Latest News for HOSP

NEW ORLEANS – When initiated early, a palliative care consultation may increase the number of discharges to hospice critical care patients meeting certain end-of-life criteria, results of a recent randomized clinical trial suggest.

The rate of in-hospital mortality was lower for critical care patients receiving an early consultation, compared with those who received palliative care initiated according to usual standards in the randomized, controlled trial, described at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In addition, more health care surrogates were chosen in the hospital when palliative care medicine was involved earlier, according to investigator Scott Helgeson, MD, fellow in pulmonary critical care at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Taken together, Dr. Helgeson said, those findings suggest the importance of getting palliative care involved “very early, while the patient can still make decisions.”

“There are a lot of things that can get in the way of adequate conversations, and that’s when the palliative care team can come in,” Dr. Helgeson said in an interview.

This study is the first reported to date to look at the impact on patient care outcomes specifically within 24 hours of medical ICU admission, according to Dr. Helgeson and coinvestigators

In their randomized study, patients were eligible if they met at least one of several criteria, including advanced age (80 years or older), late-stage dementia, post–cardiac arrest, metastatic cancer, end-stage organ failure, recurrent ICU admissions, an APACHE II score of 14 or higher, a SOFA score of 9 or higher, preexisting functional dependency, or consideration for a tracheostomy or permanent feeding tube.

Of 29 patients randomized, 14 received early palliative care, and 15 received standard palliative care, which was defined as starting “whenever the treating team deems (it) is appropriate,” according to the published abstract.

Hospital mortality occurred in none of the patients in the early palliative care group, versus six in the usual care group (P = .01), Dr. Helgeson and colleagues found. Moreover, seven health care surrogates were chosen in hospital in the early palliative care group, versus none in the usual care group (P less than .01).

Length of stay in the ICU or in hospital did not vary by treatment group, according to the investigators.

About one-fifth of deaths in the United States take place in or around ICU admissions, according to the investigators, who noted that those admissions can result in changing goals from cure to comfort – though sometimes too late.

Dr. Helgeson and coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to this research presentation.

SOURCE: Helgeson S, et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.803.

NEW ORLEANS – When initiated early, a palliative care consultation may increase the number of discharges to hospice critical care patients meeting certain end-of-life criteria, results of a recent randomized clinical trial suggest.

The rate of in-hospital mortality was lower for critical care patients receiving an early consultation, compared with those who received palliative care initiated according to usual standards in the randomized, controlled trial, described at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In addition, more health care surrogates were chosen in the hospital when palliative care medicine was involved earlier, according to investigator Scott Helgeson, MD, fellow in pulmonary critical care at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Taken together, Dr. Helgeson said, those findings suggest the importance of getting palliative care involved “very early, while the patient can still make decisions.”

“There are a lot of things that can get in the way of adequate conversations, and that’s when the palliative care team can come in,” Dr. Helgeson said in an interview.

This study is the first reported to date to look at the impact on patient care outcomes specifically within 24 hours of medical ICU admission, according to Dr. Helgeson and coinvestigators

In their randomized study, patients were eligible if they met at least one of several criteria, including advanced age (80 years or older), late-stage dementia, post–cardiac arrest, metastatic cancer, end-stage organ failure, recurrent ICU admissions, an APACHE II score of 14 or higher, a SOFA score of 9 or higher, preexisting functional dependency, or consideration for a tracheostomy or permanent feeding tube.

Of 29 patients randomized, 14 received early palliative care, and 15 received standard palliative care, which was defined as starting “whenever the treating team deems (it) is appropriate,” according to the published abstract.

Hospital mortality occurred in none of the patients in the early palliative care group, versus six in the usual care group (P = .01), Dr. Helgeson and colleagues found. Moreover, seven health care surrogates were chosen in hospital in the early palliative care group, versus none in the usual care group (P less than .01).

Length of stay in the ICU or in hospital did not vary by treatment group, according to the investigators.

About one-fifth of deaths in the United States take place in or around ICU admissions, according to the investigators, who noted that those admissions can result in changing goals from cure to comfort – though sometimes too late.

Dr. Helgeson and coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to this research presentation.

SOURCE: Helgeson S, et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.803.

NEW ORLEANS – When initiated early, a palliative care consultation may increase the number of discharges to hospice critical care patients meeting certain end-of-life criteria, results of a recent randomized clinical trial suggest.

The rate of in-hospital mortality was lower for critical care patients receiving an early consultation, compared with those who received palliative care initiated according to usual standards in the randomized, controlled trial, described at the annual meeting of the American College of Chest Physicians.

In addition, more health care surrogates were chosen in the hospital when palliative care medicine was involved earlier, according to investigator Scott Helgeson, MD, fellow in pulmonary critical care at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla.

Taken together, Dr. Helgeson said, those findings suggest the importance of getting palliative care involved “very early, while the patient can still make decisions.”

“There are a lot of things that can get in the way of adequate conversations, and that’s when the palliative care team can come in,” Dr. Helgeson said in an interview.

This study is the first reported to date to look at the impact on patient care outcomes specifically within 24 hours of medical ICU admission, according to Dr. Helgeson and coinvestigators

In their randomized study, patients were eligible if they met at least one of several criteria, including advanced age (80 years or older), late-stage dementia, post–cardiac arrest, metastatic cancer, end-stage organ failure, recurrent ICU admissions, an APACHE II score of 14 or higher, a SOFA score of 9 or higher, preexisting functional dependency, or consideration for a tracheostomy or permanent feeding tube.

Of 29 patients randomized, 14 received early palliative care, and 15 received standard palliative care, which was defined as starting “whenever the treating team deems (it) is appropriate,” according to the published abstract.

Hospital mortality occurred in none of the patients in the early palliative care group, versus six in the usual care group (P = .01), Dr. Helgeson and colleagues found. Moreover, seven health care surrogates were chosen in hospital in the early palliative care group, versus none in the usual care group (P less than .01).

Length of stay in the ICU or in hospital did not vary by treatment group, according to the investigators.

About one-fifth of deaths in the United States take place in or around ICU admissions, according to the investigators, who noted that those admissions can result in changing goals from cure to comfort – though sometimes too late.

Dr. Helgeson and coauthors disclosed that they had no relationships relevant to this research presentation.

SOURCE: Helgeson S, et al. CHEST 2019. Abstract, doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2019.08.803.

Guidelines on the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding have been updated, including recommendations on managing patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy and on use of endoscopy and new therapeutic approaches.

Writing in Annals of Internal Medicine, an international group of experts published an update to the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding, with a focus on resuscitation and risk assessment; pre-endoscopic, endoscopic, and pharmacologic management; and secondary prophylaxis.

Alan N. Barkun, MDCM, MSc, from McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors first recommended that fluid resuscitation should be initiated in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and hemodynamic instability to avoid hemorrhagic shock and restore end-organ perfusion and tissue oxygenation while the bleeding is brought under control.

They acknowledged the uncertainty around whether colloid or crystalloid fluid should be used, but suggested routine use of colloids was not justified because they were more expensive and did not appear to increase survival.

On the question of whether the resuscitation should be aggressive or restrictive in its timing and rate, the group said there was not enough evidence to support a recommendation on this. “The important issue in patients with hemorrhagic shock due to trauma or UGIB [upper gastrointestinal bleeding] is to stop the bleeding while minimizing hemodynamic compromise,” they wrote.

They also advised blood transfusions in patients with a hemoglobin level below 80 g/L who did not have underlying cardiovascular disease, but suggested a higher hemoglobin threshold for those with underlying cardiovascular disease.

The second recommendation was that patients with a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less were at very low risk for rebleeding and mortality, and these patients may therefore not need hospitalization or inpatient endoscopy. They advised against using the AIMS65 prognostic score for this purpose because it was designed to identify patients at high risk of death, not those at low risk for safe discharge.

In regard to endoscopic management, they advocated that all patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding – whether low or high risk – undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. This was even more urgent in patients being treated with anticoagulants. “Because of the recognized benefits of early endoscopy, coagulopathy should be treated as necessary but endoscopy should not be delayed,” they wrote.

Patients with acutely bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata should undergo endoscopic therapy preferably with thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection, or with hemoclips depending on the bleeding location and patient characteristics.

The group also included two conditional recommendations, based on very-low-quality evidence, that patients with actively bleeding ulcers receive TC-325 hemostatic powder as temporizing therapy to stop the bleeding if conventional endoscopic therapies aren’t available or fail. However, they stressed that TC-325 should not be used as a single therapeutic strategy.

Because of a lack of efficacy data and low availability of expertise in the technology, the authors said they could not make a recommendation for or against using a Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) to assess the need for further endoscopic therapy.

“The group generally agreed that although making a recommendation for or against using DEP to manage UGIB is premature, DEP has the potential to alter the usual approach to visually assessing bleeding lesion risk when evaluating the need for, and adequacy of, endoscopic hemostasis.”

The guidelines also addressed the issue of pharmacologic management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. They strongly recommended that patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata who have undergone successful endoscopic therapy should then receive an intravenous loading dose of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, followed by continuous intravenous infusion.

“Cost-effectiveness studies have suggested that high-dose intravenous PPIs after successful endoscopic hemostasis improve outcomes at a modest cost increase relative to non–high-dose intravenous or oral PPI strategies,” they wrote.

A second conditional recommendation, based on very-low-quality evidence, was that patients with a bleeding ulcer who were at high risk for rebleeding be also treated twice-daily with oral PPIs for 2 weeks, then once-daily. They also recommended patients on cardiovascular prophylaxis with single or dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulant therapy be given PPIs.

“The consensus group concluded that, for high-risk patients with an ongoing need for anticoagulants, the evidence suggests that the benefits of secondary prophylaxis outweigh the risks.”

The group was supported by a grant from CIHR Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes and from the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. Nine authors declared grants, personal fees, honoraria and other funding from the pharmaceutical and medical device sector outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Barkun A et al. Ann Intern Med 2019, October 22. doi: 10.7326/M19-1795.

Guidelines on the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding have been updated, including recommendations on managing patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy and on use of endoscopy and new therapeutic approaches.

Writing in Annals of Internal Medicine, an international group of experts published an update to the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding, with a focus on resuscitation and risk assessment; pre-endoscopic, endoscopic, and pharmacologic management; and secondary prophylaxis.

Alan N. Barkun, MDCM, MSc, from McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors first recommended that fluid resuscitation should be initiated in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and hemodynamic instability to avoid hemorrhagic shock and restore end-organ perfusion and tissue oxygenation while the bleeding is brought under control.

They acknowledged the uncertainty around whether colloid or crystalloid fluid should be used, but suggested routine use of colloids was not justified because they were more expensive and did not appear to increase survival.

On the question of whether the resuscitation should be aggressive or restrictive in its timing and rate, the group said there was not enough evidence to support a recommendation on this. “The important issue in patients with hemorrhagic shock due to trauma or UGIB [upper gastrointestinal bleeding] is to stop the bleeding while minimizing hemodynamic compromise,” they wrote.

They also advised blood transfusions in patients with a hemoglobin level below 80 g/L who did not have underlying cardiovascular disease, but suggested a higher hemoglobin threshold for those with underlying cardiovascular disease.

The second recommendation was that patients with a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less were at very low risk for rebleeding and mortality, and these patients may therefore not need hospitalization or inpatient endoscopy. They advised against using the AIMS65 prognostic score for this purpose because it was designed to identify patients at high risk of death, not those at low risk for safe discharge.

In regard to endoscopic management, they advocated that all patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding – whether low or high risk – undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. This was even more urgent in patients being treated with anticoagulants. “Because of the recognized benefits of early endoscopy, coagulopathy should be treated as necessary but endoscopy should not be delayed,” they wrote.

