Latest News for HOSP

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are promoted as the solution to many health care problems, but the area risks becoming technology led – with only secondary consideration to the safe clinical application of the technology, says Robert Challen, PhD.

Dr. Challen, of the University of Exeter (England), is the lead author of a recent paper that examines the short-, medium-, and long-term issues with medical applications of AI. “In the short term, AI systems will effectively function like laboratory screening tests, identifying patients who are at higher risk than others of disease, or who could benefit more from a particular treatment,” Dr. Challen said. “We usually accept that laboratory tests are useful to help make a diagnosis; however, clinicians are aware that they might not always be accurate and interpret their output in the clinical context. AI systems are no different in that they will be a useful tool so long as they are designed with safety in mind and used with a pragmatic attitude to their interpretation.”

The paper also suggests a set of short-and medium-term clinical safety issues that need addressing when bringing these systems from laboratory to bedside.

In the longer term, as more continuously learning and autonomous systems are developed, the safety risks will need to be continuously reevaluated, he added. “Any new technology comes with limitations and understanding those limitations is key to safe use of that technology. In the same way a new screening test has limitations on its sensitivity and specificity that define how it can be used, AL and ML systems have limitations on accuracy and which patients they can be used on,” Dr. Challen said. If hospitalists understand these limitations, they can participate better in their development.

Dr. Challen recommends that hospitalists help the development of AI tools by participating in studies that assess AI applications in the clinical environment. “Try to make sure that where AI research is taking place, there is strong clinical involvement.”

Reference

1. Challen R et al. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan 12. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are promoted as the solution to many health care problems, but the area risks becoming technology led – with only secondary consideration to the safe clinical application of the technology, says Robert Challen, PhD.

Dr. Challen, of the University of Exeter (England), is the lead author of a recent paper that examines the short-, medium-, and long-term issues with medical applications of AI. “In the short term, AI systems will effectively function like laboratory screening tests, identifying patients who are at higher risk than others of disease, or who could benefit more from a particular treatment,” Dr. Challen said. “We usually accept that laboratory tests are useful to help make a diagnosis; however, clinicians are aware that they might not always be accurate and interpret their output in the clinical context. AI systems are no different in that they will be a useful tool so long as they are designed with safety in mind and used with a pragmatic attitude to their interpretation.”

The paper also suggests a set of short-and medium-term clinical safety issues that need addressing when bringing these systems from laboratory to bedside.

In the longer term, as more continuously learning and autonomous systems are developed, the safety risks will need to be continuously reevaluated, he added. “Any new technology comes with limitations and understanding those limitations is key to safe use of that technology. In the same way a new screening test has limitations on its sensitivity and specificity that define how it can be used, AL and ML systems have limitations on accuracy and which patients they can be used on,” Dr. Challen said. If hospitalists understand these limitations, they can participate better in their development.

Dr. Challen recommends that hospitalists help the development of AI tools by participating in studies that assess AI applications in the clinical environment. “Try to make sure that where AI research is taking place, there is strong clinical involvement.”

Reference

1. Challen R et al. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan 12. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) are promoted as the solution to many health care problems, but the area risks becoming technology led – with only secondary consideration to the safe clinical application of the technology, says Robert Challen, PhD.

Dr. Challen, of the University of Exeter (England), is the lead author of a recent paper that examines the short-, medium-, and long-term issues with medical applications of AI. “In the short term, AI systems will effectively function like laboratory screening tests, identifying patients who are at higher risk than others of disease, or who could benefit more from a particular treatment,” Dr. Challen said. “We usually accept that laboratory tests are useful to help make a diagnosis; however, clinicians are aware that they might not always be accurate and interpret their output in the clinical context. AI systems are no different in that they will be a useful tool so long as they are designed with safety in mind and used with a pragmatic attitude to their interpretation.”

The paper also suggests a set of short-and medium-term clinical safety issues that need addressing when bringing these systems from laboratory to bedside.

In the longer term, as more continuously learning and autonomous systems are developed, the safety risks will need to be continuously reevaluated, he added. “Any new technology comes with limitations and understanding those limitations is key to safe use of that technology. In the same way a new screening test has limitations on its sensitivity and specificity that define how it can be used, AL and ML systems have limitations on accuracy and which patients they can be used on,” Dr. Challen said. If hospitalists understand these limitations, they can participate better in their development.

Dr. Challen recommends that hospitalists help the development of AI tools by participating in studies that assess AI applications in the clinical environment. “Try to make sure that where AI research is taking place, there is strong clinical involvement.”

Reference

1. Challen R et al. Artificial intelligence, bias and clinical safety. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan 12. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008370.

Burnout among health care professionals has been associated with lower quality of care, but the effect may be smaller than it seems, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 clinicians.

Previous studies have reported associations between burnout and lower quality of care, but a standardized approach to analyze bias in the studies is lacking, wrote Daniel S. Tawfik, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers identified 123 publications from 1994 to 2019 with 142 study populations that included 241,553 health care providers.

Emotional exhaustion was the primary predictor for lower quality of care in 75 study populations, and overall burnout and depersonalization were the primary predictors for 56 and 11 study populations, respectively.

In an analysis of 114 unique burnout-quality combinations, 58 showed effects of burnout related to poor-quality care, 6 showed burnout related to high-quality care, and 50 showed no significant effect. Approximately one-third (33%) of the burnout-quality combinations were reported at least three times. In a review of the 46 burnout-quality combinations with primary effect sizes, 24 showed a significant effect of burnout on poor quality of care, 1 showed a significant effect of burnout on high quality of care, and 21 showed no significant effect.

The researchers also tested study bias using the Ioannidis test and found “an excess of observed versus predicted statistically significant studies (73% observed vs. 62%).”

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of many cross-sectional, observational studies that could not show causality, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest several implications for future research including the need to consider exaggerated effects and reduce bias.

“Although the effect sizes in the published literature are modestly strong, our finding of excess significance implies that the true magnitude may be smaller than reported, and the studies that attempted to lower the risk of bias demonstrate fewer significant associations than the full evidence base,” the researchers noted.

“Whether curtailing burnout improves quality of care, or whether improving quality of care reduces burnout, is not yet known, and adequately powered and designed randomized trials will be indispensable in answering these questions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Tawfik disclosed grants from Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute during the study period.

SOURCE: Tawfik DS et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.7326/M19-1152.

Burnout among health care professionals has been associated with lower quality of care, but the effect may be smaller than it seems, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 clinicians.

Previous studies have reported associations between burnout and lower quality of care, but a standardized approach to analyze bias in the studies is lacking, wrote Daniel S. Tawfik, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers identified 123 publications from 1994 to 2019 with 142 study populations that included 241,553 health care providers.

Emotional exhaustion was the primary predictor for lower quality of care in 75 study populations, and overall burnout and depersonalization were the primary predictors for 56 and 11 study populations, respectively.

In an analysis of 114 unique burnout-quality combinations, 58 showed effects of burnout related to poor-quality care, 6 showed burnout related to high-quality care, and 50 showed no significant effect. Approximately one-third (33%) of the burnout-quality combinations were reported at least three times. In a review of the 46 burnout-quality combinations with primary effect sizes, 24 showed a significant effect of burnout on poor quality of care, 1 showed a significant effect of burnout on high quality of care, and 21 showed no significant effect.

The researchers also tested study bias using the Ioannidis test and found “an excess of observed versus predicted statistically significant studies (73% observed vs. 62%).”

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of many cross-sectional, observational studies that could not show causality, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest several implications for future research including the need to consider exaggerated effects and reduce bias.

“Although the effect sizes in the published literature are modestly strong, our finding of excess significance implies that the true magnitude may be smaller than reported, and the studies that attempted to lower the risk of bias demonstrate fewer significant associations than the full evidence base,” the researchers noted.

“Whether curtailing burnout improves quality of care, or whether improving quality of care reduces burnout, is not yet known, and adequately powered and designed randomized trials will be indispensable in answering these questions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Tawfik disclosed grants from Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute during the study period.

SOURCE: Tawfik DS et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.7326/M19-1152.

Burnout among health care professionals has been associated with lower quality of care, but the effect may be smaller than it seems, based on data from a meta-analysis of more than 200,000 clinicians.

Previous studies have reported associations between burnout and lower quality of care, but a standardized approach to analyze bias in the studies is lacking, wrote Daniel S. Tawfik, MD, of Stanford (Calif.) University and colleagues.

In a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers identified 123 publications from 1994 to 2019 with 142 study populations that included 241,553 health care providers.

Emotional exhaustion was the primary predictor for lower quality of care in 75 study populations, and overall burnout and depersonalization were the primary predictors for 56 and 11 study populations, respectively.

In an analysis of 114 unique burnout-quality combinations, 58 showed effects of burnout related to poor-quality care, 6 showed burnout related to high-quality care, and 50 showed no significant effect. Approximately one-third (33%) of the burnout-quality combinations were reported at least three times. In a review of the 46 burnout-quality combinations with primary effect sizes, 24 showed a significant effect of burnout on poor quality of care, 1 showed a significant effect of burnout on high quality of care, and 21 showed no significant effect.

The researchers also tested study bias using the Ioannidis test and found “an excess of observed versus predicted statistically significant studies (73% observed vs. 62%).”

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of many cross-sectional, observational studies that could not show causality, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest several implications for future research including the need to consider exaggerated effects and reduce bias.

“Although the effect sizes in the published literature are modestly strong, our finding of excess significance implies that the true magnitude may be smaller than reported, and the studies that attempted to lower the risk of bias demonstrate fewer significant associations than the full evidence base,” the researchers noted.

“Whether curtailing burnout improves quality of care, or whether improving quality of care reduces burnout, is not yet known, and adequately powered and designed randomized trials will be indispensable in answering these questions,” they concluded.

The study was supported by the Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute. Dr. Tawfik disclosed grants from Stanford Maternal and Child Health Research Institute during the study period.

SOURCE: Tawfik DS et al. Ann Intern Med. 2019 Oct 8. doi: 10.7326/M19-1152.

