Latest News for HOSP

Philadelphia – After serving as the first and only chief executive officer of the Society of Hospital Medicine since January of 2000, Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, has announced his retirement effective on Dec. 31, 2020. In parallel, the SHM Board of Directors have commenced a search for his successor.

“When I began as CEO 20 years ago, SHM – then known as the National Association of Inpatient Physicians – was a young national organization with approximately 500 members, and there was minimal understanding as to the value that hospitalists could add to their health communities,” Dr. Wellikson said. “I am proud to say that, nearly 20 years later, SHM boasts a growing membership of more than 17,000, and hospitalists are on the front line of innovation as a driving force in improving patient care.”

SHM has not only grown its membership but also its diverse portfolio of offerings for hospital medicine professionals under Dr. Wellikson’s leadership. Its first annual conference welcomed approximately 300 attendees; the most recent conference, Hospital Medicine 2019, saw that number increase more than tenfold to nearly 4,000. Its conferences, publications, online education, chapter program, advocacy efforts, quality improvement programs, and more have evolved significantly to ensure hospitalists at all stages of their careers – and those who support them – have access to resources to keep them up to date and demonstrate their value in America’s health care system.

During Dr. Wellikson’s tenure, SHM launched its peer-reviewed Journal of Hospital Medicine, the premier, ISI-indexed publication for the specialty, successfully advocated for a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine certification option and C6 hospitalist specialty code, and earned the John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for its quality improvement programs. These are just a few of the noteworthy accomplishments that have elevated SHM as a key partner for hospitalists and their institutions.

To assist with the search for SHM’s next CEO, the society has retained Spencer Stuart, a leading global executive and leadership advisory firm. The search process is being overseen by a diverse search committee led by the president-elect of SHM’s Board of Directors, Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM.

“On behalf of the society and its members, I want to extend a sincere thank you to Larry for his years of dedication and service to SHM, its staff, and the hospital medicine professionals we serve,” said Christopher Frost, MD, SFHM, president of SHM’s Board of Directors. “His legacy will allow SHM to continue its growth trajectory through key programs and services supporting members’ needs for years to come. Larry has taken the specialty of hospital medicine and created a movement in SHM, where the entire hospital medicine team can come for education, community, and betterment of the care we provide to our patients. We are indebted to him beyond words.”

Those who are interested in leading SHM into the future as its next CEO are encouraged to contact either Jennifer P. Heenan ([email protected]) or Mark Furman, MD ([email protected]).






 

Philadelphia – After serving as the first and only chief executive officer of the Society of Hospital Medicine since January of 2000, Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, has announced his retirement effective on Dec. 31, 2020. In parallel, the SHM Board of Directors have commenced a search for his successor.

“When I began as CEO 20 years ago, SHM – then known as the National Association of Inpatient Physicians – was a young national organization with approximately 500 members, and there was minimal understanding as to the value that hospitalists could add to their health communities,” Dr. Wellikson said. “I am proud to say that, nearly 20 years later, SHM boasts a growing membership of more than 17,000, and hospitalists are on the front line of innovation as a driving force in improving patient care.”

SHM has not only grown its membership but also its diverse portfolio of offerings for hospital medicine professionals under Dr. Wellikson’s leadership. Its first annual conference welcomed approximately 300 attendees; the most recent conference, Hospital Medicine 2019, saw that number increase more than tenfold to nearly 4,000. Its conferences, publications, online education, chapter program, advocacy efforts, quality improvement programs, and more have evolved significantly to ensure hospitalists at all stages of their careers – and those who support them – have access to resources to keep them up to date and demonstrate their value in America’s health care system.

During Dr. Wellikson’s tenure, SHM launched its peer-reviewed Journal of Hospital Medicine, the premier, ISI-indexed publication for the specialty, successfully advocated for a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine certification option and C6 hospitalist specialty code, and earned the John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for its quality improvement programs. These are just a few of the noteworthy accomplishments that have elevated SHM as a key partner for hospitalists and their institutions.

To assist with the search for SHM’s next CEO, the society has retained Spencer Stuart, a leading global executive and leadership advisory firm. The search process is being overseen by a diverse search committee led by the president-elect of SHM’s Board of Directors, Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM.

“On behalf of the society and its members, I want to extend a sincere thank you to Larry for his years of dedication and service to SHM, its staff, and the hospital medicine professionals we serve,” said Christopher Frost, MD, SFHM, president of SHM’s Board of Directors. “His legacy will allow SHM to continue its growth trajectory through key programs and services supporting members’ needs for years to come. Larry has taken the specialty of hospital medicine and created a movement in SHM, where the entire hospital medicine team can come for education, community, and betterment of the care we provide to our patients. We are indebted to him beyond words.”

Those who are interested in leading SHM into the future as its next CEO are encouraged to contact either Jennifer P. Heenan ([email protected]) or Mark Furman, MD ([email protected]).






 

Philadelphia – After serving as the first and only chief executive officer of the Society of Hospital Medicine since January of 2000, Laurence Wellikson, MD, MHM, has announced his retirement effective on Dec. 31, 2020. In parallel, the SHM Board of Directors have commenced a search for his successor.

“When I began as CEO 20 years ago, SHM – then known as the National Association of Inpatient Physicians – was a young national organization with approximately 500 members, and there was minimal understanding as to the value that hospitalists could add to their health communities,” Dr. Wellikson said. “I am proud to say that, nearly 20 years later, SHM boasts a growing membership of more than 17,000, and hospitalists are on the front line of innovation as a driving force in improving patient care.”

SHM has not only grown its membership but also its diverse portfolio of offerings for hospital medicine professionals under Dr. Wellikson’s leadership. Its first annual conference welcomed approximately 300 attendees; the most recent conference, Hospital Medicine 2019, saw that number increase more than tenfold to nearly 4,000. Its conferences, publications, online education, chapter program, advocacy efforts, quality improvement programs, and more have evolved significantly to ensure hospitalists at all stages of their careers – and those who support them – have access to resources to keep them up to date and demonstrate their value in America’s health care system.

During Dr. Wellikson’s tenure, SHM launched its peer-reviewed Journal of Hospital Medicine, the premier, ISI-indexed publication for the specialty, successfully advocated for a Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine certification option and C6 hospitalist specialty code, and earned the John M. Eisenberg Patient Safety and Quality Award for its quality improvement programs. These are just a few of the noteworthy accomplishments that have elevated SHM as a key partner for hospitalists and their institutions.

To assist with the search for SHM’s next CEO, the society has retained Spencer Stuart, a leading global executive and leadership advisory firm. The search process is being overseen by a diverse search committee led by the president-elect of SHM’s Board of Directors, Danielle Scheurer, MD, MSCR, SFHM.

“On behalf of the society and its members, I want to extend a sincere thank you to Larry for his years of dedication and service to SHM, its staff, and the hospital medicine professionals we serve,” said Christopher Frost, MD, SFHM, president of SHM’s Board of Directors. “His legacy will allow SHM to continue its growth trajectory through key programs and services supporting members’ needs for years to come. Larry has taken the specialty of hospital medicine and created a movement in SHM, where the entire hospital medicine team can come for education, community, and betterment of the care we provide to our patients. We are indebted to him beyond words.”

Those who are interested in leading SHM into the future as its next CEO are encouraged to contact either Jennifer P. Heenan ([email protected]) or Mark Furman, MD ([email protected]).






 

SEATTLE – The more concentrated urine is in newborns, the more you can trust negative nitrite tests to rule out urinary tract infections, according to investigators at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The researchers found that urine testing negative for nitrites with a specific gravity above 1.015 in children up to 2 months old had a sensitivity of 53% for ruling out UTIs, but that urine with a specific gravity below that mark had a sensitivity of just 14%. The finding “should be taken into account when interpreting nitrite results ... in this high-risk population,” they concluded.

Bacteria in the bladder convert nitrates to nitrites, so positive results are pretty much pathognomonic for UTIs, with a specificity of nearly 100%, according to the researchers.

Negative results, however, don’t reliably rule out infection, and are even less reliable in infants because they urinate frequently, which means they usually flush out bacteria before they have enough time to make the conversion, which takes several hours, they said.

The lead investigator Raymond Parlar-Chun, MD, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas McGovern Medical School in Houston, said he had a hunch that negative results might be more reliable when newborns urinate less frequently and have more concentrated urine.

He and his team reviewed data collected on 413 infants up to 2 months old who were admitted for fever workup and treated for UTIs both in the hospital and after discharge. Nitrite results were stratified by urine concentration. A specific gravity of 1.015 was used as the cutoff between concentrated and dilute urine, which was “midway between the parameters reported” in every urinalysis, Dr. Parlar-Chun said.

Although the sensitivity of concentrated urine was only 53%, “it’s a stark difference from” the 14% in dilute urine, he said.“You should take a look at specific gravity to interpret nitrites. If urine is concentrated, you have [more confidence] that you don’t have a UTI if you’re negative. It’s better than taking [nitrites] at face value.”

The subjects were 31 days old, on average, and 62% were boys; 112 had a specific gravity above 1.015, and 301 below.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Parlar-Chun didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – The more concentrated urine is in newborns, the more you can trust negative nitrite tests to rule out urinary tract infections, according to investigators at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The researchers found that urine testing negative for nitrites with a specific gravity above 1.015 in children up to 2 months old had a sensitivity of 53% for ruling out UTIs, but that urine with a specific gravity below that mark had a sensitivity of just 14%. The finding “should be taken into account when interpreting nitrite results ... in this high-risk population,” they concluded.

Bacteria in the bladder convert nitrates to nitrites, so positive results are pretty much pathognomonic for UTIs, with a specificity of nearly 100%, according to the researchers.

Negative results, however, don’t reliably rule out infection, and are even less reliable in infants because they urinate frequently, which means they usually flush out bacteria before they have enough time to make the conversion, which takes several hours, they said.

The lead investigator Raymond Parlar-Chun, MD, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas McGovern Medical School in Houston, said he had a hunch that negative results might be more reliable when newborns urinate less frequently and have more concentrated urine.

He and his team reviewed data collected on 413 infants up to 2 months old who were admitted for fever workup and treated for UTIs both in the hospital and after discharge. Nitrite results were stratified by urine concentration. A specific gravity of 1.015 was used as the cutoff between concentrated and dilute urine, which was “midway between the parameters reported” in every urinalysis, Dr. Parlar-Chun said.

Although the sensitivity of concentrated urine was only 53%, “it’s a stark difference from” the 14% in dilute urine, he said.“You should take a look at specific gravity to interpret nitrites. If urine is concentrated, you have [more confidence] that you don’t have a UTI if you’re negative. It’s better than taking [nitrites] at face value.”

The subjects were 31 days old, on average, and 62% were boys; 112 had a specific gravity above 1.015, and 301 below.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Parlar-Chun didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – The more concentrated urine is in newborns, the more you can trust negative nitrite tests to rule out urinary tract infections, according to investigators at the University of Texas Health Science Center, Houston.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

The researchers found that urine testing negative for nitrites with a specific gravity above 1.015 in children up to 2 months old had a sensitivity of 53% for ruling out UTIs, but that urine with a specific gravity below that mark had a sensitivity of just 14%. The finding “should be taken into account when interpreting nitrite results ... in this high-risk population,” they concluded.

Bacteria in the bladder convert nitrates to nitrites, so positive results are pretty much pathognomonic for UTIs, with a specificity of nearly 100%, according to the researchers.

Negative results, however, don’t reliably rule out infection, and are even less reliable in infants because they urinate frequently, which means they usually flush out bacteria before they have enough time to make the conversion, which takes several hours, they said.

The lead investigator Raymond Parlar-Chun, MD, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Texas McGovern Medical School in Houston, said he had a hunch that negative results might be more reliable when newborns urinate less frequently and have more concentrated urine.

He and his team reviewed data collected on 413 infants up to 2 months old who were admitted for fever workup and treated for UTIs both in the hospital and after discharge. Nitrite results were stratified by urine concentration. A specific gravity of 1.015 was used as the cutoff between concentrated and dilute urine, which was “midway between the parameters reported” in every urinalysis, Dr. Parlar-Chun said.

Although the sensitivity of concentrated urine was only 53%, “it’s a stark difference from” the 14% in dilute urine, he said.“You should take a look at specific gravity to interpret nitrites. If urine is concentrated, you have [more confidence] that you don’t have a UTI if you’re negative. It’s better than taking [nitrites] at face value.”

The subjects were 31 days old, on average, and 62% were boys; 112 had a specific gravity above 1.015, and 301 below.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Parlar-Chun didn’t have any disclosures.

[email protected]

Over the past 2 decades, hospital medicine has grown from a nascent collection of hospitalists to one of the fastest growing specialties, with more than 60,000 active practitioners today.

Ten years ago, the need for mentoring and growth of a new generation of young academic faculty led to the development of the first Academic Hospitalist Academy (AHA) through the coordinated efforts of the Society of Hospital Medicine, the Society of General Internal Medicine, and the Association of Clinical Leaders of General Internal Medicine.

As modern medicine moves at an increasing pace, the intersection of patient care, research, and education has opened further opportunities for fostering the expertise of hospital medicine practitioners. The next level of training is now available with the advent of AHA’s Level 2 course.

Ever wonder why the new clinical service you’ve designed to improve physician and patient efficiency isn’t functioning like it did in the beginning? Patients are staying longer in the hospital, and physicians are working harder. The principles of change management, personal leadership styles, and adult learning will be covered in the AHA Level 2 course. How do I get my project funded and then what do I do with the results? Keys to negotiating for time and resources as well as the skills to write and disseminate your work are integrated into the curriculum.

Participants will be engaged in an interactive course designed around the challenges of practicing and leading in an academic environment. AHA Level 2 aims to help attendees – regardless of their areas of interest – identify and acquire the skills necessary to advance their career, describe the business and cultural landscape of academic health systems, and learn how to leverage that knowledge; to list resources and techniques to continue to further build their skills, and identify and pursue their unique scholarly niche.

Based on the success of AHA’s Level 1 course and the feedback from the almost 1,000 participants who have attended, AHA Level 2 is a 2.5-day course that will allow for the exchange of ideas and skills from nationally regarded faculty and fellow attendees. Through plenary sessions, workshops, small groups, and networking opportunities, attendees will be immersed in the realm of modern academic hospital medicine. The new course is offered in parallel with AHA Level 1 at the Inverness Resort, outside of Denver, on Sept. 10-12, 2019.

The course will leave attendees with an individualized career plan and enhance their area of expertise. The lessons learned and shared will allow participants to return to their institutions and continue to lead in the areas of patient care, financial resourcefulness, and the education of current and future generations of hospital medicine specialists.

Dr. O’Dorisio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Over the past 2 decades, hospital medicine has grown from a nascent collection of hospitalists to one of the fastest growing specialties, with more than 60,000 active practitioners today.

Ten years ago, the need for mentoring and growth of a new generation of young academic faculty led to the development of the first Academic Hospitalist Academy (AHA) through the coordinated efforts of the Society of Hospital Medicine, the Society of General Internal Medicine, and the Association of Clinical Leaders of General Internal Medicine.