Patients with acutely bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata should undergo endoscopic therapy preferably with thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection, or with hemoclips depending on the bleeding location and patient characteristics.

The group also included two conditional recommendations, based on very-low-quality evidence, that patients with actively bleeding ulcers receive TC-325 hemostatic powder as temporizing therapy to stop the bleeding if conventional endoscopic therapies aren’t available or fail. However, they stressed that TC-325 should not be used as a single therapeutic strategy.

Because of a lack of efficacy data and low availability of expertise in the technology, the authors said they could not make a recommendation for or against using a Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) to assess the need for further endoscopic therapy.

“The group generally agreed that although making a recommendation for or against using DEP to manage UGIB is premature, DEP has the potential to alter the usual approach to visually assessing bleeding lesion risk when evaluating the need for, and adequacy of, endoscopic hemostasis.”

The guidelines also addressed the issue of pharmacologic management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. They strongly recommended that patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata who have undergone successful endoscopic therapy should then receive an intravenous loading dose of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, followed by continuous intravenous infusion.

“Cost-effectiveness studies have suggested that high-dose intravenous PPIs after successful endoscopic hemostasis improve outcomes at a modest cost increase relative to non–high-dose intravenous or oral PPI strategies,” they wrote.

A second conditional recommendation, based on very-low-quality evidence, was that patients with a bleeding ulcer who were at high risk for rebleeding be also treated twice-daily with oral PPIs for 2 weeks, then once-daily. They also recommended patients on cardiovascular prophylaxis with single or dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulant therapy be given PPIs.

“The consensus group concluded that, for high-risk patients with an ongoing need for anticoagulants, the evidence suggests that the benefits of secondary prophylaxis outweigh the risks.”

The group was supported by a grant from CIHR Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes and from the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. Nine authors declared grants, personal fees, honoraria and other funding from the pharmaceutical and medical device sector outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Barkun A et al. Ann Intern Med 2019, October 22. doi: 10.7326/M19-1795.

Guidelines on the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding have been updated, including recommendations on managing patients on antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy and on use of endoscopy and new therapeutic approaches.

Writing in Annals of Internal Medicine, an international group of experts published an update to the 2010 International Consensus Recommendations on the Management of Patients With Nonvariceal Upper Gastrointestinal Bleeding, with a focus on resuscitation and risk assessment; pre-endoscopic, endoscopic, and pharmacologic management; and secondary prophylaxis.

Alan N. Barkun, MDCM, MSc, from McGill University, Montreal, and coauthors first recommended that fluid resuscitation should be initiated in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding and hemodynamic instability to avoid hemorrhagic shock and restore end-organ perfusion and tissue oxygenation while the bleeding is brought under control.

They acknowledged the uncertainty around whether colloid or crystalloid fluid should be used, but suggested routine use of colloids was not justified because they were more expensive and did not appear to increase survival.

On the question of whether the resuscitation should be aggressive or restrictive in its timing and rate, the group said there was not enough evidence to support a recommendation on this. “The important issue in patients with hemorrhagic shock due to trauma or UGIB [upper gastrointestinal bleeding] is to stop the bleeding while minimizing hemodynamic compromise,” they wrote.

They also advised blood transfusions in patients with a hemoglobin level below 80 g/L who did not have underlying cardiovascular disease, but suggested a higher hemoglobin threshold for those with underlying cardiovascular disease.

The second recommendation was that patients with a Glasgow Blatchford score of 1 or less were at very low risk for rebleeding and mortality, and these patients may therefore not need hospitalization or inpatient endoscopy. They advised against using the AIMS65 prognostic score for this purpose because it was designed to identify patients at high risk of death, not those at low risk for safe discharge.

In regard to endoscopic management, they advocated that all patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding – whether low or high risk – undergo endoscopy within 24 hours of presentation. This was even more urgent in patients being treated with anticoagulants. “Because of the recognized benefits of early endoscopy, coagulopathy should be treated as necessary but endoscopy should not be delayed,” they wrote.

Patients with acutely bleeding ulcers with high-risk stigmata should undergo endoscopic therapy preferably with thermocoagulation or sclerosant injection, or with hemoclips depending on the bleeding location and patient characteristics.

The group also included two conditional recommendations, based on very-low-quality evidence, that patients with actively bleeding ulcers receive TC-325 hemostatic powder as temporizing therapy to stop the bleeding if conventional endoscopic therapies aren’t available or fail. However, they stressed that TC-325 should not be used as a single therapeutic strategy.

Because of a lack of efficacy data and low availability of expertise in the technology, the authors said they could not make a recommendation for or against using a Doppler endoscopic probe (DEP) to assess the need for further endoscopic therapy.

“The group generally agreed that although making a recommendation for or against using DEP to manage UGIB is premature, DEP has the potential to alter the usual approach to visually assessing bleeding lesion risk when evaluating the need for, and adequacy of, endoscopic hemostasis.”

The guidelines also addressed the issue of pharmacologic management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. They strongly recommended that patients with bleeding ulcers and high-risk stigmata who have undergone successful endoscopic therapy should then receive an intravenous loading dose of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, followed by continuous intravenous infusion.

“Cost-effectiveness studies have suggested that high-dose intravenous PPIs after successful endoscopic hemostasis improve outcomes at a modest cost increase relative to non–high-dose intravenous or oral PPI strategies,” they wrote.

A second conditional recommendation, based on very-low-quality evidence, was that patients with a bleeding ulcer who were at high risk for rebleeding be also treated twice-daily with oral PPIs for 2 weeks, then once-daily. They also recommended patients on cardiovascular prophylaxis with single or dual antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulant therapy be given PPIs.

“The consensus group concluded that, for high-risk patients with an ongoing need for anticoagulants, the evidence suggests that the benefits of secondary prophylaxis outweigh the risks.”

The group was supported by a grant from CIHR Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes and from the Saudi Gastroenterology Association. Nine authors declared grants, personal fees, honoraria and other funding from the pharmaceutical and medical device sector outside the submitted work. No other conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Barkun A et al. Ann Intern Med 2019, October 22. doi: 10.7326/M19-1795.

An update to the 2007 guidelines on the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) was published by two medical societies, based upon the work of a multidisciplinary panel that “conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations.”

copyright stockdevil/Thinkstock

The panel addressed 16 questions in the areas including diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Some of their recommendations remained unchanged from the 2007 guideline, but others were updated based upon more-recent clinical trials and epidemiological studies, according to Joshua P. Metlay, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.

Among the key recommendations differing from the previous guidelines, the 2019 guidelines include the following:

• Sputum and blood culture samples are recommended in patients with severe disease, as well as in all inpatients empirically treated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Macrolide monotherapy is only conditionally recommended for outpatients based on resistance levels.
• Procalcitonin assessment, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended in order to determine initial antibiotic therapy.
• Corticosteroid use, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended, though it may be considered in patients with refractory septic shock.
• The use of health care–associated pneumonia (HCAP) as a category should be dropped, with a switch to an emphasis on local epidemiology and validated risk factors to determine the need for MRSA or P. aeruginosa treatment.
• Standard empiric therapy for severe CAP should be beta-lactam/macrolide and beta-lactam/fluoroquinolone combinations, but with stronger evidence in favor of the beta-lactam/macrolide combination.

The updated guidelines also include a number of other recommendations, such as those dealing with the management of patients with comorbidities, and were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

“A difference between this guideline and previous ones is that we have significantly increased the proportion of patients in whom we recommend routinely obtaining respiratory tract samples for microbiologic studies. This decision is largely based on a desire to correct the overuse of anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy that has occurred since the introduction of the HCAP classification (which we recommend abandoning) rather than high-quality evidence,” the authors stated in their conclusions. They added that they “expect our move against endorsing monotherapy with macrolides, which is based on population resistance data rather than high-quality clinical studies, will generate future outcomes studies comparing different treatment strategies.”

Many of the authors reported relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies; full disclosures are detailed at the end of the guideline publication.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Metlay JP et al. Am J Respir Crit Med. 2019;200(7):e45-67.

An update to the 2007 guidelines on the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) was published by two medical societies, based upon the work of a multidisciplinary panel that “conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations.”

copyright stockdevil/Thinkstock

The panel addressed 16 questions in the areas including diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Some of their recommendations remained unchanged from the 2007 guideline, but others were updated based upon more-recent clinical trials and epidemiological studies, according to Joshua P. Metlay, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.

Among the key recommendations differing from the previous guidelines, the 2019 guidelines include the following:

• Sputum and blood culture samples are recommended in patients with severe disease, as well as in all inpatients empirically treated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Macrolide monotherapy is only conditionally recommended for outpatients based on resistance levels.
• Procalcitonin assessment, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended in order to determine initial antibiotic therapy.
• Corticosteroid use, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended, though it may be considered in patients with refractory septic shock.
• The use of health care–associated pneumonia (HCAP) as a category should be dropped, with a switch to an emphasis on local epidemiology and validated risk factors to determine the need for MRSA or P. aeruginosa treatment.
• Standard empiric therapy for severe CAP should be beta-lactam/macrolide and beta-lactam/fluoroquinolone combinations, but with stronger evidence in favor of the beta-lactam/macrolide combination.

The updated guidelines also include a number of other recommendations, such as those dealing with the management of patients with comorbidities, and were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

“A difference between this guideline and previous ones is that we have significantly increased the proportion of patients in whom we recommend routinely obtaining respiratory tract samples for microbiologic studies. This decision is largely based on a desire to correct the overuse of anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy that has occurred since the introduction of the HCAP classification (which we recommend abandoning) rather than high-quality evidence,” the authors stated in their conclusions. They added that they “expect our move against endorsing monotherapy with macrolides, which is based on population resistance data rather than high-quality clinical studies, will generate future outcomes studies comparing different treatment strategies.”

Many of the authors reported relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies; full disclosures are detailed at the end of the guideline publication.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Metlay JP et al. Am J Respir Crit Med. 2019;200(7):e45-67.

An update to the 2007 guidelines on the treatment of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) was published by two medical societies, based upon the work of a multidisciplinary panel that “conducted pragmatic systematic reviews of the relevant research and applied Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology for clinical recommendations.”

copyright stockdevil/Thinkstock

The panel addressed 16 questions in the areas including diagnostic testing, determination of site of care, selection of initial empiric antibiotic therapy, and subsequent management decisions. Some of their recommendations remained unchanged from the 2007 guideline, but others were updated based upon more-recent clinical trials and epidemiological studies, according to Joshua P. Metlay, MD, of Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, and colleagues on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American Thoracic Society.

Among the key recommendations differing from the previous guidelines, the 2019 guidelines include the following:

• Sputum and blood culture samples are recommended in patients with severe disease, as well as in all inpatients empirically treated for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) or Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
• Macrolide monotherapy is only conditionally recommended for outpatients based on resistance levels.
• Procalcitonin assessment, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended in order to determine initial antibiotic therapy.
• Corticosteroid use, not covered in the 2007 guidelines, is not recommended, though it may be considered in patients with refractory septic shock.
• The use of health care–associated pneumonia (HCAP) as a category should be dropped, with a switch to an emphasis on local epidemiology and validated risk factors to determine the need for MRSA or P. aeruginosa treatment.
• Standard empiric therapy for severe CAP should be beta-lactam/macrolide and beta-lactam/fluoroquinolone combinations, but with stronger evidence in favor of the beta-lactam/macrolide combination.

The updated guidelines also include a number of other recommendations, such as those dealing with the management of patients with comorbidities, and were published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

“A difference between this guideline and previous ones is that we have significantly increased the proportion of patients in whom we recommend routinely obtaining respiratory tract samples for microbiologic studies. This decision is largely based on a desire to correct the overuse of anti-MRSA and antipseudomonal therapy that has occurred since the introduction of the HCAP classification (which we recommend abandoning) rather than high-quality evidence,” the authors stated in their conclusions. They added that they “expect our move against endorsing monotherapy with macrolides, which is based on population resistance data rather than high-quality clinical studies, will generate future outcomes studies comparing different treatment strategies.”

