Latest News for HOSP

Amith Skandhan, MD, SFHM, has been announced as Southeast Health Statera Network’s (Dothan, Ala.) director of physician integration, and chairman of the network’s Physicians Participation Committee. Dr. Skandhan is senior lead hospitalist with Southeast Health, where he has worked for nearly a decade. He also champions the medical group’s clinical documentation improvement faction.

One of just 10 hospitalists in the nation to receive Top Hospitalist recognition by the American College of Physicians in 2018, Dr. Skandhan is also an assistant professor at Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine and is one of Southeast Health’s Internal Medicine Residency Program’s core faculty members.
 

Ruby Sahoo, DO, has been promoted by Team Health (Knoxville, Tenn.) as regional performance director of its hospitalist services performance improvement team. Dr. Sahoo joined Team Health in 2016 and has most recently served as medical director and chief of staff at Grand Strand Medical Center (Myrtle Beach, S.C.).

Dr. Sahoo is a highly decorated internist and hospitalist. She was Team Health’s Medical Director of the Year for Hospital Medicine 2018, and a Frist Humanitarian Award winner in 2017. Additionally, Dr. Sahoo is a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American College of Physicians, and the American Association of Physician Leadership.
 

David Vandenberg, MD, SFHM, recently was elevated to chief medical officer at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital (Ann Arbor and Livingston, Mich.). The hospitalist and senior fellow of hospital medicine previously has been St. Joseph’s vice chair of internal medicine and medical director of care management and documentation integrity. Dr. Vandenberg has spent 20 years as an employee at St. Joseph’s.

Cristian Andrade, MD, has been elevated to vice president of medical affairs with St. Joseph’s Health (Syracuse, N.Y.). A 16-year veteran with St. Joseph’s, Dr. Andrade has been a hospitalist with the system since 2006, and most recently has served as chief of hospitalist services.

Dr. Andrade now will provide guidance focusing on improving length of stay, as well as staff governance, utilization review, and the hospitalist program in general.
 

Paul DeJac, MD, has received a promotion to chief of hospitalist medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (Buffalo, N.Y.). Dr. DeJac was hired at Roswell Park in 2016, becoming lead hospitalist in 2017. He will look to boost professional development on the hospitalist team with a focus on improving patient care.

Independent Emergency Physicians (Farmington, Mich.), which provides hospitalist physicians, ED physicians, scribes, and more at a handful of hospitals in Michigan, has added urgent care facilities in Southfield, Mich., and Novi, Mich., to its portfolio. In addition, IEP has joined with Healthy Urgent Care to create a network of up to 15 urgent care centers in Southeast Michigan.

This is IEP’s first foray into urgent care. The company was founded in 1997 and practices at Ascension Health, Trinity Health, and Henry Ford Health System, covering four different hospitals.

Private hospitalist management provider Sound Physicians (Tacoma, Wash.) has grown once again, acquiring Indigo Health Partners (Traverse City, Mich.), one of Michigan’s largest private hospitalist groups. The new company will be known as Indigo, a division of Sound Inpatient Physicians.

Indigo’s approximately 150 providers are included in the transaction, which includes professionals in hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and assisted living facilities. Indigo was previously known as Hospitalists of Northwest Michigan, based out of Munson Medical Center.

Amith Skandhan, MD, SFHM, has been announced as Southeast Health Statera Network’s (Dothan, Ala.) director of physician integration, and chairman of the network’s Physicians Participation Committee. Dr. Skandhan is senior lead hospitalist with Southeast Health, where he has worked for nearly a decade. He also champions the medical group’s clinical documentation improvement faction.

One of just 10 hospitalists in the nation to receive Top Hospitalist recognition by the American College of Physicians in 2018, Dr. Skandhan is also an assistant professor at Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine and is one of Southeast Health’s Internal Medicine Residency Program’s core faculty members.
 

Ruby Sahoo, DO, has been promoted by Team Health (Knoxville, Tenn.) as regional performance director of its hospitalist services performance improvement team. Dr. Sahoo joined Team Health in 2016 and has most recently served as medical director and chief of staff at Grand Strand Medical Center (Myrtle Beach, S.C.).

Dr. Sahoo is a highly decorated internist and hospitalist. She was Team Health’s Medical Director of the Year for Hospital Medicine 2018, and a Frist Humanitarian Award winner in 2017. Additionally, Dr. Sahoo is a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American College of Physicians, and the American Association of Physician Leadership.
 

David Vandenberg, MD, SFHM, recently was elevated to chief medical officer at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital (Ann Arbor and Livingston, Mich.). The hospitalist and senior fellow of hospital medicine previously has been St. Joseph’s vice chair of internal medicine and medical director of care management and documentation integrity. Dr. Vandenberg has spent 20 years as an employee at St. Joseph’s.

Cristian Andrade, MD, has been elevated to vice president of medical affairs with St. Joseph’s Health (Syracuse, N.Y.). A 16-year veteran with St. Joseph’s, Dr. Andrade has been a hospitalist with the system since 2006, and most recently has served as chief of hospitalist services.

Dr. Andrade now will provide guidance focusing on improving length of stay, as well as staff governance, utilization review, and the hospitalist program in general.
 

Paul DeJac, MD, has received a promotion to chief of hospitalist medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (Buffalo, N.Y.). Dr. DeJac was hired at Roswell Park in 2016, becoming lead hospitalist in 2017. He will look to boost professional development on the hospitalist team with a focus on improving patient care.

Independent Emergency Physicians (Farmington, Mich.), which provides hospitalist physicians, ED physicians, scribes, and more at a handful of hospitals in Michigan, has added urgent care facilities in Southfield, Mich., and Novi, Mich., to its portfolio. In addition, IEP has joined with Healthy Urgent Care to create a network of up to 15 urgent care centers in Southeast Michigan.

This is IEP’s first foray into urgent care. The company was founded in 1997 and practices at Ascension Health, Trinity Health, and Henry Ford Health System, covering four different hospitals.

Private hospitalist management provider Sound Physicians (Tacoma, Wash.) has grown once again, acquiring Indigo Health Partners (Traverse City, Mich.), one of Michigan’s largest private hospitalist groups. The new company will be known as Indigo, a division of Sound Inpatient Physicians.

Indigo’s approximately 150 providers are included in the transaction, which includes professionals in hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and assisted living facilities. Indigo was previously known as Hospitalists of Northwest Michigan, based out of Munson Medical Center.

Amith Skandhan, MD, SFHM, has been announced as Southeast Health Statera Network’s (Dothan, Ala.) director of physician integration, and chairman of the network’s Physicians Participation Committee. Dr. Skandhan is senior lead hospitalist with Southeast Health, where he has worked for nearly a decade. He also champions the medical group’s clinical documentation improvement faction.

One of just 10 hospitalists in the nation to receive Top Hospitalist recognition by the American College of Physicians in 2018, Dr. Skandhan is also an assistant professor at Alabama College of Osteopathic Medicine and is one of Southeast Health’s Internal Medicine Residency Program’s core faculty members.
 

Ruby Sahoo, DO, has been promoted by Team Health (Knoxville, Tenn.) as regional performance director of its hospitalist services performance improvement team. Dr. Sahoo joined Team Health in 2016 and has most recently served as medical director and chief of staff at Grand Strand Medical Center (Myrtle Beach, S.C.).

Dr. Sahoo is a highly decorated internist and hospitalist. She was Team Health’s Medical Director of the Year for Hospital Medicine 2018, and a Frist Humanitarian Award winner in 2017. Additionally, Dr. Sahoo is a member of the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American College of Physicians, and the American Association of Physician Leadership.
 

David Vandenberg, MD, SFHM, recently was elevated to chief medical officer at St. Joseph Mercy Hospital (Ann Arbor and Livingston, Mich.). The hospitalist and senior fellow of hospital medicine previously has been St. Joseph’s vice chair of internal medicine and medical director of care management and documentation integrity. Dr. Vandenberg has spent 20 years as an employee at St. Joseph’s.

Cristian Andrade, MD, has been elevated to vice president of medical affairs with St. Joseph’s Health (Syracuse, N.Y.). A 16-year veteran with St. Joseph’s, Dr. Andrade has been a hospitalist with the system since 2006, and most recently has served as chief of hospitalist services.

Dr. Andrade now will provide guidance focusing on improving length of stay, as well as staff governance, utilization review, and the hospitalist program in general.
 

Paul DeJac, MD, has received a promotion to chief of hospitalist medicine at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center (Buffalo, N.Y.). Dr. DeJac was hired at Roswell Park in 2016, becoming lead hospitalist in 2017. He will look to boost professional development on the hospitalist team with a focus on improving patient care.

Independent Emergency Physicians (Farmington, Mich.), which provides hospitalist physicians, ED physicians, scribes, and more at a handful of hospitals in Michigan, has added urgent care facilities in Southfield, Mich., and Novi, Mich., to its portfolio. In addition, IEP has joined with Healthy Urgent Care to create a network of up to 15 urgent care centers in Southeast Michigan.

This is IEP’s first foray into urgent care. The company was founded in 1997 and practices at Ascension Health, Trinity Health, and Henry Ford Health System, covering four different hospitals.

Private hospitalist management provider Sound Physicians (Tacoma, Wash.) has grown once again, acquiring Indigo Health Partners (Traverse City, Mich.), one of Michigan’s largest private hospitalist groups. The new company will be known as Indigo, a division of Sound Inpatient Physicians.

