about the risks, but we learned how to support each other and still provide excellent care in the midst of the pandemic. We’re forever changed. We also learned how to present didactics on Zoom, but that was the easy part.”
 

References

1. Lucey CR, Johnston SC. The transformational effects of COVID-19 on medical education. JAMA. 2020;324(11):1033-4.

2. Bhutta ZA et al. Education of health professionals for the 21st century: A global independent Commission. Lancet. 2010 Apr 3;375(9721):1137-8.

3. Goldhamer MEJ et al. Can COVID catalyze an educational transformation? Competency-based advancement in a crisis. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1003-5.

The coronavirus pandemic has impacted all facets of the education and training of this country’s future hospitalists, including their medical school coursework, elective rotations, clerkships, and residency training – although with variations between settings and localities.

The COVID-19 crisis demanded immediate changes in traditional approaches to medical education. Training programs responded quickly to institute those changes. As hospitals geared up for potential surges in COVID cases starting in mid-March, many onsite training activities for medical students were shut down in order to reserve personal protective equipment for essential personnel and not put learners at risk of catching the virus. A variety of events related to their education were canceled. Didactic presentations and meetings were converted to virtual gatherings on internet platforms such as Zoom. Many of these changes were adopted even in settings with few actual COVID cases.

Medical students on clinical rotations were provided with virtual didactics when in-person clinical experiences were put on hold. In some cases, academic years ended early and fourth-year students graduated early so they might potentially join the hospital work force. Residents’ assignments were also changed, perhaps seeing patients on non–COVID-19 units only or taking different shifts, assignments, or rotations. Public health or research projects replaced elective placements. New electives were created, along with journal clubs, online care conferences, and technology-facilitated, self-directed learning.

But every advancing medical student needs to rotate through an experience of taking care of real patients, said Amy Guiot, MD, MEd, a hospitalist and associate director of medical student education in the division of hospital medicine at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center. “The Liaison Committee of Medical Education, jointly sponsored by the Association of American Medical Colleges and the American Medical Association, will not let you graduate a medical student without actual hands-on encounters with patients,” she explained.

For future doctors, especially those pursuing internal medicine – many of whom will practice as hospitalists – their training can’t duplicate “in the hospital” experiences except in the hospital, said Dr. Guiot, who is involved in pediatric training for medical students from the University of Cincinnati and residents.

For third- and fourth-year medical students, getting that personal contact with patients has been the hardest part, she added. But from March to May 2020, that experience was completely shut down at CCHMC, as at many medical schools, because of precautions aimed at preventing exposure to the novel coronavirus for both students and patients. That meant hospitals had to get creative, reshuffling schedules and the order of learning experiences; converting everything possible to virtual encounters on platforms such as Zoom; and reducing the length of rotations, the total number of in-person encounters, and the number of learners participating in an activity.

“We needed to use shift work for medical students, which hadn’t been done before,” Dr. Guiot said. Having students on different shifts, including nights, created more opportunities to fit clinical experiences into the schedule. The use of standardized patients – actors following a script who are examined by a student as part of learning how to do a physical exam – was also put on hold.

“Now we’re starting to get it back, but maybe not as often,” she said. “The actor wears a mask. The student wears a mask and shield. But it’s been harder for us to find actors – who tend to be older adults who may fear coming to the medical center – to perform their role, teaching medical students the art of examining a patient.”

Back to basics

The COVID-19 pandemic forced medical schools to get back to basics, figuring out the key competencies students needed to learn, said Alison Whelan, MD, AAMC’s chief medical education officer. Both medical schools and residency programs needed to respond quickly and in new ways, including with course content that would teach students about the virus and its management and treatment.

Schools have faced crises before, responding in real time to SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome), Ebola, HIV, and natural disasters, Dr. Whelan said. “But there was a nimbleness and rapidity of adapting to COVID – with a lot of sharing of curriculums among medical colleges.” Back in late March, AAMC put out guidelines that recommended removing students from direct patient contact – not just for the student’s protection but for the community’s. A subsequent guidance, released Aug. 14, emphasized the need for medical schools to continue medical education – with appropriate attention to safety and local conditions while working closely with clinical partners.