As modern medicine moves at an increasing pace, the intersection of patient care, research, and education has opened further opportunities for fostering the expertise of hospital medicine practitioners. The next level of training is now available with the advent of AHA’s Level 2 course.

Ever wonder why the new clinical service you’ve designed to improve physician and patient efficiency isn’t functioning like it did in the beginning? Patients are staying longer in the hospital, and physicians are working harder. The principles of change management, personal leadership styles, and adult learning will be covered in the AHA Level 2 course. How do I get my project funded and then what do I do with the results? Keys to negotiating for time and resources as well as the skills to write and disseminate your work are integrated into the curriculum.

Participants will be engaged in an interactive course designed around the challenges of practicing and leading in an academic environment. AHA Level 2 aims to help attendees – regardless of their areas of interest – identify and acquire the skills necessary to advance their career, describe the business and cultural landscape of academic health systems, and learn how to leverage that knowledge; to list resources and techniques to continue to further build their skills, and identify and pursue their unique scholarly niche.

Based on the success of AHA’s Level 1 course and the feedback from the almost 1,000 participants who have attended, AHA Level 2 is a 2.5-day course that will allow for the exchange of ideas and skills from nationally regarded faculty and fellow attendees. Through plenary sessions, workshops, small groups, and networking opportunities, attendees will be immersed in the realm of modern academic hospital medicine. The new course is offered in parallel with AHA Level 1 at the Inverness Resort, outside of Denver, on Sept. 10-12, 2019.

The course will leave attendees with an individualized career plan and enhance their area of expertise. The lessons learned and shared will allow participants to return to their institutions and continue to lead in the areas of patient care, financial resourcefulness, and the education of current and future generations of hospital medicine specialists.

Dr. O’Dorisio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

Over the past 2 decades, hospital medicine has grown from a nascent collection of hospitalists to one of the fastest growing specialties, with more than 60,000 active practitioners today.

Ten years ago, the need for mentoring and growth of a new generation of young academic faculty led to the development of the first Academic Hospitalist Academy (AHA) through the coordinated efforts of the Society of Hospital Medicine, the Society of General Internal Medicine, and the Association of Clinical Leaders of General Internal Medicine.

As modern medicine moves at an increasing pace, the intersection of patient care, research, and education has opened further opportunities for fostering the expertise of hospital medicine practitioners. The next level of training is now available with the advent of AHA’s Level 2 course.

Ever wonder why the new clinical service you’ve designed to improve physician and patient efficiency isn’t functioning like it did in the beginning? Patients are staying longer in the hospital, and physicians are working harder. The principles of change management, personal leadership styles, and adult learning will be covered in the AHA Level 2 course. How do I get my project funded and then what do I do with the results? Keys to negotiating for time and resources as well as the skills to write and disseminate your work are integrated into the curriculum.

Participants will be engaged in an interactive course designed around the challenges of practicing and leading in an academic environment. AHA Level 2 aims to help attendees – regardless of their areas of interest – identify and acquire the skills necessary to advance their career, describe the business and cultural landscape of academic health systems, and learn how to leverage that knowledge; to list resources and techniques to continue to further build their skills, and identify and pursue their unique scholarly niche.

Based on the success of AHA’s Level 1 course and the feedback from the almost 1,000 participants who have attended, AHA Level 2 is a 2.5-day course that will allow for the exchange of ideas and skills from nationally regarded faculty and fellow attendees. Through plenary sessions, workshops, small groups, and networking opportunities, attendees will be immersed in the realm of modern academic hospital medicine. The new course is offered in parallel with AHA Level 1 at the Inverness Resort, outside of Denver, on Sept. 10-12, 2019.

The course will leave attendees with an individualized career plan and enhance their area of expertise. The lessons learned and shared will allow participants to return to their institutions and continue to lead in the areas of patient care, financial resourcefulness, and the education of current and future generations of hospital medicine specialists.

Dr. O’Dorisio is a Med-Peds hospitalist at the Ohio State University, Columbus.

SEATTLE – Intravenous fluids can simply be stopped after children with acute viral gastroenteritis are rehydrated in the hospital; there’s no need for a slow wean, according to a review at the Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford.

Researchers found that children leave the hospital hours sooner, with no ill effects. “This study suggests that slowly weaning IV fluids may not be necessary,” said lead investigator Danielle Klima, DO, a University of Connecticut pediatrics resident.

The team at Connecticut Children’s noticed that weaning practices after gastroenteritis rehydration varied widely on the pediatric floors, and appeared to be largely provider dependent, with “much subjective decision making.” The team wanted to see if it made a difference one way or the other, Dr. Klima said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

During respiratory season, “our pediatric floors are surging. Saving even a couple hours to get these kids out” quicker matters, she said, noting that it’s likely the first time the issue has been studied.

The team reviewed 153 children aged 2 months to 18 years, 95 of whom had IV fluids stopped once physicians deemed they were fluid resuscitated and ready for an oral feeding trial; the other 58 were weaned, with at least two reductions by half before final discontinuation.

There were no significant differences in age, gender, race, or insurance type between the two groups. The mean age was 2.6 years, and there were slightly more boys. The ED triage level was a mean of 3.2 points in both groups on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being the most urgent. Children with serious comorbidities, chronic diarrhea, feeding tubes, severe electrolyte abnormalities, or feeding problems were among those excluded.

Overall length of stay was 36 hours in the stop group versus 40.5 hours in the weaning group (P = .004). Children left the hospital about 6 hours after IV fluids were discontinued, versus 26 hours after weaning was started (P less than .001).

Electrolyte abnormalities on admission were more common in the weaning group (65% versus 57%), but not significantly so (P = .541). Electrolyte abnormalities were also more common at the end of fluid resuscitation in the weaning arm, but again not significantly (65% 42%, P = .077).

Fluid resuscitation needed to be restarted in 15 children in the stop group (16%), versus 11 (19%) in the wean arm (P = .459). One child in the stop group (1%) versus four (7%) who were weaned were readmitted to the hospital within a week for acute viral gastroenteritis (P = .067).

“I expected we were taking a more conservative weaning approach in younger infants,” but age didn’t seem to affect whether patients were weaned or not, Dr. Klima said.

With the results in hand, “our group is taking a closer look at exactly what we are doing,” perhaps with an eye toward standardization or even a randomized trial, she said.

She noted that weaning still makes sense for a fussy toddler who refuses to take anything by mouth.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Klima had no disclosures. The conference was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
 

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Intravenous fluids can simply be stopped after children with acute viral gastroenteritis are rehydrated in the hospital; there’s no need for a slow wean, according to a review at the Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford.

Researchers found that children leave the hospital hours sooner, with no ill effects. “This study suggests that slowly weaning IV fluids may not be necessary,” said lead investigator Danielle Klima, DO, a University of Connecticut pediatrics resident.

The team at Connecticut Children’s noticed that weaning practices after gastroenteritis rehydration varied widely on the pediatric floors, and appeared to be largely provider dependent, with “much subjective decision making.” The team wanted to see if it made a difference one way or the other, Dr. Klima said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

During respiratory season, “our pediatric floors are surging. Saving even a couple hours to get these kids out” quicker matters, she said, noting that it’s likely the first time the issue has been studied.

The team reviewed 153 children aged 2 months to 18 years, 95 of whom had IV fluids stopped once physicians deemed they were fluid resuscitated and ready for an oral feeding trial; the other 58 were weaned, with at least two reductions by half before final discontinuation.

There were no significant differences in age, gender, race, or insurance type between the two groups. The mean age was 2.6 years, and there were slightly more boys. The ED triage level was a mean of 3.2 points in both groups on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being the most urgent. Children with serious comorbidities, chronic diarrhea, feeding tubes, severe electrolyte abnormalities, or feeding problems were among those excluded.

Overall length of stay was 36 hours in the stop group versus 40.5 hours in the weaning group (P = .004). Children left the hospital about 6 hours after IV fluids were discontinued, versus 26 hours after weaning was started (P less than .001).

Electrolyte abnormalities on admission were more common in the weaning group (65% versus 57%), but not significantly so (P = .541). Electrolyte abnormalities were also more common at the end of fluid resuscitation in the weaning arm, but again not significantly (65% 42%, P = .077).

Fluid resuscitation needed to be restarted in 15 children in the stop group (16%), versus 11 (19%) in the wean arm (P = .459). One child in the stop group (1%) versus four (7%) who were weaned were readmitted to the hospital within a week for acute viral gastroenteritis (P = .067).

“I expected we were taking a more conservative weaning approach in younger infants,” but age didn’t seem to affect whether patients were weaned or not, Dr. Klima said.

With the results in hand, “our group is taking a closer look at exactly what we are doing,” perhaps with an eye toward standardization or even a randomized trial, she said.

She noted that weaning still makes sense for a fussy toddler who refuses to take anything by mouth.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Klima had no disclosures. The conference was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
 

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Intravenous fluids can simply be stopped after children with acute viral gastroenteritis are rehydrated in the hospital; there’s no need for a slow wean, according to a review at the Connecticut Children’s Medical Center, Hartford.

Researchers found that children leave the hospital hours sooner, with no ill effects. “This study suggests that slowly weaning IV fluids may not be necessary,” said lead investigator Danielle Klima, DO, a University of Connecticut pediatrics resident.

The team at Connecticut Children’s noticed that weaning practices after gastroenteritis rehydration varied widely on the pediatric floors, and appeared to be largely provider dependent, with “much subjective decision making.” The team wanted to see if it made a difference one way or the other, Dr. Klima said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

During respiratory season, “our pediatric floors are surging. Saving even a couple hours to get these kids out” quicker matters, she said, noting that it’s likely the first time the issue has been studied.

The team reviewed 153 children aged 2 months to 18 years, 95 of whom had IV fluids stopped once physicians deemed they were fluid resuscitated and ready for an oral feeding trial; the other 58 were weaned, with at least two reductions by half before final discontinuation.

There were no significant differences in age, gender, race, or insurance type between the two groups. The mean age was 2.6 years, and there were slightly more boys. The ED triage level was a mean of 3.2 points in both groups on a scale of 1-5, with 1 being the most urgent. Children with serious comorbidities, chronic diarrhea, feeding tubes, severe electrolyte abnormalities, or feeding problems were among those excluded.

Overall length of stay was 36 hours in the stop group versus 40.5 hours in the weaning group (P = .004). Children left the hospital about 6 hours after IV fluids were discontinued, versus 26 hours after weaning was started (P less than .001).

Electrolyte abnormalities on admission were more common in the weaning group (65% versus 57%), but not significantly so (P = .541). Electrolyte abnormalities were also more common at the end of fluid resuscitation in the weaning arm, but again not significantly (65% 42%, P = .077).

Fluid resuscitation needed to be restarted in 15 children in the stop group (16%), versus 11 (19%) in the wean arm (P = .459). One child in the stop group (1%) versus four (7%) who were weaned were readmitted to the hospital within a week for acute viral gastroenteritis (P = .067).

“I expected we were taking a more conservative weaning approach in younger infants,” but age didn’t seem to affect whether patients were weaned or not, Dr. Klima said.

With the results in hand, “our group is taking a closer look at exactly what we are doing,” perhaps with an eye toward standardization or even a randomized trial, she said.

She noted that weaning still makes sense for a fussy toddler who refuses to take anything by mouth.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Klima had no disclosures. The conference was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.
 

[email protected]

Lori J. Heim, MD, FAAFP, a hospitalist in practice at Scotland Memorial Hospital in Laurinburg, N.C., for the past 10 years, recalls when she first decided to pursue hospital medicine as a career. As a family physician in private practice who admitted patients to the local hospital in Pinehurst, N.C., and even followed them into the ICU, she needed a more flexible schedule when she became president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

“My local hospital told me they had a policy against hiring family physicians as hospitalists. They didn’t consider us qualified,” Dr. Heim said. “I was incredulous when I first heard that because I already had full admitting privileges at the hospital. It made no sense, since they allowed me to manage my patients in the ICU.”

Then an opportunity opened at Scotland Memorial, located an hour away. “That has been a fabulous experience for me,” she said. The transition was relatively easy, following more than 2 decades of office practice. Dr. Heim’s hospitalist group now includes eight full-time clinicians who have a mix of family medicine and internal medicine backgrounds.

“I’ve never felt anything other than collegial support here. We go to the ER to evaluate patients and decide whether to admit them, and we do a lot of medical procedures. I’m not practicing pediatrics currently, but I have no problem conducting a gynecological exam. I think my experience in family medicine and primary care has been an asset,” Dr. Heim said. “I’m not sure I would be a hospitalist today if I had not been elected president of AAFP, but it was fortuitous.”

Respect for HTFMs is growing

Hospitalists trained in family medicine (HTFM) are a small but important segment of this field and of the membership of the Society of Hospital Medicine. The board specialties of physicians who work in the hospital are not always broken out in existing databases, but HTFMs are believed to represent about 8% of SHM members, and somewhere around 10%-15% of the total hospitalist workforce. According to SHM’s 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report, 65% of hospital medicine groups employed at least one family medicine–trained provider in their group.¹

SHM’s Special Interest Group (SIG) for HTFMs reports to the society’s Board of Directors. The American Academy of Family Medicine, with 131,400 members, also has a Member Interest Group (MIG) for HTFMs. When AAFP recently surveyed its members to identify their primary patient care practice location, only 4% named the hospital (not including the emergency department), while 3% said the hospital emergency department.²

Among 32,450 adult primary care-trained hospitalists surveyed for the June 2016 AAMC In Brief of the American Association of Medical Colleges, 81.9% of the hospitalists identified internal medicine as their specialty, while 5.2% identified themselves as family physicians.³ A 2014 Medical Group Management Association survey, which reported data for 4,200 hospitalists working in community hospitals, found that 82% were internal medicine trained, versus 10% in family medicine and 7% in pediatrics.

Family medicine hospitalists may be more common in rural areas or in small hospitals – where a clinician is often expected to wear more hats, said hospitalist David Goldstein, MD, FHM, assistant director of the family medicine residency program at Natividad Medical Center, Salinas, Calif., and cochair of SHM’s family medicine SIG. “In a smaller hospital, if there’s not sufficient volume to support full-time pediatric and adult hospital medicine services, a family medicine hospitalist might do both – and even help staff the ICU.”

A decade or so ago, much of the professional literature about the role of HTFMs suggested that some had experienced a lack of respect or of equal job opportunities, while others faced pay differentials.^3-5 Since then, the field of hospital medicine has come a long way toward recognizing their contributions, although there are still hurdles to overcome, mainly involving issues of credentialing, to allow HTFMs to play equal roles in the hospital, the ICU, or in residency training. The SHM 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report reveals that HTFMs actually made slightly higher salaries on average than their internist colleagues, $301,833 versus $300,030.