Many of the authors reported relationships with a variety of pharmaceutical companies; full disclosures are detailed at the end of the guideline publication.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Metlay JP et al. Am J Respir Crit Med. 2019;200(7):e45-67.

In 2017, the United States spent $3.5 trillion on health care, and that number is projected to be close 20% of our GDP over the next 10 years. For consumers, prescription drugs feel like the biggest contributor.

“Although pharmaceutical spending accounts for less than 10% of health care spending, consumers bear much more of the out-of-pocket cost of the prescription drugs through copays or coinsurance at the pharmacy counter than they pay for hospital or physician costs,” said Tanisha Carino, PhD, author of a Health Affairs blog post about directions for innovation in health care. “This experience has led to rising concerns among Americans about the cost of prescription drugs.”

In fact, a December 2018 Politico-Harvard poll showed Americans from both political parties overwhelmingly agreed that taking action to lower drug prices should have been the top priority of the new Congress that took office in January of this year.

“Addressing the affordability of prescription drugs will require investing in medical research and policies that speed new products to the market that will promote competition and, hopefully, will hold down prices and offer greater choice to patients,” said Dr. Carino, who is executive director of FasterCures, a center of the Milken Institute devoted to improving the biomedical innovation ecosystem. “Policymakers have an opportunity to address the immediate concerns patients have in affording their medication.”

According to Dr. Carino, policymakers can also continue to encourage health-improving medical innovation through the following:

• Boosting investment in research and development.
• Increasing safety and coordination of health data for biomedical research.
• Incentivizing innovation in underinvested areas.
• Building the capacity of patient organizations.

Hospitalists, she added, will play a critical role in participating in the clinical research that will lead to the next generation of treatments.
 

Reference

1. Carino T. “To get more bang for your health-care buck, invest in innovation.” Health Affairs Blog. 2019 Jan 24. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190123.483080. Accessed Feb. 6, 2019.

In 2017, the United States spent $3.5 trillion on health care, and that number is projected to be close 20% of our GDP over the next 10 years. For consumers, prescription drugs feel like the biggest contributor.

“Although pharmaceutical spending accounts for less than 10% of health care spending, consumers bear much more of the out-of-pocket cost of the prescription drugs through copays or coinsurance at the pharmacy counter than they pay for hospital or physician costs,” said Tanisha Carino, PhD, author of a Health Affairs blog post about directions for innovation in health care. “This experience has led to rising concerns among Americans about the cost of prescription drugs.”

In fact, a December 2018 Politico-Harvard poll showed Americans from both political parties overwhelmingly agreed that taking action to lower drug prices should have been the top priority of the new Congress that took office in January of this year.

“Addressing the affordability of prescription drugs will require investing in medical research and policies that speed new products to the market that will promote competition and, hopefully, will hold down prices and offer greater choice to patients,” said Dr. Carino, who is executive director of FasterCures, a center of the Milken Institute devoted to improving the biomedical innovation ecosystem. “Policymakers have an opportunity to address the immediate concerns patients have in affording their medication.”

According to Dr. Carino, policymakers can also continue to encourage health-improving medical innovation through the following:

• Boosting investment in research and development.
• Increasing safety and coordination of health data for biomedical research.
• Incentivizing innovation in underinvested areas.
• Building the capacity of patient organizations.

Hospitalists, she added, will play a critical role in participating in the clinical research that will lead to the next generation of treatments.
 

Reference

1. Carino T. “To get more bang for your health-care buck, invest in innovation.” Health Affairs Blog. 2019 Jan 24. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190123.483080. Accessed Feb. 6, 2019.

In 2017, the United States spent $3.5 trillion on health care, and that number is projected to be close 20% of our GDP over the next 10 years. For consumers, prescription drugs feel like the biggest contributor.

“Although pharmaceutical spending accounts for less than 10% of health care spending, consumers bear much more of the out-of-pocket cost of the prescription drugs through copays or coinsurance at the pharmacy counter than they pay for hospital or physician costs,” said Tanisha Carino, PhD, author of a Health Affairs blog post about directions for innovation in health care. “This experience has led to rising concerns among Americans about the cost of prescription drugs.”

In fact, a December 2018 Politico-Harvard poll showed Americans from both political parties overwhelmingly agreed that taking action to lower drug prices should have been the top priority of the new Congress that took office in January of this year.

“Addressing the affordability of prescription drugs will require investing in medical research and policies that speed new products to the market that will promote competition and, hopefully, will hold down prices and offer greater choice to patients,” said Dr. Carino, who is executive director of FasterCures, a center of the Milken Institute devoted to improving the biomedical innovation ecosystem. “Policymakers have an opportunity to address the immediate concerns patients have in affording their medication.”

According to Dr. Carino, policymakers can also continue to encourage health-improving medical innovation through the following:

• Boosting investment in research and development.
• Increasing safety and coordination of health data for biomedical research.
• Incentivizing innovation in underinvested areas.
• Building the capacity of patient organizations.

Hospitalists, she added, will play a critical role in participating in the clinical research that will lead to the next generation of treatments.
 

Reference

1. Carino T. “To get more bang for your health-care buck, invest in innovation.” Health Affairs Blog. 2019 Jan 24. doi: 10.1377/hblog20190123.483080. Accessed Feb. 6, 2019.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved rivaroxaban (Xarelto) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized, acutely ill patients at risk for thromboembolic complications who do not have a high bleeding risk, according to a release from Janssen.

FDA approval for the new indication is based on results from the phase 3 MAGELLAN and MARINER trials, which included more than 20,000 hospitalized, acutely ill patients. In MAGELLAN, rivaroxaban demonstrated noninferiority to enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, in short-term usage, and it was superior over the long term, compared with short-term enoxaparin followed by placebo.

While VTE and VTE-related deaths were not reduced in MARINER, compared with placebo, patients who received rivaroxaban did see a significantly reduction in symptomatic VTE with a favorable safety profile.

According to the indication, rivaroxaban can be administered to patients during hospitalization and can be continued after discharge for 31-39 days. The safety profile in MAGELLAN and MARINER was consistent with that already seen, with the most common adverse event being bleeding.

The new indication is the eighth for rivaroxaban, the most of any direct oral anticoagulant; six of these are specifically for the treatment, prevention, and reduction in the risk of VTE recurrence.

“With this new approval, Xarelto as an oral-only option now has the potential to change how acutely ill medical patients are managed for the prevention of blood clots, both in the hospital and for an extended period after discharge,” said Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, of Northwell Health at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, and a member of the steering committee of the MAGELLAN trial.

Find the full press release on the Janssen website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved rivaroxaban (Xarelto) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized, acutely ill patients at risk for thromboembolic complications who do not have a high bleeding risk, according to a release from Janssen.

FDA approval for the new indication is based on results from the phase 3 MAGELLAN and MARINER trials, which included more than 20,000 hospitalized, acutely ill patients. In MAGELLAN, rivaroxaban demonstrated noninferiority to enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, in short-term usage, and it was superior over the long term, compared with short-term enoxaparin followed by placebo.

While VTE and VTE-related deaths were not reduced in MARINER, compared with placebo, patients who received rivaroxaban did see a significantly reduction in symptomatic VTE with a favorable safety profile.

According to the indication, rivaroxaban can be administered to patients during hospitalization and can be continued after discharge for 31-39 days. The safety profile in MAGELLAN and MARINER was consistent with that already seen, with the most common adverse event being bleeding.

The new indication is the eighth for rivaroxaban, the most of any direct oral anticoagulant; six of these are specifically for the treatment, prevention, and reduction in the risk of VTE recurrence.

“With this new approval, Xarelto as an oral-only option now has the potential to change how acutely ill medical patients are managed for the prevention of blood clots, both in the hospital and for an extended period after discharge,” said Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, of Northwell Health at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, and a member of the steering committee of the MAGELLAN trial.

Find the full press release on the Janssen website.

[email protected]

The Food and Drug Administration has approved rivaroxaban (Xarelto) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized, acutely ill patients at risk for thromboembolic complications who do not have a high bleeding risk, according to a release from Janssen.

FDA approval for the new indication is based on results from the phase 3 MAGELLAN and MARINER trials, which included more than 20,000 hospitalized, acutely ill patients. In MAGELLAN, rivaroxaban demonstrated noninferiority to enoxaparin, a low-molecular-weight heparin, in short-term usage, and it was superior over the long term, compared with short-term enoxaparin followed by placebo.

While VTE and VTE-related deaths were not reduced in MARINER, compared with placebo, patients who received rivaroxaban did see a significantly reduction in symptomatic VTE with a favorable safety profile.

According to the indication, rivaroxaban can be administered to patients during hospitalization and can be continued after discharge for 31-39 days. The safety profile in MAGELLAN and MARINER was consistent with that already seen, with the most common adverse event being bleeding.

The new indication is the eighth for rivaroxaban, the most of any direct oral anticoagulant; six of these are specifically for the treatment, prevention, and reduction in the risk of VTE recurrence.

“With this new approval, Xarelto as an oral-only option now has the potential to change how acutely ill medical patients are managed for the prevention of blood clots, both in the hospital and for an extended period after discharge,” said Alex C. Spyropoulos, MD, of Northwell Health at Lenox Hill Hospital, New York, and a member of the steering committee of the MAGELLAN trial.

Find the full press release on the Janssen website.

[email protected]

Autumn is a busy time for pediatric hospitalists, with this autumn being particularly eventful as the first American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) certifying exam for Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) will be offered on Nov. 12, 2019.

More than 1,600 med/peds and pediatric hospitalists applied to be eligible for the 2019 exam, 71% of whom were women. At least 3.9% of those applicants were denied eligibility for the 2019 exam.¹ These denials resulted in discussions on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) email listserv related to unintentional gender bias.

PHM was first recognized as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties in December 2015.² Since that time, the ABP’s PHM sub-board developed eligibility criteria for practicing pediatric and med/peds hospitalists to apply for the exam. The sub-board identified three paths: a training pathway for applicants who had completed a 2-year PHM fellowship, a practice pathway for those satisfying ABP criteria for clinical activity in PHM, and a combined pathway for applicants who had completed PHM fellowships lasting less than 2 years.

Based on these pathways, 1,627 applicants applied for eligibility for the first PHM board certification exam.¹ However, many concerns arose with the practice pathway eligibility criteria.

The PHM practice pathway initially included the following eligibility criteria:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice “look back” period ends on or before June 30 of the exam year and starts 4 years earlier.

• More than 0.5 FTE professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• More than 0.25 FTE direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice interruptions cannot exceed 3 months in the preceding 4 years, or 6 months in the preceding 5 years.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.^1,3

The start date and practice interruptions criteria in the practice pathway posed hurdles for many female applicants. Many women voiced concerns about feeling disadvantaged when applying for the PHM certifying exam and some of these women shared their concerns on the AAP SOHM email listserv. In response to these concerns, the PHM community called for increased transparency from the ABP related to denials, specifically related to unintentional gender bias against women applying for the exam.

David Skey, MD, and Jamee Walters, MD, pediatric hospitalists at Arnold Palmer Medical Center in Orlando, heard these concerns and decided to draft a petition with the help of legal counsel. The petition “demand[ed] immediate action,” and “request[ed] a formal response from the ABP regarding the practice pathway criteria.” The petition also stated that there was insufficient data to determine if the practice pathway “disadvantages women.” The petition asked the ABP to “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias” was present, or to perform an internal analysis and “release the findings publicly.”⁴

The petition was shared with the PHM community via the AAP SOHM listserv on July 29, 2019. Dr. Walters stated she was pleased by the response she and Dr. Skey received from the PHM community, on and off the AAP SOHM listserv. The petition was submitted to the ABP on Aug. 6, 2019, with 1,479 signatures.