Indigo’s approximately 150 providers are included in the transaction, which includes professionals in hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and assisted living facilities. Indigo was previously known as Hospitalists of Northwest Michigan, based out of Munson Medical Center.

In November 2019, more than 1,500 pediatric hospitalists will be first to take the subspecialty exam approved by the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) for certification in pediatric hospital medicine (PHM). This landmark signifies the recognition of hospital medicine as an essential component of the health care landscape and further acknowledges the importance of our expanding field.

But recent controversy over the requirements set by the ABP to sit for the exam has highlighted the new considerations for practice management that will be associated with this change. The need to analyze and understand how PHM programs function has never been more important for hospital medicine groups that care for children. This information is essential if they are to remain nimble in their approach to the changes that will occur in the years ahead.

To understand the impact that the new subspecialty board exam will have on groups that care for children, we need to first understand the criteria for eligibility. As for all ABP subspecialty boards, applicants must be Pediatric Board certified. The ABP has established three pathways by which practitioners can attain eligibility to sit for the PHM exam.¹ Most currently practicing hospitalists have applied to take the exam under the “practice pathway,” which will be available temporarily to allow candidates to apply for the certifying exam based on experience rather than fellowship training. This temporary period will span the first three examination cycles (2019, 2021, 2023). The requirements for inclusion via this pathway, recently modified by the ABP in response to concerns voiced by the PHM community at large,² consist of the following:

1. Practice period of 4 years (with a start date of July 2015 to be eligible for the November 2019 exam.

2. Work hours for all PHM professional activities of more than 900-1000 hours/year.

3. Patient care hours in PHM of more than 450-500 hours per year, every year for the preceding 4 years.

4. Scope of practice covering the full range of hospitalized children.

5. Practice experience and hours acquired in the United States or Canada.

This set of criteria raises several questions about the eligibility of the physicians currently caring for children in the hospital setting. The State of Hospital Medicine Report is an excellent source of information about hospital medicine trends in staffing and much more. While the response to the survey is more robust from practices that care for adults only, important information can be gleaned from the participant groups that care for children.

Question 1: How many clinicians that care for children in the hospital are trained in pediatrics, thereby meeting the first criteria to sit for the boards?

Based on the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report, 100% of groups that treat only children had physicians trained in pediatrics, 41.7% employed physicians trained in med/peds, and 5.6% had clinicians trained in internal medicine.

In groups that treat both children and adults the variation in practitioner type was much broader. While 85.7% of groups reported employing physicians trained in internal medicine and 64.3% employed family medicine practitioners, only 35.7% reported employing physicians trained in pediatrics and 46.4% with training in med/peds. A smattering of other clinician types was also noted, most of which were not likely to be pediatrics trained.

If information based on this relatively small number of respondents is generalizable, it means that a large number of the practitioners currently caring for hospitalized children are not pediatrics board-certified and therefore will not be eligible to sit for the subspecialty exam.

Question 2: What portion of the current PHM new hires are fellowship trained?

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report notes that over 50% of new physicians joining a group treating only children come directly from residency, while only 5.1% come from a hospital medicine fellowship. For groups that treat adults and children, this percentage is even more significant, with 63% coming directly from residency and only 2.2% coming from a fellowship program.

The residents who recently graduated in 2019 are the last to be eligible to meet the practice duration criteria (4 years) during the “practice pathway” temporary period, thereby allowing them to sit for the subspecialty board exam without completing a fellowship. Recent surveys have shown that over 10% of graduating residents in pediatrics plan to pursue a career in PHM (over 280 respondents), however only under 75 fellows graduate from PHM fellowships each year.³ As the current number of fellowship positions in PHM are not adequate to meet the demand of the rapidly expanding workforce, groups treating children will need to continue to fill staff vacancies with variably trained clinicians.

In the years to come, information from the State of Hospital Medicine Report will be increasingly important, as programs that care for children meet the challenge of blending their workforce to include members with variable board certification and eligibility.

Question 3: How do the “patient care hours” and “work hours for all PHM activities” requirements affect currently practicing hospitalists in terms of their board eligibility?

Because of rigorous ABP criteria to sit for the PHM subspecialty exam, especially those regarding the minimum clinical and overall work hours in the care of children, many part time and med-peds practitioners may find that they are not board eligible. Variations in clinical coverage needs at individual sites, as well as competing nonclinical tasks in the adult setting, may limit pediatric-specific work hours for med/peds trained hospitalists.

As noted above, in groups that treat only children and groups that treat both adults and children, the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report shows that over 40% had physicians trained in med-peds. These highly trained and capable physicians will continue to be assets to their group; however, they may wish to find other ways to achieve merit-based distinction. For these physicians, the Fellow designation through SHM may provide an alternate means of recognition.

With the increasing complexity of staffing a workforce for the treatment of children that the PHM board subspecialty exam brings, the SHM Practice Analysis Committee developed a task force of pediatric leaders from across the country to aid in the development of additional pediatric-specific questions for the 2020 version of the State of Hospital Medicine Report. The questions to be included in the 2020 version will request information about the number of clinical hours (rather than shifts) per year required for full-time faculty, the percentage of the workforce that is part time, and the percentage of personnel in each group that is board certified in pediatric hospital medicine.

It is our hope that all groups treating children will respond to the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine survey, as a robust response will provide meaningful information to direct the leaders of these groups in the changing days ahead.

Dr. Gage is associate division chief, department of hospital medicine, at Phoenix Children’s Hospital and clinical associate professor, University of Arizona, Phoenix. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

References

1. American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. 2019 Edition.

2. American Board of Pediatrics. ABP responds to pediatric hospital medicine petition. 2019 Aug 29.

3. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellows. 2019 Edition.

In November 2019, more than 1,500 pediatric hospitalists will be first to take the subspecialty exam approved by the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) for certification in pediatric hospital medicine (PHM). This landmark signifies the recognition of hospital medicine as an essential component of the health care landscape and further acknowledges the importance of our expanding field.

But recent controversy over the requirements set by the ABP to sit for the exam has highlighted the new considerations for practice management that will be associated with this change. The need to analyze and understand how PHM programs function has never been more important for hospital medicine groups that care for children. This information is essential if they are to remain nimble in their approach to the changes that will occur in the years ahead.

To understand the impact that the new subspecialty board exam will have on groups that care for children, we need to first understand the criteria for eligibility. As for all ABP subspecialty boards, applicants must be Pediatric Board certified. The ABP has established three pathways by which practitioners can attain eligibility to sit for the PHM exam.¹ Most currently practicing hospitalists have applied to take the exam under the “practice pathway,” which will be available temporarily to allow candidates to apply for the certifying exam based on experience rather than fellowship training. This temporary period will span the first three examination cycles (2019, 2021, 2023). The requirements for inclusion via this pathway, recently modified by the ABP in response to concerns voiced by the PHM community at large,² consist of the following:

1. Practice period of 4 years (with a start date of July 2015 to be eligible for the November 2019 exam.

2. Work hours for all PHM professional activities of more than 900-1000 hours/year.

3. Patient care hours in PHM of more than 450-500 hours per year, every year for the preceding 4 years.

4. Scope of practice covering the full range of hospitalized children.

5. Practice experience and hours acquired in the United States or Canada.

This set of criteria raises several questions about the eligibility of the physicians currently caring for children in the hospital setting. The State of Hospital Medicine Report is an excellent source of information about hospital medicine trends in staffing and much more. While the response to the survey is more robust from practices that care for adults only, important information can be gleaned from the participant groups that care for children.

Question 1: How many clinicians that care for children in the hospital are trained in pediatrics, thereby meeting the first criteria to sit for the boards?

Based on the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report, 100% of groups that treat only children had physicians trained in pediatrics, 41.7% employed physicians trained in med/peds, and 5.6% had clinicians trained in internal medicine.

In groups that treat both children and adults the variation in practitioner type was much broader. While 85.7% of groups reported employing physicians trained in internal medicine and 64.3% employed family medicine practitioners, only 35.7% reported employing physicians trained in pediatrics and 46.4% with training in med/peds. A smattering of other clinician types was also noted, most of which were not likely to be pediatrics trained.

If information based on this relatively small number of respondents is generalizable, it means that a large number of the practitioners currently caring for hospitalized children are not pediatrics board-certified and therefore will not be eligible to sit for the subspecialty exam.

Question 2: What portion of the current PHM new hires are fellowship trained?

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report notes that over 50% of new physicians joining a group treating only children come directly from residency, while only 5.1% come from a hospital medicine fellowship. For groups that treat adults and children, this percentage is even more significant, with 63% coming directly from residency and only 2.2% coming from a fellowship program.

The residents who recently graduated in 2019 are the last to be eligible to meet the practice duration criteria (4 years) during the “practice pathway” temporary period, thereby allowing them to sit for the subspecialty board exam without completing a fellowship. Recent surveys have shown that over 10% of graduating residents in pediatrics plan to pursue a career in PHM (over 280 respondents), however only under 75 fellows graduate from PHM fellowships each year.³ As the current number of fellowship positions in PHM are not adequate to meet the demand of the rapidly expanding workforce, groups treating children will need to continue to fill staff vacancies with variably trained clinicians.