Prior to the advent of hospital medicine, both family medicine and internal medicine physicians practiced in much the same way in their medical offices, and visited their patients in the hospital, said Claudia Geyer, MD, SFHM, system chief of hospital medicine at Central Maine Healthcare in Lewiston. She is trained and boarded in both family and internal medicine. “When hospital medicine launched, its heavy academic emphasis on internists led to underrecognition of the continued contributions of family medicine. Family physicians never left the hospital setting and – in certain locales – were the predominant hospitalists. We just waited for the recognition to catch up with the reality,” Dr. Geyer said.

“I don’t feel family medicine for hospitalists is nearly the stepchild of internal medicine that it was when I first started,” Dr. Heim said. “In my multihospital hospitalist group, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that they treat family medicine hospitalists as second class.” The demand for hospitalists is greater than internists can fill, while clearly the public is not concerned about these distinctions, she said.

Whether clinicians are board certified in family medicine or internal medicine may be less important to their skills for practicing in the hospital than which residency program they completed, what emphasis it placed on working in the hospital or ICU, electives completed, and other past experience. “Some family medicine residencies offer more or less hospital experience,” Dr. Heim said.

Jasen Gundersen, MD, MBA, CPE, SFHM, president of acute and post-acute services for the national hospital services company TeamHealth, agreed that there has been dramatic improvement in the status of HTFMs. He is one, and still practices as a hospitalist at Boca Raton (Fla.) Regional Hospital when administrative responsibilities permit.

TeamHealth has long been open to family medicine doctors, Dr. Gundersen added, although some of the medical staff at hospitals that contract with TeamHealth have issues with it. “We will talk to them about it,” he said. “We hire hospitalists who can do the work, and we evaluate them based on their background and skill set, where they’ve practiced and for how long. We want people who are experienced and good at managing hospitalized patients. For new residency grads, we look at their electives and the focus of their training.”

What is home for HTFMs?

Where are HTFMs most likely to find their professional home? “That’s hard to answer,” said Patricia Seymour, MD, FHM, FAAFP, an academic hospitalist at the University of Massachusetts-Worcester. “In the last 4-5 years, SHM has worked very hard to create a space for HTFMs. AAFP has a hospital medicine track at their annual meeting, and that’s a good thing. But they also need to protect family physicians’ right to practice in any setting they choose. For those pursuing hospital medicine, there’s a different career trajectory, different CME needs, and different recertification needs.”

Dr. Seymour is the executive cochair of SHM’s family medicine SIG and serves as interim chief of a family medicine hospitalist group that provides inpatient training for a family practice residency, where up to a third of the 12 residents each year go on to pursue hospital medicine as a career. “We have the second-oldest family medicine–specific hospitalist group in the country, so our residency training has an emphasis on hospital medicine,” she explained.

“Because I’m a practicing hospitalist, the residents come to me seeking advice. I appreciate the training I received as a family physician in communication science, palliative care, geriatrics, family systems theory, and public health. I wouldn’t have done it any other way, and that’s how I counsel our students and residents,” she said. Others suggest that the generalist training and diverse experiences of family medicine can be a gift for a doctor who later chooses hospital medicine.

AAFP is a large umbrella organization and the majority of its members practice primary care, Dr. Heim said. “I don’t know the percentage of HTFMs who are members of AAFP. Some no doubt belong to both AAFP and SHM.” Even though both groups have recognized this important subset of their members who chose the field of hospital medicine and its status as a career track, it can be a stretch for family medicine to embrace hospitalists.

“It inherently goes against our training, which is to work in outpatient, inpatient, obstetric, pediatric, and adult settings,” Dr. Heim said. “It’s difficult to reconcile giving up a big part of what defined your training – that range of settings. I remember feeling like I should apologize to other family medicine doctors for choosing this path.”

Credentialing opportunities and barriers

For the diverse group of practicing HTFMs, credentialing and scope of practice represent their biggest current issues. A designation of Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM) has been offered jointly since 2010 by the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) and the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), although their specific requirements vary.

Eligible hospitalist candidates for the focused practice exam must have an unrestricted medical license, maintenance of current primary certification, and verification of three years of unsupervised hospital medicine practice experience. ABIM views FPHM not as a subspecialty, but as a variation of internal medicine certification, identifying diplomates who are board-certified in internal medicine with a hospital medicine specialization. They do not have to take the general internal medicine recertification exam if they qualify for FPHM.

ABFM-certified family physicians who work primarily in a hospital setting can take the same test for FPHM, with the same eligibility requirements. But ABFM does not consider focused practice a subspecialty, or the Certificate of Added Qualifications in Family Medicine as sufficient for board certification. That means family physicians also need to take its general board exam in order to maintain their ABFM board certification.

ABFM’s decision not to accept the focused practice designation as sufficient for boarding was disappointing to a lot of hospitalists, said Laura “Nell” Hodo, MD, FAAFP, chair of AAFP’s hospital medicine MIG, and a pediatric academic hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Many family physicians practice hospital medicine exclusively and would prefer to take one boarding exam instead of two, and not have to do CME and board review in areas where we don’t practice anymore,” Dr. Hodo said, adding that she hopes that this decision could be revisited in the future.

A number of 1-year hospital medicine fellowships across the country provide additional training opportunities for both family practice and internal medicine residency graduates. These fellowships do not offer board certification or designated specialty credentialing for hospitalists and are not recognized by the American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which sets standards for residency and fellowship training. “But they reflect a need and an interest in optimizing the knowledge of hospital medicine and developing the specific skills needed to practice it well,” Dr. Geyer noted.

She directs a program for one to three fellows per year out of the Central Maine Family Medicine Residency program and Central Maine Medical Center in Lewiston, and is now recruiting her tenth class. At least 13 other hospital medicine fellowships, out of about 40 nationwide, are family medicine based. “We rely heavily on the Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine developed by SHM, which emphasize clinical conditions, medical procedures, and health care systems. Gaining fluency in the latter is really what makes hospital medicine unique,” Dr. Geyer said.

Often residency graduates seeking work in hospital medicine are insufficiently prepared for hospital billing and coding, enacting safe transitions of care, providing palliative care, and understanding how to impact their health care systems for quality improvement, patient safety and the like, she added.

Dr. Geyer said her fellowship does not mean just being a poorly paid hospitalist for a year. “The fellows are clearly trainees, getting the full benefit of our supervision and supplemental training focused on enhanced clinical and procedural exposure, but also on academics, quality improvement, leadership, and efficiency,” she said. “All of our fellows join SHM, go to the Annual Conference, propose case studies, do longitudinal quality or safety projects, and learn the other aspects of hospital medicine not well-taught in residency. We train them to be highly functional hospitalists right out of the gate.”

Until recently, another barrier for HTFMs was their ability to be on the faculty of internal medicine residency programs. Previous language from ACGME indicated that family medicine-trained physicians could not serve as faculty for these programs, Dr. Goldstein said. SHM has lobbied ACGME to change that rule, which could enable family medicine hospitalists who had achieved FPHM designation to be attendings and to teach internal medicine residents.
 

Needed in critical care – but not credentialed

One of the biggest frustrations for family medicine hospitalists is clarifying their role in the ICU. SHM’s Education Committee recently surveyed hospitalist members who practice in the ICU, finding that at least half felt obliged to practice beyond their scope, 90 percent occasionally perceived insufficient support from intensivists, and two-thirds reported moderate difficulty transferring patients to higher levels of intensive care.⁷ The respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they wanted more training and education in critical care medicine.

“I want to highlight the fact that in some settings family physicians are the sole providers of critical care,” Dr. Goldstein said. Meanwhile, the standards of the Leapfrog Group, a coalition of health care purchasers, call for ICUs to be staffed by physicians certified in critical care, even though there is a growing shortage of credentialed intensivists to treat an increasing number of older, sicker, critically ill patients.

Some internal medicine physicians don’t want to have anything to do with the ICU because of the medical and legal risks, said David Aymond, MD, a family physician and hospitalist at Byrd Regional Hospital in Leesville, La. “There’s a bunch of sick people in the ICU, and when some doctors like me started doing critical care, we realized we liked it. Depending on your locale, if you are doing hospital medicine, critically ill patients are going to fall in your lap,” he said. “But if you don’t have the skills, that could lead to poor outcomes and unnecessary transfers.”

Dr. Aymond started his career in family medicine. “When I got into residency, I saw how much critical care was needed in rural communities. I decided I would learn everything I could about it. I did a hospital medicine fellowship at the University of Alabama, which included considerable involvement in the ICU. When I went to Byrd Regional, a 60-bed facility with eight ICU beds, we did all of the critical care, and word started to spread in the community. My hospitalist partner and I are now on call 24/7 alternating weeks, doing the majority of the critical care and taking care of anything that goes on in an ICU at a larger center, although we often lack access to consultation services,” he explained.

“We needed to get the attention of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to communicate the scope of this problem. These doctors are doing critical care but there is no official medical training or recognition for them. So they’re legally out on a limb, even though often they are literally the only person available to do it,” Dr. Aymond said. “Certainly there’s a skills gap between HTFMs and board-certified intensivists, but some of that gap has to do with the volume of patients they have seen in the ICU and their comfort level,” he said.

SHM is pursuing initiatives to help address this gap, including collaborating with SCCM on developing a rigorous critical care training curriculum for internal medicine and family medicine hospitalists, with coursework drawn from existing sources, said Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, a critical care physician in Milwaukee. “It doesn’t replace a 2-year critical care fellowship, but it will be a lot more than what’s currently out there for the nonintensivist who practices in the ICU.” SCCM has approved moving forward with the advanced training curriculum, he said.

Another priority is to try to create a pathway that could permit family medicine–trained hospitalists to apply for existing critical care fellowships, as internal medicine doctors are now able to do. SHM has lobbied ABFM to create a pathway to subspecialty certification in critical care medicine, similar to those that exist for internists and emergency physicians, Dr. Goldstein said, adding that ACGME, which controls access to fellowships, will be the next step. Dr. Aymond expects that there will be a lot of hoops to jump through.

“David Aymond is an exceptional hospitalist,” Dr. Siegal added. “He thinks and talks like an intensivist, but it took concerted and self-directed effort for him to get there. Family practitioners are a significant part of the rural critical care workforce, but their training generally does not adequately prepare them for this role – unless they have made a conscious effort to pursue additional training,” he said.

“My message to family practitioners is not that they’re not good enough to do this, but rather that they are being asked to do something they weren’t trained for. How can we help them do it well?”

References

1. Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) Practice Analysis Committee. 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report; Oct 2018.

2. American Academy of Family Physicians Member Census, Dec 31, 2017.

3. Jones KC et al. Hospitalists: A growing part of the primary care workforce. AAMC Analysis in Brief; June 2016; 16(5):1.

4. Berczuk C. Uniquely positioned. The Hospitalist; July 2009.

5. Iqbal Y. Family medicine hospitalists: Separate and unequal? Today’s Hospitalist; May 2007.

6. Kinnan JP. The family way. The Hospitalist; Nov 2007.

7. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan 1;13(1):6-12.

Lori J. Heim, MD, FAAFP, a hospitalist in practice at Scotland Memorial Hospital in Laurinburg, N.C., for the past 10 years, recalls when she first decided to pursue hospital medicine as a career. As a family physician in private practice who admitted patients to the local hospital in Pinehurst, N.C., and even followed them into the ICU, she needed a more flexible schedule when she became president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

“My local hospital told me they had a policy against hiring family physicians as hospitalists. They didn’t consider us qualified,” Dr. Heim said. “I was incredulous when I first heard that because I already had full admitting privileges at the hospital. It made no sense, since they allowed me to manage my patients in the ICU.”

Then an opportunity opened at Scotland Memorial, located an hour away. “That has been a fabulous experience for me,” she said. The transition was relatively easy, following more than 2 decades of office practice. Dr. Heim’s hospitalist group now includes eight full-time clinicians who have a mix of family medicine and internal medicine backgrounds.

“I’ve never felt anything other than collegial support here. We go to the ER to evaluate patients and decide whether to admit them, and we do a lot of medical procedures. I’m not practicing pediatrics currently, but I have no problem conducting a gynecological exam. I think my experience in family medicine and primary care has been an asset,” Dr. Heim said. “I’m not sure I would be a hospitalist today if I had not been elected president of AAFP, but it was fortuitous.”

Respect for HTFMs is growing

Hospitalists trained in family medicine (HTFM) are a small but important segment of this field and of the membership of the Society of Hospital Medicine. The board specialties of physicians who work in the hospital are not always broken out in existing databases, but HTFMs are believed to represent about 8% of SHM members, and somewhere around 10%-15% of the total hospitalist workforce. According to SHM’s 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report, 65% of hospital medicine groups employed at least one family medicine–trained provider in their group.¹

SHM’s Special Interest Group (SIG) for HTFMs reports to the society’s Board of Directors. The American Academy of Family Medicine, with 131,400 members, also has a Member Interest Group (MIG) for HTFMs. When AAFP recently surveyed its members to identify their primary patient care practice location, only 4% named the hospital (not including the emergency department), while 3% said the hospital emergency department.²

Among 32,450 adult primary care-trained hospitalists surveyed for the June 2016 AAMC In Brief of the American Association of Medical Colleges, 81.9% of the hospitalists identified internal medicine as their specialty, while 5.2% identified themselves as family physicians.³ A 2014 Medical Group Management Association survey, which reported data for 4,200 hospitalists working in community hospitals, found that 82% were internal medicine trained, versus 10% in family medicine and 7% in pediatrics.

Family medicine hospitalists may be more common in rural areas or in small hospitals – where a clinician is often expected to wear more hats, said hospitalist David Goldstein, MD, FHM, assistant director of the family medicine residency program at Natividad Medical Center, Salinas, Calif., and cochair of SHM’s family medicine SIG. “In a smaller hospital, if there’s not sufficient volume to support full-time pediatric and adult hospital medicine services, a family medicine hospitalist might do both – and even help staff the ICU.”

A decade or so ago, much of the professional literature about the role of HTFMs suggested that some had experienced a lack of respect or of equal job opportunities, while others faced pay differentials.^3-5 Since then, the field of hospital medicine has come a long way toward recognizing their contributions, although there are still hurdles to overcome, mainly involving issues of credentialing, to allow HTFMs to play equal roles in the hospital, the ICU, or in residency training. The SHM 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report reveals that HTFMs actually made slightly higher salaries on average than their internist colleagues, $301,833 versus $300,030.

Prior to the advent of hospital medicine, both family medicine and internal medicine physicians practiced in much the same way in their medical offices, and visited their patients in the hospital, said Claudia Geyer, MD, SFHM, system chief of hospital medicine at Central Maine Healthcare in Lewiston. She is trained and boarded in both family and internal medicine. “When hospital medicine launched, its heavy academic emphasis on internists led to underrecognition of the continued contributions of family medicine. Family physicians never left the hospital setting and – in certain locales – were the predominant hospitalists. We just waited for the recognition to catch up with the reality,” Dr. Geyer said.