On Aug. 29, 2019, the ABP’s response was shared on the AAP SOHM email listserv¹ and was later published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine as a Special Announcement.⁵ In its response, the ABP stated that the gender bias allegation was “not supported by the facts” as there was “no significant difference between the percentage of women and men who were denied” eligibility.”⁵ In addressing the gender bias allegations and clarifying the practice pathway eligibility, the ABP removed the practice interruption criteria and modified the practice pathway criteria as follows:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice started on or before July 2015 (for board eligibility in 2019).

• Professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900-1000 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450-500 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.¹

Following the release of the ABP’s response, many members of the PHM community remain concerned about the ABP’s revised criteria. Arti Desai, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s and senior author on a “Perspectives in Hospital Medicine” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine,⁶ was appreciative that the ABP chose to remove the practice interruptions criterion. However, she and her colleagues remain concerned about lingering gender bias in the ABP’s practice pathway eligibility criteria surrounding the “start date” criterion. The authors state that this criterion differentially affects women, as women may take time off during or after residency for maternity or family leave. Dr. Desai states that this criterion alone can affect a woman’s chance for being eligible for the practice pathway.

Other members of the PHM community also expressed concerns about the ABP’s response to the PHM petition. Beth C. Natt, MD, pediatric hospitalist and director of pediatric hospital medicine regional programs at Connecticut Children’s in Hartford, felt that the population may have been self-selected, as the ABP’s data were limited to individuals who applied for exam eligibility. She was concerned that the data excluded pediatric hospitalists who chose not to apply because of uncertainty about meeting eligibility criteria. Klint Schwenk, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., stated that he wished the ABP had addressed the number of pediatric hospitalists who elected not to apply based on fear of ineligibility before concluding that there was no bias. He likened the ABP’s response to that of study authors omitting selection bias when discussing the limitations of their study.

Courtney Edgar-Zarate, MD, med/peds hospitalist and associate program director of the internal medicine/pediatrics residency at the University of Arkansas, expressed concerns that the ABP’s stringent clinical patient care hours criterion may unintentionally result in ineligibility for many mid-career or senior med/peds hospitalists. Dr. Edgar-Zarate also voiced concerns that graduating med/peds residents were electing not to pursue careers in hospital medicine because they would be required to complete a PHM fellowship to become a pediatric hospitalist, when a similar fellowship is not required to practice adult hospital medicine.

The Society of Hospital Medicine shared its position in regard to the ABP’s response in a Special Announcement in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁷ In it, SHM’s pediatric leaders recognized physicians for the excellent care they provide to hospitalized children. They stated that SHM would continue to support all hospitalists, independent of board eligibility status, and would continue to offer these hospitalists the merit-based Fellow designation. SHM’s pediatric leaders also proposed future directions for the ABP, including a Focused Practice Pathway in Hospital Medicine (FPHM), such as what the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have adopted for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine. This maintenance of certification program that allows physicians primarily practicing in inpatient settings to focus their continuing education on inpatient practice, and is not a subspecialty.⁷

Dr. Edgar-Zarate fully supports the future directions for pediatric hospitalists outlined in SHM’s Special Announcement. She hopes that the ABP will support the FPHM. She feels the FPHM will encourage more med/peds physicians to practice med/peds hospital medicine. L. Nell Hodo, MD, a family medicine–trained pediatric hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, joins Dr. Edgar-Zarate in supporting an FPHM for PHM, and feels that it will open the door for hospitalists who are ineligible for the practice pathway to be able to focus their recertification on the inpatient setting.

Dr. Hodo and Dr. Desai hope that rather than excluding those who are not PHM board eligible/certified, institutions and professional organizations will consider all qualifications when hiring, mentoring, and promoting physicians who care for hospitalized children. Dr. Natt, Dr. Schwenk, Dr. Edgar-Zarate, and Dr. Hodo appreciate that SHM is leading the way, and will continue to allow all hospitalists who care for children to receive Fellow designation.
 

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

References

1. The American Board of Pediatrics. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf. Published 2019.

2. Barrett DJ, McGuinness GA, Cunha CA, et al. Pediatric hospital medicine: A proposed new subspecialty. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1823.

3. The American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. https://www.abp.org/content/pediatric-hospital-medicine-certification. Published 2019.

4. Skey D. Pediatric Hospitalists, It’s time to take a stand on the PHM Boards Application Process! Five Dog Development, LLC.

5. Nichols DG, Woods SZ. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):586-8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3322.

6. Gold JM et al. Collective action and effective dialogue to address gender bias in medicine. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):630-2. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3331.

7. Chang WW et al. Society of Hospital Medicine position on the American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3326.

Autumn is a busy time for pediatric hospitalists, with this autumn being particularly eventful as the first American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) certifying exam for Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) will be offered on Nov. 12, 2019.

More than 1,600 med/peds and pediatric hospitalists applied to be eligible for the 2019 exam, 71% of whom were women. At least 3.9% of those applicants were denied eligibility for the 2019 exam.¹ These denials resulted in discussions on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) email listserv related to unintentional gender bias.

PHM was first recognized as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties in December 2015.² Since that time, the ABP’s PHM sub-board developed eligibility criteria for practicing pediatric and med/peds hospitalists to apply for the exam. The sub-board identified three paths: a training pathway for applicants who had completed a 2-year PHM fellowship, a practice pathway for those satisfying ABP criteria for clinical activity in PHM, and a combined pathway for applicants who had completed PHM fellowships lasting less than 2 years.

Based on these pathways, 1,627 applicants applied for eligibility for the first PHM board certification exam.¹ However, many concerns arose with the practice pathway eligibility criteria.

The PHM practice pathway initially included the following eligibility criteria:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice “look back” period ends on or before June 30 of the exam year and starts 4 years earlier.

• More than 0.5 FTE professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• More than 0.25 FTE direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice interruptions cannot exceed 3 months in the preceding 4 years, or 6 months in the preceding 5 years.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.^1,3

The start date and practice interruptions criteria in the practice pathway posed hurdles for many female applicants. Many women voiced concerns about feeling disadvantaged when applying for the PHM certifying exam and some of these women shared their concerns on the AAP SOHM email listserv. In response to these concerns, the PHM community called for increased transparency from the ABP related to denials, specifically related to unintentional gender bias against women applying for the exam.

David Skey, MD, and Jamee Walters, MD, pediatric hospitalists at Arnold Palmer Medical Center in Orlando, heard these concerns and decided to draft a petition with the help of legal counsel. The petition “demand[ed] immediate action,” and “request[ed] a formal response from the ABP regarding the practice pathway criteria.” The petition also stated that there was insufficient data to determine if the practice pathway “disadvantages women.” The petition asked the ABP to “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias” was present, or to perform an internal analysis and “release the findings publicly.”⁴

The petition was shared with the PHM community via the AAP SOHM listserv on July 29, 2019. Dr. Walters stated she was pleased by the response she and Dr. Skey received from the PHM community, on and off the AAP SOHM listserv. The petition was submitted to the ABP on Aug. 6, 2019, with 1,479 signatures.

On Aug. 29, 2019, the ABP’s response was shared on the AAP SOHM email listserv¹ and was later published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine as a Special Announcement.⁵ In its response, the ABP stated that the gender bias allegation was “not supported by the facts” as there was “no significant difference between the percentage of women and men who were denied” eligibility.”⁵ In addressing the gender bias allegations and clarifying the practice pathway eligibility, the ABP removed the practice interruption criteria and modified the practice pathway criteria as follows:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice started on or before July 2015 (for board eligibility in 2019).

• Professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900-1000 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450-500 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.¹

Following the release of the ABP’s response, many members of the PHM community remain concerned about the ABP’s revised criteria. Arti Desai, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s and senior author on a “Perspectives in Hospital Medicine” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine,⁶ was appreciative that the ABP chose to remove the practice interruptions criterion. However, she and her colleagues remain concerned about lingering gender bias in the ABP’s practice pathway eligibility criteria surrounding the “start date” criterion. The authors state that this criterion differentially affects women, as women may take time off during or after residency for maternity or family leave. Dr. Desai states that this criterion alone can affect a woman’s chance for being eligible for the practice pathway.

Other members of the PHM community also expressed concerns about the ABP’s response to the PHM petition. Beth C. Natt, MD, pediatric hospitalist and director of pediatric hospital medicine regional programs at Connecticut Children’s in Hartford, felt that the population may have been self-selected, as the ABP’s data were limited to individuals who applied for exam eligibility. She was concerned that the data excluded pediatric hospitalists who chose not to apply because of uncertainty about meeting eligibility criteria. Klint Schwenk, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., stated that he wished the ABP had addressed the number of pediatric hospitalists who elected not to apply based on fear of ineligibility before concluding that there was no bias. He likened the ABP’s response to that of study authors omitting selection bias when discussing the limitations of their study.

Courtney Edgar-Zarate, MD, med/peds hospitalist and associate program director of the internal medicine/pediatrics residency at the University of Arkansas, expressed concerns that the ABP’s stringent clinical patient care hours criterion may unintentionally result in ineligibility for many mid-career or senior med/peds hospitalists. Dr. Edgar-Zarate also voiced concerns that graduating med/peds residents were electing not to pursue careers in hospital medicine because they would be required to complete a PHM fellowship to become a pediatric hospitalist, when a similar fellowship is not required to practice adult hospital medicine.

The Society of Hospital Medicine shared its position in regard to the ABP’s response in a Special Announcement in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁷ In it, SHM’s pediatric leaders recognized physicians for the excellent care they provide to hospitalized children. They stated that SHM would continue to support all hospitalists, independent of board eligibility status, and would continue to offer these hospitalists the merit-based Fellow designation. SHM’s pediatric leaders also proposed future directions for the ABP, including a Focused Practice Pathway in Hospital Medicine (FPHM), such as what the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have adopted for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine. This maintenance of certification program that allows physicians primarily practicing in inpatient settings to focus their continuing education on inpatient practice, and is not a subspecialty.⁷

Dr. Edgar-Zarate fully supports the future directions for pediatric hospitalists outlined in SHM’s Special Announcement. She hopes that the ABP will support the FPHM. She feels the FPHM will encourage more med/peds physicians to practice med/peds hospital medicine. L. Nell Hodo, MD, a family medicine–trained pediatric hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, joins Dr. Edgar-Zarate in supporting an FPHM for PHM, and feels that it will open the door for hospitalists who are ineligible for the practice pathway to be able to focus their recertification on the inpatient setting.

Dr. Hodo and Dr. Desai hope that rather than excluding those who are not PHM board eligible/certified, institutions and professional organizations will consider all qualifications when hiring, mentoring, and promoting physicians who care for hospitalized children. Dr. Natt, Dr. Schwenk, Dr. Edgar-Zarate, and Dr. Hodo appreciate that SHM is leading the way, and will continue to allow all hospitalists who care for children to receive Fellow designation.
 

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

References

1. The American Board of Pediatrics. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf. Published 2019.

2. Barrett DJ, McGuinness GA, Cunha CA, et al. Pediatric hospital medicine: A proposed new subspecialty. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1823.

3. The American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. https://www.abp.org/content/pediatric-hospital-medicine-certification. Published 2019.

4. Skey D. Pediatric Hospitalists, It’s time to take a stand on the PHM Boards Application Process! Five Dog Development, LLC.

5. Nichols DG, Woods SZ. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):586-8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3322.

6. Gold JM et al. Collective action and effective dialogue to address gender bias in medicine. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):630-2. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3331.