In the years to come, information from the State of Hospital Medicine Report will be increasingly important, as programs that care for children meet the challenge of blending their workforce to include members with variable board certification and eligibility.

Question 3: How do the “patient care hours” and “work hours for all PHM activities” requirements affect currently practicing hospitalists in terms of their board eligibility?

Because of rigorous ABP criteria to sit for the PHM subspecialty exam, especially those regarding the minimum clinical and overall work hours in the care of children, many part time and med-peds practitioners may find that they are not board eligible. Variations in clinical coverage needs at individual sites, as well as competing nonclinical tasks in the adult setting, may limit pediatric-specific work hours for med/peds trained hospitalists.

As noted above, in groups that treat only children and groups that treat both adults and children, the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report shows that over 40% had physicians trained in med-peds. These highly trained and capable physicians will continue to be assets to their group; however, they may wish to find other ways to achieve merit-based distinction. For these physicians, the Fellow designation through SHM may provide an alternate means of recognition.

With the increasing complexity of staffing a workforce for the treatment of children that the PHM board subspecialty exam brings, the SHM Practice Analysis Committee developed a task force of pediatric leaders from across the country to aid in the development of additional pediatric-specific questions for the 2020 version of the State of Hospital Medicine Report. The questions to be included in the 2020 version will request information about the number of clinical hours (rather than shifts) per year required for full-time faculty, the percentage of the workforce that is part time, and the percentage of personnel in each group that is board certified in pediatric hospital medicine.

It is our hope that all groups treating children will respond to the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine survey, as a robust response will provide meaningful information to direct the leaders of these groups in the changing days ahead.

Dr. Gage is associate division chief, department of hospital medicine, at Phoenix Children’s Hospital and clinical associate professor, University of Arizona, Phoenix. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

References

1. American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. 2019 Edition.

2. American Board of Pediatrics. ABP responds to pediatric hospital medicine petition. 2019 Aug 29.

3. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellows. 2019 Edition.

In November 2019, more than 1,500 pediatric hospitalists will be first to take the subspecialty exam approved by the American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) for certification in pediatric hospital medicine (PHM). This landmark signifies the recognition of hospital medicine as an essential component of the health care landscape and further acknowledges the importance of our expanding field.

But recent controversy over the requirements set by the ABP to sit for the exam has highlighted the new considerations for practice management that will be associated with this change. The need to analyze and understand how PHM programs function has never been more important for hospital medicine groups that care for children. This information is essential if they are to remain nimble in their approach to the changes that will occur in the years ahead.

To understand the impact that the new subspecialty board exam will have on groups that care for children, we need to first understand the criteria for eligibility. As for all ABP subspecialty boards, applicants must be Pediatric Board certified. The ABP has established three pathways by which practitioners can attain eligibility to sit for the PHM exam.¹ Most currently practicing hospitalists have applied to take the exam under the “practice pathway,” which will be available temporarily to allow candidates to apply for the certifying exam based on experience rather than fellowship training. This temporary period will span the first three examination cycles (2019, 2021, 2023). The requirements for inclusion via this pathway, recently modified by the ABP in response to concerns voiced by the PHM community at large,² consist of the following:

1. Practice period of 4 years (with a start date of July 2015 to be eligible for the November 2019 exam.

2. Work hours for all PHM professional activities of more than 900-1000 hours/year.

3. Patient care hours in PHM of more than 450-500 hours per year, every year for the preceding 4 years.

4. Scope of practice covering the full range of hospitalized children.

5. Practice experience and hours acquired in the United States or Canada.

This set of criteria raises several questions about the eligibility of the physicians currently caring for children in the hospital setting. The State of Hospital Medicine Report is an excellent source of information about hospital medicine trends in staffing and much more. While the response to the survey is more robust from practices that care for adults only, important information can be gleaned from the participant groups that care for children.

Question 1: How many clinicians that care for children in the hospital are trained in pediatrics, thereby meeting the first criteria to sit for the boards?

Based on the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report, 100% of groups that treat only children had physicians trained in pediatrics, 41.7% employed physicians trained in med/peds, and 5.6% had clinicians trained in internal medicine.

In groups that treat both children and adults the variation in practitioner type was much broader. While 85.7% of groups reported employing physicians trained in internal medicine and 64.3% employed family medicine practitioners, only 35.7% reported employing physicians trained in pediatrics and 46.4% with training in med/peds. A smattering of other clinician types was also noted, most of which were not likely to be pediatrics trained.

If information based on this relatively small number of respondents is generalizable, it means that a large number of the practitioners currently caring for hospitalized children are not pediatrics board-certified and therefore will not be eligible to sit for the subspecialty exam.

Question 2: What portion of the current PHM new hires are fellowship trained?

The 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report notes that over 50% of new physicians joining a group treating only children come directly from residency, while only 5.1% come from a hospital medicine fellowship. For groups that treat adults and children, this percentage is even more significant, with 63% coming directly from residency and only 2.2% coming from a fellowship program.

The residents who recently graduated in 2019 are the last to be eligible to meet the practice duration criteria (4 years) during the “practice pathway” temporary period, thereby allowing them to sit for the subspecialty board exam without completing a fellowship. Recent surveys have shown that over 10% of graduating residents in pediatrics plan to pursue a career in PHM (over 280 respondents), however only under 75 fellows graduate from PHM fellowships each year.³ As the current number of fellowship positions in PHM are not adequate to meet the demand of the rapidly expanding workforce, groups treating children will need to continue to fill staff vacancies with variably trained clinicians.

In the years to come, information from the State of Hospital Medicine Report will be increasingly important, as programs that care for children meet the challenge of blending their workforce to include members with variable board certification and eligibility.

Question 3: How do the “patient care hours” and “work hours for all PHM activities” requirements affect currently practicing hospitalists in terms of their board eligibility?

Because of rigorous ABP criteria to sit for the PHM subspecialty exam, especially those regarding the minimum clinical and overall work hours in the care of children, many part time and med-peds practitioners may find that they are not board eligible. Variations in clinical coverage needs at individual sites, as well as competing nonclinical tasks in the adult setting, may limit pediatric-specific work hours for med/peds trained hospitalists.

As noted above, in groups that treat only children and groups that treat both adults and children, the 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report shows that over 40% had physicians trained in med-peds. These highly trained and capable physicians will continue to be assets to their group; however, they may wish to find other ways to achieve merit-based distinction. For these physicians, the Fellow designation through SHM may provide an alternate means of recognition.

With the increasing complexity of staffing a workforce for the treatment of children that the PHM board subspecialty exam brings, the SHM Practice Analysis Committee developed a task force of pediatric leaders from across the country to aid in the development of additional pediatric-specific questions for the 2020 version of the State of Hospital Medicine Report. The questions to be included in the 2020 version will request information about the number of clinical hours (rather than shifts) per year required for full-time faculty, the percentage of the workforce that is part time, and the percentage of personnel in each group that is board certified in pediatric hospital medicine.

It is our hope that all groups treating children will respond to the 2020 State of Hospital Medicine survey, as a robust response will provide meaningful information to direct the leaders of these groups in the changing days ahead.

Dr. Gage is associate division chief, department of hospital medicine, at Phoenix Children’s Hospital and clinical associate professor, University of Arizona, Phoenix. She is a member of the SHM Practice Analysis Committee.

References

1. American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. 2019 Edition.

2. American Board of Pediatrics. ABP responds to pediatric hospital medicine petition. 2019 Aug 29.

3. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Fellows. 2019 Edition.

PHM19 session

Apps for busy pediatric hospitalists 2.0

Presenters

Tosin Adeyanju, MD, FAAP

Alexander Hogan, MD

Jane Im, MD, FAAP

Kim O’Hara, MD

Michael Tchou, MD, FAAP
 

Session summary

This presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019 started with the sharing of learning tools to help physicians stay current and organized with the ever-expanding body of medical literature.

The instructors shared content aggregators, such as Read by QxMD, that allow the user to follow multiple journals and highlight new articles based on the user’s preferences and chosen keywords. They also shared reference managers, such as Mendeley, which allows users to organize, store, and access their literature library from anywhere and can even be used to simplify citations and bibliographies in articles.

The presenters shared resources and applications that can be used to quickly access information on mobile devices. Applications, such as MDCalc and the CDC STD Tx Guide, can allow users to reference clinical calculators and treatment courses for teaching at the bedside. The presenters also introduced pharmaceutical applications like GoodRx, an application that allows patients and physicians to compare drug prices at various pharmacies. They also introduced the audience to Formulary Search by MMIT that helps users determine which medications are covered by an insurance plan. They also shared some applications that can help users deal with emergencies, like Ped Guide and Pedi Crisis. These apps can help users review emergency algorithms, dose emergency medications, and determine the sizes of emergency equipment.

The presenters closed by sharing teaching applications that allow users to increase interactions with presentation audiences or learners. Teaching tools like Kahoot! and Poll Everywhere allow users to gauge their audiences’ understanding of material. Online software, such as Slack.com and Microsoft.com, allows for collaboration and file sharing across institutions and integrate with many other services.
 

Key takeaways

• Content aggregators and reference managers help users organize and access literature from anywhere.

• Teaching tools encourage audience participation, immediate assessment of learners.

• Online software tools allow for easy collaboration and file sharing across institutions and easily integrate with many other services.