“I don’t feel family medicine for hospitalists is nearly the stepchild of internal medicine that it was when I first started,” Dr. Heim said. “In my multihospital hospitalist group, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that they treat family medicine hospitalists as second class.” The demand for hospitalists is greater than internists can fill, while clearly the public is not concerned about these distinctions, she said.

Whether clinicians are board certified in family medicine or internal medicine may be less important to their skills for practicing in the hospital than which residency program they completed, what emphasis it placed on working in the hospital or ICU, electives completed, and other past experience. “Some family medicine residencies offer more or less hospital experience,” Dr. Heim said.

Jasen Gundersen, MD, MBA, CPE, SFHM, president of acute and post-acute services for the national hospital services company TeamHealth, agreed that there has been dramatic improvement in the status of HTFMs. He is one, and still practices as a hospitalist at Boca Raton (Fla.) Regional Hospital when administrative responsibilities permit.

TeamHealth has long been open to family medicine doctors, Dr. Gundersen added, although some of the medical staff at hospitals that contract with TeamHealth have issues with it. “We will talk to them about it,” he said. “We hire hospitalists who can do the work, and we evaluate them based on their background and skill set, where they’ve practiced and for how long. We want people who are experienced and good at managing hospitalized patients. For new residency grads, we look at their electives and the focus of their training.”

What is home for HTFMs?

Where are HTFMs most likely to find their professional home? “That’s hard to answer,” said Patricia Seymour, MD, FHM, FAAFP, an academic hospitalist at the University of Massachusetts-Worcester. “In the last 4-5 years, SHM has worked very hard to create a space for HTFMs. AAFP has a hospital medicine track at their annual meeting, and that’s a good thing. But they also need to protect family physicians’ right to practice in any setting they choose. For those pursuing hospital medicine, there’s a different career trajectory, different CME needs, and different recertification needs.”

Dr. Seymour is the executive cochair of SHM’s family medicine SIG and serves as interim chief of a family medicine hospitalist group that provides inpatient training for a family practice residency, where up to a third of the 12 residents each year go on to pursue hospital medicine as a career. “We have the second-oldest family medicine–specific hospitalist group in the country, so our residency training has an emphasis on hospital medicine,” she explained.

“Because I’m a practicing hospitalist, the residents come to me seeking advice. I appreciate the training I received as a family physician in communication science, palliative care, geriatrics, family systems theory, and public health. I wouldn’t have done it any other way, and that’s how I counsel our students and residents,” she said. Others suggest that the generalist training and diverse experiences of family medicine can be a gift for a doctor who later chooses hospital medicine.

AAFP is a large umbrella organization and the majority of its members practice primary care, Dr. Heim said. “I don’t know the percentage of HTFMs who are members of AAFP. Some no doubt belong to both AAFP and SHM.” Even though both groups have recognized this important subset of their members who chose the field of hospital medicine and its status as a career track, it can be a stretch for family medicine to embrace hospitalists.

“It inherently goes against our training, which is to work in outpatient, inpatient, obstetric, pediatric, and adult settings,” Dr. Heim said. “It’s difficult to reconcile giving up a big part of what defined your training – that range of settings. I remember feeling like I should apologize to other family medicine doctors for choosing this path.”

Credentialing opportunities and barriers

For the diverse group of practicing HTFMs, credentialing and scope of practice represent their biggest current issues. A designation of Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM) has been offered jointly since 2010 by the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) and the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), although their specific requirements vary.

Eligible hospitalist candidates for the focused practice exam must have an unrestricted medical license, maintenance of current primary certification, and verification of three years of unsupervised hospital medicine practice experience. ABIM views FPHM not as a subspecialty, but as a variation of internal medicine certification, identifying diplomates who are board-certified in internal medicine with a hospital medicine specialization. They do not have to take the general internal medicine recertification exam if they qualify for FPHM.

ABFM-certified family physicians who work primarily in a hospital setting can take the same test for FPHM, with the same eligibility requirements. But ABFM does not consider focused practice a subspecialty, or the Certificate of Added Qualifications in Family Medicine as sufficient for board certification. That means family physicians also need to take its general board exam in order to maintain their ABFM board certification.

ABFM’s decision not to accept the focused practice designation as sufficient for boarding was disappointing to a lot of hospitalists, said Laura “Nell” Hodo, MD, FAAFP, chair of AAFP’s hospital medicine MIG, and a pediatric academic hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Many family physicians practice hospital medicine exclusively and would prefer to take one boarding exam instead of two, and not have to do CME and board review in areas where we don’t practice anymore,” Dr. Hodo said, adding that she hopes that this decision could be revisited in the future.

A number of 1-year hospital medicine fellowships across the country provide additional training opportunities for both family practice and internal medicine residency graduates. These fellowships do not offer board certification or designated specialty credentialing for hospitalists and are not recognized by the American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which sets standards for residency and fellowship training. “But they reflect a need and an interest in optimizing the knowledge of hospital medicine and developing the specific skills needed to practice it well,” Dr. Geyer noted.

She directs a program for one to three fellows per year out of the Central Maine Family Medicine Residency program and Central Maine Medical Center in Lewiston, and is now recruiting her tenth class. At least 13 other hospital medicine fellowships, out of about 40 nationwide, are family medicine based. “We rely heavily on the Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine developed by SHM, which emphasize clinical conditions, medical procedures, and health care systems. Gaining fluency in the latter is really what makes hospital medicine unique,” Dr. Geyer said.

Often residency graduates seeking work in hospital medicine are insufficiently prepared for hospital billing and coding, enacting safe transitions of care, providing palliative care, and understanding how to impact their health care systems for quality improvement, patient safety and the like, she added.

Dr. Geyer said her fellowship does not mean just being a poorly paid hospitalist for a year. “The fellows are clearly trainees, getting the full benefit of our supervision and supplemental training focused on enhanced clinical and procedural exposure, but also on academics, quality improvement, leadership, and efficiency,” she said. “All of our fellows join SHM, go to the Annual Conference, propose case studies, do longitudinal quality or safety projects, and learn the other aspects of hospital medicine not well-taught in residency. We train them to be highly functional hospitalists right out of the gate.”

Until recently, another barrier for HTFMs was their ability to be on the faculty of internal medicine residency programs. Previous language from ACGME indicated that family medicine-trained physicians could not serve as faculty for these programs, Dr. Goldstein said. SHM has lobbied ACGME to change that rule, which could enable family medicine hospitalists who had achieved FPHM designation to be attendings and to teach internal medicine residents.
 

Needed in critical care – but not credentialed

One of the biggest frustrations for family medicine hospitalists is clarifying their role in the ICU. SHM’s Education Committee recently surveyed hospitalist members who practice in the ICU, finding that at least half felt obliged to practice beyond their scope, 90 percent occasionally perceived insufficient support from intensivists, and two-thirds reported moderate difficulty transferring patients to higher levels of intensive care.⁷ The respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they wanted more training and education in critical care medicine.

“I want to highlight the fact that in some settings family physicians are the sole providers of critical care,” Dr. Goldstein said. Meanwhile, the standards of the Leapfrog Group, a coalition of health care purchasers, call for ICUs to be staffed by physicians certified in critical care, even though there is a growing shortage of credentialed intensivists to treat an increasing number of older, sicker, critically ill patients.

Some internal medicine physicians don’t want to have anything to do with the ICU because of the medical and legal risks, said David Aymond, MD, a family physician and hospitalist at Byrd Regional Hospital in Leesville, La. “There’s a bunch of sick people in the ICU, and when some doctors like me started doing critical care, we realized we liked it. Depending on your locale, if you are doing hospital medicine, critically ill patients are going to fall in your lap,” he said. “But if you don’t have the skills, that could lead to poor outcomes and unnecessary transfers.”

Dr. Aymond started his career in family medicine. “When I got into residency, I saw how much critical care was needed in rural communities. I decided I would learn everything I could about it. I did a hospital medicine fellowship at the University of Alabama, which included considerable involvement in the ICU. When I went to Byrd Regional, a 60-bed facility with eight ICU beds, we did all of the critical care, and word started to spread in the community. My hospitalist partner and I are now on call 24/7 alternating weeks, doing the majority of the critical care and taking care of anything that goes on in an ICU at a larger center, although we often lack access to consultation services,” he explained.

“We needed to get the attention of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to communicate the scope of this problem. These doctors are doing critical care but there is no official medical training or recognition for them. So they’re legally out on a limb, even though often they are literally the only person available to do it,” Dr. Aymond said. “Certainly there’s a skills gap between HTFMs and board-certified intensivists, but some of that gap has to do with the volume of patients they have seen in the ICU and their comfort level,” he said.

SHM is pursuing initiatives to help address this gap, including collaborating with SCCM on developing a rigorous critical care training curriculum for internal medicine and family medicine hospitalists, with coursework drawn from existing sources, said Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, a critical care physician in Milwaukee. “It doesn’t replace a 2-year critical care fellowship, but it will be a lot more than what’s currently out there for the nonintensivist who practices in the ICU.” SCCM has approved moving forward with the advanced training curriculum, he said.

Another priority is to try to create a pathway that could permit family medicine–trained hospitalists to apply for existing critical care fellowships, as internal medicine doctors are now able to do. SHM has lobbied ABFM to create a pathway to subspecialty certification in critical care medicine, similar to those that exist for internists and emergency physicians, Dr. Goldstein said, adding that ACGME, which controls access to fellowships, will be the next step. Dr. Aymond expects that there will be a lot of hoops to jump through.

“David Aymond is an exceptional hospitalist,” Dr. Siegal added. “He thinks and talks like an intensivist, but it took concerted and self-directed effort for him to get there. Family practitioners are a significant part of the rural critical care workforce, but their training generally does not adequately prepare them for this role – unless they have made a conscious effort to pursue additional training,” he said.

“My message to family practitioners is not that they’re not good enough to do this, but rather that they are being asked to do something they weren’t trained for. How can we help them do it well?”

References

1. Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) Practice Analysis Committee. 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report; Oct 2018.

2. American Academy of Family Physicians Member Census, Dec 31, 2017.

3. Jones KC et al. Hospitalists: A growing part of the primary care workforce. AAMC Analysis in Brief; June 2016; 16(5):1.

4. Berczuk C. Uniquely positioned. The Hospitalist; July 2009.

5. Iqbal Y. Family medicine hospitalists: Separate and unequal? Today’s Hospitalist; May 2007.

6. Kinnan JP. The family way. The Hospitalist; Nov 2007.

7. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan 1;13(1):6-12.

Lori J. Heim, MD, FAAFP, a hospitalist in practice at Scotland Memorial Hospital in Laurinburg, N.C., for the past 10 years, recalls when she first decided to pursue hospital medicine as a career. As a family physician in private practice who admitted patients to the local hospital in Pinehurst, N.C., and even followed them into the ICU, she needed a more flexible schedule when she became president-elect of the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP).

“My local hospital told me they had a policy against hiring family physicians as hospitalists. They didn’t consider us qualified,” Dr. Heim said. “I was incredulous when I first heard that because I already had full admitting privileges at the hospital. It made no sense, since they allowed me to manage my patients in the ICU.”

Then an opportunity opened at Scotland Memorial, located an hour away. “That has been a fabulous experience for me,” she said. The transition was relatively easy, following more than 2 decades of office practice. Dr. Heim’s hospitalist group now includes eight full-time clinicians who have a mix of family medicine and internal medicine backgrounds.

“I’ve never felt anything other than collegial support here. We go to the ER to evaluate patients and decide whether to admit them, and we do a lot of medical procedures. I’m not practicing pediatrics currently, but I have no problem conducting a gynecological exam. I think my experience in family medicine and primary care has been an asset,” Dr. Heim said. “I’m not sure I would be a hospitalist today if I had not been elected president of AAFP, but it was fortuitous.”

Respect for HTFMs is growing

Hospitalists trained in family medicine (HTFM) are a small but important segment of this field and of the membership of the Society of Hospital Medicine. The board specialties of physicians who work in the hospital are not always broken out in existing databases, but HTFMs are believed to represent about 8% of SHM members, and somewhere around 10%-15% of the total hospitalist workforce. According to SHM’s 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report, 65% of hospital medicine groups employed at least one family medicine–trained provider in their group.¹

SHM’s Special Interest Group (SIG) for HTFMs reports to the society’s Board of Directors. The American Academy of Family Medicine, with 131,400 members, also has a Member Interest Group (MIG) for HTFMs. When AAFP recently surveyed its members to identify their primary patient care practice location, only 4% named the hospital (not including the emergency department), while 3% said the hospital emergency department.²

Among 32,450 adult primary care-trained hospitalists surveyed for the June 2016 AAMC In Brief of the American Association of Medical Colleges, 81.9% of the hospitalists identified internal medicine as their specialty, while 5.2% identified themselves as family physicians.³ A 2014 Medical Group Management Association survey, which reported data for 4,200 hospitalists working in community hospitals, found that 82% were internal medicine trained, versus 10% in family medicine and 7% in pediatrics.

Family medicine hospitalists may be more common in rural areas or in small hospitals – where a clinician is often expected to wear more hats, said hospitalist David Goldstein, MD, FHM, assistant director of the family medicine residency program at Natividad Medical Center, Salinas, Calif., and cochair of SHM’s family medicine SIG. “In a smaller hospital, if there’s not sufficient volume to support full-time pediatric and adult hospital medicine services, a family medicine hospitalist might do both – and even help staff the ICU.”

A decade or so ago, much of the professional literature about the role of HTFMs suggested that some had experienced a lack of respect or of equal job opportunities, while others faced pay differentials.^3-5 Since then, the field of hospital medicine has come a long way toward recognizing their contributions, although there are still hurdles to overcome, mainly involving issues of credentialing, to allow HTFMs to play equal roles in the hospital, the ICU, or in residency training. The SHM 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report reveals that HTFMs actually made slightly higher salaries on average than their internist colleagues, $301,833 versus $300,030.

Prior to the advent of hospital medicine, both family medicine and internal medicine physicians practiced in much the same way in their medical offices, and visited their patients in the hospital, said Claudia Geyer, MD, SFHM, system chief of hospital medicine at Central Maine Healthcare in Lewiston. She is trained and boarded in both family and internal medicine. “When hospital medicine launched, its heavy academic emphasis on internists led to underrecognition of the continued contributions of family medicine. Family physicians never left the hospital setting and – in certain locales – were the predominant hospitalists. We just waited for the recognition to catch up with the reality,” Dr. Geyer said.

“I don’t feel family medicine for hospitalists is nearly the stepchild of internal medicine that it was when I first started,” Dr. Heim said. “In my multihospital hospitalist group, I haven’t seen anything to suggest that they treat family medicine hospitalists as second class.” The demand for hospitalists is greater than internists can fill, while clearly the public is not concerned about these distinctions, she said.

Whether clinicians are board certified in family medicine or internal medicine may be less important to their skills for practicing in the hospital than which residency program they completed, what emphasis it placed on working in the hospital or ICU, electives completed, and other past experience. “Some family medicine residencies offer more or less hospital experience,” Dr. Heim said.