7. Chang WW et al. Society of Hospital Medicine position on the American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3326.

Autumn is a busy time for pediatric hospitalists, with this autumn being particularly eventful as the first American Board of Pediatrics (ABP) certifying exam for Pediatric Hospital Medicine (PHM) will be offered on Nov. 12, 2019.

More than 1,600 med/peds and pediatric hospitalists applied to be eligible for the 2019 exam, 71% of whom were women. At least 3.9% of those applicants were denied eligibility for the 2019 exam.¹ These denials resulted in discussions on the American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Hospital Medicine (AAP SOHM) email listserv related to unintentional gender bias.

PHM was first recognized as a subspecialty by the American Board of Medical Specialties in December 2015.² Since that time, the ABP’s PHM sub-board developed eligibility criteria for practicing pediatric and med/peds hospitalists to apply for the exam. The sub-board identified three paths: a training pathway for applicants who had completed a 2-year PHM fellowship, a practice pathway for those satisfying ABP criteria for clinical activity in PHM, and a combined pathway for applicants who had completed PHM fellowships lasting less than 2 years.

Based on these pathways, 1,627 applicants applied for eligibility for the first PHM board certification exam.¹ However, many concerns arose with the practice pathway eligibility criteria.

The PHM practice pathway initially included the following eligibility criteria:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice “look back” period ends on or before June 30 of the exam year and starts 4 years earlier.

• More than 0.5 FTE professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• More than 0.25 FTE direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice interruptions cannot exceed 3 months in the preceding 4 years, or 6 months in the preceding 5 years.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.^1,3

The start date and practice interruptions criteria in the practice pathway posed hurdles for many female applicants. Many women voiced concerns about feeling disadvantaged when applying for the PHM certifying exam and some of these women shared their concerns on the AAP SOHM email listserv. In response to these concerns, the PHM community called for increased transparency from the ABP related to denials, specifically related to unintentional gender bias against women applying for the exam.

David Skey, MD, and Jamee Walters, MD, pediatric hospitalists at Arnold Palmer Medical Center in Orlando, heard these concerns and decided to draft a petition with the help of legal counsel. The petition “demand[ed] immediate action,” and “request[ed] a formal response from the ABP regarding the practice pathway criteria.” The petition also stated that there was insufficient data to determine if the practice pathway “disadvantages women.” The petition asked the ABP to “facilitate a timely analysis to determine if gender bias” was present, or to perform an internal analysis and “release the findings publicly.”⁴

The petition was shared with the PHM community via the AAP SOHM listserv on July 29, 2019. Dr. Walters stated she was pleased by the response she and Dr. Skey received from the PHM community, on and off the AAP SOHM listserv. The petition was submitted to the ABP on Aug. 6, 2019, with 1,479 signatures.

On Aug. 29, 2019, the ABP’s response was shared on the AAP SOHM email listserv¹ and was later published in the Journal of Hospital Medicine as a Special Announcement.⁵ In its response, the ABP stated that the gender bias allegation was “not supported by the facts” as there was “no significant difference between the percentage of women and men who were denied” eligibility.”⁵ In addressing the gender bias allegations and clarifying the practice pathway eligibility, the ABP removed the practice interruption criteria and modified the practice pathway criteria as follows:

• General pediatrics board certification.

• PHM practice started on or before July 2015 (for board eligibility in 2019).

• Professional PHM-related activities (patient-care, research, administration), defined as more than 900-1000 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Direct patient care of hospitalized children, defined as more than 450-500 hours/year every year for the preceding 4 years.

• Practice covers the full range of hospitalized children with regard to age, diagnoses, and complexity.

• Practice experience and hours were acquired in the United States and Canada.¹

Following the release of the ABP’s response, many members of the PHM community remain concerned about the ABP’s revised criteria. Arti Desai, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Seattle Children’s and senior author on a “Perspectives in Hospital Medicine” in the Journal of Hospital Medicine,⁶ was appreciative that the ABP chose to remove the practice interruptions criterion. However, she and her colleagues remain concerned about lingering gender bias in the ABP’s practice pathway eligibility criteria surrounding the “start date” criterion. The authors state that this criterion differentially affects women, as women may take time off during or after residency for maternity or family leave. Dr. Desai states that this criterion alone can affect a woman’s chance for being eligible for the practice pathway.

Other members of the PHM community also expressed concerns about the ABP’s response to the PHM petition. Beth C. Natt, MD, pediatric hospitalist and director of pediatric hospital medicine regional programs at Connecticut Children’s in Hartford, felt that the population may have been self-selected, as the ABP’s data were limited to individuals who applied for exam eligibility. She was concerned that the data excluded pediatric hospitalists who chose not to apply because of uncertainty about meeting eligibility criteria. Klint Schwenk, MD, pediatric hospitalist at Norton Children’s Hospital in Louisville, Ky., stated that he wished the ABP had addressed the number of pediatric hospitalists who elected not to apply based on fear of ineligibility before concluding that there was no bias. He likened the ABP’s response to that of study authors omitting selection bias when discussing the limitations of their study.

Courtney Edgar-Zarate, MD, med/peds hospitalist and associate program director of the internal medicine/pediatrics residency at the University of Arkansas, expressed concerns that the ABP’s stringent clinical patient care hours criterion may unintentionally result in ineligibility for many mid-career or senior med/peds hospitalists. Dr. Edgar-Zarate also voiced concerns that graduating med/peds residents were electing not to pursue careers in hospital medicine because they would be required to complete a PHM fellowship to become a pediatric hospitalist, when a similar fellowship is not required to practice adult hospital medicine.

The Society of Hospital Medicine shared its position in regard to the ABP’s response in a Special Announcement in the Journal of Hospital Medicine.⁷ In it, SHM’s pediatric leaders recognized physicians for the excellent care they provide to hospitalized children. They stated that SHM would continue to support all hospitalists, independent of board eligibility status, and would continue to offer these hospitalists the merit-based Fellow designation. SHM’s pediatric leaders also proposed future directions for the ABP, including a Focused Practice Pathway in Hospital Medicine (FPHM), such as what the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Family Medicine have adopted for board recertification in internal medicine and family medicine. This maintenance of certification program that allows physicians primarily practicing in inpatient settings to focus their continuing education on inpatient practice, and is not a subspecialty.⁷

Dr. Edgar-Zarate fully supports the future directions for pediatric hospitalists outlined in SHM’s Special Announcement. She hopes that the ABP will support the FPHM. She feels the FPHM will encourage more med/peds physicians to practice med/peds hospital medicine. L. Nell Hodo, MD, a family medicine–trained pediatric hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, joins Dr. Edgar-Zarate in supporting an FPHM for PHM, and feels that it will open the door for hospitalists who are ineligible for the practice pathway to be able to focus their recertification on the inpatient setting.

Dr. Hodo and Dr. Desai hope that rather than excluding those who are not PHM board eligible/certified, institutions and professional organizations will consider all qualifications when hiring, mentoring, and promoting physicians who care for hospitalized children. Dr. Natt, Dr. Schwenk, Dr. Edgar-Zarate, and Dr. Hodo appreciate that SHM is leading the way, and will continue to allow all hospitalists who care for children to receive Fellow designation.
 

Dr. Kumar is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s. She is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist.

References

1. The American Board of Pediatrics. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. https://www.abp.org/sites/abp/files/phm-petition-response.pdf. Published 2019.

2. Barrett DJ, McGuinness GA, Cunha CA, et al. Pediatric hospital medicine: A proposed new subspecialty. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3). doi: 10.1542/peds.2016-1823.

3. The American Board of Pediatrics. Pediatric Hospital Medicine Certification. https://www.abp.org/content/pediatric-hospital-medicine-certification. Published 2019.

4. Skey D. Pediatric Hospitalists, It’s time to take a stand on the PHM Boards Application Process! Five Dog Development, LLC.

5. Nichols DG, Woods SZ. The American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):586-8. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3322.

6. Gold JM et al. Collective action and effective dialogue to address gender bias in medicine. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):630-2. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3331.

7. Chang WW et al. Society of Hospital Medicine position on the American Board of Pediatrics response to the Pediatric Hospital Medicine petition. J Hosp Med. 2019 Oct;14(10):589-90. doi: 10.12788/jhm.3326.

MADRID – In patients managed on mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit following cardiac surgery, a fully automated system provides more reliable ventilatory support than highly experienced ICU nurses, suggest results of a randomized trial.

The study’s control group received usual care, which means that nurses adjusted mechanical ventilation manually in response to respiratory rate, tidal volume, positive end-respiratory pressure (PEEP), and other factors to maintain ventilation within parameters associated with safe respiration. The experimental group was managed with a fully automated closed-loop system to make these adjustments without any nurse intervention.

For those in the experimental group “the proportion of time in the optimal zone was increased and the proportion of time in the unsafe zone was decreased” relative to those randomized to conventional nursing care, Marcus J. Schultz, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Conducted at a hospital with an experienced ICU staff, the study had a control arm that was managed by “dedicated nurses who, I can tell you, are very eager to provide the best level of care possible,” said Dr. Schultz, professor of experimental intensive care, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands..

The investigator-initiated POSITiVE trial randomized 220 cardiac surgery patients scheduled to receive postoperative mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Exclusions included those with class III or higher chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or a history of lung surgery.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of time spent in an optimal zone, an acceptable zone, or a dangerous zone of ventilation based on predefined values for tidal volume, maximum airway pressure, end-tidal CO₂, and oxygen saturation (SpO₂).

The greatest between-group difference was seen in the proportion of time spent in the optimal zone. This climbed from approximately 35% in the control arm to slightly more than 70% in the experimental arm, a significant difference. The proportion of time in the dangerous zone was reduced from approximately 6% in the control arm to 3% in the automated arm. On average nurse-managed patients spent nearly 60% of the time in the acceptable zone versus less than 30% of those in the automated experimental arm.

A heat map using green, yellow, and red to represent optimal, acceptable, and dangerous zones, respectively, for individual participants in the trial provided a more stark global impression. For the control group, the heat map was primarily yellow with scattered dashes of green and red. For the experimental group, the map was primarily green with dashes of yellow and a much smaller number of red dashes relative to the control group.

In addition, the time to spontaneous breathing was 38% shorter for those randomized to automated ventilation than to conventional care, a significant difference.

There are now many devices marketed for automated ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz. The device used in this study was the proprietary INTELLiVENT-ASV system, marketed by Hamilton Medical, which was selected based on prior satisfactory experience. Although not unique, this system has sophisticated software to adjust ventilation to reach targets set by the clinician on the basis of information it is receiving from physiologic sensors for such variables as respiratory rate, tidal volume, and inspiratory pressure.

“It is frequently adjusting the PEEP levels to reach the lowest driving pressure,” said Dr. Schultz. Among its many other features, it also “gives spontaneous breathing trials automatically.”

Uncomplicated patients were selected purposefully to test this system, but Dr. Schultz said that a second trial, called POSITiVE 2, is now being planned that will enroll more complex patients. Keeping complex patients within the optimal zone as defined by tidal volume and other critical variables has the potential to reduce the lung damage that is known to occur when these are not optimized.

“Applying safe ventilatory support in clinical practice remains a serious challenge and is extremely time consuming,” Dr. Schultz said. He reported that fully automated ventilation appears to be reliable, and “it takes out the human factor” in regard to diligence in monitoring and potential for error.

Overall, these results support the potential for a fully automated system to improve optimal ventilatory support, reduce risk of lung injury, and reduce staffing required for monitoring of mechanical ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz.

Relative costs were not evaluated in this analysis, but might be another factor relevant to the value of fully automated ventilation in ICU patients.
 

MADRID – In patients managed on mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit following cardiac surgery, a fully automated system provides more reliable ventilatory support than highly experienced ICU nurses, suggest results of a randomized trial.