Hospitalization can be a challenging and vulnerable time for patients and their families. While challenges associated with the quality and safety of hospital care are well documented, perspectives of patients, families, caregivers, and other stakeholders are not as easily understood and are important targets of improvement research.

This led to the initiation of the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, a collaboration including the Society for Hospital Medicine’s Center for Quality Improvement. The team completed a systematic and broad engagement process with patients, families, and caregivers, followed by an in-person prioritization meeting to generate a priority list of research topics that describe the most important gaps in the care of hospitalized patients.

The Hospitalist recently spoke with Luci Leykum, MD, MSc, MBA, SFHM, principal investigator for the i-HOPE Study, professor of medicine and investigator in the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and incoming associate chair for clinical innovation at the University of Texas at Austin.

Why is it so important to include the perspective of the patient during a hospital stay?

We cannot optimally improve outcomes of hospitalized patients if we don’t have patients’ perspectives on what needs to be improved. Hearing these perspectives also provides insights into how we can address gaps in hospital care.

How were patients and other stakeholders engaged during the i-HOPE program?

Patients, caregivers, and stakeholders were engaged throughout the entire project, from conceptualization to dissemination of results.

We worked with seven patient partners to develop the proposal that we submitted to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. They were involved in all phases of the project, from developing the informational webinars and surveys to analyzing our results.

We engaged additional patients, caregivers, and stakeholders to submit their highest priority unanswered research questions for improving hospital care. A total of 117 patients and 127 caregivers submitted questions. Our patient partners and more than 30 stakeholders were involved in prioritizing those research questions to develop our final agenda.

What is unique about the approach in the i-HOPE project, compared with other projects that may have had similar intended objectives?

Our project is unique in several respects. First, it was completely patient partnered. Having patients as equal members of the team changed our approach at every level – from how we communicated with patients and stakeholders to how we analyzed and presented our data. Second, we worked with a larger number of stakeholders representing a broad range of constituencies, from professional societies to health care delivery systems to payers.

How has SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement helped the i-HOPE program to realize its goals?

The Center for Quality Improvement helped considerably with the execution of the project. The researchers involved in i-HOPE were all members of the SHM Research Committee and were familiar with SHM’s capability as a partner in these larger-scale projects. The SHM Meetings team was instrumental in making our in-person patient and stakeholder prioritization meeting happen as well.

How can the findings of the i-HOPE program be applied?

We hope everyone can utilize our findings. Patients, families, and caregivers can use our results to improve their own care. Providers and delivery systems can target their improvement efforts using our findings to ensure that their work has the greatest impact on patients. Policy makers and funders can use our findings to direct work to the priority areas we identified. And finally, we hope the hospital research community uses our results to develop novel interventions to improve care.

For more information on the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, visit hospitalmedicine.org/ihope.

Hospitalization can be a challenging and vulnerable time for patients and their families. While challenges associated with the quality and safety of hospital care are well documented, perspectives of patients, families, caregivers, and other stakeholders are not as easily understood and are important targets of improvement research.

This led to the initiation of the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, a collaboration including the Society for Hospital Medicine’s Center for Quality Improvement. The team completed a systematic and broad engagement process with patients, families, and caregivers, followed by an in-person prioritization meeting to generate a priority list of research topics that describe the most important gaps in the care of hospitalized patients.

The Hospitalist recently spoke with Luci Leykum, MD, MSc, MBA, SFHM, principal investigator for the i-HOPE Study, professor of medicine and investigator in the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and incoming associate chair for clinical innovation at the University of Texas at Austin.

Why is it so important to include the perspective of the patient during a hospital stay?

We cannot optimally improve outcomes of hospitalized patients if we don’t have patients’ perspectives on what needs to be improved. Hearing these perspectives also provides insights into how we can address gaps in hospital care.

How were patients and other stakeholders engaged during the i-HOPE program?

Patients, caregivers, and stakeholders were engaged throughout the entire project, from conceptualization to dissemination of results.

We worked with seven patient partners to develop the proposal that we submitted to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. They were involved in all phases of the project, from developing the informational webinars and surveys to analyzing our results.

We engaged additional patients, caregivers, and stakeholders to submit their highest priority unanswered research questions for improving hospital care. A total of 117 patients and 127 caregivers submitted questions. Our patient partners and more than 30 stakeholders were involved in prioritizing those research questions to develop our final agenda.

What is unique about the approach in the i-HOPE project, compared with other projects that may have had similar intended objectives?

Our project is unique in several respects. First, it was completely patient partnered. Having patients as equal members of the team changed our approach at every level – from how we communicated with patients and stakeholders to how we analyzed and presented our data. Second, we worked with a larger number of stakeholders representing a broad range of constituencies, from professional societies to health care delivery systems to payers.

How has SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement helped the i-HOPE program to realize its goals?

The Center for Quality Improvement helped considerably with the execution of the project. The researchers involved in i-HOPE were all members of the SHM Research Committee and were familiar with SHM’s capability as a partner in these larger-scale projects. The SHM Meetings team was instrumental in making our in-person patient and stakeholder prioritization meeting happen as well.

How can the findings of the i-HOPE program be applied?

We hope everyone can utilize our findings. Patients, families, and caregivers can use our results to improve their own care. Providers and delivery systems can target their improvement efforts using our findings to ensure that their work has the greatest impact on patients. Policy makers and funders can use our findings to direct work to the priority areas we identified. And finally, we hope the hospital research community uses our results to develop novel interventions to improve care.

For more information on the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, visit hospitalmedicine.org/ihope.

Hospitalization can be a challenging and vulnerable time for patients and their families. While challenges associated with the quality and safety of hospital care are well documented, perspectives of patients, families, caregivers, and other stakeholders are not as easily understood and are important targets of improvement research.

This led to the initiation of the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, a collaboration including the Society for Hospital Medicine’s Center for Quality Improvement. The team completed a systematic and broad engagement process with patients, families, and caregivers, followed by an in-person prioritization meeting to generate a priority list of research topics that describe the most important gaps in the care of hospitalized patients.

The Hospitalist recently spoke with Luci Leykum, MD, MSc, MBA, SFHM, principal investigator for the i-HOPE Study, professor of medicine and investigator in the South Texas Veterans Health Care System and incoming associate chair for clinical innovation at the University of Texas at Austin.

Why is it so important to include the perspective of the patient during a hospital stay?

We cannot optimally improve outcomes of hospitalized patients if we don’t have patients’ perspectives on what needs to be improved. Hearing these perspectives also provides insights into how we can address gaps in hospital care.

How were patients and other stakeholders engaged during the i-HOPE program?

Patients, caregivers, and stakeholders were engaged throughout the entire project, from conceptualization to dissemination of results.

We worked with seven patient partners to develop the proposal that we submitted to the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. They were involved in all phases of the project, from developing the informational webinars and surveys to analyzing our results.

We engaged additional patients, caregivers, and stakeholders to submit their highest priority unanswered research questions for improving hospital care. A total of 117 patients and 127 caregivers submitted questions. Our patient partners and more than 30 stakeholders were involved in prioritizing those research questions to develop our final agenda.

What is unique about the approach in the i-HOPE project, compared with other projects that may have had similar intended objectives?

Our project is unique in several respects. First, it was completely patient partnered. Having patients as equal members of the team changed our approach at every level – from how we communicated with patients and stakeholders to how we analyzed and presented our data. Second, we worked with a larger number of stakeholders representing a broad range of constituencies, from professional societies to health care delivery systems to payers.

How has SHM’s Center for Quality Improvement helped the i-HOPE program to realize its goals?

The Center for Quality Improvement helped considerably with the execution of the project. The researchers involved in i-HOPE were all members of the SHM Research Committee and were familiar with SHM’s capability as a partner in these larger-scale projects. The SHM Meetings team was instrumental in making our in-person patient and stakeholder prioritization meeting happen as well.

How can the findings of the i-HOPE program be applied?

We hope everyone can utilize our findings. Patients, families, and caregivers can use our results to improve their own care. Providers and delivery systems can target their improvement efforts using our findings to ensure that their work has the greatest impact on patients. Policy makers and funders can use our findings to direct work to the priority areas we identified. And finally, we hope the hospital research community uses our results to develop novel interventions to improve care.

For more information on the i-HOPE Patient Engagement Study, visit hospitalmedicine.org/ihope.

CHICAGO – A care model that uses hospitalists to comanage vascular surgery patients cut myocardial infarction rates by more than half and reduced hospital stays by about 12%, according to results of a study of the hospitalist comanagement model from Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“Hospitalist comanagement was associated with decreased length of stay without affecting readmission for patients undergoing amputation, embolectomy, and infected graft,” said Kaavya Adam, a third-year medical student at Loyola University Chicago. “In the overall population, there was a reduction in cases of MI, 30-day readmissions, and overall length of stay.”

In 2014, Loyola implemented a program that used 11 hospitalists to rotate through the vascular surgery service. The hospitalists call on any patient who stays more than 24 hours on the non-ICU floors. Adam said hospitalist duties include evaluating patient comorbidities, adjusting medication, talking with family about medical management, seeing patients on the day of surgery, ordering preoperative labs, and meeting with the anesthesiology and vascular surgery teams.

The study compared outcomes in 866 patients admitted during 2007-2013, before the comanagement model was put into place, and 572 admitted during 2014-2017.

Rates of diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, and malnutrition were similar between the groups. However, the pre-comanagement group had significantly higher rates of ischemic pain (27.8% vs. 10.7%), gangrene (21.3% vs. 13.6%) and ulceration (30.6% vs. 21.9%), while the comanaged group had significantly higher rates of claudication (34.3% vs. 13.2%). The statistical analysis accounted for these variations, Adam said.

“We did find significant results for the reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days; there was a 61% reduction,” he said.

The reduction in hospital stay was even more pronounced for patients with complex cases, Adam said. In amputation, the length of stay was reduced by 3.77 days (P = .01); in embolectomy, by 7.35 (P = .004); and in infected graft, by 8.35 (P = .007).

Continuing research will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the hospitalist model and define a comanagement model that is most beneficial, Mr. Adam said. He had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adam K et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 14.