Jasen Gundersen, MD, MBA, CPE, SFHM, president of acute and post-acute services for the national hospital services company TeamHealth, agreed that there has been dramatic improvement in the status of HTFMs. He is one, and still practices as a hospitalist at Boca Raton (Fla.) Regional Hospital when administrative responsibilities permit.

TeamHealth has long been open to family medicine doctors, Dr. Gundersen added, although some of the medical staff at hospitals that contract with TeamHealth have issues with it. “We will talk to them about it,” he said. “We hire hospitalists who can do the work, and we evaluate them based on their background and skill set, where they’ve practiced and for how long. We want people who are experienced and good at managing hospitalized patients. For new residency grads, we look at their electives and the focus of their training.”

What is home for HTFMs?

Where are HTFMs most likely to find their professional home? “That’s hard to answer,” said Patricia Seymour, MD, FHM, FAAFP, an academic hospitalist at the University of Massachusetts-Worcester. “In the last 4-5 years, SHM has worked very hard to create a space for HTFMs. AAFP has a hospital medicine track at their annual meeting, and that’s a good thing. But they also need to protect family physicians’ right to practice in any setting they choose. For those pursuing hospital medicine, there’s a different career trajectory, different CME needs, and different recertification needs.”

Dr. Seymour is the executive cochair of SHM’s family medicine SIG and serves as interim chief of a family medicine hospitalist group that provides inpatient training for a family practice residency, where up to a third of the 12 residents each year go on to pursue hospital medicine as a career. “We have the second-oldest family medicine–specific hospitalist group in the country, so our residency training has an emphasis on hospital medicine,” she explained.

“Because I’m a practicing hospitalist, the residents come to me seeking advice. I appreciate the training I received as a family physician in communication science, palliative care, geriatrics, family systems theory, and public health. I wouldn’t have done it any other way, and that’s how I counsel our students and residents,” she said. Others suggest that the generalist training and diverse experiences of family medicine can be a gift for a doctor who later chooses hospital medicine.

AAFP is a large umbrella organization and the majority of its members practice primary care, Dr. Heim said. “I don’t know the percentage of HTFMs who are members of AAFP. Some no doubt belong to both AAFP and SHM.” Even though both groups have recognized this important subset of their members who chose the field of hospital medicine and its status as a career track, it can be a stretch for family medicine to embrace hospitalists.

“It inherently goes against our training, which is to work in outpatient, inpatient, obstetric, pediatric, and adult settings,” Dr. Heim said. “It’s difficult to reconcile giving up a big part of what defined your training – that range of settings. I remember feeling like I should apologize to other family medicine doctors for choosing this path.”

Credentialing opportunities and barriers

For the diverse group of practicing HTFMs, credentialing and scope of practice represent their biggest current issues. A designation of Focused Practice in Hospital Medicine (FPHM) has been offered jointly since 2010 by the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) and the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), although their specific requirements vary.

Eligible hospitalist candidates for the focused practice exam must have an unrestricted medical license, maintenance of current primary certification, and verification of three years of unsupervised hospital medicine practice experience. ABIM views FPHM not as a subspecialty, but as a variation of internal medicine certification, identifying diplomates who are board-certified in internal medicine with a hospital medicine specialization. They do not have to take the general internal medicine recertification exam if they qualify for FPHM.

ABFM-certified family physicians who work primarily in a hospital setting can take the same test for FPHM, with the same eligibility requirements. But ABFM does not consider focused practice a subspecialty, or the Certificate of Added Qualifications in Family Medicine as sufficient for board certification. That means family physicians also need to take its general board exam in order to maintain their ABFM board certification.

ABFM’s decision not to accept the focused practice designation as sufficient for boarding was disappointing to a lot of hospitalists, said Laura “Nell” Hodo, MD, FAAFP, chair of AAFP’s hospital medicine MIG, and a pediatric academic hospitalist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. “Many family physicians practice hospital medicine exclusively and would prefer to take one boarding exam instead of two, and not have to do CME and board review in areas where we don’t practice anymore,” Dr. Hodo said, adding that she hopes that this decision could be revisited in the future.

A number of 1-year hospital medicine fellowships across the country provide additional training opportunities for both family practice and internal medicine residency graduates. These fellowships do not offer board certification or designated specialty credentialing for hospitalists and are not recognized by the American College of Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), which sets standards for residency and fellowship training. “But they reflect a need and an interest in optimizing the knowledge of hospital medicine and developing the specific skills needed to practice it well,” Dr. Geyer noted.

She directs a program for one to three fellows per year out of the Central Maine Family Medicine Residency program and Central Maine Medical Center in Lewiston, and is now recruiting her tenth class. At least 13 other hospital medicine fellowships, out of about 40 nationwide, are family medicine based. “We rely heavily on the Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine developed by SHM, which emphasize clinical conditions, medical procedures, and health care systems. Gaining fluency in the latter is really what makes hospital medicine unique,” Dr. Geyer said.

Often residency graduates seeking work in hospital medicine are insufficiently prepared for hospital billing and coding, enacting safe transitions of care, providing palliative care, and understanding how to impact their health care systems for quality improvement, patient safety and the like, she added.

Dr. Geyer said her fellowship does not mean just being a poorly paid hospitalist for a year. “The fellows are clearly trainees, getting the full benefit of our supervision and supplemental training focused on enhanced clinical and procedural exposure, but also on academics, quality improvement, leadership, and efficiency,” she said. “All of our fellows join SHM, go to the Annual Conference, propose case studies, do longitudinal quality or safety projects, and learn the other aspects of hospital medicine not well-taught in residency. We train them to be highly functional hospitalists right out of the gate.”

Until recently, another barrier for HTFMs was their ability to be on the faculty of internal medicine residency programs. Previous language from ACGME indicated that family medicine-trained physicians could not serve as faculty for these programs, Dr. Goldstein said. SHM has lobbied ACGME to change that rule, which could enable family medicine hospitalists who had achieved FPHM designation to be attendings and to teach internal medicine residents.
 

Needed in critical care – but not credentialed

One of the biggest frustrations for family medicine hospitalists is clarifying their role in the ICU. SHM’s Education Committee recently surveyed hospitalist members who practice in the ICU, finding that at least half felt obliged to practice beyond their scope, 90 percent occasionally perceived insufficient support from intensivists, and two-thirds reported moderate difficulty transferring patients to higher levels of intensive care.⁷ The respondents overwhelmingly indicated that they wanted more training and education in critical care medicine.

“I want to highlight the fact that in some settings family physicians are the sole providers of critical care,” Dr. Goldstein said. Meanwhile, the standards of the Leapfrog Group, a coalition of health care purchasers, call for ICUs to be staffed by physicians certified in critical care, even though there is a growing shortage of credentialed intensivists to treat an increasing number of older, sicker, critically ill patients.

Some internal medicine physicians don’t want to have anything to do with the ICU because of the medical and legal risks, said David Aymond, MD, a family physician and hospitalist at Byrd Regional Hospital in Leesville, La. “There’s a bunch of sick people in the ICU, and when some doctors like me started doing critical care, we realized we liked it. Depending on your locale, if you are doing hospital medicine, critically ill patients are going to fall in your lap,” he said. “But if you don’t have the skills, that could lead to poor outcomes and unnecessary transfers.”

Dr. Aymond started his career in family medicine. “When I got into residency, I saw how much critical care was needed in rural communities. I decided I would learn everything I could about it. I did a hospital medicine fellowship at the University of Alabama, which included considerable involvement in the ICU. When I went to Byrd Regional, a 60-bed facility with eight ICU beds, we did all of the critical care, and word started to spread in the community. My hospitalist partner and I are now on call 24/7 alternating weeks, doing the majority of the critical care and taking care of anything that goes on in an ICU at a larger center, although we often lack access to consultation services,” he explained.

“We needed to get the attention of the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) to communicate the scope of this problem. These doctors are doing critical care but there is no official medical training or recognition for them. So they’re legally out on a limb, even though often they are literally the only person available to do it,” Dr. Aymond said. “Certainly there’s a skills gap between HTFMs and board-certified intensivists, but some of that gap has to do with the volume of patients they have seen in the ICU and their comfort level,” he said.

SHM is pursuing initiatives to help address this gap, including collaborating with SCCM on developing a rigorous critical care training curriculum for internal medicine and family medicine hospitalists, with coursework drawn from existing sources, said Eric Siegal, MD, SFHM, a critical care physician in Milwaukee. “It doesn’t replace a 2-year critical care fellowship, but it will be a lot more than what’s currently out there for the nonintensivist who practices in the ICU.” SCCM has approved moving forward with the advanced training curriculum, he said.

Another priority is to try to create a pathway that could permit family medicine–trained hospitalists to apply for existing critical care fellowships, as internal medicine doctors are now able to do. SHM has lobbied ABFM to create a pathway to subspecialty certification in critical care medicine, similar to those that exist for internists and emergency physicians, Dr. Goldstein said, adding that ACGME, which controls access to fellowships, will be the next step. Dr. Aymond expects that there will be a lot of hoops to jump through.

“David Aymond is an exceptional hospitalist,” Dr. Siegal added. “He thinks and talks like an intensivist, but it took concerted and self-directed effort for him to get there. Family practitioners are a significant part of the rural critical care workforce, but their training generally does not adequately prepare them for this role – unless they have made a conscious effort to pursue additional training,” he said.

“My message to family practitioners is not that they’re not good enough to do this, but rather that they are being asked to do something they weren’t trained for. How can we help them do it well?”

References

1. Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM) Practice Analysis Committee. 2018 State of Hospital Medicine Report; Oct 2018.

2. American Academy of Family Physicians Member Census, Dec 31, 2017.

3. Jones KC et al. Hospitalists: A growing part of the primary care workforce. AAMC Analysis in Brief; June 2016; 16(5):1.

4. Berczuk C. Uniquely positioned. The Hospitalist; July 2009.

5. Iqbal Y. Family medicine hospitalists: Separate and unequal? Today’s Hospitalist; May 2007.

6. Kinnan JP. The family way. The Hospitalist; Nov 2007.

7. Sweigart JR et al. Characterizing hospitalist practice and perceptions of critical care delivery. J Hosp Med. 2018 Jan 1;13(1):6-12.

SEATTLE – Blood cultures were ordered for over half of pediatric skin infection encounters across 38 children’s hospitals, with rates varying from about 20% to 80% between hospitals, according to a review of almost 50,000 encounters in the Pediatric Health Information System database.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

It was a surprising finding, because current guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America do not recommend blood cultures as part of the routine evaluation of uncomplicated pediatric skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs), meaning infections in children who are otherwise healthy without neutropenia or other complicating factors.

Just 0.6% of the cultures were positive in the review, and it’s likely some of those were caused by contamination. After adjustment for demographics, complex chronic conditions, and severity of illness, culture draws were associated with a 20% increase in hospital length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, and 30-day readmission rates.

“Our data provide more evidence that [routine] blood cultures for children with SSTI represents low-value practice and should be avoided,” said lead investigator John Stephens, MD, a pediatrics professor and hospitalist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Stephens became curious about how common the practice was across hospitals after he and a friend penned an article about the issue for the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do for No Reason” series. The single-center studies they reviewed showed similarly high rates of both testing and negative cultures (J Hosp Med. 2018 Jul;13[7]:496-9).

Dr. Stephens and his team queried the Pediatric Health Information System database for encounters in children aged 2 months to 18 years with the diagnostic code 383, “cellulitis and other skin infections,” from 2012 to 2017, during which time “there really wasn’t a change” in IDSA guidance, he noted. Transfers, encounters with ICU care, and immunocompromised children were excluded.

Hospital admissions were included in the review if they had an additional code for erysipelas, cellulitis, impetigo, or other localized skin infection. The rate of positive cultures was inferred from subsequent codes for bacteremia or septicemia.

Across 49,291 encounters, the median rate of blood culture for skin infection was 51.6%, with tremendous variation between hospitals. With blood cultures, the hospital LOS was about 1.9 days, the hospital cost was $4,030, and the 30-day readmission rate was 1.3%. Without cultures, LOS was 1.6 days, the cost was $3,291, and the readmission rate was 1%.

Although infrequent, it’s likely that positive cultures triggered additional work-up, time in the hospital, and other measures, which might help account for the increase in LOS and costs.

As for why blood testing was so common, especially in some hospitals, “I think it’s just institutional culture. No amount of clinical variation in patient population could explain” a 20%-80% “variation across hospitals. It’s really just ingrained habits,” Dr. Stephens said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

“The rate of positive blood culture was really low, and the association was for higher cost and utilization. I think this really reinforces the IDSA guidelines. We need to focus on quality improvement efforts to do this better,” he said, noting that he hopes to do so at his own institution.

“I’d also like to know more on the positives. In the single center studies, we know more than half of them are contaminants. Often, there’s more contamination than true positives,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

Instead of routine blood culture, Dr. Stephens recommended in his article to send pus for a Gram stain and culture and sensitivity, while noting that blood cultures remain reasonable for complicated infections, immunocompromised patients, and neonates.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Stephens didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Blood cultures were ordered for over half of pediatric skin infection encounters across 38 children’s hospitals, with rates varying from about 20% to 80% between hospitals, according to a review of almost 50,000 encounters in the Pediatric Health Information System database.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

It was a surprising finding, because current guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America do not recommend blood cultures as part of the routine evaluation of uncomplicated pediatric skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs), meaning infections in children who are otherwise healthy without neutropenia or other complicating factors.

Just 0.6% of the cultures were positive in the review, and it’s likely some of those were caused by contamination. After adjustment for demographics, complex chronic conditions, and severity of illness, culture draws were associated with a 20% increase in hospital length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, and 30-day readmission rates.

“Our data provide more evidence that [routine] blood cultures for children with SSTI represents low-value practice and should be avoided,” said lead investigator John Stephens, MD, a pediatrics professor and hospitalist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Stephens became curious about how common the practice was across hospitals after he and a friend penned an article about the issue for the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do for No Reason” series. The single-center studies they reviewed showed similarly high rates of both testing and negative cultures (J Hosp Med. 2018 Jul;13[7]:496-9).

Dr. Stephens and his team queried the Pediatric Health Information System database for encounters in children aged 2 months to 18 years with the diagnostic code 383, “cellulitis and other skin infections,” from 2012 to 2017, during which time “there really wasn’t a change” in IDSA guidance, he noted. Transfers, encounters with ICU care, and immunocompromised children were excluded.

Hospital admissions were included in the review if they had an additional code for erysipelas, cellulitis, impetigo, or other localized skin infection. The rate of positive cultures was inferred from subsequent codes for bacteremia or septicemia.

Across 49,291 encounters, the median rate of blood culture for skin infection was 51.6%, with tremendous variation between hospitals. With blood cultures, the hospital LOS was about 1.9 days, the hospital cost was $4,030, and the 30-day readmission rate was 1.3%. Without cultures, LOS was 1.6 days, the cost was $3,291, and the readmission rate was 1%.