Dr. Gupta is a pediatric hospitalist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital.

PHM19 session

Apps for busy pediatric hospitalists 2.0

Presenters

Tosin Adeyanju, MD, FAAP

Alexander Hogan, MD

Jane Im, MD, FAAP

Kim O’Hara, MD

Michael Tchou, MD, FAAP
 

Session summary

This presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019 started with the sharing of learning tools to help physicians stay current and organized with the ever-expanding body of medical literature.

The instructors shared content aggregators, such as Read by QxMD, that allow the user to follow multiple journals and highlight new articles based on the user’s preferences and chosen keywords. They also shared reference managers, such as Mendeley, which allows users to organize, store, and access their literature library from anywhere and can even be used to simplify citations and bibliographies in articles.

The presenters shared resources and applications that can be used to quickly access information on mobile devices. Applications, such as MDCalc and the CDC STD Tx Guide, can allow users to reference clinical calculators and treatment courses for teaching at the bedside. The presenters also introduced pharmaceutical applications like GoodRx, an application that allows patients and physicians to compare drug prices at various pharmacies. They also introduced the audience to Formulary Search by MMIT that helps users determine which medications are covered by an insurance plan. They also shared some applications that can help users deal with emergencies, like Ped Guide and Pedi Crisis. These apps can help users review emergency algorithms, dose emergency medications, and determine the sizes of emergency equipment.

The presenters closed by sharing teaching applications that allow users to increase interactions with presentation audiences or learners. Teaching tools like Kahoot! and Poll Everywhere allow users to gauge their audiences’ understanding of material. Online software, such as Slack.com and Microsoft.com, allows for collaboration and file sharing across institutions and integrate with many other services.
 

Key takeaways

• Content aggregators and reference managers help users organize and access literature from anywhere.

• Teaching tools encourage audience participation, immediate assessment of learners.

• Online software tools allow for easy collaboration and file sharing across institutions and easily integrate with many other services.

Dr. Gupta is a pediatric hospitalist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital.

PHM19 session

Apps for busy pediatric hospitalists 2.0

Presenters

Tosin Adeyanju, MD, FAAP

Alexander Hogan, MD

Jane Im, MD, FAAP

Kim O’Hara, MD

Michael Tchou, MD, FAAP
 

Session summary

This presentation at Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019 started with the sharing of learning tools to help physicians stay current and organized with the ever-expanding body of medical literature.

The instructors shared content aggregators, such as Read by QxMD, that allow the user to follow multiple journals and highlight new articles based on the user’s preferences and chosen keywords. They also shared reference managers, such as Mendeley, which allows users to organize, store, and access their literature library from anywhere and can even be used to simplify citations and bibliographies in articles.

The presenters shared resources and applications that can be used to quickly access information on mobile devices. Applications, such as MDCalc and the CDC STD Tx Guide, can allow users to reference clinical calculators and treatment courses for teaching at the bedside. The presenters also introduced pharmaceutical applications like GoodRx, an application that allows patients and physicians to compare drug prices at various pharmacies. They also introduced the audience to Formulary Search by MMIT that helps users determine which medications are covered by an insurance plan. They also shared some applications that can help users deal with emergencies, like Ped Guide and Pedi Crisis. These apps can help users review emergency algorithms, dose emergency medications, and determine the sizes of emergency equipment.

The presenters closed by sharing teaching applications that allow users to increase interactions with presentation audiences or learners. Teaching tools like Kahoot! and Poll Everywhere allow users to gauge their audiences’ understanding of material. Online software, such as Slack.com and Microsoft.com, allows for collaboration and file sharing across institutions and integrate with many other services.
 

Key takeaways

• Content aggregators and reference managers help users organize and access literature from anywhere.

• Teaching tools encourage audience participation, immediate assessment of learners.

• Online software tools allow for easy collaboration and file sharing across institutions and easily integrate with many other services.

Dr. Gupta is a pediatric hospitalist at Phoenix Children’s Hospital.

It’s always important for everyone to remember why we document things in the chart so that we are on the same page and ultimately do what is best for the patient. We document for insurance companies to prove the need for hospitalization, for legal purposes, and for other clinicians – to clearly communicate the acuity of each patient.

One of the diagnoses that we can often forget to use is acute respiratory failure. Documenting acute respiratory failure matters, regardless if it is, or is not, the primary diagnosis; it increases the estimated Length of Stay (LOS), Severity of Illness (SOI), and Risk of Mortality (ROM). This diagnosis adds an additional degree of specificity to patients with pneumonia, pleural effusions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, etc. While we may be hesitant to document this (perhaps feeling that this applies only to patients who are intubated in the ICU), the reader will hopefully have more confidence using it after reviewing the diagnostic criteria.

Acute respiratory failure can stem from impaired oxygenation or impaired ventilation. The following are some examples that follow these principles:

• Impaired oxygenation. Can be seen in pneumonia, pulmonary edema, and pulmonary embolism, and can present as a low O₂ saturation or a low pO₂ on an arterial blood gas (ABG) test.
• Impaired ventilation. Can be seen in COPD or asthma where there is increased effort to ventilate the lungs, which can lead to impaired CO₂ exchange and subsequent acidosis.

One needs to have two of the following three criteria to make a formal diagnosis of acute respiratory failure:

• pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (hypoxemia).
• pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg (hypercapnia) with pH less than 7.35.
• Signs and symptoms of acute respiratory distress.

One may think that it would be difficult to meet criteria without an ABG. Although an ABG is the standard, a patient meets criteria 1 without a blood gas if an oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% is documented. Therefore, in most cases, if you have a documented oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% on room air with a physical exam showing signs of respiratory distress, your patient will qualify for the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure. This negates the need to always have an ABG.

It is important to document the symptoms and physical exam findings that go along with the diagnosis. Patients should have tachypnea with a respiratory rate (RR) greater than 20 or a decreased rate less than 10. They may have wheezing, difficulty moving air, nasal flaring, and accessory muscle use. All of these findings are extremely helpful to validate the diagnosis and would make it extremely difficult for it to be rejected by a biller or insurance company.

These patients are often given supplemental oxygen (nasal cannula, Venturi mask, non-rebreather) and other treatments including steroids, inhaled bronchodilators, mucolytics, and respiratory therapy. Documenting these interventions in your plans can assist reviewers trying to understand your thought process in the treatment of the patient. If your patient has to be initiated on bilevel positive airway pressure (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), this almost always means they have acute respiratory failure.

In the two tables accompanying this article, we see some examples of how documenting acute respiratory failure can improve LOS, ROM, SOI, and reimbursement. The number at the top is based off of a specific DRG (Diagnosis Related Group) that is used by coders.

Let’s say we have a 58-year-old male presenting with chest pain, shortness of breath, and concern for unstable angina. Given his symptoms, he is being taken to the cardiac catheterization lab. If we note only that he was hypoxic and required 3L for an O₂ saturation of 94%, one can see the ROM, SOI, estimated LOS, and reimbursement in the first column. However, if we write that his oxygen saturation on room air is 87%, he is using intercostal muscles to breathe, and he has marked dyspnea with conversation, we can say that he has acute respiratory failure. Making this distinction increases his expected LOS by almost 4 days and nearly doubles reimbursement.



For the second example, we have an 81-year-old female with diabetes type 2, hypertension, and chronic systolic congestive heart failure who presents with an acute systolic CHF exacerbation. The patient is saturating 85% on room air, has tachypnea (RR 34), and was given large doses of intravenous furosemide in the emergency department. She is stabilized with improvement in her respiratory rate and can go to the floor, but by documenting that this was acute respiratory failure, one can again see the significant improvements in the projected LOS, ROM, and reimbursement as opposed to documenting hypoxia. This has huge implications for our hospitals, and we should continue to strive to document this as clearly as possible.

 

Key take-home points for hospitalists

• Document accurately, including any comorbid conditions and major comorbid conditions that are applicable.
• Acute respiratory failure comes from impaired oxygenation, impaired ventilation, or both.
• One needs to document two of the three criteria to formally diagnose acute respiratory failure: pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (or room air oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90%), pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg with pH less than 7.35, and signs/symptoms of respiratory distress.
• Document physical exam findings that correlate with acute respiratory failure (RR greater than 20 or less than 10, wheezing, nasal flaring, accessory muscle use, etc).
• If your patient has to be initiated on BIPAP (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), they likely have acute respiratory failure.

Dr. DeCaro is a hospitalist and medical director for care coordination at Emory University in Atlanta.

It’s always important for everyone to remember why we document things in the chart so that we are on the same page and ultimately do what is best for the patient. We document for insurance companies to prove the need for hospitalization, for legal purposes, and for other clinicians – to clearly communicate the acuity of each patient.

One of the diagnoses that we can often forget to use is acute respiratory failure. Documenting acute respiratory failure matters, regardless if it is, or is not, the primary diagnosis; it increases the estimated Length of Stay (LOS), Severity of Illness (SOI), and Risk of Mortality (ROM). This diagnosis adds an additional degree of specificity to patients with pneumonia, pleural effusions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, etc. While we may be hesitant to document this (perhaps feeling that this applies only to patients who are intubated in the ICU), the reader will hopefully have more confidence using it after reviewing the diagnostic criteria.