CHICAGO – A care model that uses hospitalists to comanage vascular surgery patients cut myocardial infarction rates by more than half and reduced hospital stays by about 12%, according to results of a study of the hospitalist comanagement model from Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“Hospitalist comanagement was associated with decreased length of stay without affecting readmission for patients undergoing amputation, embolectomy, and infected graft,” said Kaavya Adam, a third-year medical student at Loyola University Chicago. “In the overall population, there was a reduction in cases of MI, 30-day readmissions, and overall length of stay.”

In 2014, Loyola implemented a program that used 11 hospitalists to rotate through the vascular surgery service. The hospitalists call on any patient who stays more than 24 hours on the non-ICU floors. Adam said hospitalist duties include evaluating patient comorbidities, adjusting medication, talking with family about medical management, seeing patients on the day of surgery, ordering preoperative labs, and meeting with the anesthesiology and vascular surgery teams.

The study compared outcomes in 866 patients admitted during 2007-2013, before the comanagement model was put into place, and 572 admitted during 2014-2017.

Rates of diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, and malnutrition were similar between the groups. However, the pre-comanagement group had significantly higher rates of ischemic pain (27.8% vs. 10.7%), gangrene (21.3% vs. 13.6%) and ulceration (30.6% vs. 21.9%), while the comanaged group had significantly higher rates of claudication (34.3% vs. 13.2%). The statistical analysis accounted for these variations, Adam said.

“We did find significant results for the reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days; there was a 61% reduction,” he said.

The reduction in hospital stay was even more pronounced for patients with complex cases, Adam said. In amputation, the length of stay was reduced by 3.77 days (P = .01); in embolectomy, by 7.35 (P = .004); and in infected graft, by 8.35 (P = .007).

Continuing research will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the hospitalist model and define a comanagement model that is most beneficial, Mr. Adam said. He had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adam K et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 14.

CHICAGO – A care model that uses hospitalists to comanage vascular surgery patients cut myocardial infarction rates by more than half and reduced hospital stays by about 12%, according to results of a study of the hospitalist comanagement model from Loyola University Chicago, Maywood, Ill., presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Vascular Surgery Society.

“Hospitalist comanagement was associated with decreased length of stay without affecting readmission for patients undergoing amputation, embolectomy, and infected graft,” said Kaavya Adam, a third-year medical student at Loyola University Chicago. “In the overall population, there was a reduction in cases of MI, 30-day readmissions, and overall length of stay.”

In 2014, Loyola implemented a program that used 11 hospitalists to rotate through the vascular surgery service. The hospitalists call on any patient who stays more than 24 hours on the non-ICU floors. Adam said hospitalist duties include evaluating patient comorbidities, adjusting medication, talking with family about medical management, seeing patients on the day of surgery, ordering preoperative labs, and meeting with the anesthesiology and vascular surgery teams.

The study compared outcomes in 866 patients admitted during 2007-2013, before the comanagement model was put into place, and 572 admitted during 2014-2017.

Rates of diabetes, hypertension, chronic kidney disease, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, and malnutrition were similar between the groups. However, the pre-comanagement group had significantly higher rates of ischemic pain (27.8% vs. 10.7%), gangrene (21.3% vs. 13.6%) and ulceration (30.6% vs. 21.9%), while the comanaged group had significantly higher rates of claudication (34.3% vs. 13.2%). The statistical analysis accounted for these variations, Adam said.

“We did find significant results for the reduction in the odds of MI at 30 days; there was a 61% reduction,” he said.

The reduction in hospital stay was even more pronounced for patients with complex cases, Adam said. In amputation, the length of stay was reduced by 3.77 days (P = .01); in embolectomy, by 7.35 (P = .004); and in infected graft, by 8.35 (P = .007).

Continuing research will evaluate the cost effectiveness of the hospitalist model and define a comanagement model that is most beneficial, Mr. Adam said. He had no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Adam K et al. Midwestern Vascular 2019, Abstract 14.

In June 2019, a 5-hour preconference seminar at the annual Integrating Quality Conference of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in Minneapolis highlighted the emergence of a new concept, and a new community, within the larger field of hospital medicine.

“Bridging leaders” are clinician-educators with a foot in two worlds: leading quality and safety initiatives within their teaching hospitals – with the hospitalist’s customary participation in a broad spectrum of quality improvement (QI) efforts in the hospital – while helping to train future and current physicians. “Bridging” also extends to the third piece of the quality puzzle, the hospital and/or health system’s senior administrators.

“About 8 years ago, another hospitalist and I found ourselves in this role, bridging graduate medical education with hospital quality and safety,” said Jennifer S. Myers, MD, FHM, director of quality and safety education in the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The role has since begun to proliferate, in teaching settings large and small, and about 30-50 of us with somewhat similar job responsibilities have been trying to create a community.”

Following the lead of the American College of Graduate Medical Education¹ and its standards for clinical learning environments that include integration of patient safety and quality improvement, these have become graduate medical education (GME) priorities. Students need to learn the theory and practice of safety and quality improvement on the job as part of their professional development. Residency program directors and other trainers thus need to find opportunities for them to practice these techniques in the clinical practice environment.

At the same time, mobilizing those eager medical learners to plan and conduct quality improvement projects can enhance a hospital’s ability to advance its mission in the new health care environment of accountable care and population health.
 

New concept arises

Is bridging leaders a real thing? The short answer is yes, said Thomas Ciesielski, MD, GME medical director for patient safety, quality education, and clinical learning environment review program development at Washington University in St. Louis. “This is a new trend, but it’s still in the process of defining itself. Every bridging leader has their own identity based on their institution. Some play a bridging role for the entire institution; others play similar roles but only within a specific department or division. There’s a lot of learning going on in our community,” he said.

The first Bridging Leaders track was held last year at AAMC’s 2018 Integrating Quality Conference, an event which has been held annually for the past decade. The concept was also highlighted in a 2017 article in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education² by bridging leaders, including many of the faculty at the subsequent AAMC sessions, highlighting their roles and programs at six academic medical centers.

One of those coauthors, hospitalist Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, was recently appointed to a new position at University of Chicago Medicine: associate chief medical officer for the clinical learning environment – which pulls together many of the threads of the bridging leaders movement into a single job title. Dr. Arora said her job builds on her prior work in GME and improves the clinical learning environment for residents and fellows by integrating them into the health system’s institutional quality, safety, and value missions. It also expands on that work to include faculty and allied health professionals. “I just happen to come from the health system side,” she said.
 

Natural bridges: From clinical to educational

As with the early days of the hospitalist movement, bridging leaders are trying to build a community of peers with common interests.

“We’re just at the beginning,” Dr. Arora said. “Hospitalists have been the natural torch bearers for quality and safety in their hospitals, and also play roles in the education of residents and medical students, working alongside residency program directors. They are well-versed in quality and in education. So, they are the natural bridges between education and clinical care,” she said. “We also know this is a young group that comes to our meetings. One-third of them have been doing this for only the past 2 years or less – so they are early in their career paths.”

Front-line clinical providers, such as residents, often have good ideas, and bridging leaders can bring these ideas to the health system’s leaders, Dr. Arora said. “Bridging at the leadership level also involves thinking about the larger priorities of the system.” There are trust issues that these leaders can help to bridge, as well as internal communication barriers. “We also realize that health systems have to move quickly in response to a rapidly changing environment,” she noted.

“You don’t want a hundred quality improvement projects being done by students that are unaligned with the organization’s priorities. That leads to waste, and highlights the need for greater alignment,” Dr. Arora added. “Think about using front-line staff as agents of change, of engaging with learners as a win/win – as a way to actually solve the problems we are facing.”

A bridging leader occupies a role in which they can influence and affect these two parts of the mission of health care, somebody whose leadership responsibilities sit at the intersection of these two areas, said Darlene Tad-y, MD, director of GME quality and safety programs at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “Once, these people were mostly in academic medical centers, but that’s not so true anymore. A director of quality for a hospital medicine group is responsible for developing the group’s quality strategy, but at the same time responsible for teaching members of the group – not only doing QI but teaching others how to do it,” she said.

“Hospitalists make terrific bridging leaders. We really are in that sweet spot, and we can and should step into these leadership roles,” Dr. Tad-y said. “Because of our role in the hospital, we know the ins and outs of how processes work or don’t work. We have an insider’s view of the system’s dysfunction, which puts us in a great place to lead these efforts.”

The bridging leaders movement has been a grass-roots development, Dr. Tad-y explained. “It’s not like people started with the job title. But because all of this work was needed, a few people started doing it – and they began seeking each other out. Then they found that there were more than a few of us. We just hadn’t known what it was called.”
 

What is being bridged?

There has long been a relationship between individuals who lead in the clinical environment and those who lead in education, such as the program directors of residency programs, said Janis Orlowski, MD, chief health care officer for AAMC, which represents 154 MD-granting medical schools and their associated teaching hospitals.

“Our association’s three missions of research, education, and patient care really come together around the bridging leaders concept. So, this movement is well aligned. And as bridging leaders started to develop as a group, they found a home in AAMC and at our Integrating Quality Conference,” she said.

“Where we see this integration is in the teaching of residents and medical students in the clinical environment,” Dr. Orlowski said. “It’s not just their knowledge of disease or treatments or procedural skills that needs to be taught. They also need to understand the safe and effective clinical environment, and the role of learners in patient safety, quality improvement, and efficient and cost-effective hospital care. They need to understand value.” A new field of health systems science is emerging and quality improvement is evolving to incorporate population health. But traditional medical faculty may not be that comfortable teaching it.

Any physician who sees that they have a role in the clinical, administrative, and educational worlds can do the bridging, Dr. Orlowski said. “It could be any environment in which care is provided and learning takes place. I mentioned QI and patient safety, but among the other essential skills for the doctor of tomorrow are teamwork, inter-professional training in how to work with, for example, the pharmacist and dietitian, and understanding the value they bring.”

Whenever quality improvement projects are undertaken as part of post-graduate medical education, they should be aligned with the institution’s quality improvement plan and with the priorities of the health system, said Rob Dressler, MD, MBA, quality and safety officer at Christiana Health Care System in Newark, Del., and president of the Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers (AIAMC), which represents 80 hospital and health systems active in the emerging movement for bridging leaders.