Although infrequent, it’s likely that positive cultures triggered additional work-up, time in the hospital, and other measures, which might help account for the increase in LOS and costs.

As for why blood testing was so common, especially in some hospitals, “I think it’s just institutional culture. No amount of clinical variation in patient population could explain” a 20%-80% “variation across hospitals. It’s really just ingrained habits,” Dr. Stephens said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

“The rate of positive blood culture was really low, and the association was for higher cost and utilization. I think this really reinforces the IDSA guidelines. We need to focus on quality improvement efforts to do this better,” he said, noting that he hopes to do so at his own institution.

“I’d also like to know more on the positives. In the single center studies, we know more than half of them are contaminants. Often, there’s more contamination than true positives,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

Instead of routine blood culture, Dr. Stephens recommended in his article to send pus for a Gram stain and culture and sensitivity, while noting that blood cultures remain reasonable for complicated infections, immunocompromised patients, and neonates.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Stephens didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Blood cultures were ordered for over half of pediatric skin infection encounters across 38 children’s hospitals, with rates varying from about 20% to 80% between hospitals, according to a review of almost 50,000 encounters in the Pediatric Health Information System database.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

It was a surprising finding, because current guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Society of America do not recommend blood cultures as part of the routine evaluation of uncomplicated pediatric skin and soft-tissue infections (SSTIs), meaning infections in children who are otherwise healthy without neutropenia or other complicating factors.

Just 0.6% of the cultures were positive in the review, and it’s likely some of those were caused by contamination. After adjustment for demographics, complex chronic conditions, and severity of illness, culture draws were associated with a 20% increase in hospital length of stay (LOS), hospital costs, and 30-day readmission rates.

“Our data provide more evidence that [routine] blood cultures for children with SSTI represents low-value practice and should be avoided,” said lead investigator John Stephens, MD, a pediatrics professor and hospitalist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dr. Stephens became curious about how common the practice was across hospitals after he and a friend penned an article about the issue for the Journal of Hospital Medicine’s “Things We Do for No Reason” series. The single-center studies they reviewed showed similarly high rates of both testing and negative cultures (J Hosp Med. 2018 Jul;13[7]:496-9).

Dr. Stephens and his team queried the Pediatric Health Information System database for encounters in children aged 2 months to 18 years with the diagnostic code 383, “cellulitis and other skin infections,” from 2012 to 2017, during which time “there really wasn’t a change” in IDSA guidance, he noted. Transfers, encounters with ICU care, and immunocompromised children were excluded.

Hospital admissions were included in the review if they had an additional code for erysipelas, cellulitis, impetigo, or other localized skin infection. The rate of positive cultures was inferred from subsequent codes for bacteremia or septicemia.

Across 49,291 encounters, the median rate of blood culture for skin infection was 51.6%, with tremendous variation between hospitals. With blood cultures, the hospital LOS was about 1.9 days, the hospital cost was $4,030, and the 30-day readmission rate was 1.3%. Without cultures, LOS was 1.6 days, the cost was $3,291, and the readmission rate was 1%.

Although infrequent, it’s likely that positive cultures triggered additional work-up, time in the hospital, and other measures, which might help account for the increase in LOS and costs.

As for why blood testing was so common, especially in some hospitals, “I think it’s just institutional culture. No amount of clinical variation in patient population could explain” a 20%-80% “variation across hospitals. It’s really just ingrained habits,” Dr. Stephens said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine.

“The rate of positive blood culture was really low, and the association was for higher cost and utilization. I think this really reinforces the IDSA guidelines. We need to focus on quality improvement efforts to do this better,” he said, noting that he hopes to do so at his own institution.

“I’d also like to know more on the positives. In the single center studies, we know more than half of them are contaminants. Often, there’s more contamination than true positives,” he said at the meeting sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

Instead of routine blood culture, Dr. Stephens recommended in his article to send pus for a Gram stain and culture and sensitivity, while noting that blood cultures remain reasonable for complicated infections, immunocompromised patients, and neonates.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Stephens didn’t report any disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – There were no cases of aspiration with enteric feeds of 60 children aged up to 2 years on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for bronchiolitis at the University of Oklahoma Children’s Hospital, Oklahoma City, according to research presented at the 2019 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Conference.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

HFNC has become common for bronchiolitis management; it often saves infants from intubation. However, many providers opt for total parenteral nutrition during therapy instead of enteral feeding because of concerns about aspiration pneumonia.

Pediatricians at the children’s hospital began to wonder if the concern was really necessary. There have been reports of safe feeding during HFNC, and “clinical care literature has shown that feeding the gut throughout illness improves outcomes,” said lead investigator, Sarah Walter, MD, a third-year pediatrics resident at the hospital.

So her team took a leap of faith. They consulted the HFNC literature, asked their fellow providers what they would be comfortable with, and instituted a pediatric HFNC enteral feeding protocol at the children’s hospital for use on inpatient floors, pediatric ICUs, and elsewhere.

Feedings – formula or breast milk – are triggered by stable respiratory Tal scores over 8 hours, meaning that respiratory rates, breath sounds, and accessory muscle use were stable or improving. Children on a flow of 6 L/min or less, with a respiratory rate below 60 breaths per minute, are started on oral feeds, and those on higher flows on nasogastric (NG) tube feeds.

Feeds are started at 1 mL/kg per hour and advanced by the same amount every 3 hours until volume goals are reached; IV fluids are tapered accordingly. It’s a standing order, so nurses are able to initiate and advance feeding as indicated, any time of day.

Feeding was temporarily suspended in only 17 children: 6 for emesis, 6 for worsening respiratory scores, and the rest for dislodged NG tubes, procedures, or other issues. Enteric feeds were restarted with two stable scores below 7 points, at half the rate at which they were stopped.

NG tubes were used in over half of the 478 nursing shifts during which the 60 children – the majority aged 4-24 months – were fed; oral feeds in more than a third; and gastric tubes and other options in the rest. IV nutrition was used during just 1.8% of the shifts.

Enteric feeds were given up to a flow rate of 3.5 L/kg. There were no aspirations, even when children vomited. “We have seen good results so far that feeding is safe in these children,” Dr. Walters said.

“Our hospitalist team has been very receptive; they have been using the order set pretty continuously.” Parents also feel better when they know their children were “getting food in their belly,” even if by NG tube. “It’s important for family satisfaction,” she said.

The next step is to assess impact on length of stay, and education efforts to encourage broader use of the order set.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – There were no cases of aspiration with enteric feeds of 60 children aged up to 2 years on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for bronchiolitis at the University of Oklahoma Children’s Hospital, Oklahoma City, according to research presented at the 2019 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Conference.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

HFNC has become common for bronchiolitis management; it often saves infants from intubation. However, many providers opt for total parenteral nutrition during therapy instead of enteral feeding because of concerns about aspiration pneumonia.

Pediatricians at the children’s hospital began to wonder if the concern was really necessary. There have been reports of safe feeding during HFNC, and “clinical care literature has shown that feeding the gut throughout illness improves outcomes,” said lead investigator, Sarah Walter, MD, a third-year pediatrics resident at the hospital.

So her team took a leap of faith. They consulted the HFNC literature, asked their fellow providers what they would be comfortable with, and instituted a pediatric HFNC enteral feeding protocol at the children’s hospital for use on inpatient floors, pediatric ICUs, and elsewhere.

Feedings – formula or breast milk – are triggered by stable respiratory Tal scores over 8 hours, meaning that respiratory rates, breath sounds, and accessory muscle use were stable or improving. Children on a flow of 6 L/min or less, with a respiratory rate below 60 breaths per minute, are started on oral feeds, and those on higher flows on nasogastric (NG) tube feeds.

Feeds are started at 1 mL/kg per hour and advanced by the same amount every 3 hours until volume goals are reached; IV fluids are tapered accordingly. It’s a standing order, so nurses are able to initiate and advance feeding as indicated, any time of day.

Feeding was temporarily suspended in only 17 children: 6 for emesis, 6 for worsening respiratory scores, and the rest for dislodged NG tubes, procedures, or other issues. Enteric feeds were restarted with two stable scores below 7 points, at half the rate at which they were stopped.

NG tubes were used in over half of the 478 nursing shifts during which the 60 children – the majority aged 4-24 months – were fed; oral feeds in more than a third; and gastric tubes and other options in the rest. IV nutrition was used during just 1.8% of the shifts.

Enteric feeds were given up to a flow rate of 3.5 L/kg. There were no aspirations, even when children vomited. “We have seen good results so far that feeding is safe in these children,” Dr. Walters said.

“Our hospitalist team has been very receptive; they have been using the order set pretty continuously.” Parents also feel better when they know their children were “getting food in their belly,” even if by NG tube. “It’s important for family satisfaction,” she said.

The next step is to assess impact on length of stay, and education efforts to encourage broader use of the order set.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – There were no cases of aspiration with enteric feeds of 60 children aged up to 2 years on high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for bronchiolitis at the University of Oklahoma Children’s Hospital, Oklahoma City, according to research presented at the 2019 Pediatric Hospital Medicine Conference.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

HFNC has become common for bronchiolitis management; it often saves infants from intubation. However, many providers opt for total parenteral nutrition during therapy instead of enteral feeding because of concerns about aspiration pneumonia.

Pediatricians at the children’s hospital began to wonder if the concern was really necessary. There have been reports of safe feeding during HFNC, and “clinical care literature has shown that feeding the gut throughout illness improves outcomes,” said lead investigator, Sarah Walter, MD, a third-year pediatrics resident at the hospital.

So her team took a leap of faith. They consulted the HFNC literature, asked their fellow providers what they would be comfortable with, and instituted a pediatric HFNC enteral feeding protocol at the children’s hospital for use on inpatient floors, pediatric ICUs, and elsewhere.

Feedings – formula or breast milk – are triggered by stable respiratory Tal scores over 8 hours, meaning that respiratory rates, breath sounds, and accessory muscle use were stable or improving. Children on a flow of 6 L/min or less, with a respiratory rate below 60 breaths per minute, are started on oral feeds, and those on higher flows on nasogastric (NG) tube feeds.

Feeds are started at 1 mL/kg per hour and advanced by the same amount every 3 hours until volume goals are reached; IV fluids are tapered accordingly. It’s a standing order, so nurses are able to initiate and advance feeding as indicated, any time of day.

Feeding was temporarily suspended in only 17 children: 6 for emesis, 6 for worsening respiratory scores, and the rest for dislodged NG tubes, procedures, or other issues. Enteric feeds were restarted with two stable scores below 7 points, at half the rate at which they were stopped.

NG tubes were used in over half of the 478 nursing shifts during which the 60 children – the majority aged 4-24 months – were fed; oral feeds in more than a third; and gastric tubes and other options in the rest. IV nutrition was used during just 1.8% of the shifts.

Enteric feeds were given up to a flow rate of 3.5 L/kg. There were no aspirations, even when children vomited. “We have seen good results so far that feeding is safe in these children,” Dr. Walters said.

“Our hospitalist team has been very receptive; they have been using the order set pretty continuously.” Parents also feel better when they know their children were “getting food in their belly,” even if by NG tube. “It’s important for family satisfaction,” she said.

The next step is to assess impact on length of stay, and education efforts to encourage broader use of the order set.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Walter had no disclosures. The meeting was sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Adding a 3-day course of azithromycin to treatment regimens of children hospitalized with asthma did not shorten length of stay or bring other benefits in a randomized, blinded trial of more than 150 youngsters at The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, New York.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

In recent years, some pediatricians at Montefiore had begun giving short-course azithromycin to hospitalized children who were not recovering as quickly as they had hoped, spurred by outpatient reports of reduced exacerbations and other benefits with long-term azithromycin (e.g., Lancet. 2017 Aug 12;390(10095):659-68).

“We had no evidence for doing that at all” in the hospital, and it might be going on elsewhere, said senior investigator Alyssa Silver, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Montefiore and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. She and her colleagues, including primary investigator Lindsey Douglas, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, took a closer look.

The negative results mean that “we can stop doing this, giving kids unnecessary things. Word is starting to get out” at Montefiore. “People are not using it as much,” she said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

The team had expected azithromycin to shorten length of stay (LOS) by about half a day, due to its anti-inflammatory effects, but that’s not what was found when they randomized 80 children aged 4-12 years with persistent asthma to oral azithromycin 10 mg/kg per day for 3 days within 12 hours of admission, and 79 to placebo.

LOS was 1.86 days in the placebo arm, and 1.69 days in the azithromycin group (P = .23). One placebo child was transferred to the pediatric ICU, versus none in the azithromycin arm (P = .50). The study was stopped short of its 214 subject enrollment goal because of futility, but even so, it was well powered to detect a difference in LOS, the primary outcome, Dr. Silver said.

At 1 week phone follow-up, 7 placebo children and 11 in the azithromycin arm had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .42), and 1 placebo child and 2 azithromycin children had been readmitted (P greater than .99). There were no differences in days of school missed, or work days missed among parents and guardians.

At one month, 23 placebo and 18 azithromycin children had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .5); 7 placebo and 6 azithromycin children had returned to the ED (P = .75).

In short, “we really found no difference” with short-course azithromycin. “Clinicians should consider [these] data before prescribing azithromycin [to] children hospitalized with asthma,” Dr. Silver and her team concluded.

Subjects were an average of about 7 years old, and about two-thirds were boys. They were not on azithromycin or other antibiotics prior to admission. About half had been admitted in the previous year, and about a quarter had at least one previous pediatric ICU admission. Over two-thirds had been on daily asthma medications. There were about 2 days of symptoms prior to admission.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Silver had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Adding a 3-day course of azithromycin to treatment regimens of children hospitalized with asthma did not shorten length of stay or bring other benefits in a randomized, blinded trial of more than 150 youngsters at The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, New York.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

In recent years, some pediatricians at Montefiore had begun giving short-course azithromycin to hospitalized children who were not recovering as quickly as they had hoped, spurred by outpatient reports of reduced exacerbations and other benefits with long-term azithromycin (e.g., Lancet. 2017 Aug 12;390(10095):659-68).

“We had no evidence for doing that at all” in the hospital, and it might be going on elsewhere, said senior investigator Alyssa Silver, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Montefiore and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. She and her colleagues, including primary investigator Lindsey Douglas, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, took a closer look.

The negative results mean that “we can stop doing this, giving kids unnecessary things. Word is starting to get out” at Montefiore. “People are not using it as much,” she said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

The team had expected azithromycin to shorten length of stay (LOS) by about half a day, due to its anti-inflammatory effects, but that’s not what was found when they randomized 80 children aged 4-12 years with persistent asthma to oral azithromycin 10 mg/kg per day for 3 days within 12 hours of admission, and 79 to placebo.

LOS was 1.86 days in the placebo arm, and 1.69 days in the azithromycin group (P = .23). One placebo child was transferred to the pediatric ICU, versus none in the azithromycin arm (P = .50). The study was stopped short of its 214 subject enrollment goal because of futility, but even so, it was well powered to detect a difference in LOS, the primary outcome, Dr. Silver said.