Acute respiratory failure can stem from impaired oxygenation or impaired ventilation. The following are some examples that follow these principles:

• Impaired oxygenation. Can be seen in pneumonia, pulmonary edema, and pulmonary embolism, and can present as a low O₂ saturation or a low pO₂ on an arterial blood gas (ABG) test.
• Impaired ventilation. Can be seen in COPD or asthma where there is increased effort to ventilate the lungs, which can lead to impaired CO₂ exchange and subsequent acidosis.

One needs to have two of the following three criteria to make a formal diagnosis of acute respiratory failure:

• pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (hypoxemia).
• pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg (hypercapnia) with pH less than 7.35.
• Signs and symptoms of acute respiratory distress.

One may think that it would be difficult to meet criteria without an ABG. Although an ABG is the standard, a patient meets criteria 1 without a blood gas if an oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% is documented. Therefore, in most cases, if you have a documented oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% on room air with a physical exam showing signs of respiratory distress, your patient will qualify for the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure. This negates the need to always have an ABG.

It is important to document the symptoms and physical exam findings that go along with the diagnosis. Patients should have tachypnea with a respiratory rate (RR) greater than 20 or a decreased rate less than 10. They may have wheezing, difficulty moving air, nasal flaring, and accessory muscle use. All of these findings are extremely helpful to validate the diagnosis and would make it extremely difficult for it to be rejected by a biller or insurance company.

These patients are often given supplemental oxygen (nasal cannula, Venturi mask, non-rebreather) and other treatments including steroids, inhaled bronchodilators, mucolytics, and respiratory therapy. Documenting these interventions in your plans can assist reviewers trying to understand your thought process in the treatment of the patient. If your patient has to be initiated on bilevel positive airway pressure (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), this almost always means they have acute respiratory failure.

In the two tables accompanying this article, we see some examples of how documenting acute respiratory failure can improve LOS, ROM, SOI, and reimbursement. The number at the top is based off of a specific DRG (Diagnosis Related Group) that is used by coders.

Let’s say we have a 58-year-old male presenting with chest pain, shortness of breath, and concern for unstable angina. Given his symptoms, he is being taken to the cardiac catheterization lab. If we note only that he was hypoxic and required 3L for an O₂ saturation of 94%, one can see the ROM, SOI, estimated LOS, and reimbursement in the first column. However, if we write that his oxygen saturation on room air is 87%, he is using intercostal muscles to breathe, and he has marked dyspnea with conversation, we can say that he has acute respiratory failure. Making this distinction increases his expected LOS by almost 4 days and nearly doubles reimbursement.



For the second example, we have an 81-year-old female with diabetes type 2, hypertension, and chronic systolic congestive heart failure who presents with an acute systolic CHF exacerbation. The patient is saturating 85% on room air, has tachypnea (RR 34), and was given large doses of intravenous furosemide in the emergency department. She is stabilized with improvement in her respiratory rate and can go to the floor, but by documenting that this was acute respiratory failure, one can again see the significant improvements in the projected LOS, ROM, and reimbursement as opposed to documenting hypoxia. This has huge implications for our hospitals, and we should continue to strive to document this as clearly as possible.

 

Key take-home points for hospitalists

• Document accurately, including any comorbid conditions and major comorbid conditions that are applicable.
• Acute respiratory failure comes from impaired oxygenation, impaired ventilation, or both.
• One needs to document two of the three criteria to formally diagnose acute respiratory failure: pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (or room air oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90%), pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg with pH less than 7.35, and signs/symptoms of respiratory distress.
• Document physical exam findings that correlate with acute respiratory failure (RR greater than 20 or less than 10, wheezing, nasal flaring, accessory muscle use, etc).
• If your patient has to be initiated on BIPAP (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), they likely have acute respiratory failure.

Dr. DeCaro is a hospitalist and medical director for care coordination at Emory University in Atlanta.

It’s always important for everyone to remember why we document things in the chart so that we are on the same page and ultimately do what is best for the patient. We document for insurance companies to prove the need for hospitalization, for legal purposes, and for other clinicians – to clearly communicate the acuity of each patient.

One of the diagnoses that we can often forget to use is acute respiratory failure. Documenting acute respiratory failure matters, regardless if it is, or is not, the primary diagnosis; it increases the estimated Length of Stay (LOS), Severity of Illness (SOI), and Risk of Mortality (ROM). This diagnosis adds an additional degree of specificity to patients with pneumonia, pleural effusions, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) exacerbations, etc. While we may be hesitant to document this (perhaps feeling that this applies only to patients who are intubated in the ICU), the reader will hopefully have more confidence using it after reviewing the diagnostic criteria.

Acute respiratory failure can stem from impaired oxygenation or impaired ventilation. The following are some examples that follow these principles:

• Impaired oxygenation. Can be seen in pneumonia, pulmonary edema, and pulmonary embolism, and can present as a low O₂ saturation or a low pO₂ on an arterial blood gas (ABG) test.
• Impaired ventilation. Can be seen in COPD or asthma where there is increased effort to ventilate the lungs, which can lead to impaired CO₂ exchange and subsequent acidosis.

One needs to have two of the following three criteria to make a formal diagnosis of acute respiratory failure:

• pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (hypoxemia).
• pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg (hypercapnia) with pH less than 7.35.
• Signs and symptoms of acute respiratory distress.

One may think that it would be difficult to meet criteria without an ABG. Although an ABG is the standard, a patient meets criteria 1 without a blood gas if an oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% is documented. Therefore, in most cases, if you have a documented oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90% on room air with a physical exam showing signs of respiratory distress, your patient will qualify for the diagnosis of acute respiratory failure. This negates the need to always have an ABG.

It is important to document the symptoms and physical exam findings that go along with the diagnosis. Patients should have tachypnea with a respiratory rate (RR) greater than 20 or a decreased rate less than 10. They may have wheezing, difficulty moving air, nasal flaring, and accessory muscle use. All of these findings are extremely helpful to validate the diagnosis and would make it extremely difficult for it to be rejected by a biller or insurance company.

These patients are often given supplemental oxygen (nasal cannula, Venturi mask, non-rebreather) and other treatments including steroids, inhaled bronchodilators, mucolytics, and respiratory therapy. Documenting these interventions in your plans can assist reviewers trying to understand your thought process in the treatment of the patient. If your patient has to be initiated on bilevel positive airway pressure (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), this almost always means they have acute respiratory failure.

In the two tables accompanying this article, we see some examples of how documenting acute respiratory failure can improve LOS, ROM, SOI, and reimbursement. The number at the top is based off of a specific DRG (Diagnosis Related Group) that is used by coders.

Let’s say we have a 58-year-old male presenting with chest pain, shortness of breath, and concern for unstable angina. Given his symptoms, he is being taken to the cardiac catheterization lab. If we note only that he was hypoxic and required 3L for an O₂ saturation of 94%, one can see the ROM, SOI, estimated LOS, and reimbursement in the first column. However, if we write that his oxygen saturation on room air is 87%, he is using intercostal muscles to breathe, and he has marked dyspnea with conversation, we can say that he has acute respiratory failure. Making this distinction increases his expected LOS by almost 4 days and nearly doubles reimbursement.



For the second example, we have an 81-year-old female with diabetes type 2, hypertension, and chronic systolic congestive heart failure who presents with an acute systolic CHF exacerbation. The patient is saturating 85% on room air, has tachypnea (RR 34), and was given large doses of intravenous furosemide in the emergency department. She is stabilized with improvement in her respiratory rate and can go to the floor, but by documenting that this was acute respiratory failure, one can again see the significant improvements in the projected LOS, ROM, and reimbursement as opposed to documenting hypoxia. This has huge implications for our hospitals, and we should continue to strive to document this as clearly as possible.

 

Key take-home points for hospitalists

• Document accurately, including any comorbid conditions and major comorbid conditions that are applicable.
• Acute respiratory failure comes from impaired oxygenation, impaired ventilation, or both.
• One needs to document two of the three criteria to formally diagnose acute respiratory failure: pO₂ less than 60 mm Hg (or room air oxygen saturation less than or equal to 90%), pCO₂ greater than 50 mm Hg with pH less than 7.35, and signs/symptoms of respiratory distress.
• Document physical exam findings that correlate with acute respiratory failure (RR greater than 20 or less than 10, wheezing, nasal flaring, accessory muscle use, etc).
• If your patient has to be initiated on BIPAP (i.e. – the patient was not on BIPAP at home, but needed to be started because of his/her respiratory status), they likely have acute respiratory failure.

Dr. DeCaro is a hospitalist and medical director for care coordination at Emory University in Atlanta.

PHM19 session

Mitigating the harm we cause learners in medical education

Presenters

Benjamin Kinnear, MD, MEd

Andrew Olson, MD

Matthew Kelleher, MD, MEd

Session summary

Dr. Kinnear, Dr. Olson, and Dr. Kelleher expertly led this TED-Talk style session at Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019, convincing the audience that medical educators persistently harm the learners under their supervision.

Dr. Kinnear, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, opened the session noting that the path through medical school presently has a perverse focus on grades as a necessary achievement. As an expert in competency-based assessment, he asserted that the current learner assessment strategy is neither valid nor robust enough to indicate actual competence. Summary assessments presented throughout medical school are lacking continuous constructive feedback, leaving early residents in a state of shock when receiving corrective or negative assessments. He also noted that structurally many rotations create both team and patient discontinuity, leaving the learner with a feeling of detachment and limited ownership of the human patient under his/her/their care.