“GME needs to keep the C-suite aware of its front-line efforts to improve quality and safety, so the institution’s return on investment can be recognized,” he said. “The AIAMC has consistently advocated for the building of bridges between GME leaders and their C-suites at our member hospitals. If you are doing process improvement, you need to be aligned with the organization and its priorities, or you’ll be less successful.”

AIAMC convenes the National Initiative – a multi-institutional collaborative in which residents lead multi-disciplinary teams in quality improvement projects. A total of 64 hospitals and health systems have participated since the program started in 2007. “We need to train our clinicians to solve the problems of tomorrow,” Dr. Dressler said.
 

Bridging leaders in action

The leaders contacted for this article offered some examples of bridging in action. Dr. Arora has used “crowd sourcing” – a technique employed extensively in her work with Costs of Care, a global nonprofit trying to drive better health care at lower cost – to implement a local program for front-line clinicians to generate ideas on how to improve value and reduce unnecessary treatment.

“We created our local ‘Choosing Wisely’ challenge for residents and staff at the University of Chicago – with the understanding that the winner would get analytic and time support to pursue their project,” she said. A resident winner was a finalist in the RIV (Research, Innovations and Clinical Vignettes) competition at a recent SHM Annual Conference.

At the University of Colorado, there is an associate program director who is responsible for the quality improvement curriculum for residents, Dr. Tad-y said. Because teaching QI means doing QI, the associate program director had to start implementing QI in the hospital, learning how to choose appropriate QI projects for the residents. That meant looking at quality priorities for the hospital – including VTE prophylaxis, fall prevention, and rates of central line–associated bloodstream infections and catheter-associated urinary tract infections. “A critical priority was to align the learners’ QI projects with what the hospital is already working on,” she explained.

“In our practice, all fellows need education and training in patient safety, how to recognize medical errors and close calls, and how to use our errors reporting system,” Dr. Myers said. “They also need to participate in errors analysis discussions. But we have struggled to get residents to attend those meetings. There’s not enough time in their schedules, and here at Penn, we have 1,500 residents and fellows, and maybe only 20 of these formal medical errors conferences per year,” she said.

Dr. Myers worked with the hospital’s patient safety officer and head of GME to design a simulated approach to fill the gap, a simulation of the root cause analysis process – how it works, the various roles played by different individuals, and what happens after it is done. “In my role, I trained one faculty member in each large residency program in how to identify a case and how to use the simulation,” she said. “They can now teach their own learners and make it more relevant to their specialty.”

Penn also has a blueprint for quality – a road map for how the organization socializes health care quality, safety, and value, Dr. Myers said. “Every 3 or 4 years our CEO looks at the road map and tries to get feedback on its direction from payers and insurers, quality leaders, academic department heads – and residents. I was in a good position to organize a session for a representative group of residents to get together and talk about where they see the quality and safety gaps in their everyday work.”

The role of the bridging leader is a viable career path or target for many hospitalists, Dr. Arora said. “But even if it’s not a career path for you, knowing that hospitalists are at the forefront of the bridging leaders movement could help you energize your health system. If you are seeing gaps in quality and safety, this is an issue you can bring before the system.”

These days doctors are wearing a lot of hats and filling roles that weren’t seen as much before, said Dr. Orlowski. “Bridging leaders are not an exclusive group but open to anyone who finds their passion in teaching quality and safety. Maybe you’re doing quality and safety, but not education, but you recognize its importance, or vice versa. First of all, look to see what this bridging leaders thing really is, and how it might apply to you. You might say: ‘That accurately describes what I’m doing now. I have the interest; I want to learn more.’”
 

References

1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. CLER pathways to excellence.

2. Myers JS et al. Bridging leadership roles in quality and patient safety: Experience of 6 U.S. Academic Medical Centers. J Grad Med Educ. 2017 Feb;9(1): 9-13.
 

In June 2019, a 5-hour preconference seminar at the annual Integrating Quality Conference of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in Minneapolis highlighted the emergence of a new concept, and a new community, within the larger field of hospital medicine.

“Bridging leaders” are clinician-educators with a foot in two worlds: leading quality and safety initiatives within their teaching hospitals – with the hospitalist’s customary participation in a broad spectrum of quality improvement (QI) efforts in the hospital – while helping to train future and current physicians. “Bridging” also extends to the third piece of the quality puzzle, the hospital and/or health system’s senior administrators.

“About 8 years ago, another hospitalist and I found ourselves in this role, bridging graduate medical education with hospital quality and safety,” said Jennifer S. Myers, MD, FHM, director of quality and safety education in the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The role has since begun to proliferate, in teaching settings large and small, and about 30-50 of us with somewhat similar job responsibilities have been trying to create a community.”

Following the lead of the American College of Graduate Medical Education¹ and its standards for clinical learning environments that include integration of patient safety and quality improvement, these have become graduate medical education (GME) priorities. Students need to learn the theory and practice of safety and quality improvement on the job as part of their professional development. Residency program directors and other trainers thus need to find opportunities for them to practice these techniques in the clinical practice environment.

At the same time, mobilizing those eager medical learners to plan and conduct quality improvement projects can enhance a hospital’s ability to advance its mission in the new health care environment of accountable care and population health.
 

New concept arises

Is bridging leaders a real thing? The short answer is yes, said Thomas Ciesielski, MD, GME medical director for patient safety, quality education, and clinical learning environment review program development at Washington University in St. Louis. “This is a new trend, but it’s still in the process of defining itself. Every bridging leader has their own identity based on their institution. Some play a bridging role for the entire institution; others play similar roles but only within a specific department or division. There’s a lot of learning going on in our community,” he said.

The first Bridging Leaders track was held last year at AAMC’s 2018 Integrating Quality Conference, an event which has been held annually for the past decade. The concept was also highlighted in a 2017 article in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education² by bridging leaders, including many of the faculty at the subsequent AAMC sessions, highlighting their roles and programs at six academic medical centers.

One of those coauthors, hospitalist Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, was recently appointed to a new position at University of Chicago Medicine: associate chief medical officer for the clinical learning environment – which pulls together many of the threads of the bridging leaders movement into a single job title. Dr. Arora said her job builds on her prior work in GME and improves the clinical learning environment for residents and fellows by integrating them into the health system’s institutional quality, safety, and value missions. It also expands on that work to include faculty and allied health professionals. “I just happen to come from the health system side,” she said.
 

Natural bridges: From clinical to educational

As with the early days of the hospitalist movement, bridging leaders are trying to build a community of peers with common interests.

“We’re just at the beginning,” Dr. Arora said. “Hospitalists have been the natural torch bearers for quality and safety in their hospitals, and also play roles in the education of residents and medical students, working alongside residency program directors. They are well-versed in quality and in education. So, they are the natural bridges between education and clinical care,” she said. “We also know this is a young group that comes to our meetings. One-third of them have been doing this for only the past 2 years or less – so they are early in their career paths.”

Front-line clinical providers, such as residents, often have good ideas, and bridging leaders can bring these ideas to the health system’s leaders, Dr. Arora said. “Bridging at the leadership level also involves thinking about the larger priorities of the system.” There are trust issues that these leaders can help to bridge, as well as internal communication barriers. “We also realize that health systems have to move quickly in response to a rapidly changing environment,” she noted.

“You don’t want a hundred quality improvement projects being done by students that are unaligned with the organization’s priorities. That leads to waste, and highlights the need for greater alignment,” Dr. Arora added. “Think about using front-line staff as agents of change, of engaging with learners as a win/win – as a way to actually solve the problems we are facing.”

A bridging leader occupies a role in which they can influence and affect these two parts of the mission of health care, somebody whose leadership responsibilities sit at the intersection of these two areas, said Darlene Tad-y, MD, director of GME quality and safety programs at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “Once, these people were mostly in academic medical centers, but that’s not so true anymore. A director of quality for a hospital medicine group is responsible for developing the group’s quality strategy, but at the same time responsible for teaching members of the group – not only doing QI but teaching others how to do it,” she said.

“Hospitalists make terrific bridging leaders. We really are in that sweet spot, and we can and should step into these leadership roles,” Dr. Tad-y said. “Because of our role in the hospital, we know the ins and outs of how processes work or don’t work. We have an insider’s view of the system’s dysfunction, which puts us in a great place to lead these efforts.”

The bridging leaders movement has been a grass-roots development, Dr. Tad-y explained. “It’s not like people started with the job title. But because all of this work was needed, a few people started doing it – and they began seeking each other out. Then they found that there were more than a few of us. We just hadn’t known what it was called.”
 

What is being bridged?

There has long been a relationship between individuals who lead in the clinical environment and those who lead in education, such as the program directors of residency programs, said Janis Orlowski, MD, chief health care officer for AAMC, which represents 154 MD-granting medical schools and their associated teaching hospitals.

“Our association’s three missions of research, education, and patient care really come together around the bridging leaders concept. So, this movement is well aligned. And as bridging leaders started to develop as a group, they found a home in AAMC and at our Integrating Quality Conference,” she said.

“Where we see this integration is in the teaching of residents and medical students in the clinical environment,” Dr. Orlowski said. “It’s not just their knowledge of disease or treatments or procedural skills that needs to be taught. They also need to understand the safe and effective clinical environment, and the role of learners in patient safety, quality improvement, and efficient and cost-effective hospital care. They need to understand value.” A new field of health systems science is emerging and quality improvement is evolving to incorporate population health. But traditional medical faculty may not be that comfortable teaching it.

Any physician who sees that they have a role in the clinical, administrative, and educational worlds can do the bridging, Dr. Orlowski said. “It could be any environment in which care is provided and learning takes place. I mentioned QI and patient safety, but among the other essential skills for the doctor of tomorrow are teamwork, inter-professional training in how to work with, for example, the pharmacist and dietitian, and understanding the value they bring.”

Whenever quality improvement projects are undertaken as part of post-graduate medical education, they should be aligned with the institution’s quality improvement plan and with the priorities of the health system, said Rob Dressler, MD, MBA, quality and safety officer at Christiana Health Care System in Newark, Del., and president of the Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers (AIAMC), which represents 80 hospital and health systems active in the emerging movement for bridging leaders.