At 1 week phone follow-up, 7 placebo children and 11 in the azithromycin arm had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .42), and 1 placebo child and 2 azithromycin children had been readmitted (P greater than .99). There were no differences in days of school missed, or work days missed among parents and guardians.

At one month, 23 placebo and 18 azithromycin children had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .5); 7 placebo and 6 azithromycin children had returned to the ED (P = .75).

In short, “we really found no difference” with short-course azithromycin. “Clinicians should consider [these] data before prescribing azithromycin [to] children hospitalized with asthma,” Dr. Silver and her team concluded.

Subjects were an average of about 7 years old, and about two-thirds were boys. They were not on azithromycin or other antibiotics prior to admission. About half had been admitted in the previous year, and about a quarter had at least one previous pediatric ICU admission. Over two-thirds had been on daily asthma medications. There were about 2 days of symptoms prior to admission.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Silver had no disclosures.

[email protected]

SEATTLE – Adding a 3-day course of azithromycin to treatment regimens of children hospitalized with asthma did not shorten length of stay or bring other benefits in a randomized, blinded trial of more than 150 youngsters at The Children’s Hospital at Montefiore, New York.

M. Alexander Otto/MDedge News

In recent years, some pediatricians at Montefiore had begun giving short-course azithromycin to hospitalized children who were not recovering as quickly as they had hoped, spurred by outpatient reports of reduced exacerbations and other benefits with long-term azithromycin (e.g., Lancet. 2017 Aug 12;390(10095):659-68).

“We had no evidence for doing that at all” in the hospital, and it might be going on elsewhere, said senior investigator Alyssa Silver, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at Montefiore and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York. She and her colleagues, including primary investigator Lindsey Douglas, MD, assistant professor of pediatrics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, took a closer look.

The negative results mean that “we can stop doing this, giving kids unnecessary things. Word is starting to get out” at Montefiore. “People are not using it as much,” she said at Pediatric Hospital Medicine, sponsored by the Society of Hospital Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the Academic Pediatric Association.

The team had expected azithromycin to shorten length of stay (LOS) by about half a day, due to its anti-inflammatory effects, but that’s not what was found when they randomized 80 children aged 4-12 years with persistent asthma to oral azithromycin 10 mg/kg per day for 3 days within 12 hours of admission, and 79 to placebo.

LOS was 1.86 days in the placebo arm, and 1.69 days in the azithromycin group (P = .23). One placebo child was transferred to the pediatric ICU, versus none in the azithromycin arm (P = .50). The study was stopped short of its 214 subject enrollment goal because of futility, but even so, it was well powered to detect a difference in LOS, the primary outcome, Dr. Silver said.

At 1 week phone follow-up, 7 placebo children and 11 in the azithromycin arm had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .42), and 1 placebo child and 2 azithromycin children had been readmitted (P greater than .99). There were no differences in days of school missed, or work days missed among parents and guardians.

At one month, 23 placebo and 18 azithromycin children had persistent asthma symptoms (P = .5); 7 placebo and 6 azithromycin children had returned to the ED (P = .75).

In short, “we really found no difference” with short-course azithromycin. “Clinicians should consider [these] data before prescribing azithromycin [to] children hospitalized with asthma,” Dr. Silver and her team concluded.

Subjects were an average of about 7 years old, and about two-thirds were boys. They were not on azithromycin or other antibiotics prior to admission. About half had been admitted in the previous year, and about a quarter had at least one previous pediatric ICU admission. Over two-thirds had been on daily asthma medications. There were about 2 days of symptoms prior to admission.

There was no external funding, and Dr. Silver had no disclosures.

[email protected]

Case

A 42-year-old woman with uncontrolled diabetes presents to the ED with fever, chills, dysuria, and flank pain for 3 days. On exam, she is febrile and tachycardic. Lab results show leukocytosis and urinalysis is consistent with infection. CT scan shows acute pyelonephritis without complication. She is admitted to the hospital and started on ceftriaxone 2 g/24 hrs. On hospital day 2, her blood cultures show gram-negative bacteria.

Brief overview

Management of gram-negative (GN) bacteremia remains a challenging clinical situation for inpatient providers. With the push for high-value care and reductions in length of stay, recent literature has focused on reviewing current practices and attempting to standardize care. Despite this, no overarching guidelines exist to direct practice and clinicians are left to make decisions based on prior experience and expert opinion. Three key clinical questions exist when caring for a hospitalized patient with GN bacteremia: Should blood cultures be repeated? When is transition to oral antibiotics appropriate? And for what duration should antibiotics be given?

Overview of the data

When considering repeating blood cultures, it is important to understand that current literature does not support the practice for all GN bacteremias.

Canzoneri et al. retrospectively studied GN bacteremia and found that it took 17 repeat blood cultures being drawn to yield 1 positive result, which suggests that they are not necessary in all cases.¹ Furthermore, repeat blood cultures increase cost of hospitalization, length of stay, and inconvenience to patients.²

However, Mushtaq et al. noted that repeating blood cultures can provide valuable information to confirm the response to treatment in patients with endovascular infection. Furthermore, they found that repeated blood cultures are also reasonable when the following scenarios are suspected: endocarditis or central line–associated infection, concern for multidrug resistant GN bacilli, and ongoing evidence of sepsis or patient decompensation.³

Consideration of a transition from intravenous to oral antibiotics is a key decision point in the care of GN bacteremia. Without guidelines, clinicians are left to evaluate patients on a case-by-case basis.⁴ Studies have suggested that the transition should be guided by the condition of the patient, the type of infection, and the culture-derived sensitivities.⁵ Additionally, bioavailability of antibiotics (see Table 1) is an important consideration and a recent examination of oral antibiotic failure rates demonstrated that lower bioavailability antibiotics have an increased risk of failure (2% vs. 16%).⁶

In their study, Kutob et al. highlighted the importance of choosing not only an antibiotic of high bioavailability, but also an antibiotic dose which will support a high concentration of the antibiotic in the bloodstream.⁶ For example, they identify ciprofloxacin as a moderate bioavailability medication, but note that most cases they examined utilized 500 mg b.i.d., where the concentration-dependent killing and dose-dependent bioavailability would advocate for the use of 750 mg b.i.d. or 500 mg every 8 hours.

The heterogeneity of GN bloodstream infections also creates difficulty in standardization of care. The literature suggests that infection source plays a significant role in the type of GN bacteria isolated.^6,7 The best data for the transition to oral antibiotics exists with urologic sources and it remains unclear whether bacteria from other sources have higher risks of oral antibiotic failure.⁸

One recent study of 66 patients examined bacteremia in the setting of cholangitis and found that, once patients had stabilized, a switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics was noninferior, but randomized, prospective trials have not been performed. Notably, patients were transitioned to orals only after they were found to have a fluoroquinolone-sensitive infection, allowing the study authors to use higher-bioavailability agents for the transition to orals.⁹ Multiple studies have highlighted the unique care required for certain infections, such as pseudomonal infections, which most experts agree requires a more conservative approach.^5,6

Fluoroquinolones are the bedrock of therapy for GN bacteremia because of historic in vivo experience and in vitro findings about bioavailability and dose-dependent killing, but they are also the antibiotic class associated with the highest hospitalization rates for antibiotic-associated adverse events.⁸ A recent noninferiority trial comparing the use of beta-lactams with fluoroquinolones found that beta-lactams were noninferior, though the study was flawed by the limited number of beta-lactam–using patients identified.⁸ It is clear that more investigation is needed before recommendations can be made regarding ideal oral antibiotics for GN bacteremia.

The transition to oral is reasonable given the following criteria: the patient has improved on intravenous antibiotics and source control has been achieved; the culture data have demonstrated sensitivity to the oral antibiotic of choice, with special care given to higher-risk bacteria such as Pseudomonas; the patient is able to take the oral antibiotic; and the oral antibiotic of choice has the highest bioavailability possible and is given at an appropriate dose to reach its highest killing and bioavailability concentrations.⁷

After evaluating the appropriateness of transition to oral antibiotics, the final decision is about duration of antibiotic therapy. Current Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines are based on expert opinion and recommend 7-14 days of therapy. As with many common infections, recent studies have focused on evaluating reduction in antibiotic durations.

Chotiprasitsakul et al. demonstrated no difference in mortality or morbidity in 385 propensity-matched pairs with treatment of Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia for 8 versus 15 days.¹⁰ A mixed meta-analysis performed in 2011 evaluated 24 randomized, controlled trials and found shorter durations (5-7 days) had similar outcomes to prolonged durations (7-21 days).¹¹ Recently, Yahav et al. performed a randomized control trial comparing 7- and 14-day regimens for uncomplicated GN bacteremia and found a 7-day course to be noninferior if patients were clinically stable by day 5 and had source control.¹²

It should be noted that not all studies have found that reduced durations are without harm. Nelson et al. performed a retrospective cohort analysis and found that reduced durations of antibiotics (7-10 days) increased mortality and recurrent infection when compared with a longer course (greater than 10 days).¹³ These contrary findings highlight the need for provider discretion in selecting a course of antibiotics as well as the need for further studies about optimal duration of antibiotics.
 

Application of the data

Returning to our case, on day 3, the patient’s fever had resolved and leukocytosis improved. In the absence of concern for persistent infection, repeat blood cultures were not performed. On day 4 initial blood cultures showed pan-sensitive Escherichia coli. The patient was transitioned to 750 mg oral ciprofloxacin b.i.d. to complete a 10-day course from first dose of ceftriaxone and was discharged from the hospital.

Bottom line

Management of GN bacteremia requires individualized care based on clinical presentation, but the data presented above can be used as broad guidelines to help reduce excess blood cultures, avoid prolonged use of intravenous antibiotics, and limit the duration of antibiotic exposure.

Dr. Imber is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and director of the Internal Medicine Simulation Education and Hospitalist Procedural Certification. Dr. Burns is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Chan is currently a chief resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of New Mexico.

References

1. Canzoneri CN et al. Follow-up blood cultures in gram-negative bacteremia: Are they needed? Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(11):1776-9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix648.

2. Kang CK et al. Can a routine follow-up blood culture be justified in Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia? A retrospective case-control study. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:365. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-365.

3. Mushtaq A et al. Repeating blood cultures after an initial bacteremia: When and how often? Cleve Clin J Med. 2019;86(2):89-92. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.86a.18001.

4. Nimmich EB et al. Development of institutional guidelines for management of gram-negative bloodstream infections: Incorporating local evidence. Hosp Pharm. 2017;52(10):691-7. doi: 10.1177/0018578717720506.

5. Hale AJ et al. When are oral antibiotics a safe and effective choice for bacterial bloodstream infections? An evidence-based narrative review. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2949.

6. Kutob LF et al. Effectiveness of oral antibiotics for definitive therapy of gram-negative bloodstream infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.07.013.

7. Tamma PD et al. Association of 30-day mortality with oral step-down vs. continued intravenous therapy in patients hospitalized with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6226.

8. Mercuro NJ et al. Retrospective analysis comparing oral stepdown therapy for enterobacteriaceae bloodstream infections: fluoroquinolones vs. B-lactams. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.12.007.

9. Park TY et al. Early oral antibiotic switch compared with conventional intravenous antibiotic therapy for acute cholangitis with bacteremia. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59:2790-6. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3233-0.

10. Chotiprasitsakul D et al. Comparing the outcomes of adults with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia receiving short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy in a multicenter, propensity score-matched cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(2):172-7. doi:10.1093/cid/cix767.

11. Havey TC et al. Duration of antibiotic therapy for bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2011;15(6):R267. doi:10.1186/cc10545.

12. Yahav D et al. Seven versus fourteen days of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Dec. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy1054.

13. Nelson AN et al. Optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections. Infection. 2017;45(5):613-20. doi:10.1007/s15010-017-1020-5.

Case

A 42-year-old woman with uncontrolled diabetes presents to the ED with fever, chills, dysuria, and flank pain for 3 days. On exam, she is febrile and tachycardic. Lab results show leukocytosis and urinalysis is consistent with infection. CT scan shows acute pyelonephritis without complication. She is admitted to the hospital and started on ceftriaxone 2 g/24 hrs. On hospital day 2, her blood cultures show gram-negative bacteria.

Brief overview

Management of gram-negative (GN) bacteremia remains a challenging clinical situation for inpatient providers. With the push for high-value care and reductions in length of stay, recent literature has focused on reviewing current practices and attempting to standardize care. Despite this, no overarching guidelines exist to direct practice and clinicians are left to make decisions based on prior experience and expert opinion. Three key clinical questions exist when caring for a hospitalized patient with GN bacteremia: Should blood cultures be repeated? When is transition to oral antibiotics appropriate? And for what duration should antibiotics be given?

Overview of the data

When considering repeating blood cultures, it is important to understand that current literature does not support the practice for all GN bacteremias.

Canzoneri et al. retrospectively studied GN bacteremia and found that it took 17 repeat blood cultures being drawn to yield 1 positive result, which suggests that they are not necessary in all cases.¹ Furthermore, repeat blood cultures increase cost of hospitalization, length of stay, and inconvenience to patients.²

However, Mushtaq et al. noted that repeating blood cultures can provide valuable information to confirm the response to treatment in patients with endovascular infection. Furthermore, they found that repeated blood cultures are also reasonable when the following scenarios are suspected: endocarditis or central line–associated infection, concern for multidrug resistant GN bacilli, and ongoing evidence of sepsis or patient decompensation.³

Consideration of a transition from intravenous to oral antibiotics is a key decision point in the care of GN bacteremia. Without guidelines, clinicians are left to evaluate patients on a case-by-case basis.⁴ Studies have suggested that the transition should be guided by the condition of the patient, the type of infection, and the culture-derived sensitivities.⁵ Additionally, bioavailability of antibiotics (see Table 1) is an important consideration and a recent examination of oral antibiotic failure rates demonstrated that lower bioavailability antibiotics have an increased risk of failure (2% vs. 16%).⁶

In their study, Kutob et al. highlighted the importance of choosing not only an antibiotic of high bioavailability, but also an antibiotic dose which will support a high concentration of the antibiotic in the bloodstream.⁶ For example, they identify ciprofloxacin as a moderate bioavailability medication, but note that most cases they examined utilized 500 mg b.i.d., where the concentration-dependent killing and dose-dependent bioavailability would advocate for the use of 750 mg b.i.d. or 500 mg every 8 hours.