The study’s control group received usual care, which means that nurses adjusted mechanical ventilation manually in response to respiratory rate, tidal volume, positive end-respiratory pressure (PEEP), and other factors to maintain ventilation within parameters associated with safe respiration. The experimental group was managed with a fully automated closed-loop system to make these adjustments without any nurse intervention.

For those in the experimental group “the proportion of time in the optimal zone was increased and the proportion of time in the unsafe zone was decreased” relative to those randomized to conventional nursing care, Marcus J. Schultz, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Conducted at a hospital with an experienced ICU staff, the study had a control arm that was managed by “dedicated nurses who, I can tell you, are very eager to provide the best level of care possible,” said Dr. Schultz, professor of experimental intensive care, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands..

The investigator-initiated POSITiVE trial randomized 220 cardiac surgery patients scheduled to receive postoperative mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Exclusions included those with class III or higher chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or a history of lung surgery.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of time spent in an optimal zone, an acceptable zone, or a dangerous zone of ventilation based on predefined values for tidal volume, maximum airway pressure, end-tidal CO₂, and oxygen saturation (SpO₂).

The greatest between-group difference was seen in the proportion of time spent in the optimal zone. This climbed from approximately 35% in the control arm to slightly more than 70% in the experimental arm, a significant difference. The proportion of time in the dangerous zone was reduced from approximately 6% in the control arm to 3% in the automated arm. On average nurse-managed patients spent nearly 60% of the time in the acceptable zone versus less than 30% of those in the automated experimental arm.

A heat map using green, yellow, and red to represent optimal, acceptable, and dangerous zones, respectively, for individual participants in the trial provided a more stark global impression. For the control group, the heat map was primarily yellow with scattered dashes of green and red. For the experimental group, the map was primarily green with dashes of yellow and a much smaller number of red dashes relative to the control group.

In addition, the time to spontaneous breathing was 38% shorter for those randomized to automated ventilation than to conventional care, a significant difference.

There are now many devices marketed for automated ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz. The device used in this study was the proprietary INTELLiVENT-ASV system, marketed by Hamilton Medical, which was selected based on prior satisfactory experience. Although not unique, this system has sophisticated software to adjust ventilation to reach targets set by the clinician on the basis of information it is receiving from physiologic sensors for such variables as respiratory rate, tidal volume, and inspiratory pressure.

“It is frequently adjusting the PEEP levels to reach the lowest driving pressure,” said Dr. Schultz. Among its many other features, it also “gives spontaneous breathing trials automatically.”

Uncomplicated patients were selected purposefully to test this system, but Dr. Schultz said that a second trial, called POSITiVE 2, is now being planned that will enroll more complex patients. Keeping complex patients within the optimal zone as defined by tidal volume and other critical variables has the potential to reduce the lung damage that is known to occur when these are not optimized.

“Applying safe ventilatory support in clinical practice remains a serious challenge and is extremely time consuming,” Dr. Schultz said. He reported that fully automated ventilation appears to be reliable, and “it takes out the human factor” in regard to diligence in monitoring and potential for error.

Overall, these results support the potential for a fully automated system to improve optimal ventilatory support, reduce risk of lung injury, and reduce staffing required for monitoring of mechanical ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz.

Relative costs were not evaluated in this analysis, but might be another factor relevant to the value of fully automated ventilation in ICU patients.
 

MADRID – In patients managed on mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit following cardiac surgery, a fully automated system provides more reliable ventilatory support than highly experienced ICU nurses, suggest results of a randomized trial.

The study’s control group received usual care, which means that nurses adjusted mechanical ventilation manually in response to respiratory rate, tidal volume, positive end-respiratory pressure (PEEP), and other factors to maintain ventilation within parameters associated with safe respiration. The experimental group was managed with a fully automated closed-loop system to make these adjustments without any nurse intervention.

For those in the experimental group “the proportion of time in the optimal zone was increased and the proportion of time in the unsafe zone was decreased” relative to those randomized to conventional nursing care, Marcus J. Schultz, MD, reported at the annual congress of the European Respiratory Society.

Conducted at a hospital with an experienced ICU staff, the study had a control arm that was managed by “dedicated nurses who, I can tell you, are very eager to provide the best level of care possible,” said Dr. Schultz, professor of experimental intensive care, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands..

The investigator-initiated POSITiVE trial randomized 220 cardiac surgery patients scheduled to receive postoperative mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Exclusions included those with class III or higher chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), a requirement for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), or a history of lung surgery.

The primary endpoint was the proportion of time spent in an optimal zone, an acceptable zone, or a dangerous zone of ventilation based on predefined values for tidal volume, maximum airway pressure, end-tidal CO₂, and oxygen saturation (SpO₂).

The greatest between-group difference was seen in the proportion of time spent in the optimal zone. This climbed from approximately 35% in the control arm to slightly more than 70% in the experimental arm, a significant difference. The proportion of time in the dangerous zone was reduced from approximately 6% in the control arm to 3% in the automated arm. On average nurse-managed patients spent nearly 60% of the time in the acceptable zone versus less than 30% of those in the automated experimental arm.

A heat map using green, yellow, and red to represent optimal, acceptable, and dangerous zones, respectively, for individual participants in the trial provided a more stark global impression. For the control group, the heat map was primarily yellow with scattered dashes of green and red. For the experimental group, the map was primarily green with dashes of yellow and a much smaller number of red dashes relative to the control group.

In addition, the time to spontaneous breathing was 38% shorter for those randomized to automated ventilation than to conventional care, a significant difference.

There are now many devices marketed for automated ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz. The device used in this study was the proprietary INTELLiVENT-ASV system, marketed by Hamilton Medical, which was selected based on prior satisfactory experience. Although not unique, this system has sophisticated software to adjust ventilation to reach targets set by the clinician on the basis of information it is receiving from physiologic sensors for such variables as respiratory rate, tidal volume, and inspiratory pressure.

“It is frequently adjusting the PEEP levels to reach the lowest driving pressure,” said Dr. Schultz. Among its many other features, it also “gives spontaneous breathing trials automatically.”

Uncomplicated patients were selected purposefully to test this system, but Dr. Schultz said that a second trial, called POSITiVE 2, is now being planned that will enroll more complex patients. Keeping complex patients within the optimal zone as defined by tidal volume and other critical variables has the potential to reduce the lung damage that is known to occur when these are not optimized.

“Applying safe ventilatory support in clinical practice remains a serious challenge and is extremely time consuming,” Dr. Schultz said. He reported that fully automated ventilation appears to be reliable, and “it takes out the human factor” in regard to diligence in monitoring and potential for error.

Overall, these results support the potential for a fully automated system to improve optimal ventilatory support, reduce risk of lung injury, and reduce staffing required for monitoring of mechanical ventilation, according to Dr. Schultz.

Relative costs were not evaluated in this analysis, but might be another factor relevant to the value of fully automated ventilation in ICU patients.
 

The introduction of the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) through amendment of the Social Security Act in 1983 transformed hospital reimbursement in the United States. Under the IPPS, a new form of Medicare prospective payment that paid hospitals a fixed amount per discharge for inpatient services was created: the diagnosis-related group (DRG). This eliminated the preceding retrospective cost reimbursement system in an attempt to stop health care price inflation.

Each DRG represents a grouping of similar conditions and procedures for services provided during an inpatient hospitalization reimbursed under Medicare Part A. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services uses the Medicare Severity DRG (MS-DRG) system to account for severity of illness and resource consumption. There are three levels of severity based upon secondary diagnosis: major complication/comorbidity (MCC), complication/comorbidity (CC), and noncomplication/comorbidity (non-CC).

Payment rates are defined by base rates for operating costs and capital-related costs which are adjusted for relative weight (the average cost within a DRG, compared with the average Medicare case cost) and market condition adjustments. As the largest single health care payer in the United States, CMS’ annual changes to the IPPS have a major impact on hospital reimbursement.

In May 2019, CMS released its annual proposed rule for the Hospital IPPS suggesting extensive changes to MS-DRG reimbursements. Notably, CMS proposed changing the severity level of nearly 1,500 diagnosis codes by adjusting their categorization between MCC, CC, or non-CC. The majority of these changes included downgrading MCCs to CCs or non-CCs. In fact, 87% of the changes involved a downgrade from one of the higher severity levels to a non-CC level, while only 13% involved an upgrade from a lower severity level to MCC level.

The CMS derived these changes from an algorithmic review and input from their clinical advisors to determine each diagnoses impact on resource utilization. Multiple major groups of codes were included in the downgraded groups, including secondary cancer diagnoses, organ transplant status, and hip fracture.

Evaluating codes based on coded resource use alone could have had a major negative impact on the clinical practice of hospitalists as it undervalues cognitive and clinical work associated with these secondary diagnoses. As an example, malignant neoplasm of head of pancreas (ICD-10, C25.0) was proposed to move to a non-CC. Under CMS’ proposed rule, if a patient was admitted with complications of pancreatic cancer such as cholangitis caused by biliary obstruction, the pancreatic cancer diagnosis would not serve as a CC since the primary condition for which the patient was hospitalized would be cholangitis. The anticipated increase in such a patient’s length of stay, severity of illness, and expected resource utilization would be grossly misrepresented in this case by CMS’ proposed rule changes. CMS also proposed to move major organ-transplant status (including heart, lung, kidney, and pancreas) from CC to non-CC status. Again, the cognitive work and resource utilization required to manage these patients would be underrepresented with this change, given the increased complexity of managing immunosuppressant medications or conducting an infectious diagnostic work-up in immunosuppressed patients.

The Society of Hospital Medicine Public Policy Committee provides comments annually to CMS on the IPPS, advocating for hospitalists and patients. After advocacy efforts from SHM and other groups, expressing concern about making such significant changes to the DRG system without further study, the IPPS final rule was released on August 2, 2019. SHM’s efforts paid off. The final rule excluded the proposed broad changes to the MS-DRG system that were in the proposed rule.

In deciding not to finalize the proposed severity level changes, CMS wrote that the adoption of these broad changes will be postponed in order “to fully consider the technical feedback provided” regarding the proposal. The final rule also describes making a “test GROUPER [software program] publicly available to allow for impact testing,” and allows for the possibility of phasing in changes and eliciting feedback. SHM is fully supportive of the decision to postpone major changes to the MS-DRG system in the IPPS until further review is obtained, and will continue to monitor this issue and provide appropriate input to CMS for our hospitalist members.

As hospitalists, it is important to understand the foundational role that public policy and CMS rule creation have on our work. Influencing change to the MS-DRG system is yet another example of how SHM’s work has impacted the policy domain, limiting negative effects on our members and advancing the practice of hospital medicine.

Dr. Biebelhausen is head of the section of hospital medicine at Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle. Dr. Cowart is a hospitalist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. Dr. Hamilton is a hospitalist and associate chief quality officer at the Cleveland Clinic.

The introduction of the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) through amendment of the Social Security Act in 1983 transformed hospital reimbursement in the United States. Under the IPPS, a new form of Medicare prospective payment that paid hospitals a fixed amount per discharge for inpatient services was created: the diagnosis-related group (DRG). This eliminated the preceding retrospective cost reimbursement system in an attempt to stop health care price inflation.

Each DRG represents a grouping of similar conditions and procedures for services provided during an inpatient hospitalization reimbursed under Medicare Part A. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services uses the Medicare Severity DRG (MS-DRG) system to account for severity of illness and resource consumption. There are three levels of severity based upon secondary diagnosis: major complication/comorbidity (MCC), complication/comorbidity (CC), and noncomplication/comorbidity (non-CC).