“GME needs to keep the C-suite aware of its front-line efforts to improve quality and safety, so the institution’s return on investment can be recognized,” he said. “The AIAMC has consistently advocated for the building of bridges between GME leaders and their C-suites at our member hospitals. If you are doing process improvement, you need to be aligned with the organization and its priorities, or you’ll be less successful.”

AIAMC convenes the National Initiative – a multi-institutional collaborative in which residents lead multi-disciplinary teams in quality improvement projects. A total of 64 hospitals and health systems have participated since the program started in 2007. “We need to train our clinicians to solve the problems of tomorrow,” Dr. Dressler said.
 

Bridging leaders in action

The leaders contacted for this article offered some examples of bridging in action. Dr. Arora has used “crowd sourcing” – a technique employed extensively in her work with Costs of Care, a global nonprofit trying to drive better health care at lower cost – to implement a local program for front-line clinicians to generate ideas on how to improve value and reduce unnecessary treatment.

“We created our local ‘Choosing Wisely’ challenge for residents and staff at the University of Chicago – with the understanding that the winner would get analytic and time support to pursue their project,” she said. A resident winner was a finalist in the RIV (Research, Innovations and Clinical Vignettes) competition at a recent SHM Annual Conference.

At the University of Colorado, there is an associate program director who is responsible for the quality improvement curriculum for residents, Dr. Tad-y said. Because teaching QI means doing QI, the associate program director had to start implementing QI in the hospital, learning how to choose appropriate QI projects for the residents. That meant looking at quality priorities for the hospital – including VTE prophylaxis, fall prevention, and rates of central line–associated bloodstream infections and catheter-associated urinary tract infections. “A critical priority was to align the learners’ QI projects with what the hospital is already working on,” she explained.

“In our practice, all fellows need education and training in patient safety, how to recognize medical errors and close calls, and how to use our errors reporting system,” Dr. Myers said. “They also need to participate in errors analysis discussions. But we have struggled to get residents to attend those meetings. There’s not enough time in their schedules, and here at Penn, we have 1,500 residents and fellows, and maybe only 20 of these formal medical errors conferences per year,” she said.

Dr. Myers worked with the hospital’s patient safety officer and head of GME to design a simulated approach to fill the gap, a simulation of the root cause analysis process – how it works, the various roles played by different individuals, and what happens after it is done. “In my role, I trained one faculty member in each large residency program in how to identify a case and how to use the simulation,” she said. “They can now teach their own learners and make it more relevant to their specialty.”

Penn also has a blueprint for quality – a road map for how the organization socializes health care quality, safety, and value, Dr. Myers said. “Every 3 or 4 years our CEO looks at the road map and tries to get feedback on its direction from payers and insurers, quality leaders, academic department heads – and residents. I was in a good position to organize a session for a representative group of residents to get together and talk about where they see the quality and safety gaps in their everyday work.”

The role of the bridging leader is a viable career path or target for many hospitalists, Dr. Arora said. “But even if it’s not a career path for you, knowing that hospitalists are at the forefront of the bridging leaders movement could help you energize your health system. If you are seeing gaps in quality and safety, this is an issue you can bring before the system.”

These days doctors are wearing a lot of hats and filling roles that weren’t seen as much before, said Dr. Orlowski. “Bridging leaders are not an exclusive group but open to anyone who finds their passion in teaching quality and safety. Maybe you’re doing quality and safety, but not education, but you recognize its importance, or vice versa. First of all, look to see what this bridging leaders thing really is, and how it might apply to you. You might say: ‘That accurately describes what I’m doing now. I have the interest; I want to learn more.’”
 

References

1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. CLER pathways to excellence.

2. Myers JS et al. Bridging leadership roles in quality and patient safety: Experience of 6 U.S. Academic Medical Centers. J Grad Med Educ. 2017 Feb;9(1): 9-13.
 

In June 2019, a 5-hour preconference seminar at the annual Integrating Quality Conference of the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in Minneapolis highlighted the emergence of a new concept, and a new community, within the larger field of hospital medicine.

“Bridging leaders” are clinician-educators with a foot in two worlds: leading quality and safety initiatives within their teaching hospitals – with the hospitalist’s customary participation in a broad spectrum of quality improvement (QI) efforts in the hospital – while helping to train future and current physicians. “Bridging” also extends to the third piece of the quality puzzle, the hospital and/or health system’s senior administrators.

“About 8 years ago, another hospitalist and I found ourselves in this role, bridging graduate medical education with hospital quality and safety,” said Jennifer S. Myers, MD, FHM, director of quality and safety education in the department of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. “The role has since begun to proliferate, in teaching settings large and small, and about 30-50 of us with somewhat similar job responsibilities have been trying to create a community.”

Following the lead of the American College of Graduate Medical Education¹ and its standards for clinical learning environments that include integration of patient safety and quality improvement, these have become graduate medical education (GME) priorities. Students need to learn the theory and practice of safety and quality improvement on the job as part of their professional development. Residency program directors and other trainers thus need to find opportunities for them to practice these techniques in the clinical practice environment.

At the same time, mobilizing those eager medical learners to plan and conduct quality improvement projects can enhance a hospital’s ability to advance its mission in the new health care environment of accountable care and population health.
 

New concept arises

Is bridging leaders a real thing? The short answer is yes, said Thomas Ciesielski, MD, GME medical director for patient safety, quality education, and clinical learning environment review program development at Washington University in St. Louis. “This is a new trend, but it’s still in the process of defining itself. Every bridging leader has their own identity based on their institution. Some play a bridging role for the entire institution; others play similar roles but only within a specific department or division. There’s a lot of learning going on in our community,” he said.

The first Bridging Leaders track was held last year at AAMC’s 2018 Integrating Quality Conference, an event which has been held annually for the past decade. The concept was also highlighted in a 2017 article in the Journal of Graduate Medical Education² by bridging leaders, including many of the faculty at the subsequent AAMC sessions, highlighting their roles and programs at six academic medical centers.

One of those coauthors, hospitalist Vineet Arora, MD, MAPP, MHM, was recently appointed to a new position at University of Chicago Medicine: associate chief medical officer for the clinical learning environment – which pulls together many of the threads of the bridging leaders movement into a single job title. Dr. Arora said her job builds on her prior work in GME and improves the clinical learning environment for residents and fellows by integrating them into the health system’s institutional quality, safety, and value missions. It also expands on that work to include faculty and allied health professionals. “I just happen to come from the health system side,” she said.
 

Natural bridges: From clinical to educational

As with the early days of the hospitalist movement, bridging leaders are trying to build a community of peers with common interests.

“We’re just at the beginning,” Dr. Arora said. “Hospitalists have been the natural torch bearers for quality and safety in their hospitals, and also play roles in the education of residents and medical students, working alongside residency program directors. They are well-versed in quality and in education. So, they are the natural bridges between education and clinical care,” she said. “We also know this is a young group that comes to our meetings. One-third of them have been doing this for only the past 2 years or less – so they are early in their career paths.”

Front-line clinical providers, such as residents, often have good ideas, and bridging leaders can bring these ideas to the health system’s leaders, Dr. Arora said. “Bridging at the leadership level also involves thinking about the larger priorities of the system.” There are trust issues that these leaders can help to bridge, as well as internal communication barriers. “We also realize that health systems have to move quickly in response to a rapidly changing environment,” she noted.

“You don’t want a hundred quality improvement projects being done by students that are unaligned with the organization’s priorities. That leads to waste, and highlights the need for greater alignment,” Dr. Arora added. “Think about using front-line staff as agents of change, of engaging with learners as a win/win – as a way to actually solve the problems we are facing.”

A bridging leader occupies a role in which they can influence and affect these two parts of the mission of health care, somebody whose leadership responsibilities sit at the intersection of these two areas, said Darlene Tad-y, MD, director of GME quality and safety programs at the University of Colorado, Aurora. “Once, these people were mostly in academic medical centers, but that’s not so true anymore. A director of quality for a hospital medicine group is responsible for developing the group’s quality strategy, but at the same time responsible for teaching members of the group – not only doing QI but teaching others how to do it,” she said.

“Hospitalists make terrific bridging leaders. We really are in that sweet spot, and we can and should step into these leadership roles,” Dr. Tad-y said. “Because of our role in the hospital, we know the ins and outs of how processes work or don’t work. We have an insider’s view of the system’s dysfunction, which puts us in a great place to lead these efforts.”

The bridging leaders movement has been a grass-roots development, Dr. Tad-y explained. “It’s not like people started with the job title. But because all of this work was needed, a few people started doing it – and they began seeking each other out. Then they found that there were more than a few of us. We just hadn’t known what it was called.”
 

What is being bridged?

There has long been a relationship between individuals who lead in the clinical environment and those who lead in education, such as the program directors of residency programs, said Janis Orlowski, MD, chief health care officer for AAMC, which represents 154 MD-granting medical schools and their associated teaching hospitals.

“Our association’s three missions of research, education, and patient care really come together around the bridging leaders concept. So, this movement is well aligned. And as bridging leaders started to develop as a group, they found a home in AAMC and at our Integrating Quality Conference,” she said.

“Where we see this integration is in the teaching of residents and medical students in the clinical environment,” Dr. Orlowski said. “It’s not just their knowledge of disease or treatments or procedural skills that needs to be taught. They also need to understand the safe and effective clinical environment, and the role of learners in patient safety, quality improvement, and efficient and cost-effective hospital care. They need to understand value.” A new field of health systems science is emerging and quality improvement is evolving to incorporate population health. But traditional medical faculty may not be that comfortable teaching it.

Any physician who sees that they have a role in the clinical, administrative, and educational worlds can do the bridging, Dr. Orlowski said. “It could be any environment in which care is provided and learning takes place. I mentioned QI and patient safety, but among the other essential skills for the doctor of tomorrow are teamwork, inter-professional training in how to work with, for example, the pharmacist and dietitian, and understanding the value they bring.”