The heterogeneity of GN bloodstream infections also creates difficulty in standardization of care. The literature suggests that infection source plays a significant role in the type of GN bacteria isolated.^6,7 The best data for the transition to oral antibiotics exists with urologic sources and it remains unclear whether bacteria from other sources have higher risks of oral antibiotic failure.⁸

One recent study of 66 patients examined bacteremia in the setting of cholangitis and found that, once patients had stabilized, a switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics was noninferior, but randomized, prospective trials have not been performed. Notably, patients were transitioned to orals only after they were found to have a fluoroquinolone-sensitive infection, allowing the study authors to use higher-bioavailability agents for the transition to orals.⁹ Multiple studies have highlighted the unique care required for certain infections, such as pseudomonal infections, which most experts agree requires a more conservative approach.^5,6

Fluoroquinolones are the bedrock of therapy for GN bacteremia because of historic in vivo experience and in vitro findings about bioavailability and dose-dependent killing, but they are also the antibiotic class associated with the highest hospitalization rates for antibiotic-associated adverse events.⁸ A recent noninferiority trial comparing the use of beta-lactams with fluoroquinolones found that beta-lactams were noninferior, though the study was flawed by the limited number of beta-lactam–using patients identified.⁸ It is clear that more investigation is needed before recommendations can be made regarding ideal oral antibiotics for GN bacteremia.

The transition to oral is reasonable given the following criteria: the patient has improved on intravenous antibiotics and source control has been achieved; the culture data have demonstrated sensitivity to the oral antibiotic of choice, with special care given to higher-risk bacteria such as Pseudomonas; the patient is able to take the oral antibiotic; and the oral antibiotic of choice has the highest bioavailability possible and is given at an appropriate dose to reach its highest killing and bioavailability concentrations.⁷

After evaluating the appropriateness of transition to oral antibiotics, the final decision is about duration of antibiotic therapy. Current Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines are based on expert opinion and recommend 7-14 days of therapy. As with many common infections, recent studies have focused on evaluating reduction in antibiotic durations.

Chotiprasitsakul et al. demonstrated no difference in mortality or morbidity in 385 propensity-matched pairs with treatment of Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia for 8 versus 15 days.¹⁰ A mixed meta-analysis performed in 2011 evaluated 24 randomized, controlled trials and found shorter durations (5-7 days) had similar outcomes to prolonged durations (7-21 days).¹¹ Recently, Yahav et al. performed a randomized control trial comparing 7- and 14-day regimens for uncomplicated GN bacteremia and found a 7-day course to be noninferior if patients were clinically stable by day 5 and had source control.¹²

It should be noted that not all studies have found that reduced durations are without harm. Nelson et al. performed a retrospective cohort analysis and found that reduced durations of antibiotics (7-10 days) increased mortality and recurrent infection when compared with a longer course (greater than 10 days).¹³ These contrary findings highlight the need for provider discretion in selecting a course of antibiotics as well as the need for further studies about optimal duration of antibiotics.
 

Application of the data

Returning to our case, on day 3, the patient’s fever had resolved and leukocytosis improved. In the absence of concern for persistent infection, repeat blood cultures were not performed. On day 4 initial blood cultures showed pan-sensitive Escherichia coli. The patient was transitioned to 750 mg oral ciprofloxacin b.i.d. to complete a 10-day course from first dose of ceftriaxone and was discharged from the hospital.

Bottom line

Management of GN bacteremia requires individualized care based on clinical presentation, but the data presented above can be used as broad guidelines to help reduce excess blood cultures, avoid prolonged use of intravenous antibiotics, and limit the duration of antibiotic exposure.

Dr. Imber is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and director of the Internal Medicine Simulation Education and Hospitalist Procedural Certification. Dr. Burns is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Chan is currently a chief resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of New Mexico.

References

1. Canzoneri CN et al. Follow-up blood cultures in gram-negative bacteremia: Are they needed? Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(11):1776-9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix648.

2. Kang CK et al. Can a routine follow-up blood culture be justified in Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia? A retrospective case-control study. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:365. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-365.

3. Mushtaq A et al. Repeating blood cultures after an initial bacteremia: When and how often? Cleve Clin J Med. 2019;86(2):89-92. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.86a.18001.

4. Nimmich EB et al. Development of institutional guidelines for management of gram-negative bloodstream infections: Incorporating local evidence. Hosp Pharm. 2017;52(10):691-7. doi: 10.1177/0018578717720506.

5. Hale AJ et al. When are oral antibiotics a safe and effective choice for bacterial bloodstream infections? An evidence-based narrative review. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2949.

6. Kutob LF et al. Effectiveness of oral antibiotics for definitive therapy of gram-negative bloodstream infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.07.013.

7. Tamma PD et al. Association of 30-day mortality with oral step-down vs. continued intravenous therapy in patients hospitalized with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6226.

8. Mercuro NJ et al. Retrospective analysis comparing oral stepdown therapy for enterobacteriaceae bloodstream infections: fluoroquinolones vs. B-lactams. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.12.007.

9. Park TY et al. Early oral antibiotic switch compared with conventional intravenous antibiotic therapy for acute cholangitis with bacteremia. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59:2790-6. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3233-0.

10. Chotiprasitsakul D et al. Comparing the outcomes of adults with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia receiving short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy in a multicenter, propensity score-matched cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(2):172-7. doi:10.1093/cid/cix767.

11. Havey TC et al. Duration of antibiotic therapy for bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2011;15(6):R267. doi:10.1186/cc10545.

12. Yahav D et al. Seven versus fourteen days of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Dec. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy1054.

13. Nelson AN et al. Optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections. Infection. 2017;45(5):613-20. doi:10.1007/s15010-017-1020-5.

Case

A 42-year-old woman with uncontrolled diabetes presents to the ED with fever, chills, dysuria, and flank pain for 3 days. On exam, she is febrile and tachycardic. Lab results show leukocytosis and urinalysis is consistent with infection. CT scan shows acute pyelonephritis without complication. She is admitted to the hospital and started on ceftriaxone 2 g/24 hrs. On hospital day 2, her blood cultures show gram-negative bacteria.

Brief overview

Management of gram-negative (GN) bacteremia remains a challenging clinical situation for inpatient providers. With the push for high-value care and reductions in length of stay, recent literature has focused on reviewing current practices and attempting to standardize care. Despite this, no overarching guidelines exist to direct practice and clinicians are left to make decisions based on prior experience and expert opinion. Three key clinical questions exist when caring for a hospitalized patient with GN bacteremia: Should blood cultures be repeated? When is transition to oral antibiotics appropriate? And for what duration should antibiotics be given?

Overview of the data

When considering repeating blood cultures, it is important to understand that current literature does not support the practice for all GN bacteremias.

Canzoneri et al. retrospectively studied GN bacteremia and found that it took 17 repeat blood cultures being drawn to yield 1 positive result, which suggests that they are not necessary in all cases.¹ Furthermore, repeat blood cultures increase cost of hospitalization, length of stay, and inconvenience to patients.²

However, Mushtaq et al. noted that repeating blood cultures can provide valuable information to confirm the response to treatment in patients with endovascular infection. Furthermore, they found that repeated blood cultures are also reasonable when the following scenarios are suspected: endocarditis or central line–associated infection, concern for multidrug resistant GN bacilli, and ongoing evidence of sepsis or patient decompensation.³

Consideration of a transition from intravenous to oral antibiotics is a key decision point in the care of GN bacteremia. Without guidelines, clinicians are left to evaluate patients on a case-by-case basis.⁴ Studies have suggested that the transition should be guided by the condition of the patient, the type of infection, and the culture-derived sensitivities.⁵ Additionally, bioavailability of antibiotics (see Table 1) is an important consideration and a recent examination of oral antibiotic failure rates demonstrated that lower bioavailability antibiotics have an increased risk of failure (2% vs. 16%).⁶

In their study, Kutob et al. highlighted the importance of choosing not only an antibiotic of high bioavailability, but also an antibiotic dose which will support a high concentration of the antibiotic in the bloodstream.⁶ For example, they identify ciprofloxacin as a moderate bioavailability medication, but note that most cases they examined utilized 500 mg b.i.d., where the concentration-dependent killing and dose-dependent bioavailability would advocate for the use of 750 mg b.i.d. or 500 mg every 8 hours.

The heterogeneity of GN bloodstream infections also creates difficulty in standardization of care. The literature suggests that infection source plays a significant role in the type of GN bacteria isolated.^6,7 The best data for the transition to oral antibiotics exists with urologic sources and it remains unclear whether bacteria from other sources have higher risks of oral antibiotic failure.⁸

One recent study of 66 patients examined bacteremia in the setting of cholangitis and found that, once patients had stabilized, a switch from intravenous to oral antibiotics was noninferior, but randomized, prospective trials have not been performed. Notably, patients were transitioned to orals only after they were found to have a fluoroquinolone-sensitive infection, allowing the study authors to use higher-bioavailability agents for the transition to orals.⁹ Multiple studies have highlighted the unique care required for certain infections, such as pseudomonal infections, which most experts agree requires a more conservative approach.^5,6

Fluoroquinolones are the bedrock of therapy for GN bacteremia because of historic in vivo experience and in vitro findings about bioavailability and dose-dependent killing, but they are also the antibiotic class associated with the highest hospitalization rates for antibiotic-associated adverse events.⁸ A recent noninferiority trial comparing the use of beta-lactams with fluoroquinolones found that beta-lactams were noninferior, though the study was flawed by the limited number of beta-lactam–using patients identified.⁸ It is clear that more investigation is needed before recommendations can be made regarding ideal oral antibiotics for GN bacteremia.

The transition to oral is reasonable given the following criteria: the patient has improved on intravenous antibiotics and source control has been achieved; the culture data have demonstrated sensitivity to the oral antibiotic of choice, with special care given to higher-risk bacteria such as Pseudomonas; the patient is able to take the oral antibiotic; and the oral antibiotic of choice has the highest bioavailability possible and is given at an appropriate dose to reach its highest killing and bioavailability concentrations.⁷

After evaluating the appropriateness of transition to oral antibiotics, the final decision is about duration of antibiotic therapy. Current Infectious Disease Society of America guidelines are based on expert opinion and recommend 7-14 days of therapy. As with many common infections, recent studies have focused on evaluating reduction in antibiotic durations.

Chotiprasitsakul et al. demonstrated no difference in mortality or morbidity in 385 propensity-matched pairs with treatment of Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia for 8 versus 15 days.¹⁰ A mixed meta-analysis performed in 2011 evaluated 24 randomized, controlled trials and found shorter durations (5-7 days) had similar outcomes to prolonged durations (7-21 days).¹¹ Recently, Yahav et al. performed a randomized control trial comparing 7- and 14-day regimens for uncomplicated GN bacteremia and found a 7-day course to be noninferior if patients were clinically stable by day 5 and had source control.¹²

It should be noted that not all studies have found that reduced durations are without harm. Nelson et al. performed a retrospective cohort analysis and found that reduced durations of antibiotics (7-10 days) increased mortality and recurrent infection when compared with a longer course (greater than 10 days).¹³ These contrary findings highlight the need for provider discretion in selecting a course of antibiotics as well as the need for further studies about optimal duration of antibiotics.
 

Application of the data

Returning to our case, on day 3, the patient’s fever had resolved and leukocytosis improved. In the absence of concern for persistent infection, repeat blood cultures were not performed. On day 4 initial blood cultures showed pan-sensitive Escherichia coli. The patient was transitioned to 750 mg oral ciprofloxacin b.i.d. to complete a 10-day course from first dose of ceftriaxone and was discharged from the hospital.

Bottom line

Management of GN bacteremia requires individualized care based on clinical presentation, but the data presented above can be used as broad guidelines to help reduce excess blood cultures, avoid prolonged use of intravenous antibiotics, and limit the duration of antibiotic exposure.

Dr. Imber is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, and director of the Internal Medicine Simulation Education and Hospitalist Procedural Certification. Dr. Burns is an assistant professor in the division of hospital medicine at the University of New Mexico. Dr. Chan is currently a chief resident in the department of internal medicine at the University of New Mexico.

References

1. Canzoneri CN et al. Follow-up blood cultures in gram-negative bacteremia: Are they needed? Clin Infect Dis. 2017;65(11):1776-9. doi: 10.1093/cid/cix648.

2. Kang CK et al. Can a routine follow-up blood culture be justified in Klebsiella pneumoniae bacteremia? A retrospective case-control study. BMC Infect Dis. 2013;13:365. doi: 10.1186/1471-2334-13-365.

3. Mushtaq A et al. Repeating blood cultures after an initial bacteremia: When and how often? Cleve Clin J Med. 2019;86(2):89-92. doi: 10.3949/ccjm.86a.18001.

4. Nimmich EB et al. Development of institutional guidelines for management of gram-negative bloodstream infections: Incorporating local evidence. Hosp Pharm. 2017;52(10):691-7. doi: 10.1177/0018578717720506.

5. Hale AJ et al. When are oral antibiotics a safe and effective choice for bacterial bloodstream infections? An evidence-based narrative review. J Hosp Med. 2018 May. doi: 10.12788/jhm.2949.

6. Kutob LF et al. Effectiveness of oral antibiotics for definitive therapy of gram-negative bloodstream infections. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2016.07.013.

7. Tamma PD et al. Association of 30-day mortality with oral step-down vs. continued intravenous therapy in patients hospitalized with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia. JAMA Intern Med. 2019. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6226.

8. Mercuro NJ et al. Retrospective analysis comparing oral stepdown therapy for enterobacteriaceae bloodstream infections: fluoroquinolones vs. B-lactams. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2017. doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2017.12.007.

9. Park TY et al. Early oral antibiotic switch compared with conventional intravenous antibiotic therapy for acute cholangitis with bacteremia. Dig Dis Sci. 2014;59:2790-6. doi: 10.1007/s10620-014-3233-0.

10. Chotiprasitsakul D et al. Comparing the outcomes of adults with Enterobacteriaceae bacteremia receiving short-course versus prolonged-course antibiotic therapy in a multicenter, propensity score-matched cohort. Clin Infect Dis. 2018;66(2):172-7. doi:10.1093/cid/cix767.

11. Havey TC et al. Duration of antibiotic therapy for bacteremia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2011;15(6):R267. doi:10.1186/cc10545.

12. Yahav D et al. Seven versus fourteen days of antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bacteremia: A noninferiority randomized controlled trial. Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Dec. doi:10.1093/cid/ciy1054.

13. Nelson AN et al. Optimal duration of antimicrobial therapy for uncomplicated gram-negative bloodstream infections. Infection. 2017;45(5):613-20. doi:10.1007/s15010-017-1020-5.

Clinical question: Among older adults, what attitudes exist toward deprescribing?

Background: Polypharmacy in older adults is common and can be associated with increased hospitalizations and reduced quality of life.

Study design: Population-based survey study.

Setting: Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Clinical question: Among older adults, what attitudes exist toward deprescribing?

Background: Polypharmacy in older adults is common and can be associated with increased hospitalizations and reduced quality of life.

Study design: Population-based survey study.

Setting: Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.

Clinical question: Among older adults, what attitudes exist toward deprescribing?

Background: Polypharmacy in older adults is common and can be associated with increased hospitalizations and reduced quality of life.

Study design: Population-based survey study.

Setting: Medicare beneficiaries in the United States.

Dr. Stanley is assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a hospitalist at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, both in Chicago.