Dr. Guiot, with her colleague Leslie Farrell, MD, and four very creative medical students, developed an online fourth-year elective course for University of Cincinnati medical students, offered asynchronously. It aimed to transmit a comprehensive understanding of COVID-19, its virology, transmission, clinical prevention, diagnosis and treatment, as well as examining national and international responses to the pandemic and their consequences and related issues of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and health disparities. “We used several articles from the Journal of Hospital Medicine for students to read and discuss,” Dr. Guiot said.

Yale School of Medicine/Anthony DeCarlo

Christopher Sankey, MD, SFHM, associate program director of the traditional internal medicine residency program and associate professor of medicine at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., oversees the inpatient educational experience for internal medicine residents at Yale. “As with most programs, there was a lot of trepidation as we made the transition from in-person to virtual education,” he said.

The two principal, non–ward-based educational opportunities for the Yale residents are morning report, which involves a case-based discussion of various medical issues, usually led by a chief resident, and noon conference, which is more didactic and content based. Both made the transition to virtual meetings for residents.

“We wondered, could these still be well-attended, well-liked, and successful learning experiences if offered virtually? What I found when I surveyed our residents was that the virtual conferences were not only well received, but actually preferred,” Dr. Sankey said. “We have a large campus with lots of internal medicine services, so it’s hard to assemble everyone for meetings. There were also situations in which there were so many residents that they couldn’t all fit into the same room.” Zoom, the virtual platform of choice, has actually increased attendance.

Marc Miller, MD, a pediatric hospitalist at the Cleveland Clinic, helped his team develop a virtual curriculum in pediatrics presented to third-year medical students during the month of May, when medical students were being taken off the wards. “Some third-year students still needed to get their pediatric clerkships done. We had to balance clinical exposure with a lot of other things,” he explained.

The curriculum included a focus on interprofessional aspects of interdisciplinary, family-centered bedside rounds; a COVID literature review; and a lot of case-based scenarios. “Most challenging was how to remake family rounds. We tried to incorporate students into table rounds, but that didn’t feel as valuable,” Dr. Miller said. “Because pediatrics is so family centered, talking to patients and families at the bedside is highly valued. So we had virtual sessions talking about how to do that, with videos to illustrate it put out by Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.”

The most interactive sessions got the best feedback, but all the sessions went over very well, Dr. Miller said. “Larger lessons from COVID include things we already knew, but now with extra importance, such as the need to encourage interactivity to get students to buy in and take part in these conversations – whatever the structure.”

Vineet Arora, MD, MHM, an academic hospitalist and chief medical officer for the clinical learning environment at the University of Chicago, said that the changes wrought by COVID have also produced unexpected gains for medical education. “We’ve also had to think differently and more creatively about how to get the same information across in this new environment,” she explained. “In some cases, we saw that it was easier for learners to attend conferences and meetings online, with increased attendance for our events.” That includes participation on quality improvement committees, and attending online medical conferences presented locally and regionally.

“Another question: How do we teach interdisciplinary rounds and how to work with other members of the team without having face-to-face interactions?” Dr. Arora said. “Our old interdisciplinary rounding model had to change. It forced us to rethink how to create that kind of learning. We can’t have as many people in the patient’s room at one time. Can there be a physically distanced ‘touch-base’ with the nurse outside the patient’s room after a doctor has gone in to meet the patient?”

Transformational change

In a recent JAMA Viewpoint column, Catherine R. Lucey, MD, and S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD,¹ called the impact of COVID-19 “transformational,” in line with changes in medical curriculums recommended by the 2010 Global Independent Commission on Education of Health Professionals for the 21st Century,² which asserted that the purpose of professional education is to improve the health of communities.