Whenever quality improvement projects are undertaken as part of post-graduate medical education, they should be aligned with the institution’s quality improvement plan and with the priorities of the health system, said Rob Dressler, MD, MBA, quality and safety officer at Christiana Health Care System in Newark, Del., and president of the Alliance of Independent Academic Medical Centers (AIAMC), which represents 80 hospital and health systems active in the emerging movement for bridging leaders.

“GME needs to keep the C-suite aware of its front-line efforts to improve quality and safety, so the institution’s return on investment can be recognized,” he said. “The AIAMC has consistently advocated for the building of bridges between GME leaders and their C-suites at our member hospitals. If you are doing process improvement, you need to be aligned with the organization and its priorities, or you’ll be less successful.”

AIAMC convenes the National Initiative – a multi-institutional collaborative in which residents lead multi-disciplinary teams in quality improvement projects. A total of 64 hospitals and health systems have participated since the program started in 2007. “We need to train our clinicians to solve the problems of tomorrow,” Dr. Dressler said.
 

Bridging leaders in action

The leaders contacted for this article offered some examples of bridging in action. Dr. Arora has used “crowd sourcing” – a technique employed extensively in her work with Costs of Care, a global nonprofit trying to drive better health care at lower cost – to implement a local program for front-line clinicians to generate ideas on how to improve value and reduce unnecessary treatment.

“We created our local ‘Choosing Wisely’ challenge for residents and staff at the University of Chicago – with the understanding that the winner would get analytic and time support to pursue their project,” she said. A resident winner was a finalist in the RIV (Research, Innovations and Clinical Vignettes) competition at a recent SHM Annual Conference.

At the University of Colorado, there is an associate program director who is responsible for the quality improvement curriculum for residents, Dr. Tad-y said. Because teaching QI means doing QI, the associate program director had to start implementing QI in the hospital, learning how to choose appropriate QI projects for the residents. That meant looking at quality priorities for the hospital – including VTE prophylaxis, fall prevention, and rates of central line–associated bloodstream infections and catheter-associated urinary tract infections. “A critical priority was to align the learners’ QI projects with what the hospital is already working on,” she explained.

“In our practice, all fellows need education and training in patient safety, how to recognize medical errors and close calls, and how to use our errors reporting system,” Dr. Myers said. “They also need to participate in errors analysis discussions. But we have struggled to get residents to attend those meetings. There’s not enough time in their schedules, and here at Penn, we have 1,500 residents and fellows, and maybe only 20 of these formal medical errors conferences per year,” she said.

Dr. Myers worked with the hospital’s patient safety officer and head of GME to design a simulated approach to fill the gap, a simulation of the root cause analysis process – how it works, the various roles played by different individuals, and what happens after it is done. “In my role, I trained one faculty member in each large residency program in how to identify a case and how to use the simulation,” she said. “They can now teach their own learners and make it more relevant to their specialty.”

Penn also has a blueprint for quality – a road map for how the organization socializes health care quality, safety, and value, Dr. Myers said. “Every 3 or 4 years our CEO looks at the road map and tries to get feedback on its direction from payers and insurers, quality leaders, academic department heads – and residents. I was in a good position to organize a session for a representative group of residents to get together and talk about where they see the quality and safety gaps in their everyday work.”

The role of the bridging leader is a viable career path or target for many hospitalists, Dr. Arora said. “But even if it’s not a career path for you, knowing that hospitalists are at the forefront of the bridging leaders movement could help you energize your health system. If you are seeing gaps in quality and safety, this is an issue you can bring before the system.”

These days doctors are wearing a lot of hats and filling roles that weren’t seen as much before, said Dr. Orlowski. “Bridging leaders are not an exclusive group but open to anyone who finds their passion in teaching quality and safety. Maybe you’re doing quality and safety, but not education, but you recognize its importance, or vice versa. First of all, look to see what this bridging leaders thing really is, and how it might apply to you. You might say: ‘That accurately describes what I’m doing now. I have the interest; I want to learn more.’”
 

References

1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. CLER pathways to excellence.

2. Myers JS et al. Bridging leadership roles in quality and patient safety: Experience of 6 U.S. Academic Medical Centers. J Grad Med Educ. 2017 Feb;9(1): 9-13.
 

AFM cases continue to rise

Cases of Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM) are on the rise, with 210 confirmed cases of AFM in 40 states in 2018, up from 35 confirmed cases in 2017. AFM is a rare but serious condition that usually affects children, causing polio-like symptoms – focal extremity weakness, hyporeflexia, and sometimes cranial nerve dysfunction. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention encourage all health care providers to contact their local health departments with any suspected cases of AFM.

Citation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. AFM Investigation. 2019 Jan. https://www.cdc.gov/acute-flaccid-myelitis/afm-surveillance.html.

HHS recommends prescribing naloxone to patients at high risk for opioid overdose

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services recommends clinicians strongly consider prescribing or coprescribing naloxone to patients at high risk of opioid overdose. This includes patients who are on relatively high doses of opioids, take other medications which enhance opioid complications, or have underlying health conditions. Clinicians are also advised to educate patients and those likely to respond to an overdose on when and how to use naloxone in its variety of forms.

Citation: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. HHS recommends prescribing or co-prescribing naloxone to patients at high risk for an opioid overdose. 2018 Dec 18. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018/12/19/hhs-recommends-prescribing-or-co-prescribing-naloxone-to-patients-at-high-risk-for-an-opioid-overdose.html.

Fentanyl tops the list of opioid overdose drugs

The total number of drug overdose deaths per year in the United States increased 54%, from 41,340 deaths in 2011 to 63,632 deaths in 2016. Among opioids, mention of fentanyl increased during 2011-2016; that drug took the lead in 2016 with 29% of all drug overdose deaths. Among the drug overdose deaths involving fentanyl, 69% also involved one or more other drugs.

Citation: Hedegaard H et al. Drugs most frequently involved in drug overdose deaths: United States, 2011–2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018 Dec;67(9):1-14.

AFM cases continue to rise

Cases of Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM) are on the rise, with 210 confirmed cases of AFM in 40 states in 2018, up from 35 confirmed cases in 2017. AFM is a rare but serious condition that usually affects children, causing polio-like symptoms – focal extremity weakness, hyporeflexia, and sometimes cranial nerve dysfunction. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention encourage all health care providers to contact their local health departments with any suspected cases of AFM.

Citation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. AFM Investigation. 2019 Jan. https://www.cdc.gov/acute-flaccid-myelitis/afm-surveillance.html.

HHS recommends prescribing naloxone to patients at high risk for opioid overdose

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services recommends clinicians strongly consider prescribing or coprescribing naloxone to patients at high risk of opioid overdose. This includes patients who are on relatively high doses of opioids, take other medications which enhance opioid complications, or have underlying health conditions. Clinicians are also advised to educate patients and those likely to respond to an overdose on when and how to use naloxone in its variety of forms.

Citation: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. HHS recommends prescribing or co-prescribing naloxone to patients at high risk for an opioid overdose. 2018 Dec 18. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018/12/19/hhs-recommends-prescribing-or-co-prescribing-naloxone-to-patients-at-high-risk-for-an-opioid-overdose.html.

Fentanyl tops the list of opioid overdose drugs

The total number of drug overdose deaths per year in the United States increased 54%, from 41,340 deaths in 2011 to 63,632 deaths in 2016. Among opioids, mention of fentanyl increased during 2011-2016; that drug took the lead in 2016 with 29% of all drug overdose deaths. Among the drug overdose deaths involving fentanyl, 69% also involved one or more other drugs.

Citation: Hedegaard H et al. Drugs most frequently involved in drug overdose deaths: United States, 2011–2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018 Dec;67(9):1-14.

AFM cases continue to rise

Cases of Acute Flaccid Myelitis (AFM) are on the rise, with 210 confirmed cases of AFM in 40 states in 2018, up from 35 confirmed cases in 2017. AFM is a rare but serious condition that usually affects children, causing polio-like symptoms – focal extremity weakness, hyporeflexia, and sometimes cranial nerve dysfunction. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention encourage all health care providers to contact their local health departments with any suspected cases of AFM.

Citation: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. AFM Investigation. 2019 Jan. https://www.cdc.gov/acute-flaccid-myelitis/afm-surveillance.html.

HHS recommends prescribing naloxone to patients at high risk for opioid overdose

The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services recommends clinicians strongly consider prescribing or coprescribing naloxone to patients at high risk of opioid overdose. This includes patients who are on relatively high doses of opioids, take other medications which enhance opioid complications, or have underlying health conditions. Clinicians are also advised to educate patients and those likely to respond to an overdose on when and how to use naloxone in its variety of forms.

Citation: U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. HHS recommends prescribing or co-prescribing naloxone to patients at high risk for an opioid overdose. 2018 Dec 18. https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2018/12/19/hhs-recommends-prescribing-or-co-prescribing-naloxone-to-patients-at-high-risk-for-an-opioid-overdose.html.

Fentanyl tops the list of opioid overdose drugs

The total number of drug overdose deaths per year in the United States increased 54%, from 41,340 deaths in 2011 to 63,632 deaths in 2016. Among opioids, mention of fentanyl increased during 2011-2016; that drug took the lead in 2016 with 29% of all drug overdose deaths. Among the drug overdose deaths involving fentanyl, 69% also involved one or more other drugs.

Citation: Hedegaard H et al. Drugs most frequently involved in drug overdose deaths: United States, 2011–2016. Natl Vital Stat Rep. 2018 Dec;67(9):1-14.

Background: Sepsis is responsible for an increasingly disproportionate fraction of health care burden. Delays in diagnosis of sepsis are associated with worse outcomes.

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: Sepsis is responsible for an increasingly disproportionate fraction of health care burden. Delays in diagnosis of sepsis are associated with worse outcomes.

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: Sepsis is responsible for an increasingly disproportionate fraction of health care burden. Delays in diagnosis of sepsis are associated with worse outcomes.

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

These are challenging, and sometimes tragic, times in the history of the United States. The image of a father and child face down in the Rio Grande River, drowning as they tried to cross from Mexico into Texas, is heart breaking. Irrespective of your political affiliation, we can agree that the immigration process is far from ideal and that no one should die in pursuit of a better life.