Dr. Olson of the University of Minnesota next described the need for the USMLE STEP 1 exam to be transitioned to a pass/fail endeavor. He cited the error of measurement of 24 points (i.e., the same test taker could have a 220 one day and a 244 the next) and the potential loss of valuable rotation experiences during the several-month period of intense study. He challenged audience members to complete an esoteric exam question to prove his point and asserted that many learners are lacking in humility, communication skills, and professionalism, and seek only the honors designation on rotations. He likened the experience of medical students on rotation and residents on service weeks to a series of first dates and affirmed the value of longitudinal learner-educator relationships.

Further, he outlined the detachment of learners from patient outcomes, demonstrated by frequent hand-offs and rotation transitions. Dr Olson also cited medical pedagogy as failing to meet the known needs of adult learners to engage in deliberate progressive practice, reflective practice, or to use concepts such as spacing or interleaving to reinforce knowledge.

Dr. Kelleher, also of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, ended the session by taking those in attendance on an imagined “what-if” journey where each of the wrongs currently done to early learners in medical education were corrected. This included engagement in daily reflection (5 minutes at a time), reporting system issues on rounds that had failed the patient, presenting learners with a CV of attending failures to reinforce the imperfection that is a reality in medicine, praising learners when they admit “they don’t know the answer” to a question posed on rounds, completing assessments in real time in the learner’s presence, rounding until specific feedback can be identified for each learner on the team, having a kiosk on each floor where ANY team member could provide feedback to learners, using cognitive science on rounds for teaching (i.e., Socratic) rather than pimping, modeling interprofessional teamwork daily using a culture of vulnerability rather than infallibility (i.e., airline culture), and by encouraging the attending to care for patients or complete tasks independently, showing the value of education over service and model ideal family-centered communication with the team.

One might wonder, if all of the above were accomplished at the request of our talented presenters, would a pass/fail USMLE world where medical education was learner centered and filled with longitudinal relationships with teams and patients, and outcomes were connected to education produce more engaged, knowledgeable, and holistic physicians? According to this team of presenters, yes.
 

Key takeaways

• Current processes in medical education are harming today’s adult learner.

• Harms include reliance on numerical rather than competency-based assessment, fragmented learning environments, focus on perfection rather than improvement, ignorance of updates in cognitive science for instructional methodology, and individualist rather than team-based learning.

• Reforms are needed to remedy harms in health professional education, including making USMLE pass/fail, creating a learning-centered rather than service-centered residency environment, encouraging longitudinal relationships between teacher and learner, and connecting education to clinical outcomes.

Dr. King is associate program director, University of Minnesota Pediatric Residency Program, Minneapolis.

PHM19 session

Mitigating the harm we cause learners in medical education

Presenters

Benjamin Kinnear, MD, MEd

Andrew Olson, MD

Matthew Kelleher, MD, MEd

Session summary

Dr. Kinnear, Dr. Olson, and Dr. Kelleher expertly led this TED-Talk style session at Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019, convincing the audience that medical educators persistently harm the learners under their supervision.

Dr. Kinnear, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, opened the session noting that the path through medical school presently has a perverse focus on grades as a necessary achievement. As an expert in competency-based assessment, he asserted that the current learner assessment strategy is neither valid nor robust enough to indicate actual competence. Summary assessments presented throughout medical school are lacking continuous constructive feedback, leaving early residents in a state of shock when receiving corrective or negative assessments. He also noted that structurally many rotations create both team and patient discontinuity, leaving the learner with a feeling of detachment and limited ownership of the human patient under his/her/their care.

Dr. Olson of the University of Minnesota next described the need for the USMLE STEP 1 exam to be transitioned to a pass/fail endeavor. He cited the error of measurement of 24 points (i.e., the same test taker could have a 220 one day and a 244 the next) and the potential loss of valuable rotation experiences during the several-month period of intense study. He challenged audience members to complete an esoteric exam question to prove his point and asserted that many learners are lacking in humility, communication skills, and professionalism, and seek only the honors designation on rotations. He likened the experience of medical students on rotation and residents on service weeks to a series of first dates and affirmed the value of longitudinal learner-educator relationships.

Further, he outlined the detachment of learners from patient outcomes, demonstrated by frequent hand-offs and rotation transitions. Dr Olson also cited medical pedagogy as failing to meet the known needs of adult learners to engage in deliberate progressive practice, reflective practice, or to use concepts such as spacing or interleaving to reinforce knowledge.

Dr. Kelleher, also of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, ended the session by taking those in attendance on an imagined “what-if” journey where each of the wrongs currently done to early learners in medical education were corrected. This included engagement in daily reflection (5 minutes at a time), reporting system issues on rounds that had failed the patient, presenting learners with a CV of attending failures to reinforce the imperfection that is a reality in medicine, praising learners when they admit “they don’t know the answer” to a question posed on rounds, completing assessments in real time in the learner’s presence, rounding until specific feedback can be identified for each learner on the team, having a kiosk on each floor where ANY team member could provide feedback to learners, using cognitive science on rounds for teaching (i.e., Socratic) rather than pimping, modeling interprofessional teamwork daily using a culture of vulnerability rather than infallibility (i.e., airline culture), and by encouraging the attending to care for patients or complete tasks independently, showing the value of education over service and model ideal family-centered communication with the team.

One might wonder, if all of the above were accomplished at the request of our talented presenters, would a pass/fail USMLE world where medical education was learner centered and filled with longitudinal relationships with teams and patients, and outcomes were connected to education produce more engaged, knowledgeable, and holistic physicians? According to this team of presenters, yes.
 

Key takeaways

• Current processes in medical education are harming today’s adult learner.

• Harms include reliance on numerical rather than competency-based assessment, fragmented learning environments, focus on perfection rather than improvement, ignorance of updates in cognitive science for instructional methodology, and individualist rather than team-based learning.

• Reforms are needed to remedy harms in health professional education, including making USMLE pass/fail, creating a learning-centered rather than service-centered residency environment, encouraging longitudinal relationships between teacher and learner, and connecting education to clinical outcomes.

Dr. King is associate program director, University of Minnesota Pediatric Residency Program, Minneapolis.

PHM19 session

Mitigating the harm we cause learners in medical education

Presenters

Benjamin Kinnear, MD, MEd

Andrew Olson, MD

Matthew Kelleher, MD, MEd

Session summary

Dr. Kinnear, Dr. Olson, and Dr. Kelleher expertly led this TED-Talk style session at Pediatric Hospital Medicine 2019, convincing the audience that medical educators persistently harm the learners under their supervision.

Dr. Kinnear, of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, opened the session noting that the path through medical school presently has a perverse focus on grades as a necessary achievement. As an expert in competency-based assessment, he asserted that the current learner assessment strategy is neither valid nor robust enough to indicate actual competence. Summary assessments presented throughout medical school are lacking continuous constructive feedback, leaving early residents in a state of shock when receiving corrective or negative assessments. He also noted that structurally many rotations create both team and patient discontinuity, leaving the learner with a feeling of detachment and limited ownership of the human patient under his/her/their care.

Dr. Olson of the University of Minnesota next described the need for the USMLE STEP 1 exam to be transitioned to a pass/fail endeavor. He cited the error of measurement of 24 points (i.e., the same test taker could have a 220 one day and a 244 the next) and the potential loss of valuable rotation experiences during the several-month period of intense study. He challenged audience members to complete an esoteric exam question to prove his point and asserted that many learners are lacking in humility, communication skills, and professionalism, and seek only the honors designation on rotations. He likened the experience of medical students on rotation and residents on service weeks to a series of first dates and affirmed the value of longitudinal learner-educator relationships.

Further, he outlined the detachment of learners from patient outcomes, demonstrated by frequent hand-offs and rotation transitions. Dr Olson also cited medical pedagogy as failing to meet the known needs of adult learners to engage in deliberate progressive practice, reflective practice, or to use concepts such as spacing or interleaving to reinforce knowledge.

Dr. Kelleher, also of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, ended the session by taking those in attendance on an imagined “what-if” journey where each of the wrongs currently done to early learners in medical education were corrected. This included engagement in daily reflection (5 minutes at a time), reporting system issues on rounds that had failed the patient, presenting learners with a CV of attending failures to reinforce the imperfection that is a reality in medicine, praising learners when they admit “they don’t know the answer” to a question posed on rounds, completing assessments in real time in the learner’s presence, rounding until specific feedback can be identified for each learner on the team, having a kiosk on each floor where ANY team member could provide feedback to learners, using cognitive science on rounds for teaching (i.e., Socratic) rather than pimping, modeling interprofessional teamwork daily using a culture of vulnerability rather than infallibility (i.e., airline culture), and by encouraging the attending to care for patients or complete tasks independently, showing the value of education over service and model ideal family-centered communication with the team.

One might wonder, if all of the above were accomplished at the request of our talented presenters, would a pass/fail USMLE world where medical education was learner centered and filled with longitudinal relationships with teams and patients, and outcomes were connected to education produce more engaged, knowledgeable, and holistic physicians? According to this team of presenters, yes.
 

Key takeaways

• Current processes in medical education are harming today’s adult learner.

• Harms include reliance on numerical rather than competency-based assessment, fragmented learning environments, focus on perfection rather than improvement, ignorance of updates in cognitive science for instructional methodology, and individualist rather than team-based learning.