Payment rates are defined by base rates for operating costs and capital-related costs which are adjusted for relative weight (the average cost within a DRG, compared with the average Medicare case cost) and market condition adjustments. As the largest single health care payer in the United States, CMS’ annual changes to the IPPS have a major impact on hospital reimbursement.

In May 2019, CMS released its annual proposed rule for the Hospital IPPS suggesting extensive changes to MS-DRG reimbursements. Notably, CMS proposed changing the severity level of nearly 1,500 diagnosis codes by adjusting their categorization between MCC, CC, or non-CC. The majority of these changes included downgrading MCCs to CCs or non-CCs. In fact, 87% of the changes involved a downgrade from one of the higher severity levels to a non-CC level, while only 13% involved an upgrade from a lower severity level to MCC level.

The CMS derived these changes from an algorithmic review and input from their clinical advisors to determine each diagnoses impact on resource utilization. Multiple major groups of codes were included in the downgraded groups, including secondary cancer diagnoses, organ transplant status, and hip fracture.

Evaluating codes based on coded resource use alone could have had a major negative impact on the clinical practice of hospitalists as it undervalues cognitive and clinical work associated with these secondary diagnoses. As an example, malignant neoplasm of head of pancreas (ICD-10, C25.0) was proposed to move to a non-CC. Under CMS’ proposed rule, if a patient was admitted with complications of pancreatic cancer such as cholangitis caused by biliary obstruction, the pancreatic cancer diagnosis would not serve as a CC since the primary condition for which the patient was hospitalized would be cholangitis. The anticipated increase in such a patient’s length of stay, severity of illness, and expected resource utilization would be grossly misrepresented in this case by CMS’ proposed rule changes. CMS also proposed to move major organ-transplant status (including heart, lung, kidney, and pancreas) from CC to non-CC status. Again, the cognitive work and resource utilization required to manage these patients would be underrepresented with this change, given the increased complexity of managing immunosuppressant medications or conducting an infectious diagnostic work-up in immunosuppressed patients.

The Society of Hospital Medicine Public Policy Committee provides comments annually to CMS on the IPPS, advocating for hospitalists and patients. After advocacy efforts from SHM and other groups, expressing concern about making such significant changes to the DRG system without further study, the IPPS final rule was released on August 2, 2019. SHM’s efforts paid off. The final rule excluded the proposed broad changes to the MS-DRG system that were in the proposed rule.

In deciding not to finalize the proposed severity level changes, CMS wrote that the adoption of these broad changes will be postponed in order “to fully consider the technical feedback provided” regarding the proposal. The final rule also describes making a “test GROUPER [software program] publicly available to allow for impact testing,” and allows for the possibility of phasing in changes and eliciting feedback. SHM is fully supportive of the decision to postpone major changes to the MS-DRG system in the IPPS until further review is obtained, and will continue to monitor this issue and provide appropriate input to CMS for our hospitalist members.

As hospitalists, it is important to understand the foundational role that public policy and CMS rule creation have on our work. Influencing change to the MS-DRG system is yet another example of how SHM’s work has impacted the policy domain, limiting negative effects on our members and advancing the practice of hospital medicine.

Dr. Biebelhausen is head of the section of hospital medicine at Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle. Dr. Cowart is a hospitalist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. Dr. Hamilton is a hospitalist and associate chief quality officer at the Cleveland Clinic.

The introduction of the Medicare Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) through amendment of the Social Security Act in 1983 transformed hospital reimbursement in the United States. Under the IPPS, a new form of Medicare prospective payment that paid hospitals a fixed amount per discharge for inpatient services was created: the diagnosis-related group (DRG). This eliminated the preceding retrospective cost reimbursement system in an attempt to stop health care price inflation.

Each DRG represents a grouping of similar conditions and procedures for services provided during an inpatient hospitalization reimbursed under Medicare Part A. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services uses the Medicare Severity DRG (MS-DRG) system to account for severity of illness and resource consumption. There are three levels of severity based upon secondary diagnosis: major complication/comorbidity (MCC), complication/comorbidity (CC), and noncomplication/comorbidity (non-CC).

Payment rates are defined by base rates for operating costs and capital-related costs which are adjusted for relative weight (the average cost within a DRG, compared with the average Medicare case cost) and market condition adjustments. As the largest single health care payer in the United States, CMS’ annual changes to the IPPS have a major impact on hospital reimbursement.

In May 2019, CMS released its annual proposed rule for the Hospital IPPS suggesting extensive changes to MS-DRG reimbursements. Notably, CMS proposed changing the severity level of nearly 1,500 diagnosis codes by adjusting their categorization between MCC, CC, or non-CC. The majority of these changes included downgrading MCCs to CCs or non-CCs. In fact, 87% of the changes involved a downgrade from one of the higher severity levels to a non-CC level, while only 13% involved an upgrade from a lower severity level to MCC level.

The CMS derived these changes from an algorithmic review and input from their clinical advisors to determine each diagnoses impact on resource utilization. Multiple major groups of codes were included in the downgraded groups, including secondary cancer diagnoses, organ transplant status, and hip fracture.

Evaluating codes based on coded resource use alone could have had a major negative impact on the clinical practice of hospitalists as it undervalues cognitive and clinical work associated with these secondary diagnoses. As an example, malignant neoplasm of head of pancreas (ICD-10, C25.0) was proposed to move to a non-CC. Under CMS’ proposed rule, if a patient was admitted with complications of pancreatic cancer such as cholangitis caused by biliary obstruction, the pancreatic cancer diagnosis would not serve as a CC since the primary condition for which the patient was hospitalized would be cholangitis. The anticipated increase in such a patient’s length of stay, severity of illness, and expected resource utilization would be grossly misrepresented in this case by CMS’ proposed rule changes. CMS also proposed to move major organ-transplant status (including heart, lung, kidney, and pancreas) from CC to non-CC status. Again, the cognitive work and resource utilization required to manage these patients would be underrepresented with this change, given the increased complexity of managing immunosuppressant medications or conducting an infectious diagnostic work-up in immunosuppressed patients.

The Society of Hospital Medicine Public Policy Committee provides comments annually to CMS on the IPPS, advocating for hospitalists and patients. After advocacy efforts from SHM and other groups, expressing concern about making such significant changes to the DRG system without further study, the IPPS final rule was released on August 2, 2019. SHM’s efforts paid off. The final rule excluded the proposed broad changes to the MS-DRG system that were in the proposed rule.

In deciding not to finalize the proposed severity level changes, CMS wrote that the adoption of these broad changes will be postponed in order “to fully consider the technical feedback provided” regarding the proposal. The final rule also describes making a “test GROUPER [software program] publicly available to allow for impact testing,” and allows for the possibility of phasing in changes and eliciting feedback. SHM is fully supportive of the decision to postpone major changes to the MS-DRG system in the IPPS until further review is obtained, and will continue to monitor this issue and provide appropriate input to CMS for our hospitalist members.

As hospitalists, it is important to understand the foundational role that public policy and CMS rule creation have on our work. Influencing change to the MS-DRG system is yet another example of how SHM’s work has impacted the policy domain, limiting negative effects on our members and advancing the practice of hospital medicine.

Dr. Biebelhausen is head of the section of hospital medicine at Virginia Mason Medical Center, Seattle. Dr. Cowart is a hospitalist at the Mayo Clinic in Jacksonville, Fla. Dr. Hamilton is a hospitalist and associate chief quality officer at the Cleveland Clinic.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated interim clinical guidance for health providers for evaluating and treating patients with lung injury associated with e-cigarette use or vaping.

In a telebriefing, Anne Schuchat, MD, CDC principal deputy director, and her colleagues answered questions about the current investigation into the source of this lung injury outbreak and the updated clinical guidance. Dr. Schuchat said, “I can’t stress enough the seriousness of these injuries.” She added, “We are not seeing a drop in cases” but a continuation of the trend of hospitalization and deaths that started in August 2019.

Investigation update

The investigation to date has yielded some information about current cases of lung injury related to vaping:

• The acronym EVALI has been developed to refer to e-cigarette, or vaping products use associated lung injury;

• 1,299 EVALI cases have been reported as of Oct. 8;

• No single compound or ingredient has emerged as the cause of these injuries, and more than one substance may be involved;

• Among the 573 patients for whom data are available on vaping products used in the previous 90 days, 76% reported using THC-containing products; 58% reported using nicotine-containing products; 32% reported exclusive use of THC-containing products, and 13% reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products;

• Of the 700+ samples sent to the CDC for analysis, most had little or no liquid remaining in the device, limiting content analysis. In 28 THC-containing samples, THC concentrations were found to be 13% - 77% (mean 41%).

• A “handful” of cases of readmission have been reported and the CDC is currently investigating whether these cases included patients who took up vaping again or had some other possible contributing factor.

• The CDC is currently developing an ICD-10 code relevant to EVALI.

Clinical guidance update

The CDC provided detailed guidance on evaluating and caring for patients with EVALI. The recommendations focus on patient history, lab testing, criteria for hospitalization, and follow-up of these patients.

Detailed history of patients presenting with suspected EVALI is especially important for this patient population, given the many unknowns surrounding this condition. The updated guidance states, “All health care providers evaluating patients for EVALI should ask about the use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products and ideally should ask about types of substances used (e.g.,THC, cannabis [oil, dabs], nicotine, modified products or the addition of substances not intended by the manufacturer); product source, specific product brand and name; duration and frequency of use, time of last use; product delivery system, and method of use (aerosolization, dabbing, or dripping).” The approach recommended for soliciting accurate information is “empathetic, nonjudgmental” and, the guidelines say, patients should be questioned in private regarding sensitive information to assure confidentiality.

A respiratory virus panel is recommended for all suspected EVALI patients, although at this time, these tests cannot be used to distinguish EVALI from infectious etiologies. All patients should be considered for urine toxicology testing, including testing for THC.

Imaging guidance for suspected EVALI patients includes chest x-ray, with additional CT scan when the x-ray result does not correlate with clinical findings or to evaluate severe or worsening disease.

Recommended criteria for hospitalization of patients with suspected EVALI are those patients with decreased O₂ saturation (less than 95%) on room air, are in respiratory distress, or have comorbidities that compromise pulmonary reserve. As of Oct. 8, 96% of patients with suspected EVALI reported to CDC have been hospitalized.

As for medical treatment of these patients, corticosteroids have been found helpful. The statement noted, “Among 140 cases reported nationally to CDC that received corticosteroids, 82% of patients improved

The natural progression of this injury is not known, however, and it is possible that patients might recover without corticosteroids. Given the unknown etiology of the disease and “because the diagnosis remains one of exclusion, aggressive empiric therapy with corticosteroids, antimicrobial, and antiviral therapy might be warranted for patients with severe illness. A range of corticosteroid doses, durations, and taper plans might be considered on a case-by-case basis.”

The report concludes with a strong recommendation that patients hospitalized with EVALI are followed closely with a visit 1-2 weeks after discharge and again with additional testing 1-2 months later. Health care providers are also advised to consult medical specialists, in particular pulmonologists, who can offer further evaluation, recommend empiric treatment, and review indications for bronchoscopy.

Mitch Zeller, JD, director, Center for Tobacco Products with the Food and Drug Administration emphasized the extraordinary complexity of the EVALI problem but noted that the FDA and CDC “will leave no stone unturned until we get to the bottom of it.”

[email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated interim clinical guidance for health providers for evaluating and treating patients with lung injury associated with e-cigarette use or vaping.

In a telebriefing, Anne Schuchat, MD, CDC principal deputy director, and her colleagues answered questions about the current investigation into the source of this lung injury outbreak and the updated clinical guidance. Dr. Schuchat said, “I can’t stress enough the seriousness of these injuries.” She added, “We are not seeing a drop in cases” but a continuation of the trend of hospitalization and deaths that started in August 2019.