The United States has a complicated history with equity and inclusion, for all persons, and we are now living in times when the scab is being ripped off and these wounds are raw. What role can the Society of Hospital Medicine play to help heal these wounds?

I am a first-generation immigrant to the United States. I remember walking down the streets of my neighborhood in Uganda when my attention was drawn to a plane flying overhead. I thought to myself, “Some lucky duck is going to the U.S.” The United States was the land of opportunity and I was determined to come here. Through hard work and some luck, I arrived in the United States on June 15, 1991, with a single suitcase packed full of hope, dreams, and $3,000.

Fast-forward 28 years. I am now a hospitalist and faculty at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the associate director of the division of hospital medicine, and the vice chair for clinical operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. I learned about hospital medicine during my third year of medical school at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. While I loved general medicine, I could not see myself practicing anywhere outside of the hospital.

Following residency at Johns Hopkins Bayview, I still felt that a hospital-based practice was tailor-made for me. As I matured professionally, I worked to improve the provision of care within my hospital, and then started developing educational and practice programs in hospital medicine, both locally and internationally. My passion for hospital medicine led me to serve on committees for SHM, and this year, I was honored to join the SHM Board of Directors.

It is hard to answer the question of why, or how, one person immigrates to the United States and finds success while another loses their life. A quote attributed to Edmund Burke says, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [wo]men to do nothing.” One of SHM’s core values is to promote diversity and inclusion. A major step taken by the society to promote work in this area was to establish the diversity and inclusion Special Interest Group in 2018. I am the board liaison for the diversity and inclusion SIG and will work alongside this group, which aims to:

• Foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in SHM.
• Increase visibility of diversity, equity, and inclusion to the broader hospital medicine community.
• Support hospital medicine groups in matching their work forces to their diverse patient populations.
• Develop tool kits to improve the provision of care for our diverse patient population.
• Engender diversity among hospitalists.
• Develop opportunities for expanding the fund of knowledge on diversity in hospital medicine through research and discovery.
• Participate in SHM’s advocacy efforts related to diversity and inclusion.
• Develop partnerships with other key organizations to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion platforms so as to increase the scalability of SHM’s efforts.

We have been successful at Hopkins with diversity and inclusion, but that did not occur by chance. I believe that diversity and inclusion is a team sport and that everyone can be an important part of that team. In my hospitalist group, we actively engage women, men, doctors, NPs, PAs, administrators, minorities, and nonminorities. We recruit to – and cherish members of – our group irrespective of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. We believe that a heterogeneous group of people leads to an engaged and high-performing culture.

I have traveled a convoluted path since my arrival in 1991. Along the way, I was blessed with a husband and son who anchor me. Every day they remind me that the hard work I do is to build on the past to improve the future. My husband, an immigrant from Uganda like me, reminds me that we are lucky to have made it to the United States and that the ability and freedom to work hard and be rewarded for that hard work is a great privilege. My son reminds me of the many other children who look at me and know that they too can dare to dream. Occasionally, I still look up and see a plane, and I am reminded of that day many years ago. Hospital medicine is my suitcase packed with hopes and dreams for me, for this specialty, and for this country.

Dr. Kisuule is associate director of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview and assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

These are challenging, and sometimes tragic, times in the history of the United States. The image of a father and child face down in the Rio Grande River, drowning as they tried to cross from Mexico into Texas, is heart breaking. Irrespective of your political affiliation, we can agree that the immigration process is far from ideal and that no one should die in pursuit of a better life.

The United States has a complicated history with equity and inclusion, for all persons, and we are now living in times when the scab is being ripped off and these wounds are raw. What role can the Society of Hospital Medicine play to help heal these wounds?

I am a first-generation immigrant to the United States. I remember walking down the streets of my neighborhood in Uganda when my attention was drawn to a plane flying overhead. I thought to myself, “Some lucky duck is going to the U.S.” The United States was the land of opportunity and I was determined to come here. Through hard work and some luck, I arrived in the United States on June 15, 1991, with a single suitcase packed full of hope, dreams, and $3,000.

Fast-forward 28 years. I am now a hospitalist and faculty at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the associate director of the division of hospital medicine, and the vice chair for clinical operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. I learned about hospital medicine during my third year of medical school at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. While I loved general medicine, I could not see myself practicing anywhere outside of the hospital.

Following residency at Johns Hopkins Bayview, I still felt that a hospital-based practice was tailor-made for me. As I matured professionally, I worked to improve the provision of care within my hospital, and then started developing educational and practice programs in hospital medicine, both locally and internationally. My passion for hospital medicine led me to serve on committees for SHM, and this year, I was honored to join the SHM Board of Directors.

It is hard to answer the question of why, or how, one person immigrates to the United States and finds success while another loses their life. A quote attributed to Edmund Burke says, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [wo]men to do nothing.” One of SHM’s core values is to promote diversity and inclusion. A major step taken by the society to promote work in this area was to establish the diversity and inclusion Special Interest Group in 2018. I am the board liaison for the diversity and inclusion SIG and will work alongside this group, which aims to:

• Foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in SHM.
• Increase visibility of diversity, equity, and inclusion to the broader hospital medicine community.
• Support hospital medicine groups in matching their work forces to their diverse patient populations.
• Develop tool kits to improve the provision of care for our diverse patient population.
• Engender diversity among hospitalists.
• Develop opportunities for expanding the fund of knowledge on diversity in hospital medicine through research and discovery.
• Participate in SHM’s advocacy efforts related to diversity and inclusion.
• Develop partnerships with other key organizations to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion platforms so as to increase the scalability of SHM’s efforts.

We have been successful at Hopkins with diversity and inclusion, but that did not occur by chance. I believe that diversity and inclusion is a team sport and that everyone can be an important part of that team. In my hospitalist group, we actively engage women, men, doctors, NPs, PAs, administrators, minorities, and nonminorities. We recruit to – and cherish members of – our group irrespective of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. We believe that a heterogeneous group of people leads to an engaged and high-performing culture.

I have traveled a convoluted path since my arrival in 1991. Along the way, I was blessed with a husband and son who anchor me. Every day they remind me that the hard work I do is to build on the past to improve the future. My husband, an immigrant from Uganda like me, reminds me that we are lucky to have made it to the United States and that the ability and freedom to work hard and be rewarded for that hard work is a great privilege. My son reminds me of the many other children who look at me and know that they too can dare to dream. Occasionally, I still look up and see a plane, and I am reminded of that day many years ago. Hospital medicine is my suitcase packed with hopes and dreams for me, for this specialty, and for this country.

Dr. Kisuule is associate director of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview and assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

These are challenging, and sometimes tragic, times in the history of the United States. The image of a father and child face down in the Rio Grande River, drowning as they tried to cross from Mexico into Texas, is heart breaking. Irrespective of your political affiliation, we can agree that the immigration process is far from ideal and that no one should die in pursuit of a better life.

The United States has a complicated history with equity and inclusion, for all persons, and we are now living in times when the scab is being ripped off and these wounds are raw. What role can the Society of Hospital Medicine play to help heal these wounds?

I am a first-generation immigrant to the United States. I remember walking down the streets of my neighborhood in Uganda when my attention was drawn to a plane flying overhead. I thought to myself, “Some lucky duck is going to the U.S.” The United States was the land of opportunity and I was determined to come here. Through hard work and some luck, I arrived in the United States on June 15, 1991, with a single suitcase packed full of hope, dreams, and $3,000.

Fast-forward 28 years. I am now a hospitalist and faculty at the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, the associate director of the division of hospital medicine, and the vice chair for clinical operations at Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. I learned about hospital medicine during my third year of medical school at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. While I loved general medicine, I could not see myself practicing anywhere outside of the hospital.

Following residency at Johns Hopkins Bayview, I still felt that a hospital-based practice was tailor-made for me. As I matured professionally, I worked to improve the provision of care within my hospital, and then started developing educational and practice programs in hospital medicine, both locally and internationally. My passion for hospital medicine led me to serve on committees for SHM, and this year, I was honored to join the SHM Board of Directors.

It is hard to answer the question of why, or how, one person immigrates to the United States and finds success while another loses their life. A quote attributed to Edmund Burke says, “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good [wo]men to do nothing.” One of SHM’s core values is to promote diversity and inclusion. A major step taken by the society to promote work in this area was to establish the diversity and inclusion Special Interest Group in 2018. I am the board liaison for the diversity and inclusion SIG and will work alongside this group, which aims to:

• Foster diversity, equity, and inclusion in SHM.
• Increase visibility of diversity, equity, and inclusion to the broader hospital medicine community.
• Support hospital medicine groups in matching their work forces to their diverse patient populations.
• Develop tool kits to improve the provision of care for our diverse patient population.
• Engender diversity among hospitalists.
• Develop opportunities for expanding the fund of knowledge on diversity in hospital medicine through research and discovery.
• Participate in SHM’s advocacy efforts related to diversity and inclusion.
• Develop partnerships with other key organizations to advance diversity, equity, and inclusion platforms so as to increase the scalability of SHM’s efforts.

We have been successful at Hopkins with diversity and inclusion, but that did not occur by chance. I believe that diversity and inclusion is a team sport and that everyone can be an important part of that team. In my hospitalist group, we actively engage women, men, doctors, NPs, PAs, administrators, minorities, and nonminorities. We recruit to – and cherish members of – our group irrespective of religious beliefs or sexual orientation. We believe that a heterogeneous group of people leads to an engaged and high-performing culture.

I have traveled a convoluted path since my arrival in 1991. Along the way, I was blessed with a husband and son who anchor me. Every day they remind me that the hard work I do is to build on the past to improve the future. My husband, an immigrant from Uganda like me, reminds me that we are lucky to have made it to the United States and that the ability and freedom to work hard and be rewarded for that hard work is a great privilege. My son reminds me of the many other children who look at me and know that they too can dare to dream. Occasionally, I still look up and see a plane, and I am reminded of that day many years ago. Hospital medicine is my suitcase packed with hopes and dreams for me, for this specialty, and for this country.