• Reforms are needed to remedy harms in health professional education, including making USMLE pass/fail, creating a learning-centered rather than service-centered residency environment, encouraging longitudinal relationships between teacher and learner, and connecting education to clinical outcomes.

Dr. King is associate program director, University of Minnesota Pediatric Residency Program, Minneapolis.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

“You and I are living in a time when some miracle drugs no longer perform miracles and families are being ripped apart by a microscopic enemy. The time for action is now and we can be part of the solution,” said Robert R. Redfield, MD, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in his foreword to the new CDC report on antibiotic resistance.

In this update of the previous 2013 report, the CDC details how antibiotic-resistant bacteria and fungi cause more than 2.8 million infections and 35,000 deaths in the United States each year. The current report uses EHRs and other data sources obtained by the CDC for relevant infections extrapolated to develop national disease incidence. The report focuses on “the top 18 pathogens that require attention now,” advises specific steps be taken to address these pathogens, and puts into perspective the future of antibiotic development, their use and abuse, and the continuing threat of antibiotic resistance.

The CDC categorizes these 18 pathogens as either an urgent, serious, or concerning threat.

Urgent Threats

• Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia and wound, bloodstream, and urinary tract infections; they tend to affect patients in ICUs. Of particular concern, some Acinetobacter are resistant to nearly all antibiotics, with few new drugs in development (8,500 hospital infections in 2017; 700 deaths).
• Candida auris, a drug-resistant fungus that was first identified in 2009 in Asia and has quickly become a cause of severe infections around the world; it is extremely difficult to eradicate from health care settings. It began spreading in the United States in 2015, with 323 cases reported in 2018 (90% resistant to at least one antifungal, and 30% resistant to at least two antifungals).
• Clostridioides difficile, which can cause life-threatening diarrhea, most often in people who have taken antibiotics for other conditions. It is the most common health care–associated infection, and although decreasing in the health care system, it has not decreased in community settings (223,900 hospital infections in 2017, and 12,800 estimated deaths).
• Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae, which most frequently infect patients who require devices such as catheters and those taking long courses of some antibiotics. Of particular concern is the fact that these bacteria contain a transmissible plasmid that can transfer their drug resistance to other pathogens (13,100 hospital infections in 2017, and 1,100 estimated deaths).
• Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae, which is a sexually transmitted disease that can result in life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, lead to infertility, and can increase the risk of getting and giving HIV; it can also cause cardiovascular and neurological problems. It is resistant to all but one class of antibiotics, and half of all infections are resistant to at least one antibiotic (550,000 drug-resistant infections yearly).

Serious Threats

• Drug-resistant Campylobacter.
• Drug-resistant Candida.
• Extended spectrum beta-lactamase–producing Enterobacteriaceae.
• Vancomycin-resistant Enterococci.
• Multidrug-resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Drug-resistant nontyphoidal Salmonella.
• Drug-resistant Salmonella serotype Typhi.
• Drug-resistant Shigella.
• Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA).
• Drug-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae.
• Drug-resistant Tuberculosis.

Concerning Threats

These comprise erythromycin-resistant group A Streptococcus and clindamycin-resistant group B Streptococcus.

In addition, the CDC has established a Watch List of three pathogens to be wary of: azole-resistant Aspergillus fumigatus, drug-resistant Mycoplasma genitalium, and drug-resistant Bordetella pertussis.

Because antibiotic resistance is a global phenomenon caused by and affecting everyone, the CDC provided solutions to the problem of antibiotic resistance at every level of society. This “comprehensive and coordinated response implements the U.S. National Action Plan for Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria” and includes cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Agriculture, according to the report.

The key components of this response include using data and new technologies to detect and track antibiotic resistance; infection prevention and containment, especially in terms of outbreak response; improving antibiotic use across populations (one successful example being a 16% decrease of outpatient antibiotic prescribing to children during 2011-2017); improvements in the identification and intervention in the environment including water and soil and in sanitation; and a significant investment in vaccines, diagnostics, and novel therapeutics (the CDC provided nearly $110 million to 96 institutions for work in these areas).

The report also details some hope in the development of new antibiotics. As of June 2019, there were 42 new antibiotics in development, including 4 with new drug applications submitted, 17 with the potential to treat serious gram negative bacteria, and 11 that could address the urgent threats of gonorrhea or C. difficile. Overall, a quarter of these new antibiotics represent a novel drug class or use a novel mechanism of action.

Furthermore, 84% of U.S. hospitals report a stewardship program meeting all seven of CDC’s Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship. Proper stewardship is at the core of preventing the development of new antibiotic resistant pathogen strains.

In addition, the CDC noted a 5% overall decline in antibiotic prescribing in outpatient settings during 2011-2016.

“The problem will get worse if we do not act now, but we can make a difference,” according to Dr. Redfield. “Simply, here’s what works. Preventing infections protects everyone. Improving antibiotic use in people and animals slows the threat and helps preserve today’s drugs and those yet to come. Detecting threats and implementing interventions to keep germs from becoming widespread saves lives.”

In response to the release of the report, the AMA issued a supporting statement and cited its collection of educational resources for physicians focused on antibiotic use, resistance, and stewardship.

Similarly, the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America (SHEA) stated that hospitals were “a bright spot” in the CDC report and offered tools and resources available to educate and inform health care professionals about best practices in infection prevention and control, as well as antibiotic stewardship.

[email protected]

SOURCE: CDC. Antibiotic Resistance Threats in the United States 2019.

Quality improvement (QI) education has become increasingly seen as core content in graduate medical education, said Brian Wong, MD, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto. One of the most common strategies for teaching QI is to have residents participate in a QI project, in which hospitalists often take a leading role.

“Given the investment made and time spent carrying out these projects, it is important to know whether or not the training has led to the desired outcome from both a learning and a project standpoint,” Dr. Wong said, which is why he coauthored a recent editorial on the subject in BMJ Quality and Safety. QI educators have long recognized that it’s difficult to know whether the education was successful.

“For example, if the project was not successful, does it matter if the residents learned key QI principles that they were able to apply to their project work?” Dr. Wong noted. “Our perspective extends this discussion by asking, ‘What does success look like in QI education?’ We argue that rather than focusing on whether the project was successful or not, our real goal should be to create QI educational experiences that will ensure that residents change their behaviors in future practice to embrace QI as an activity that is core to their everyday work.”

Hospitalists have an important role in that. “They can set the stage for learners to recognize just how important it is to incorporate QI into daily work. Through this role modeling, residents who carry out QI projects can see that the lessons learned contribute to lifelong engagement in QI.”

Dr. Wong’s hope is to focus on the type of QI experience that fosters long-term behavior changes.

“We want residents, when they graduate, to embrace QI, to volunteer to participate in organizational initiatives, to welcome practice data and reflect on it for the purposes of continuous improvement, to collaborate interprofessionally to make small iterative changes to the care delivery system to ensure that patients receive the highest quality of care possible,” he said. “My hope is that we can start to think differently about how we measure success in QI education.”

Reference

1. Myers JS, Wong BM. Measuring outcomes in quality improvement education: Success is in the eye of the beholder. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008305.

Quality improvement (QI) education has become increasingly seen as core content in graduate medical education, said Brian Wong, MD, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto. One of the most common strategies for teaching QI is to have residents participate in a QI project, in which hospitalists often take a leading role.

“Given the investment made and time spent carrying out these projects, it is important to know whether or not the training has led to the desired outcome from both a learning and a project standpoint,” Dr. Wong said, which is why he coauthored a recent editorial on the subject in BMJ Quality and Safety. QI educators have long recognized that it’s difficult to know whether the education was successful.

“For example, if the project was not successful, does it matter if the residents learned key QI principles that they were able to apply to their project work?” Dr. Wong noted. “Our perspective extends this discussion by asking, ‘What does success look like in QI education?’ We argue that rather than focusing on whether the project was successful or not, our real goal should be to create QI educational experiences that will ensure that residents change their behaviors in future practice to embrace QI as an activity that is core to their everyday work.”

Hospitalists have an important role in that. “They can set the stage for learners to recognize just how important it is to incorporate QI into daily work. Through this role modeling, residents who carry out QI projects can see that the lessons learned contribute to lifelong engagement in QI.”

Dr. Wong’s hope is to focus on the type of QI experience that fosters long-term behavior changes.

“We want residents, when they graduate, to embrace QI, to volunteer to participate in organizational initiatives, to welcome practice data and reflect on it for the purposes of continuous improvement, to collaborate interprofessionally to make small iterative changes to the care delivery system to ensure that patients receive the highest quality of care possible,” he said. “My hope is that we can start to think differently about how we measure success in QI education.”

Reference

1. Myers JS, Wong BM. Measuring outcomes in quality improvement education: Success is in the eye of the beholder. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008305.

Quality improvement (QI) education has become increasingly seen as core content in graduate medical education, said Brian Wong, MD, FRCPC, of the University of Toronto. One of the most common strategies for teaching QI is to have residents participate in a QI project, in which hospitalists often take a leading role.

“Given the investment made and time spent carrying out these projects, it is important to know whether or not the training has led to the desired outcome from both a learning and a project standpoint,” Dr. Wong said, which is why he coauthored a recent editorial on the subject in BMJ Quality and Safety. QI educators have long recognized that it’s difficult to know whether the education was successful.