Investigation update

The investigation to date has yielded some information about current cases of lung injury related to vaping:

• The acronym EVALI has been developed to refer to e-cigarette, or vaping products use associated lung injury;

• 1,299 EVALI cases have been reported as of Oct. 8;

• No single compound or ingredient has emerged as the cause of these injuries, and more than one substance may be involved;

• Among the 573 patients for whom data are available on vaping products used in the previous 90 days, 76% reported using THC-containing products; 58% reported using nicotine-containing products; 32% reported exclusive use of THC-containing products, and 13% reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products;

• Of the 700+ samples sent to the CDC for analysis, most had little or no liquid remaining in the device, limiting content analysis. In 28 THC-containing samples, THC concentrations were found to be 13% - 77% (mean 41%).

• A “handful” of cases of readmission have been reported and the CDC is currently investigating whether these cases included patients who took up vaping again or had some other possible contributing factor.

• The CDC is currently developing an ICD-10 code relevant to EVALI.

Clinical guidance update

The CDC provided detailed guidance on evaluating and caring for patients with EVALI. The recommendations focus on patient history, lab testing, criteria for hospitalization, and follow-up of these patients.

Detailed history of patients presenting with suspected EVALI is especially important for this patient population, given the many unknowns surrounding this condition. The updated guidance states, “All health care providers evaluating patients for EVALI should ask about the use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products and ideally should ask about types of substances used (e.g.,THC, cannabis [oil, dabs], nicotine, modified products or the addition of substances not intended by the manufacturer); product source, specific product brand and name; duration and frequency of use, time of last use; product delivery system, and method of use (aerosolization, dabbing, or dripping).” The approach recommended for soliciting accurate information is “empathetic, nonjudgmental” and, the guidelines say, patients should be questioned in private regarding sensitive information to assure confidentiality.

A respiratory virus panel is recommended for all suspected EVALI patients, although at this time, these tests cannot be used to distinguish EVALI from infectious etiologies. All patients should be considered for urine toxicology testing, including testing for THC.

Imaging guidance for suspected EVALI patients includes chest x-ray, with additional CT scan when the x-ray result does not correlate with clinical findings or to evaluate severe or worsening disease.

Recommended criteria for hospitalization of patients with suspected EVALI are those patients with decreased O₂ saturation (less than 95%) on room air, are in respiratory distress, or have comorbidities that compromise pulmonary reserve. As of Oct. 8, 96% of patients with suspected EVALI reported to CDC have been hospitalized.

As for medical treatment of these patients, corticosteroids have been found helpful. The statement noted, “Among 140 cases reported nationally to CDC that received corticosteroids, 82% of patients improved

The natural progression of this injury is not known, however, and it is possible that patients might recover without corticosteroids. Given the unknown etiology of the disease and “because the diagnosis remains one of exclusion, aggressive empiric therapy with corticosteroids, antimicrobial, and antiviral therapy might be warranted for patients with severe illness. A range of corticosteroid doses, durations, and taper plans might be considered on a case-by-case basis.”

The report concludes with a strong recommendation that patients hospitalized with EVALI are followed closely with a visit 1-2 weeks after discharge and again with additional testing 1-2 months later. Health care providers are also advised to consult medical specialists, in particular pulmonologists, who can offer further evaluation, recommend empiric treatment, and review indications for bronchoscopy.

Mitch Zeller, JD, director, Center for Tobacco Products with the Food and Drug Administration emphasized the extraordinary complexity of the EVALI problem but noted that the FDA and CDC “will leave no stone unturned until we get to the bottom of it.”

[email protected]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has released an updated interim clinical guidance for health providers for evaluating and treating patients with lung injury associated with e-cigarette use or vaping.

In a telebriefing, Anne Schuchat, MD, CDC principal deputy director, and her colleagues answered questions about the current investigation into the source of this lung injury outbreak and the updated clinical guidance. Dr. Schuchat said, “I can’t stress enough the seriousness of these injuries.” She added, “We are not seeing a drop in cases” but a continuation of the trend of hospitalization and deaths that started in August 2019.

Investigation update

The investigation to date has yielded some information about current cases of lung injury related to vaping:

• The acronym EVALI has been developed to refer to e-cigarette, or vaping products use associated lung injury;

• 1,299 EVALI cases have been reported as of Oct. 8;

• No single compound or ingredient has emerged as the cause of these injuries, and more than one substance may be involved;

• Among the 573 patients for whom data are available on vaping products used in the previous 90 days, 76% reported using THC-containing products; 58% reported using nicotine-containing products; 32% reported exclusive use of THC-containing products, and 13% reported exclusive use of nicotine-containing products;

• Of the 700+ samples sent to the CDC for analysis, most had little or no liquid remaining in the device, limiting content analysis. In 28 THC-containing samples, THC concentrations were found to be 13% - 77% (mean 41%).

• A “handful” of cases of readmission have been reported and the CDC is currently investigating whether these cases included patients who took up vaping again or had some other possible contributing factor.

• The CDC is currently developing an ICD-10 code relevant to EVALI.

Clinical guidance update

The CDC provided detailed guidance on evaluating and caring for patients with EVALI. The recommendations focus on patient history, lab testing, criteria for hospitalization, and follow-up of these patients.

Detailed history of patients presenting with suspected EVALI is especially important for this patient population, given the many unknowns surrounding this condition. The updated guidance states, “All health care providers evaluating patients for EVALI should ask about the use of e-cigarette, or vaping, products and ideally should ask about types of substances used (e.g.,THC, cannabis [oil, dabs], nicotine, modified products or the addition of substances not intended by the manufacturer); product source, specific product brand and name; duration and frequency of use, time of last use; product delivery system, and method of use (aerosolization, dabbing, or dripping).” The approach recommended for soliciting accurate information is “empathetic, nonjudgmental” and, the guidelines say, patients should be questioned in private regarding sensitive information to assure confidentiality.

A respiratory virus panel is recommended for all suspected EVALI patients, although at this time, these tests cannot be used to distinguish EVALI from infectious etiologies. All patients should be considered for urine toxicology testing, including testing for THC.

Imaging guidance for suspected EVALI patients includes chest x-ray, with additional CT scan when the x-ray result does not correlate with clinical findings or to evaluate severe or worsening disease.

Recommended criteria for hospitalization of patients with suspected EVALI are those patients with decreased O₂ saturation (less than 95%) on room air, are in respiratory distress, or have comorbidities that compromise pulmonary reserve. As of Oct. 8, 96% of patients with suspected EVALI reported to CDC have been hospitalized.

As for medical treatment of these patients, corticosteroids have been found helpful. The statement noted, “Among 140 cases reported nationally to CDC that received corticosteroids, 82% of patients improved

The natural progression of this injury is not known, however, and it is possible that patients might recover without corticosteroids. Given the unknown etiology of the disease and “because the diagnosis remains one of exclusion, aggressive empiric therapy with corticosteroids, antimicrobial, and antiviral therapy might be warranted for patients with severe illness. A range of corticosteroid doses, durations, and taper plans might be considered on a case-by-case basis.”

The report concludes with a strong recommendation that patients hospitalized with EVALI are followed closely with a visit 1-2 weeks after discharge and again with additional testing 1-2 months later. Health care providers are also advised to consult medical specialists, in particular pulmonologists, who can offer further evaluation, recommend empiric treatment, and review indications for bronchoscopy.

Mitch Zeller, JD, director, Center for Tobacco Products with the Food and Drug Administration emphasized the extraordinary complexity of the EVALI problem but noted that the FDA and CDC “will leave no stone unturned until we get to the bottom of it.”

[email protected]

Physician payment models that include productivity bonuses are widespread, says Reshma Gupta, MD, MSHPM.

“These payment models are thought to affect clinician behavior, with productivity bonuses incentivizing clinicians to do more. While new policies aim to reduce total costs of care, little is known about the association between physician payment models and the culture of delivering high-value care,” said Dr. Gupta, the medical director for quality improvement at UCLA Health in Los Angeles.

To find out if hospitalist reimbursement models are associated with high-value culture in university, community, and safety-net hospitals, internal medicine hospitalists from 12 hospitals across California completed a cross-sectional survey assessing their perceptions of high-value care culture within their institutions. Dr. Gupta and colleagues summarized the results.

The study found that nearly 30% of hospitalists who were sampled reported payment with productivity bonuses, while only 5% of hospitalists sampled reported quality or value-based bonuses, Dr. Gupta said. “Hospitalists who reported payment with productivity bonuses were more likely to report lower high-value care culture within their programs.”

Hospitalist leaders interested in improving high-value care culture can use the High Value Care Culture Survey (http://www.highvaluecareculturesurvey.com) to quickly assess the culture within their programs, diagnose areas of opportunity and target improvement efforts.

“They can test new physician payment models within their programs and evaluate their high-value care culture to identify areas of opportunity for improvement,” Dr. Gupta said.

Reference

1. Gupta R et al. Association between hospitalist productivity payments and high-value care culture. J Hosp Med. 2019;1;16-21.

Physician payment models that include productivity bonuses are widespread, says Reshma Gupta, MD, MSHPM.

“These payment models are thought to affect clinician behavior, with productivity bonuses incentivizing clinicians to do more. While new policies aim to reduce total costs of care, little is known about the association between physician payment models and the culture of delivering high-value care,” said Dr. Gupta, the medical director for quality improvement at UCLA Health in Los Angeles.

To find out if hospitalist reimbursement models are associated with high-value culture in university, community, and safety-net hospitals, internal medicine hospitalists from 12 hospitals across California completed a cross-sectional survey assessing their perceptions of high-value care culture within their institutions. Dr. Gupta and colleagues summarized the results.

The study found that nearly 30% of hospitalists who were sampled reported payment with productivity bonuses, while only 5% of hospitalists sampled reported quality or value-based bonuses, Dr. Gupta said. “Hospitalists who reported payment with productivity bonuses were more likely to report lower high-value care culture within their programs.”

Hospitalist leaders interested in improving high-value care culture can use the High Value Care Culture Survey (http://www.highvaluecareculturesurvey.com) to quickly assess the culture within their programs, diagnose areas of opportunity and target improvement efforts.

“They can test new physician payment models within their programs and evaluate their high-value care culture to identify areas of opportunity for improvement,” Dr. Gupta said.

Reference

1. Gupta R et al. Association between hospitalist productivity payments and high-value care culture. J Hosp Med. 2019;1;16-21.

Physician payment models that include productivity bonuses are widespread, says Reshma Gupta, MD, MSHPM.

“These payment models are thought to affect clinician behavior, with productivity bonuses incentivizing clinicians to do more. While new policies aim to reduce total costs of care, little is known about the association between physician payment models and the culture of delivering high-value care,” said Dr. Gupta, the medical director for quality improvement at UCLA Health in Los Angeles.

To find out if hospitalist reimbursement models are associated with high-value culture in university, community, and safety-net hospitals, internal medicine hospitalists from 12 hospitals across California completed a cross-sectional survey assessing their perceptions of high-value care culture within their institutions. Dr. Gupta and colleagues summarized the results.

The study found that nearly 30% of hospitalists who were sampled reported payment with productivity bonuses, while only 5% of hospitalists sampled reported quality or value-based bonuses, Dr. Gupta said. “Hospitalists who reported payment with productivity bonuses were more likely to report lower high-value care culture within their programs.”

Hospitalist leaders interested in improving high-value care culture can use the High Value Care Culture Survey (http://www.highvaluecareculturesurvey.com) to quickly assess the culture within their programs, diagnose areas of opportunity and target improvement efforts.

“They can test new physician payment models within their programs and evaluate their high-value care culture to identify areas of opportunity for improvement,” Dr. Gupta said.

Reference

1. Gupta R et al. Association between hospitalist productivity payments and high-value care culture. J Hosp Med. 2019;1;16-21.