Dr. Kisuule is associate director of the division of hospital medicine at Johns Hopkins Bayview and assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University, both in Baltimore, and a member of the SHM Board of Directors.

Background: PPIs reduce gastric acid production, promote ulcer healing, and prevent ulcer recurrence; however, limited evidence is available describing the incidence of anticoagulant-related serious upper GI tract bleeding from the newer non–vitamin K anticoagulants and PPI cotherapy.

Generalizability was limited by population (Medicare enrollees) and the study excluded prior hospitalizations for GI bleed, as well as switches in anticoagulant therapy during the study period.

Bottom line: PPI cotherapy with oral anticoagulation reduces risk of hospitalization for upper GI bleed.

Citation: Ray WA et al. Association of oral anticoagulants and proton pump inhibitor cotherapy with hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. JAMA. 2018 Dec 4;320(21):2221-30.
 

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: PPIs reduce gastric acid production, promote ulcer healing, and prevent ulcer recurrence; however, limited evidence is available describing the incidence of anticoagulant-related serious upper GI tract bleeding from the newer non–vitamin K anticoagulants and PPI cotherapy.

Generalizability was limited by population (Medicare enrollees) and the study excluded prior hospitalizations for GI bleed, as well as switches in anticoagulant therapy during the study period.

Bottom line: PPI cotherapy with oral anticoagulation reduces risk of hospitalization for upper GI bleed.

Citation: Ray WA et al. Association of oral anticoagulants and proton pump inhibitor cotherapy with hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. JAMA. 2018 Dec 4;320(21):2221-30.
 

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Background: PPIs reduce gastric acid production, promote ulcer healing, and prevent ulcer recurrence; however, limited evidence is available describing the incidence of anticoagulant-related serious upper GI tract bleeding from the newer non–vitamin K anticoagulants and PPI cotherapy.

Generalizability was limited by population (Medicare enrollees) and the study excluded prior hospitalizations for GI bleed, as well as switches in anticoagulant therapy during the study period.

Bottom line: PPI cotherapy with oral anticoagulation reduces risk of hospitalization for upper GI bleed.

Citation: Ray WA et al. Association of oral anticoagulants and proton pump inhibitor cotherapy with hospitalization for upper gastrointestinal tract bleeding. JAMA. 2018 Dec 4;320(21):2221-30.
 

Dr. Ho is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of general and hospital medicine at UT Health San Antonio and a hospitalist at South Texas Veterans Health Care System.

Vitamin C infusion did not improve outcomes related to organ failure, inflammation, or vascular injury for patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome, based on data from 167 adults.

Dr_Microbe/Getty Images

“Previous research found that vitamin C attenuates systemic inflammation, corrects sepsis-induced coagulopathy, and attenuates vascular injury,” wrote Alpha A. Fowler III, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

To examine the impact of vitamin C infusion on patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the researchers designed the CITRIS-ALI trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 7 medical intensive care units in the United States.

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers randomized 167 adults with sepsis and ARDS to receive high-dose intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg in 5% dextrose in water) or placebo (5% dextrose in water only) every 6 hours for 96 hours. The primary outcomes were measures of organ failure based on changes in the modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (mSOFA), inflammation (based on changes in C-reactive protein), and vascular injury based on thrombomodulin.

Overall, no significant differences appeared between the vitamin C and placebo groups, respectively in the three primary outcome measures: change in average SOFA score (3-point change vs. a 3.5-point change) at 96 hours; change in C-reactive protein levels (change of 54.1 mcg/mL vs. 46.1 mcg/mL) at 168 hours; and change in thrombomodulin levels (14.5 ng/mL vs. 13.8 ng/mL) at 168 hours.

The average age of the patients was 55 years, and 54% were men.

The researchers also assessed 46 secondary outcomes. Most of these showed no significant differences between the groups, but 28-day all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the vitamin C group, compared with the placebo group (46.3% vs. 29.8%), the researchers said. Vitamin C also was significantly associated with increased ICU-free days to day 28 and hospital-free days to day 60, compared with placebo.

No significant differences were seen between the groups on 43 other secondary outcomes including ventilator-free days and vasopressor use. However, “these findings were based on analyses that did not account for multiple comparisons and therefore must be considered exploratory,” they said.

“The inability of vitamin C to affect C-reactive protein and thrombomodulin levels in this trial possibly resulted from the advanced stages of sepsis that were present before the development of ARDS,” the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the variability in the timing of vitamin C administration and the use of a single high dose of vitamin C, they emphasized. However, the results suggest that further research may be needed to determine the potential of vitamin C for improving outcomes in patients with sepsis and ARDS, they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, VCU Wright Center for Translational Science Award, VCU Investigational Drug Services, and McGuff Pharmaceuticals, who supplied the vitamin C free of charge. Dr. Fowler disclosed funding from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Richmond; the NHLBI; and study materials from McGuff Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Fowler AA et al. JAMA. 2019 Oct 1;322:1261-70. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11825.

Vitamin C infusion did not improve outcomes related to organ failure, inflammation, or vascular injury for patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome, based on data from 167 adults.

Dr_Microbe/Getty Images

“Previous research found that vitamin C attenuates systemic inflammation, corrects sepsis-induced coagulopathy, and attenuates vascular injury,” wrote Alpha A. Fowler III, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

To examine the impact of vitamin C infusion on patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the researchers designed the CITRIS-ALI trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 7 medical intensive care units in the United States.

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers randomized 167 adults with sepsis and ARDS to receive high-dose intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg in 5% dextrose in water) or placebo (5% dextrose in water only) every 6 hours for 96 hours. The primary outcomes were measures of organ failure based on changes in the modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (mSOFA), inflammation (based on changes in C-reactive protein), and vascular injury based on thrombomodulin.

Overall, no significant differences appeared between the vitamin C and placebo groups, respectively in the three primary outcome measures: change in average SOFA score (3-point change vs. a 3.5-point change) at 96 hours; change in C-reactive protein levels (change of 54.1 mcg/mL vs. 46.1 mcg/mL) at 168 hours; and change in thrombomodulin levels (14.5 ng/mL vs. 13.8 ng/mL) at 168 hours.

The average age of the patients was 55 years, and 54% were men.

The researchers also assessed 46 secondary outcomes. Most of these showed no significant differences between the groups, but 28-day all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the vitamin C group, compared with the placebo group (46.3% vs. 29.8%), the researchers said. Vitamin C also was significantly associated with increased ICU-free days to day 28 and hospital-free days to day 60, compared with placebo.

No significant differences were seen between the groups on 43 other secondary outcomes including ventilator-free days and vasopressor use. However, “these findings were based on analyses that did not account for multiple comparisons and therefore must be considered exploratory,” they said.

“The inability of vitamin C to affect C-reactive protein and thrombomodulin levels in this trial possibly resulted from the advanced stages of sepsis that were present before the development of ARDS,” the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the variability in the timing of vitamin C administration and the use of a single high dose of vitamin C, they emphasized. However, the results suggest that further research may be needed to determine the potential of vitamin C for improving outcomes in patients with sepsis and ARDS, they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, VCU Wright Center for Translational Science Award, VCU Investigational Drug Services, and McGuff Pharmaceuticals, who supplied the vitamin C free of charge. Dr. Fowler disclosed funding from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Richmond; the NHLBI; and study materials from McGuff Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Fowler AA et al. JAMA. 2019 Oct 1;322:1261-70. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11825.

Vitamin C infusion did not improve outcomes related to organ failure, inflammation, or vascular injury for patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome, based on data from 167 adults.

Dr_Microbe/Getty Images

“Previous research found that vitamin C attenuates systemic inflammation, corrects sepsis-induced coagulopathy, and attenuates vascular injury,” wrote Alpha A. Fowler III, MD, of Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, and colleagues.

To examine the impact of vitamin C infusion on patients with sepsis and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the researchers designed the CITRIS-ALI trial, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study conducted at 7 medical intensive care units in the United States.

In the study, published in JAMA, the researchers randomized 167 adults with sepsis and ARDS to receive high-dose intravenous vitamin C (50 mg/kg in 5% dextrose in water) or placebo (5% dextrose in water only) every 6 hours for 96 hours. The primary outcomes were measures of organ failure based on changes in the modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (mSOFA), inflammation (based on changes in C-reactive protein), and vascular injury based on thrombomodulin.

Overall, no significant differences appeared between the vitamin C and placebo groups, respectively in the three primary outcome measures: change in average SOFA score (3-point change vs. a 3.5-point change) at 96 hours; change in C-reactive protein levels (change of 54.1 mcg/mL vs. 46.1 mcg/mL) at 168 hours; and change in thrombomodulin levels (14.5 ng/mL vs. 13.8 ng/mL) at 168 hours.

The average age of the patients was 55 years, and 54% were men.

The researchers also assessed 46 secondary outcomes. Most of these showed no significant differences between the groups, but 28-day all-cause mortality was significantly lower in the vitamin C group, compared with the placebo group (46.3% vs. 29.8%), the researchers said. Vitamin C also was significantly associated with increased ICU-free days to day 28 and hospital-free days to day 60, compared with placebo.

No significant differences were seen between the groups on 43 other secondary outcomes including ventilator-free days and vasopressor use. However, “these findings were based on analyses that did not account for multiple comparisons and therefore must be considered exploratory,” they said.

“The inability of vitamin C to affect C-reactive protein and thrombomodulin levels in this trial possibly resulted from the advanced stages of sepsis that were present before the development of ARDS,” the researchers noted.

The findings were limited by several factors including the variability in the timing of vitamin C administration and the use of a single high dose of vitamin C, they emphasized. However, the results suggest that further research may be needed to determine the potential of vitamin C for improving outcomes in patients with sepsis and ARDS, they said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, VCU Wright Center for Translational Science Award, VCU Investigational Drug Services, and McGuff Pharmaceuticals, who supplied the vitamin C free of charge. Dr. Fowler disclosed funding from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Richmond; the NHLBI; and study materials from McGuff Pharmaceuticals.

SOURCE: Fowler AA et al. JAMA. 2019 Oct 1;322:1261-70. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.11825.