“For example, if the project was not successful, does it matter if the residents learned key QI principles that they were able to apply to their project work?” Dr. Wong noted. “Our perspective extends this discussion by asking, ‘What does success look like in QI education?’ We argue that rather than focusing on whether the project was successful or not, our real goal should be to create QI educational experiences that will ensure that residents change their behaviors in future practice to embrace QI as an activity that is core to their everyday work.”

Hospitalists have an important role in that. “They can set the stage for learners to recognize just how important it is to incorporate QI into daily work. Through this role modeling, residents who carry out QI projects can see that the lessons learned contribute to lifelong engagement in QI.”

Dr. Wong’s hope is to focus on the type of QI experience that fosters long-term behavior changes.

“We want residents, when they graduate, to embrace QI, to volunteer to participate in organizational initiatives, to welcome practice data and reflect on it for the purposes of continuous improvement, to collaborate interprofessionally to make small iterative changes to the care delivery system to ensure that patients receive the highest quality of care possible,” he said. “My hope is that we can start to think differently about how we measure success in QI education.”

Reference

1. Myers JS, Wong BM. Measuring outcomes in quality improvement education: Success is in the eye of the beholder. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Mar 18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008305.

E-cigarettes with behavioral support more effective than nicotine replacement for smoking cessation

A study of 886 randomized United Kingdom National Health Service stop-smoking service attendees showed better 1-year abstinence rates in the e-­­cigarette (18%) vs. nicotine replacement product (9%) group (risk ratio,1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.58) when both groups received behavioral support.

Citation: Hajek P et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 14;380:629-37.

New scoring system more accurate in diagnosing sepsis than qSOFA

Using retrospective data from 2,759,529 ED patients in 49 urban hospitals, and a supervised machine-learning process, the authors developed a Risk of Sepsis score, which demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity for detecting sepsis than the qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score.

Citation: Delahanty R et al. Development and evaluation of a machine learning model for the early identification of patients at risk for sepsis. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Apr;73(4):334-44.

Shared decision making may decrease risk of legal action

A randomized, controlled simulation experiment using a clinical vignette with an adverse outcome showed that when engaged in shared decision making, participants were less likely to consider taking legal action.

Citation: Schoenfeld EM et al. The effect of shared decision making on patients’ likelihood of filing a complaint or lawsuit: A simulation study. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 3. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.11.017.

ADA issues new inpatient diabetes care recommendations

The American Diabetes Association recommends that insulin therapy be initiated for a majority of inpatients who have persistent hyperglycemia greater than 180 mg/dL to target a blood glucose range of 140-180 mg/dL. They recommend the use of basal insulin or basal plus bolus insulin and discourage the sole use of sliding scale insulin.

Citation: American Diabetes Association. 15. Diabetes care in the hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(Suppl. 1):S173-81.

Beta-blocker use may reduce risk of COPD hospitalization

In a retrospective longitudinal study of 301,542 patients newly prescribed beta-blockers and 1,000,633 patients newly prescribed any other antihypertensive drug, patients who were treated with beta-blockers continuously for more than 6 months had a significantly lower risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and COPD death than did patients who received alternative antihypertensives. Patients with a history of COPD hospitalization were excluded from this study.

Citation: Nielsen AO et al. Beta-blocker therapy and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A Danish nationwide study of 1.3 million individuals. EClinicalMedicine. 2019;7:21-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.01.004.

E-cigarettes with behavioral support more effective than nicotine replacement for smoking cessation

A study of 886 randomized United Kingdom National Health Service stop-smoking service attendees showed better 1-year abstinence rates in the e-­­cigarette (18%) vs. nicotine replacement product (9%) group (risk ratio,1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.58) when both groups received behavioral support.

Citation: Hajek P et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 14;380:629-37.

New scoring system more accurate in diagnosing sepsis than qSOFA

Using retrospective data from 2,759,529 ED patients in 49 urban hospitals, and a supervised machine-learning process, the authors developed a Risk of Sepsis score, which demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity for detecting sepsis than the qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score.

Citation: Delahanty R et al. Development and evaluation of a machine learning model for the early identification of patients at risk for sepsis. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Apr;73(4):334-44.

Shared decision making may decrease risk of legal action

A randomized, controlled simulation experiment using a clinical vignette with an adverse outcome showed that when engaged in shared decision making, participants were less likely to consider taking legal action.

Citation: Schoenfeld EM et al. The effect of shared decision making on patients’ likelihood of filing a complaint or lawsuit: A simulation study. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 3. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.11.017.

ADA issues new inpatient diabetes care recommendations

The American Diabetes Association recommends that insulin therapy be initiated for a majority of inpatients who have persistent hyperglycemia greater than 180 mg/dL to target a blood glucose range of 140-180 mg/dL. They recommend the use of basal insulin or basal plus bolus insulin and discourage the sole use of sliding scale insulin.

Citation: American Diabetes Association. 15. Diabetes care in the hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(Suppl. 1):S173-81.

Beta-blocker use may reduce risk of COPD hospitalization

In a retrospective longitudinal study of 301,542 patients newly prescribed beta-blockers and 1,000,633 patients newly prescribed any other antihypertensive drug, patients who were treated with beta-blockers continuously for more than 6 months had a significantly lower risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and COPD death than did patients who received alternative antihypertensives. Patients with a history of COPD hospitalization were excluded from this study.

Citation: Nielsen AO et al. Beta-blocker therapy and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A Danish nationwide study of 1.3 million individuals. EClinicalMedicine. 2019;7:21-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.01.004.

E-cigarettes with behavioral support more effective than nicotine replacement for smoking cessation

A study of 886 randomized United Kingdom National Health Service stop-smoking service attendees showed better 1-year abstinence rates in the e-­­cigarette (18%) vs. nicotine replacement product (9%) group (risk ratio,1.83; 95% confidence interval, 1.30-2.58) when both groups received behavioral support.

Citation: Hajek P et al. A randomized trial of e-cigarettes versus nicotine-replacement therapy. N Eng J Med. 2019 Feb 14;380:629-37.

New scoring system more accurate in diagnosing sepsis than qSOFA

Using retrospective data from 2,759,529 ED patients in 49 urban hospitals, and a supervised machine-learning process, the authors developed a Risk of Sepsis score, which demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity for detecting sepsis than the qSOFA (Quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score.

Citation: Delahanty R et al. Development and evaluation of a machine learning model for the early identification of patients at risk for sepsis. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Apr;73(4):334-44.

Shared decision making may decrease risk of legal action

A randomized, controlled simulation experiment using a clinical vignette with an adverse outcome showed that when engaged in shared decision making, participants were less likely to consider taking legal action.

Citation: Schoenfeld EM et al. The effect of shared decision making on patients’ likelihood of filing a complaint or lawsuit: A simulation study. Ann Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 3. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2018.11.017.

ADA issues new inpatient diabetes care recommendations

The American Diabetes Association recommends that insulin therapy be initiated for a majority of inpatients who have persistent hyperglycemia greater than 180 mg/dL to target a blood glucose range of 140-180 mg/dL. They recommend the use of basal insulin or basal plus bolus insulin and discourage the sole use of sliding scale insulin.

Citation: American Diabetes Association. 15. Diabetes care in the hospital: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes-2019. Diabetes Care. 2019;42(Suppl. 1):S173-81.

Beta-blocker use may reduce risk of COPD hospitalization

In a retrospective longitudinal study of 301,542 patients newly prescribed beta-blockers and 1,000,633 patients newly prescribed any other antihypertensive drug, patients who were treated with beta-blockers continuously for more than 6 months had a significantly lower risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) hospitalization, all-cause mortality, and COPD death than did patients who received alternative antihypertensives. Patients with a history of COPD hospitalization were excluded from this study.

Citation: Nielsen AO et al. Beta-blocker therapy and risk of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A Danish nationwide study of 1.3 million individuals. EClinicalMedicine. 2019;7:21-6. doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2019.01.004.

Background: About half of ED patients with syncope of unknown etiology are admitted for telemetry monitoring. No consensus exists regarding the optimal duration of telemetry monitoring in these patients to detect underlying arrhythmia.

Dr. Roy is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Background: About half of ED patients with syncope of unknown etiology are admitted for telemetry monitoring. No consensus exists regarding the optimal duration of telemetry monitoring in these patients to detect underlying arrhythmia.

Dr. Roy is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Background: About half of ED patients with syncope of unknown etiology are admitted for telemetry monitoring. No consensus exists regarding the optimal duration of telemetry monitoring in these patients to detect underlying arrhythmia.

Dr. Roy is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Background: The standard of care for complex bone and joint infections includes the use of IV antibiotics. A prior meta-analysis suggested that the outcomes for bone and joint infections treated with oral and IV antibiotics are similar.

Dr. Roy is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Background: The standard of care for complex bone and joint infections includes the use of IV antibiotics. A prior meta-analysis suggested that the outcomes for bone and joint infections treated with oral and IV antibiotics are similar.

Dr. Roy is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Background: The standard of care for complex bone and joint infections includes the use of IV antibiotics. A prior meta-analysis suggested that the outcomes for bone and joint infections treated with oral and IV antibiotics are similar.

Dr. Roy is a hospitalist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and instructor in medicine at Harvard Medical School.