The authors stated that COVID-19 brought clarity and urgency to this purpose, and will someday be viewed as a catalyst for the needed transformation of medical education as medical schools embarked on curriculum redesign to embrace new competencies for current health challenges.

They suggested that medical students not only continued to learn during the COVID crisis “but in many circumstances, accelerated their attainment of the types of competencies that 21^st century physicians must master.” Emerging competencies identified by Dr. Lucey and Dr. Johnston include:

• Being able to address population and public health issues
• Designing and continuously improving of the health care system
• Incorporating data and technology in service to patient care, research, and education
• Eliminating health care disparities and discrimination in medicine
• Adapting the curriculum to current issues in real-time
• Engaging in crisis communication and active change leadership

How is the curriculum changing? It’s still a work in progress. “After the disruptions of the spring and summer, schools are now trying to figure which of the changes should stay,” said Dr. Whelan. “The virus has also highlighted other crises, with social determinants of health and racial disparities becoming more front and center. In terms of content, medical educators are rethinking a lot of things – in a good way.”

Another important trend cast in sharper relief by the pandemic is a gradual evolution toward competency-based education and how to assess when someone is ready to be a doctor, Dr. Whelan said. “There’s been an accelerated consideration of how to be sure each student is competent to practice medicine.”³

Many practicing physicians and students were redeployed in the crisis, she said. Pediatric physicians were asked to take care of adult patients, and internists were drafted to work in the ICU. Hospitals quickly developed refresher courses and competency-based assessments to facilitate these redeployments. What can be learned from such on-the-fly assessments? What was needed to make a pediatrician, under the supervision of an internist, able to take good care of adult patients?

And does competency-based assessment point toward some kind of time-variable graduate medical education of the future – with graduation when the competencies are achieved, rather than just tethered to time- and case volume–based requirements? It seems Canada is moving in this direction, and COVID might catalyze a similar transformation in the United States.³

Changing the curriculum

Does the content of the curriculum for preparing future hospitalists need to change significantly? “My honest answer is yes and no,” Dr. Sankey said. “One thing we found in our training program is that it’s possible to become consumed by this pandemic. We need to educate residents about it, but future doctors still need to learn a lot of other things. Heart failure has not gone away.

“It’s okay to stick to the general curriculum, but with a wider variety of learning opportunities. Adding content sessions on population health, social determinants of health, race and bias, and equity is a start, but it’s by no means sufficient to give these topics the importance they deserve. We need to interpolate these subjects into sessions we’re already doing,” he said. “It is not enough to do a couple of lectures on diversity. We need to weave these concepts into the education we provide for residents every day.

“I think the pandemic has posed an opportunity to critically consider what’s the ideal teaching and learning environment. How can we make it better? Societal events around race have demonstrated essential areas for curricular development, and the pandemic had us primed and already thinking about how we educate future doctors – both in terms of medium and content,” he said.

Some medical schools started their new academic year in July; others put it off until September. Patient care at CCHMC is nearly back to where it used to be before COVID-19 began, Dr. Guiot said in a September interview, “but in masks and goggles.” As a result, hospitals are having to get creative all over again to accommodate medical students.

“I am amazed at the camaraderie of hospitals and medical schools, trying to support our learners in the midst of the pandemic,” she said. “I learned that we can be more adaptive than I ever imagined. We were all nervous about the risks, but we learned how to support each other and still provide excellent care in the midst of the pandemic. We’re forever changed. We also learned how to present didactics on Zoom, but that was the easy part.”
 

References

1. Lucey CR, Johnston SC. The transformational effects of COVID-19 on medical education. JAMA. 2020;324(11):1033-4.

2. Bhutta ZA et al. Education of health professionals for the 21st century: A global independent Commission. Lancet. 2010 Apr 3;375(9721):1137-8.

3. Goldhamer MEJ et al. Can COVID catalyze an educational transformation? Competency-based advancement in a crisis. N Engl J Med. 2020;383:1003-5.